>Causality means everything must have a cause!
>But what about the hecking universe, huh?
>How could it come from nothing! It must have a creator… and that creator is god!
>That’s proo-
>Wait! What are you doing? You can’t just say that the universe is came from nothing or eternal because…. because they break causality! They have no cause! How can use believe in that!?
>The concept of an uncreated creator is ok because…. well it just is!!!
Are you unaware that God is the uncaused cause?
/thread
Welcome to special pleading
quantum physics shits all over the idea that the universe must be causal anon
Only if you don't know the basics of quantum physics, which is evidently your case my pseudoteric friend.
All they're doing is ascribing the name "God" to the uncaused cause, whatever that may be. Arguing that the universe could be uncaused won't work. Better to ask them why the uncaused cause would do specific things the Abrahamic God does in the Bible.
But why would they attribute the title of God to something that is potentially mindless? This is like calling storm clouds Zeus because it makes lightning
You just answered your own question.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic
>causality means everything must have a cause
False, it means every effect must have a cause
Dirk is right on this one, causal determinism is effect <- cause, instead of cause -> effect. Don't blame me for the almost pointless distinction, it is what it is.
> causal determinism
You don't need determinism to have causality.
Yes, you don't.
> every effect must have a cause
And the proof that universe is an effect is?
Signatures of simulation
>arbitrary rules
>simple building blocks
>fine tuned parameters
>complex results
and evene within the simulation we have other problems
>statistically impossible structures like living cells
>incredible coincidences in nature
>sun and moon are almost the exact same size when viewed from earth
It's looking pretty artificial. It's looking like the writing in the sand was NOT a pebble.
uh.. ok
then the universe may not be an effect
causality before the universe actually faces some huge issues, since time is a dimension within the universe and it may begin at the Big Bang. A before may not make sense as a concept.
>the universe may not be an effect
>begin
I mean, it's not that farfetched to believe that there is an infinite number of causes going back before the Big Bang too.
I guess either there's an infinite causal chain, or the first cause existed infinitely. But I don't see why I should prefer one over the other.
>or the first cause existed infinitely.
Which makes a lot less sense than infinite causes.
why is that? They're equally confusing to me.
They are both confusing I just think the claim that a singular being or principle can be eternal requires a lot more fleshed out arguments in favor of it than simply saying there has never been a "time" where there have been no causes and effects.
Also, what if there's an infinite causal chain going back, but no effect chain going forward? The present isn't the uncaused caused but the unaffecting effect.
>The uncaused cause just happens to be the israelite god and the religion i happened to be born into.
>uncaused caused
logic 101
buddhists already gave the answer: dependent arising
and before someone talks about 'infinite regress', that's regarded by buddhists as a heresy
contingency
necessity
I accept your concession.
>Cause in this context explicitly refeers to physis, motion and material phenomena
>God as an unmoved mover is not material.
It was that easy.