First Cause

[rossum]

Is there a difference?

Yes. You excluded God from creation but He is not excluded from “all that exists”. He created creation but He did not create “all that exists”.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Can’t we say that the Big Bang was the First Cause that created the universe and that God created the Big Bang?

You can say what you want, but if you say “created” then you have to be very careful about how you handle time. How can you tell that the creator was ‘before’ the created?

rossum

 

[rossum]

G-d is neither X, nor Napoleon. G-d has not changed in your examples the contingent beings have.

We disagree. If God was sustaining Napoleon then that part of God which was sustaining Napoleon is no longer doing so. That part of God has changed from “sustaining” to “non-sustaining”. We can immediately start my usual analysis to show that either God changed or that there are two separate entities, an unchanging God who sustains nothing and a lot of changing bits that sustain changing entities.

You cannot have one single God who is both unchanging and who sustained, but does not now sustain, Napoleon.

Omnipresent means that G-d is equally present at every point that can be said to exist. This implies that all X is entailed in G-d, hence, the metaphysical objection to a changing G-d.

The part of God that sustained Napoleon is not omnipresent, otherwise Napoleon would also be omnipresent. Your own logic shows that the sustaining part is incompatible with the God part.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So Buddhism believes all events are random?

No. Buddhism believes that all events are contingent on their causes and conditions. By a correct understanding of cause and effect we can work to make sure that only the effects we want happen, and the effects we don’t want are avoided.

rossum

 

[mardukm]

You cannot have one single God who is both unchanging and who sustained, but does not now sustain, Napoleon.

Sure you can, because the ontological reality of a being is not contingent upon what that being does. Just as I do exist as a being, and the fact of my existence has not changed whether or not I move a piece of paper, nor does my being change whether or not I move a piece of paper, God does exist and his being does not change whether or not he sustained Napolean.

The part of God that sustained Napoleon is not omnipresent, otherwise Napoleon would also be omnipresent.

A piece of paper that I move does not share in my being nor my properties even though I have performed an action on it. Likewise, Napoleon need not share in omnipresence for the omnipresent God to have performed an action on Napoleon.

 

[mardukm]

You can say what you want, but if you say “created” then you have to be very careful about how you handle time. How can you tell that the creator was ‘before’ the created?

How can you tell he was not?

 

[mardukm]

The First Effect is dependent on the First Cause. The First Cause is dependent on the First Effect. The two are mutually contingent.

No they are not. What you have not taken into account in your definitions is that the idea of First Cause is not the Being itself, but rather something the Being does. A Being is not contingent upon what the Being does, though what is done is contingent upon the Being. Your metaphysical definition is possible, but it does not apply to nor affect the reality, validity, or nature of the Being itself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rossum]

If God is not the same as God’s nature, then God can’t have a nature and that’s just plain illogical.

Which is why I have big problems with using “X’s nature” in anything more than a casual sense. When analysed in detail it is either a synonym for X, and hence redundant, or is a carrier for some property we want X to have but which clashes with some other property we also want X to have. In that case it should be a separate free-standing entity due to the clash of properties.

I gave biblical quotes and there is a plethora of literature which all states the same, Christian belief, which is that God has an immutable nature. God’s nature includes free will, so He can do whatever he wants, whenever He wants, always according to His immutable nature.

Which is where I find immense logical difficulties. Something that is immutable cannot change. Something that acts in time does change. These two things cannot be the same thing. Immutability and change are incompatible properties.

You have moved the goal posts so you can introduce the concept of “unchanging” to show that God is a powerful pet rock. Wont work.

Then replace “unchanging” with “immutable” throughout my argument. You accept an immutable God. Logically that reduces to the “magical rock”. (A good image, I like it.) I am not actually attempting to show that God is a magical rock; I am trying to show that the Christian conception of God is logically incoherent.

Every X has a nature which defines X as being an X. It’s that simple. Natures have properties.

The nature-of-X can only have the same properties as the X, hence my seeing nature-of-X as redundant. If it had opposed properties to X then it is a separate entity.

So? This thread isn’t about Buddhism. Only you are!

This thread is about the First Cause. Given the necessary relationship between the First Cause and time then we have to look at change and the First Cause. An assertion that an immutable God is the First Cause hence immediately runs into trouble.

Yes, according to His immutable nature. God even says so Himself in malachi 3:6.

Then we are back to an immutable nature, which can do nothing and a God who can do things but is not immutable.

The "logical incoherence’ is in the minds of those who attempt to change the immutability of God’s nature into a concept of unchangeability.

In my dictionary I see “immutable” defined as:

IMMUTABLE: not capable of or susceptible to change.

• Source: mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immutable
  That ‘not capable of … change’ looks a great deal like “unchanging” to me. Anything immutable can neither change nor be changed.

God’s nature is immutable, everything He created is mutable, with a couple of exceptions which I’ll leave to you to figure out.

What about God, as opposed to God’s nature? If God is immutable then God is “not capable of change”. Yet the Bible shows that God changes. If God is not the same as God’s nature then we have two separate entities that should be analysed separately.

First up, the reference is to God’s nature. His nature has parameters. The Bible, for one, attests to this. Your concept of unchangeability, as applied by you to God’s nature would mean he could not choose an action, such as creation. So your concept renders God as a powerful rock, trapped in a wheelchair, incapable of action, because any action would make him not-God.

It is not my concept; it is the Christian insistence on an immutable God who does different things at different times. Those two descriptions are not compatible, any more than a square triangle is consistent with itself. Logic tells us that something that cannot change cannot act within time, since action within time requires change.

Exactly! You introduced the concept of “unchangeability” into an argument which was always about God’s nature.

God or God’s nature? I said very early on in this discussion that I was not always happy with the concept of a ‘nature’ of something. This is why. You are apparently arbitrarily switching between God and God’s nature with no apparent justification. Is there only one thing, God, or two things, God and God’s nature? One thing must have a consistent set of properties. Two separate things are less constrained. You are trying to shoehorn immutability and action within time into the same entity; that is an extremely difficult task.

rossum​

 

[rossum]

Yes, I do believe that we disagree on this. I do see the difference between God’s Immutability on the one hand and on the other hand God’s ability from within His Immutability to make decisions without changing His nature. I believe this to be the Christian view.

You are splitting God into two. God with one set of properties, and God’s nature with another, different, set of properties. Immutability is an inability to change. Anything that changes cannot be immutable. Hence you need a split between God and nature-of-God.

You now have two separate entities with different, and inconsistent properties. That in itself is not a problem. A square can be a square and a triangle can be a triangle; two different things. You get the problem when you try to merge these two different entities and have to justify either a square triangle, or a triangular square. The Christian God is just such an entity, which tries to change and be immutable at the same time. There is an obvious problem in logic with this oxymoron.

I think that the words “beginning” and the “end” in this sense are used to indicate that eternity is not a place with an eternal hourglass infinitely measuring the passage of time; rather, eternity is a new dimension with new experiences that will go on everlastingly.

Time is one of the four dimensions of the space-time in which we live. If this is a new dimension, then it is not time. Time is one of the old dimensions. Call it the fifth dimension or whatever, but don’t call it time. That word already has a meaning.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Sure you can, because the ontological reality of a being is not contingent upon what that being does. Just as I do exist as a being, and the fact of my existence has not changed whether or not I move a piece of paper, nor does my being change whether or not I move a piece of paper, God does exist and his being does not change whether or not he sustained Napolean.

We disagree. Me with my arm stretched out is not the same as me with my arm pulled back. I do not fit into the same volume of space. My centre of mass has moved slightly. I have burned some ATP and oxygen to move my muscles. I am a little older. Much has changed.

A piece of paper that I move does not share in my being nor my properties even though I have performed an action on it. Likewise, Napoleon need not share in omnipresence for the omnipresent God to have performed an action on Napoleon.

When Napoleon was alive he never visited Australia. Therefore that part of God that was acting on Napoleon was not in Australia. Hence we can deduce that there is a part of God that is not omnipresent. Is God then partly omnipresent and partly not omnipresent? Did God have nothing at all to do with Napoleon?

rossum

 

[rossum]

How can you tell he was not?

If there was no created then how can there have been a creator. How can a childless couple be parents? A creator has to have created something in order to be a creator.

No they are not. What you have not taken into account in your definitions is that the idea of First Cause is not the Being itself, but rather something the Being does. A Being is not contingent upon what the Being does, though what is done is contingent upon the Being. Your metaphysical definition is possible, but it does not apply to nor affect the reality, validity, or nature of the Being itself.

I am talking about the validity of the description “creator” or “cause”. I can claim to be a multi-billionaire but unless I actually have the money then my claim is false. I can claim to be a creator, but unless I have actually created something than my claim is false.

The entity who will become the creator does indeed exist before creation, just as a mother-to-be is not yet a parent but will be. However, in order to pass from creator-to-be to creator it is necessary to change. An actual act of creation must take place. That act of creation is a change, so it is impossible to have an unchanging creator. An unchanging mother-to-be can never actually give birth and so can never actually be a mother. She has to change in order to become a mother.

rossum

 

[razredge]

You can say what you want, but if you say “created” then you have to be very careful about how you handle time. How can you tell that the creator was ‘before’ the created?

rossum

The uncaused cause caused the Big Bang which created the universe - by definition it would have to be in existence before any other entities caused by it.

And I don’t think God is immutable, is that your point? That it is illogical to believe in a God who is the first cause and also immutable?

Since God is a mind, he must change, otherwise he wouldn’t be able to think.
Plus things that can’t change can’t cause any change either.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes. You excluded God from creation but He is not excluded from “all that exists”. He created creation but He did not create “all that exists”.

Right, God is outside creation.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We disagree. If God was sustaining Napoleon then that part of God which was sustaining Napoleon is no longer doing so. That part of God has changed from “sustaining” to “non-sustaining”. We can immediately start my usual analysis to show that either God changed or that there are two separate entities, an unchanging God who sustains nothing and a lot of changing bits that sustain changing entities.

You cannot have one single God who is both unchanging and who sustained, but does not now sustain, Napoleon.

The part of God that sustained Napoleon is not omnipresent, otherwise Napoleon would also be omnipresent. Your own logic shows that the sustaining part is incompatible with the God part.

rossum

Our G-d has no parts. Divine Simplicity is a central tenet of G-ds technical definition, Actus Purus. You are arguing against a G-d we do not worship.

 

[rossum]

Our G-d has no parts. Divine Simplicity is a central tenet of G-ds technical definition, Actus Purus. You are arguing against a G-d we do not worship.

I am arguing against the logical inconsistencies of the God that you do worship.

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

Buddhism completely rejects the idea of a ‘nature’ or ‘esence’ behind things.

So Buddhism believes all events are random?

No. Buddhism believes that all events are contingent on their causes and conditions. By a correct understanding of cause and effect we can work to make sure that only the effects we want happen, and the effects we don’t want are avoided.

I was thinking about nature. All migratory animals that move across the planet in a regular cycle; their location changes but the cycle does not. If their movements stopped that would be a change. It is their nature to migrate. If Buddhism does not accept the idea of nature then these migrations would be random events. There are hundreds of species of trees on the planet, each different from the other but still a tree. There is something about them that makes them trees and not grass. If Buddhism rejects the idea of essence, then calling a particular beverage wine, cider, juice, or ale is just a random classification.

 

[Stephen168]

A change from A to B is not the same as a change from B to C. It is a different change and hence a change from the first change.

It depends on the change. If I was counting; each change would be the same: one. To stop counting would be a change

 

[mangy_dog]

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

Effects are contingent on a prior action or cause.

First Cause is necessary and not contingent. Hence you have the Necessary and the Contingent or Cause and Effect.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I am arguing against the logical inconsistencies of the God that you do worship.

rossum

That argument fails in regard to our definition of G-d, because the G-d we worship does not have parts. I don’t see how you can draw logical inconsistencies, in our definition of G-d, from a different definition of G-d.

 

[mangy_dog]

The uncaused cause caused the Big Bang which created the universe - by definition it would have to be in existence before any other entities caused by it.

And I don’t think God is immutable, is that your point? That it is illogical to believe in a God who is the first cause and also immutable?

Since God is a mind, he must change, otherwise he wouldn’t be able to think.
Plus things that can’t change can’t cause any change either.

There is no change in God.

This can only be somewhat apprehended from our perspective of time and space. Everything that was, is and will be - has always been known to God, along with every possible variation and possibility due to our free will.

This is why God is First Cause and Immutable. Also, God is not a “mind”. God is a pure spirit whose nature is above all other natures meaning the natural (ours) and the praeternatural (angelic realm). God’s realm is Supernatural - only God is Supernatural.

All things: past, present and future are a constant now to God.

If the First Cause changed…it would cease to be Necessary and would pass into Contingency.