Material substance ad the physical properties that govern them have existed for all of eternity

how does that prevent the universe from being self-causing?

Everything we can observe in the universe (i.e. the universe itself) is a result of a series of cause and effects, which are all traced back to one initial movement.
The first cause would be unmoved, continually existing, and all other causes contingent upon it.

I might be completely wrong, I'm not educated in this at all

The universe is just a very large physical system. All physical things are subject to causes, same with the Universe.

>All physical things are subject to causes

How do you know that there is no exception to this rule?

you didn't answer the question.

>Everything we can observe in the universe (i.e. the universe itself)

those are not the same thing. the universe is the set of all that exists, not all that is observable. it also doesn't mean that the universe couldn't have caused itself.

Radioactive decay of an unstable isotope is not subject to any cause, for example. It's entirely random.

You are transferring your everyday perception of things to cosmology in a completely facile way.

Tell me why you believe in Ockham's razor.

Aren't vacuum particles physical and uncaused?

Because time is a property of the universe, a quality that the universe has, the universe simply exists - regardless of time. Time is a mechanism necessary in the universe's machinery. Taken as an object, the universe is outside of time.

Something cannot be created from nothing and even God, if there is a supreme being, plays by the rules he has set forth, this is consistent reasoning by both extremes of theism and pantheism, see Leibniz and Spinoza for example of either end.

The universe must necessarily have never had a beginning in the quality it has named time, this is regardless of whether or not God created it. Even if God created the universe, time woulds still be a property of it, and even being created all at once, time within it would stretch for eternity in either direction.

>The universe is just a very large physical system.

this is a bad definition.

>All physical things are subject to causes

how do you know this?

Why do you arbitrarily ignore the empirical evidence for it and go for the implausible proposition that there's just some physical thing out there that can't be causes? It goes against all the knowledge of science and human reason.

Nonsense, it decays because it's an unstable isotope, we are simply unaware of the physical properties of that isotope which lead to its decay.

No, they are caused by the initial expansion of the universe and the solidification of the laws of physics at a minimum.

Actually, all physical objects are self-causing. Substance is that which exists in and is conceived through itself. It's self caused because it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence, nor does its nature depend on anything else to constitute the idea of it.

the definition of 'physical' kind of breaks down at that scale, but yes, several phenomena are uncaused. (not the guy you're replying to)

Incorrect. All physical things are the result of the interaction of other physical things. There is no uncaused substance, and one first cause set it all in motion.

Because it has proven itself to be a sound principle throughout the history of the scientific method. And because rejecting it enables you to draw nonsensical conclusions and claim their truth simply because they are impossible to disprove (e.g. flying spaghetti monster).

What are we using 'cause' to mean here? When that guy says radioactive decay is uncaused he means its random whether any particular particle decays. Yes, being an unstable isotope is what "causes" something to decay, nut for any sich particle, there is no immediate cause for it to decay, it just randomly happens or doesn't happen according to an observed probability. When I say vacuum particles are uncaused, I mean nothing in particular in the universe made them appear at that place and time.

>There is no uncaused substance besides the uncaused substance that caused it

are you just pretending to be retarded

>Nonsense, it decays because it's an unstable isotope, we are simply unaware of the physical properties of that isotope which lead to its decay.

what is this, 1920? we know there aren't hidden variables here.

>No, they are caused by the initial expansion of the universe

are you saying the casimir force didn't exist prior to inflation? what makes you say that?

>the solidification of the laws of physics at a minimum.

the laws of physics can't cause anything, they are descriptions of how the universe works, not ontologically independent entities. how do you propose 'the laws of physics' cause things to come into being?

I didn't call it a substance. It's the unmoved mover.

Both radioactive isotopes and vacuum particles exist within the universe, which has the properties physics has discovered (positive and negative particles, relativity, etc.) as a result of seemingly random chance initiated at the expansion. But all of this was caused initially by the first mover, hence both vacuum particles and the decay of radioactive isotopes aren't causeless, as was originally argued.

>all physical things are the result of modifications to a singular self-caused substance, IE. matter
ftfy

>There is no uncaused substance, and one first cause set it all in motion.
contradicting yourself so I don't have to. Thanks user!

>But all of this was caused initially by the first mover, hence both vacuum particles and the decay of radioactive isotopes aren't causeless

ok, so your argument is this

>the universe has to have been caused by a first mover because we have never observed physical phenomena that was uncaused
>someone brings up uncaused physical phenomena
>no, that was caused by the first mover

or am i missing a step here?

That's correct and it's pretty much an unassailable argument, hence why you're about to give up and whine that I'm not accepting your scientific dogma, just like this guy

>unmoved mover.
So you basically make the leap to an original mover just because there is no distinct, clear answer yet?

It's not a leap, it's simply the correct explanation by human reason and observation. Maybe if science ever manages to comprehend the whole of reality (hint: it can't and won't because it can't comprehend the First Cause) we will end this debate.

>scientific dogma
All my arguments have been derived from Spinoza, who actually tried to prove the existence of God. It just it turns out they're also quite valid arguments for making the case against the idea of a first cause. Are you retarded?

It's ok OP, this thread has been brigaded by autistic Veeky Forums posters. Veeky Forumsizens are with you.

>it's pretty much an unassailable argument

do you know what an argument is? sure, all tautologies are 'unassailable', but there is no argument here, just a proposition. you haven't proven anything but the logical validity of circular reasoning. you are not saying anything about reality here, just jerking off.

>It's ok OP, this thread has been brigaded by autistic Veeky Forums posters. Veeky Forumsizens are with you.

>i'm an idiot therefore everyone on Veeky Forums must also be

some of us actually read books

>first mover

I tip my bald monkish head to you sir

Hahahaha
No

Aquinas' argument actually doesn't hinge on all physical actions having a definite cause, just some.

Someone needs to bring back the "balding halo" haircut. Aquinas wore it very well.