Cause?

[JDaniel]

In a conversation I had with with a member of my family, yesterday, I asked the question, “What existed aft (defined as a qualified “before”) of the big bang?”

He replied, “Cause.”

His ancient understanding was that the logic of Aquinas posited a first “Cause”. So, it was “Cause” that came before the big bang. Not “God”. In his scheme of things, that one word was sufficient.

How do we get to God from here?

jd

 

[geometer]

How do we get to God from here?

The Jewish mystics, long before science came of age, said that before there was a universe there was endless light, infinitely bright light, of a special quality, that extended infinitely in all directions. And, God inhabits that light. When he decided to create, he caused a contraction in the light, which was darkness. In the center of the darkness the universe began, something like the big bang…

 

[Trishie]

“Cause” isn’t an identity, it is a generic word for the purpose. He doesn’t wish to acknowledge that the correct word and concept is 'Creator".

 

[crowonsnow]

How do we get to God from here?

ooooooooooooooooooooo

aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

if you know what I mean.

 

[JDaniel]

“Cause” isn’t an identity, it is a generic word for the purpose. He doesn’t wish to acknowledge that the correct word and concept is 'Creator".

That’s correct. He says “cause” is sufficient.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

ooooooooooooooooooooo

aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

if you know what I mean.

Good grief! You’re so hateful! (kidding!)

All seriousness aside, how do you think that Christians go from cause to God?

jd

 

[Katholish]

The First Cause has to be:
Eternal because it has to exist outside of time.
It has to be perfect Act because there can be no potential in the First Cause.
Because it is perfect Act, it must be Being Itself with no distinction between essence and existence.
It must be perfectly simple, not composed of parts.
It must be spiritual, not material because matter implies potency.
Since it is Being itself, there is nothing which is does not have which could be desired, but has everything, and hence is Goodness itself.
Being Pure Act and Being itself it is operative, and there is nothing conceivable that it could not do, hence it has to be omnipotent.
It would have to be immense being both act and being.
etc.

All of the attributes of God can be derived from an understanding of what that first Cause would have to be like.

Btw, I just threw the above arguments together, trying to show how it could be done, not necessarily the best way to do it.

 

[fhansen]

The First Cause has to be:
Eternal because it has to exist outside of time.
It has to be perfect Act because there can be no potential in the First Cause.
Because it is perfect Act, it must be Being Itself with no distinction between essence and existence.
It must be perfectly simple, not composed of parts.
It must be spiritual, not material because matter implies potency.
Since it is Being itself, there is nothing which is does not have which could be desired, but has everything, and hence is Goodness itself.
Being Pure Act and Being itself it is operative, and there is nothing conceivable that it could not do, hence it has to be omnipotent.
It would have to be immense being both act and being.
etc.

All of the attributes of God can be derived from an understanding of what that first Cause would have to be like.

Btw, I just threw the above arguments together, trying to show how it could be done, not necessarily the best way to do it.

I know you understand this stuff better than I but we really can’t say that all the attributes of God stem from an understanding of first cause, right? I mean attributes like goodness, love, etc.?

 

[Katholish]

I would argue that both Goodness and Love could be proven from reason alone. I tried to give some hint of an arguement for Goodness in the post above.

I am willing to consider that some of the attributes might be able to be proved, but I cannot think of which they would be. Let’s go through them!

Here is a basic list that I had to memorize for Doctrine 101 (of course different listings are possible):

Just
Eternal
Love
Immense
Simple
Truth
Omnipotent
Merciful
Omniscient
Life
One
Good
Immutable

Immutable is the most easily proven if you accept God as First Cause. From Immutable it follows that He is Eternal. From the Fact that He is an unchanging cause, He is Pure Act and operative, this would imply that not only is He the source of all Life, but is Life itself (I suppose what is meant by life exactly isn’t abundantly clear). Being Pure Act and Life itself, He is without imperfection. There is no unrealized potential in Him. Also, since the cause is always greater than the effect, He is the ultimate perfection, and hence nothing more than Him could possibly be desired, yet He is perfectly desirable which means that He is pefectly Good. Because He is Being itself, and truth essentially means being as it really is (in man it means the correspondance of our thoughts with reality–that is, with the way things really have their being). Thus, God is Truth itself because He is Being. Furthermore, being Being itself, God would have to be Immense since their is no non-being in Him or limits on His Being.

I think one difficultly is getting from Pure Act and operation to having intellect and will, which you would need to prove omniscience, just, and merciful. I have little doubt that this is possible. If it were proven, merciful might still prove a little difficult. I can’t see it at the moment.

Another thing which must be accomplished is the prove that God is one from which simple would follow. However, I cannot come up with an argument for God’s oneness at the moment, so I will have to look into how others have argued this. I am sure St. Thomas addresses it, I just haved learned that section well enough yet.

fhansen,
If you can think of examples you don’t think possible to prove or don’t think my arguments for Good and Love work, I would be happy to look more closely at the matter. As far as I am aware, the Church teaches de fide that we can know by reason alone that God exists, but hasn’t definitely taught that all of His attributes can be known by reason alone, so there is certainly some openness to the question.

 

[Shike]

fhansen,
If you can think of examples you don’t think possible to prove or don’t think my arguments for Good and Love work, I would be happy to look more closely at the matter. As far as I am aware, the Church teaches de fide that we can know by reason alone that God exists, but hasn’t definitely taught that all of His attributes can be known by reason alone, so there is certainly some openness to the question.

Sorry, I missed it… how did you come about God’s essence is love? I don’t think that can be reasoned to, I think that is where revelation is needed. It is beyond man’s wildest dreams that such is the case. In fact, how can you even know who a human person is without them “revealing” themselves to you by way of dialogue? How much more then with God who is infinitely personal.

You said His essence is His being… so in a sense He is all things (as an effect exists perfectly in a cause)… but why single out love as His essence?

 

[Katholish]

Ok, lets first look at what we mean when we say that God is love. The idea of love is absolutely dependent upon the concept of goodness. We cannot love that which we do not first perceive as good. Just because a good is something objectively desirable, doesn’t mean that we necessarily actually desire it. Love, it would seem is our subjective response to what is objectively good. It is our desire. Now, since goodness has an objective quality to it, and certain things have different degrees of goodness (as being rational is more good than having physical strength like the animals). Animals have more goodness than plants because they have a higher nature, etc. True and proper love is desiring the object as much as it is supposed to be desired. If I desire money more than honor, I have an inordinate desire because I falsely love something that is less more than I love something which is objectively greater. Really, all sin is a false love, and all virtue is a true love.

Good is all Good and corrects knows Himself to Be Good, He cannot help but infinity Love Himself. In this sense, He is perfect Love. We also know that He would love His creatures appropriately according to the goodness that is in them. In this way, we know that God is Love.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In a conversation I had with with a member of my family, yesterday, I asked the question, “What existed aft (defined as a qualified “before”) of the big bang?”

He replied, “Cause.”

His ancient understanding was that the logic of Aquinas posited a first “Cause”. So, it was “Cause” that came before the big bang. Not “God”. In his scheme of things, that one word was sufficient.

How do we get to God from here?

jd

there are only 2 possible causes, a random act or an independent actor.

we can exclude the random act on a mathematical basis, the chances of any particular universe being created are 1 in infinity.

literally the closest thing to impossible without being impossible.

the independent actor, has no such restrictions, and could cause this universe purposefully.

now we have as the only reasonable conclusion, an independent actor\

now how is that independent actor the Judeo Christain G-d?

easy peasy lemon squeezy

the mathematical, undeniable precision of convergent messianic prophesy

dozens of prophecies, written by different people at different times, over the course of centuries, came true in the person of Christ.

if only a few of these corelate, than the odss against the validity of Christianity are astronomically ridiculous, many time the order of magnitude of winning the lottery.

these are also specific and unique to Christianity.

and thats how you get from a non-physical cause, to G-d

 

[Katholish]

Wow, my typing errors were sort of overwhelming. Since I can’t seem to edit, let me cleanup this one thing from my last post.

GOD is all Good and correctLY knows Himself to Be Good, He cannot help but infinitLY Love Himself. In this sense, He is perfect Love. We also know that He would love His creatures appropriately according to the goodness that is in them. In this way, we know that God is Love.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen,
If you can think of examples you don’t think possible to prove or don’t think my arguments for Good and Love work, I would be happy to look more closely at the matter. As far as I am aware, the Church teaches de fide that we can know by reason alone that God exists, but hasn’t definitely taught that all of His attributes can be known by reason alone, so there is certainly some openness to the question.

**I don’t know. The God you’ve reasoned to certainly meshes well with the God of Christianity but I’m not sure which actually came first-the God of reason or the God of revelation. I’m not sure, for example, how the fact that a cause being greater than its effect necessarily implies that the cause is perfect-but then again there’s much I don’t know.
**

 

[JDaniel]

Wow, my typing errors were sort of overwhelming. Since I can’t seem to edit, let me cleanup this one thing from my last post.

Thus, He can’t be an impersonal god. Right?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

**I don’t know. The God you’ve reasoned to certainly meshes well with the God of Christianity but I’m not sure which actually came first-the God of reason or the God of revelation. I’m not sure, for example, how the fact that a cause being greater than its effect necessarily implies that the cause is perfect-but then again there’s much I don’t know.
**

That’s the “gap”, in my opinion.

jd

 

[Katholish]

**I don’t know. The God you’ve reasoned to certainly meshes well with the God of Christianity but I’m not sure which actually came first-the God of reason or the God of revelation. I’m not sure, for example, how the fact that a cause being greater than its effect necessarily implies that the cause is perfect-but then again there’s much I don’t know.
**

Plato and Aristotle, while still pagans were able to reason that there was one God who was all Good, Simple, One, Eternal, Truth, Immutable, etc. They had this knowledge without knowing revelation.

On the other hand, clearly the people of Israel believed in God not because of their reasoned proofs, but because God was acting amongst them.

Which came first? Ultimately they are of cource, the same God, and so objectively neither “comes first”. In the order of human knowing, however, one always comes before the other, but for some people reasoned arguments come first, for others, revelation comes first. It all depends on the person. Just because some can be proven by reason doesn’t mean that it can not also be a matter of faith for some. I would think that a great many people accept God’s existence and attributes on faith, and are not aware of the philosophical proofs.

P.S. I am not sure I would jump from cause is greater than effect to perfection. That might be too great of a jump, but First Cause to Pure Act, Pure Act to Being itself, Being itself to perfection is a more acceptable sequence in my mind.

 

[Katholish]

Thus, He can’t be an impersonal god. Right?

jd

It depends what is meant by personal I suppose. We can know that there is at least one Person in God, for the definition of person is an individual substance of a rational nature. This definition could apply to God provided we could prove from reason that God would have to have an intellect, which we can in fact do. Quite simply St. Thomas points out that any immaterial being, by nature of its immateriality has an intellect–which is an interesting point. Also, in order to create something, the form of the thing made must exist first in the maker. Since God is not an angel, yet he created an angel, that means that the form of angel must exist in Him in some way–the only way this could be is if God knows the form of angel. Hence, God has to be able to know a thing or else it cannot be made.

I know there are other meanings for personal, I don’t know exactly what they would be.

 

[Shike]

Ok, lets first look at what we mean when we say that God is love. The idea of love is absolutely dependent upon the concept of goodness. We cannot love that which we do not first perceive as good. Just because a good is something objectively desirable, doesn’t mean that we necessarily actually desire it. Love, it would seem is our subjective response to what is objectively good. It is our desire.

Be careful, love is not only desire. For if I desire the good of another and fail to act on it, am I really loving that person?

Now, since goodness has an objective quality to it, and certain things have different degrees of goodness (as being rational is more good than having physical strength like the animals). Animals have more goodness than plants because they have a higher nature, etc. True and proper love is desiring the object as much as it is supposed to be desired. If I desire money more than honor, I have an inordinate desire because I falsely love something that is less more than I love something which is objectively greater. Really, all sin is a false love, and all virtue is a true love.

I follow. Just be careful to not reduce love to mere desire.

God is all Good and correctly knows Himself to Be Good, He cannot help but infinitly Love Himself. In this sense, He is perfect Love.

No. What is your definition of perfect love? My definition of perfect love is sacraficial love, the kind Christ shows on the cross. You cannot sacrafice yourself for the good of yourself… it must be towards the good of another. But pure reasoning hasn’t gotten you to knowledge of the Trinity… in fact, pure reasoning has pointed to God as only one. Perhaps from pure reasoning you can arrive that God loves… but you cannot arrive that God’s essence is love unless you purely reason that God is more than 1 person.

The problem from here on out is that God is imperfect unless we come to knowledge of the Trinity. Can one purely reason the knowledge of the Trinity? Can you purely reason what another person is like without them letting you, without them revealing themselves through communication on their part? I would think not.

We also know that He would love His creatures appropriately according to the goodness that is in them. In this way, we know that God is Love.

No. In that way, you know that God loves, not that His essence is love. But besides the problem above requiring the Trinity, it makes no sense that Jesus would die on the cross for us. For if He actually loved us appropriately according to the goodness in us (not saying there isn’t any goodness in us)… we would still be knee deep in sin. Since God’s essence is His being He also acts justly, remember.

peace,
Michael

 

[Katholish]

Be careful, love is not only desire. For if I desire the good of another and fail to act on it, am I really loving that person?

I would argue that it is only desire. Desire is in the will, and it is an act. To “act on it” is a separate act–distinct, yet dependent upon the act of loving. Again, I did clarify to say that love is desiring something appropriately according to its goodness. If then, someone did love something truly, it would not be possible not to act on it.

If we fail to “act on love” we are in essence loving something else more than that thing. If I don’t act on my love, for instance, because to do so would interfere with my love for God, then I must choose God first because He is the greater good. Does this mean I don’t love the other thing? Not at all. In order to truly love the other thing, I need to make sure I do not exhault it above the things which are objectively better.

If, however, the thing I loved were the best thing I could chose in a particular situation, and I truly loved that thing, it would not be possible for me not to “act on it”–that is, let that desire motivate my other actions.

No. What is your definition of perfect love? My definition of perfect love is sacraficial love, the kind Christ shows on the cross. You cannot sacrafice yourself for the good of yourself… it must be towards the good of another.

God is not capable of loving us more than He loves Himself. He is only capable of loving us as much as the goodness in us merits, however, we know from revelation that God has free chosen to unite us to Himself and make us His adopted sons. He thus loves us more because He has given us a greater share of His goodness than our nature would require. The choice to glorify our nature is not one that could have been known from reason alone. However, even if God had not chosen to glorify us in this way, He still would have been Love Itself and this could have been known from reason alone.
To claim that only sacrificial love is real love would imply that God was forced to send His Son to die because it is part of His nature that He must love in that way. No, perfect love does not need to involve harming oneself or a willingness to exhault the beloved over the lover.

But pure reasoning hasn’t gotten you to knowledge of the Trinity… in fact, pure reasoning has pointed to God as only one.

Correct. Knowledge of the Trinity cannot be attained through reason alone, and from reason we can only know that God’s nature is one. (This need not lead to a false impression or an implicit denial fo the Trinity, however).

Perhaps from pure reasoning you can arrive that God loves… but you cannot arrive that God’s essence is love unless you purely reason that God is more than 1 person.

You don’t need to know about the Trinity in order to understand God’s nature as love. The Trinity, afterall, is not an attribute of God’s nature. We also know that God’s nature is perfectly simple, and hence His operations of intellect and will are not distinct from his nature. From that alone we know that God IS Truth itself, Omniscience itself, Goodness itself, and Love itself. Truth and Good are the objects of the intellect and will respectively and Omniscience and Love are the acts of the Intellect and Will respectively.

My responses to your other points would merely be repeating what I have said in this post, so no need to repeat.