First Cause

[Pieman333272]

Jesus existed and worked IN time. Jesus was God. QED.

rossum

But that’s non-applicable because we’re talking about the FIRST CAUSE, not the Divinity.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

My lack of response to you is a reflection of your lack of response to me.

I requested either a short restatement of your claimed logical proof or a link to your previous statement of that claimed proof. You have so far failed to provide either.

rossum

1. Now that you have admitted that logic doesn’t matter to you, its a moot point.
2. You actually quoted the proof you refer to here so you don’t need yet another restatement.
3. When you realized that the proof demonstrated your position was wrong, you just started repeating arguments and demanding that I readdress them after refutation. Some as many as 6 or 7 times. I am not obligated to play continual games. The proof stands regardless of your behavior. Only a valid formal logical refutation matters.
4. You never offered a valid formal logical refutation of the proof though I gave you hundreds of posts to do so. That and only that has any bearing on this issue. Had you decided to act rationally this would have been decided in a few posts.
5. As always, if you have a new, valid, formal, logical refutation to offer, I will be happy to hear it. (I can’t believe that I have to attach four adjectives to the word “refutation”, to make it clear what I mean. That’s a sad way for adults to have to communicate.)

 

[rossum]

1. Now that you have admitted that logic doesn’t matter to you, its a moot point.
2. You actually quoted the proof you refer to here so you don’t need yet another restatement.
3. When you realized that the proof demonstrated your position was wrong, you just started repeating arguments and demanding that I readdress them after refutation. Some as many as 6 or 7 times. I am not obligated to play continual games. The proof stands regardless of your behavior. Only a valid formal logical refutation matters.
4. You never offered a valid formal logical refutation of the proof though I gave you hundreds of posts to do so. That and only that has any bearing on this issue. Had you decided to act rationally this would have been decided in a few posts.
5. As always, if you have a new, valid, formal, logical refutation to offer, I will be happy to hear it. (I can’t believe that I have to attach four adjectives to the word “refutation”, to make it clear what I mean. That’s a sad way for adults to have to communicate.)

Was that post longer or shorter than a “short restatement” of your proof would have been?

rossum

 

[Contarini]

I do. Your proof establishes the existence of anything I wish to apply it to.

• The Invisible Pink Unicorn is Actus Purus.

A Pink Unicorn can’t be Actus Purus, because it contains potentiality. You aren’t bothering to understand what “Actus Purus” means in the first place.

Edwin

 

[tonyrey]

If you don’t know what their causes are how do you know they have causes?

Persons, truth, goodness, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love do not have physical causes. How do you know **all **material objects have causes?

Spiritual beauty exists in goodness, justice, freedom, physical beauty and love - which are not objects.

Please define goodness, justice etc. in the absence of any other objects.

Goodness exists in the immense value of existence. Justice is the correct relationship between persons. Freedom is both the power to choose and the scope for choice. Love is creative power which unites persons.

Are goodness, justice, freedom and love comparatives and adjectives?

They have no meaning on their own, they need a referent. I can ask “Is X good?” I cannot ask “Is good?”

If you believe in virtue you believe a person’s intentions, thoughts and actions have goodness, i.e. intrinsic worth which survives after that person’s death.

How do you know the universe is eternal?

Scripture and science has not ruled out the possibility either.

Which possibility?

A criterion need not entail dependence. It is a means of recognition.

The description “First” must have a dependence on the criterion. It is how we recognise first rather than second or fifteenth.

“First Cause” is not a member of a series but the ontological foundation of the series. And even if the universe were eternal you would still have to explain how development originated.

That is putting the cart before the horse! Horses existed before carts.

Carthorses did not exist before carts.

Carthorses are horses used to pull carts - and horses did exist before carts.

We can determine their ontological precedence by their power.

I disagree. Power has no relation to cause and effect. A father may be stronger than his son, or the son may be stronger than his father. The power relation between them may change over time.

Power is not necessarily physical.

How do you know human beings are the only persons that exist?

In Buddhism they aren’t; in Christianity they are. I was using the Christian definition of person.

Christians believe there are three divine Persons and other spiritual beings with personal attributes.

Do you understand how persons are the causes of their actions?

I have an understanding. Being as it is based in the Buddhist analysis of what constitutes a person then I suspect you would not agree with it.

So you agree persons initiate their actions?

How do you know Scripture is true?

Scripture works. How do you know Scripture is true?

For the same reason!

 

[JDaniel]

Exactly the same argument applies to where we are in God’s “lifetime”. Whether we have an eternal universe or an eternal God, we are all here and now, with an eternity of God or universe behind us and an eternity of God or universe in front of us.

Rossum:

Not at all. You know as well as I do that for Christianity God is Spirituality, not finite materiality. A lifetime for God is not spoken of nor even considered; it is not something the Western Christian world has considered since its beginnings. And we’re not going to start doing it now. Besides, how does one consider lifetime in regards to an Infinite spirituality? We can only do that by mentally transposing Him into materiality and finitude. Infinite materiality is what is an impossibility, and an absurdity.

As long as there is something eternal in existence, which we both agree on, then we are somewhere in the middle of it. Given that fact, then there is obviously an error in your reasoning.

On the contrary. The error is on your part. You make a couple of errors: (1) you postulate an infinite materiality. Materiality is by its very nature, finite. Materiality is countable - to some end number. And that end number must be finite, however large it might grow to be. (2) You postulate an infinite past time. Does anyone else understand the contradiction here?

Only that which is immateriality can possibly be infinite. Infinity is absolute distension (boundless) without the possibility of displacement. All material reality is and can be displaced. It can be displaced by, e.g., space. And, while space is not completely void of material components, those material components are separated by a medium that is not matter, and this medium is sufficient to permit materialities to hold a place, or places, within it contemporaneously.

God bless,
jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Was that post longer or shorter than a “short restatement” of your proof would have been?

rossum

This isn’t a formal logical refutation to the proof. Let me know when you have one.

 

[JDaniel]

Please define goodness, justice etc. in the absence of any other objects.

They have no meaning on their own, they need a referent. I can ask “Is X good?” I cannot ask “Is good?”

Rossum:

You seem to have forgotten that “goodness,” and “justice” are categories containing perhaps lesser and greater concepts described by signs, i.e., sounds or scribbles, that people are quite familiar with, i.e., fully understand the meanings of. One can ask, e.g., Which is better, ‘good’ or ‘great’? Or, Which is more just, ‘simple justice’ or ‘justice with atonement’? We can answer these with meaning.

The description “First” must have a dependence on the criterion. It is how we recognise first rather than second or fifteenth.

In terms of “causation,” I have no problem with your concept of their dependence. Except, we exist in a finite exigency that came about by some sort of cause. This exigency (universe) cannot be infinite (you say, ‘eternal’). If it was, we would not be here. It would take an infinity to get here. You do understand this, don’t you?

Thus there must have been a Creator that was Himself un-created (uncaused). This is via negativa reasoning - determining what a thing is from what it is not. Your reasoning merely postulates an eternal universe, i.e., a multiverse. But, even a multiverse must have a beginning. That was decided by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (I think you should study up on the 2nd Law, then we’ll talk about it.)

I have an understanding. Being as it is based in the Buddhist analysis of what constitutes a person then I suspect you would not agree with it.

How can we? It is completely contradictory: Infinity ≠ finity. And, finity ≠ infinity.

Scripture works. How do you know Scripture is true?

Because it has come through three traditions (oral, written, and edited), traversing over 4,500 years (perhaps longer), and its numerous prophets have been exceptionally correct, among other things.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Jesus existed and worked IN time. Jesus was God. QED.

rossum

Rossum:

QED: Jesus was God AND man.

God bless,
jd

 

[StrawberryJam]

Rossum:

QED: Jesus was God AND man.

God bless,
jd

I have what basis to believe this?

 

[rossum]

Persons, truth, goodness, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love do not have physical causes.

They have causes. The causes do not have to be material.

If you believe in virtue you believe a person’s intentions, thoughts and actions have goodness, i.e. intrinsic worth which survives after that person’s death.

Somewhat correct. That is karma. Our past actions influence our present. However, karma is not fixed, it is changing as past karma ripens and new karma is added by our present actions. It is a changing continuum passing through a series of lives. I do not know if that meets your definition of “intrinsic”.

“First Cause” is not a member of a series but the ontological foundation of the series.

If it is not a member of the series then it cannot be the first member of that series. How do you justify the label “First” if it is not a member of the series?

Carthorses are horses used to pull carts - and horses did exist before carts.

Carthorses did not exist before carts. Causes did not exist before effects. Horses (i.e. potential carthorses) did exist before carts. Potential causes did exist before effects.

So you agree persons initiate their actions?

Yes. We are all responsible for both our actions and their consequences.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Not at all. You know as well as I do that for Christianity God is Spirituality, not finite materiality.

The Buddhist universe is not “finite materiality” either. What exists is a mixture of material and spiritual. Material universes come and go. The spiritual part of existence may or may not be accompanied by a material part. Presently there is a material part. Eventually that material part will be destroyed and a period with no material part will ensue. A new material part will appear at some later time.

On the contrary. The error is on your part. You make a couple of errors: (1) you postulate an infinite materiality.

That was my error in not explaining myself more clearly. I do not postulate an infinite materiality. Something infinite may possibly exist at the level of the cosmologists’ multiverse, but that is very different from the standard material universe (electrons, protons and neutrons) that we are used to.

(2) You postulate an infinite past time.

That I do.

rossum

 

[rossum]

This isn’t a formal logical refutation to the proof. Let me know when you have one.

My thanks to Contarini for referring me to my restatement of your proof.

You proof starts with “First Cause = Actus Purus.”

This is where it fails. The First Cause cannot be an actual (Actus) cause until there is also a First Effect. If there is no First Effect then the alleged First Cause is not the actual First Cause but only the potential First Cause. Since it is only a potential First Cause it is not Actus Purus because Actus Purus is all actual and contains no potentiality at all.

The presence of a First Effect is required to change the Potential-First-Cause into the Actual-First-Cause. If there is no actual effect then there can be no actual cause.

Your proof fails at this step. The First Cause is not Actus Purus.

rossum

 

[rossum]

In terms of “causation,” I have no problem with your concept of their dependence. Except, we exist in a finite exigency that came about by some sort of cause. This exigency (universe) cannot be infinite (you say, ‘eternal’). If it was, we would not be here. It would take an infinity to get here. You do understand this, don’t you?

Both of us agree that our current material universe had a beginning at the Big Bang. That material universe is embedded in something else. Cosmologists are working on various theories of a multiverse. Buddhists have a wider spiritual/material universe. Christians have God. In all three scenarios the cause of the current material bubble universe lies external to it, but there is a cause somewhere.

Given that there is an eternal outside, and the Big Bang had to be caused then we know that we are embedded in the middle of some eternity. If your logic tells you that we cannot be embedded in the middle of some eternity then there is a problem with your logic.

How can we? It is completely contradictory: Infinity ≠ finity. And, finity ≠ infinity.

Your logic only works if we start from a finite point. We cannot get from a finite point to infinite in a finite series of finite steps. We can however get from one infinite point to a second infinite point in a series of finite steps. To show your logic is correct, you have to prove that the starting point is finite, not infinite. We can get from (∞ - 10) to ∞ in a finite number of finite steps.

Because it has come through three traditions (oral, written, and edited), traversing over 4,500 years (perhaps longer), and its numerous prophets have been exceptionally correct, among other things.

Beware of selection bias.
“Look, Prophet Archibald prophesied that the Messiah would be a woman born in Grimethorpe.”

“He can’t have been a true prophet then, we’ll drop the Book of Archibald from the Bible.”

“But he predicted the winners of the 3:25 at Ascot last weekend!”

“Not good enough, the Book of Archibald is out.”

rossum

 

[rossum]

QED: Jesus was God AND man.

God also acted in time. Parting the Red Sea did not directly involve Jesus. Any of God’s miracles or other interventions in history required God intervening in time.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The First Cause cannot be an actual (Actus…

What is an actual actus?

 

[tonyrey]

Persons, truth, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love do not have physical causes.
They have causes. The causes do not have to be material.

The principles of adequacy and economy point to the existence of one spiritual Cause of persons, truth, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love.

If you believe in virtue you believe a person’s intentions, thoughts and actions have goodness, i.e. intrinsic worth which survives after that person’s death.

Somewhat correct. That is karma. Our past actions influence our present. However, karma is not fixed, it is changing as past karma ripens and new karma is added by our present actions. It is a changing continuum passing through a series of lives. I do not know if that meets your definition of “intrinsic”.

So goodness, i.e. intrinsic worth, is not simply an adjective.

“First Cause” is not a member of a series but the ontological foundation of the series.

If it is not a member of the series then it cannot be the first member of that series. How do you justify the label “First” if it is not a member of the series?

“First” applies not only to time but also other attributes such as rank or importance or ontological status.

Carthorses did not exist before carts. Causes did not exist before effects. Horses (i.e. potential carthorses) did exist before carts. Potential causes did exist before effects.

Potential causes and effects are irrelevant. The issue is what is real, not what is possible. The First Cause obviously has a unique status. It is causa sui, i.e. the cause co-exists with the effect.

So you agree persons initiate their actions?

Yes. We are all responsible for both our actions and their consequences.

How do we initiate our actions? What is the origin of our power?

 

[rossum]

What is an actual actus?

Please look at the brackets in what I posted. “actual (Actus)” You left in the first bracket, but omitted the second.

Actus Purus is all actual with no potential mixed in. It is ‘pure actual’.

I am pointing out the the First Cause is not ‘pure actual’ so your initial equation fails. That is where your logical error lies.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The principles of adequacy and economy point to the existence of one spiritual Cause of persons, truth, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love.

Why? Different things have different causes. Do good and evil have the same cause? Is the cause responsible for good also responsible for evil? What about injustice, hatred, ugliness?

So goodness, i.e. intrinsic worth, is not simply an adjective.

It always applies to an object. It cannot stand alone.

“First” applies not only to time but also other attributes such as rank or importance or ontological status.

Agreed. There is always some criterion by which “First” is judged. The criterion may be time, but there are other possible criteria. In all cases the description “First” is dependent on the criterion chosen. Hence the “First Cause” must be dependent on that criterion.

Potential causes and effects are irrelevant. The issue is what is real, not what is possible. The First Cause obviously has a unique status. It is causa sui, i.e. the cause co-exists with the effect.

Then why not pick the “First Effect” instead? You now have two things at the top of your hierarchy. Its “unique status” is itself another dependency.

How do we initiate our actions?

From our consciousness. Only conscious actions are important for karma. Unconscious actions are not important.

What is the origin of our power?

Which power? Our power to move our limbs comes from our muscles. Our power to think comes from our consciousness.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…First Cause is not ‘pure actual’…

You don’t get it. Actus Purus, the act of existing, is First Cause.