First Cause

[rossum]

Asserting yet more logical contradictions.

I am merely pointing out the contradictions inherent in your argument.

Your argument effectively states the impossibility of not existing. Hence, by your argument, everything exists. Where “everything” includes unicorns and Jesus’ elder brother.

You need to rework your argument so that it doesn’t apply to everything. A blanket ban on non-existence results in absurdity.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I am merely pointing out the contradictions inherent in your argument.

Your attempted refutation starts with a logical contradiction. Nonexistent particulars cannot exist to have nonexistent universals nor can nonexistent universals exist to be applied to nonexistent particulars. Why is this such a difficult thing to agree too? Surely you see it. That is not a problem with the proof that is a problem with the refutation.

Your argument effectively states the impossibility of not existing…

The proof demonstrates that First Cause is logically necessary and therefore cannot be contingent on anything else. It is non-sequitir to conclude that the ontological status of First Cause states the impossibility of X not existing. First Cause=/=X. First Cause does not equal X. Did you think that you were replacing terms by talking about unicorns? Is that why you keep bringing them up? That’s really confusing. Please stick to formal logical refutations.

 

[rossum]

The proof demonstrates that First Cause is logically necessary and therefore cannot be contingent on anything else.

It may possibly demonstrate that something is logically necessary. Since your argument does not require its object to have the property of causation your argument at most establishes a “First”. It does not establish a “First Cause”. Your argument would work with a non-causing inactive but eternal God.

You have failed to establish the requirement for “Cause” in your argument.

Did you think that you were replacing terms by talking about unicorns? Is that why you keep bringing them up? That’s really confusing. Please stick to formal logical refutations.

Please explain how it is possible for unicorns not to exist. Or perhaps I should say the “First Unicorn”, with capital letters. Why cannot I apply your argument to the “First Unicorn” herself?

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It may possibly demonstrate that something is logically necessary. Since your argument does not require its object to have the property of causation your argument at most establishes a “First”. It does not establish a “First Cause”. Your argument would work with a non-causing inactive but eternal God.

You have failed to establish the requirement for “Cause” in your argument.

If change begins to exist and proceeds from the foundation of a necessary being, then change exists because of that being, and thus that necessary being necessarily has a causative nature. Obviously it is not the same kind of cause we would associate with a mechanism, such as one cog moving another cog. But time nonetheless is being caused into being by that which is necessarily real.

The point is, that which is ontologically first is necessarily responsible for the existence of everything that proceeds into reality; otherwise there would be nothing for reality to proceed from and thus no logical reason for its existence.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It may possibly demonstrate that something is logically necessary. Since your argument does not require its object to have the property of causation your argument at most establishes a “First”. It does not establish a “First Cause”. Your argument would work with a non-causing inactive but eternal God.

You have failed to establish the requirement for “Cause” in your argument.

Please explain how it is possible for unicorns not to exist. Or perhaps I should say the “First Unicorn”, with capital letters. Why cannot I apply your argument to the “First Unicorn” herself?

rossum

There is good rational reasons to think that there is a first cause. In knowing what a unicorn is, there is no rational reason to believe or think that a unicorn is the first cause of space/time and energy.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…Why cannot I apply your argument to the “First Unicorn” herself?

For the same reason I pointed out a dozen or more posts ago the first time you tried term replacement. Term replacement only works if the terms are equal otherwise its another meaningless statement. Just as I pointed out too you many posts ago that First Cause is logically necessary and that excludes any contingency of any kind. First cause is not contingent on any kind of universe, any kind of grammar, language, nothing. First cause is literally contingent on nothing because it is the act of existing its negation is the act of not existing is a logical contradiction and therefore the only possible state of reality is to be.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If change begins to exist and proceeds from the foundation of a necessary being, then change exists because of that being, and thus that necessary being necessarily has a causative nature…

Brilliant

 

[rossum]

If change begins to exist …

In an eternal universe change does not begin to exist; it has always existed in the eternal universe.

As I said before, your argument fails for an eternal universe because there is no place for a First Cause in an eternal universe. Nothing can be “First” in an eternal universe.

Your First Cause is dependent on the universe having a beginning.

The point is, that which is ontologically first …

How can it be “first” in an eternal universe. Whatever you tell me is “first” I can always point to something that was there before it. There is no first in an eternal universe. Only a universe with a beginning can have a “First”.

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter2]

In an eternal universe change does not begin to exist; it has always existed in the eternal universe.

It is true that in an eternal universe there is no “temporal” first cause, But neither is there a temporal first cause in a finite universe, since everything in the universe is a string of temporal effects. In so far as these effects precede some other temporal event, they are only secondary causes, since they are not the primary source of their own being or potentiality/change. The nature of their causality is thus purely functional as opposed to existential; this is to say that no effect in your eternal universe is the cause of existence or potentiality/change. And since out of nothing comes nothing, your eternal universe requires a non-temporal source for its dynamic reality. Making the universe infinite doesn’t change the fact that it is fundamentally contingent in nature, since it is made up of finite potential events.

As I said before, your argument fails for an eternal universe because there is no place for a First Cause in an eternal universe.

You draw this conclusion because you fail to understand what is meant by an existential cause.

Nothing can be “First” in an eternal universe.

There can be an ontological first cause upon which all potentiality/change is dependent for its existence.

Your First Cause is dependent on the universe having a beginning.

Your version of the first cause is dependent on the universe having a beginning.

How can it be “first” in an eternal universe.

God both transcends and permeates the universe. God isn’t “in” the universe like a spatial object, but rather God is that being through which and in which the universe is a reality.

Whatever you tell me is “first” I can always point to something that was there before it.

Yeah sure. So what.

There is no first in an eternal universe. Only a universe with a beginning can have a “First”.

rossum

Nobody here is arguing for the existence of a temporal first cause. That kind of cause would not be God.

 

[rel1]

Then the First Cause is not God either. The First Cause is dependent on the First Effect; if there is not effect then there cannot have been a cause. A cause requires and effect just as an effect requires a cause. All causes are dependent on some effect in order that they are a cause. A parent cannot be a parent without children.

Since any First Cause is contingent, it depends on something else, it cannot be God under your definition.

rossum

We and everything in existence is in an evolved stage of first cause. If god is infinite than we are infinite because we have and always will be a part of the eternal universe.
Does this make sense?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…Your First Cause is dependent on the universe having a beginning.

The proof clearly demonstrates that First Cause is logically necessary and therefore cannot be contingent on any other factors. That’s what it means to be logically necessary. It is impossible not to exist. You are ignoring a proof you cannot refute when you say that First Cause is dependent or contingent on anything.

How can it be “first” in an eternal universe. Whatever you tell me is “first” I can always point to something that was there before it. There is no first in an eternal universe. Only a universe with a beginning can have a “First”…

Oh please An infinite number of lambs does not create a ewe. An infinite number of ghosts do not create a dead body. An infinite number of apples does not create a tree. Trees, ewes, and dead bodies, are all logically precedent to lambs, ghosts, and apples. No matter how large a series of contingent beings you have, they cannot become their own cause. That ludicrous idea has been disproven for more than 6 decades now. Do you have a formal logical refutation to the proof? These continued persuasive arguments are not going to move the ball.

 

[rossum]

The proof clearly demonstrates that First Cause is logically necessary and therefore cannot be contingent on any other factors.

That is what I dispute. Your proof is not clear. It takes no account of the “Cause”. It does not apply in an eternal universe. You are asserting qualities which your proof does not have.

Oh please An infinite number of lambs does not create a ewe.

That is not what I said. All I say is that for every ewe there is a preceding lamb. A simple one-to-one relationship.

No matter how large a series of contingent beings you have, they cannot become their own cause.

I am not talking about a series, I am talking about individuals. Each individual ewe has her own lamb as her cause. There is no ewe without a lamb.

That ludicrous idea has been disproven for more than 6 decades now.

I am sure that there are a number of mathematicians who will be interested to know that an infinite series is impossible.

Do you have a formal logical refutation to the proof?

I have given a number of them. Your First Cause is dependent on a way to determine “First”, it is dependent on the existence of causation and it is dependent on a non-eternal universe.

rossum

 

[rossum]

In so far as these effects precede some other temporal event, they are only secondary causes, since they are not the primary source of their own being or potentiality/change.

I do not accept any form of inner essence in things. What you see is what you get. There is no Thomist substance, or Platonic ideal, sitting behind reality.

Your version of the first cause is dependent on the universe having a beginning.

Not my version. I do not accept a First Cause.

God both transcends and permeates the universe. God isn’t “in” the universe like a spatial object, but rather God is that being through which and in which the universe is a reality.

I am Buddhist. My attitude to God is not the same as yours.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That is what I dispute. Your proof is not clear. It takes no account of the “Cause”. It does not apply in an eternal universe. You are asserting qualities which your proof does not have.

The proof demonstrates that First Cause is logically necessary.** That means First Cause cannot be contingent in any way**. If you accept the rules of logic, that’s the end of the story. If you do not accept the rules of logic, then nothing we are talking about matters because the truth doesn’t matter.

That is not what I said. All I say is that for every ewe there is a preceding lamb. A simple one-to-one relationship.

An argument I will be happy to refute just as soon as you can offer a valid formal refutation of my proof, or you acquiesce to it. If you can do neither, then further conversation is pointless because people willing to accept the irrational in order to protect their cherished beliefs are not people you can have a discussion about truth with. If you are not about finding truth then why are you here?

I have given a number of them…

You have given 2. The first, equivocation, you withdrew. The second was a logical contradiction asserting that nonexistent particulars exist to have non existent universals. Which is hilarious, because you just told MoM that you refuse to admit the existence of essences, which means that you never really believed the refutation you proposed to me. Which means that you obviously don’t believe the argument you used. But you used it anyway. It is not enough to offer a meaningless series of words as a refutation, they have to be logically valid. If the world worked the way you suppose, Every atheist should accept my refutation of their arguments under the basis of “because I said so” and when they complain that I didn’t refute their argument, I need only point out that “because I said so” is the basis of my refutation and that is sufficient.

 

[razredge]

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

That is not the traditional definition of ‘First Cause’ then

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.

It certainly is possible (logically) at least, for anything to* not exist *at all.

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 are hiding behind sophistry. Saying ‘nothing can exist’ is similar to saying ‘nothing is wet’ or ‘nothing can be done’ it is a linguistic convention accepted in English at least, despite the logical contradiction in taking the statement at face value

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.

It is not logical at all - any philosopher will tell you it is logically possible for nothing to exist (or since you have a hard time understanding that concept - anything to not exist). In fact the Christian concept of creation ex nihilo depends on the existence of nothingness (or lack of).

 

[razredge]

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

Well said - warpspeedpetey is deluded if he thinks it is impossible for things to not exist - no philosopher would agree with him and any observer of this thread would immediately see the flaws in his logic.

He seems to be hiding behind semantic sophistry with his statement

The act of not existing is a logical contradiction. Logical contradictions cannot exist

Why is the ‘state of non-existence’ a logical contradiction? This is a preposterous
misuse of logic.

Either way, rossum has proved that his statement is false with the reductio ad absurdum example of Jesus’ elder brother.

 

[rossum]

The proof demonstrates that First Cause is logically necessary.

You claim that it does. Your claim is incorrect.

Please demonstrate why your argument requires that its subject be a cause.

Please demonstrate why an eternal universe cannot fulfil the requirements of your argument and hence remove the need for a First Cause.

Please demonstrate how to refute the existence of any proposed particular thing; I have been using Jesus’ older brother as an example.

Please demonstrate how to refute the existence of any proposed universal thing; we can use the Invisible Pink Unicorn as an example.

Your argument has many logical problems. Merely asserting its correctness does not remove those problems.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

I do not accept any form of inner essence in things. What you see is what you get. There is no Thomist substance, or Platonic ideal, sitting behind reality.

So you agree with Hume that things are “bundles of perceptions”?

 

[rossum]

So you agree with Hume that things are “bundles of perceptions”?

I agree with Nagarjuna. I do not know a great deal about Hume’s thinking.

In general there is more than just “bundles of perceptions” to things. For example, a human is analysed into five constituent parts, only one of which is perceptions. However, that is perceptions from the receiving side, not the sending side. I don’t know which direction Hume means.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That is not the traditional definition of ‘First Cause’ then

Actus Purus is indeed our definition of First Cause. Has been for more than 800 years.

It is not logical at all - any philosopher will tell you it is logically possible for nothing to exist (or since you have a hard time understanding that concept - anything to not exist). In fact the Christian concept of creation ex nihilo depends on the existence of nothingness (or lack of).

You 're confusing the abstract meaning with the logical meaning. Have you noticed that I keep insisting on logical refutations? That’s because I am not talking about the abstract. Persuasive arguments are meaningless. Please offer a formal valid logical refutation of the proof.