2. Casal Principle (of the Causal Argument)

[SoylentGreen]

The premise of the Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being is put forth as concisely as possible as follows:

All things that we can point to are things that have come into existence from a previous state of non-existence.

That this emergence of existing things out of non-existence is universal seems apparent given that cosmologists have learned that the universe itself has not always existed, but the universe itself has come into existence from a previous state in which it did not exist.

The regress back in time therefore points to an ultimately, most simple state, prior to which nothing that now exists, existed. There was that is, only nothing.

It is not enough however to suggest that this nothing was only nothing, for it is possible to elaborate further with respect to this most simple of states, as follows:

If we cancel out all things that exist, then what we are left with is an ultimately most simple state that we can justifiably call an Absolute state.

We can say this state is Absolute for there are no arbitrary limitations of any kind that we can impose upon our idea of such a state. This Absolute state reaches infinitely beyond any finite idea that we may have of this Absolute sate, and it is therefore entirely unconditional, save for this finite idea that we ourselves may have of this Absolute state.

We cannot then say that we have only one idea of this ultimate, original, first state.

Rather, there are two ideas that we can say are present in the idea that we have of this most simple state, and these are:

A) the idea of the Absolute, as an unconditional, infinite, objective state, and this only, and necessarily in relation to:

B) the finite idea that we possess of A.

We cannot with respect to such an ultimately most simple state say however that our subjective idea, B, exists.

We ourselves have been cancelled out of existence.

But this does not negate A.

A remains, even though all more complex states, including finite states, have been removed out of existence.

All of this is meant then only to convey the only possible understanding we can have of that ultimate original and most simple state from which all more complex states have advanced into being.

What possibility then arises from this simple analysis?

The possibility that arises is that the idea of A presents to us then the idea of a First Cause to B as a finite representation instantiated (that is, brought into being) by A.

A that is, in its Absoluteness, effects a finite representation of itself in B.

B in other words, constitutes the effect of A, and B follows as a necessary determination of A given the Eternal, or Constant state of A.

Furthermore, although we are cancelled out of this equation, we can still form a concept of this most simple state by reflecting on all that might be gathered from this idea that we have of the Absolute; and what we find is that the idea of A cannot be admitted wiithout the idea of B, nor can the idea of B be admitted without A. If we think A we must think B, and if we think B we must think A.

These two pure ideas, or representations are therefore a priori, and necessary.

From this simple reflection on the Absolute we can then advance a Causal Principle, as follows:

The effect, B, can only be considered as a conditional state in relation to A, and as finite, conditional state initiated, that is, caused by A.

As A presents the idea of a constant/infinite state, then it follows that B must be compelled by the constant state of the Absolute to move from its finite frame of reference, or being, back to the Absolute; and given the constant state of A, B must inevitably return to, or obtain to A.

There is here a relation then of the finite to the infinite, and it is the infinite that both initiates B and that provides the constant cause whereby the finite (B) returns to the infinite (A).

This is a most simple determination that can immediately be ascertained with respect to the beginning here proposed, and this premise, while a most simple determination, will be expounded further, and added to as this argument proceeds.

For the sake of this argument, what is understood here is that we are advancing only the simplest of possible determinations. And it remains to be seen what more can be gathered, given such a simple beginning.

The immediate principle that follows from this causal principle, is the principle of divergence. I will put this principle forth in post #3.

 

[Linux]

The premise of the Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being is put forth as concisely as possible as follows:

All things that we can point to are things that have come into existence from a previous state of non-existence.

That this emergence of existing things out of non-existence is universal seems apparent given that cosmologists have learned that the universe itself has not always existed, but the universe itself has come into existence from a previous state in which it did not exist.

The regress back in time therefore points to an ultimately, most simple state, prior to which nothing that now exists, existed. There was that is, only nothing.

It is not enough however to suggest that this nothing was only nothing, for it is possible to elaborate further with respect to this most simple of states, as follows:

If we cancel out all things that exist, then what we are left with is an ultimately most simple state that we can justifiably call an Absolute state.

We can say this state is Absolute for there are no arbitrary limitations of any kind that we can impose upon our idea of such a state. This Absolute state reaches infinitely beyond any finite idea that we may have of this Absolute sate, and it is therefore entirely unconditional, save for this finite idea that we ourselves may have of this Absolute state.

We cannot then say that we have only one idea of this ultimate, original, first state.

Rather, there are two ideas that we can say are present in the idea that we have of this most simple state, and these are:

A) the idea of the Absolute, as an unconditional, infinite, objective state, and this only, and necessarily in relation to:

B) the finite idea that we possess of A.

We cannot with respect to such an ultimately most simple state say however that our subjective idea, B, exists.

We ourselves have been cancelled out of existence.

But this does not negate A.

A remains, even though all more complex states, including finite states, have been removed out of existence.

All of this is meant then only to convey the only possible understanding we can have of that ultimate original and most simple state from which all more complex states have advanced into being.

What possibility then arises from this simple analysis?

The possibility that arises is that the idea of A presents to us then the idea of a First Cause to B as a finite representation instantiated (that is, brought into being) by A.

A that is, in its Absoluteness, effects a finite representation of itself in B.

B in other words, constitutes the effect of A, and B follows as a necessary determination of A given the Eternal, or Constant state of A.

Furthermore, although we are cancelled out of this equation, we can still form a concept of this most simple state by reflecting on all that might be gathered from this idea that we have of the Absolute; and what we find is that the idea of A cannot be admitted wiithout the idea of B, nor can the idea of B be admitted without A. If we think A we must think B, and if we think B we must think A.

These two pure ideas, or representations are therefore a priori, and necessary.

From this simple reflection on the Absolute we can then advance a Causal Principle, as follows:

The effect, B, can only be considered as a conditional state in relation to A, and as finite, conditional state initiated, that is, caused by A.

As A presents the idea of a constant/infinite state, then it follows that B must be compelled by the constant state of the Absolute to move from its finite frame of reference, or being, back to the Absolute; and given the constant state of A, B must inevitably return to, or obtain to A.

There is here a relation then of the finite to the infinite, and it is the infinite that both initiates B and that provides the constant cause whereby the finite (B) returns to the infinite (A).

This is a most simple determination that can immediately be ascertained with respect to the beginning here proposed, and this premise, while a most simple determination, will be expounded further, and added to as this argument proceeds.

For the sake of this argument, what is understood here is that we are advancing only the simplest of possible determinations. And it remains to be seen what more can be gathered, given such a simple beginning.

The immediate principle that follows from this causal principle, is the principle of divergence. I will put this principle forth in post #3.

When you say nothing, do you mean nothing physical, or nothing at all; this is to say non-being? If it is the latter, then it immediately becomes apparent that you are treating nothing as if it was an existing thing by applying words such as “infinite” to it.

Nothing is the absence of all possibility and potential. Possibility and potential is a reflection of the power of existence; that is to say potentiality is a description of what Beings can do or will do and has nothing to do with what nothingness can become. Nothing is purely a comparative negation of potential things in relation to actual things. Nothingness is not a thing or state in and of itself.

 

[SoylentGreen]

When you say nothing, do you mean nothing physical, or nothing act all; this is to say non-being? If it is the latter, then it immediately becomes apparent that you are treating nothing as if it was an existing thing by applying words such as “infinite” to it.

Nothing is the absence of all possibility and potential. Possibility and potential is a reflection of the power of existence; that is to say potentiality is a description of what Beings can do or will do and has nothing to do with what nothingness can become. Nothing is purely a comparative negation of potential things in relation to actual things. Nothingness is not a thing or state in and of itself.

I would say I am not presenting a premise by suggesting ‘nothing’ but rather, just the A and B ideas/representations. The premise is a refutation that we can have such a state that we can call ‘nothing.’ There is no such thing as an Absolute absence of Being. If there was a first, original state, from which all else arose, it had within it the capacity for all things to follow from it; and to be formed from it. The principles that follow from this premise account for how this is possible.

I have not brought Kant into the thread, but I am in agreement with him in his insistence that common sense has no place in such cosmological questions. These problems are metaphysical, and lie outside the bounds of what we can know utilizing common sense, what is needed is a more critical analysis of just what is meant by an ultimate, original first state, and here I am willing to dismiss the common sensed definition of nothing. If we apply this common sensed notion of nothing into the explanation conflict naturally arises, and there is no room for further argument of any kind. Some people will simply assert that nothing is nothing, and something cannot be derived from nothing, end of discussion. And they see no problem with this common sensed reasoning, even though we are dealing with a problem that reaches beyond our common sensed definitions for words.

I would ask those who think the premise is somehow analogous to beginning with nothing, to think, and concentrate more deeply on the matter. My own thinking here leaves me with an Absolute state. And this leads to the A and B representations, and the causal principle that follows from these two a priori ideas.

This morning I posted the entire argument, as concisely as possible, in the different threads that cover all four principles.

 

[empther]

This morning I posted the entire argument, as concisely as possible, in the different threads that cover all four principles.

That was the entire argument? :bigyikes:

I thought something would follow part 5, because you didn’t say anything new.
All you ended up saying is that God created the universe.
Yeah, we knew that.

You didn’t prove it in a new, improved way either. For example, the universe is not a force. Your gratuitous suppositions are invalid. Here, I agreed with Linux, something I thought would never happen.