No, it is consistent with the cause and effect nature of the universe. Without this conclusion, we are forced to assume something, I believe–i.e., we’ll find out something that proved the infinite regress is actually not an absurdity, for example.
None required.
Yeah, you’re right. You do seem pretty calm.
Yep, I can understand that. Also makes it hard to connect on a thought that one “side” sees as self-evdident when the other doesn’t see it that way at all.
Wood would be potentially hot when unlit, hot when it’s aflame, given a definition of “hot.” “Comfortable temperature for sturmhauke” is also a condition, once defined, that can only be potential or actual.
Yes, that’s what it means, with regard specifically to the aspect that is being considered. IOW, your head can be hot and your feet can be cold. But your head can’t be hot and cold (to simplify).
Nope, it means that something now hot is potentially cold.
I suppose that’s true. I’ll have to think about it. An unmoved entity could have created the universe unintentionally, through an act that had a different intention behind it–is that what you mean? That could definitely be so.
I agree. They also act with intention.
So you’re sticking to claiming that it takes faith to conceive of a causeless universe? Have you not understood my point?
Basically, the cosmological argument rests on the assumption that everything in the universe has a cause. We have demonstrated to you that what we observe as causation in the universe cannot inform us of the “coming into existence” of the universe. In other words, even if you achieve complete induction and really observe that everything in the universe has a cause (nevermind those pesky quantum vacuum fluctuations), you still cannot conclude that the entire universe has a cause or that the existence of the universe has a cause. You cannot even argue that the existence of anything has a cause much less the entire universe.
Now this pretty much destroys our original assumption, doesn’t it? What then? We can then safely assume either possibility - that the existence of the universe is causeless or it is caused by a supernatural entity (which, by now, is totally unnecessary).
If, after this, you still believe that the cosmological argument is convincing proof of the existence of a supernatural unmoved mover, feel free to believe so. But don’t pretend that your belief has any rational basis.
Positing a supernatural intelligence that precedes all movement sounds like a watered down Intelligent Design strategy: “There has to be an intelligence behind it.” Why does there have to be an intelligence behind it?
This intelligence would have to function without movement of any thought medium. It would have no experience. It had no prior sensory input or communication yet was aware of whatever it intended move. What makes this a compelling argument? It’s just Intelligent Design moved back 14 billion years and a significantly diminished scope.
In his critique of the Intelligent Designer idea (yes, it’s been around at least that long) pointed out that if you assume a Designer he or she could have been an apprentice. For all we know our universe could be a first, botched attempt by the apprentice who soon discarded it and went on to perfect the universe making skill with later, better models.
Make this sentence read - In his critique of the Intelligent Designer idea (yes, it’s been around at least that long) David Hume pointed out that if you assume …
I suspect I haven’t, given your response.
Help me understand your point. Why is the argument invalid? If we know that nothing comes into its current state without some prior external influence, why would the actual creation of matter be excluded from the proof? Why would the same logic not apply in considering the infinite regress right back to, and including, the creation of matter? Are you arguing because we know nothing about the creation of matter? I’m not sure that would invalidate the proof. Again, not trying to be contrary. Help me see the light, since it seems you detect a blind spot.
There needs only be intelligence enough to act upon an intention. A grand design for the universe needn’t exist (though Tom A. had a different spin, for sure).
I think you and I have a different definition of intelligent design. The unmoved mover needn’t be omniscient or have a grand plan that is unfolding around us. It needs only be the first mover.
I also don’t see anything logical that would exclude this possibility. (So there you have it, both Hume and Stratocaster are in agreement. That ought to settle it. ;))
Oh, it was settled a long time ago. Despite its numerous deficiencies you accept the “first cause” argument as logical.
Really? Hume’s contribution here certainly doesn’t invalidate it. It just offers an alernative that Tom A. wouldn’t prefer.
Do you at least agree that this non-omniscient intelligence/awareness/intent functioned without any experience, sensory input, or communication?
Even without omniscience you’re still arguing watered down ID. You’re claiming there had to be a supernatural intelligence and intent to do even the one movement. The design in this case is the intent to move something else, not the current product we see today.
Are you content with the idea that the unmoving matter just existed or does it need a creation story too? Did this matter have some set of physical attributes like mass, volume and a spatial relationship to other matter? Why can’t matter have a motion attribute for “as long” as it had the others?
The argument is NOT invalid. The premise, however, is highly doubtful given that all we know of causality in the universe doesn’t have anything to do with the creation of matter. Remember that the premise “everything has a cause” is based on our own observation of causality in the universe. The same thing goes for your assertion “…nothing comes to its current state without some prior external influence” Given that causality, as we know it, is simply the rearrangement of matter in the universe and NOT the creation of matter, we simply cannot extrapolate this observation to the creation of matter. In other words, the laws, conditions, that brought about the creation of matter, or even perhaps, space-time itself is timeless and causeless. (unmoved mover)
Since we have no information of matter or the universe for that matter coming into existence, we have no way to extrapolate our observation of causality with the coming into existence of the universe. If we can’t do that, we cannot state with any confidence if the universe itself is the unmoved mover or something supernatural altogether. The only difference between the two beliefs is that we have evidence of the existence of the universe.
could be timeless and causeless
A mighty hot dog is our God.
If dogs had created the universe, there would be more bones and fewer cats. 
Nope, doesn’t fly. Again, as Hume pointed out, we cannot prove causality as being universal, we can only assume that it is. We can only assume that everything in the universe has a cause. And that’s especially the case for things way way back at the start of the universe, where we don’t even have any good clue how to model what was going on. In short, since we can never absolutely know everything, and even the everyday will always contain mystery, particularly in the case of causality, the “first cause” property might as well be a part of just about anything. Forget the grand and cosmic for a second: for all we REALLY know, if first causes and unmoved movers are possible, bowling a bowling ball doesn’t actually cause it to knock over the pins. We only assume they are because the two are commonly correlated in our experience. But for all we know, the pins falling over is an uncaused event that works backwards through time to cause bowling balls to be bowled at them. Sound crazy, but then, once you break down the basic ASSUMPTION of causality, anything is fair game. You only see the prime mover version because that happens to be the thing you’re focused on most immediately.
And again, you tried the old trick of applying observations of things within the context of the universe TO the universe itself. That’s a classic category error, even without the problem I pointed out.
Give me a break. You can’t even BEGIN to tell me what it means that something has “intention” or “intelligence” without discussing time and/or causality. Again, trying to talk coherently about something completely outside the only coherent experience or understanding we have of that thing is pointless. You might as well be talking about the goouti hurooti of the unmoved mover: without defining what that is, exactly.