Closing the Gap from "First Cause" to "God"

[AlbertBall]

The first cause, by which I mean, that which was before there was anything material in existence. In other words my first cause is that force which bridged the transition from nothing to everything. When nothing exists what can come into existence. The first cause is that force which can, and has obviously, created from nothing.
This force is not in any way a material force, since nothing existed before it was created. So we’ll give this force the descriptive ‘Super Natural’ to distinguish it from the natural, material, created things.
What else could I say about this force, other than it is supernatural. It is not made of matter, it will then be given the descriptive Spirit.
This creator is now, so far, a supernatural spirit.
Anything else, I can say?
Well… what is the very, very least attribute we need to give this force or first cause. Since it, the force is neither material nor part of nature and that it is the first cause of everything, the very very least attribute this force needs to create things from nothing is the Will to create things from nothing. This is the very least necessary attribute of this first cause. Without at least a will to make something from nothing, nothing would happen.

So our first cause is; a supernatural spirit with the will to create. Since we exist, beyond question, this supernatural spirit has also created us. It has willed us into existence. This creative force is our Father as well as the Father of all creation.
Since this Spirit existed before anything was created, this Spirit is outside of time. It always is and always will be even if creation returns again to nothing, the creative spirit still is.
So He is our Eternal Father, a supernatural Spirit, a creative Spirit, all powerfull - He always is, He created everything that exists.
What else could I say, He created other things, things that did not exist before anything was created, strange things like intelligence, love, personality, mercy and so on.
In what our Father created we see parts of Him. In the most complex and elusive parts of His creation we see deeper into its creator.
The human heart, who can understand it, as the wise man said once. In the human heart too we also see reflected the heart of its creator.
Our Creator is our Father, Supernatural Spirit, all powerfull, Eternal, the perfection of Love, Personality, Goodness, Kindness, Intelligence.
These qualities are qualities beloved by the human heart. They are a description of heaven for the human heart. But they are also real, as real as our Creator. So this heaven is also a reality, an Eternal reality. Is our purpose the ability to understand this reality. To understand an Eternal reality is a tantalizing idea; why would such a possibility exist but to offer also the fulfillment of that idea, eternal life in heaven with our Father.

If I’ve left anything out, let me know…

You have nothing but blind assertion. Firstly it is impossible for NOTHING to exist. Secondly anything that is a cause is NOT super natural. So i don’t even need to go on. Other then your assertions, what exactly do you have?

 

[sidbrown]

Numbers and sets are abstract objects, and since abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations, we wouldn’t say that they are the types of things that are composed of accidents.

So they are non-accidental ?
Is time accidental or non-accidental?

 

[punkforchrist]

So they are non-accidental ?
Is time accidental or non-accidental?

Time doesn’t exist by any necessity, logical or metaphysical, in my estimation. So, I would think of time as accidental. Now, we might say that time is essential to physical bodies, since to be in motion requires time. However, each individual moment of time would be accidental with respect to physical bodies that endure in time. With that said, I don’t know a whole lot about the nature of time (A-theory versus B-theory, and so forth), but I find the whole discussion quite intriguing.

I should also clarify that there are philosophers who would describe abstract objects (or “Forms” for some) as accidental. I’m not entirely convinced it makes sense to say that abstracta are accidental or non-accidental, since such terms may apply properly only to concrete objects. There is an awful lot of debate concerning these issues. You might wish to take a look here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

 

[punkforchrist]

NowAgnostic, let me try this another way. The original argument begins with the following format:

1. Every existing thing is either limited or unlimited.

Your counter-argument goes like this:

1*. Every apple is either red or not-red.

Since colors are properties of finite objects, let’s apply substitution:

1*. Every X is either (limited property Y) or (limited property ~Y).

Both Y and ~Y are attributes of limited entities. Yet, there is a disanalogy between these and (1), since (1) gives us a dichotomy not of two limited things, but of limited things and an unlimited thing.

 

[Thing]

You have nothing but blind assertion. Firstly it is impossible for NOTHING to exist. Secondly anything that is a cause is NOT super natural. So i don’t even need to go on. Other then your assertions, what exactly do you have?

This is your assertion, I suppose. Science tells me that at the big bang everything was condensed into a singular point. A single point cannot contain a universe. Nothing existed but that single point. How could a single point exist and nothing else of a material nature exist. If this point existed then what force held it stable as a point, - its own force?. What force exploded it into the universe, its own force?. This point cannot be both stable within itself and also explosively unstable within itself. If this point was stable within itself it would not explode and the universe would not exist. If it was stable within itself it may as well not exist. Poof, see, the point vanishes; it is no more. A stable point is useless, nothing else exists to cause a change within it.
Equally an unstable point is useless, where would it come from, what could hold it back if nothing else existed. Yet everything in the universe returns to this one original point. But it could not logically ever be a point if it were inherently unstable within itself.
If you are not willing to think about this then you will wait forever for any type of proofs or evidence. I do the best I am able with the facts as known.
If we have a point now which must be either stable or non-existant; (for all intents and purposes they mean the same thing to the universe), then we need some type of force outside of this singular point to either create an unstable point or to create an unstable point.

This outside force is neither material nor natural as both these have not yet been formed. So our external force is Super-Natural and is Spirit. Super is simply a latin word meaning our force is something above and beyond Nature - as nature [material creation] has not yet been created. Spirit - because our force trancends the material world which does not yet exist in this argument. It is also Spirit because it acted without any material force of its own to cause the existance of material. Without a material force of its own it is then described as having the Will to act to create from nothing. Since a non-material force acting on nothing will not produce any effect. The Creation of matter from nothing by an immaterial force is therefore an act of pure Will. Everything is willed into being. The Will to create is the ‘necessary’ part of this force. No non-sentient force acting on nothing can create from nothing, particularly as this force is non-material also, and does not relate to or interact with, as yet, non-existant matter. Yes, our external force must be Spirit, Super Natural, it must have or be a Will, All powerfull, Eternal.

 

[AlbertBall]

I agree that words can have more than one meaning, but it is the prerogative of the proponent of the argument to choose which meaning a given word has. With that said, I’ve defined “being” merely as a state of existence.

Ok well in that case you are closing no gap, for what you are describing is defiantly not a “god”.

 

[AlbertBall]

This is your assertion, I suppose. Science tells me that at the big bang everything was condensed into a singular point. A single point cannot contain a universe. Nothing existed but that single point. How could a single point exist and nothing else of a material nature exist. If this point existed then what force held it stable as a point, - its own force?. What force exploded it into the universe, its own force?. This point cannot be both stable within itself and also explosively unstable within itself. If this point was stable within itself it would not explode and the universe would not exist. If it was stable within itself it may as well not exist.

"This is your assertion, I suppose. Science tells me that at the big bang everything was condensed into a singular point."

Well it actually says our universe expanded for a singularity. Not quite the same, but anyway…

"A single point cannot contain a universe."

Well not as it currently exists? I fail to see the relevance of this. Its also worth pointing out your claim is dependent on how many dimensions they universe has. Anyway…

"Nothing existed but that single point."

And here is where i can stop you, i science does not claim this so what is the basis for this claim?

If this point existed then what force held it stable as a point, - its own force?.

Yes, are you aware of the concept of equilibrium?

What force exploded it into the universe, its own force?.

It didn’t explode, it expanded. Which covers the next few lines.

If you are not willing to think about this then you will wait forever for any type of proofs or evidence. I do the best I am able with the facts as known.

Yes you are correct, i will wait for evidence instead of male unfounded claims. Also it seems you don’t have a good grasp of the facts as known. The rest of your post is just (as you have now openly admitted) unfounded assertions.

You have admitted you don’t have evidence, you have admitted you base your beliefs on facts that you clearly don’t have an in depth knowledge of. I can quite clearly see you are not a physics PHD, which is not a bad thing, nether am i . However i can give you the intellectually honest answer when faced with such questions. “We don’t know”. Its not a bad thing not to know, and it is far better to admit it rather then make unfounded claims.

 

[Thing]

"This is your assertion, I suppose. Science tells me that at the big bang everything was condensed into a singular point."

Well it actually says our universe expanded for a singularity. Not quite the same, but anyway…

A— The universe has been retraced backwards to a point. one point, which is strange, singular, and also single. A singular point in every respect.

"A single point cannot contain a universe."

Well not as it currently exists? I fail to see the relevance of this. Its also worth pointing out your claim is dependent on how many dimensions they universe has. Anyway…

A— I try to stick to scientific evidence, as I understand it, to base my thoughts on, thank you very much. There is no evidence of multidimensions. Starting your thoughts about this based on an imaginary idea about mulitple dimensions is a waste of your time, frankly.

"Nothing existed but that single point."

And here is where i can stop you, i science does not claim this so what is the basis for this claim?

A— Because everything has been retraced back to a single point. The universe expands, it expands from a point. There has been no evidence I know of of interference found within this universe from the universe expanding into a previously existing universe. Scientifically based then; - nothing else existed but this single point.

If this point existed then what force held it stable as a point, - its own force?.

Yes, are you aware of the concept of equilibrium?

A— If it is stable within itself it will not change.

What force exploded it into the universe, its own force?.

It didn’t explode, it expanded. Which covers the next few lines.

A— It will neither change nor expand nor explode *if *it is a stable point. Stable means unchanging.

If you are not willing to think about this then you will wait forever for any type of proofs or evidence. I do the best I am able with the facts as known.

Yes you are correct, i will wait for evidence instead of male unfounded claims. Also it seems you don’t have a good grasp of the facts as known The rest of your post is just as your have now openly admitted unfounded assertions.

A— My assertions, (you like that word), are based on my understanding of current scientific evidence. Not current scientific daydreaming.

You have admitted you don’t have evidence, you have admitted you base your beliefs on facts that you clearly don’t have an in depth knowledge of. I can quite clearly see you are not a physics PHD, which is not a bad thing, nether am i . However i can give you the intellectually honest answer when faced with such questions. “We don’t know”. Its not a bad thing not to know, and it is far better to admit it rather then make unfounded claims.

A---- As I say I do the best with what I have. Neither do I stop thinking nor do I think I am right, I am simply willing to incorporate any ‘actual scientific Evidence’ into my thinking, and to expand on what may be possible based on that, or what may not be possible. You must be willing to consider all possibilities fully to the very last mile if you want to claim to be ‘intellectually honest’. Only when you explore the length of every avenue can you honestly say you have honestly explored the length of every avenue to the best of your honest ability. Saying ‘we don’t know’ as a permanent substitute for not trying is not an honest approach, I feel, even the scientists daydream.

 

[Spirithound]

1. Every apple is possibly red.
2. A green apple cannot be red.
3. Therefore, a green apple cannot be an apple.

But I could color them red. QED.

If you can colour them red, then you have contradicted your second premise, and so a green apple could be red.

 

[Dameedna]

Given that a First Cause exists:

1. Every limited thing is possibly caused.
2. A First Cause cannot be caused.
3. Hence, a First Cause must be unlimited.
4. Whatever is unlimited is supreme.
5. Therefore, a Supreme Being exists.

Everything limited: We do not yet know what is limited so we cannot know what “may” be caused.

Beyond that, there is no reason to supposed that the “supreme” being is not the universe itself. It reminds me of the ontological argument. Logically sound and drives many an athiest(especially) nuts. It was only when I realized how meaningless the ontological argument was , that I could accept it as logically sound. It aggrivated me. There was something wrong with it. IT was, and is meaningless.

Like the ontological argument, I can accept what you say above, but it is also meaningless. What exists exists(The universe), it may be caused or it may BE the very thing that is uncaused, but simply is. To presume that the universe must have a prior(non-physical) state is an assumption. Why make this assumption? Is it based on a belief(and perhaps a desire to believe) in a non-physical entity…IE a God…and a God that supports an individuals notions.?

It’s a meaningless argument at the end of the day, because it defines nothing other than to say “something must alway’s exist for existance to happen”. Okay…so what?

Having said that, the topic IS interesting and the fact that we CAN debate it can give one pause for thought, but don’t get too far ahead of yourself when it comes to the first cause = God(christian God) argument.

Cheers
Dame

 

[bridgeforsale]

Suppose one accepts that a First Cause exists. I believe we can, using some rather benign modal axioms, close the gap between First Cause and God (“God” here defined as a Supreme Being of some sort). Here’s what I’m thinking:

Given that a First Cause exists:

1. Every limited thing is possibly caused.
2. A First Cause cannot be caused.
3. Hence, a First Cause must be unlimited.
4. Whatever is unlimited is supreme.
5. Therefore, a Supreme Being exists.

(1)-(3), I think, are analytical truths. Nevertheless, I’m open to discussion. This leaves us with (4). We define “supremacy” as entailing two qualities: a) if a thing is unlimited; and b) if a thing is unique. In order for a being to be supreme, it must satisfy the conditions of both (a) and (b). Our focus, then, will be on the demonstration that a First Cause must be unique.

Consider the possibility that two or more unlimited beings exist. If this is so - let’s call two of these entities X and Y - then in order for them to be distinct, X must lack something that Y possesses, or vice-versa. However, a thing can only lack something if it is limited. Therefore, the unlimited First Cause must be unique.

Thoughts? Questions? Predictions for BCS games?

I just put together my thoughts on related questions (I think perhaps I should have put it in this forum, rather than non-Catholic religions). Nevertheless, here’s a link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408130

To summarize, notwithstanding the metaphysical argument you’re laying out here (which has been around for a while, and makes quite a bit of sense) I think there’s many other considerations which, at least in my experience, aren’t discussed very often?

 

[punkforchrist]

If you can colour them red, then you have contradicted your second premise, and so a green apple could be red.

That’s especially the case if we all agree that it is metaphysically necessary that apples may have their color (accident) changed. It is metaphysically impossible (I would argue that it’s logically impossible, too), on the other hand, for a First Cause to be caused.

 

[punkforchrist]

Dameedna and bridgeforsale, thank you both for your additional thoughts.

Everything limited: We do not yet know what is limited so we cannot know what “may” be caused.

Well, I think we can know by observation that a number of things are limited. The four discovered forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak atomic forces - aren’t things that are limitless. In fact, each force may impose itself on another, and such an imposition constitutes a limitation. Other than that, I would say our observations invariably show that physical bodies are limited. That may even be an analytic truth, or a necessary synthetic truth.

Beyond that, there is no reason to supposed that the “supreme” being is not the universe itself. It reminds me of the ontological argument. Logically sound and drives many an athiest(especially) nuts. It was only when I realized how meaningless the ontological argument was , that I could accept it as logically sound. It aggrivated me. There was something wrong with it. IT was, and is meaningless.

That’s very interesting that you accept the ontological argument in some sense. I’m trying to wrap my head around the idea that the universe is unlimited. Surely this doesn’t mean that everything in the universe is unlimited. Did you have in mind some part of the universe? It’s just that we wouldn’t say that atoms are unlimited, since they are divisible into protons, electrons, and neutrons. These particles can be divided into quarks, and quarks are possibly divided into even smaller particles, as String Theory suggests.

With that said, if there truly is an unlimited, and therefore Supreme Being, then such an entity is necessary one. And, any set physical particles that makes up the composition of the universe will be many. As a result, it seems unambiguous to me that the Supreme Being is not the universe, or any part of the universe (“universe” being defined as the totality of all space, time, matter and energy).

Like the ontological argument, I can accept what you say above, but it is also meaningless. What exists exists(The universe), it may be caused or it may BE the very thing that is uncaused, but simply is. To presume that the universe must have a prior(non-physical) state is an assumption. Why make this assumption? Is it based on a belief(and perhaps a desire to believe) in a non-physical entity…IE a God…and a God that supports an individuals notions.?

Some of this may depend on how you define “universe.” The definition I provided above is the most usual working definition. I would say that this argument is based not on a desire to believe, but on the evidence. We’re not actually talking about a prior non-physical state in time. Rather, the First Cause is said to be first in the sense of source, or rank. An eternal house would still have to have a foundation, or else it would collapse. Likewise, an eternal universe, or an eternal nature, must still be grounded in a First Cause that sustains its existence.

What I’m saying, then, is that this argument is sound even assuming that the universe is infinitely-old.

It’s a meaningless argument at the end of the day, because it defines nothing other than to say “something must alway’s exist for existance to happen”. Okay…so what?

“Something must always exist” is a meaningful statement in and of itself. However, we’re actually saying much more than that. We’re also saying that this First Cause is unlimited in its power with respect to objects that stand in causal relations, and this this First Cause is unique (implying some kind of monotheism).

Having said that, the topic IS interesting and the fact that we CAN debate it can give one pause for thought, but don’t get too far ahead of yourself when it comes to the first cause = God(christian God) argument.

I certainly agree that this argument doesn’t demonstrate that Christianity is true. Additional argumentation would have to be implemented in order to demonstrate that the Christian God exists. Nevertheless, this cosmological argument can be used as one part of a cumulative case for Christian theism.

 

[punkforchrist]

I just put together my thoughts on related questions (I think perhaps I should have put it in this forum, rather than non-Catholic religions). Nevertheless, here’s a link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408130

To summarize, notwithstanding the metaphysical argument you’re laying out here (which has been around for a while, and makes quite a bit of sense) I think there’s many other considerations which, at least in my experience, aren’t discussed very often?

Thank you for the link. You may wish to present one or two of your concerns here, so we are not jumping from thread to thread.

One thing you mentioned that stood out to me was Stephen Hawking’s cosmological model of the universe. It needs to be stressed that whichever model of the universe we assume is true, the universe may still have a First Cause. See my reply to Dameedna for my description of what “first” implies. So, if we grant that the universe is finite but without beginning, or even infinitely-old, a First Cause is still needed to ground the universe’s existence, just as a foundation is required to prevent a house from collapsing.

Does this distinction make sense?

 

[Spirithound]

If you can colour them red, then you have contradicted your second premise, and so a green apple could be red.

That’s especially the case if we all agree that it is metaphysically necessary that apples may have their color (accident) changed. It is metaphysically impossible (I would argue that it’s logically impossible, too), on the other hand, for a First Cause to be caused.

I’m feeling rather linguisticky and philosophical, so I’d like to elaborate. We may imagine an apple that has been peeled completely such that there is no clue what the colour of the skin was. To this apple, we may add any colour paint we like, but before we do this, the apple is “possibly red; possibly green; possibly any colour”. Only after we assign the colour can we say “this is a red apple” or “this is a purple apple”.

When we imagine a being, on the other hand, perhaps we might not know immediately whether that being was caused or uncaused, but it still is one or the other. “Causedness” is therefore something that is proper to a being.

Can I still take part in this conversation if I reject the notion of alternate realities?

 

[punkforchrist]

I’m feeling rather linguisticky and philosophical, so I’d like to elaborate. We may imagine an apple that has been peeled completely such that there is no clue what the colour of the skin was. To this apple, we may add any colour paint we like, but before we do this, the apple is “possibly red; possibly green; possibly any colour”. Only after we assign the colour can we say “this is a red apple” or “this is a purple apple”.

When we imagine a being, on the other hand, perhaps we might not know immediately whether that being was caused or uncaused, but it still is one or the other. “Causedness” is therefore something that is proper to a being.

Can I still take part in this conversation if I reject the notion of alternate realities?

You’re definitely welcome to share any thoughts. I should mention, though, that “possible worlds” aren’t really alternate realities (unless one adopts the metaphysics of David Lewis). Rather, a possible world is just the union of a set of propositions that are coherent with one another. So, if we say, “the Red Sox won the 2007 World Series in the actual world,” but that “the Rockies won the 2007 World Series in W,” it’s not that W is an alternate universe. We simply mean that it was a logically possible event, even though it isn’t true in the actual world.

With that said, I agree with your analysis.

 

[sidbrown]

Rather, a possible world is just the union of a set of propositions that are coherent with one another.

The real world that we live in is a possible world. But I would say that the real world that we live in is more than just the union of a set of propositions that are coherent with one another.

 

[punkforchrist]

The real world that we live in is a possible world. But I would say that the real world that we live in is more than just the union of a set of propositions that are coherent with one another.

Right, the real world is a possible world that is actualized.

 

[NowAgnostic]

I don;t follow this because suppose that a is the set of children and b is has been baptised. Suppose that c is a child who has not been baptised, then I don’t see where it would be true that c would always remain a ~b, because tomorrow c could be baptised. So the fact is that c has been both b and ~b.

A c being b is consistent with c possibly being ~b, if there is a possible world in which c is not ~b (which there clearly is in the case of child being baptized).

 

[NowAgnostic]

Sounds like I’ve struck a chord!

Argue something ridiculous, then when someone calls it such claim what a “chord” you’ve struck. Really.

It’s funny how people devoted to a philosophical framework can’t think outside the box sometimes.

Notice how your example makes use of causation in order to make the change from one hair color to another. There is a clear distinction between essences with accidents and essences without accidents.

Yeah, and so? Hair color is clearly an accident.

You’re knocking down a strawman at this point, since you’re superimposing your own definition of cause (verb) onto my own (noun).

This is a red herring, and I was using “cause” as noun anyway. If there is no effect there is (by definition) no cause (noun).

I would be begging the question if I didn’t offer any argument, but I did.

No you didn’t. The only argument you made was that it was an analytical truth.

What we should focus on is whether a First Cause can be not-First in some possible world.

Indeed so.

That was the additional argument I made to the analytical truth you mention above.

You made no argument. You just stated “A First Cause cannot be caused” as an analytic truth. And it’s not - you’re equivocating on the meaning of “cannot”.

If in W, the apple is essentially red, you may spray paint it green. In this case, though, it would be a red apple painted green. If, however, it is already green in W*, then there is an essential difference between the two apples. The apple is naturally and essentially red in W, but naturally and essentially green in W*.

So you’re saying an apple can be essentially red, but accidentally green. This is nonsense.

That objection only works if it implies that A necessarily doesn’t exist, not merely that it doesn’t necessarily exist.

No, the objection is based on your denial of modal logic 101.

Are you committing yourself to the idea that a First Cause cannot possibly exist? In any world in which A is instantiated, B is necessarily instantiated.

In any world in which A is instantiated, B is instantiated - not **necessarily **instantiated. If A is not necessarily, but only contingently, instantiated, then likewise, B is only contingently instantiated.

□(A → B) entails (□A → □B) not (A → □B).

I added them in order to show more clearly how the original argument and parody had different structures.

They don’t. You’ve made them have different structures by adding 1 and 1*.

It’s not necessary, but it draws out the differences more. We have in the original (1): accidental (limited) or non-accidental (unlimited).

If unlimited is a non-accidental property, then so is limited.

Then, in (1*): accidental (red) or accidental (not-red). This should already suffice to raise a red flag, since we have an equivocation of essences.

No, it doesn’t suffice, because you are the one who has put the equivocation of essences in there. Let’s put it down one more time. Remember that you have added premises 1 and 1*.

1. Every existing thing is either limited or unlimited.
2. Necessarily, every limited thing is possibly caused.
3. A First Cause cannot be caused.
4. Therefore, a First Cause must be unlimited.

1*. Every existing apple is either red or not-red.
2*. Necessarily, every apple is possibly red.
3*. A green apple cannot be red.
4*. Therefore, a green apple cannot be an apple.

What your 1 should say to have parity with 1* is: 1. Every existing thing is either caused or uncaused. You of course want to argue that being uncaused is an essential property, but that is what you have to prove. Or else, my 1* should say Every existing thing is either an apple or not an apple. Now, being an apple is certainly an essential property, so there is parity between 1 and 1* insofar as essential properties are being referred to.

They don’t have an identical form.

Um, yes they do.

1. Necessarily, every limited thing is possibly caused.
2. A First Cause cannot be caused.
3. Therefore, a First Cause must be unlimited.

2*. Necessarily, every apple is possibly red.
3*. A green apple cannot be red.
4*. Therefore, a green apple cannot be an apple.

(2*) is dubious, since there is nothing to justify the inference from A to possibly B, given the accidental nature of both B and ~B.

No inference was made from 1* and 2*. 2* was a premise, but it is an analytic truth if B is a non-essential property. 1* was just added later.

In the original argument, the negation of B is strictly non-accidental, and may be justified in light of the negation of C. Does a thing’s possibility of being caused not require some accident in that thing?

No. What accidents do angels have?

The point isn’t that it’s analytic. What I was stressing was a difference of form and the equivocation of accidental and non-accidental in one syllogism, versus accidental and accidental in the other.

Well, if red is really an essential property of an apple, then there is no equivocation.

Anyway, I notice you haven’t even attempted to answer the dilemma that I posed for you. Now I know you think that being caused is an essential property of something, and so that means you can justify “A First Cause cannot be caused” as an analytic truth. I want to know, then, how you justify “Necessarily, every limited thing is possibly caused”. This is not an analytic truth if being caused is an essential property.

In the end, you simply need to prove all limited things are caused. Then, by MT an uncaused entity must be unlimited.