Did you mean 'efficient' or 'sufficient.' — universeness

Efficient cause.

Are you happy with any current description or evidence available that attempts to explain the role god played and now plays in this Universe? — universeness

Aristotle's god is a principle, not personality. So, no, I never believed in God in any Christian sense.

Efficient cause. — Jackson

Why efficient? Do you mean that there are other ways to achieve the same result which would be successful but less efficient?

Why efficient? Do you mean that there are other ways to achieve the same result which would be successful but less efficient? — universeness

Efficient cause means how something is caused or changed, especially by an agent.

Aristotle's god is a principle, not personality. So, no, I never believed in God in any Christian sense — Jackson

Ok so you reject all current 'religious' descriptions of god, yes?
But was Aristotle's description not based on an apriori metaphysical viewpoint and as this requires no empirical evidence at all and is only based on human belief, I don't see how Aristotle's description has any more value than belief in any story based on human musings on the supernatural from El and Baal to the Christian god, the Hindu Gods or even @hillary's god for every species that ever existed.
Can you accept god as a 'principle' in the absence of any empirical evidence at all?

Can you accept god as a 'principle' in the absence of any empirical evidence at all? — universeness

Greeks had an idea of nous, which just meant intelligence. So Aristotle's God is nous, or "thought thinking thought."

The fact that Christians built their idea of God on Aristotle (and Plato) makes it difficult to go back to Aristotle and understand that he was just explaining intelligence of the universe.

Efficient cause means how something is caused or changed, especially by an agent — Jackson

I cant find examples of that contextual use of the word 'efficient.'

A quick google search offers:

efficiency(of a system or machine) achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.
"more efficient processing of information"
synonyms:
well organized · methodical · systematic · structured · well planned · [more]
preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource.
"an energy-efficient heating system"
(of a person) working in a well-organized and competent way.
"an efficient administrator"
synonyms:
well organized · methodical · systematic · structured · well planned · [more]

Which of these would best illustrate your use of 'efficient?'

Which of these would best illustrate your use of 'efficient?' — universeness

None.

Efficient Cause
NOUN
philosophy
that which produces an effect by a causal process

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/efficient-cause

he was just explaining intelligence of the universe — Jackson

Ah, is your viewpoint panpsychist or cosmopsychist?

None — Jackson

:grin: Ok, we will drop that one then, unless you want to breath new air into it.

Ah, is your viewpoint panpsychist or cosmopsychist? — universeness

I don't find the distinction useful.
My version of panpsychism is not that all physicality has consciousness, but that all things exhibit intelligence.

Added: Intelligence is found in consciousness but an intelligent event need not have consciousness.

None
— Jackson

:grin: Ok, we will drop that one then, unless you want to breath new air into it. — universeness

I see you do:
Excuse my lack of knowledge of philosophical academia:
I picked the following from the link you provided:

"The place where the archer moves the projectile was at the start of the flight, and while the projectile sailed through the air, no discernible efficient cause acts on it."

But we now fully understand the motion of an arrow fired by an archer and there certainly is discernable cause acting upon it, such as wind resistance, rain hitting the arrow in flight, and gravity
Or is this example just suggesting that no 'thought' was acting upon the arrow, guiding its flight path.
Not the archers thought or gods thought. The theists would of course suggest that god could influence the flight of the arrow if it wanted to.

The final cause acts, but it acts according to the mode of final causality, as an end or good that induces the efficient cause to act.
This suggests to me that Aristotelian thought suggests that the arrow's path can be altered if this 'efficient cause' has the intent to make it so.

It can not have come into existence without an efficient cause (since that would violate the law of causality, one of the basic laws of thought).
Well, that's the whole issue we are discussing, whether or not there is a law of causality that cannot be violated when considering the origin story of our uinverse.

All efficient causes are produced by the will of a mind or spirit (mind or spirit being that which thinks, wills, and perceives).
But is this your variant of panpsychism that there already exists a Universal mind or conscience and it is not an emergent reality that might become true in the very distant future due to networking transhumans or networking lifeforms from all over the universe?

But is this your variant of panpsychism that there already exists a Universal mind or conscience and it is not an emergent reality that might become true in the very distant future — universeness

Always been true.

The final cause acts, but it acts according to the mode of final causality, as an end or good that induces the efficient cause to act.
This suggests to me that Aristotelian thought suggests that the arrow's path can be altered if this 'efficient cause' has the intent to make it so. — universeness

No. Final cause does not act.

No. Final cause does not act — Jackson

Does not or cannot? is choice invloved?

Does not or cannot? is choice invloved? — universeness

Using Aristotle here. By definition the final cause is not movement.
For example, I walk to the drugstore to buy allergy medicine. Walking is the efficient cause. Needing relief from allergies is the final cause.

I walk to the drugstore to buy allergy medicine. Walking is the efficient cause. Needing relief from allergies is the final cause — Jackson

Ok, a clear example, and i get the distinction you are making but in analysing that scenario a little deeper, it seems to me that there are other events to consider, there are two possibilities:
1. I have a prescription or I am low or have ran out of allergy medicine and I need more.
2. I am suffering an allergic reaction and I need allergy medicine.

One of these initial conditions 'caused' you to 'cause' your legs to walk to the drugstore.
Was that FIRST cause another example of 'an efficient cause,' the realisation that you needed allergy medicine. So the condition occurred before the reaction to it.
So in your panpsychist viewpoint did spacetime come before the universal conscience or after it or at the same time?

universal conscience — universeness

I nev

Ok, a clear example, and i get the distinction you are making but in analysing that scenario a little deeper, it seems to me that there are other events to consider, there are two possibilities:
1. I have a prescription or I am low or have ran out of allergy medicine and I need more.
2. I am suffering an allergic reaction and I need allergy medicine. — universeness

Both, yes? I would not need allergy medicine if I had no allergies.

So in your panpsychist viewpoint did spacetime come before the universal conscience or after it or at the same time? — universeness

On terminology: I never used the phrase "universal conscience."

Physicality and intelligence are coexistent, neither came before the other.

Physicality and intelligence are coexistent, neither came before the other — Jackson

Ok, thanks for the exchange about our origin of the Universe viewpoints.

Thanks for comments. Read my post on the origin of the universe carefully and it should be clear that the first existent must be uncaused. It is impossible that the universe exists without a first uncaused cause. How can QM start the universe if the principle from nothing comes nothing is valid?

Your answer to my last question was no so I assume you are confirming that in your opinion, if there ever was a first cause, it may well have no significance at all, to our current Universe and therefore the theists are wasting their energy when the show deference to the god posit? Do you agree? — universeness

In a way, yes. It isn't that one couldn't prove that a God existed through evidence, but that the existence of the universe does not necessitate that the origin be a God.

I would aslo like to ask, after your 19 page thread and the comments the contributors made,
did you have any doubts about the 'causality' route as being absolutely fundamental to the question of origin of the Universe? — universeness

No, none. Causality is a very useful and easy to prove concept. People may have problems with the generality of the word and desire more specifics, but that doesn't negate its effectiveness.

I tend to concur with the viewpoint that 'existence' does not require a cause. — universeness

This would be the definition of a first cause. An existence that has post existent causality, but does not have any prior causality for its existence.

It is impossible that the universe exists without a first uncaused cause. — val p miranda

Well, I would ask you two questions based on what you have typed above.
1. Do you think the reason that anything exists rather than nothing must follow the current notions of what humans consider impossible?

2. Could you or I come up with a 'first cause,' which is not god as described or conceived by any human ever?

How can QM start the universe if the principle from nothing comes nothing is valid? — val p miranda

Ok, but we have to establish what nothing is. The best effort cosmologists can come up with is along the lines of Laurence Krauss and his statement of 'an absence of something.' In other words, there is no satisfactory description of nothing. Humans have quite powerful imaginations yet no matter how much we demand a perception of nothing, the best our imagination can come up with is a black space, and we know 'black' and 'space' are something, not nothing.
It is simply beyond current human ability to perceive nothing so how can we explain something coming from it? For me, this proves that any god posit is particularly OF THIS GAP, and is therefore a meaningless suggestion.

The first uncaused cause was immaterial space. — val p miranda

What is immaterial space?

..."humans consider impossible?" I think that is a good response. I suggested that you read my post on The Origin of the Universe. In that post I present a natural argument for the existence of the universe while not arguing against the existence of God. I think that agnosticism is the correct position.

It is not physical space as presented by general relativity or it is space that is not made of anything material. Good question. It is my view the that first uncaused cause was immaterial space with a capacity for becoming actual; it was potential.

In a way, yes. It isn't that one couldn't prove that a God existed through evidence, but that the existence of the universe does not necessitate that the origin be a God — Philosophim

I completely agree! and it would be so easy for an omnipotent entity to settle the evidence need that human science requires, so the fact it hasn't done so points toward its nonexistence.

No, none. Causality is a very useful and easy to prove concept — Philosophim

Yes I agree but only after the moment of the 'singularity,' does causality have any meaning if there was no 'before,' no before time=0. I don't think it does, unless you start to posit something like the cyclical/bounce/oscillating Universe, as suggested by Roger Penrose et al and if you do that then any first cause may be pushed back forever. If that has value then each pushback reduces the relevance of any first cause to THIS UNIVERSE and the lifeforms in it.
Does it then not become valid to suggest that enough pushbacks and this first cause becomes as significant as that of some mindless spark that has no existence or significance at all to our current universe? For me, it would be like asking, 'in what ways does the singularity of the big bang affect my everyday life as a human? Should I worship the singularity? Does it have presence and influence today? Does it have willpower and does it have a code of life that it wants me to follow? Will it judge my life and does it have the power to decide if I will still exist after I die? Should I thank it for providing my food?'

Was there a singularity? Science is not able to proceed beyond the big bang

On nothing. To me it so simple. Nothing is a concept with no existence; nothing does not exist. One should not put much stock in non-existence.

I suggested that you read my post on The Origin of the Universe. — val p miranda

I had read your OP when you first posted this thread. You use the label 'immaterial space,' and suggest it became 'actual space,' or I assume 'material space.' You then talked about Aristotelian and Kantian viewpoints in this area and make final comments such as:

. Perhaps, God is the first existant,

space is not empirical. What, then, is space? Is it a perception, a field, a bending and stretching existent, an immaterial existent or something else? — val p miranda

Would you not agree that you are simply musing about what the truth of the origin story really is.
That's fine, as that's what we are all doing on this thread. But for me, your musings dont offer any progression as they are too general and lack details. For example.

You don't clearly define that which you label immaterial space. (Probably because no one can!) Is this a void that contains energy only?
If it's not physical, do you merely mean it has no mass or it is not what we would label 'natural' so it is unnatural, supernatural, metaphysical (in that it is beyond or before/after physics?

You give no indication of the process involved in immaterial space becoming actual space. You suggest it might be the big bang but then how did immaterial space produce the singularity?

What do you mean by 'space is not empirical?' do you mean we cannot find out what space IS by empirical means?
Space is not a perception! unless you think that our Universe is a simulation. Space exists.
A field exists, space can actually bend and expand based on the 'empirical evidence' we have.
So you are simply asking questions and probing the validity of current thinking regarding the origin story, as we all are, but the question remains, are we making any relevant progress? or are we merely just confirming our own current viewpoints to each other and confirming the fact that the final current truth for all of us is that none of us knows/can demonstrate what the origin story ACTUALLY IS, especially the theists. I say that, merely because I think science is the only practice that might actually make some real progress, in the future, on this fundamental question