First Cause

[warpspeedpetey]

…I have shown that potentiality is not wholly excluded from the First Cause and hence that the First Cause cannot be Actus Purus.

This statement reads “I have shown that potentiality is not wholly excluded from Actus Purus and hence Actus purus cannot be Actus Purus.”

Unless and until there is some effect the First Cause must contain some potentiality.

You have already agreed that Actus Purus is pure act.
Hence this statement is false by your own words.

Yes. I am disputing that the First Cause is pure act. That is why I dispute your equation.

No you’re not. Your disputing that Actus Purus is pure act. Something you have already admitted is false. You are not making the arguments you seem to think you are.

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?

First Cause is Actus Purus. Actus Purus, the act of existing, is logically necessary because its negation, the act of not existing or ‘nothing exists’ is a logical contradiction. Therefore First Cause is logically necessary, which excludes any kind of contingency at all. So pointing to any contingent being as a first effect has no particular importance. Which is why your entire premise that First Cause is contingent or dependent on something else is false. Pretending you have never heard this until I have to repeat it is not moving the conversation forward.

 

[rossum]

Please explain why the following statements are theological, let alone specifically Christian

They are certainly not Buddhist: “one Being”, “Ultimately”, “not existentially dependent”, “Being” (capitalised).

I regret to say that you have not explained how consciousness initiates our actions.

At what level? Our consciousness is attached to our physical brain. Our brain sends nerve impulses to activate our muscles.

So consciousnesses have no cause?

How did you get that from what I said? A consciousness is conditioned by the immediately preceding consciousness in the ongoing series. What we were influences what we are. Other events may also impact consciousness, such as new sensory impressions. Our current consciousness has a multitude of causes.

rossum

 

[rossum]

This statement reads "I have shown that potentiality is not wholly excluded from Actus Purus and hence Actus purus cannot be Actus Purus."

You are making the logical error of assuming your conclusion. You can only get from what I said to your re-reading of it by assuming that First Cause = Actus Purus.

I am denying that equation. Hence you cannot use it in your argument to show that I am incorrect.

You cannot assume what you have to prove. First Cause contains potentiality before it has caused anything. It can only be Actus Purus after it has caused something. Your equation is not valid, so all your argumentation based on that equation fails.

You have already agreed that Actus Purus is pure act.
Hence this statement is false by your own words.

I have not agreed that the First Cause is pure act, indeed I have shown the opposite. Since the First Cause is not pure act I reject your equation of the First Cause with Actus Purus.

First Cause is Actus Purus.

You are assuming your conclusion. First Cause is not Actus Purus.

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You are making the logical error of assuming your conclusion. You can only get from what I said to your re-reading of it by assuming that First Cause = Actus Purus.

It is logically necessary for the first cause to be pure actuality, since no potentiality precedes its being.

I am denying that equation.

At the expense of rationality itself, since the alternative is to accept that potentiality comes out of absolutely nothing, removing the absolute distinction between being an non-being (reality being the absolute basis of logic itself), and thus rendering logic and all rational activities absolutely useless in so far as obtaining true knowledge is concerned.

Hence you cannot use it in your argument to show that I am incorrect.

You haven’t shown that its incorrect. All you have shown is that you don’t understand how it is possible for a cause to be both timeless and the cause of change. I explained how that is possible. You chose to ignore it.

You cannot assume what you have to prove. First Cause contains potentiality before it has caused anything.

No. You have to prove that the first cause is not actus purus since that which is actus purus is absolutely necessary in-order for potentiality to have any meaning let alone existence. Ultimate reality and its causality is synonymous in being. The cause does not need to change if it has a perfect nature and will. Only imperfect beings need to change.

 

[tonyrey]

They are certainly not Buddhist: “one Being”, “Ultimately”, “not existentially dependent”, “Being” (capitalised).

Not being Buddhist is not synonymous with being theological or not being philosophical! The capitalisation is simply to indicate uniqueness. “one being” gives the impression that there are others of the same type.

At what level? Our consciousness is attached to our physical brain. Our brain sends nerve impulses to activate our muscles.

How is it attached? Physically, spiritually or in some other way?

How did you get that from what I said?

You stated “Yet other consciousnesses have no bodies” as if they come into existence spontaneously.

A consciousness is conditioned by the immediately preceding consciousness in the ongoing series. What we were influences what we are. Other events may also impact consciousness, such as new sensory impressions. Our current consciousness has a multitude of causes.

Did our previous consciousnesses have a multitude of causes? Is the process eternal - without beginning or end? Is it the fundamental reality?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You are making the logical error of assuming your conclusion. You can only get from what I said to your re-reading of it by assuming that First Cause = Actus Purus.

There is no conclusion to be assumed in First Cause=Actus Purus

I am denying that equation. Hence you cannot use it in your argument to show that I am incorrect.

You have given noreason to believe that First Cause is not Actus Purus. You have made a few nonsensical statments concerning imaginary phrases.

You cannot assume what you have to prove.

I am not assuming the conclusion of my proof, First Cause=Actus Purus is a premise in the proof. It is not what the proof proves. What the proof proves is that First Cause is logically necessary. Hence you are wrong and it is not contingent on anything.

First Cause contains potentiality before it has caused anything.

Actus Purus is pure act as you have already agreed.

It can only be Actus Purus after it has caused something.

Actus Purus, the act of existing, is logically necessary because its negation is a logical contradiction. You don’t even have a grasp on the basics here.

Your equation is not valid, so all your argumentation based on that equation fails.

First Cause =Actus Purus. There is nothing to be invalid in what you are saying.

I have not agreed that the First Cause is pure act,…

Yes you did. When you agreed that Actus Purus is pure act, you agreed that First Cause was pure act.

…indeed I have shown the opposite…

No, you haven’t. As I keep pointing out you are making nonsensical statements that don’t show anything but a misunderstanding of the subject matter and its terms.

Since the First Cause is not pure act I reject your equation of the First Cause with Actus Purus.

This one reads "Since Actus Purus is not Actus Purus I reject your equation of Actus Purus with Actus Purus. Its all nonsense.

You are assuming your conclusion. First Cause is not Actus Purus.

No I am not, the conclusion here is that First Cause is logically necessary. Not that First Cause is Actus Purus. You are referring to a premise of the proof not the conclusion.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…First Cause = Actus Purus.

I am denying that equation… .

Its called a premise. It is not an argument itself in which I can assume the conclusion. There is no logical error, hence your statement is still

This statement reads “I have shown that potentiality is not wholly excluded from Actus Purus and hence Actus Purus cannot be Actus Purus.”

You are not denying the premise, you are making nonsensical statements. If you want to deny the premise, you are going about it wrong.

I have not agreed that the First Cause is pure act,

Yes you did. You agreed that Actus Purus is pure act. Actus Purus is First Cause hence you have admitted that First Cause is pure act.

You are assuming your conclusion. First Cause is not Actus Purus.

You should reread the passage you reference here. The conclusion is that First Cause is logically necessary not that First Cause is Actus Purus.

 

[rossum]

It is logically necessary for the first cause to be pure actuality, since no potentiality precedes its being.

I am disputing that logical necessity. Any cause can only be an actual cause after it has actually caused something. Before it has caused something it is only a potential cause. A two year old child is not an actual parent, but is a potential parent.

I treat the First Cause in the same way. If it is a cause and actual then it must have actually caused something. Before it has caused anything it is not an actual cause but a potential cause.

You haven’t shown that its incorrect. All you have shown is that you don’t understand how it is possible for a cause to be both timeless and the cause of change.

I have a big problem with an unchanging cause: On the first day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the second day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the third day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the fourth day … An unchanging cause gives rise to unchanging effects. Since we can observe things changing in the universe, I have grave doubts about any unchanging cause.

No. You have to prove that the first cause is not actus purus

I have done so. Before the existence of any effect the alleged First Cause is only a potential cause, not an actual cause, because it has not yet caused anything at all. Only after something has been caused does the possibility of an actual First Cause arise.

rossum

 

[rossum]

How is it attached? Physically, spiritually or in some other way?

Pass. It is attached somehow, obviously. I do not know the exact mechanism. It does not seem to be particularly important.

You stated “Yet other consciousnesses have no bodies” as if they come into existence spontaneously.

I was talking about gods and the equivalents of angels. They are not uncaused, their current lives are conditioned by their previous lives.

Did our previous consciousnesses have a multitude of causes? Is the process eternal - without beginning or end? Is it the fundamental reality?

Consider the conditions needed for our current life: matter, oxygen, gravity, a limited range of temperatures, our parents, our previous lives, etc. Yes, there is indeed a multitude of conditions for any life. The process has no observable beginning,At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: “From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident”

• Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

The end of the process is nirvana:There is, monks, an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade, an unconditioned. If there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, no escape would be possible from the born, become, made, conditioned. But precisely because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, escape from the born, become, made, conditioned is possible.

• Udana 8.3

rossum

 

[rossum]

Its called a premise.

I am disputing your premise. If you cannot support your premise then your argument is very weak.

You are not denying the premise

Yes I am. A cause cannot be an actual cause unless and until it has actually caused something or other.

You agreed that Actus Purus is pure act.

Yes, I do agree that.

Actus Purus is First Cause

I dispute that First Cause is pure act. Hence I dispute your equating of the two.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Pass. It is attached somehow, obviously. I do not know the exact mechanism. It does not seem to be particularly important.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…I dispute that First Cause is pure act. Hence I dispute your equating of the two.

This is the exact reason that your statements are nonsensical. There are not two things here to dispute. There is only one thing. Actus Purus.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…I treat the First Cause in the same way…

Why? First Cause isn’t the same ontological object as other causes. First Cause=Actus Purus. Actus Purus, the act of existing is logically necessary because its negation, the act of not existing is a logical contradiction. Thus, First Cause is logically necessary and that excludes any possible contingency, including your continued assertion that First Cause is contingent on the grammatical rules of the English language.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I am disputing that logical necessity.

You are also disputing logic itself, which i have explained.

Any cause can only be an actual cause after it has actually caused something. Before it has caused something it is only a potential cause. A two year old child is not an actual parent, but is a potential parent.

You are talking about physical causes defined by potential positions in potential space. The first cause cannot be physical, cannot be “in” space, for if it was it would not be the first cause, since its existence would be contingent on the existence of potential space. Thus it is unreasonable to define the nature of the first cause by the limitations of spatial dimensions. Therefore the first cause is necessarily nonspatial - or to put it another way - “nonphysical”.

The first cause must also have an absolutely perfect and timeless existence, since it is not preceded by any potentiality. The problem you refuse to face is that out of nothing comes nothing. When forced to face that fact we will find that because out of nothing comes nothing, the first cause must exist necessarily since absolutely nothing cannot possibly exist, and more importantly its reality has to be the timeless root and giver of all being, and that is because it cannot by its very nature as the source of all reality get more reality out of nothing; since that would be both contradictory to its nature and the fact that out of nothing comes nothing. To put it more simply, If a being, by its very nature, is the source of being, it cannot get reality from somewhere other than itself. Its logically impossible to get something from nothing. This is precisely why the first cause must be “pure actuality” and absolutely perfect and thus unchanging in its existence, existing without any potentiality, since the act of changing is by definition the act of some being taking on more potential existence from something other than itself. A being that takes on more potential reality is imperfect in its being because its is not the source of its reality and therefore cannot get that reality from itself. Thus Physical Reality - as a whole - is absolutely contingent on something other than its own nature in order to be real.

An honest person will realize that there is no escaping this fact.

to be continued…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I treat the First Cause in the same way. If it is a cause and actual then it must have actually caused something. Before it has caused anything it is not an actual cause but a potential cause.

I have a big problem with an unchanging cause: On the first day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the second day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the third day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the fourth day … An unchanging cause gives rise to unchanging effects. Since we can observe things changing in the universe, I have grave doubts about any unchanging cause.

One doesn’t have to observe, experience, or imagine, a square triangle to know for an absolute fact that such a thing cannot possibly exist. You just have to understand the concepts involved. In the same sense, one doesn’t have to know what the exact potentiality of any particular object is in-order to know that potentiality cannot exist without reality. All you need to know is the meanings of the concepts involved. The same is true of the concept that out of nothing come nothing. We do not need to experience nothing in-order to know what defines nothing and what the concept represents in relation to being.

Out of nothing comes nothing. Potentiality cannot come of a negation of potentiality or nothing. This equation adds up to a definite answer. Being in principle ontologically precedes potentiality absolutely. Therefore there is an ultimate non-temporal existential cause of all potential change, and since it is the source of all potential and logically possible change the first cause cannot be changing. Since these facts involve the possibility of being itself, they override any secondary issues that might arise once the ontological parameters concerning the possibility of being have been established.

So if by the necessity of the fact that out of nothing comes nothing we must admit that a necessary pure actuality exists, you cannot then say that because you do not understand how it causes its effect that therefore pure actuality does not exists; and the reason for this is because the transcendence of being over potentiality is absolutely necessary before rationality itself can have any objective meaning in regards to explaining potential effects; because logical truth is absolutely rooted in the act of reality and not in nothing. In other words, an absolute being must exist before there can be any meaningful possibility of potential being, and thus you cannot use potentiality to undermine the argument, since to state otherwise would be to undo logic given the fact that you would have to concede to the belief that something could come from nothing; which would absolutely destroy the objective distinction between being and nothing. Out of nothing comes nothing simply because being possesses in its nature that which nothing does not have; and that is “existence” and the objective meaning and powers attributed to it.

Therefore Grave doubts will not in your wildest fantasies amount to a refutation of my argument without rejecting the absoluteness of objective logical truth, since you are bound by the ontological necessity of ultimate reality; and your denial of this fact, as i have keenly pointed out, leaves a superficial scratch which serves only to draw our attention away from the gaping wound that you have inflicted upon rationality itself in-order to prepare the concept of pure actuality as a sacrifice to your God which is Buddhism. How to make sense of the bible in light of metaphysical truths and well stated theological definitions of Gods nature, is a different issue that can be discussed on another thread. This is a sad attempt to take peoples attention away from the fact that your argument has been ferociously defeated.

Mangled limbs and undigested intestines hang from my teeth, rossum. Once scientists have identified the remains as the late great rossum perhaps they can test your theory against my metaphysical absoluteness you so hated in life. But don’t hold your breath. Wait…i have eaten you…there are no-longer any lungs left to hold breath. You are now in heaven with “pure actuality”. Amen.

I have done so. Before the existence of any effect the alleged First Cause is only a potential cause, not an actual cause, because it has not yet caused anything at all. Only after something has been caused does the possibility of an actual First Cause arise.

I have already explained the concept of a perfect and essentially transcendent mind, will, and being. Your inability to imagine such a nature is not a refutation of it. :manvspc:

Yummy.

 

[levinas12]

I have shown that potentiality is not wholly excluded from the First Cause and hence that the First Cause cannot be Actus Purus.

Unless and until there is some effect the First Cause must contain some potentiality.

Rossum, you are an excellent metaphysician.

It would seem that the “First Cause” before it “causes” must contain some potentiality. Creation, in other words, would seem to be a “change” in God himself.

If God were just a final cause, and not an efficient cause, I don’t think we would be having this discussion. As final cause, God would not “contain potentiality.” Only the finite beings, desiring the final cause, would “contain potentiality”.

But God is an efficient cause. And so we have your conundrum.

The problem of potentiality would also come up with the Incarnation. The Second Person of the Trinity assumed human nature at some point in time. You could argue that, before that moment, He was only potentially human (in the sense that it was possible for Him to assume human nature).

So where do we go from here?

Well, this may appear to be a philosophical “cop out” but we have to bring up analogy. God’s efficient causality is different than, but, in some respect, analogous to the efficient causality of worldly beings.

Where’s the difference?

I’ve run out of time but stay tuned. I apologize if this sounds like Fermat’s marginalia.

 

[levinas12]

(cont.)

Aristotle’s “efficient causality” and “potentiality” applied only to worldly beings, i.e., beings that included lack, need, incompletion. The move from potentiality to actuality was filling in an absence. So every efficient cause before it actually “causes” involves a “potentiality.”

For Aristotle, the world itself was the ultimate necessary ground. And his God was just a part of the world, one intra-worldly being among others.

With the coming of Christianity, the understanding of the world and God changed radically. God was “outside” the world as its Creator. And the world became contingent, gratitutous, unnecessary.

This is an important implicit assumption behind Anselm’s proof of God’s existence. God plus the world is no greater than God without the world. God has no need, lack, incompletion, absence. And God is not one intra-worldly being among others.

Therefore, metaphysical concepts could no longer be applied to God in a univocal way, Univocity would cause the metaphysics to “crack” and “fissure” when applied to God.

That’s why Aquina had to resort to analogy.

So God’s efficient causality is not the same as that of worldly beings. His “causal activity” does not presuppose a “previous” potentiality because it does not emerge out of an absence or lack.

I think this is roughly the Thomistic answer.

 

[rossum]

It is very important because it is the main objection made by monists (usually materialists) to dualism.

I am not a materialist, not am I a monist.

This implies an infinite regress of lives…

Certainly.

So there is no beginning but there is an end? Or at least an unchanging end?

The end is not unchanging. It has to be changing for there to be any hope of enlightenment. Nirvana has to be able to change from nirnana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum.

Is the entire process of being born and becoming an inexplicable brute fact?

The process exists and we are caught up in it. The important task is to escape from it, and we know how to perform that task. Looking beyond that may be interesting but is not currently useful. Maybe after enlightenment we can devote time to that.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Therefore there is an ultimate non-temporal existential cause of all potential change

The Buddhist approach differs from the usual Western approach to the nature of the world. In Buddhist philosophy change needs no explanation as to its origin since the world is change. It is stasis, non-change, that needs the explanation.

An unchanging cause cannot cause a changing effect. An unchanging cause can at most only cause one effect, and that effect itself cannot change. How can an unchanging cause result in a changing effect?

Since we observe that everything in the world is changing we can deduce that there is no unchanging cause behind it. Whatever caused Napoleon Bonaparte to exist is now no longer doing so because Napoleon Bonaparte is now longer in existence. Whatever that cause was has changed from its causing-Napoleon state to its not-causing-Napoleon state. Only a changing cause can cause a changing world. Whatever an unchanging cause causes must itself also be unchanging.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Creation, in other words, would seem to be a “change” in God himself.

Correct. Since creation has a beginning then God’s act of creation must itself have had a beginning. If God was always creating then creation would always have been in existence.

Aristotle’s “efficient causality” and “potentiality” applied only to worldly beings, i.e., beings that included lack, need, incompletion.

That is not something I accept. Causation is causation. There are not two different causations. Even if there were then it would not be possible to discuss one based on the properties of the other. Each would need to be discussed based on examples of itself, not the other.

This is an important implicit assumption behind Anselm’s proof of God’s existence. God plus the world is no greater than God without the world. God has no need, lack, incompletion, absence. And God is not one intra-worldly being among others.

That assumption is rejected by Buddhism.

So God’s efficient causality is not the same as that of worldly beings. His “causal activity” does not presuppose a “previous” potentiality because it does not emerge out of an absence or lack.

Then it is misleading to call it “causality” since it is not the same as worldly causality. Let us call it ‘candya’ instead, so as to avoid confusion. What are the properties of candya? Please provide examples of candya to support your statements. Remember that statements about causation may not necessarily apply to candya.

rossum