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

[bridgeforsale]

Limited in one sense, and unlimited in another, yes. The premise that “every existing thing is either limited or unlimited,” however, refers to just one meaning - a thing’s level of power.

what I was simply saying (in this regard) is those terms need to be qualified. There might be some compelling stuff out there making a plausible case for the idea of a consciousness beyond our awareness (call it god). And I’m glad to say, whether god-man or not, Jesus was a great guy with a great philosophy (at least in most cases). But if we assume this god created the universe, then when we look at nature and understand its processes, we’re witnessing his work right?

Therefore, his work is a random process, which spanned billions of years (at least in our temporal reference frame of time), and was completely random. In fact when you look at evolution it was so random the level of waste was 99.9%. Imagine that. Billions of years, trillions upon trillions of little trail and error events, describes how god built biological life. The construction of the universe was much the same. There’s an incredible amount of creative destruction in the universe. Is this likely the work of an omnipotent super-being whose power is all encompassing, who exists everywhere, all the time? I think the evidence suggest otherwise

Frankly, as I said, I’m not sure why we’d want to think god is all powerful anyway? I’d rather think he would have loved nothing more than to stop Hitler and Stalin, but was unable to do so; as opposed to thinking he could have stopped them yet for whatever reason elected to remain a spectator. I think disposing of the classical view of omnipotence (which is probably a Neo-Platonic innovation anyway) helps god make sense.

 

[Spirithound]

Everyone’s power is limited in one way or another. Even the Supreme Being would not be able to create a second Supreme Being.

The Supreme Being cannot contradict Himself, but remember that God the Father begot God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son.

 

[sidbrown]

The Supreme Being cannot contradict Himself, …

Some people might argue that to be a limitation in a limited sense of the term.

 

[punkforchrist]

sidbrown:

Everyone’s power is limited in one way or another. Even the Supreme Being would not be able to create a second Supreme Being.

When we talk about “unlimited” power, we are talking about the power to do logically possible things. I would put your above example in the same category with creating a square-circle, or a married bachelor.

NowAgnostic:

Let’s be clear on the meaning of “actualized potentiality”. Something is either in act (in a given respect) or it can be in potency, but not both at the same time. If an angel is “fully actualized” then it has no potency.

I don’t know where you got this understanding of what “fully actualized potentiality” is. That’s certainly not Thomas’ view. I do find it a bit strange that you’re using angels as part of a counter-argument, especially when such an understanding of angels is based on a misinterpretation of their being. Angels are fully actualized with respect to their essences, but that requires an act of actualization. Angels are not first causes, nor are they purely actual.

Will you agree that something or somethings can’t change into an angel, and that an angel can’t change into something or somethings else.

Do you find it a bit ironic that you’re making use of “cannot” in the same (metaphysical) way I was earlier? In any case, I agree that humans cannot become angels, but I don’t agree that angels cannot become something else in some sense. Angels can take on bodily form, as we have already established. The fact that this doesn’t change the angelic essence has no effect whatsoever on the claim that angels are caused and finite.

It seems to me completely possible an angel could exist eternally, and uncaused.

Well, “eternal” isn’t synyomous with “uncaused.” In fact, the TCA I’ve always defended has left open the issue of the physical universe’s eternity.

If you want to justify the premises by inductive means, realizing of course at the end you don’t have a deductive proof, fine with me.

I see no problem with purely inductive arguments.

You’re still referencing possibility.

Metaphysical possibility, yes.

 

[punkforchrist]

bridgeforsale:

I think you need to establish whether all unlimited things are uncaused? It still could be true (under this argument) that every unlimited thing is “either” caused or uncaused. So I guess the main issue is (looking at it with fresh eyes) the argument structure. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. You’re right; the first premise is true under the law of excluded middle (thanks for the correction). Moreover, I have no problem with the assumptions made in two or three. I just don’t think the conclusion follows (although I think the argument structure can be changed to allow for your conclusion).

We’re not actually making an inference from unlimited to uncaused, but the other way around. The argument as a whole would go something like this:

1. Dependent things exist.
2. Every dependent thing has a cause.
3. If there is no First Cause, then nothing will be caused.
4. Therefore, a First Cause exists.
5. Every existing thing is either limited or unlimited.
6. Whatever is limited has the potential to be caused.
7. The First Cause does not have the potential to be caused.
8. Hence, the First Cause is unlimited.
9. Whatever is unlimited is supreme.
10. Therefore, a Supreme Being exists.

Notice that the first part of the argument is meant to demonstrate the existence of a First Cause, and nothing more. It is in (5) and following that we infer that the First Cause is the Supreme Being. (5)-(8), in particular, make use of Leibniz’s Law. If X is true of A, but X is not true of B, then A and B cannot be identical. So, if “caused” is a potentiality of limited things, but not a potentiality of the First Cause, then the First Cause cannot be limited.

In sum, the argument is logically valid. One or more of the premises will have to be rejected in order for the argument to fail.

 

[punkforchrist]

Oh, and Happy Holidays to everyone!

Merry Christmas!

 

[MindOverMatter]

We’re not actually making an inference from unlimited to uncaused, but the other way around. The argument as a whole would go something like this:

1. Dependent things exist.
2. Every dependent thing has a cause.
3. If there is no First Cause, then nothing will be caused.
4. Therefore, a First Cause exists.
5. Every existing thing is either limited or unlimited.
6. Whatever is limited has the potential to be caused.
7. The First Cause does not have the potential to be caused.
8. Hence, the First Cause is unlimited.
9. Whatever is unlimited is supreme.
10. Therefore, a Supreme Being exists.

Notice that the first part of the argument is meant to demonstrate the existence of a First Cause, and nothing more. It is in (5) and following that we infer that the First Cause is the Supreme Being. (5)-(8), in particular, make use of Leibniz’s Law. If X is true of A, but X is not true of B, then A and B cannot be identical. So, if “caused” is a potentiality of limited things, but not a potentiality of the First Cause, then the First Cause cannot be limited.

In sum, the argument is logically valid. One or more of the premises will have to be rejected in order for the argument to fail.

Nice Argument.

Happy Christmas.

 

[sidbrown]

When we talk about “unlimited” power, we are talking about the power to do logically possible things. .

Is God limited by logic?
I am not sure if He would be or not.

 

[sidbrown]

We’re not actually making an inference from unlimited to uncaused, but the other way around. The argument as a whole would go something like this:

1. Dependent things exist.
2. Every dependent thing has a cause.
3. If there is no First Cause, then nothing will be caused.
4. Therefore, a First Cause exists.
5. Every existing thing is either limited or unlimited.
6. Whatever is limited has the potential to be caused.
7. The First Cause does not have the potential to be caused.
8. Hence, the First Cause is unlimited.
9. Whatever is unlimited is supreme.
10. Therefore, a Supreme Being exists.

Notice that the first part of the argument is meant to demonstrate the existence of a First Cause, and nothing more. It is in (5) and following that we infer that the First Cause is the Supreme Being. (5)-(8), in particular, make use of Leibniz’s Law. If X is true of A, but X is not true of B, then A and B cannot be identical. So, if “caused” is a potentiality of limited things, but not a potentiality of the First Cause, then the First Cause cannot be limited.

In sum, the argument is logically valid. One or more of the premises will have to be rejected in order for the argument to fail.

I find the argument to be somewhat fuzzy.
For example, the statement that whatever is unlimited is supreme. Where is the proof of this statement. To give a counter example:There is no boundary or limit to the even natural numbers, for example: {2,4,6,…}. There is no highest value and so in that sense they are unlimited. And yet they are not supreme, since they are a proper subset of the natural numbers: {1,2,3,4,…} which is then in some sense of higher rank than the even natural numbers.

 

[bridgeforsale]

We’re not actually making an inference from unlimited to uncaused, but the other way around. The argument as a whole would go something like this:

1. Dependent things exist.
2. Every dependent thing has a cause.
3. If there is no First Cause, then nothing will be caused.
4. Therefore, a First Cause exists.
5. Every existing thing is either limited or unlimited.
6. Whatever is limited has the potential to be caused.
7. The First Cause does not have the potential to be caused.
8. Hence, the First Cause is unlimited.
9. Whatever is unlimited is supreme.
10. Therefore, a Supreme Being exists.

Notice that the first part of the argument is meant to demonstrate the existence of a First Cause, and nothing more. It is in (5) and following that we infer that the First Cause is the Supreme Being. (5)-(8), in particular, make use of Leibniz’s Law. If X is true of A, but X is not true of B, then A and B cannot be identical. So, if “caused” is a potentiality of limited things, but not a potentiality of the First Cause, then the First Cause cannot be limited.

In sum, the argument is logically valid. One or more of the premises will have to be rejected in order for the argument to fail.

Sure, again your qualification of “unlimited” (as supreme) begs the question. Not saying it’s invalid, its just not logically necessary (and its meaning is ambiguous). The idea of a first cause is found in metaphysical arguments (like the Kalam cosmological argument). The idea is simple enough, everything requires a cause, the idea of infinite regression is impossible (so there must be a first cause that itself wasn’t caused by anything else), therefore god. But notice all this argument requires is an infinite (or eternal) god (or being of some sort) who caused the “second cause” (it doesn’t require anything further).

There are essentially two things we have (as far as I know) that we can use to help us understand the attributes of god. There is revelation (a heavily disputed body of documentation containing unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims pertaining to divine revelation) or there is the physical evidence taken from fossil records, cosmological observations, and numerous other types of scientific tests. I think the latter is more reliable, and in addition I don’t mind admitting my preference for a god whose not omnipotent. I don’t have to wonder why god didn’t stop Hitler; and invent all sorts of elaborate sophistic reasons why god didn’t intervene to stop the slaughter of six million Jews, but found the time to help 65 out of 5 million sick visitors to Lourdes. I can acknowledge god didn’t help anyone who visited Lourdes (because of course 65 out of 5 million is not statistically remarkable), and he didn’t save the Jews because he was simply unable to. So I must very respectfully disagree with the majority viewpoint on this topic.

Oh, and yes of course MERRY CHRISTMAS all!

 

[NowAgnostic]

I don’t know where you got this understanding of what “fully actualized potentiality” is. That’s certainly not Thomas’ view. I do find it a bit strange that you’re using angels as part of a counter-argument, especially when such an understanding of angels is based on a misinterpretation of their being. Angels are fully actualized with respect to their essences, but that requires an act of actualization. Angels are not first causes, nor are they purely actual.

You’re just arguing by assertion and to authority here; you’ve not actually made any sort of valid argument. Let me go over the point again.

An angel cannot have potency. If it did, its potentiality would not be fully actualized. (If something is “fully” actualized by definition there is no possibility to be further actualized.) Having no potency, it is “purely” actual in a sense - being limited, it’s not actual in absolutely every respect like God is, but it can’t get more actual than it is.

Now you say that angels require an act of actualization, but you haven’t shown it. In fact the notion itself is problematic, it’s not clear they are even possibly caused. You can’t create an angel from something else, whether joining or breaking down. Therefore, nothing has the potential to become an angel. I suppose only if you are a Platonist, and hold that an angelic “essence” has some ontological reality prior to its instantiation (rather than simply a description of what is logically possible) can one get around this, but even then it seems problematic.

But, there does not seem to be a problem with an angel existing uncaused. You can’t just win an argument by definition, by merely defining an angel as a caused entity. Why can’t an angel exist uncaused? Why must it be “actualized”, and how is that possible?

In any case, I agree that humans cannot become angels, but I don’t agree that angels cannot become something else in some sense.

In that case they have potency and are not “fully” actualized potentiality.

Angels can take on bodily form, as we have already established.

So can God.

The fact that this doesn’t change the angelic essence has no effect whatsoever on the claim that angels are caused and finite.

But you’ve just claimed it, not shown it.

 

[punkforchrist]

NowAgnostic:

You’re just arguing by assertion and to authority here; you’ve not actually made any sort of valid argument. Let me go over the point again.

So, you want to borrow a Judeo-Christian concept for your counter-argument, but use a definition inconsistent with that tradition? I think that’s called a strawman.

An angel cannot have potency. If it did, its potentiality would not be fully actualized. (If something is “fully” actualized by definition there is no possibility to be further actualized.) Having no potency, it is “purely” actual in a sense - being limited, it’s not actual in absolutely every respect like God is, but it can’t get more actual than it is.

That angels do not have any non-actualized potentiality is entirely beside the point. The disanalogy, and hence the failure, of the argument is that angels are caused entities. “Every limited thing has the potential to be caused” is simply not identical to “Every limited and caused thing is composed of non-actualized potentiality.” That’s what you would need to prove in order for your counter-argument to be successful.

Now you say that angels require an act of actualization, but you haven’t shown it.

Since that’s part of what Christian theologians mean by their definition of angels, I don’t see any need to offer a demonstration.

In fact the notion itself is problematic, it’s not clear they are even possibly caused. You can’t create an angel from something else, whether joining or breaking down. Therefore, nothing has the potential to become an angel.

I don’t know of any theologian who says that angels are created out of something preexistent, Platonism notwithstanding. In any case, this is a rather moot point, since the issue is whether angels are caused. You can’t simply define them as uncaused without begging the question.

But, there does not seem to be a problem with an angel existing uncaused. You can’t just win an argument by definition, by merely defining an angel as a caused entity. Why can’t an angel exist uncaused? Why must it be “actualized”, and how is that possible?

If angels were uncaused, then they would be unlimited, which is why we ought to focus on the original argument. Offering angels as a counter-argument, when I don’t agree that angels are uncaused, is question-begging.

In that case they have potency and are not “fully” actualized potentiality.

Even if you’re correct, that has no bearing on the cosmological argument.

So can God.

That example is especially appropriate for today. Again, the disanalogy is that God is uncaused, whereas angels are not.

But you’ve just claimed it, not shown it.

I just don’t understand why you would superimpose your own definition of angels. The only reason I would think to do that is in order to avoid the conclusion that a Supreme Being exists.

 

[punkforchrist]

sidbrown:

Is God limited by logic?

I would say so, but logic is abstract, and abstract objects don’t stand in any causal relations. We’re talking about an unlimited power to do all things, and things (or “entities,” etc.) do stand in causal relations.

For example, the statement that whatever is unlimited is supreme. Where is the proof of this statement.

I stated my argument for that in the OP. Numbers and sets, etc., are abstract. We might say that there are unlimited, or infinite, sets, but that’s disanalogous to something that stands in a causal relation.

 

[punkforchrist]

bridgeforsale:

Sure, again your qualification of “unlimited” (as supreme) begs the question. Not saying it’s invalid, its just not logically necessary (and its meaning is ambiguous).

A circular argument would state that A because B, and B because A. That’s not how the argument goes, however.

The idea of a first cause is found in metaphysical arguments (like the Kalam cosmological argument).

That’s one of the arguments, but I’m talking about the Thomistic Cosmological Argument (TCA).

The idea is simple enough, everything requires a cause, the idea of infinite regression is impossible (so there must be a first cause that itself wasn’t caused by anything else), therefore god.

First, I have just a technical correction. The KCA states that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and the TCA states that every dependent thing has a cause. Neither states that everything has a cause.

But notice all this argument requires is an infinite (or eternal) god (or being of some sort) who caused the “second cause” (it doesn’t require anything further).

I’ll grant that for now. The TCA doesn’t argue that God is constantly involved with the universe. And, while I’m not a deist, the argument is at least prima facie consistent with the idea of a deistic God who causes the universe in some sense and just lets it go.

I don’t have to wonder why god didn’t stop Hitler; and invent all sorts of elaborate sophistic reasons why god didn’t intervene to stop the slaughter of six million Jews, but found the time to help 65 out of 5 million sick visitors to Lourdes. I can acknowledge god didn’t help anyone who visited Lourdes (because of course 65 out of 5 million is not statistically remarkable), and he didn’t save the Jews because he was simply unable to. So I must very respectfully disagree with the majority viewpoint on this topic.

I think we can agree that it is a wonderful thing we live in a free society, where we are allowed to disagree.

We don’t actually have to explain why God allows evil. As long as it is logically possible for God to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil (a reason we may not even know of), there is nothing that would prevent the existence of a Supreme Being.

Moreover, the definition of “Supreme Being” only requires that God’s power be unlimited. His knowledge, goodness, and so forth, are attributes we will have to consider later.

 

[NowAgnostic]

So, you want to borrow a Judeo-Christian concept for your counter-argument, but use a definition inconsistent with that tradition? I think that’s called a strawman.

I disagree. Angels are a philosophical concept, not intrinsically unique to Judaism or Christianity (as say, the parting of the Red Sea or the Incarnation would be). And, even to the extent it is Judeo-Christian, I’m certainly free to borrow the concept and yet disagree with what theologians have had to say on it. That’s not a strawman - a strawman is misrepresenting someone’s argument. But anyway, it’s neither here nor there.

That angels do not have any non-actualized potentiality is entirely beside the point. The disanalogy, and hence the failure, of the argument is that angels are caused entities.

OK, let’s use a new term, then, let’s say FAEs short for “fully actualized entities” with no potencies. FAEs are neither caused nor uncaused by definition. So, why must a limited FAE be caused?

“Every limited thing has the potential to be caused” is simply not identical to “Every limited and caused thing is composed of non-actualized potentiality.” That’s what you would need to prove in order for your counter-argument to be successful.

If you remember, you offered as support for your assertion that “every limited thing is possibly caused” the fact that you can add and/or take away from limited things, thereby causing new limited things. My counter-argument regarding limited FAEs successfully refutes this point, since you can’t add or subtract from anything else and end up with a FAE. Now, are you going to have the intellectual honesty to admit this or not, and, if you can’t find another justification for this premise, admit your argument is not sound.

I don’t know of any theologian who says that angels are created out of something preexistent, Platonism notwithstanding. In any case, this is a rather moot point, since the issue is whether angels are caused. You can’t simply define them as uncaused without begging the question.

Nor can you simply define them as caused without begging the question. If you agree we can use the term FAEs. Of course a theologian has an a priori commitment to the premise that all limited FAEs are caused, and therefore isn’t going to admit if there is a philosophical problem with the idea. It doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

If angels were uncaused, then they would be unlimited, which is why we ought to focus on the original argument.

By all means. Needless to say I dispute that an uncased angel must be limited. Now up to this point you have offered zilch in the way of argumentation in support of your assertion that any uncaused thing must be unlimited.

I just don’t understand why you would superimpose your own definition of angels. The only reason I would think to do that is in order to avoid the conclusion that a Supreme Being exists.

Use FAEs instead of angels then. Whatever my motives may or may not be have nothing to do with whether you have made a sound argument. It perhaps might make you feel better to assume that I simply want to avoid your conclusion, but it doesn’t make your argument any better.

Here’s your argument again.

1. Every existing thing is either limited or unlimited.
2. Whatever is limited has the potential to be caused.
3. The First Cause does not have the potential to be caused.
4. Hence, the First Cause is unlimited.

I’ll grant the argument is valid, and that 1 follows from the law of excluded middle. I have refuted your previously offered justification for premise 2. So, premise 2 needs justification, as does premise 3.

 

[sidbrown]

I disagree. Angels are a philosophical concept, not intrinsically unique to Judaism or Christianity (as say, the parting of the Red Sea or the Incarnation would be). And, even to the extent it is Judeo-Christian, I’m certainly free to borrow the concept and yet disagree with what theologians have had to say on it. That’s not a strawman - a strawman is misrepresenting someone’s argument. But anyway, it’s neither here nor there.

OK, let’s use a new term, then, let’s say FAEs short for “fully actualized entities” with no potencies. FAEs are neither caused nor uncaused by definition. So, why must a limited FAE be caused?

If you remember, you offered as support for your assertion that “every limited thing is possibly caused” the fact that you can add and/or take away from limited things, thereby causing new limited things. My counter-argument regarding limited FAEs successfully refutes this point, since you can’t add or subtract from anything else and end up with a FAE. Now, are you going to have the intellectual honesty to admit this or not, and, if you can’t find another justification for this premise, admit your argument is not sound.

Nor can you simply define them as caused without begging the question. If you agree we can use the term FAEs. Of course a theologian has an a priori commitment to the premise that all limited FAEs are caused, and therefore isn’t going to admit if there is a philosophical problem with the idea. It doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

By all means. Needless to say I dispute that an uncased angel must be limited. Now up to this point you have offered zilch in the way of argumentation in support of your assertion that any uncaused thing must be unlimited.

Use FAEs instead of angels then. Whatever my motives may or may not be have nothing to do with whether you have made a sound argument. It perhaps might make you feel better to assume that I simply want to avoid your conclusion, but it doesn’t make your argument any better.

Here’s your argument again.

1. Every existing thing is either limited or unlimited.
2. Whatever is limited has the potential to be caused.
3. The First Cause does not have the potential to be caused.
4. Hence, the First Cause is unlimited.

I’ll grant the argument is valid, and that 1 follows from the law of excluded middle. I have refuted your previously offered justification for premise 2. So, premise 2 needs justification, as does premise 3.

I am not sure about 1:
I think that an existing thing can be both limited and unlimited, or finite and infinite. Take for example the time interval of 100 seconds. It is limited since it does not extend beyond 100 seconds. But it is unlimited in the infinitely small, since it can be broken up into an infinite number of pieces. Say .5 of 100 seconds
.25 of 100 seconds
.125
.0625
etc which when added up as an infinite series 100*(SUM from n=1 to infinity of (.5)^n) will give you the finite sum of 100 seconds.

 

[punkforchrist]

NowAgnostic:

I disagree. Angels are a philosophical concept, not intrinsically unique to Judaism or Christianity (as say, the parting of the Red Sea or the Incarnation would be).

I thought we were analyzing the Christian concept of angels. In any case, I’m unaware of other philosophical systems that conceptualize angels as fully actualized potentialities. Many of these other religions think of angels, and indeed gods, as bodily in some sense.

And, even to the extent it is Judeo-Christian, I’m certainly free to borrow the concept and yet disagree with what theologians have had to say on it.

You’re free to borrow whatever concepts you like, but if you change the meaning, then we’re no longer talking about “angels,” as understood by your counterpart, but something else. FAE’s in general may fit this description, but I disagree that these entities are uncaused.

That’s not a strawman - a strawman is misrepresenting someone’s argument.

Argument, or view in the midst of making an argument, yes. This isn’t that important, though, since I can see you’re trying to apply a more general concept.

OK, let’s use a new term, then, let’s say FAEs short for “fully actualized entities” with no potencies. FAEs are neither caused nor uncaused by definition. So, why must a limited FAE be caused?

A necessary precondition of a thing’s actualization is that it is composed of a potentiality capable of actualization. God can will an angel, or an FAE, to no longer exist. We will have to keep in mind the inductive argument offered in support of the claim that every limited thing has the potential to be caused. Even the term, “fully actualized potentiality” presupposes potentiality.

If you remember, you offered as support for your assertion that “every limited thing is possibly caused” the fact that you can add and/or take away from limited things, thereby causing new limited things. My counter-argument regarding limited FAEs successfully refutes this point, since you can’t add or subtract from anything else and end up with a FAE.

As mentioned above, an FAE has a potentiality that is fully actualized. If this doesn’t entail causation, I don’t know what does.

Now, are you going to have the intellectual honesty to admit this or not, and, if you can’t find another justification for this premise, admit your argument is not sound.

I think I can maintain my intellectual honesty and still disagree with you.

Nor can you simply define them as caused without begging the question.

And, of course, that’s not what’s being done. You will recall that I offered an inductive argument that infers that limited things are potentially caused. The sun is just one example, but we can pile on many many instances in which this is the case. Saying that FAE’s are an exception, when no reason for that exception is offered, is a case of special pleading.

By all means. Needless to say I dispute that an uncased angel must be limited. Now up to this point you have offered zilch in the way of argumentation in support of your assertion that any uncaused thing must be unlimited.

Actually, I argued that a limited thing has the potentiality to be caused, and I offered a concrete example of this. You’re switching the terms around. The inference does not just go from uncaused to unlimited, but from limited to potentially caused. It is on the basis of this premise that we can infer that whatever is uncaused is unlimited.

Use FAEs instead of angels then. Whatever my motives may or may not be have nothing to do with whether you have made a sound argument. It perhaps might make you feel better to assume that I simply want to avoid your conclusion, but it doesn’t make your argument any better.

I’m not questioning your motives. What I am saying is that your counter-argument is reduced to question-begging and special pleading, as demonstrated above. The premise currently under consideration is this:

1. Every limited thing has the potential to be caused.

We can see how the denial of this results in question-begging by observing your counter-argument. Remember that you countered that FAE’s are an exception to this premise. My question has been: why are they an exception? You’re reply is that FAE’s are fully actualized potentiality, but this doesn’t come close to entailing that FAE’s are uncaused. If they are uncaused, then (2) is falsified; but (2) cannot be falsified unless it has already been established that FAE’s are uncaused. So, we’re engaging in a circular argument.

I’ll grant the argument is valid, and that 1 follows from the law of excluded middle. I have refuted your previously offered justification for premise 2. So, premise 2 needs justification, as does premise 3.

You haven’t refuted premise (2). You’ve overlooked the inductive element of the argument and instead opted to use angels (now FAE’s) as part of a counter-argument.

Don’t take any of this personally, NowAgnostic. I just don’t believe your attempted refutation is successful.

 

[punkforchrist]

I am not sure about 1:
I think that an existing thing can be both limited and unlimited, or finite and infinite. Take for example the time interval of 100 seconds. It is limited since it does not extend beyond 100 seconds. But it is unlimited in the infinitely small, since it can be broken up into an infinite number of pieces. Say .5 of 100 seconds
.25 of 100 seconds
.125
.0625
etc which when added up as an infinite series 100*(SUM from n=1 to infinity of (.5)^n) will give you the finite sum of 100 seconds.

These are good questions, Sid, so keep 'em coming. I would reply to this as I have with other questions. These infinitesimal divisions are merely abstract objects, so they’re not “limited/unlimited” in the same way a concrete entity would be, since the latter actually stand in causal relations.

It’s also worth considering two other points. First, whenever these infinitesimal fractions are added up, the sum is limited, or finite. You have already mentioned this, though. The other point is that many philosophers of mathematics don’t believe these divisions exist independently of the mind that abstracts them. My own position is a form of conceptualism, which holds that abstract objects, like mathematical fractions, exist in some sense, but only as concepts of the mind.

 

[punkforchrist]

Let’s see if I can put the question differently. What actualizes an angel’s potentiality? It cannot be nothing, since nothing causes nothing. It cannot be the angels themselves, since self-causation is presumed to be a metaphysical absurdity - that is, a thing would have to exist before it causes its own existence. This means that an angel is actualized by something external to itself, and the activity of this external entity is what we understand by a “cause.”

Do you disagree with any of this? If so, what?

If you wish to say that angels are not composed of any potentiality whatsoever, then I’m having a hard time distinguishing this from “pure actuality.”

 

[sidbrown]

These are good questions, Sid, so keep 'em coming. I would reply to this as I have with other questions. These infinitesimal divisions are merely abstract objects, so they’re not “limited/unlimited” in the same way a concrete entity would be, since the latter actually stand in causal relations.

It’s also worth considering two other points. First, whenever these infinitesimal fractions are added up, the sum is limited, or finite. You have already mentioned this, though. The other point is that many philosophers of mathematics don’t believe these divisions exist independently of the mind that abstracts them. My own position is a form of conceptualism, which holds that abstract objects, like mathematical fractions, exist in some sense, but only as concepts of the mind.

I would disagree that a time interval is a purely abstract concept. This would seem to involve the denial of time as real. If time is not real, then why do we see the aging process? The fact is that time is real, and since time is real, 1/2 of a second is real. Since 1/2 of a second is real, (1/4) of a second is real, 1/8 of a second is real, etc. The sum total of these real quantities will add up to one second, although there are an infinite number of these real quantites. So a time interval is both limited and unlimited and is also a real quantity.