Merely reasserting your incorrect statement does not make it correct. The First Cause is only a potential cause before the existence of the First Effect. I do not accept the existence of an actual cause which has not caused anything, any more than I would accept an eternal being that had an origin. An actual cause must have caused something in order to be correctly labelled a cause.You still aren’t getting it. First Cause=Actus Purus.
This is basic logic. If A causes B then we write: A => BA cause cannot be dependent on something that is not actualized. It is called a cause because it is simply a matter of fact, not a requisite dependency.
For necessary causes, if x is a necessary cause of y, then the existence of y necessarily indicates the existence of x.* However, the existence of x, does not mean that y will occur*. Note that x can be present, whether or not *y *is caused. There is no mutual dependency.
We are speaking to your claim of mutual dependencies in causality, not simply of causality. You are stating that B is dependent on A but this does not hold in your example. You demonstrate that A => B but where is the *mutual *dependency in the logic? How is A dependent on B for its existence? The only thing we see is that a cause-effect relationship has been instantiated, nothing more. A relationship is not a dependency. A cause must, by definintion, must precede its effect, hence requiring a cause dependent on a non-actualized effect is illogical.This is basic logic. If A causes B then we write: A => B
The rules of logic allow us to reverse the implication as long as we negate both terms: ~B => ~A
This tells us that if we have no effect (~B) then there is no cause (~A). It is perfectly possible that A is a potential cause, and may change to become an actual cause in future, but at the moment A is not an actual cause.
I am restating it because it is correct. First Cause is Actus Purus. What part of this isn’t clear? That is about as basic as it gets in the English language. If I said that the PM is Harry or that Harry is the PM or that Harry=PM, every other English speaker would understand what I mean. Why don’t you?Merely reasserting your incorrect statement does not make it correct.
Actus Purus is purely actual by definition. There is no such thing as First Effect.The First Cause is only a potential cause before the existence of the First Effect.
First Cause is logically necessary as the proof demonstrates. Therefore it cannot be contingent or dependent on anything else for any reason. Unless you have a formal logical refutation of the proof, then you have only the choice to accept it, or deny logic and be irrational.I do not accept the existence of an actual cause which has not caused anything,
All contingent beings require a cause, regardless of their eternity. That’s what it means to be contingent.any more than I would accept an eternal being that had an origin.
First Cause is logically necessary and therefore independent of any contingency or dependency by definition.An actual cause must have caused something in order to be correctly labelled a cause.
Truth, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love are interlinked and converge in one Being.The principles of adequacy and economy point to the existence of one spiritual Cause of persons, truth, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love.
Ultimately everything has the same Cause. Evil is not a thing but the negative aspect of created existence.Do good and evil have the same cause?
The First Cause is **ultimately **responsible for everything but not **directly **responsible for evil.Is the cause responsible for good also responsible for evil? What about injustice, hatred, ugliness?
It always applies to an object. It cannot stand alone.So goodness, i.e. intrinsic worth, is not simply an adjective.
Goodness is inherent in existence.
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.“First” applies not only to time but also other attributes such as rank or importance or ontological status.
It is not existentially dependent because the First Cause is existence! In Biblical terminology “He Who Is”.
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.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.
The First Cause and the First Effect are one and the same Being!
From our consciousness. Only conscious actions are important for karma. Unconscious actions are not important.How do we initiate our actions?
Consciousness is a **state **of mind which is insufficient to initiate actions.
Which power? Our power to move our limbs comes from our muscles. Our power to think comes from our consciousness.What is the origin of our power?
Where is our consciousness located?
Not just a claim. If a cause is correctly to be described as a cause then it must actually be a cause, and not a non-cause. How do we determine if an object is a cause or a non-cause? We examine it and see if it has actually caused anything. If it has caused something then it is a cause. If it has not caused anything then it is a non-cause. Therefore the cause is dependent on the effect. If there is no effect then the object is a non-cause, and not a cause. It can only be a cause if there is an effect.We are speaking to your claim of mutual dependencies in causality, not simply of causality.
It is not clear that the First Cause is pure actuality, that it does not contain any potentiality. I will grant you that after the First Effect comes into existence that there is no potentiality left in the First Cause, but before the First Effect there must be potentiality in the First Cause. Since it contains potentiality, it is impermissible to equate it with Actus Purus. That is what is not clear to me. What is the state of the First Cause before the First Effect?I am restating it because it is correct. First Cause is Actus Purus. What part of this isn’t clear?
Because I say that Harry is the Deputy PM. I am disputing your characterisation of First Cause as purely actual.That is about as basic as it gets in the English language. If I said that the PM is Harry or that Harry is the PM or that Harry=PM, every other English speaker would understand what I mean. Why don’t you?
Agreed.Actus Purus is purely actual by definition.
Are you saying that the First Cause hasn’t caused anything yet? Does the entire universe not yet exist?There is no such thing as First Effect.
I do not accept the first step of your proof, as I have explained above. Given that I do not accept the first step, I do not find that your proof demonstrates anything. You are arguing from a false premise.First Cause is logically necessary as the proof demonstrates.
The First Cause is dependent on the First Effect, as I have said. Without any effect, the First Cause is only a potential cause, not an actual cause, and hence cannot be Actus Purus.First Cause is logically necessary and therefore independent of any contingency or dependency by definition.
These are all statements of Christian belief.Truth, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love are interlinked and converge in one Being.
Ultimately everything has the same Cause. Evil is not a thing but the negative aspect of created existence.
The First Cause is **ultimately **responsible for everything but not **directly **responsible for evil.
Goodness is inherent in existence.
It is not existentially dependent because the First Cause is existence! In Biblical terminology “He Who Is”.
The First Cause and the First Effect are one and the same Being!
Not in Buddhism. It is one of the five constituents of a human being: form, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. Remember that in Buddhism there is no soul. None of the five is a soul, nor are any of them permanent.Consciousness is a **state **of mind which is insufficient to initiate actions.
Currently in our bodies (form).Where is our consciousness located?
Therein lies your difficulty. You are simply describing the relationship and infer a dependency. This does not impute mutual contingency in the cause event and the effect event.Not just a claim. If a cause is correctly to be described as a cause then it must actually be a cause, and not a non-cause.
Yes, we know this although your phrasing come across a little muddled to me. Perhaps you can clarify somewhat.How do we determine if an object is a cause or a non-cause? We examine it and see if it has actually caused anything. If it has caused something then it is a cause. If it has not caused anything then it is a non-cause.
We understand that you are saying that cause event is contingent (dependent) on the effect event. However, that logically does not follow as the cause event, by definition, precedes the effect event and, therefore, cannot be contingent on it. Let me restate, you are simply describing the relationship and are inferring a dependency.Therefore the cause is dependent on the effect. If there is no effect then the object is a non-cause, and not a cause. It can only be a cause if there is an effect.
That’s the problem. This sentence says “I am disputing your characterization of Actus Purus as purely actual”. Its nonsensical.…I am disputing your characterization of First Cause as purely actual.
That’s an understatement…your phrasing come across a little muddled to me…
There are three people in a room. I wish to determine whether or not any of the three people are a parent. I ask them the question, “Do you have, or have you ever had, a child?”Therein lies your difficulty. You are simply describing the relationship and infer a dependency. This does not impute mutual contingency in the cause event and the effect event.
Yes, we know this although your phrasing come across a little muddled to me. Perhaps you can clarify somewhat.
We understand that you are saying that cause event is contingent (dependent) on the effect event. However, that logically does not follow as the cause event, by definition, precedes the effect event and, therefore, cannot be contingent on it. Let me restate, you are simply describing the relationship and are inferring a dependency.
No. You are asserting an equality. I am disputing that equality. You cannot then use the disputed equality to show that my argument fails. It is up to you to establish the validity of your equation, not merely to assume it.That’s the problem. This sentence says “I am disputing your characterization of Actus Purus as purely actual”. Its nonsensical.
To me this proves my earlier claim that you are using an invalid argument, equivocation. Using “cause” differently in one of the premises, than is used in the conclusion is invalid. Your rebuttal cannot stand this illogic.No. You are asserting an equality. I am disputing that equality. You cannot then use the disputed equality to show that my argument fails. It is up to you to establish the validity of your equation, not merely to assume it.
Show me the properties of “First Cause”. Show me the properties of Actus Purus. Show me that their relevant properties are identical. When you have done that we can discuss things more clearly.
You are asserting that First Cause has no potentiality. I am asserting that it does, and I have provided arguments to support my statement. So far you have not provided any arguments to support your assertion.
I will not accept an unsupported assertion as a valid method of reasoning.
rossum
No you are not. As I demonstrated, you are making nonsensical statements.… I am disputing that equality…
You have not made an argument, you have made nonsensical statements, and I have been trying to point it out for several days.… to show that my argument fails. …
First Cause is Actus PurusShow me the properties of “First Cause”.
Actus Purus is the act of existingShow me the properties of Actus Purus.
They’re the same thing.Show me that their relevant properties are identical.
I told you these same things hundreds of posts ago.When you have done that we can discuss things more clearly.
You have already agreed that Actus Purus is pure act. You have agreed to this assertion.You are asserting that First Cause has no potentiality.
No. You did not provide any arguments. You made nonsensical statements concerning an imaginary First Effect.I am asserting that it does, and I have provided arguments to support my statement.
I literally used your own words to demonstrate the nonsensical nature of your statements. I’d say that supports my assertion that you are misunderstanding or misusing terms pretty well.So far you have not provided any arguments to support your assertion.
That’s all you have done for hundreds of posts. I have begged for formal logical refutations dozens of times. Got one yet?I will not accept an unsupported assertion as a valid method of reasoning.
They are philosophical statements you have not disproved.Truth, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love are interlinked and converge in one Being.
Not in Buddhism. It is one of the five constituents of a human being: form, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. Remember that in Buddhism there is no soul. None of the five is a soul, nor are any of them permanent.Consciousness is a state of mind which is insufficient to initiate actions.
Then the onus is on the Buddhist to explain how awareness initiates activity. It is possible to be a helpless spectator of events.
Currently in our bodies (form).Where is our consciousness located?
How can that belief be shown to be true?
You are again confusing the relationship and the contingent event. Having a relation or association does not impute contingent events. Certainly, there isn’t a mutual contingent events in any of the relations you cite in your example.I am saying the same thing about cause and effect. The dependency runs both ways. Each is dependent on the other. If I had three objects lined up in a room and wished to determine if any of them were causes I could ask them the question, "Do you have, or have you ever had, an effect?
Did you read the definition of Actus purus in the Catholic Encyclopedia? That is not the definition given there:The fact that all things have in themselves some potentiality warrants the conclusion that there must exist a being, God, from whom potentiality is wholly excluded, and who, therefore, is simply actuality and perfection, Actus Purus. (emphasis added)Actus Purus is the act of existing
Yes. I am disputing that the First Cause is pure act. That is why I dispute your equation.You have already agreed that Actus Purus is pure act.
Does the universe exist or is it imaginary? Is the universe caused by the First Cause? Therefore there must be at least one effect. I call the first of these effects the First Effect. What is imaginary about that?You made nonsensical statements concerning an imaginary First Effect.
I would rather not get into a more general discussion of Christian theology. This thread has already diverted down too many interesting paths. We are a long way from the First Cause.They are philosophical statements you have not disproved.
Obviously people can act. We see it in others and we see it in ourselves. We can therefore deduce that people are capable of initiating actions. The Buddhist analysis of the person is into the five constituents that I mentioned. A few actions are initiated by the body, reflexes for example. Others are initiated by our mind. Examining the four mental constituents only consciousness is capable of initiating actions. Feelings and perceptions are on the sensory side, incoming rather than outgoing. Impulses is to do with memory and karma. Consciousness is where we integrate the sensory (name removed by moderator)uts together with our memory and formulate our actions. Our consciousness initiates our actions.Then the onus is on the Buddhist to explain how awareness initiates activity. It is possible to be a helpless spectator of events.
There is no evidence of a human consciousness currently outside a human body. Other consciousnesses will have different bodies, but they are not human. Yet other consciousnesses have no bodies, those in the Formless Realms for example, but again those consciousnesses are not human consciousnesses.How can that belief be shown to be true?
Please explain why the following statements are theological, let alone specifically Christian:I would rather not get into a more general discussion of Christian theology. This thread has already diverted down too many interesting paths.
I regret to say that you have not explained how consciousness initiates our actions.Obviously people can act. We see it in others and we see it in ourselves. We can therefore deduce that people are capable of initiating actions. The Buddhist analysis of the person is into the five constituents that I mentioned. A few actions are initiated by the body, reflexes for example. Others are initiated by our mind. Examining the four mental constituents only consciousness is capable of initiating actions. Feelings and perceptions are on the sensory side, incoming rather than outgoing. Impulses is to do with memory and karma. Consciousness is where we integrate the sensory (name removed by moderator)uts together with our memory and formulate our actions. Our consciousness initiates our actions.
So consciousnesses have no cause?There is no evidence of a human consciousness currently outside a human body. Other consciousnesses will have different bodies, but they are not human. Yet other consciousnesses have no bodies, those in the Formless Realms for example, but again those consciousnesses are not human consciousnesses.