Another arguement for the First Cuase

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MindOverMatter2

Guest
  1. Change is by definition the actualization of potential states
  2. Out of nothing comes nothing.
  3. Anything which begins to exist cannot be the source of its own reality.
  4. Anything which begins to change cannot be the source of its own change.
  5. Change exists.
  6. The universe by definition is the sum total of all changing things.
  7. Therefore every point in time is contingent in so far as it is the case that no particular point in time is the cause of its own actuality or change.
  8. Thus the universe cannot be the source of its own change because every part of it is an actualization of potentiality in some way shape or form, and therefore none of it can be said to be the sufficient cause of its change.
Conclusion: Therefore there is a timeless reality at the root of all change, because no change can exist without an actual reality as its predetermining basis.

Premise 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, are the main power points driving the conclusion.
 
a bit about 2 and 3…
First 2, is that true even for God? God can not create something from nothing? If not, then all material that exists has existed timelessly
and related to 3… nothing can “begin to exist” if 2 is absolutely true. everything always existed at the material level.

Back to 2… if you take the other path and say. “God can create something from nothing” , doesnt that render statement 1 meaningless? … because any state can be actualized, all states are potential.

I realise that attempting to prove a first cause is actually attempting to prove God exists… at least it looks that way… but that proof is not possible with Logic…

Proof that God exists is available though… the same way I prove I exist… through subjective experience.
You only need one experience with God and the matter is settled.
And you only need to ask for the experience.

stephen
stephen
 
scm said:
a bit about 2 and 3…
First 2, is that true even for God? God can not create something from nothing? If not, then all material that exists has existed timelessly
and related to 3… nothing can “begin to exist” if 2 is absolutely true. everything always existed at the material level.

Back to 2… if you take the other path and say. “God can create something from nothing” , doesnt that render statement 1 meaningless? … because any state can be actualized, all states are potential.

I realise that attempting to prove a first cause is actually attempting to prove God exists… at least it looks that way… but that proof is not possible with Logic…

Proof that God exists is available though… the same way I prove I exist… through subjective experience.
You only need one experience with God and the matter is settled.
And you only need to ask for the experience.

stephen
stephen
Click to expand...
I think he’s trying to prove that without an external agent able to put in motion potentiality to actuality, potentiality will remain forever potential. To logical account for the existence of motion is to account that the first move was moved by an outside mover, for self-motion is not intrinsic in potential things.
 
scm said:
a bit about 2 and 3…
First 2, is that true even for God? God can not create something from nothing?
Click to expand...
No, he cannot create the act of reality out of nothing. But God does not need to create reality out of nothing. God is the act of reality.
scm said:
If not, then all material that exists has existed timelessly
Click to expand...
Evidently this is not true, since things that were only potential have become actual in reality. Change is the actualization of potentiality
scm said:
and related to 3… nothing can “begin to exist” if 2 is absolutely true. everything always existed at the material level.
Click to expand...
No, if 2 is absolutely true, then anything which becomes real cannot be said to be real on the basis of its own nature, but rather it is real because something else is giving or sharing reality with it; instead of making a new reality. This is to say that the act of your reality is God, and the essence of your reality is you. This is the esse and essence distinction.
scm said:
Back to 2… if you take the other path and say. “God can create something from nothing” , doesnt that render statement 1 meaningless? … because any state can be actualized, all states are potential.
Click to expand...
Luckily i don’t have to say that God creates the act of reality, i only have to point out the error of thinking that a potential being becomes its own reality. Then i can point out the fact that God creates the essences of things which he makes actual through his own act of reality; because no matter what it is still both true that some things begin to exist and that out of nothing comes nothing. Therefore there has to be an ultimate reality in which potential things can participate and have their reality.
scm said:
I realize that attempting to prove a first cause is actually attempting to prove God exists… at least it looks that way… but that proof is not possible with Logic…
Click to expand...
It is possible.
scm said:
Proof that God exists is available though… the same way I prove I exist… through subjective experience.
You only need one experience with God and the matter is settled.
And you only need to ask for the experience.
Click to expand...
Thats not true for everybody, and what you have said is not a catholic idea. Its a fact of Catholic doctrine that it is possible to know the existence God through reason alone. If you disprove that, you have also disproved the Catholic faith.
 
I think God is a thing which ‘changes’ by your definition and therefore, by (6) is a member of the universe. But, then there is some timeless thing apart from God which is the root of his change.
 
Perplexity said:
I think God is a thing which ‘changes’ by your definition and therefore, by (6) is a member of the universe. But, then there is some timeless thing apart from God which is the root of his change.
Click to expand...
Thats nice. Can you smoke that outside please.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Thats not true for everybody, and what you have said is not a catholic idea. Its a fact of Catholic doctrine that it is possible to know the existence God through reason alone. If you disprove that, you have also disproved the Catholic faith.

“That is not true for everybody,” – I am going to assume you mean that you are saying it is not true that everybody can have a subjective experience of God. I just disagree with that.

I also have a problem with the rest here… It may be Catholic doctrine… (is that documented somewhere? I understand that Thomas Aquinas said reason alone can prove the existence of God) But to say if it can be disproven (that the proof is possible) the entirety of Catholic faith falls apart – makes the faith sound like a house of cards. And I do not believe that.
Are you saying Catholic doctrine never changed? It was always fully formed as it is now?

Stephen
Click to expand...
 
Perplexity said:
I agree it’s silly/crazy. Because I can deduce this from your argument, I’ve reduced it to absurdity. (I.e., my objection is by definition a reductio ad absurdum)
Click to expand...
You have done nothing of the sort. Are you sure there wasn’t any weed in that Cigarette? Skunk has been known to cause hallucination.:rolleyes:
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
You have done nothing of the sort. Are you sure there wasn’t any weed in that Cigarette? Skunk has been known to cause hallucination.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Ah…I see. Well, I don’t need to justify what I’ve said, anyone who’s taken a logic 101 course knows what I’m talking about. Interesting argument though.
 
Perplexity said:
Ah…I see. Well, I don’t need to justify what I’ve said, anyone who’s taken a logic 101 course knows what I’m talking about. Interesting argument though.
Click to expand...
You have a false sense of grandeur. You have not demonstrated why my argument is false. You have simply asserted that it is and then claimed without evidence that anyone who has taken a 101 logic course knows your right. However there are plenty which i am sure are better skilled at logic than you that would agree with my argument and the 5 ways of Aquinas which you believe to be false. So i don’t see the relevance of making that assertion. You are just telling me what you would like to be true.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
  1. Change is by definition the actualization of potential states
  2. etc, etc
    .
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you protest too much. God IS. therefore Creation IS. Our perception of “time” is known to be illusory, so arguments including a change from “nothing” to “something” are futile. There is no cause for IS as it is a condition, NOT a result. There is no reason or necessity for a “First Cause” as God and what IS are causeless and just AM. as in the declaration to Moses.
 
Whadyamean said:
It seems to me that you protest too much. God IS. therefore Creation IS. Our perception of “time” is known to be illusory,
Click to expand...
Its not known to be illusory, its know to be relative. There is a difference
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
You have a false sense of grandeur. You have not demonstrated why my argument is false. You have simply asserted that it is and then claimed without evidence that anyone who has taken a 101 logic course knows your right. However there are plenty which i am sure are better skilled at logic than you that would agree with my argument and the 5 ways of Aquinas which you believe to be false. So i don’t see the relevance of making that assertion. You are just telling me what you would like to be true.
Click to expand...
It’s not about grandeur, just knowledge. Nothing to be proud about. -shrug-

Your argument can’t be false. It can be invalid, and it is. But, no matter.

Since God’s potential state to create was actualized (as any theist will say), God changed “by definition” (there are other examples if this one isn’t suitable). You couldn’t disagree with this on the basis of your argument either; because, your argument (as currently stated) specifies nothing which could resist my point here. So, you could only avoid this by introducing new distinctions. (even then, I don’t think you could)

(6) informs us that if anything is a thing that changes, then it is a member of the sum of all changing things: the universe. Since God is a thing which changes, apparently, he’s a member of the universe.

In (8) you say “none of it can be said to be the sufficient cause of its change.” which is another way of saying ‘no member of the universe is the sufficient cause of the universe’s change.’ Since God is a member of the universe, (8) informs us that he’s not the sufficient cause of the relevant change.

At this point we’re not warranted by your premises in concluding that there is or must be such a sufficient cause. You’ve not proffered any causal principle which compels us to do so. Your causal principle actually pops up in the conclusion: “no change can exist without an actual reality as its predetermining basis”. But, let’s just assume it was in a premise.

Then there must be an actual reality as God’s predetermining basis. etc. there are all sorts of absurd conclusions we could deduce here.
 
And actually, I’m not sure it’s meaningful to speak of the sum of all changing things as changing (i.e., your talk of a sufficient cause of the universe’s change); because, then it’d have to be a member of itself.
 
I don’t recall you ever saying it. As I said, theists would say it. That is, you’re committed to it.

Since you believe God’s act of creation is actual, if that act isn’t an actualized potential then creation exists of necessity. That is, God couldn’t have chosen to refrain from creating. There are many reasons to disbelieve such a position; but, since you already do I don’t feel like we need to get into it. (Thomist’s agree that God had this potency, they distinguish between passive and active potency though. That’s not relevant here though)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top