In Conclusion then:
Yes, the "start of existence" is, in every framework that attempts to address it, rooted in some form of fundamental assumption or unprovable axiom. Whether it's the scientific assumption of underlying physical laws and an initial singularity, the philosophical assumption of a brute fact or uncaused cause, or the religious assumption of a divine creator, all attempts to explain the ultimate origin of everything must eventually land on something that is taken as a given. That 'given' is the assumption.
For better understanding, please first, at least refer to previously related topic “Is there Uncaused Cause?” or further you might want to look at this topic "How many uncaused cause(s)?"
I am not going into debate for this topic, while we are still debating previously related topic. It's to maintain our focus, to avoid confusion on this issue. Debating previously related topic is meaningless.
An Axiom: “something can’t transcend beyond something itself without additional assertion” (an example: from 1 liter water can’t be poured into 1 gallon water)
Further understanding, wherever one of possibilities can be actualized and it provides differences, but this changing on actualization of possibilities must not be considered as “transcending Uncaused Cause beyond Uncaused Cause itself”, otherwise it against axiom. Therefore it’s changing of actualization must be within Uncaused Cause itself.
Since we consider there is something intelligently (at least human has intelligent) then it must be within Uncaused Cause. And this kind of intelligently must be considered as the changing of actualization of possibilities of Uncaused Cause.
Related to axiom, IF for both (whether through evolution or through any possible means) can’t give such intelligently, then both (whether through evolution or through any possible means) can’t give such intelligently. Meaning, if both (whether through evolution or through any possible means) can give such intelligently (whether through any possible combinations of interactions or through any possible means) then it doesn’t mean that for both (whether through evolution or through any possible means) can transcend beyond something itself, but it’s because “possibilities as intelligently” is within both (whether through evolution or through any possible means) itself.
Further this kind of possibilities (which it’s a kind of intelligently) must be within Uncaused Cause, since all of possible evolution or through any possible means are the actualization of possibilities of Uncaused Cause.
Whether we believe in evolution or any possible means, eventually there is a kind of intelligently within Uncaused Cause. It asserts that for both (whether through evolution or through any possible means) can give such intelligently (just to remind us, it doesn’t mean that for both, whether through evolution or through any possible means, can transcend beyond something itself, but it’s because “possibilities as intelligently” is within both itself, whether through evolution or through any possible means), and this kind of intelligently can’t be attributed to the functions, but it has to be attributed to an existence, which is Uncaused Cause. Therefore, Uncaused Cause has the kind of intelligently which can be actualized, whether it came from evolution or any possible means.
The point is:
- Whether we believe there is evolution or not, whether intelligently came from evolution or came from any possible means, BUT ACTUALLY IT (intelligently) CAME FROM THE UNCAUSED CAUSE. IT MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO UNCAUSED CAUSE as THE ONLY EXISTENCE. IT’S OWNED BY UNCAUSED CAUSE. It's because all of that were caused are inside Uncaused Cause. Therefore, Uncaused Cause has intelligently.
OBJECTIONS
//These objections are selected and those are not on the basis of receiving all forms of objection, but only fundamental objections to be selected, which through studying these objections, we can understand the fallacy on another objections//
//It’s like putting the logical structure of argument which asserting Uncaused Cause, where any form of objection can be configured to be placed on the logical structure of argument which asserting Uncaused Cause, and further to be analyzed, whether the error of an objection can be detected by this logical structure of argument which asserting Uncaused Cause or whether it is an objection that needs to be explained further//
_____
There are terms and related crucial understanding which will be used on this discussion. There are two states related to existence and functions:
There are changing, there are differences, there are functions. Changing of functions must not assert that there is a thing transcends beyond a thing itself, in the sense that changing of functions will not add a thing beyond a thing itself.
Consider this: changing of function of a water, which is an ice, from one shapes to different shapes of an ice or from one characteristic of water to another characteristic of water doesn’t transcend (related) water beyond the water itself.
Further, this changing of function must be within a thing (in this example, it’s the water). Therefore we can assert, that there are functions within water, or there are functions of water. Don’t be confused between function and existence. If you use existence as “the changing” then use understanding of the consequences with consistency, where existence must be within functions. Or if you use the term function as “the changing”, then use understanding of the consequences with consistency, where functions must be within existence. But the essence remains the same, that there is "a changing" within a thing.
In this case, i am using the term function as “the changing”, in the sense, that the term functions itself are representing the changing. Therefore, functions are within (of) existence. Where the existence is The Uncaused Cause itself. Functions are changing, and Functions are within Existence (functions of Existence, functions of Uncaused Cause). Any other things to be considered not Uncaused Cause are functions. In other words, there is Existence (Uncaused Cause with its functions as all things (that were caused by Uncaused Cause).
1st OBJECTION: The laws of physics, chemistry and matters through processes provide intelligence. Without these (“matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”), there will be no intelligence.
Answer:
These (“matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”) came from previous (“matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”), again and again. These functions (the laws of physics, chemistry and matters) came from previous functions (the laws of physics, chemistry and matters). These functions (the laws of physics, chemistry and matters) came from previous functions (which could be “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters” or could be another kind of things in any possible means). These functions came from previous different functions. These regression can be traced back to The Uncaused Cause.
OR, these (“matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”) were started by previous (“matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”), again and again. These functions (“matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”) were started by previous functions (the laws of physics, chemistry and matters). These functions (the laws of physics, chemistry and matters) were started by previous functions (which could be “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters” or could be another kind of things in any possible means). These functions were started by previous different functions. These regression can be traced back to The Uncaused Cause.
These asserts sequences, where one point of the sequences are specific “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters”.
Further, which one do you choose? Relatively or absolute?
Asserting that, the laws of physics, chemistry and matters provide intelligence can be understood as, specific “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters” of the sequences provide intelligence, and it’s relatively, in the sense that intelligence can’t be related absolutely to only specific “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters”, since “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters (which provide intelligence)” came from previous “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters”. It’s relative understanding that intelligence came from one of the kind of “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters or things in any possible means (which provide intelligence)” of the sequences.
There is no absolute ownership of these (which could be “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters” or could be another kind of things in any possible means) to intelligence. But absolute understanding is that intelligence came from Uncaused Cause. Uncaused Cause has absolute onwership to intelligence.
It’s ABSOLUTE UNDERSTANDING RATHER THAN RELATIVE UNDERSTANDING.
2nd OBJECTION: If you can point to just kind of intelligence that exists that does not have to be caused by “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes” then I’ll concede.
Answer:
Consider this, there is a water, we can see an ice, WE CAN PERCEIVE AN ICE. It’s the kind of actualization for an ICE (cold, etc) of the water. But this ice can disappear within a water (AND WE CAN’T PERCEIVE AN ICE), and this TYPICAL OF AN ICE is still there (still within water) because it’s at different level of actualization which we can’t perceive as when it formed as an ice.
We can’t perceive it (“nonactualized ice”), but it’s there (within the water). IT’S AT DIFFERENT LEVEL OF ACTUALIZATION. IF WE DENY THIS REASONING to be used as comparison in explaining about “non actualized intelligence” or “different level of actualization of intelligence, then it’s unreasonable thinking. Since there is no way for us to understand God OR ANYTHING (whether we can only grasp just a little bit of something) unless through comparison to reality. SINCE REALITY IS THE CLOSEST THAT CAN BE OBSERVED BY US TO LEARN ABOUT SOME OTHER THING BETTER. THAT’S THE CLOSEST UNDERSTANDING TO THE TRUTH THAT WE CAN DO.
Yes, there is kind of intelligence that exist on its own level of actualization which does not have to be caused by “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”
3rd OBJECTION: Whatever intelligence you may think for your version of the uncaused cause (different level of actualization) had needs to be supplied some other way than biological and physical processes. And, right now, I just don’t see that it’s happening.
Answer:
As i already stated that, there is kind of intelligence that exist on its own level of actualization which does not have to be caused by “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, BECAUSE actually this intelligently is not depending upon those processes (various physical and chemical processes), but it can only be asserted as “depending upon” Uncaused Cause”. In the sense that, it (intelligence) exists within Uncaused Cause at different level of actualization (at different level of the way it exists without “various physical and chemical processes”). BUT UNCAUSED CAUSE (must be considered) HAS ANY KIND OF INTELLIGENCE AS FAR AS WITHIN UNCAUSED CAUSE ITSELF, WHICH ONE OF THEM CAN ONLY BE PERCEIVED BY US (AT THE LEVEL OF THE WAY WE AND OUR ENVIRONMENT EXIST) THROUGH “various physical and chemical processes”.
Meaning, intelligence at different level of actualization which at the state as Uncaused Cause which does not have to be caused by “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, is already and always exist properly (on its own level of actualization). But once this intelligence must be perceived through different level of actualization (which at the state where it has to be caused by “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, then there must be “various physical and chemical processes” to provide intelligence which we can understand it.
There is no need to perceive intelligence at the level of actualization of Uncaused Cause, IOW, it doesn’t make sense, it’s irrelevant, since we are as perceiver and what must be perceived by us are at different level actualization. We can only perceive kind of intelligence that has the same level of actualization in between us and intelligence, which it must be provided through “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”.
4th OBJECTION: An electron in and of itself is not intelligent on any scale. A quark is not intelligent on any scale either, and neither are any of the other physical particles that exist. But if you put a ton of chemicals and some physics together you get a human being with intelligence over a large period of time. This may sound like intelligence comes from seemingly nowhere. But that’s it.
Answer:
Whether through short time or over a large period of time, it concluded that intelligence didn’t come from nowhere, it’s already there at different level of actualization. Consider this, if there are possibilities for making combinations, and these possibilities can’t create specific uniqueness, can’t create specific of something related to combinations, THEN IT WILL NOT HAVE SPECIFIC UNIQUENESS OUTSIDE POSSIBILITIES OF THESE COMBINATIONS. IOW, IF (FOR) a ton of chemicals and some physics together over a large period of time don’t have possibilities to show such intelligence, then there won’t be such intelligence through the COMBINATION OF THE processes of a ton of chemicals and some physics together over a large period of time. Meaning, +++ for each part of processes, including an electron (Whether just a small or in any portion of intelligently), there must be possibility to support such intelligently, otherwise it against axiom (something – without additional assertions – can’t transcend beyond something itself) +++. Outside this understanding (related to this case) is not reasonable. That doesn’t mean that an electron is intelligent, but wherever we are pointing to one or several thing(s) and trying to relate these to another consequences, then another consequences had already been contained within those one or several thing(s), it’s axiom.
But if someone denies this (an electron is not supporting a kind of intelligently), then it (electron) must be excluded from the team (as supporter which can cause such intelligence) and there must be something else as supporter (and included inside, integrated with the kind of such intelligently on its own level of actualization) that has ability to support “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, biology or evolution or in any possible means, working together, further to be changed to different kind of intelligence at different level of actualization which it has typical of intelligence with uniqueness as far as can be provided by (through) “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, biology or evolution or in any possible mean.
5th OBJECTION: This is pseudo-science. You have stated an axiom which loosely resembles a scientific law but lack the clarity and exactness of a scientific law and furthermore has no experimental basis. Compare “something can’t transcend beyond something itself without additional assertion” to “Energy cannot be created nor destroyed–only changed in form”. To a layperson, these statements might seem similar, but the difference is that “energy” has a clear definition and is used consistently throughout a large body of scientific work. In your axiom, “transcend” and “assertion” have some kind of meaning which is unclear to me because they do not have consistent meaning in a large body of work. Perhaps your axiom could be made scientific if you defined the terms, but then you would be faced with the greater challenge of providing evidence for it. It certainly is not a self-evident truth.
Answer:
While some of us may understand this (“something can’t transcend beyond something itself without additional assertions” with an example: from 1 liter water can’t be poured into 1 gallon water), but for the others may consider this ambiguous or it’s not enough, therefore i will provide clarity on this case:
Something is fixed, therefore it can’t be expanded beyond its possibilities, otherwise what is considered to be evolving beyond possibilities of something itself has already contained as possibilities within it or what is considered to be evolving beyond possibilities something itself is coming from outside of it and working (actualized) on it.
6th OBJECTION: The conception of the universe in terms of cause and effect stems from our limited 3D view of the world in snapshots. We never see the whole 4D universe; only a frame at a time. We see two connected events in a sequence, so one happens before the other, so we call the first one the cause and the second one the effect. But the universe doesn’t care about cause and effect. It is just two events occurring at different time points. If we flip time backwards, then the cause becomes the effect and vice versa. The universe has no cause, because it lives outside this limited 3D view.
Answer:
Causality must be asserted as “before this” there must be (no) relevant beginner to this. Whether it can be considered as “through creation” or “through a change” or through any possible means, but there is (or there is no) something “before this”. And wherever we points to a thing(s) “before this”, eventually it will lead us to a thing as Uncaused Cause that has no beginning. It’s The First.
The point is, whether we consider it as “cause & effect” or “previously” or whatever it is, but we can trace back within the sequence(s), and it must be ended to the Uncaused Cause or The First, otherwise it’s infinite regression which is impossible as already mentioned on related argument.
7th OBJECTION: Why do you think the first cause has intelligence? Intelligence is not fixed. An adult usually has more intelligence than a baby.
Answer:
Whether intelligence was caused by the structure of the brain, or because of DNA, or because of specific pattern of something within ourselves or because of any possible means, but there was moment where the possibilities of a kind of our intelligence was fixed. Further (at childhood stage) through development, this kind of intelligence was increasingly developed (possibly) to a complicated level (at adulthood stage). Further understanding related to this:
The development of our intelligence must be caused by the potentiality within ourselves (whether it can be considered because of possibility of our brain, because of possibility of our DNA, or because of any possible means within ourselves)
Or if we consider that we do not have ability (possibilities) to make intelligent responses specifically, then we must consider that possibilities for us to make intelligent responses must be supported by (connected to) another outside ourselves
And for answering an objection: “why do you think the first cause has intelligence?":
Whether we believe there is evolution or not, whether intelligently came from evolution or came from any possible means, BUT ACTUALLY IT (intelligently) CAME FROM THE UNCAUSED CAUSE. IT MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO UNCAUSED CAUSE as THE ONLY EXISTENCE AS THE WHOLE. IT’S OWNED BY UNCAUSED CAUSE. Therefore, Uncaused Cause has intelligently.
Whether intelligence must be asserted as it came from “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, biology or evolution or in any possible means, but actually, intelligence at the level of actualization of these cases (“matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, biology or evolution or in any possible means) can be traced back to THE FIRST INTELLIGENCE OF UNCAUSED CAUSE (The first intelligence on its own level of actualization), where this First Intelligence can be actualized properly (to different level of actualization) which can be perceived by us in any possible means. AGAIN, Uncaused Cause is Uncaused Intelligently Being. Intelligence is owned by Uncaused Cause on its own level of actualization and it can be actualized to different level of actualization which can be perceived by us.
8th OBJECTION: Just because something can possibly become intelligent doesn’t mean that it was intelligent to begin with. Monkeys pressing random keys on a typewriter can possibly type out Shakespeare’s plays, but this doesn’t mean that Shakespeare’s plays exist inside the monkeys or the typewriters.
Answer:
The monkey was typed out “Shakespeare’s plays” once, and human did this (Shakespeare’s plays) many times with more complicated proccess to be involved. And yes, there is no “Shakespeare’s plays” fully involved inside the monkey, just a small portion (how small it is) of it, otherwise it against axiom or there must be additional explanation to support it.
The monkey or typewriter was typed out “Shakespeare’s plays” many times, and human did “Shakespeare’s plays” many times with more complicated proccess to be involved. And yes, STILL there isn’t “Shakespeare’s plays” fully involved within the monkey, just a small portion (how small it is or closer to) of it, since the monkey or typewriter is not a human, otherwise it against axiom or there must be additional explanation to support it.
But if somehow, the monkey is doing “Shakespeare’s plays” many times, further talking to human, drinking, driving, just like human did,… marriage, encourage us, cure us when there is no doctor helping us, learning, then there must be the kind of intelligence that has level of similarities MORE closer to human that must be there within the monkey OR there must be a connection from the monkey to another intelligence from outside the monkey that is working on the monkey to support more intelligent acts closer to the level of intelligence of human.
If something can possibly become intelligent it means that it has connection with previous events which is intelligently, or IOW, If something can possibly become intelligent it means that it has connection with previous thing(s) which is intelligently, or IOW, If something can possibly become intelligent it means that there must be intelligent thing(s) to be involved. Again and again if we do this reasoning, eventually it will end to The First Cause as The First Intelligence.
9th OBJECTION: In the universe, there is potential for so many possible outcomes. Quantum mechanics dictates that precise outcomes are random, but due to chaos, we see orderly structures form. Our intelligence is just a result of a lot of random outcomes following specific laws of the universe.
Answer:
Whether it’s because of quantum mechanic, or because of evolution or because of creationist or because any kind of beliefs or because of random or because of any possible means, but:
There must be possibility whether it’s from quantum mechanic, or from evolution or from creationist or from beliefs or from random or from any possible means that can be considered as the cause for our intelligence.
Stating that there is no possibility for quantum mechanic, or for evolution or for creationist or for beliefs or for random or for any possible means to provide such intelligently (our intelligence or any kind of intelligence), then there is no possibility for our intelligence or for any kind of intelligence to be actualized, otherwise there must be possibility for quantum mechanic, or for evolution or for creationist or for beliefs or for random or for any possible means to provide such intelligence.
Further, whether there is evolution or not, whether there is quantum mechanic or not, whether there is random or not and whether there is any possible means (that has possibility to provide intelligence) as the cause for actualization of a kind of intelligence, but:
If we consider there is intelligence then it can be traced back to a thing that has possibility of intelligence, otherwise it against axiom.
And if we consider that human has intelligence and human has consciousness as currently stated, then at least The First Cause must have intelligence and consciousness:
Not less than human, otherwise The First Cause (if less than human then) against axiom which is impossible
Further if we consider that the kind of our intelligence or the kind of our consciousness has different level of actualization compared to what is actualized (intelligence and consciousness) for The First Cause, then The First Cause must be intelligent and conscious differently (it’s not “the same”, since it has difference and it’s not “less than human”, since it against axiom) compared to intelligence and consciousness on ourselves, therefore the only option for the difference is that intelligence and consciousness of The First Cause must be more than human (not the same and not less than human or not the same and not less than any kind of thing that may be considered as having intelligence higher than human).
10th OBJECTION: Quantum mechanics dictates that precise outcomes are random, but due to chaos, we see orderly structures form. Our intelligence is just a result of a lot of random outcomes following specific laws of the universe.
Answer:
If there is “a lot random” outcomes following “specific laws” of the universe then:
The specific laws must not be considered as random, therefore there is no possibilities for the specific laws to provide “a lot of random”, otherwise it against axiom, OR
A lot of random must be considered came from another kind of random, but then it didn’t come from specific laws of the universe and it must be considered that there will be no orderly structures form.
11th OBJECTION: You do realize, that this argument extended, means God has all of the same flaws that man does in him too? All of the same flaws as Satan?
Answer:
It’s about the facts (truth as it is) and it’s not about our considerations (relatively), it can’t be compared one to another since it’s irrelevant.
12th OBJECTION: Potential for a thing is not the same as the thing itself. If a chicken can fly, that doesn’t mean an egg can fly. If humans are intelligent, that doesn’t mean that the universe is intelligent. Things change over time. Things evolve over time. The characteristics are not the same.
Answer:
Examples: If a chicken can fly, that doesn’t mean an egg can fly, and yes because the truth is, ...
Something is fixed (chicken can’t fly), therefore it can’t be expanded beyond its possibilities (chicken can fly), otherwise what is considered to be evolving beyond possibilities of something itself (chicken can fly) has already contained as POSSIBILITIES (whether it’s DNA or any possible means) within it (egg) or what is considered to be evolving beyond possibilities something itself is coming from outside of it and working (actualized) on it.
The ability for the chicken to fly has already contained as POSSIBILITIES (whether it’s DNA or any possible means) within it (egg), otherwise there must be something else support its ability to fly.
Computer is making calculation and human is doing the same, and both capable to show the same result accurately.
Something is fixed (computer and human is idle or there is moment where computer is different than human), therefore it can’t be expanded beyond its possibilities (to make calculation), otherwise what is considered to be evolving beyond possibilities something itself (from idle suddenly having ability intelligently to make calculation; or compared one to another that computer/human having ability intelligently to make calculation just like human/computer) has already contained as possibilities (that can be perceived currently as processor/brain) within it (computer/human) or what is considered to be evolving beyond possibilities something itself is coming from outside of it and working (actualized) on it.
Further
The structure of possibilities or the way for possibilities exist may differ one to another:
possibilities to make calculation from computer compared to human is different, because the possibility for the computer to make calculation that can be perceived by us currently as processor differ to the possibility for human to make calculation that can be perceived by others currently as brain, compared to
the structure of possibilities for “solid matter” can be related currently to molecule structure, where they attract each other with a strong force and so close, and it has difference compared to liquid and gases
But why the structure of possibilities or the way for possibilities exist differ compared to its actualization?
It doesn’t mean that from possibilities (molecule structure or the way particle behave or any possible means whether we know it or we don’t or never know it) compared to its actualization (that can be perceived by us differently) against axiom, because a thing as the possibility (molecule structure or the way particle behave or any possible means whether we know it or we don’t or never know it) on its own level of actualization compared to its actualization (at the level that can be perceived by us), asserts that its actualization (that can be perceived by us) is perceived by us differently (since we are perceiving its actualization of possibilities at different angle, relatively), but there is no changing of boundary beyond as it should be.
CONCLUSION
Whether intelligence must be asserted as it came from “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, biology or evolution or in any possible means, but actually, intelligence at the level of actualization of these cases (“matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, biology or evolution or in any possible means) can be traced back to THE FIRST INTELLIGENCE OF UNCAUSED CAUSE (The first intelligence on its own level of actualization), where this First Intelligence can be actualized properly (to different level of actualization) which can be perceived by us in any possible means. AGAIN, Uncaused Cause is Uncaused Intelligently Being. Intelligence is owned by Uncaused Cause on its own level of actualization and it can be actualized to different level of actualization which can be perceived by us.
(I consider you already agree that there is uncaused cause, otherwise please refer to this "IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO POLES" or "ALL EXISTENCES ARE FIXED")
Uncaused Cause
Several understanding must be asserted to make us to be able to see the whole picture of things, related to this case. And further discussion may be related to this understanding:
To picture what or how is uncaused cause is not a complete description, but at least we can figure it out for this case. If we can go as far as we can try to any possible directions (places) or to the farthest point, then its farthest boundary (compared to boundaries of its own subsets) is owned by uncaused cause. But if we consider there are two uncaused cause, then the farthest boundary must be ended to a specific uncaused cause, where boundaries of the two uncaused cause(s) are side by side. We can say uncaused cause as space, singularity or whatever, but the point is that it has the farthest boundary (compared to boundaries of its own subsets) on its own.
Therefore, there is no for a single of a thing (that were actualized) was placed outside any of Uncaused Cause(s). All that were caused are placed inside one of any uncuased cause(s). Why? Because it's the only not nothingness.
A thing could be matter, it could be space, it could be singularity or it could be anything, but the essence is that a thing is not nothingness. Whether uncaused cause is singularity or any possible means, but the point is that uncaused cause must be the set with the elements from subset of matters including subset of space or any possible subset inside (within) it.
We can apply curve of Euler as like this: matters and space being subset of universe, where universe being subset of singularity, and singularity being subset of a thing, or a thing being subset of other thing, and other thing being subset of whatever again and again.
"effects being subsets of causes". I will expand it a little bit more to make it clearer., so we can put it properly. If there is a thing and this thing has potentiality to actualize (cause) its possibilities, then various actualization of possibilities of this thing may be considered as the effects. So, i prefer to say that "effects being subset of actualization", "actualization being subset of possibilities", "possibilities being subset of a thing" and "a thing being subset of uncaused cause as the set".
Two means two of different things. Stating two parts, means both are having discontinuities, disjointed, therefore in between both there is difference. Stating the two became one, is the same as stating that the former to the latter is continuing each other, therefore there is no different in between both that could be a cause of disjointed. Stating one means continuity to the specific extent.
Examples: Water (a thing) = continuity to the specific extent as a water (a thing); Two waters = two things are separated (disjointed), where each of it has its own continuity to the specific extent as a water; A water became two waters = a continuity to the specific extent as a water was disjointed (separated) became two parts.
Relationship
While we can use curve of Euler to describe how to position in between the set (uncaused cause) and its subset, where subsets are inside the set (uncaused cause). But furthermore, we can't apply relational as provided by curve of Euler. Why? Because on Set Theory, the term relation in between subsets doesn't assert whether both subsets are possible to be considered exist or not, rather it asserts that both subsets are grouped of the set.
In the sense that relation in set theory has no compatibility compared to relation in between two different things. It's because, relation in set theory doesn't describe how for the two things are respond one to another. For example:
If we put human closer enough to a fire, then relation on set theory couldn't explain for these two elements (human and fire) how for both would react one to another. Relation on set theory can only explain that both elements (human and fire) are capable to be placed side by side but there is no further explanation for the consequence of both on specific condition in reality.
So ..., don't try twisting (understanding) it semantically, theoretically or conceptually, just like: in between two subsets, in between "A" and "B", in between "1" and "2", in between these "2" and ">" and "1", in between symbols. In between variables, etc. But you have to try to see for what is behind it. What is "A" or "B", What is "1" or "2", what is ">", because these have no meaning until we relate it to reality.
You just have to relate what "A" or "B" is, and see if my argument can be applied here.
(By using previous understanding above, we can continue to discuss about uncaused cause and how to relate it with another understanding, properly. If there is confusion on latter understanding, please revert (back) to previous understanding. Or if you consider still there is no relevant understanding, please notify us through comment, and see if i can assert additional understanding as a bridge in between your confusion. ...)
From one liter water (without additional assertions) can't be poured as much as 1 gallon water. Meaning: All existences (without additional assertions) can not transcend beyond all existences (their self)
Secondly
For an "Uncaused Cause" is, never coming from another "Uncaused Cause", therefore between one "Uncaused Cause" and another "Uncaused Cause" there are possibilities:
There is no distance in between one of them to another, and it asserts many "Uncaused Cause" as one "Uncaused Cause",
Or, there is a distance in between one of them to another.
If there is a distance in between them (Uncaused Causes), then there is a thing separate them. Whether this separator can be considered as "SPACE" or not, but this "space" or not "space" must be "something" or "nothingness". But nothingness can't be separator, since it's nothing, therefore the separator (whatever it is) it must be "a thing", and therefore (further) it can be tested to see if this understanding can stand when it's attempted to be connected (reasonably) to the consequences from the other side.
IN REALITY there is always a distance, separator in between two distinct entities
If there are two distinct entities, whether water and oil, glass and stone, two particles, two hands closer each other, two of things closer each other (no matter how close). Again, whether how close in between the two different things. But there must be a distance in between both. You can relate (examine) it with any kind of scientific facts.
Consequences
Now, we will try to see the consequences of it and we will try to crash in between consequences, to see which one is collapsed and which one still survive, and we will see what is said by "the consequence which can survive". So we can see the conclusion of it. If there is a distance in between them (uncaused causes), then there is a thing separate them, or in other words, there is a thing in between them. Whether we consider it's only a space in between them, but it's a thing, since if we consider it's nothingness then it's impossible for nothingness in between reality, since nothingness has cause for nothing and nothingness is not placed anywhere. Furthermore, what is a thing in between them? There are several possibilities.
If in between them (uncaused causes):
1) There is "Not Uncaused Cause" (all things that were caused by any of "uncaused cause"), and it indicates that somehow "not uncaused cause" (all things that were caused by any of "uncaused cause") is placed outside one of any "uncaused cause(s)", which is impossible, because all of possible of not nothingness are only uncaused cause(s). It asserts that "Not Uncaused Cause" (all things that were caused by any of "Uncaused Cause") must be placed inside one of any Uncaused Cause(s).
Therefore there is no "Not Uncaused Cause" (all things that were caused by any of "Uncaused Cause") in between any of uncaused cause(s).
2) There is "Uncaused Cause" as separator in between any of "Uncaused Cause", it asserts that:
There is additional "Uncaused Cause" of previous "Uncaused Cause(s)", and if we consider that there is the latest "Uncaused Cause", and there is "Uncaused Cause" coming from another thing, then it's impossible since uncaused cause is not coming from any possible thing.
There is additional "Uncaused Cause" of previous "Uncaused Cause(s)", and if we consider that there is another "Uncaused Cause" (as the third uncaused cause), then it asserts that there must be more and more uncaused causes infinitely, since there must be another uncaused cause in between any of uncaused cause(s).
It asserts that the number of all things are not fixed, in the sense that the number of all things (without additional assertions) transcend beyond all things (their self). It against axiom.Therefore: The number of all things are fixed. It asserts there is no infinitely uncaused cause(s). IOW, there must be only an uncaused cause (since if there are more than one uncaused causes, it would lead to the consequence which is impossible).
3) There is no a thing in between any of "Uncaused Cause(s)", then there is no separator in between both of uncaused causes, furthermore, there is no distance in between both of uncaused causes.
It asserts both "Uncaused Cause(s)" continuing one and another as one "Uncaused Cause".
Conclusion
Therefore, there is no further for any of "the caused (Not Uncaused Cause)" and any of "Uncaused Cause" that capable to separate in between "Uncaused Causes", therefore there is no separation in between any of them ("Uncaused Causes"), therefore it asserts:
There is only one "Uncaused Cause".
We live within The Biggest Thing as an Uncaused Cause! We are all within ONE. There Is The Only One Uncaused Cause as The Biggest Thing.
June 28, 2011 (12:15)
How do we apply this understanding? First, you have to examine the possibility of Uncaused Intelligently Being.
From current function we can trace back to previous function. This asserts causal chain. Whether previously couldn't be considered as definite sequence for current function, but still we can trace to previous moment.
And whether previously there was only a changing to current state rather than a new creation, then we can still trace back to previous moment of the same thing.
New creation asserts a causal chain: If there is a new creation, therefore we can trace backward to previous cause
Your Objection: There is no evidence for new creation, just conservation of energy.
The Law of Conservation of Energy: Related to your objection, new creation is new conversion from one form of energy to another form energy and from the current form of energy we can trace back to something that has ability to make a new appearance of new form of energy. And if this tracing is ended at one thing, which is energy itself, this huge energy must be considered as the first cause or if we disagree with it then we must accept there is possibility to trace back to the source of energy that doesn't relate to the law of conservation energy.
And this energy as the first cause must be considered as the uncaused conscious energy, and if we disagree with it then we have to accept that human (that has consciousness) is not coming from energy (this open new perspective as a causal chain that has no relation with your objection).
Infinite Backward
Infinite backward asserts new creation: If an infinite backward asserts there is no creation then there will be an ended point as an uncaused cause, therefore we try another assertion to assert the consequences
Your objection: no logical support for infinite backward causality.
Infinite backward can be considered as our trial to push our logical to the farthest extent and see where is it going to? To make us clear that any possibilities thinking on something (even the impossible one) always assert finite backward causality. And eventually forcing any kind of thinking will lead us to conclusion to finite causality. That's one point.
The second point: your statement asserts there is finite backward causality.
Opposite Direction of Causal Chain
Infinite backward asserts a causal chain: If infinite backward asserts new creation, then there is a causal chain at forward direction closer to current
The Intersection of The Two Opposite Directions of The Causal Chain
Backward direction and forward direction of causal chain are ended at the uncaused cause: The two points close together assert consequences that each of the two points must be an uncaused cause or both of the two points as uncaused causes, therefore for the last consequence if there is no one as a cause for the other then it asserts there is a creation that exist from nowhere which is an uncaused cause itself.
SYLLOGISM
New creation (new form or new function) asserts a causal chain
Infinite backward asserts new creation (new form or new function)
Therefore, infinite backward asserts a causal chain, and further, backward direction and forward direction of causal chain are ended at the uncaused cause
How do we deal with missing links on cosmological argument?
We have to agree that causality has to stop somewhere, it's not because we think there is missing links and that we should make our own completion behind the infinite to create reasoning by linking it to something to create completion that it could be considered as "makes sense", as classical understanding, but, it's because:
We have to agree that causality has to stop somewhere, because consequences of infinite itself (in any possible ways) insist us to go to the single pointer as "the earliest".
CONCLUSION
There is Uncaused Cause.
That is, if you believe a causal chain, specifically related to cosmological argument. But if you insist that causal chain is merely a changing of a thing from one moment to different moment (it means you are not going to the past existence, rather than you are going to a previous moment). If that so, then actually all of changing, all of things are merely one thing (as an uncaused cause), or two uncaused causes are the cause of all changing that mostly can be perceived by us.
It's not about whether my logical structure is illogical or you may consider it doesn't make senses. But that's the point, whether you are structuring a causal chain in any possible ways, but finally it will end to the same conclusion that there is uncaused cause
SECOND ARGUMENT
But if we consider there is no causal chain from currently to the past, in the sense that currently has no relation with previous cause rather that currently is constantly changing of thing, then we need to understand it differently as related to dependency. An axiom should be noted to solve this:
From one liter water (without additional assertions) can't be poured as much as 1 gallon water. Meaning: All existences (without additional assertions) can not transcend beyond all existences (their self)
Dependency
If we consider that a thing within another thing, and another thing within another different thing, again and again, it asserts there is thing which part (within) another thing and repeatedly without ending or having an ending.
This never ending dependencies asserts that all existences are not fixed.
All Existences are Fixed (or aren't fixed)
If the number of all existences are not fixed, then, the number of all existences (without additional assertions) transcend beyond all existences (their self). It against axiom.
Therefore: The number of all existences are fixed. It asserts there is finite regression. IOW, there is an uncause caused (there is only finite backward), OR ...
All existences are fixed, in the sense that from all things there won't be possibilities beyond what can be provided by all things itself. If there is infinite regression then there will be possibilities that can't be provided by all things. It asserts that at least there is possibilities that is coming from nothingness which is impossible. Otherwise, it (possibility) came from "not nothingness" which means it came from all things itself. It asserts, there is no infinite regression.
But, if all things are infinite regression itself, then we can refer to the first argument (IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO POLES).
CONCLUSION
There is finite regression and it asserts there is Uncaused Cause.
January 01, 2000 ~ April 20, 2003 (03:00)
How do we apply this understanding? First, you have to examine the possibility of Uncaused Intelligently Being.
