First Cause

[JDaniel]

Both of us agree that our current material universe had a beginning at the Big Bang. That material universe is embedded in something else.

Rossum:

That is purely postulational, i.e., purely imaginary (and you know it).

Cosmologists are working on various theories of a multiverse.

Rather, some may be working on various hypotheses of a multiverse. As an hypothesis, it shall remain an hypothesis eternally. It will never make the jump to reality (and you know it).

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.

Not so. Christianity does not insist that the universe exists as “something outside of God.” Christianity insists that spirituality and materiality co-mingle. This does not mean pantheism though. It means that the substance of God permeates and penetrates matter. There are no boundaries to the Infinite. There is no “outside” of It. There is no “inside” of it. There are no “sides,” no “top” and no “bottom.”

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.

As I have made, hopefully, very clear above, no, the problem is still with your logic. If an infinite/eternal has an “outside” it is simply not an infinite/eternal. Only a finite has an “outside.” That is its boundary.

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.

Now, Rossum, you know that that is unsupportable.

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.

Absurd: ∞ - 10 equals ∞. (And you know it.)

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

It’s amazing how funny people can be! (That’s why I like you.) :clapping:

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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:

Not so. The parting of the Red Sea can be considered merely part of the roll-out of Creation.

(Actually, there is another aspect to this idea, but now is neither the time or place to discuss it.)

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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

Rossum:

You continue to (probably purposely) mis define, for yourself and everyone you converse with, First Efficient Causality. A First Efficient Cause is NOT the direct cause of a singular proximate effect, such as, a cue ball striking a numbered ball sending it scurrying off in some intended (hopefully) direction; unless one considers the acting of the Secondary Cause(s) to be effects. It is simply the first in a series of causes whereby all, if not most, of the secondary causes act in simultaneity with the first, to produce some end, or intermediate, effect.

The willing of the creation of everything is first in the order of the created. The maintaining of everything in existence in existence puts it first in the order (series) of being. The primary mover of any kind of mobile being, places it first in the order of motion (with the possible exception of the motion of animals consisting of parts, although probably including that kind of motion as well).

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.

As you can no doubt see from the above, the effects are that which are dependent. Not the first or secondary causes. Nevertheless, as I said, I have no problem with at least an epistemological pseudo-dependence, or dependence from some other kind of cause-effect scenario…

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

The action of a flowing stream is, I guess, unimportant?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Nagarjuna has reasons for rejecting those assumptions.

The Madhyamika has been described as “philosophical ju-jitsu”. It uses the opponents’ arguments to demolish the opponents own position while putting forward no position of its own.

Rossum:

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Good point.

But the relation between God and time is still mysterious.

Levinas:

Very interesting point. Overall, when one considers an Infinite with regard to ‘time’, one must comprehend, as fully as humanly possible, that there can be no ‘time’ relative to Infinity. ‘Time’, as a continuum, is, like space and matter, a magnitude. Magnitude is, in its definition, finite: it is defined as a numerical quantity or value (Oxford Dictionaries). Infinity is beyond numeration and value. Hence its symbol is an eight on its side, representing continuous intertwining loops. Unfortunately, that symbol seems to depict boundary, so it is only as good as a person’s ability to comprehend the definition. As we understand it, Infinity is boundary-less-ness, which mathematics seems unable to represent in any better way.

For instance, according to Thomas, the Incarnation was not a change in God. But, at some point in time, Jesus did not exist.

Jesus has always existed; that He became flesh is, indeed, the mystery. To my knowledge, no one has been philosophically successfully able to sufficiently restrict that which I call, “God,” from being able to do anything - except what He Himself/Itself deems improper.

It is hard to understand why the Incarnation was not a change in the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

And even further, it is hard to understand that the event is not a change in God!

And, more generally, it is hard to understand potentiality except against a horizon of time. I’m thinking of angels.

Yes, very true: all things, except Being Itself, i.e., God, we must not forget, have had, or will have, beginnings. Beginnings infer ‘time’, or, at least, some sort of ‘duration’.

I think Thomistic “analogy” may show us a way out of this quandary. Please elaborate more on this.

God bless,
jd

 

[rossum]

You continue to (probably purposely) mis define, for yourself and everyone you converse with, First Efficient Causality. A First Efficient Cause is NOT the direct cause of a singular proximate effect

This is where we disagree. A cause must actually be a cause, i.e. it must have actually caused something.

I will be on holiday for a few days from tomorrow, with no internet access, so my apologies to those of you who I do not have time to reply to.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… A cause must actually be a cause, i.e. it must have actually caused something.

I will be on holiday for a few days from tomorrow…

You have already admitted a cause is not contingent on an effect in posts #576 and #584. So a cause need not have caused something to exist as your parents need not have caused you to exist and any description of any kind you may be referring to such as “parent” is contingent on the describer for its existence and not the effect. So cause is in fact, not contingent on effect as you had previously claimed. Have a nice holiday.

 

[JDaniel]

This is where we disagree. A cause must actually be a cause, i.e. it must have actually caused something.

Rossum:

Since a cause must pre-exist its effect, that is impossible; yet, we know that there are effects, trillions and trillions of them. So, it can only be that the pseudo-relationship is only for human knowingness.

I will be on holiday for a few days from tomorrow, with no internet access, so my apologies to those of you who I do not have time to reply to.

rossum

You’ll make philosophers out of the lot of us, given ‘time’ (no hilarity intended). You and your family please have a safe and enjoyable holiday.

And, God bless,
jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…
Since a cause must pre-exist its effect, that is impossible…

That’s it in a nutshell. This entire thread didn’t need a greater explanation than that one sentence.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That’s it in a nutshell. This entire thread didn’t need a greater explanation than that one sentence.

Rossum has been confusing the contexts in which we use words. But In one sense rossum is correct, in the sense that a cause is only definable as a cause when it is causing or has caused something. Of course you are correct that an entity can exist without being a cause, it can become a cause. Rossum is also correct in saying that the first cause as “actus purus”, cannot be a temporal cause or a physical cause, since it does not change. Rossum would also be correct in stating that the universe has always existed with God, since God does not change, and thus their cannot be a time when the universe does not exist, and neither can God move from a state of non-causality to a state of causality. However Rossum is incorrect in supposing that a cause cannot exist simultaneously with its effect. This is the root of the problem with Rossum. Rossum doesn’t think that a cause can exist with its effect simultaneously; he or she thinks that all cause and effect relationships must be temporal ones.

how ever, this inability to understand how a thing can cause something outside of time, will not change the fact that an effect needs a cause.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…But In one sense rossum is correct, in the sense that a cause is only definable as a cause when it is causing or has caused something…Rossum is also correct in saying that the first cause as “actus purus”, cannot be a temporal cause or a physical cause, since it does not change.

He didn’t make those arguments to me. He claimed that cause is contingent on effect

…this inability to understand how a thing can cause something outside of time, will not change the fact that an effect needs a cause.

I and many others, including mainstream physicists don’t accept the existence of time. It is not empirical, it is not logically necessary, and it is better explained as change. I don’t think its a difficult concept to understand.

 

[JDaniel]

Rossum has been confusing the contexts in which we use words.

MoM2:

Might I add, 'purposely?" It’s ju-jitsu for him (as he divulged earlier). His extraordinary ability to toy with words, forces us to ever and ever more precision in our own declarations. Much of what is said herein, he fully understands, I believe.

But In one sense rossum is correct, in the sense that a cause is only definable as a cause when it is causing or has caused something. Of course you are correct that an entity can exist without being a cause, it can become a cause.

 

[tonyrey]

Sorry to butt in here, as I know Tonyrey can more than adequately take care of his own, but, I had to interject one thing: “God.” God is cause-less.

 

[JDaniel]

He didn’t make those arguments to me. He claimed that cause is contingent on effect and many others, including mainstream physicists don’t accept the existence of time. It is not empirical, it is not logically necessary, and it is better explained as change. I don’t think its a difficult concept to understand.

Warped:

But, don’t you think that there must be an invisible something called, “time?” While it is true that time is never without motion (no matter how small the interval) isn’t it also true that motion is never without time? Isn’t it that which directly derives from mobile beings in motion in space? And, isn’t “change” nothing more than the actualization of potential, as opposed to act that is the end effect of motion?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel;8064873:

Feel free to step in at any time, JD. I like it when there is teamwork - on either side! You can be sure few points are missed.

Thanks, Tony. I continually look forward to your posts. I’ll try not to overstep my bounds when I do butt in.

God bless,
jd

 

[levinas12]

Jesus has always existed; that He became flesh is, indeed, the mystery.

And even further, it is hard to understand that the event is not a change in God!

JD.

We’ve got to resolve rossum’s “potentiality” issue.

Jesus becomes the bread and wine everyday at Mass. Does this mean there is “potentiality” in Jesus?

But there can be no change in God in the sense of “motion” from potentiality to actuality.

Also, I agree that the person of Jesus (the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity) has always existed.

But Jesus as the union of divine nature and the human nature only began to “be” about 2000 years ago.

This is the reason, by the way, that the notion of “person” is so important today. “Person” is not the same as the Aristotelian concept of “soul” (which is synonymous with “nature”). “Person” is not “nature”.

Contrary to popular belief, “souls” (at least in the Aristotelian sense) don’t go to heaven - only “persons”.

 

[levinas12]

Jesus becomes the bread and wine everyday at Mass. Does this mean there is “potentiality” in Jesus?

What a total slip-up! The bread and wine become Jesus - not the other way around!

My mind is going - fast

However, my blooper might point to a solution to the problem of potentiality and God. In the Eucharist, the bread and wine change into Jesus. Jesus does not change.

I think a number of postings have already addressed this with respect to creation. But it is still difficult to understand how God can come into history without Himself changing.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warped:

But, don’t you think that there must be an invisible something called, “time?” While it is true that time is never without motion (no matter how small the interval) isn’t it also true that motion is never without time? Isn’t it that which directly derives from mobile beings in motion in space? And, isn’t “change” nothing more than the actualization of potential, as opposed to act that is the end effect of motion?

God bless,
jd

Time is just a measurement of change. Whether that be the change in gears, pendulums, the vibration of cesium 133 or quartz. Change exists, time is just a measuring stick we have all agreed to use for convenience. As too actualization and motion, I don’t know, that’s all beyond me.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

He didn’t make those arguments to me. He claimed that cause is contingent on effect.

In an ontological sense he would be mistaken, because obviously the cause is the existential source of the effect. However, a cause is called a cause because it has caused something. Parents are not parents until they have children. They are parents in respect of the fact they have children. It is meaningless to describe them as such outside of the fact they have children. But you are right to say that the entities that became parents existed before they became causes or parents.

and many others, including mainstream physicists don’t accept the existence of time. It is not empirical, it is not logically necessary, and it is better explained as change. I don’t think its a difficult concept to understand.

I don’t know what time is, other than the fact that the word symbolizes change, that “things” are changing. I have always understood it as change. Change is the continuous actuality of potentiality or possibility. A finite entity has many possibilities that it could fulfill and thus can change into any one of those possibilities. If your smart enough you could build a good argument out of that for the existence of a law giver, but i am not going to help you do it. Of course it is meaningless to speak of a change that is not happening to a “thing”. If change is not what a thing is doing, then change is nothing.

I don’t think its a difficult concept to understand.

I don’t know why you brought it up to be quite honest. Do i seem like somebody who doesn’t know that time is the measure of change?

 

[JDaniel]

JD.

We’ve got to resolve rossum’s “potentiality” issue.

Jesus becomes the bread and wine everyday at Mass. Does this mean there is “potentiality” in Jesus?

Lev:

One of the more recent (I think) endeavors of the Church is the elevating of the manhood of Christ to an equality with His Godhood, which has not been sufficiently done traditionally, I guess. Transubstantiation is, and will always be, an exceptional mystery. In fact, there are probably five or six different, but each good in its own way, theological theories on the sacrifice at the Mass. However, there is one thing that is certain, none of those theories declare there being any kind of change in Jesus due to any part of the immolation or destruction at the sacrifice. If there is no “change” then there can be no potentiality. Change is the conversion from potency to act, as you know.

That said, there can be change in the human part of Jesus. For example, Jesus aged.

But there can be no change in God in the sense of “motion” from potentiality to actuality.

Correct: neither motion nor change. ‘Change’ is really motion more generalized.

Also, I agree that the person of Jesus (the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity) has always existed.

But Jesus as the union of divine nature and the human nature only began to “be” about 2000 years ago.

To us.

This is the reason, by the way, that the notion of “person” is so important today. “Person” is not the same as the Aristotelian concept of “soul” (which is synonymous with “nature”). “Person” is not “nature”.

Contrary to popular belief, “souls” (at least in the Aristotelian sense) don’t go to heaven - only “persons”.

Soul, it seems, is the real combination of matter and spirit, that is to say, “matter and form.” The two are not separate in terms of what it is to be a soul; the soul is both.

These are not the beliefs of Rossum (I’m pretty sure). He may (or, may not) be a practicing Buddhist (I don’t know). It is interesting that he sees a great deal of contradiction in the professing of Christians and we see a great deal of contradiction in the professing of Buddhists.

For example, he postulates an eternal, i.e., infinite, universe, in order to overcome the problem of beginnings. And that is a real dilemma, for there cannot be an actual infinity - not even if it were a multiverse.

God bless,
jd