First Cause

[rossum]

Number can work equally well in either scenario.

Then you are dependent on the Peano axioms for the existence of number, and how do you decide which entity gets “1” and which entity gets “2”?

In what place does an Infinite Being reside?

How do you know that the being is infinite unless there is an infinite space and an infinite time in which to measure it?

Nevertheless, Infinite Being cannot move, change.

My problem is that you seem to want to have an Infinite Being that cannot change who nevertheless changes. One or the other; not both.

As a potential parent, yes.

Agreed. But there is a difference between a potential parent and an actual parent. A great pity, because I am a potential, but not actual, billionaire . Because actual and potential are different then there must be a change to move from potential to actual.

rossum

 

[rossum]

God creating the universe does not mean that God then becomes dependent on the universe in order to exist, no matter how many times you say it.

I am not talking about God’s existence, but I am talking about God changing. The act of creation implies some action to perform the creation. Action is a change hence any creator is also changing. Therefore God is changing, contrary to claims that God does not change.

God is creator because he has a tendency or natural inclination to create, and because he engages in the act of creation–not because he did create something at one point in time.

A creator-of-universes who has not created any universes is making a false claim. Was there ever a time when God made a false claim?

Catching a particular fish does not make the fisherman exist.

But is does change him from an unsuccessful fisherman to a successful fisherman. He now has the memory of catching a fish, which he didn’t have before. He has changed.

rossum

 

[rossum]

God cannot change because He is not made with any physical properties that could be changed but is an eternally self-existent Being without material form (intangible) and invisible in nature. In other words, since God is the ultimate Being, nothing logically existed before Him that could have changed God’s perfect Being into a more perfect Being. And since God is the ultimate Being and exists changelessly within and without His creation, God is independent of all conditions that depend upon cause (because God had no beginning).

I have no logical problems with such a God, apart from the bit about “His creation”. Now tell me how such an unchanging God can do anything at all.

And God is not dependent upon or influenced by His creatures;

So why do Christians spent so much time praying?

it was God’s free-will choice that allowed His creatures to exist in the first place.

Choice is change. There was a time when we did not exist. We exist now. Hence God’s free choice has changed. How can your unchanging God change?

If God should ever decide to cease sustaining the world, then everything in the world would cease existing as well.

God has decided to cease sustaining Napoleon Bonaparte. That is a change.

You are describing an unchanging God who changes. That does not seem logical to me.

rossum

 

[rossum]

No one has attempted to split God in two.

One thing cannot have two opposed properties. One thing cannot both be unchanging and change. If you claim that an unchanging God changes then you are implicitly splitting God into two.

I will say right here and now that it would be supremely presumptuous to try to define the full essence of God. Nevertheless, we have been taught of His attributes. We have learned of His determinants. We have our earthly ideas of His nature.

So, you now speak of God’s essence, God’s attributes, God’s determinants and God’s nature. Which of these change? Which of these do not change? How do they differ from God, if at all?

What axiom is this? Sounds completely self-serving to me.

Cause and effect. The cause has to have some contact with the effect. If the effect is inside space-time then the cause also needs, at least in part, to be inside space-time as well.

God does not “act.” How does Infinite Being “act?”

Excellent. We are agreed that an infinite unchanging being cannot act.

I’m sorry then. I wish to speak with the same Rossum. I don’t know you.

You can’t. That rossum is in the past. I suggest that instead you go and step in the same river you stepped in before.

His will doesn’t change; it is constant. His act of will occurs instantaneously, and includes all actions and effects.

Again we can analyse this into “His will” which doesn’t change and “His act of will” which does. These cannot be the same thing because one changes while the other doesn’t. This is an unavoidable problem for you. You are starting from an unchanging God, and moving towards some changing actions in the world. At some point you have to try to elide over the switch from unchanging to changing. It is at that point I will split things into two.

Who are you telling this to?

The current incarnation of JDaniel who has arisen as a result of the previous version of JDaniel and will in turn give rise to the next version of JDaniel.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If it was 20 billion years ago then He must have created time, so He was a Creator.

You make my point. If He hadn’t created time then He would not be a creator. Being a creator is dependent on having actually created something.

The First Cause must have caused something in order to be a cause.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You make my point. If He hadn’t created time then He would not be a creator. Being a creator is dependent on having actually created something.

I was being facetious, obviously if you can quote a time such as “20 billion years ago” you are presupposing that G-d is a creator.

The First Cause must have caused something in order to be a cause.

As the act of existing, First Cause logically precedent to any other beings regardless of kind or quantity. None need actually exist for this statement to be true. That is beside the refutations already stated.

 

[shoe]

I have no logical problems with such a God, apart from the bit about “His creation”. Now tell me how such an unchanging God can do anything at all.

Free will.

So why do Christians spent so much time praying?

God answers prayers on the basis of His attributes of love, righteousness, truth, etc, but never at the expense of them. God’s Character and God’s values remain One and the same eternally. “If we believe not, He continueth faithful, He can not deny Himself” (2 Timothy 2:13 ).

Choice is change. There was a time when we did not exist. We exist now. Hence God’s free choice has changed. How can your unchanging God change?

Peter Kreeft writes, “God’s essence is timeless but He effects changes in time. No creature can change another without itself being changed, but God can do this because He is purely active, not passively responding to the laws of creatures. Like a rower moving a boat through the water while remaining dry himself, God moves without being moved.”

God has decided to cease sustaining Napoleon Bonaparte. That is a change.

It was for Napoleon.

 

[rossum]

As the act of existing, First Cause logically precedent to any other beings regardless of kind or quantity. None need actually exist for this statement to be true. That is beside the refutations already stated.

You statement is logically self-refuting. A creator who has created nothing is making a false claim. Does your First Cause make false claims?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Free will.

How can it be free if it is unchanging? It can only will one thing and never change, hence it is fixed and not free.

God’s Character and God’s values remain One and the same eternally.

Changing your words does not change my argument. Is God the same as “God’s character” or different? If the same then it can be ignored; if different then we have two separate entities to deal with. Make your choice.

Peter Kreeft writes, “God’s essence is timeless but He effects changes in time. No creature can change another without itself being changed, but God can do this because He is purely active, not passively responding to the laws of creatures. Like a rower moving a boat through the water while remaining dry himself, God moves without being moved.”

We are back to “God’s essence” again. Do I really have to repeat my argument?

It was for Napoleon.

And it is a change for God as well, otherwise Napoleon would still be on St Helena, and very very bored.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You statement is logically self-refuting.

To be logically self-refuting means that if the statement is held to be true, it must necessarily be false. I don’t see how my statement meets this condition. Can you demonstrate what you mean?

A creator who has created nothing is making a false claim. Does your First Cause make false claims?

I cqan only give the same question to the 20 billion years objection that I gave to it when it was Moses, the Red Sea, Napoleon, and X. All things occur simultaneously for G-d. His acts included as I have mentioned. 20 billion years ago is the same moment to G-d as 20 billion years hence. There is no point at which G-d is not also creating.

 

[rossum]

To be logically self-refuting means that if the statement is held to be true, it must necessarily be false. I don’t see how my statement meets this condition. Can you demonstrate what you mean?

You said:

As the act of existing, First Cause logically precedent to any other beings regardless of kind or quantity. None need actually exist for this statement to be true.

By saying “logically precedent to any other beings” you are saying that the First Cause can exist if there are no effects. This is what is self refuting. If there are no effects then the First Cause is making a false claim. A false claim refutes itself. Further, by saying, “none need actually exist” you emphasise this fault even further.

All things occur simultaneously for G-d.

But those things observably do not occur simultaneously in time. If you are talking about some fifth dimension where God resides then that is nothing to do with time. Change is defined in terms of time, and God’s actions observably change. If God does not change then we are back to two separate entities: God and Actions-of-God.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You said:
By saying “logically precedent to any other beings” you are saying that the First Cause can exist if there are no effects.

I am saying that the act of existing is logically necessary. Therefore, First Cause is First Cause because it is logically necessary for it to be so.

This is what is self refuting. If there are no effects then the First Cause is making a false claim. A false claim refutes itself. Further, by saying, “none need actually exist” you emphasise this fault even further.

Self refuting statements are very specific logical structures. If it is true that First Cause is logically precedent to any other beings, that does not make the statement necessarily false. Which is a requirement for my statement to be self refuting. I think you may mean that it seems obviously false to you.

But those things observably do not occur simultaneously in time.

I would have to say “So What?”. First, what you and I can observe is irrelevant to the question. G-ds nature is at question not ours. Second, time is a metaphysically vacuous term. We talk about change in terms if time, but it has no more of an actual existence than any other concept. It is nothing more than a convenient way for us to deal with the intermittent physical changes in our environment. If you want me to treat time as an actual thing then either its logical necessity or physical existence would be accepted as evidence, only, I have never seen any and I looked around quite a bit.

If you are talking about some fifth dimension where God resides then that is nothing to do with time.

No, we believe that G-d is immanent and transcendent to the physical universe. G-d is not Mister Mxyzptlk. lol

Change is defined in terms of time, and God’s actions observably change. If God does not change then we are back to two separate entities: God and Actions-of-God.
rossum

Change is not defined in terms of time any more than distance is defined in miles and not kilometers. Change and distance both exist without our concept of time or miles. Dividing them into regular intervals is a matter of convenience, not necessity. Hence my point that G-ds actions all occur in an eternal now.

 

[Stephen168]

Look at how smart we all are! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

If a tree makes a sound in a forest, did it fall?

 

[rossum]

I am saying that the act of existing is logically necessary. Therefore, First Cause is First Cause because it is logically necessary for it to be so.

Then the First Effect is just as logically necessary. It is logically necessary for a cause to have an effect.

Self refuting statements are very specific logical structures. If it is true that First Cause is logically precedent to any other beings, that does not make the statement necessarily false.

A cause cannot be precedent to its effect because if there is no effect then logically there cannot be a cause. A dragonslayer who hasn’t killed any dragons contradicts himself.

I would have to say “So What?”. First, what you and I can observe is irrelevant to the question.

We are in time and we can observe inside time. If God is outside time then you will have to develop a new vocabulary to describe “change of coordinates in the God dimension”.

Second, time is a metaphysically vacuous term.

Then all those descriptions of God as “eternal” and “unchanging” are also metaphysically vacuous? Those terms have no meaning in the absence of time.

If you want me to treat time as an actual thing then either its logical necessity or physical existence would be accepted as evidence, only, I have never seen any and I looked around quite a bit.

Ask me tomorrow, I’ll show you my evidence then.

No, we believe that G-d is immanent and transcendent to the physical universe.

Another pair of contradictions.

Change is not defined in terms of time any more than distance is defined in miles and not kilometers.

You are making an error here. Time corresponds to distance. Miles and kilometres correspond to hours and seconds.

Hence my point that G-ds actions all occur in an eternal now.

Then those actions do not happen in this universe because we are not in an eternal now. You are separating God from the universe.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Then the First Effect is just as logically necessary. It is logically necessary for a cause to have an effect.

First Cause is logically necessary because it is the act of existing. What is First Effect? What are its properties? Why is it logically necessary?

A cause cannot be precedent to its effect because if there is no effect then logically there cannot be a cause. A dragonslayer who hasn’t killed any dragons contradicts himself.

A cause need only be logically precedent to its effect without regard to temporal and spatial relationships or quantities. A dragonslayer is not the omnipresent act of existing, which is necessarily logically precedent.

We are in time and we can observe inside time. If God is outside time then you will have to develop a new vocabulary to describe “change of coordinates in the God dimension”.

We are not “inside time” I am not sure what that even means. Time is a measuring stick applied to change. This is not a radical Idea, its pretty mainstream in physics. There is no different dimension for G-d.

Ask me tomorrow, I’ll show you my evidence then.

Macro change will occur until such a point as we designate a new “day” has begun.We need not make any such designation, and those conditions will still arise in keeping with the normal physical laws that govern change.

Another pair of contradictions.

How so? The act of existing is necessary for the contingent physical universe and therefore transcends it.

Then those actions do not happen in this universe because we are not in an eternal now.

I would argue that we are in the now all of the time. The past doesn’t exist, and neither does the future. The only moment that actually exists at any given point is the one you are experiencing. You have memories, not history, you have hope, not a knowledge of the future. So in some strange way we too experience reality only as a now. G-d being omnipresent is experiencing everything simultaneously.

You are separating God from the universe.

I always have.

 

[rossum]

What is First Effect? What are its properties? Why is it logically necessary?

It is the effect without which the cause cannot be a cause. It is logically required because there cannot be a cause without there also being an effect. A wife cannot be a wife unless she has a husband, and vice versa. If you have no spouse then you are not ‘wife’ or ‘husband’, you are single. A cause without an effect is a husband without a wife, a logical impossibility.

A cause need only be logically precedent to its effect without regard to temporal and spatial relationships or quantities.

Agreed. The First Cause also requires the existence of time as well as the First Effect.

Time is a measuring stick applied to change.

Agreed. The existence of change requires the existence of time. In the absence of time “change” has no meaning. Cause and effect is a form of change and hence requires the existence of time. Hence the First Cause is dependent on the existence of time.

How so? The act of existing is necessary for the contingent physical universe and therefore transcends it.

I do not follow your logic here. My parents were necessary for my contingent existence. In what way are they required to “transcend” me?

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is the effect without which the cause cannot be a cause. It is logically required because there cannot be a cause without there also being an effect.
A wife cannot be a wife unless she has a husband, and vice versa. If you have no spouse then you are not ‘wife’ or ‘husband’, you are single. A cause without an effect is a husband without a wife, a logical impossibility.

Your First Effect is just a contingent being in standard terminology. You are attempting to assert a dual nature to being in violation of the Law of Identity. Contingent being~=Necessary being. Sticking to standard terminology would have saved us a few posts there.

It is false that First Cause must have an effect. A woman need not be a wife or a mother to exist. First cause need not have actualized a contingent being to be First cause. To say that First cause requires an effect assert that it is not logically necessary, but First Cause being the very act of existing is logical necessary.

I really don’t see the point here, it is clear that First Cause created contingent beings. Even if you were trying to argue the language here its been a moot point for the last 14 billion years.

Agreed. The First Cause also requires the existence of time as well as the First Effect.

If First Cause required time, it couldn’t be logically necessary and hence not First Cause. Further unless you can show time is logically necessary or empirically observable, I don’t see any reason to assume that a logically unnecessary and empirically unobservable phenomenon exists. It is easily explained as nothing more than a convenient way to measure the irregular pace of change.

Agreed. The existence of change requires the existence of time. In the absence of time “change” has no meaning. Cause and effect is a form of change and hence requires the existence of time. Hence the First Cause is dependent on the existence of time.

Change preexisted clocks or the people to use them. Change requires the existence of time no more than it requires the existence of blue. Nor is change meaningless if we do not apply the measuring stick called time to it. It is a matter of logical precedence, not a form, qauntity or any spatial relationship.

I do not follow your logic here. My parents were necessary for my contingent existence. In what way are they required to “transcend” me?..

Your parents are not comparable to the act of existing. They do not transcend you, they are contingent beings as well. G-d transcends the physical universe because He is logically precedent to it. It depends on Him. There is no reason that G-d could not have created as many possible worlds as He wished. The physicists propose just that in fact.

 

[JDaniel]

Then you are dependent on the Peano axioms for the existence of number, and how do you decide which entity gets “1” and which entity gets “2”?

Rossum:

Well . . .we could look at them. Which way are they facing? Anyway, perhaps we are dependent on Peano axioms, as much as anyone can be dependent on an ‘axiom’.

How do you know that the being is infinite unless there is an infinite space and an infinite time in which to measure it?

How do you know it is not?

My problem is that you seem to want to have an Infinite Being that cannot change who nevertheless changes. One or the other; not both.

An infinite being cannot change, at least in some respects, or, at least as we conceive of ‘change’. We conceive of ‘change’ first in terms of local motion, then, in terms of coming-to-be, then we stretch our thinking of it to include our own continuum of thought(s). We prove that our continuum of thoughts entails ‘change’ because it traverses time, and theoretically, electrical activity is proceeding into the future.

Now, I recognize your problem, but, at the same time, I will say that perhaps you are being far to strict in your picture-definition then is required. (But, that’s good as it gets us to think.) It is obvious that an infinite being must exist in all places, were we able to break him down into frame-by-frame picture definitions. Time, in respect to “infinity,” or infinite being, is meaningless.

So, what is that exigency that we may be able to ascribe to infinite being that is related to, in some manner, the idiom of Time, but is not Time? We call it the Now. The Now is that which exists in between the outermost forward wall of the Past and the outermost rearward wall of the Future. The Now is neither Past nor Future. It appears in between the two continuums and moves constantly toward the future, yet is neither pushed by the Past nor pulled by the Future. Within the Now, no part of either the Past or the future exist. It is, therefore, perfectly made for an infinite being.

Precisely how an infinite being thinks we will never fully know; but, it does not think “in time,” as we do. If we’re fortunate enough, we may get to look upon it, but it will be like looking at the ocean, from the middle of it, while in a small boat. It will be imponderable. Yet, this Infinite Being, this Creator, must exist, or else there is nothing that exists. We, and all that we see, are conditionally extant. There must be - since we (all) began - an extant being that is unconditionally extant, i.e., dependent upon nothing in the universe for its existence - that created us and all that we see. The difficulty is not that it appears to us that God “thinks,” but rather, that we can’t seem to effectively describe it.

Agreed. But there is a difference between a potential parent and an actual parent. A great pity, because I am a potential, but not actual, billionaire .

Being a billionaire is a rarity; being a parent is not. I wish you were a billionaire! (Could you lend me $50.00?)

Because actual and potential are different then there must be a change to move from potential to actual.

Well, that is the definition of “change.” (The act of the potential precisely as potential.) Change can be over time, as we humans view it, or it can be instantaneous, as in coming-to-be, where we humans can’t view it.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I have no logical problems with such a God, apart from the bit about “His creation”. Now tell me how such an unchanging God can do anything at all.

Rossum:

God is continuous creative action, i.e., he is continuously creating. As Unconditioned Existential Reality he is Creation. Were he to stop being creation, we, and all else, would cease to exist - not simply die, but cease to exist. For God there can be no singular creative event. To place him and creation on the same level, or into the same realm, as creatures (where singular creative events do take place), means that He could not after that fulfill our requisite conditions for existence.

So why do Christians spent so much time praying?

For two reasons: (1) because He asked us to (the Our Father); and (2) because we wish to keep Him close to us as our most precious friend. We humans have an unusual predilection for confusing true “friendship” with mere “acquaintanceship.” True friendship is nothing less than nearly continuous communication between the parties.

God has decided to cease sustaining Napoleon Bonaparte. That is a change.

Monsieur Bonaparte’s soul (form) did not change. It simply departed its matter. The matter re-cycled, as we view it. But, Napoleon’s matter will re-unite with him at some point in what we think of as the future.

God bless,
jd

 

[rossum]

Your First Effect is just a contingent being in standard terminology.

Of course it is. That is my point. The First Effect is contingent on the First Cause and equally the First Cause is contingent on the First Effect. Both are contingent on each other. Just as husband and wife are contingent on each other for their designations as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’.

It is false that First Cause must have an effect.

Then it is not a cause. Unless and until it has an effect it cannot be a cause. Just as a bride-to-be is not actually a bride until after she has married, the First Cause is not a cause until after there is the First Effect. At most it is the First Cause-to-be.

A woman need not be a wife or a mother to exist.

Agreed, but she cannot be a wife until she is married. The description “wife” is contingent. Similarly the description “cause” is contingent.

I really don’t see the point here, it is clear that First Cause created contingent beings.

It is also clear that the First Cause is itself contingent.

If First Cause required time, it couldn’t be logically necessary and hence not First Cause.

We can tell cause from effect by looking at which was prior in time: cause came first while effect came second. If there is no time then we cannot distinguish cause from effect. In order to be able to say what is the First Cause, and not the Second Cause or the First Effect, we need to distinguish between them. How can you do that without time? The First Cause is logically dependent on time. It is contingent.

It is easily explained as nothing more than a convenient way to measure the irregular pace of change.

You are supporting my argument. Causation is a form of change. You agree that time is required to measure change so time is required for causation. You cannot have a First Cause without causation. Again, time is required for there to be a first cause.

Change preexisted clocks or the people to use them.

Distance preexisted the existence of people and of laser rangefinders. Your point is? Flowers are able to measure time in days by the Sun. Trees are able to measure seasons to know when to shed their leaves.

Change requires the existence of time no more than it requires the existence of blue.

Absolute nonsense. Change means that X at time T1 is different from X at time T2. Change is difference in time. Without time we have no way to define change.

Your parents are not comparable to the act of existing. They do not transcend you, they are contingent beings as well.

Precisely my point. Your logic was faulty.

G-d transcends the physical universe because He is logically precedent to it.

You merely repeat your faulty logic. My parents are logically precedent to me. You cannot make the leap to transcendence without providing further justification.

rossum