Why God is not subject to the principle of causality
In your formulation of the cosmological argument, you decided to change the formulation to the first assumption; following the question of who created God, that everything we have experience of must have a cause (or reason).
But in any case, there needs to be an explanation for why there would be anything at all that does not need a cause, since the principle of causality is derived from reason and is supposed to apply to everything. Do you have an explanation for why God does not need a cause?
In any case, seemingly the creation of the universe out of nothing is something that does not exist in our experience, and seemingly it could be the first cause, and therefore if we do not have sufficient reason to say that God does not need a cause; why not assume that the creation of a universe out of nothing does not need a cause for its existence? (Because if the only reason we say that God does not need a cause is because He is not in our experience, then by the same token the creation of universes is not in our experience).
A strange question. The world is a collection of things that are familiar to us. It is from our experience. That is why I argued that it probably did not come into being out of nothing. So you claim: Yes, but the creation of the things in our experience is not in our experience? Or you claim: It is true that the things in our experience were indeed created by someone, but the world was not. And when I ask why there is no contradiction between the two parts of your sentence, you will answer: Because the world was created by itself and its creation is not in our experience.
In short, I hope you understand the question. I don’t.
First, I understand from what you said that you don't have a good answer to the question of why God doesn't need a cause.
And regarding the main point of your statement, I actually assume that your distinction between things in our experience and those that are not, stems from the fact that we simply know that causality exists only in things that we know, and therefore only for that we can determine that a cause is necessary. But regarding universes that are created out of nothing – we have no idea; but only regarding things that came after the universe was created, so your assumption does not include universes that are created, and in any case there is no point in thinking that they have a cause (because it is not that you have any point in thinking that God has no cause other than the fact that He is not in our experience, and the same goes for the creation of the universe).
I have no answer because I don't see a question. The argument proves that there must be an initial link in the chain that is not subject to the principle of causality. What explanation do you want for why it is not subject? Do you expect a description of its piston system?
As I explained, universes that are created are nothing more than the creation of the collection of things that constitute a universe. I also have no experience with the creation of worms. But I know worms and know that they are created for a reason.
That's it. I think I've exhausted it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
