First Cause

[rossum]

For Aquinas, “first cause” means something like “the most foundational” or “the base cause.” It is wholly foreign to the concept to say that “it is the one that came first.” Rather it is the cause without which the others would not be able to be.

So, analysing “most foundational” first. With respect to what is it ‘most foundational’ as opposed to ‘less foundational’? You cannot have ‘most’ unless there is something else to compare it to. You are still contingent on that ‘less foundational’ cause, whatever it may be.

Your second explanation has similar problems. “[T]he cause without which the others would not be able to be.” Right there is your definition is “others”. You are explicitly stating a dependence on “others”. Again your First Cause is contingent on “others”.

[A]n ontological first cause, that is, a sustaining cause of the world here and now, and at any point in time at which the world exists at all.

Here again is my argument that any sustaining cause must be a changing cause, not immutable. The sustainer takes different actions at different times because it is sustaining different things at different times. The sustainer changes. If the Christian God is the sustainer then that God is changing.

A principal cause is one that does have its causal power inherently.

This is where Buddhism and Aquinas differ. Causal power cannot be inherent. In order to be causal there must be an effect. An external effect means that the causal power is extrinsic, not intrinsic; contingent not necessary.

In any event, it is because all the causes in such a series other than the first are instrumental in this way that they are said to be ordered per se or “essentially,” for their being causes at all depends essentially on the activity of that which uses them as instruments.

By now you should have realised that using words like “essentially” is not going to meet with my approval. If something is “essentially” linked to something else then do we have two things or just one thing? If two then analyse them separately. If one then why invoke the ambiguity about essence? There is just one thing to deal with.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If there is no effect there is no cause…yada yada yada…infinite regress.

If there is no billion dollars then there is no billionaire. False claims are not worth arguing over, they are false.

A “Creator of Universes” who has made precisely zero universes is making false claims. Are you saying that the Christian God is making false claims?

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If there is no billion dollars then there is no billionaire. False claims are not worth arguing over, they are false.

That’s a false analogy. G-d, the act of existing, First Cause, is logically precedent to any other being existing. In your analogy the billion dollars is precedent to billionaires. You are saying that there can only be a first cause if there are effects. We are saying that we can recognize First Cause because it is necessarily precedent to the existence of any other being. Regardless of the actual existence of other beings.Therefore we know that First cause is* necessarily* First cause.

A “Creator of Universes” who has made precisely zero universes is making false claims. Are you saying that the Christian God is making false claims?..

I don’t understand this question. We claim that G-d did create the universe. What are you talking about here?

 

[SonofMonica]

So, analysing “most foundational” first. With respect to what is it ‘most foundational’ as opposed to ‘less foundational’? You cannot have ‘most’ unless there is something else to compare it to. You are still contingent on that ‘less foundational’ cause, whatever it may be.

No. You’re simply cherry-picking words and using them out of context. That doesn’t make your argument sophisticated; just incoherent. God is not dependent on anything. Everything is dependent on God. I don’t understand why that’s so hard for you to understand. You’re confusing cause and effect, either by lack of knowledge of the subject, or in order to be a horse’s rear end. But it’s tiring.

Your second explanation has similar problems. “[T]he cause without which the others would not be able to be.” Right there is your definition is “others”. You are explicitly stating a dependence on “others”. Again your First Cause is contingent on “others”.

No. The other causes are contingent on the First Cause. Now, you’re just being belligerent. Just because you change words around to say it around backwards doesn’t mean it makes any sense; nor does it mean that your conclusion follows as a matter of logic. The existence of 4-wheeled automobile is dependent upon the existence of wheels. But wheels are not in any sense dependent upon the existence of automobiles. Wheels are foundational to automobiles, and had other uses prior to the existence of the automobile. You can’t turn it around and say that wheels only exist because automobiles exist. It’s simply wrong. Likewise, it’s just wrong to say that God is dependent upon anything else, because the very definition of God involves God not being dependent upon anything else. Please, go read a book or else, if you’re not being serious, quit being belligerent.

 

[mangy_dog]

Which is why I asked my question, to try to get the two into line.

God created creation but He did not create the universe of all that exists.

rossum

All that is seen- the physical universe - is full of effects that are contingent on something else, a cause for its existence, its motion, its changes. For all that is known and unknown of our universe or (Hawkings) any other universe - it is full of contingent effects.

Everything was created by God in such a way that it would appear to us the way it does, with all its mysteries and wonders. We, being created in His image and likeness, are able to deduce things from observation and reasoning like: the Necessary First Cause and the universe full of contingent effects. All having a previous mover ad infinitum.

The poetic beauty of : We believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all that is seen and unseen…encompasses in a simple formula what is evident to our observations but also bridges that gap of “proof” with the assent of the intellect that there is a Necessary First Cause without violating our reason and our will.

God did not make the universe so small that we could look out there and realize that we are in a cocoon of sorts but, He made it immense enough for us to marvel and wonder at the seemingly boundless frontiers.

 

[JDaniel]

Then it was not the Being that was doing the acting, but the Incidentals. All hail the Incidentals! Let us praise the Incidentals!

Rossum:

The foregoing is not an argument or refutation. It is veiled and rather juvenile attempt to ridicule. Shall we start ridiculing you and Buddhism? Perhaps it would serve us both to ignore statements we are unprepared to refute. Don’t you think?

If we can remove the incidentals, and leave the Being behind, then the incidentals are not part of the Being and should be treated separately. My clothes are not me and can be removed and treated separately. Whatever is assigned to the incidentals is relevant to them, not to the Being. My clothes go into the washing machine; I do not.

What is your point?

Not my logic. If I start a fire then I strike a match - a change. I rub two boy scouts together - a change.

It is strange, don’t you think, that in each of the sentences above you ratified that it was you doing the action; rather than some new person doing one then another totally different person doing the other. No matter what, none of us can get away from the fact of who we are. That clearly indicates a kind of permanence does it not? When an electron repels itself and affects a proton such that it is also repelled, the electron and the proton do not become other than what they are: an electron and a proton.

Now, I guess you can say that the electron is always moving, changing, but, I do not accept that there is no “subject” of change.

I take some action in time in order to create the physical effect I want.

No argument here: you are in time. You are a finite mobile being as is the effect you cause.

If God takes some physical action then He also has to act in time, and any action in time is a change.

It has long since been argued that God Wills physical change, and rightly so. Now, you only understand will as it is used by mobile, physical (human) beings. None of us truly understands it from a spiritual POV. In fact, we are limited in our apprehension of it to a description that is purely physical. You must admit that there are aspects of Buddhist philosophy that are difficult, if not impossible, to put into words. Otherwise, all of us would glaum onto Buddhism like iron filings glaum onto a strong magnet.

His answer was nonsensical. The Red is not parted now. It was parted in the past.

You are re-defining common English words that most English speaking people fully know what those words are signs of. You are altering a Stop sign into a Yield sign and expecting the Christian to swallow your straw man.

That is a change.

Ditto!

Whatever God sees from the fifth dimension has nothing to do with time, which is the fourth dimension.

A naked assertion, Rossum. Clearly.

God@1200BCE was parting the Red sea. God@2011CE is not parting the Red sea. God at the two times is different hence God has changed by all reasonable definitions.

Absolutely not so. And, what’s more, you know it! Again, practitioners of the English language (plus Latin, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Portuguese, and many others) are fully aware of what those words mean.

A forest can exist without any of its trees?

A fisherman can exist without catching any fish - and often does!

Go through your billionaire and remove a single molecule at a time. Repeat my argument with the forest and trees. No single molecule contains “the billionaire”.

Remove Rossum’s right eye and we still have Rossum; albeit slightly impaired.

My argument does not depend on any exchange of properties. It merely depends on a close analysis of the actions of the actor. My argument stands.

I think not.

I do not accept an actor who does not act, any more than I accept a creator who does not create.

I guess the fisherman who catches no fish should just shoot himself?

Using an incorrect predicate will not win any arguments.

Neither will limiting signs such that they only stand tall enough for rabbits to view.

You describe God as both unchanging and acting.

I think he means, “willing.”

I am showing that such a description requires two different entities.

No, you are playing around with the signs, i.e., the words.

Christianity generally sees the world as basically static with a veneer of apparent change laid over it.

Not so. Christianity generally sees the world as Heraclitus saw it: constantly changing. However, with one significant exception: we see that change requires a subject. We understand that if I am sick and then get well, it is me that gets well.

We try our best to extrapolate from our limited understanding of motion and change to describe Infinite Being creating. But, either God created the universe or it came about by pure chance from nothing. Pure chance and nothing were not even capable of leaving behind thousands of years of revelation. They are merely a relatively recent attempt to provide an alternative to God by replacing Him with an eternal, untestable hypothesis. Not even the first word of any sort of revelation. Not even one paragraph.

continued…

 

[JDaniel]

continuation…

Buddhism sees the world as fundamentally changing, with a veneer of apparent stasis.

That’s the problem! I can never figure who I am talking to when speaking to you.

One of the Buddhist analyses of the cause of suffering is this error.

So: you are not completely opposed to “reification!”

“You’re not the person I married,” is precisely true.

Perhaps not. Your conception/perception of that person may have been in error. Maybe you simply opened your eyes.

You wanted to keep that person in aspic, but they have changed.

As I said immediately above.

You can never step in the same river twice because it’s not the same river and it’s not the same you.

The first part of your statement makes sense. The latter part does not. If you are not you, you are saying non-sense. I’m not sure who is making those sounds that appear to be similar to words.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The Buddha already found him. Here is what He said:“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”
Despite having found this God, the Buddha still founded the basis of today’s Buddhism. That give a good indication of the Buddhist attitude to such a God.

I want to meet that God who Created Brahma! That has been my most ostensive endeavor for a major portion of my life.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Ok good - yes, I also think an unchanging God is a bit illogical as how would he be able to think?

If He was unchanging He would be more like an abstract concept like the number 7, abstract concepts don’t change and so can’t cause any change either so couldn’t create the universe - the only immaterial thing that can cause change is a mind and a mind by definition has to be able to think - and thinking necessarily involves change.

Hello, my friend.

It is very important - if you wish to be remain in good standing with Catholic faith - to fully understand that an Infinite Being cannot possibly change. He does not consist of parts. He does not exist here and there. He does not move. [Where would an Infinite Being move to? In reference (relation) to what?] Please take the time to read about the Immutability of God here: newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

God bless,
jd

 

[rossum]

That’s a false analogy. G-d, the act of existing, First Cause, is logically precedent to any other being existing.

Your definition includes “other being”. There is a dependency right there. Your First Cause is dependent on no other being existing prior to itself. Any dependency implies contingency. Your own words tell you that your First Cause is contingent.

I don’t understand this question. We claim that G-d did create the universe. What are you talking about here?

I am talking about 20 billion years ago, before God created the universe. Twenty billion years ago God was not the creator because at that point He had not yet created anything. It would be false to call Him creator then. His being a creator, or a cause, would only be true after the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, God had made zero universes.

rossum

 

[rossum]

God is not dependent on anything.

I can accept that, but then you also tell me that God is “Creator”, which immediately makes God dependent on there being a creation for Him to have created. You are assigning incompatible properties to God: unchanging and changing, non-dependent and dependent.

The other causes are contingent on the First Cause.

I am more interested in effects. Tell me how can there be a cause if it doesn’t have any effect? An effect-less cause is not really a cause, like a billionaire with no money.

But wheels are not in any sense dependent upon the existence of automobiles.

Wheels can exist independently of automobiles: bicycles have wheels. However causes and effects cannot exist independently. An effect cannot happen without its cause; a cause cannot be a cause without actually causing an effect. Your analogy fails.

Likewise, it’s just wrong to say that God is dependent upon anything else, because the very definition of God involves God not being dependent upon anything else.

That is indeed the definition of God, but that definition is inconsistent when you add properties like “creator” to the non-dependent God.

rossum

 

[JDaniel]

However, words like “change” and “mutable” are defined in terms of time.

Rossum:

Not so. In order to avoid the usual tautology - which teaches us nothing - motion is properly defined as: “the act of the potential precisely as potential.”

If you are going to drop time for something else, then you will have to develop a new vocabulary to describe the “God-time”.

The Western world has had this definition at least since Aristotle.

Then “First” requires space instead of time, and my argument stands with minor modifications.

Number can work equally well in either scenario.

“First” is still contingent on the existence of space instead of being contingent on the existence of time. Either way it is contingent.

No. Place is not existentially urgent, as we have no doubts of. In what place does an Infinite Being reside? Here, to the left? There, to the right? Above me? Below me? Where exactly?

Whether a Planck length or a Planck time, there is still either a length or a time, or both. Causation cannot stand alone, it is always contingent on something else.

It is still not existentially urgent - except to our unexceptional minds. Besides, a Planck length is, as you mention, a measure of distance. That would not be unreasonable for an Infinite Being: to be everywhere at once.

In normal speaking we use words casually. If we are trying to describe the ultimate then we have to use words far more carefully.

Regardless, when we do, that does not necessarily equate to perfection of description.

Remember “homoousion” versus “homoiousion”, the original “iota of difference”? Even in casual language there is a difference between a successful fisherman and an unsuccessful fisherman.

Yes, but the subject is still the subject. Merely unimportantly unsuccessful - which may change! Nevertheless, Infinite Being cannot move, change. We understand our minds from the POV of physicality. That’s a human limitation. We don’t know if the light we see from a star estimated to be a million light years from earth is still there. We have our limitations.

This is where we differ. Is a one year old baby a parent because when it grows up it will have children? Does it make sense to describe a one year old as a “parent”?

As a potential parent, yes. And, considering the nearly exponential expansion of human beings on earth (80 million a year), one would be justified doing so.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

No–a thousand times, no. Aquinas’s concept of First Cause does **not **mean “first in time.” Thus his argument from First Cause does not deal with a “first point in time” as opposed to a “second point in time.” It supersedes the concept of time. It deals with primacy, not order, as such. A lot of folks, even on this site, miss this. So I’m not surprised that you don’t. But let me help.

For Aquinas, “first cause” means something like “the most foundational” or “the base cause.” It is wholly foreign to the concept to say that “it is the one that came first.” Rather it is the cause without which the others would not be able to be. As Edward Feser puts it, “What Aquinas seeks to show in all of his arguments for God’s existence is not the existence of a first cause who operated at some point in the distant past to get the world going, but rather one who is operating here and now, and at any moment at which the universe exists at all, to keep the world going. And part of his point is that the existence of such a God is something that can be proved even if the universe has always existed. (He did not actually believe it has always existed, mind you; he just didn’t get into the issue for the purposes of arguing for God’s existence.)”

Another way of putting it is that Aquinas is not even arguing that the universe must have had a beginning (it may or may not, to which the argument of First Cause is neutral). So we might say that the first cause he is arguing for is not a temporal first cause, but in an ontological first cause, that is, a sustaining cause of the world here and now, and at any point in time at which the world exists at all. Here’s some more from Feser:

“What is key is the distinction between instrumental and principal causality (or second and first causality), a distinction which the language of per accidens versus per se (which I use in The Last Superstition and Aquinas) better conveys. An instrumental cause is one that derives whatever causal power it has from something else. To use Aquinas’s famous example, the stick that the hand uses to push the stone has no power to push the stone on its own, but derives its stone-moving power from the hand, which uses it as an “instrument.” (Of course, the stick might have some other causal powers apart from the hand; the point is that relative to the specific series hand-stick-stone it has no independent causal power.) A principal cause is one that does have its causal power inherently. The hand in our example can be thought of for purposes of illustration as such a cause, though of course ultimately it is not, since its power to move the stick depends on other factors. Indeed, there can at the end of the day be only one cause which is principal or non-instrumental in an unqualified sense, namely a cause which is purely actual and thus need not be actualized in any way whatsoever by anything else. In any event, it is because all the causes in such a series other than the first are instrumental in this way that they are said to be ordered per se or “essentially,” for their being causes at all depends essentially on the activity of that which uses them as instruments. By contrast, causes ordered per accidens or “accidentally” do not essentially depend for their efficacy on the activity of earlier causes in the series. To use Aquinas’s example, a father possesses the power to generate sons independently of the activity of his own father, so that a series of fathers and sons is in that sense ordered per accidens rather than per se (though each member of such a series is also dependent in various other respects on causal series ordered per se).”

Hear! Hear! SonofMonica, you should repreat this once a month (at least), in every thread, from now on! Well said.

God bless,
jd

 

[SonofMonica]

I can accept that, but then you also tell me that God is “Creator”, which immediately makes God dependent on there being a creation for Him to have created. You are assigning incompatible properties to God: unchanging and changing, non-dependent and dependent.

That’s completely incoherent. 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. It’s simply false. I’m not assigning any dependency to God. 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. Others have pointed out to you that one may be employed as a fisherman without catching fish. Catching a particular fish does not make the fisherman exist. It is having a tendency to fish for fish and actually fishing for fish that makes one a fisherman. It is the act of creating that makes God a creator, not the fact that the world exists. And the fact that properly calling God a creator is dependent upon him actually creating does not mean that God existing is dependent upon him actually creating. Dependency has to do with the necessity of existence, not labeling.

 

[rossum]

The foregoing is not an argument or refutation.

It is an indication that I have already dealt many times on this thread with attempts to split God into two: God and nature-of-God; God and essence-of-God; God-as-Being and God-as-Incidentals. Merely changing the words you use does not cure the basic faults in the argument. Are there two entities or one? If one then drop the useless verbiage. If two then deal with them separately.

It is strange, don’t you think, that in each of the sentences above you ratified that it was you doing the action; rather than some new person doing one then another totally different person doing the other.

This thread is not the place to discuss Buddhist dharma theory with respect to the person. We are discussing the First Cause.

It has long since been argued that God Wills physical change, and rightly so.

Physical change involves actually moving atoms and molecules around. Since the atoms and molecules are within space-time then any agent causing those atoms and molecules to move must itself be in space-time.

You are re-defining common English words that most English speaking people fully know what those words are signs of.

How so? The Red sea was parted in the past - true. The Red sea is not parted now - true. What meanings of what words have I altered?

Absolutely not so.

Here we disagree. The Red sea is not currently parted, therefore whatever part (or all) of God that was acting has changed and is now no longer acting.

Remove Rossum’s right eye and we still have Rossum; albeit slightly impaired.

No. We have a similar rossum, but not the same rossum. The new rossum is dependent on the old rossum, and carries over some characteristics from the old rossum, but the new rossum also has some new characteristics of his own that the old rossum did not have. The memory of losing his eye for example.

I think he means, “willing.”

Observably, His will changes so my argument remains the same. If His will changes then either God changes or we have two separate entities: God and Will-of-God.

That’s the problem! I can never figure who I am talking to when speaking to you.

Just as well I have changed from when I was one day old. Then you couldn’t have talked to me at all.

Perhaps not. Your conception/perception of that person may have been in error. Maybe you simply opened your eyes.

A difference between perception and reality is one of the causes of sorrow. To expect anyone to remain unchanged over time is unrealistic.

The first part of your statement makes sense. The latter part does not.

Why not? We all change; we are born, we grow old and we die. How is that not a change?

rossum

 

[JDaniel]

Your definition includes “other being”. There is a dependency right there. Your First Cause is dependent on no other being existing prior to itself. Any dependency implies contingency. Your own words tell you that your First Cause is contingent.

Rossum:

That is absurd. He said, “no other being.” In our language that means that there is nothing upon which it is dependent. Nice try.

I am talking about 20 billion years ago, before God created the universe. Twenty billion years ago God was not the creator because at that point He had not yet created anything. It would be false to call Him creator then. His being a creator, or a cause, would only be true after the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, God had made zero universes.

If there existed other physicalities prior to 16.75 billion years ago, God was their Creator. We don’t know. You don’t know. He is understood to be infinitely fecund. We are informed that He created the Angelic multitude first, after which He created the universe.

What’s next on your agenda?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I can accept that, but then you also tell me that God is “Creator”, which immediately makes God dependent on there being a creation for Him to have created.

Not an ontological dependency in any way, shape, or form. That is simply Rossum’s game.

You are assigning incompatible properties to God: unchanging and changing, non-dependent and dependent.

Rather, you are trying to be sophistic.

I am more interested in effects.

No doubt. You’re only human - until you become a god!

Tell me how can there be a cause if it doesn’t have any effect?

Very simple: a cause must ontologically pre-exist any effect that belongs to it. You twist it however you will, but, logic is logic, and ontology is ontology. That a thing is defined as a creator does not depend upon a pre-existing effect. A man makes a car. All the while he is building it, the car does not exist - as a car - but, that doesn’t lessen the fact that he is rightly known as a car maker. You’re going to hold fast to your skewed template until hell freezes over, aren’t you?

Do you have any full recollection of a past life? If so, I’d like to discuss my flying saucer experience with you. I died once. Then, I was taken aboard a space craft similar to a DC-10. Inside that space craft, I remember being reincarnated. First, I was reincarnated as a bacterium. Then, as luck would have it: I was stepped on and squished. But, now, I am a human again. Whew! I was worried I might remain a bacterium eternally, multiplying and dividing, multiplying and dividing. I’d like to find that person that stepped on me and thank them!

An effect-less cause is not really a cause, like a billionaire with no money.

Like a driver without a car? Like a traffic law-maker who doesn’t drive? Like packaging without contents? Like a number four without a number three? Like an offspring without parents? Like a chicken without an egg? Like a washing machine with no washed clothes?

Wheels can exist independently of automobiles: bicycles have wheels.

Very, very poor analogy. (You might want to take this one back!)

However causes and effects cannot exist independently. An effect cannot happen without its cause; a cause cannot be a cause without actually causing an effect.

They must. The cause may not be called, “cause” without its corollary effect. But again, that is not the fault of the cause!

That is indeed the definition of God, but that definition is inconsistent when you add properties like “creator” to the non-dependent God.

Then, give us your idea of how the universe came to be?

God bless,
jd

 

[shoe]

We now have four entities: God, God’s nature, the physical world and the nature of the physical world. Can you see why I am distrustful of using “nature of X” in an argument, it only leads to confusion and a multiplication of entities. Does the nature of the physical world itself have a nature? Do we get an infinite regress of natures?

We can observe that the physical world changes and is not eternal. What you have to explain is how an eternal God can do different things on different days.

I say nothing about God’s nature; I only talk about God. If God acts in time then God has to change. We observe that the world changes, so if God is creating/sustaining the world then God must change. 200 years ago God was sustaining Napoleon and was not sustaining rossum. Today God is not sustaining Napoleon and is sustaining rossum. God is doing different things so God has, at least in part, changed. If God has no parts then God has changed. If God has parts then we can analyse God into fixed and changing parts and deal with the two parts separately.

How. How did God sustain Napoleon and not sustain Napoleon without changing?

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).

And God is not dependent upon or influenced by His creatures; it was God’s free-will choice that allowed His creatures to exist in the first place. If God should ever decide to cease sustaining the world, then everything in the world would cease existing as well. God, however, can never cease to exist because He is Existence. And for God to change He would have to have something that He doesn’t have within His Being, namely the “potential” to change; but since God is existence pure and simple, He remains forever “I am who am” (Exodus 3:14).

 

[JDaniel]

It is an indication that I have already dealt many times on this thread with attempts to split God into two: God and nature-of-God; God and essence-of-God; God-as-Being and God-as-Incidentals.

Rossum:

No one has attempted to split God in two. That is your singular affectation. 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. We can back into his nature from understanding what He is not, or, we can logically conclude what He is from the front. You, OTOH, relate some words that are supposed to carry some significance- but don’t. And that’s your proofs of your God? Not to us, they aren’t. At least our concept of God gives us fodder for righteous debate. To be perfectly honest with you, your little stories, told by some ancient Buddhist, leave me uncaring. Sorry.

Merely changing the words you use does not cure the basic faults in the argument. Are there two entities or one? If one then drop the useless verbiage. If two then deal with them separately.

Don’t get me started on your little stories.

This thread is not the place to discuss Buddhist dharma theory with respect to the person. We are discussing the First Cause.

Oh, I’m sorry. I thought we were exchanging disparagements of each others Gods, and it was my turn.

Since the atoms and molecules are within space-time then any agent causing those atoms and molecules to move must itself be in space-time.

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

Here we disagree. The Red sea is not currently parted, therefore whatever part (or all) of God that was acting has changed and is now no longer acting.

Rossum: God does not “act.” How does Infinite Being “act?” Relative to what? How many more times must this be told to you? You can ask your same question a thousand ways, but, the central idea of how God creates has been clearly spelled out many times in these forums. You are being argumentative period. It may be a problem of intelligibility for a Buddhist mindset. I will not exclude that. But, you either really don’t understand what is being said to you, or, you are pervading something far worse.

No. We have a similar rossum, but not the same rossum.

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

The new rossum is dependent on the old rossum,

Why?

and carries over some characteristics from the old rossum, but the new rossum also has some new characteristics of his own that the old rossum did not have.

How is that possible?

The memory of losing his eye for example.

How is that possible? My siblings are extremely close to me, yet I can but barely remember their birthdays! This sounds again much like another unfounded assertion.

Observably, His will changes so my argument remains the same.

That’s not honestly duplicating what I said. His will doesn’t change; it is constant. His act of will occurs instantaneously, and includes all actions and effects.

If His will changes then either God changes or we have two separate entities: God and Will-of-God.

It is useless to discuss this with you. Your apprehensions are being dishonestly related I think.

Just as well I have changed from when I was one day old.

Not worth a response. Sorry.

Then you couldn’t have talked to me at all.

Yes I could. Even if you did not apprehend what I was saying.

A difference between perception and reality is one of the causes of sorrow.

Another cute little story-line as well as a naked assertion.

To expect anyone to remain unchanged over time is unrealistic.

Who are you telling this to?

Why not? We all change; we are born, we grow old and we die. How is that not a change?

Who said it wasn’t?

God bless,
jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Your definition includes “other being”. There is a dependency right there. Your First Cause is dependent on no other being existing prior to itself. Any dependency implies contingency. Your own words tell you that your First Cause is contingent.

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

I am talking about 20 billion years ago, before God created the universe. Twenty billion years ago God was not the creator because at that point He had not yet created anything. It would be false to call Him creator then. His being a creator, or a cause, would only be true after the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, God had made zero universes.

rossum

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