First Cause.. Did you mean Cause or BEcause?

[James_S_Saint]

There is a very common misunderstanding that a “cause” is something that preceded in time.

A cause is a situation. “What causes a leaf to appear green?” “What is the cause for this big box not fitting into that small box?”

A situation can cause an effect of appearance, size, or arrangement and is the result of static logic. Or it CAN also cause a change in the situation, a temporal cause. Due to the situation, an imbalance yields a motion, a change.

What is referred to as the “First Cause” concerning God is not a temporal cause about change. It is not about “what brought anything into existence”. But rather “what is the beginning of all causes related to the reasoning that in turn brings changes.”

“*This *is true beCAUSE (by the cause of) *that *being true.”

But if you examine every truth, you can regress causes for their truth back to a “First Cause” for anything being true.

This was expressed in KJV by “I am that I am”. That isn’t exactly what the Hebrew meant. The first cause of reasoning is, “It is what it is”, which just happens to be stated in Hebrew with the exact same lettering. Aristotle listed 3 such first axioms of reasoning, a “Triune” First Cause. But all three of those can be stated merely as “Distinction”.

Distinction causes all things. (omnipotent)
Distinction is within all things. (omnipresent)
Distinction forms all knowledge and intelligence. (omniscient)
Distinction Causes all morality.

God is Distinction, the ultimate Father.

Consciousness is the awareness of distinction. The awareness of God, the very First Cause.

 

[John21652]

There is a very common misunderstanding that a “cause” is something that preceded in time.

Hang on a minute James -
a ‘cause’ can’t be a ‘cause’ unless it has an ‘effect’. Only after having an observable ‘effect’ can it be called a ‘cause’. a pebble lying on a beach is a situation, as you mentioned. But, unless that pebble puts something else into effect, then it is not a 'cause. Therefore, a cause must precede in time that which it causes to happen.

A cause is a situation. “What causes a leaf to appear green?” “What is the cause for this big box not fitting into that small box?”

A cause can be termed a situation, such as a pebble rolling and causing something else to happen. The pebble rolling is perhaps a situation, but again, it is not a cause until some event antecedes the rolling pebble.

A situation can cause an effect of appearance, size, or arrangement and is the result of static logic. Or it CAN also cause a change in the situation, a temporal cause. Due to the situation, an imbalance yields a motion, a change.

This is rather a convoluted passage. You are swinging between the physical and the temporal here. Make up your mind, please. A temporal event perhaps can cause a physical event, but only through the medium of movement of an agent, for example an arm, whereby the temporl event would be the first cause. The arm movement would be the second cause and so on. Unless, of course, we bring in the notion of temporal power that has the ability to bring about movement. Now we are into the teleological and theological.

What is referred to as the “First Cause” concerning God is not a temporal cause about change. It is not about “what brought anything into existence”. But rather “what is the beginning of all causes related to the reasoning that in turn brings changes.”

Wow, this passage is all over the shop! The notion of God as a ‘first cause’, or ‘first mover’
is fine, but to say the argument is not about ‘change’ is strange. The idea of God as a ‘first cause’ is an idea about ‘initiation’ with God as the ‘first intiator’. Can we argue that to initiate something from nothing is change? Maybe. I suppose to have nothing, then to have something, is ‘change’. If that is the case, then ‘change’ is very much part of the argument, contrary to your first sentence.
The second sentence in this passage is confusing. “What is the beginning of all causes…”, brings us back to the notion of a ‘first mover’. Then you wrote “…related to the reasoning that in turn brings changes.” My first thought was “are you trying to discover whether or not God got lonley”! Which begs the question, are you trying to understand the mind of God? Well, best of luck with that one…

“*This *is true beCAUSE (by the cause of) *that *being true.”

One must distinguish between causative agents and correlated events. For something to be considered as a “cause” there must be a clearly identifiable relationship between it and the sebsequent event, or state of affairs. So, to simply say this is true because that is true could be fallacious without testing.

But if you examine every truth, you can regress causes for their truth back to a “First Cause” for anything being true.

I one million billiard balls spin and move around and come to rest after a few hours, can you regress these observable “truths” (the billiard balls) back to the first cause? Good luck!

The rest of your post results in a quantum leap from conciousness to the awreness of God, as in

God is Distinction, the ultimate Father.
Consciousness is the awareness of distinction. The awareness of God, the very First Cause.

Many philosophers have been down this path. “Cogito Ergo Sum” is one phrase that comes to mind. But our existance does not necessarily lead to a knowledge of God, does it?. If it were that simple, we wouldn’t need a Church! Descartes used his doubting to realise he was alive, an individual. Cannot those who doubt the existence of God argue similarly? Descartes said “no”, but today, those whose faith is in the ‘scientific method’ say otherwise.
There now, I’ve introduced a brand new concept = “Faith”!

 

[James_S_Saint]

Hang on a minute James -
a ‘cause’ can’t be a ‘cause’ unless it has an ‘effect’. Only after having an observable ‘effect’ can it be called a ‘cause’. a pebble lying on a beach is a situation, as you mentioned. But, unless that pebble puts something else into effect, then it is not a 'cause. Therefore, a cause must precede in time that which it causes to happen.

Ah. Intelligent inquiry - love it. Let’s hope Azazel doesn’t destroy it.

Does a motion cause the situation or does the situation cause the motion? Does the voltage appear on the wire because the current is flowing or is the current flowing because of the voltage being on the wire?

In the long run, each in turn causes the other. But isn’t the motion of something merely the situation of motion? Thus in both cases the situation is the cause.

If my situation is that I have an imbalance of force (for whatever reason) then motion will take place. That is the situation of reality – local imbalance, a distinction between a force and its counter force, but the specific distinction of having one greater than the other.

“The effect” when there is a situation of imbalance is that change occurs. “The effect” when there is balance is that no change can occur. The effect is that it is locked, incapable of change. It has inertia - the effect of being truly balanced.

The distinctions might cause an effect in time (a mover) or it might cause the effect of no time, no change (immutable). The situation determines which it CAUSES.

Many philosophers have been down this path. “Cogito Ergo Sum” is one phrase that comes to mind. But our existance does not necessarily lead to a knowledge of God, does it?. If it were that simple, we wouldn’t need a Church! Descartes used his doubting to realise he was alive, an individual. Cannot those who doubt the existence of God argue similarly? Descartes said “no”, but today, those whose faith is in the ‘scientific method’ say otherwise.
There now, I’ve introduced a brand new concept = “Faith”!

Not with me they can’t.

The purpose of Faith is to allow the good behavior to lead to the right understanding, the “Truth”. The situation is that understanding is difficult for most to obtain, so they MUST have FAITH until they can obtain it. After obtaining accurate understanding, faith is immutable.

Why is it better to have weaker faith than assured, immutable faith?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Another thought…

Jesus said, “I am the Truth, the Light, and the Life/Way”, all three. He is the facts, the sign post, and the behavior. But wait, “the facts” AND “the behavior”?? How can he be both? Isn’t that a contradiction? Facts are not motion. But if you are the Cause, if you are God causing the facts to be the facts that are causing the behavior to be the behavior, then no, there is no contradiction. You would merely be “What is”, the Cause of creation.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Then there is also this concern;

Before God???

If you believe that God initiated the universe with the first event, then logically, God cannot exist. So which is it?

 

[kimmielittle]

Listeningopcorn:

 

[James_S_Saint]

Listeningopcorn:

Haha… so am I…

 

[Bluegoat]

Aristotle set out the different types of cause with some precision. Clearly cause in philosophy does not only mean temporal cause, but it is often misunderstood that way and gives difficulty to those trying to understand various philosophical arguments about causes.

The material cause - the material cause of water is hydrogen and oxygen.
The formal cause - the is-ness of a thing, that which makes it what it is. A kind of mathematical, abstract arrangement like a plan.
The efficient cause -this is what most people think of as a cause in time, that which starts a thing or begins the sequence of events that lead to it.
The final cause - the end to which a thing moves, its purpose

As for cause having to precede effect in time - well, even if that were so, which it isn’t, it doesn’t apply to anything outside of time, or outside the universe.

And as Commander Data (or was it Captian Picarde?) said - “in temporal mechanics cause does not always precede effect” Not that I am using Star Trek as a proof:blush:

 

[James_S_Saint]

And as Commander Data (or was it Captian Picarde?) said - “in temporal mechanics cause does not always precede effect” Not that I am using Star Trek as a proof:blush:

I would have to disagree with Cdr. Data. But then who listens to an android that gets depressed, cries, and falls in love.

 

[geometer]

Does a motion cause the situation or does the situation cause the motion? Does the voltage appear on the wire because the current is flowing or is the current flowing because of the voltage being on the wire?

Voltage is electromotive force, voltage can be present without any current flow. If there is current flow it will be proportional to the voltage divided by the resistance of the circuit.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Voltage is electromotive force, voltage can be present without any current flow. If there is current flow it will be proportional to the voltage divided by the resistance of the circuit.

Exactly. Thus at times it is not the flow of events that cause a resultant effect, but the situation of reality - the “logic of the situation” - the “cause” of the motion.