First Cause

[warpspeedpetey]

…Many things are in the act of not existing.

The act of not existing, does not exist so it cannot be anything, not a universal and not a particular. Same thing goes for “nothing exists”.

 

[razredge]

Is a unicorn in the “act of not existing”? Is Jesus’ elder brother in the “act of not existing”? Many things are in the act of not existing.

Your logic fails.

rossum

Agreed, warpspeedpetey’s position is illogical - the question of how an eternal universe came to being is meaningless, eternal things by definition, do not have beginnings.

It is exactly as meaningless as asking how God came into being.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Agreed…

We are not talking about the origin of the universe but the ontological status of First Cause. Specifically I offered a proof and am waiting for a formal logical refutation of said proof, or an acquiescence to its validity.

…how God came into being.

G-d did not come into being. G-d is defined as Actus Purus the act of existing, its negation, the act of not existing or “nothing exists” is a logical contradiction, an impossibility. So there is no other possible state of reality but for G-d to exist.

 

[razredge]

We are not talking about the origin of the universe but the ontological status of First Cause. Specifically I offered a proof and am waiting for a formal logical refutation of said proof, or an acquiescence to its validity.
.

But as rossum has pointed out any first cause argument is contingent on there being a finite universe rather than an eternal one - otherwise the question of cause is meaningless.

It is not even an argument that can be refuted as the very definition of ‘first cause’ references causality, a concept which cannot be logically applied to an eternal universe.

I have no idea how anyone can fail to see that.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…I have no idea how anyone can fail to see that.

Because I proven, using the universally accepted logical method of Proof by Contradiction that First Cause is logically necessary, which excludes it from being contingent on anything else.

First Cause is logically necessary, meaning its negation presents a contradiction. In this case First Cause is the act of existing, the negation of which, the act of not existing, or nothing exists, is a logical contradiction which means it is an impossibility.

See, First Cause is logically necessary, hence it must exist regardless of any other factors. The universe could be eternal, or it could be finite, or it could be pink, or even not exist at all. It does not matter to the the ontological status of First Cause.

If you still disagree, then feel free to offer a formal logical refutation of the proof. Not a persuasive argument but an actual formal logical refutation. I am not wedded to the idea, if there is a formal logical refutation, I can concede. But if there is not then I expect the same from you and rossum. Further, the claim that an eternal universe does not require a cause has been disproven for decades, I would encourage you to read Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell 1947 for more details.

 

[razredge]

Because I proven, using the universally accepted logical method of Proof by Contradiction that First Cause is logically necessary, which excludes it from being contingent on anything else. See, First Cause is logically necessary, hence it must exist regardless of any other factors. The universe could be eternal, or it could be finite, or it could be pink, or even not exist at all. It does not matter to the the ontological status of First Cause.

If you still disagree, then feel free to offer a formal logical refutation of the proof. Not a persuasive argument but an actual formal logical refutation. I am not wedded to the idea, if there is a formal logical refutation, I can concede. But if there is not then I expect the same from you and rossum. Further, the claim that an eternal universe does not require a cause has been disproven for decades, I would encourage you to read Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell 1947 for more details.

There is some confusion in terms - your definition of the first cause is more like ‘existence’ rather than the traditional, Aristotelian definition.

Of course ‘existence’ is contingent on nothing else - by definition. If things do not exist then there is no existence.

However, it is logically possible at least for anything not to exist (or commonly put for nothing to exist - though I am aware this is oxymoronic).

So if things exist, then there is a first cause, however in an eternal universe this ‘first cause’ or ‘existence’ is the universe itself since there is no need for a further uncaused cause.

 

[rossum]

We are not talking about the origin of the universe but the ontological status of First Cause. Specifically I offered a proof and am waiting for a formal logical refutation of said proof, or an acquiescence to its validity.

So, let us instead talk about the existence of the eternal universe.

G-d did not come into being. G-d is defined as Actus Purus the act of existing, its negation, the act of not existing or “nothing exists” is a logical contradiction, an impossibility. So there is no other possible state of reality but for G-d to exist.

The eternal universe did not come into being. The eternal universe is defined as Actus Purus the act of existing, its negation, the act of not existing or “nothing exists” is a logical contradiction, an impossibility. So there is no other possible state of reality but for the eternal universe to exist.

As razredge correctly points out, there is nothing in your argument that requires causation, merely existence. I have shown, using exactly your argument, that the eternal universe exists. A glance at the Kalaam argument indicates that with an eternal universe there is no logical requirement for a cause.

The eternal universe exists. The First Cause does not. Your alleged First Cause is just a misnamed version of the eternal universe.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is some confusion in terms - your definition of the first cause is more like ‘existence’ rather than the traditional, Aristotelian definition.

Its the traditional Catholic definition. Actus Purus. The act of existing.

Of course ‘existence’ is contingent on nothing else - by definition. If things do not exist then there is no existence.

Replace the word “existence” with “act of existing” and you made my argument. The act of existing or First cause is is contingent on nothing else. Agreement 1

However, it is logically possible at least for anything not to exist

No, it is not logically possible for what is logically necessary not to exist. That’s what it means to be logically necessary. That’s logic 101 stuff. My proof demonstrates that First cause is logically necessary. Which you admit just above.

(or commonly put for nothing to exist - though I am aware this is oxymoronic).

An oxymoron is a combination of contradictory terms. A contradiction is a logical impossibility. Hence it is not logically possible for nothing to exist.
Agreement 2

You have inadvertently agreed to my proof twice. I point this out not to be rude or condescending, but because it demonstrates my position is so eminently logical that it can be understood by everyone. If you still disagree with the proof and you have a formal logical refutation to offer I will be happy to hear it, but persuasive arguments are as meaningless here as they are in a geometry class. I offered a logical proof and only a formal logical refutation will invalidate it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So, let us instead talk about the existence of the eternal universe.

Why? Its not a term in the proof. Hence, the universe, its existence, or its non-existence has nothing to do with the proof. If we are going to talk about random unrelated subjects, then I demand we talk about smurfs. lol

The eternal universe…

You are wasting your time typing out anything but a formal logical refutation. I have pointed this out many times. I believe that logic is a valid technique for rational exploration of reality, just as every logician and mathematician on the planet does. If you do not feel this way, then there is no point in continuing the conversation.

 

[rossum]

Why? Its not a term in the proof.

I was merely showing that your argument is so general that it applies to many things. Hence it is irrelevant. Your argument is not specific to the First Cause, as indeed you show by using the same argument with God replacing the First Cause. I merely used a different replacement to emphasise the point.

At no point in your argument do you use, or need, the causative nature of the First Cause. You argument applies equally well to non-causes as to causes. Your argument, being so general, does not require that its object be a cause, merely that its object exists.

I demand we talk about smurfs.

They are blue and there is only one female Smurf. Can you show that they exist?

You are wasting your time typing out anything but a formal logical refutation.

I have given two. First you are moving from a particular to a general. Second your argument does not require that its subject be a cause, hence you have failed to establish that its object is necessarily a cause.

Consider an eternal, but inactive, God. That God, being eternal would be established by your current argument. Being inactive that God would not be a cause. Hence your argument may establish existence, but it does not establish cause. You need to extend your argument to show that its object actually causes something.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…you are moving from a particular to a general.

Which I now refute for the third time by pointing out that the “act of not existing” is not a thing that exists. Therefore, because it does not exist it cannot be a universal and certainly not a particular…The rest of the post is a persuasive argument (metaphysically meaningless BTW, term replacement only works if terms are equal) and not a formal logical refutation. Do you have a formal logical refutation to offer?

 

[rossum]

Which I now refute for the third time by pointing out that the “act of not existing” is not a thing that exists.

So, according to you “the act of not existing” is not a thing which exists.

Let us consider Jesus older brother. I think we can all agree that Jesus’ older brother did not exist. Hence we can correctly say that “Jesus older brother in in the act of not existing”. However, you tell us that “the act of not existing” is not a thing which exists. Therefore, since Jesus older brother cannot have a property which does not exist, we must say that Jesus older brother is not in the “act of not existing”. How can he be in the act of something non-existent? Hence, by the law of the excluded middle, if Jesus older brother cannot be in the “act of not existing” then he must be in the “act of existing”.

Following your logic shows that anything I chose to think of exists. Since this conclusion is obviously false, you logic is in error.

This is a proof by contradiction. Your logic fails.

You have also not dealt with my point that your logic does not depend on the causative nature of its subject. This is a further flaw for you to deal with.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…Hence we can correctly say that “(X )is in the act of not existing”.

For the 4th time. The act of not existing is a logical contradiction. Logical contradictions cannot exist. Therefore the act of not existing is not something that can exist to be a universal or a particular. As I pointed out universals and particulars require there to be an entity. As “the act of not existing” is a contradiction and thus its existence is an impossibility, it cannot be an entity. Not a particular and certainly then not a universal. Asserting nonexistent beings exist by a nonexistent nonexistence is ludicrous.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… brother…not exist…=/=… brother (is) …

Maybe If I isolate it this way. Inside the ellipses you assert both that something both exists and not exists. Which violates the law of non-contradiction.

 

[rossum]

For the 4th time. The act of not existing is a logical contradiction.

Then you are saying that Jesus’ older brother exists, since he cannot not exist. You are saying that unicorns exist because they cannot not exist.

Your logic requires that every conceiveable thing exists. God exists, Zeus exists, Durga exists, Thor exists, Amaterasu exists, Krishna exists.

How can anything not exist in your logic?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Maybe If I isolate it this way. Inside the ellipses you assert both that something both exists and not exists. Which violates the law of non-contradiction.

You left out a “not”.

Jesus’ brother is not in the act of not existing.

If X is not not existing then X exists.

This is standard logic for a double negative.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Then you are saying that Jesus’ older brother exists, since he cannot not exist. You are saying that unicorns exist because they cannot not exist.

Your logic requires that every conceiveable thing exists. God exists, Zeus exists, Durga exists, Thor exists, Amaterasu exists, Krishna exists.

How can anything not exist in your logic?

rossum

For the 5th time. The act of not existing is a logical contradiction. Logical contradictions cannot exist. Therefore the act of not existing is not something that can exist to be a universal or a particular. As I pointed out universals and particulars require there to be an entity. As “the act of not existing” is a contradiction and thus its existence is an impossibility, it cannot be an entity. Not a particular and certainly then not a universal. Asserting nonexistent beings exist by a nonexistent nonexistence is ludicrous.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You left out a “not”.

Jesus’ brother is not in the act of not existing.

If X is not not existing then X exists.

This is standard logic for a double negative.

rossum

For the 6th time. The act of not existing is a logical contradiction. Logical contradictions cannot exist. Therefore the act of not existing is not something that can exist to be a universal or a particular. As I pointed out universals and particulars require there to be an entity. As “the act of not existing” is a contradiction and thus its existence is an impossibility, it cannot be an entity. Not a particular and certainly then not a universal. Asserting nonexistent beings exist by a nonexistent nonexistence is ludicrous.

You will get a different answer when you stop asserting the validity of logical contradictions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…older brother exists…=…not exist…unicorns exist …=… not exist.

You’re just asserting more logical contradictions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…(X) is not in the act of not existing…

Asserting yet more logical contradictions. None of the objects in that sentence exist. Its still as meaningless as when you posit it as a particular to universal. Do you have a formal logical refutation? If not are you ready to accept the validity of the proof?