I.C.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:00 amIf this is your premise, Greylorn, then you would have to also believe that the creation-event was subject to natural laws, such as cause and effect. And while one can agree that this is how the universe functions NOW, it begs the key question, it seems to me. And you raise that question in your very next sentence:Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:37 amYet the universe in which we live is, at the level of basic physics, a cause-effect place. Two things, each with opposite forces, must interact before a physical event can take place. How does a single entity, in the absence of opposing forces, create such a universe?If your real question is, "How could cause/effect have arisen?" then you can't posit cause/effect as a necessary precondition. If you posit cause/effect as a pre-existing condition, one in effect prior to and governing the creation event, then you no longer are offering an explanation for the "arising" of cause/effect.I simply propose that our cause/effect universe could only have arisen as the consequence of two opposing forces.
But I think you have to pick one of those two horses, so to speak, and logically ride it. If cause/effect is something that "arose" as a result of something else, then it's by definition not itself the First Cause, and it it is not necessary any longer to suppose "opposing forces" are necessary, because clearly something can then create, even prior to the "arising" of cause/effect. If it didn't "arise," but rather was prior to the creation, then you've got no explanation for how cause/effect "arose" at all...you would have to say it didn't...and it would itself be the First Cause.
But traditionally, the First Cause explanation (whether we take the materialist or the monotheistic view) has to be an uncaused entity...because to suppose a cause prior to it would create an infinite regress -- and that is one thing, maybe the only thing, about which materialists and monotheists are in complete agreement. Being uncaused, it cannot itself be a product of cause/effect. Therefore, it does not need two entities in order to get going...and if it did, then we'd have an infinite regress again, because then the two beings would be contingent not necessary beings, each incomplete without the other, and thus not an Uncaused Cause, and not an answer to the question of how creation can get going. We'd have to keep searching further, to find that answer.
I might also suggest that Ockham would then dispense of the proposal for the necessity of two entities at the creation, because we'd be multiplying explanations beyond the necessary there. Really, if we want a final answer, we're looking for a single Uncaused Cause, or we once again simply have infinite regress.
Written like a true monotheist, but a particularly intelligent one. That's a refreshing departure from the customary bullshit. I'd like to continue this conversation with you, and believe that I can address the excellent points you've made by offering more details about the specifics of an alternative theory.
I'd like to figure out in advance how much you already know about concepts that will be applicable to our conversation, if we manage to have one. Do you know the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, or have a sense of them? Do you understand the concept of entropy? And if so, can you please briefly express your understanding?
Few people understand these concepts because they show up in basic physics, not in pop-sci. Whether you do or not is unimportant to me; I'm just trying to establish a conversational platform.