Are 'cause' & 'effect' interdependent on each other?

[Ben_Sinner]

An argument made against the First Cause is that a cause is just as dependent on the effect as the effect is on the cause…since the two are dependent on each other, there can’t be a stand alone ‘Cause’ that is completely self sufficient and independent of everything.

A cause is not a cause until it produces an effect. So the cause needs the effect in order to become a cause. Without the effect, the cause wouldn’t exist. The same applies for the opposite.

How can we show that an effect is dependent on the cause only? (especially when it comes to the First Cause)?

 

[ynotzap]

An argument made against the First Cause is that a cause is just as dependent on the effect as the effect is on the cause…since the two are dependent on each other, there can’t be a stand alone ‘Cause’ that is completely self sufficient and independent of everything.

A cause is not a cause until it produces an effect. So the cause needs the effect in order to become a cause. Without the effect, the cause wouldn’t exist. The same applies for the opposite.

How can we show that an effect is dependent on the cause only? (especially when it comes to the First Cause)?

God is known as the Uncaused Cause independent of any effect because His nature is Existence Creation does not have existence for its nature, is dependent on the Uncaused Cause. In creation we have cause and effect, act and potency. In God we have Pure Act needing no cause to come into being. We have a beginning. By the cosmological argument, by right reasoning, we can come to know the existence of God. We do this by reasoning from cause to effect, and effect to cause. One is called the apriori argument, and from effect to cause is called the aposteriori argument

 

[Bradski]

An argument made against the First Cause is that a cause is just as dependent on the effect as the effect is on the cause…since the two are dependent on each other, there can’t be a stand alone ‘Cause’ that is completely self sufficient and independent of everything.

A cause is not a cause until it produces an effect. So the cause needs the effect in order to become a cause. Without the effect, the cause wouldn’t exist. The same applies for the opposite.

How can we show that an effect is dependent on the cause only? (especially when it comes to the First Cause)?

Cause precedes effect. That is, the effect occurs later in time. If time does not exist (or if time is part of the effect), then the first sentence makes no sense.

And something from quantum mechanics:

The EPR Paradox was only a theoretical objection to quantum mechanics, until 1972 where actual experiments could be made to test this. (This was based on something called Bell’s theorem, which is really cool by the way, and they used photons instead of electrons.)

The results show quite clearly that we do have the situation described by the EPR Paradox. Thus, quantum mechanics can lead to situations where cause and effect are reversed – or rather, it becomes impossible to talk about causes and effects. The experiments have been repeated many times, always with the same result.

quora.com/What-does-quantum-physics-say-about-the-link-between-cause-and-effect

 

[Vonsalza]

How can we show that an effect is dependent on the cause only? (especially when it comes to the First Cause)?

Maybe you’d like to read up on the emergent theories of the pre-big-bang universe currently being tossed around, if that’s really what you want to know.

The only example I can think of off-the-bat of cause and effect blending would be when someone is trying to achieve a reasonably predictable effect. Even still, the effect didn’t cause itself. It was just foreseeable.

 

[abucs]

I think quantum mechanics shows that reality is non local although it appears to us that the cause directly creates the effect.

That’s the way our brains work too as we are creations of our own environment and are stuck in thinking in a cause and effect way although we ‘know’ the underlying reality is not necessarily based on the same rules. It is very difficult to accept a different reality .

Again it looks like we are in a bubble world with special laws where cause precedes effect and the 64 million dollar question is why?

We can theorise a different set of rules but we can’t really understand it because we live in a different bubble and have ‘little’ direct and understood experience of the actual greater reality.

 

[ynotzap]

How can a cause be dependent on an effect when cause exists to produce an effect that yet does not exist? This does not happen until the cause is moved to act. It is impossible for the cause to be dependent on an effect that yet does not exist, and even if it did exist, it didn’t exist before the cause in time (change, potency and act). In our objective world, the cause did not move itself to bring about the effect, but was moved by another already in motion. Therefore the cause is ultimately dependent on the other to produce an effect.

 

[Vonsalza]

I think quantum mechanics shows that reality is non local although it appears to us that the cause directly creates the effect.

There is currently a gap between the Newtonian universe and the Quantum universe, each with their own “rules”.

String theory is being refined into M-theory to bridge the gap, but it’s not finished yet.

 

[STT]

There is currently a gap between the Newtonian universe and the Quantum universe, each with their own “rules”.

String theory is being refined into M-theory to bridge the gap, but it’s not finished yet.

M-theory is a attempt to quantize the gravity.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

An argument made against the First Cause is that a cause is just as dependent on the effect as the effect is on the cause…since the two are dependent on each other, there can’t be a stand alone ‘Cause’ that is completely self sufficient and independent of everything.

A cause is not a cause until it produces an effect. So the cause needs the effect in order to become a cause. Without the effect, the cause wouldn’t exist. The same applies for the opposite.

How can we show that an effect is dependent on the cause only? (especially when it comes to the First Cause)?

Would you say that in order for me to be a father I need to have a child, and if I don’t have a child, then I don’t exist?

 

[rossum]

Would you say that in order for me to be a father I need to have a child, and if I don’t have a child, then I don’t exist?

You exist, but the description “father” is incorrect. Possibly “father-to-be” or “potential father” would be correct, but not “father”.

Similarly, 20 billion years ago, God was not “creator of the universe” because there was no universe at that time. He only became creator of the universe when he actually created the universe, not before.

Cause and effect are interdependent. A cause requires an effect for it to be a cause (as opposed to a non-cause) and the effect requires a cause to be an effect. The two designations are mutually dependent.

rossum

 

[EnosJadon]

Would you say that in order for me to be a father I need to have a child, and if I don’t have a child, then I don’t exist?

But you’re not a father until you have a child. The two things occur simultaneously.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

You exist, but the description “father” is incorrect. Possibly “father-to-be” or “potential father” would be correct, but not “father”.

Similarly, 20 billion years ago, God was not “creator of the universe” because there was no universe at that time. He only became creator of the universe when he actually created the universe, not before.

Cause and effect are interdependent. A cause requires an effect for it to be a cause (as opposed to a non-cause) and the effect requires a cause to be an effect. The two designations are mutually dependent.

rossum

So, my “being a father” is always said in reference to my child’s “being a son”; but “my being” did never depend on my child’s being. On the contrary, my child’s “being a son” is always said in reference to my “being a father”, and his “being” depended on me once. Similarly with God and the Universe: God’s Being does not depend on the Universe, though obviously we call Him Creator always in reference to His creation. On the contrary, the being of the Universe depends on the Being of its Creator, and -naturally-, it’s “being a creature” is always said in reference to its Creator.

 

[rossum]

So, my “being a father” is always said in reference to my child’s “being a son”; but “my being” did never depend on my child’s being.

No. There are many being that are not fathers. Mothers for example.

On the contrary, my child’s “being a son” is always said in reference to my “being a father”, and his “being” depended on me once.

Just as your being depended on your mother and father once. You are a son as well as a (potential) father.

Similarly with God and the Universe: God’s Being does not depend on the Universe, though obviously we call Him Creator always in reference to His creation.

Yes. God’s being depends on whatever the relevant causes were. His designation as “creator” is dependent on the existence of something created.

rossum

 

[ynotzap]

You exist, but the description “father” is incorrect. Possibly “father-to-be” or “potential father” would be correct, but not “father”.

Agreed

Rossum:

Similarly, 20 billion years ago, God was not “creator of the universe” because there was no universe at that time. He only became creator of the universe when he actually created the universe, not before.

You are making God subject to time and change by saying “…He became Creator when…” by saying “…became” then God would not be Pure Act, but Potency and Act. God is the Uncaused Cause and does not dependent on any effect He creates to become a Creator, He is His Attributes, and never changes because He is Pure Being

Rossum:

Cause and effect are interdependent. A cause requires an effect for it to be a cause (as opposed to a non-cause) and the effect requires a cause to be an effect. The two designations are mutually dependent.

rossum

Since cause and effect are subject to time, cause has being and exist first without dependence on the effect to exist, the cause has the potential to produce an effect when it is moved to act, an effect is the fulfilling of one of the potential state of the cause in time

 

[rossum]

You are making God subject to time and change by saying “…He became Creator when…” by saying “…became” then God would not be Pure Act, but Potency and Act. God is the Uncaused Cause and does not dependent on any effect He creates to become a Creator, He is His Attributes, and never changes because He is Pure Being

Of course God changes. If God did not change then the Bible would be a very boring book:

On the first day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the second day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the third day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the fourth day…

That is an unchanging God, and that is not the God of the Bible. If God does not change and God made the universe, then the universe is as old as God because God cannot change from “I will make the universe” to “I am making the universe” to “I have made the universe”. Any act of creation/causation requires change.

Since cause and effect are subject to time, cause has being and exist first without dependence on the effect to exist, the cause has the potential to produce an effect when it is moved to act, an effect is the fulfilling of one of the potential state of the cause in time

A two-year-old boy cannot be a father. I agree that he can be a potential father, but that is only potential. The potential may or may not be fulfilled. A potential X is not a real X. You are correct about the dependence of cause/effect on time. In the absence of time it is not possible to determine “before” from “after” and hence not possible to separate cause from effect.

In terms of the universe, a potential universe is not a real universe, and the shift from potential to real is a change. Since there is a change, then your assertion of an unchanging cause is not sustainable. At the very least there is an internal change within the cause that switches it from the ‘currently inactive’ state to the ‘currently active’ state. The Jewish Kabbalah’s Tree of Life is an attempt to reconcile an unchanging God with a time-based creation. I do not find it a satisfactory solution.

rossum

 

[fhansen]

You exist, but the description “father” is incorrect. Possibly “father-to-be” or “potential father” would be correct, but not “father”.

Similarly, 20 billion years ago, God was not “creator of the universe” because there was no universe at that time. He only became creator of the universe when he actually created the universe, not before.

Cause and effect are interdependent. A cause requires an effect for it to be a cause (as opposed to a non-cause) and the effect requires a cause to be an effect. The two designations are mutually dependent.

rossum

But the causer nonetheless had to exist prior to the effect

 

[rossum]

But the causer nonetheless had to exist prior to the effect

Both the entity-which-will-be-the-causer (though not yet an actual causer) has to exist, as does time. If time does not exist then “prior” and its synonyms are meaningless.

A father-to-be exists before the father. That entity cannot be a father until the child exists.

rossum

 

[Ben_Sinner]

Anyone have a response to rossum’s comments?

 

[Wesrock]

Cause precedes effect. That is, the effect occurs later in time. If time does not exist (or if time is part of the effect), then the first sentence makes no sense.

And something from quantum mechanics:

The EPR Paradox was only a theoretical objection to quantum mechanics, until 1972 where actual experiments could be made to test this. (This was based on something called Bell’s theorem, which is really cool by the way, and they used photons instead of electrons.)

The results show quite clearly that we do have the situation described by the EPR Paradox. Thus, quantum mechanics can lead to situations where cause and effect are reversed – or rather, it becomes impossible to talk about causes and effects. The experiments have been repeated many times, always with the same result.

quora.com/What-does-quantum-physics-say-about-the-link-between-cause-and-effect

I reviewed the Wikipedia entry on the EPR paradox, and that article advises that the underlying behavior does not violate local causality as it does not allow information to be transmitted faster-than-light. Granted, I’ve not got a masters degree in the subject, but it seems there’s so far been no demonstration of causality being violated.

I am interested in what you said here: “Cause precedes effect. That is, the effect occurs later in time.” Do you have some examples of what you mean?

 

[Wesrock]

You exist, but the description “father” is incorrect. Possibly “father-to-be” or “potential father” would be correct, but not “father”.

Similarly, 20 billion years ago, God was not “creator of the universe” because there was no universe at that time. He only became creator of the universe when he actually created the universe, not before.

Cause and effect are interdependent. A cause requires an effect for it to be a cause (as opposed to a non-cause) and the effect requires a cause to be an effect. The two designations are mutually dependent.

rossum

There wasn’t a “before”, though. At least, Christian theologians going as far back as Saint Augustine, and certainly further, would like to quibble with you on that point.

Of course God changes. If God did not change then the Bible would be a very boring book:

On the first day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the second day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the third day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the fourth day…

That is an unchanging God, and that is not the God of the Bible. If God does not change and God made the universe, then the universe is as old as God because God cannot change from “I will make the universe” to “I am making the universe” to “I have made the universe”. Any act of creation/causation requires change.

God doesn’t change. He is unmoved. He is the same now as He was a thousand years ago, and the same as He will be in a million years. You are quite right that God did not change from “I will make the universe” to “I have made the universe.” That would be absurd.

A two-year-old boy cannot be a father. I agree that he can be a potential father, but that is only potential. The potential may or may not be fulfilled. A potential X is not a real X. You are correct about the dependence of cause/effect on time. In the absence of time it is not possible to determine “before” from “after” and hence not possible to separate cause from effect.

There was no before the universe (or multiverse). Cause and effect are not really separated by time. A window is breaking because a brick is pushing through it. Water is boiling because there is a flame burning under it. I am walking because my legs are moving. The universe is existing because God is creating. When we refer to God being a cause of the universe, we are not referring to some physical movement from God towards matter, but simply an ontological dependence of existing on creating.

In terms of the universe, a potential universe is not a real universe, and the shift from potential to real is a change. Since there is a change, then your assertion of an unchanging cause is not sustainable. At the very least there is an internal change within the cause that switches it from the ‘currently inactive’ state to the ‘currently active’ state. The Jewish Kabbalah’s Tree of Life is an attempt to reconcile an unchanging God with a time-based creation. I do not find it a satisfactory solution.

As there was no duration before, there was no change from nothing to something. There was no “switch”.

Both the entity-which-will-be-the-causer (though not yet an actual causer) has to exist, as does time. If time does not exist then “prior” and its synonyms are meaningless.

A father-to-be exists before the father. That entity cannot be a father until the child exists.

rossum

You’re referring to an accidentally ordered series when we should be looking at an essentially ordered series. As described above, I am walking because my legs are moving. The rock continues to slide on the ground because the stick continues to push it because the hand continues to move the stick.

In creation, there was no prior in terms of time, but that does not make the term meaningless, as we can still use the term prior in terms of dependence. The continuing movement of the hand is prior to the continuing movement of the stick, which is prior to the continuing movement of the rock.