Atheist questions

[wbarquez]

If an actual infinite cannot exist, does it follow that God cannot exist? If nothing can only come from nothing, does it follow that there is no such a thing as a God that can create out of nothing? Is the First Cause argument for the existence of God begging the question?

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Isn’t there an atheism topic ban in place right now? Sorry to burst your bubble, I really do like debates with atheists, but shrug

God bless!

 

[wbarquez]

Thanks for the thought.

 

[Apollos]

Isn’t there an atheism topic ban in place right now?

This isn’t an atheism thread, this is a Thomism thread.

 

[Apollos]

An actual *contingent *infinite can’t exist. God is infinite, but, as you can imagine, the sense of the word infinite as it applies to him is not the usual sense we assume. And he is also in act, so you’re right, he is an actual infinite. But he is not contingent. Contingent things require causes, as you know, and God lacks a cause.

Nothing comes from nothing on its own, so there is still room for a God to make something out of nothing.

The first-cause argument isn’t circular. Its starting point is the fact that effects exist, and its ending point is that a cause exists.

 

[tonyrey]

Two "if"s leave us none the wiser!

 

[rossum]

The first-cause argument isn’t circular. Its starting point is the fact that effects exist, and its ending point is that a cause exists.

The First Cause also requires the existence of time. Without time it is impossible to tell whether it is the first, second third or 156th cause. You need time to put the causes in the correct order.

The point about an effect is a good one. Any cause requires an effect in order that it be a cause. A cause which has nor got any effect is a non-cause. A parent cannot be a parent without children. A creator cannot be a creator without having created something.

A First Cause requires time in order to be first and an effect in order to be a cause. It cannot stand alone.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

The First Cause also requires the existence of time. Without time it is impossible to tell whether it is the first, second third or 156th cause. You need time to put the causes in the correct order.

The point about an effect is a good one. Any cause requires an effect in order that it be a cause. A cause which has nor got any effect is a non-cause. A parent cannot be a parent without children. A creator cannot be a creator without having created something.

A First Cause requires time in order to be first and an effect in order to be a cause. It cannot stand alone.

rossum

The First Cause is not bound by human categories. Time is created with matter and cannot be used as a condition of Creation! The chain of causality itself requires explanation in terms of a higher Factor.

 

[rossum]

The First Cause is not bound by human categories.

Then we cannot talk about it at all, since words are human categories. “First” is a human category. “Cause” is a human category. All words, including the words of scripture, are human categories. Unless you have something other than human categories on which to base your argument then we cannot discuss anything at all.

Time is created with matter and cannot be used as a condition of Creation!

How can you tell the creator from the created without time? If there is no time then you are unable to tell which came before the other, or else they were simultaneous.

If time was created with matter then there was no time when matter did not exist, so matter is coextensive with time and hence is effectively eternal.

The chain of causality itself requires explanation in terms of a higher Factor.

Causality requires both cause and effect. If there is no cause then there is no causation. If there is no effect then there is no causation. Just as God cannot make a square circle because it is logically impossible so He cannot make causality without both cause and effect. In order to distinguish between cause and effect we need time to determine which was prior to the other.

Causation is a human category and the human category of causation requires three things: a cause, an effect and time. If what God did is not causation then we need a new category, florgleburtz which cannot be defined in mere human words. I for one do not find florgleburtz useful because it cannot be defined.

rossum

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

This isn’t an atheism thread, this is a Thomism thread.

I stand corrected then

God bless!

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Then we cannot talk about it at all, since words are human categories. “First” is a human category. “Cause” is a human category. All words, including the words of scripture, are human categories. Unless you have something other than human categories on which to base your argument then we cannot discuss anything at all.

The First Cause can be talked about up to the limits of human understanding and categories. We know God is the First Cause because that concept can be contemplated by human reason. But beyond that is of course beyond human reasoning, so we have to end there.

How can you tell the creator from the created without time? If there is no time then you are unable to tell which came before the other, or else they were simultaneous.

If time was created with matter then there was no time when matter did not exist, so matter is coextensive with time and hence is effectively eternal.

I see what you mean, rossum

Causality requires both cause and effect. If there is no cause then there is no causation. If there is no effect then there is no causation. Just as God cannot make a square circle because it is logically impossible so He cannot make causality without both cause and effect. In order to distinguish between cause and effect we need time to determine which was prior to the other.

Causation is a human category and the human category of causation requires three things: a cause, an effect and time. If what God did is not causation then we need a new category, florgleburtz which cannot be defined in mere human words. I for one do not find florgleburtz useful because it cannot be defined.

rossum

So God also made movement. That’s why He is also called the First Mover.

God bless!

 

[DPMartin]

The First Cause also requires the existence of time. Without time it is impossible to tell whether it is the first, second third or 156th cause. You need time to put the causes in the correct order.

The point about an effect is a good one. Any cause requires an effect in order that it be a cause. A cause which has nor got any effect is a non-cause. A parent cannot be a parent without children. A creator cannot be a creator without having created something.

A First Cause requires time in order to be first and an effect in order to be a cause. It cannot stand alone.

rossum

rossum

The concept of cause and effect doesn’t apply in the understanding of the Eternal Living God. Cause and effect is an observation of man’s view, with in the creation.

God speaks and His Word goes out and returns unto Him and that which is fulfilled according to His satisfaction He declares as Good. Therefore He awaits for it to return unto Him. And we all know that God never moves, so in respect to that everything must return to where He is. And what He sees and declares as good is permitted to remain in His Presence. Hence His Commandments Fulfilled.

Consider all men are destined to be judged by God, in the Presence of God. Therefore He is were we are to be. Isn’t Jesus the same yesterday today and forever? In creation God speaks then it is fulfilled and then it is in His Presence where He sees that it is good, then the scripture says the evening and the morning were the first day, or the second so on and so forth.

Hence God’s revelation of His Word to His creation reveals how to be in His Presence, in the Fulfillment of His Commandments.

 

[The_Exodus]

Then we cannot talk about it at all, since words are human categories. “First” is a human category. “Cause” is a human category. All words, including the words of scripture, are human categories. Unless you have something other than human categories on which to base your argument then we cannot discuss anything at all.

We can talk about the first cause using human categories. Nevertheless, these categories do not exhaust what is being described.

rossum:

How can you tell the creator from the created without time? If there is no time then you are unable to tell which came before the other, or else they were simultaneous.

This is a good question. The answer is that the first cause is logically – not temporally – prior to the creation. This is because creation itself includes time, the very concept you’re applying to the first cause. But time involves change (indeed, what is it but the phenomena of change?) The first cause created time simultaneously with matter, space, etc. That is the argument. But logically speaking, it is prior (just like an eternal foot in the sand is always the cause of a footprint.)

rossum:

If time was created with matter then there was no time when matter did not exist, so matter is coextensive with time and hence is effectively eternal.

Correct.

rossum:

Causality requires both cause and effect. If there is no cause then there is no causation. If there is no effect then there is no causation. Just as God cannot make a square circle because it is logically impossible so He cannot make causality without both cause and effect. In order to distinguish between cause and effect we need time to determine which was prior to the other.

We don’t necessarily need time to determine what is prior to what. The chair you are sitting on right now, in this present moment, logically precedes and is a reason (not the only reason, of course) or your sitting. “Daytime” is logically preceded by the sun’s rays, which illuminate the sky.

 

[rossum]

So God also made movement. That’s why He is also called the First Mover.

My comments about “First” requiring the presence of time also apply to the “First Mover”. In this case space is also required since movement is defined as a change of position within space. Without space there can be no movement. There is nowhere to move from and nowhere to move to. Movement also requires something that is moving, so at least one moving thing must exist as well. There can be no movement in an empty space.

God of course cannot move. He is omnipresent so He can never leave the starting point and He is already at the finishing point. He cannot change position within space. Hence a Prime Mover also requires time, space and something that can move, which something cannot be God. This is more required overhead than a First Cause.

rossum

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

My comments about “First” requiring the presence of time also apply to the “First Mover”. In this case space is also required since movement is defined as a change of position within space. Without space there can be no movement. There is nowhere to move from and nowhere to move to. Movement also requires something that is moving, so at least one moving thing must exist as well. There can be no movement in an empty space.

That’s why He is also the First Cause: the first cause of all matter, space, and time.

God of course cannot move. He is omnipresent so He can never leave the starting point and He is already at the finishing point. He cannot change position within space. Hence a Prime Mover also requires time, space and something that can move, which something cannot be God. This is more required overhead than a First Cause.

rossum

Again, He is the First Cause. With space, time, energy and matter created, the first movement can be made.

Think holistically.

God bless!

 

[rossum]

The concept of cause and effect doesn’t apply in the understanding of the Eternal Living God. Cause and effect is an observation of man’s view, with in the creation.

So, you are saying that the argument from First Cause is false and is of no use in establishing the existence of God? I am sure that a large number of Catholic theologians as well as Thomist philosophers will be interested to know this.

Consider all men are destined to be judged by God, in the Presence of God.

Look at the top right of my posts. I am Buddhist. All living things: animals, men and gods are destined to suffer the results of their actions. There is no Judgement in Buddhism, just the results of actions. If you want me to accept Christian doctrine then you are going to have to convince me of Christian doctrine first.

Isn’t Jesus the same yesterday today and forever?

No. Jesus changed, and He is required to have changed as the very basis of Christian doctrine. He changed from alive to dead. Then He changed again from dead to alive. It says so in the Creed. If He didn’t change then all Christian hope in the Resurrection is false because the Resurrection requires Jesus to change.

rossum

 

[rossum]

This is a good question. The answer is that the first cause is logically – not temporally – prior to the creation. This is because creation itself includes time, the very concept you’re applying to the first cause. But time involves change (indeed, what is it but the phenomena of change?) The first cause created time simultaneously with matter, space, etc. That is the argument. But logically speaking, it is prior (just like an eternal foot in the sand is always the cause of a footprint.)

How can you have change without time? The change from no-creation to creation requires time. If there was no time when there was no creation then creation is eternal – there is no time when creation did not exist. Logically no creator/cause is required for an eternal creation. Occam’s Razor neatly removes the creator if time and creation are simultaneous.

We don’t necessarily need time to determine what is prior to what. The chair you are sitting on right now, in this present moment, logically precedes and is a reason (not the only reason, of course) or your sitting.

The chair I am sitting on right now is not the chair I was sitting on one second ago. It is one second older, it is very slightly more worn, it is very slightly more dusty etc. To paraphrase Heraclitus, ‘You can never sit in the same chair twice.’ Of course, neither is it the same me that was sitting one second ago, I too have changed.

Both the chair and myself are simultaneous; neither precedes the other. I cannot say which was prior since both are transient, changing things. Using Heraclitus again, ‘You can never step in the same river twice becaue it is not the same river and it is not the same you.’ You and the river can only ever be simultaneous because both you and the river are only present instantaneously. By the next instant both have changed.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

                                                                  [

](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7388819#post7388819)

The First Cause is not bound by human categories.

Although the First Cause is not bound by human categories it does not follow that they are entirely useless. It simply means that we should be aware of their limitations.

Time is created with matter and cannot be used as a condition of Creation!

How can you tell the creator from the created without time? If there is no time then you are unable to tell which came before the other, or else they were simultaneous.

Time had a beginning and we know Creation must have occurred at that moment. It is illogical to believe the Creator and the created came into existence simultaneously because then you might as well believe the created appeared without a Creator! Does that strike you as credible?

If time was created with matter then there was no time when matter did not exist, so matter is coextensive with time and hence is effectively eternal.

“No time” cannot produce eternity! All it can produce is nothing! In science space, time, energy and matter are related to one another and there is still no consensus among scientists as to whether the universe is eternal…

The chain of causality itself requires explanation in terms of a higher Factor.

Causality requires both cause and effect. If there is no cause then there is no causation. If there is no effect then there is no causation. Just as God cannot make a square circle because it is logically impossible so He cannot make causality without both cause and effect. In order to distinguish between cause and effect we need time to determine which was prior to the other.

That is a physicalist assumption. Teleological explanation entails final causality: the means is determined by the end. Is the chronological sequence of physical events is not a full explanation of reality in Buddhism?

Causation is a human category and the human category of causation requires three things: a cause, an effect and time. If what God did is not causation then we need a new category, florgleburtz which cannot be defined in mere human words. I for one do not find florgleburtz useful because it cannot be defined.

If you are a Buddhist you must believe that concept of causation is inadequate because it omits the spiritual aspect of existence.

 

[JDaniel]

If an actual infinite cannot exist, does it follow that God cannot exist? If nothing can only come from nothing, does it follow that there is no such a thing as a God that can create out of nothing? Is the First Cause argument for the existence of God begging the question?

Welcome to CAF, Wb!

If what we understood to be God, defined him as matter, yes. But, God has never been defined as matter - even from the earliest times. An actual infinity of physical magnitude is impossible. Neither can a numerical infinite magnitude actually exist. Both can approach infinity, but, can never achieve it, as extent actualities.

God is a non-physical reality. As such, he can be infinite in magnitude, as he has always been understood to be. (Infinity was not understood, unless someone can show me I’m wrong, by prehistoric men (or women)). (But, I’ll bet that the determinant of infinitude was drawn from Revelation even before any anticipation of today’s debate.)

Only a non-physical infinitude is possible. Now, our universe, as big as it is, is no doubt a huge, but finite, physical thing. Since a finite thing - no matter its size - cannot create another finite thing, it follows that only an infinite thing can do so. Only what is greater in perfection can create that which is lesser in perfection. The universe was created. It was not merely caused. Otherwise, the stuff of its causation would have to have preceded it, and/or existed contemporaneously with it (at least for a while).

We see no evidence of any contemporaneous causal agency, or, exigency. In our scientific look-back, we are led to conclude that the enormous matter and energy of the universe had a beginning. In fact, the more NASA studies red-shift data, the more it is convinced of this.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060508112217.htm

God bless,
jd

 

[rossum]

Although the First Cause is not bound by human categories it does not follow that they are entirely useless. It simply means that we should be aware of their limitations.

Agreed, but it does make it difficult to distinguish correct logic from incorrect logic. That weakens the force of any logical argument on the subject.

Time had a beginning and we know Creation must have occurred at that moment. It is illogical to believe the Creator and the created came into existence simultaneously because then you might as well believe the created appeared without a Creator! Does that strike you as credible?

My point is that without time you cannot tell which one came first, you have no way to measure. You cannot tell if A caused B or if B caused A because without time you are unable to say whether A or B came first. Indeed “first” has no meaning without a time against which to measure.

There is also the point that it is incorrect to describe an entity as “creator” if nothing has actually been created. Just as we cannot have a parent with no children so we cannot have a creator who has created nothing. A creator without a creation is a logical impossibility.

The created cannot appear without a creator but conversely the creator cannot be a creator without the created also existing. The two are mutually dependent; neither can exist without the other. A child cannot exist without parents and parents cannot be parents without there being a child.

“No time” cannot produce eternity! All it can produce is nothing! In science space, time, energy and matter are related to one another and there is still no consensus among scientists as to whether the universe is eternal…

Starting from time 0 and progressing forward you cannot show me a time when matter did not exist. I am not saying that time caused matter, I am saying that if matter has existed for all of time then it is legitimate to describe matter as eternal. There is no time when matter did not exist.

That is a physicalist assumption. Teleological explanation entails final causality: the means is determined by the end. Is the chronological sequence of physical events is not a full explanation of reality in Buddhism?

Buddhism emphasises change and interrelation. Parents imply children; children imply parents. Neither can exist separately. Similarly with cause and effect. A cause must have an effect, otherwise it is not a cause. An effect must have a cause, otherwise it is not an effect. Reality is analysed as a complex web of mutually conditioning processes. Final causes seem to be popular with the Abrahamic religions. They are seen as irrelevant and logically suspect in Buddhism. The Buddhist analysis of reality emphasises change above stasis. Final causes are usually seen as static and thus not of any use in Buddhist analysis.

If you are a Buddhist you must believe that concept of causation is inadequate because it omits the spiritual aspect of existence.

Your analysis of what I think is incorrect. Christianity makes a big separation between the material and the spiritual. Buddhism does not. All men may be reborn as gods. All gods may be reborn as men. Both men and gods are subject to the same moral law of karma. There is far less difference between men and gods in Buddhism than there is in Christianity. A man can become a fully enlightened Buddha which puts him far above any unenlightened god.

There are issues with causation, as pointed out by Nagarjuna. The problems are not with causation itself but with the human tendency to reify things which causes problems. A reified causation is not possible because it does not allow for any change.

It is impossible for something that either exists
or that does not exist to have a cause.
If it were non-existent, of what would they be the cause?
If it exists, why would it need a cause?

– Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 1:6

rossum