The Philosophy Discussion Forum

when humans started counting the things they had gathered, mathematics was invented

first cause

no gods involved

-Imp

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 2:54 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 5:40 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 4:15 am

Stop right there. If you can propose one deity that was eternal, that always was, is, and always will be, then I can propose set set of them, eternal, that always was, is, and always will be.

Actually, you can't. Contingent, limited beings, "gods" are not sufficient to answer the First Cause problem.

What we know is this: that everything had to begin with an uncaused entity. We know this for certain, because mathematically, we know that an infinite-regressive causal sequence can never start. And we are very clearly participants in a causal sequence.

Remember, the challenge was to produce an example of polygamy,

I think you're misremembering. The challenge was to produce some example of a coherent polytheism. Not only have you had to resort to an imaginary "model," since you could think of no real one, but the model you produced suffers from the same incoherency I identified in other polytheisms. You can see them again, in my last message.

You are continuing to not take the model seriously.

I took it seriously enough to point out why it doesn't work. What more would you want? Perhaps if you had a real example of polytheism, we might be able to discuss it -- but the "model" that's only inside your own imagination, well, I don't know what is true and not about that one. How could anybody else?

And since plenty of real models of polytheism exist, why not do as I am doing, and use one of them to illustrate? Or are you proposing that you have personally discovered a form of polytheism nobody has discovered before, and which nobody ever believed, but would be coherent if ever tried?

I can't see what your point can be, there.

The seven (each of them) are not necessarily any more limited than the one.

That's not coherent. Why have seven gods that are all identical? How would that be a better or more functional explanation of anything? But if they're not identical, then the power of one defines the limits of the power of the next...and thus, they're all limited.

And this is exactly what you see in polytheisms. Zeus presides over the mountain, perhaps; but Poseidon over the water, Apollo over war, and Aphrodite gets to decide who's in love...each "god" has his/her own zone of efficacy, and the others are disabled, or at least not so able, in those particular areas.

"We know this for certain, because mathematically, we know that an infinite-regressive causal sequence can never start"

It really bothers you,...

This has nothing to do with me, either way. It's a mathematical certainty. What you or I feel about it does nothing to change it.

" Contingent, limited beings, "gods" are not sufficient to answer the First Cause problem."

WHERE in model A2 were any of the seven described as "contingent, limited, entities"?

See above. It follows necessarily from a claim that they are distinct beings.

Now, you missed the point, because you seem to be rushing ahead to defend, rather than following the logic carefully. But it's actually very plain: multiple gods are redundant if the same, and limited by each other if different. It can be no other way, logically.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 6:14 pm when humans started counting the things they had gathered, mathematics was invented

first cause

no gods involved

-Imp

By relying on humans, you've now used a contingent, limited, temporal being to explain the origins of the universe. Does that strike you as a plausible argument?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 6:16 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 6:14 pm when humans started counting the things they had gathered, mathematics was invented

first cause

no gods involved

-Imp

By relying on humans, you've now used a contingent, limited, temporal being to explain the origins of the universe. Does that strike you as a plausible argument?

yes

until something besides humans appears, I'll stick with what is there

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 6:18 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 6:16 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 6:14 pm when humans started counting the things they had gathered, mathematics was invented

first cause

no gods involved

-Imp

By relying on humans, you've now used a contingent, limited, temporal being to explain the origins of the universe. Does that strike you as a plausible argument?

yes

until something besides humans appears, I'll stick with what is there

-Imp

So...human beings created the universe upon which human existence depends...that's the idea?

no, the playground is simply there

if you want to posit a creator because you think everything needs one, that's on you...

prove you aren't in a simulation (like the Matrix)... why isn't that situation just as plausible as an all powerful being "creating" the circumstances in which we find ourselves?

-Imp

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 6:14 pm
And since plenty of real models of polytheism exist, why not do as I am doing, and use one of them to illustrate?
<< I already explained why not, that your typical REAL examples are not A polytheism but several merged together. If two societies each with just one god merge, one of those gods has to go. But if one of the societies is polytheistic, it can just merge in the god or gods of the other. Do you really need me to identify for you which deities in either the Greek, Roman, or Norse etc. pantheons, etc.were from other religions? >>

Or are you proposing that you have personally discovered a form of polytheism nobody has discovered before, and which nobody ever believed, but would be coherent if ever tried?
<< simpler than giving you a "real" one as could then proceed stepwise from monotheism to polytheism, That starting monotheism model A1 was from a "real religion" >>


Contingent, limited beings, "gods" are not sufficient to answer the First Cause problem."

<<< repeating -- WHERE in model A2 were any of the seven described as "contingent, limited, entities"? >>>
See above. It follows necessarily from a claim that they are distinct beings.

Now, you missed the point, because you seem to be rushing ahead to defend, rather than following the logic carefully. But it's actually very plain: multiple gods are redundant if the same, and limited by each other if different. It can be no other way, logically.

<< NOT RELEVANT. Described as not the same entity. Not limited by each other unless they choose not to co-operate. IC, have you never engaged in a co-operative activity. Say as a boy, going off with some other boys to build yourselves a tee house "fort". Were the others "redundant"? Possibly yes in the sense any one could have gone off and built his own tree house. The same experience, no.

IC, one of the objections often heard with regard to a group ding some collective action by consensus i that it takes a lot of time to reach consensus. Explain why "taking a lot of time" would matter to eternal beings.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 9:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 6:14 pm
And since plenty of real models of polytheism exist, why not do as I am doing, and use one of them to illustrate?

<< I already explained why not, that your typical REAL examples are not A polytheism but several merged together.

I don't think that's a very good explanation. Real world examples are much better than models one makes up. They're much more indicative of how polytheism is actually understood by those who believe in it. I can't see the merit in your imaginary "model."

Or are you proposing that you have personally discovered a form of polytheism nobody has discovered before, and which nobody ever believed, but would be coherent if ever tried?

...simpler than giving you a "real" one

So the answer is "yes." You're trying to create your own imaginary polytheism that nobody has ever believed. And you say that's "simpler."

... it's actually very plain: multiple gods are redundant if the same, and limited by each other if different. It can be no other way, logically.

NOT RELEVANT.

Highly relevant.

Of course I understand "cooperation." Cooperation happens because people don't all have the same potentialities, abilities, opportunities, and so on. In other words, it happens because such beings are NOT the same, and NEED each other for something.

But if Zeus needs Poseidon, then Zeus is limited. He's no good at fishing or vessels, and so requires Poseidon's aid. And Poseidon does not do mountains or wars or love...so any complete picture needs them all, and none of them is substitutable for the other. In other words, they're limited beings, not the Supreme Being.

We might add that the Greek gods, and indeed, all polytheist gods of which I have read, have origin stories. Some have demise stories, as well. So they're not just limited, but contingent, fallible, temporary, local, and not self-caused.

So what is the First Cause, the thing that created these gods? There has to be one: what would it be?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 10:25 pm
a) Of course I understand "cooperation." Cooperation happens because people don't all have the same potentialities, abilities, opportunities, and so on. In other words, it happens because such beings are NOT the same, and NEED each other for something.

b) So what is the First Cause, the thing that created these gods? There has to be one: what would it be?

a -- NO, co-operation not necessarily because of different potentialities, abilities, opportunities, and so on. They may NEED each other because the activity might be one that requires more than one. Try playing volleyball by yourself << I intentionally chose a game where the rules require players to rotate position -- so "differences" doesn't come into it. This is to forestall you raising different abilities for different positions >>

b --- Then what is the First Cause of your one deity?

Yes I understand, you are saying the One is the One that requires no first cause. But that is not REALLY different from saying the SEVEN who are the divine clan require no first cause. The difference as you see it, is that you only require one, which one then COULD create others (contingent divine beings). But that is not a good reason to consider "But there were the eternal SEVEN divine beings that had no first cause" to be incoherent.

Please note, you are basing things on CREATION as if all religions had to consider the universe created . Suppose we went to a model that considered the universe as eternal? Wold you then continue to natter on about "first causes"? Religions are NOT all about the same things. Your belief that your religion is the one true religion, and that the questions for which it is providing answers are the only questions a religion should deal with is fine UNTIL you want to look at an, try to understand, other religions.

If you can't SUSPEND (not cease to believe) your belief in the one true religion you can't UNDERSTAND other religions. You may have to face the possibility that you are ill equipped to study "comparative religion".

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 11:28 pm Try playing volleyball by yourself

The reason you can't play volleyball by yourself is that you have no ability to be in two places at once. Again, you cooperate because of your limitations.

b --- Then what is the First Cause of your one deity? Yes I understand, you are saying the One is the One that requires no first cause. But that is not REALLY different from saying the SEVEN who are the divine clan require no first cause.

Oh, it most certainly is.

Because we know for certain there had to be a First Cause. That's equally true, whether you believe that "cause" was God or something else. But we have no similar conviction about "gods," and "gods" don't even qualify for Supreme Being, by definition.

Please note, you are basing things on CREATION as if all religions had to consider the universe created .

No, I'm basing it strictly on mathematics, not theology. It's a universal fact that something has to initiate a causal chain; that fact is establishable beyond all reasonable doubt, regardless of whether or not one even believes in God.

Suppose we went to a model that considered the universe as eternal?

We can't, because it isn't, and scientifically, we know for certain it isn't. So we'd be lying. And what would be the point of deceiving ourselves?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2026 4:15 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 11:28 pm Try playing volleyball by yourself

The reason you can't play volleyball by yourself is that you have no ability to be in two places at once. Again, you cooperate because of your limitations.
<< I want to come back to this later challenging that limitations/differences necessarily a problem as opposed to how I am going to address your answer. "Two places at the same time" is for the ONE becoming TWO. If your ONE can become many, how is that different from a sort of polytheism? >>

b --- Then what is the First Cause of your one deity? Yes I understand, you are saying the One is the One that requires no first cause. But that is not REALLY different from saying the SEVEN who are the divine clan require no first cause.

Oh, it most certainly is.
Because we know for certain there had to be a First Cause. That's equally true, whether you believe that "cause" was God or something else. But we have no similar conviction about "gods," and "gods" don't even qualify for Supreme Being, by definition.
<< Please reread what I wrote (Later I will get to "we know for certain had to be a FIRST CAUSE). But note that you now argue for the necessity of a SUPREME deity. The must be a king, a dictator, etc. WHY? >>

Please note, you are basing things on CREATION as if all religions had to consider the universe created .

No, I'm basing it strictly on mathematics, not theology. It's a universal fact that something has to initiate a causal chain; that fact is establishable beyond all reasonable doubt, regardless of whether or not one even believes in God.
<< after next quote>>

Suppose we went to a model that considered the universe as eternal?

We can't, because it isn't, and scientifically, we know for certain it isn't. So we'd be lying. And what would be the point of deceiving ourselves?
<< Uh, we re talking about religion here, not secular science. Science tells us "the universe came into existence via a "big bang". It does not suggest that there was a CAUSE of this "big bang". Cause and effect not meaningful when applied before material reality. Science does not suggest that the cause was some god (nor deny it either). But religions? A religion can teach the the universe created at time T or it could teach the universe always existed. And strictly speaking, that does not exactly contradict science if there is no time** before the "big bang" >>

<< And mathematics is of no help to you at all. There is no "start"or "end" of the integers, none without a successor or predecessor (as the natural numbers DO have "a number not the successor of any number" -- a "starting point"of zero. With the Peano axioms you can treat "every number has a successor" as the "cause" of numbers and zero as the "first cause -- with integers you can't do that) >>

BUT --- back to the question of different powers/abilities. One musician, able to play one instrument, can make jazz. Several musicians, each able to play a different instrument can together make jazz. Is the jazz in the second case the same as in the first, or different? In musical terms, different "color"? I am rejecting your notion that all deities in a polytheistic religion would have to have the SAME abilities/powers. Not a limitation unless the pantheon as a whole lacked some ability/power. But none of the deities would be redundant if powers/abilities not included among the powers/abilities of another.

Your problem MAY be with the notion f collective/co-operative activities.

** What does "always existed" mean in formal terms? That there was no time before which that the universe did not exist. But if time itself is part of the universe ........

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2026 4:23 pm If your ONE can become many, how is that different from a sort of polytheism?

Easy. He is one. See the shema.

b --- Then what is the First Cause of your one deity? Yes I understand, you are saying the One is the One that requires no first cause. But that is not REALLY different from saying the SEVEN who are the divine clan require no first cause.

Oh, it most certainly is.
Because we know for certain there had to be a First Cause. That's equally true, whether you believe that "cause" was God or something else. But we have no similar conviction about "gods," and "gods" don't even qualify for Supreme Being, by definition.

Later I will get to "we know for certain had to be a FIRST CAUSE).

You can know now. Just do the math.

But note that you now argue for the necessity of a SUPREME deity. The must be a king, a dictator, etc.

Is that what you think the word "supreme" implies?

Please note, you are basing things on CREATION as if all religions had to consider the universe created .

No, I'm basing it strictly on mathematics, not theology. It's a universal fact that something has to initiate a causal chain; that fact is establishable beyond all reasonable doubt, regardless of whether or not one even believes in God.
<< after next quote>>

Suppose we went to a model that considered the universe as eternal?

We can't, because it isn't, and scientifically, we know for certain it isn't. So we'd be lying. And what would be the point of deceiving ourselves?

Uh, we re talking about religion here, not secular science.

If you want to divorce the question of belief from truth, you'll already have skewed the scales. You'll have arbitrarily dictated that "religion" cannot be true. And I'd be interested in seeing you justify that assumption.

Science tells us "the universe came into existence via a "big bang". It does not suggest that there was a CAUSE of this "big bang".

So you would have to assume, then, that the Big Bang was itself uncaused. Of course, that's not what science tells us to suppose: it wants us to suppose the pre-existence of various elements, such as hydrogen and quark gluon plasma, that would account for the explosion. But then you're back to the same problem: from whence did those elements appear, and what caused them to "bang" at a given moment, and why didn't they " bang" earlier or later, and how did a "bang" produce all the irreducible complexity that exists in our universe.

So it seems your explanation creates more problems than it solves. And it certainly would depart the field of science itself...perhaps being more of a "religious" (in the pejorative sense) conviction. Because science only purports to deal with phenomena that are measurable, repeatable, observable, and causal. You'd be asking science to back your play, but outside the field in which it has promised to produce scientific results.

And mathematics is of no help to you at all.

Quite the contrary. They prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt.

There is no "start"or "end" of the integers, none without a successor or predecessor

But in a causal sequence, there is.

Model your integers this way, and you'll have the experiment you need: call "0" the "Big Bang moment." Write that on a piece of paper.

But wait: before you write "0," there was a moment or a cause before the BB, as represented by "-1". So before you write "0," be sure to have already written down "-1"

But wait": before "-1", the second before the BB, there was another moment or cause, which we should represent as "-2". So before you write "-1," and then before you next write "0", write down "-2."

But wait: before "-1" and "-2" comes "-3"...and so on, for infinity.

Now, why is this important to do? Because every cause in a causal chain is a prerequisite for the effect it produces. So you cannot get to "0"
without first passing though "-1", and you can't get to "-1" without having first passed through "-2", and so on, infinitely.

If such a chain of integers is not granted an origin integer...say, at "-345" or "-1,000,0001," or whenever or whatever, then the chain can never begin. And in an infinite amount of time, you will never be able to write "0". Thus, there will be no Big Bang, if you model your universe on an infinite regress of prerequisite integers.

QED. If we are now in a causal chain (and we can see that we are, so that's granted): then that chain had to have an origin point. There had to be first integer, a First Cause.

Several musicians, each able to play a different instrument can together make jazz.

Only because Zeus, who plays the oboe, is not playing the drums, as Poseidon is. And only because Aphrodite is singing. If they all play the oboe, and all the same notes, why the pantheon? You only need one.

Your problem MAY be with the notion f collective/co-operative activities.

Yeah, right. Not a bit. I just deny that they present a coherent picture of God.

** What does "always existed" mean in formal terms? That there was no time before which that the universe did not exist. But if time itself is part of the universe ........

That's an interesting question...not quite relevant here, but interesting.

Admittedly, we'd all be horribly handicapped in trying to conceive of a state without time; and not the least, because science itself would have no possibility of providing us traction. We'd be thrown back on speculation and theorizing, but untestable theorizing and speculating. We might very easily go wrong in our thinking, and not have any way of correcting our misconceptions.

But to honour your question, let me try an idea out on you. Admittedly, this is just my thinking about it.

One way of thinking about time is to say it is the chronological interval between two (or more) points or states. It takes "time" to move between two points, and "time" for a thing to morph from one condition into another. Time is the measurement of the interval.

But if that's a good description of time, then there would indeed be no time when there were no points, and no changes of state. Time, thus, would come into being at the exact same moment as the first two points, or as the first change-of-state in a single point. But one would not be able to speak of "time," nor would such a thing be a coherent idea, if there were no physical plane upon which two points or states could exist.

And if that's right, then "time" came into existence with matter and space. It did not exist before. Time, then, is just as much a created thing as space and matter are.

But as I say, here we speculate. It's hard to see how to correct whatever might be wrong with this picture.

Apparently you have never encountered cosmologies that have no start.

The Earth rest on the back of a turtle. That turtle rests on the back of a turtle, that turtle rests on the back of a turtle, ....... there is NO FIRST TURTLE (it's "turtles all the way down")

This bothers you, seems incoherent. The notion of no starting point. You even gave mathematics as an example, ignoring that while there is a "starting point" for the natural numbers there is no starting point for the integers. Does THAT bother you? Well perhaps it shouldn't, as the entities of mathematics are not created, don't need a "cause".

Well people can conceive of other things as having no cause. In religion and in science. Science needs no cause for the universe. Your religion needs no cause for its one God. Well likewise a polytheist might not need a cause for his or her many. You are projecting YOUR need for only one divine being without a cause upon the polytheist who perceives no such requirement of singularity.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2026 6:02 pm Apparently you have never encountered cosmologies that have no start.

Guess again.

But I've showed you that they're all simply wrong. It cannot be the case. It's irrational to believe it.

You even gave mathematics as an example, ignoring that while there is a "starting point" for the natural numbers there is no starting point for the integers.

You've misunderstood the proof.

Go and do the experiment. Try to write any integer for which there is always a prerequisite. You'll soon realize why you're wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2026 6:43 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2026 6:02 pm Apparently you have never encountered cosmologies that have no start.

Guess again.
But I've showed you that they're all simply wrong. It cannot be the case. It's irrational to believe it.

You even gave mathematics as an example, ignoring that while there is a "starting point" for the natural numbers there is no starting point for the integers.

You've misunderstood the proof.
Go and do the experiment. Try to write any integer for which there is always a prerequisite. You'll soon realize why you're wrong.

You don't "experiment" with mathematics, you do proofs (starting from axioms, which are assumed not to need proofs*). And I don't know exactly what you might mean by the "prerequisite" of an integer.

What if irrational about "turtles all the way down".

* This is valid logic. All statements proven true (theorems) are ultimately of the form "If axiom1 and axion2 and .... and axiomN then statement". We just don't keep repeating the "if" part.