First Cause

[rossum]

How do you know it is not?

How can you know that it is infinite? It is a matter of belief.

An infinite being cannot change

Correct. Something that is infinite in space, omnipresent, cannot move. Something that is infinite in time, eternal, cannot change in time. Things that change are not eternal; things that are eternal cannot change.

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?

An ingenious argument, but not one I can support. Time-but-not-Time is hardly a logical construct. If it is not time then call it something else. If it is time then any active being has to change.

Precisely how an infinite being thinks we will never fully know; but, it does not think “in time,” as we do.

How do you know that? The Christian God certainly acts in time, so why cannot He think in time as well? Even if we allow God’s thinking to remain outside time, there are still His actions within time to deal with. How can an eternal unchanging God do temporary changing miracles? The parting of the Red sea was temporary: it had a beginning a middle and an end. The Red sea changed; how is it that God did not change during His actions there?

I wish you were a billionaire! (Could you lend me $50.00?)

Certainly, here it is. Less the interest and transaction charges which come to $50.00 total. (How do you think I got to be a billionaire in the first place?)

rossum

 

[JDaniel]

One thing cannot have two opposed properties.

Agreed.

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’m trying to explain that I am not. None of us knows whether or not God’s ‘thought patterns’ are identical to ours. We can only know what ours are like. If thoughts proceed forward (as: “into the future”) then Time is of the essence, as contracts like to express. But, please explain to me how that is necessarily necessary for an infinite being - one that exists in a Now, in a Now that is outside of time?

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?

If you had read any of the seventy-three books of the library we refer to as the Bible, you would not ask that question; you would know that his determinants are not subject to change.

Cause and effect. The cause has to have some contact with the effect.

So, the builder must have contact with every house that bears his name as the builder? The fisherman must have contact with every fish caught in his nets? He must see to it that the fish is caught: directed towards the nets, entangled within the netting, and unable to get loose? An induction cooking machine must be in contact with the metal container that houses the food to be cooked? And the Clostridium botulinum has to be in contact with a person displaying the symptoms of botulism?

If the effect is inside space-time then the cause also needs, at least in part, to be inside space-time as well.

Is this an axiom? Perhaps an unwritten one?

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

I agree that it does not act as its creatures act. That is not the same thing.

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.

See? I knew it wasn’t you! The real Rossum wouldn’t be so mean spirited.

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.

The best we can describe His act of will, is that it is identical to His will. No thought has to take place. He is in complete receipt of all knowledge. He simply wills. His will contains it all and sustains it all. How can it be otherwise? We view it as a temporal activity; He views it as the activity of his Infinite Present: if it is even viewed by Him. Perhaps known is a better word.

This is an unavoidable problem for you.

Not a problem: merely difficult to adequately describe.

You are starting from an unchanging God, and moving towards some changing actions in the world.

Two points: (1) all finite being must be subject to some kind of change: both local motion (change or place) and coming to be. (2) An infinite being cannot be subject to either of them. That is what is logical and what has been revealed to us. Your affectation is your problem.

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.

As I have shown, that is incorrect. And, you know, it really doesn’t matter whether or not you accept it. Christian thinkers have and do.

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.

Not so. I am only modified ever so slightly and not substantially. It is still JDaniel who is undergoing those minor modifications. If you don’t think that you are you, well, I’m so sorry. Try not to be mean-spirited; at least then you’ll have one thing in common with the real Rossum!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

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.

Warpspeed:

Rossum is using a rule of grammar to mean the same thing as an ontological Reality. He knows better; he’s just trying to make us think. I have enjoyed this.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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

Rossum:

When a new drug is tested on an animal or when it is subjected to radioactivity, or life in outer space, how much can an animal withstand without dying and ceasing to be an animal? These kinds of questions show that the human intellect, even in specialized research, makes a distinction between fundamental and superficial changes in nature. That these two changes are of a diffrent order and type cannot be denied without undermining all organized knowledge of the essences of things in nature, since such knowledge is based upon the question of how far such things can be accidentally altered without being substantially destroyed. So, what was your argument?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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

Rossum:

Can you give us the proving logical syllogism?

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.

Thus, a man should be dissuaded from studying the Art of Dragonslaying as he can never be one? Boy do I feel safe now!

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”.

What coordinates? What “‘change of coordinates in the God dimension?’” What coordinates does an actual infinity have?

Time corresponds to distance. Miles and kilometres correspond to hours and seconds.

Tell that to the tiny droplet resting in a tiny crevasse on the Rock of Gibraltar, put there this morning by a wave.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

How can you know that it is infinite? It is a matter of belief.

And you? Is yours a belief?

Correct. Something that is infinite in space, omnipresent, cannot move.

Well, I would say that it “does not move,” at least as we understand “motion.” I’m not certain of what God cannot do. Except, He probably cannot not be.

Something that is infinite in time,

God is not “infinite in time.” Nothing can be infinite in time. A potentially infinite thing can be in time, as it is not yet actually infinite.

eternal, cannot change in time.

We are “eternal,” yet we change. You are quite confused, or, just trying to be confusing.

Things that change are not eternal; things that are eternal cannot change.

The human soul is eternal. So you are incorrect.

An ingenious argument, but not one I can support.

I did not ask for your ‘support’. It really doesn’t matter to me. As for the argument, I wish it was mine.

Time-but-not-Time is hardly a logical construct.

Really? Then how would you define the Now?

If it is time then any active being has to change.

One last time! - no pun intended - an infinite being cannot be in time. If a tiny, small creature could travel through a tiny, small portion of an infinite being, then a tiny, small part of time could exist within that infinite being. But, an infinite being cannot exist in any part of time. Please don’t make me tell you this again!

The Christian God certainly acts in time, so why cannot He think in time as well?

No: He works with time, but not in time. An infinite being can only create finite reality. An infinite being does not create other infinite realities. To do so would be to create one and the same being. Which is absurd.

Even if we allow God’s thinking to remain outside time, there are still His actions within time to deal with. How can an eternal unchanging God do temporary changing miracles?

That’s a good question. When I see him I’ll ask him. Then, I’ll drop down to a lower level and let you know!

The parting of the Red sea was temporary: it had a beginning a middle and an end. The Red sea changed; how is it that God did not change during His actions there?

Because it was merely a part of the continuous roll-out of his creation.

Certainly, here it is. Less the interest and transaction charges which come to $50.00 total. (How do you think I got to be a billionaire in the first place?)

Somehow, I still feel poor!

Anyway, God bless,
jd

 

[rossum]

Rather than go for a line by line response, which would get far too long, I will pick out a few points to respond to. If you feel I have not responded to something important then by all means point out where I have slipped up.

So, the builder must have contact with every house that bears his name as the builder?

Yes, directly or indirectly. The builder causes the foreman to cause the bricklayer to lay the bricks. There is a chain of causation.

Is this an axiom? Perhaps an unwritten one?

It is a problem that the Gnostics tried to solve with their Demiurge and that the Kabbalah tries to solve with its various emanations from En Soph.

Two points: (1) all finite being must be subject to some kind of change: both local motion (change or place) and coming to be.

Agreed.

(2) An infinite being cannot be subject to either of them. That is what is logical and what has been revealed to us. Your affectation is your problem.

Agreed. An infinite being cannot change.

Now you have to explain how a chain of causation starting with an infinite unchanging being can end with a changing temporal effect.

These kinds of questions show that the human intellect, even in specialized research, makes a distinction between fundamental and superficial changes in nature.

I agree. Unfortunately this is a common mistake that the human intellect makes. It overlays the actual reality that it (imperfectly) senses with various templates that it has developed: ‘dog’, ‘cat’ etc. In ordinary life these templates are useful, which is why we use them. However they do not exist in the real world, they are overlays placed there by our minds.Not only was it difficult for him to comprehend that the generic symbol dog embraces so many unlike individuals of diverse size and form; it bothered him that the dog at three fourteen (seen from the side) should have the same name as the dog at three fifteen (seen from the front).

– Borges, Funes the Memorious
This is what I mean when I say I reject reification; I am rejecting the imputation that these internal overlays have a real existence outside our heads.

There is no real distinction between fundamental and superficial changes. Changes are changes; the dog really is different at three fifteen.

Can you give us the proving logical syllogism?

Certainly:

1. *]A non-cause does not have any effect. If it had an effect then it would be a cause rather than a non-cause.
   *]This gives us the logical implication ~cause => ~effect.
   *]Reverse the implication: ~~effect => ~~cause. This is standard symbolic logic.
   *]Remove the double negatives: effect => cause. If there is an effect then it must have had a cause.
   *]Obviously, given the nature of cause and effect, we have cause => effect.
   *]By 4 and 5 we have cause <=> effect. We have a cause if, and only if, we have an effect.
   
   We can have a First Cause if, and only if, we also have a First Effect and vice versa.
   

   I’m not certain of what God cannot do. Except, He probably cannot not be.

   He cannot learn anything new since He is omniscient.
   

   We are “eternal,” yet we change.

   We are not eternal because we had a beginning, and our souls had a beginning as well. They are created at conception, not before, as I understand it.
   

   One last time! - no pun intended - an infinite being cannot be in time.

   Agreed. Then such a being needs minions to act in time for Him.
   

   An infinite being can only create finite reality.

   Another thing God cannot do then.
   

   Somehow, I still feel poor!

   I know the feeling.
   
   rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…First Cause is contingent on the First Effect…Unless and until it has an effect it cannot be a cause… …Similarly the description “cause” is contingent…It is also clear that the First Cause is itself contingent.

First Cause is logically necessary, meaning its negation presents a contradiction. In this case First Cause is the act of existing, the negation of which, the act of not existing, or nothing exists, is a logical contradiction which means it is an impossibility. First Cause can absolutely not be contingent. It violate the basic laws of logic.

We can tell cause from effect by looking at which was prior in time: cause came first while effect came second…

Cause and effect are differentiated by logical precedence. Time isn’t necessary to the equation at all. It is merely a convenient way to denote the occurrence of change. It isn’t the only way.

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.

The point is that change and distance exist independent of artificial demarcations. Those demarcations are unimportant to the existence of change. Change happens regardless of our notion of time.

Precisely my point. Your logic was faulty…You merely repeat your faulty logic. My parents are logically precedent to me. You cannot make the leap to transcendence without providing further justification.

Your parents do not have the same qualities as the act of existing. They are not omnipresent. They are not present at every point that can be said to exist. G-d is immanent and transcendent of the physical universe because He is omnipresent.

 

[shoe]

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 free will does not mean that His will changes Him. The aim of God’s creative will is His Divine Love. God creates things out of love and He remains love after He creates things. Creating things out of love does not subtract love from God’s nature nor does it add love to His nature; therefore, God’s nature remains the same as it always has been.

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

When we say that God is unchanging and unchangeable, we are talking about the nature of God and not the various ways that God has chosen to work with and through people throughout history.

 

[razredge]

When we say that God is unchanging and unchangeable, we are talking about the nature of God and not the various ways that God has chosen to work with and through people throughout history.

God is identical to his nature - so that doesn’t work.

A being who causes change must change himself to cause any change.
Otherwise it would suggest that the universe always existed since God always existed (and God does not change so can’t cause change)

We are not eternal because we had a beginning, and our souls had a beginning as well. They are created at conception, not before, as I understand it.

Actually, the Church doesn’t teach that souls are created by God at conception - it hasn’t pronounced definitively on when the soul is created.

 

[JDaniel]

Rather than go for a line by line response, which would get far too long, I will pick out a few points to respond to. If you feel I have not responded to something important then by all means point out where I have slipped up.

Rossum:

That will be fine.

Yes, directly or indirectly. The builder causes the foreman to cause the bricklayer to lay the bricks. There is a chain of causation.

Not possible: the builder may have recently died in an auto accident. Yet, the building will still go on.

Agreed. An infinite being cannot change.

I am not yet sure that an Infinite Being cannot change. (I want to think this through a bit more.) I will agree, however, that an Infinite Being does not change.

Now you have to explain how a chain of causation starting with an infinite unchanging being can end with a changing temporal effect.

I have done this in other posts, within these forums, many times. If you will give me some time, perhaps by tomorrow, I will post it. Now, I have to go to sleep.

I agree. Unfortunately this is a common mistake that the human intellect makes. It overlays the actual reality that it (imperfectly) senses with various templates that it has developed: ‘dog’, ‘cat’ etc. In ordinary life these templates are useful, which is why we use them. However they do not exist in the real world, they are overlays placed there by our minds.Not only was it difficult for him to comprehend that the generic symbol dog embraces so many unlike individuals of diverse size and form; it bothered him that the dog at three fourteen (seen from the side) should have the same name as the dog at three fifteen (seen from the front).
– Borges, Funes the Memorious
This is what I mean when I say I reject reification; I am rejecting the imputation that these internal overlays have a real existence outside our heads.

Good. That means we aren’t far off from each other.

There is no real distinction between fundamental and superficial changes. Changes are changes; the dog really is different at three fifteen.

Here, we really disagree. I am hard-pressed to understand how minor, accidental change can possibly be the same in order and type as substantial change. Death is a substantial change. Breaking my arm is an accidental change. In both regards, it is still I that undergoes the changes. Substantial change may vary my essence: I will not awaken tomorrow morning. Accidental change will not vary my essence. It is me that awakens tomorrow morning.

1. *]A non-cause does not have any effect. If it had an effect then it would be a cause rather than a non-cause.
   *]This gives us the logical implication ~cause => ~effect.
   *]Reverse the implication: ~~effect => ~~cause. This is standard symbolic logic.
   *]Remove the double negatives: effect => cause. If there is an effect then it must have had a cause.
   *]Obviously, given the nature of cause and effect, we have cause => effect.
   *]By 4 and 5 we have cause <=> effect. We have a cause if, and only if, we have an effect.

1. 
   

   We can have a First Cause if, and only if, we also have a First Effect and vice versa.

   Sorry, my friend, this is a poor syllogism, and, in any event, you have incorrectly concluded from it:
   1. A non-causing efficient cause may not have an effect - yet. As soon as it does, it may be understood to be a cause. But, that it is not understood to be a cause now is a problem with human know-ability.
   2. This gives us the logical implication ~cause = ~effect. This I will accept.
   3. Reverse the implication: ~~effect => ~~cause. I reject this premise. This is merely self-serving.
   4. Remove the double negatives: effect => cause. If there is an effect then it must have had a cause. This does not follow: not only is the premise in error, but also, the conclusion is in error.
   I need not to go on.
   

   He cannot learn anything new since He is omniscient.

   True. But, so what. If I take a drop of sea water home, the ocean is still the ocean.
   

   We are not eternal because we had a beginning, and our souls had a beginning as well.

   You are defining “eternality” incorrectly. An eternal being may have a beginning, but, it has no ending. That is how it is understood in everyday and philosophical language.
   

   They are created at conception, not before, as I understand it.

   This is correct.
   

   Agreed. Then such a being needs minions to act in time for Him.

   Well, He has minions, but, I don’t think they are needed to create. I don’t think they can create - at least, not in the same way God creates.
   
   God bless,
   jd

 

[JDaniel]

First Cause is logically necessary, meaning its negation presents a contradiction. In this case First Cause is the act of existing, the negation of which, the act of not existing, or nothing exists, is a logical contradiction which means it is an impossibility.

Warpspeed:

Good point. Not only a logical contradiction, but also an ontological contradiction.

First Cause can absolutely not be contingent. It violate the basic laws of logic. Cause and effect are differentiated by logical precedence.

Another good point.

Time isn’t necessary to the equation at all. It is merely a convenient way to denote the occurrence of change. It isn’t the only way.

Agreed.

The point is that change and distance exist independent of artificial demarcations. Those demarcations are unimportant to the existence of change. Change happens regardless of our notion of time.

Absolutely. Coming-to-be, as in the case of a new human being, is so instantaneous that even if ever science finds the right cocktail for life, it will not know the precise moment of its imputation, IMHO.

Your parents do not have the same qualities as the act of existing. They are not omnipresent. They are not present at every point that can be said to exist. G-d is immanent and transcendent of the physical universe because He is omnipresent.

Correct. They are contingent extants. Their contingencies have been met by something able to supply them. And, if it were merely contingent, it could not have done so.

God bless,
jd

 

[rossum]

First Cause is logically necessary

Only in a universe which has a beginning. Only that which has a beginning needs a cause.

You have still to explain why there can be a cause which does not have any effect. Something which does not have any effect is a non-cause, not a cause. That is also logical.

Time isn’t necessary to the equation at all.

Then how can you know that it is the First Cause and not the Second Cause? You need some way to differentiate the two, otherwise you are just guessing and you have a 50% chance of being wrong. Hardly a good basis for your philosophical position.

The point is that change and distance exist independent of artificial demarcations.

Agreed, but they do exist. The question is if they exist independently of the First Cause or not.

rossum

 

[rossum]

God’s free will does not mean that His will changes Him.

Then we are back to two separate entities. God, who does not change, and God’s Will which does change. These two cannot be the same thing so they need to be treated separately.

When we say that God is unchanging and unchangeable, we are talking about the nature of God and not the various ways that God has chosen to work with and through people throughout history.

Now you are saying that God changes but God’s Nature does not change. Please be more consistent here.

I am sure you can see why I am suspicious of the separation between God and God’s X, for various values of X. Different incompatible properties are assigned to God and God’s X with no seeming rhyme or reason.

rossum

 

[rossum]

God is identical to his nature - so that doesn’t work.

Fine, there is only one entity, not two.

A being who causes change must change himself to cause any change.

Agreed. This is fundamental; an unchanging entity cannot cause change.

(and God does not change so can’t cause change)

This is indeed the logical consequence of an unchanging God.

Actually, the Church doesn’t teach that souls are created by God at conception - it hasn’t pronounced definitively on when the soul is created.

My error. Thanks for the correction.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Not possible: the builder may have recently died in an auto accident. Yet, the building will still go on.

Just as a Deist style First Cause may no longer be extant. My great grandparents are all dead, yet I still live. A cause need no longer exist after the immediate act of of causation. Just ask a male Praying Mantis.

Here, we really disagree. I am hard-pressed to understand how minor, accidental change can possibly be the same in order and type as substantial change.

I am not sure if you are using “accident” and “substance” in the Thomist essence here. Since I reject all reification I also reject both Thomist substance and Platonic ideals. There is only accident.The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.
All there is is accident. We may think that there is substance lurking beneath the surface, but that it just another of our mental overlays. It is not out there in reality, but added by our minds to the incoming sense data.

It is me that awakens tomorrow morning.

No, you are eight hours older. Your accident has changed and since there is no substance then you have changed.

Sorry, my friend, this is a poor syllogism, and, in any event, you have incorrectly concluded from it:

1. A non-causing efficient cause may not have an effect - yet. As soon as it does, it may be understood to be a cause. But, that it is not understood to be a cause now is a problem with human know-ability.

You seem to be assigning “cause-ness” to the substance of the object. It has some innate cause-ness which it has whether or nor it has actually caused anything. That I reject. A one year old child is not a parent, even if we admit that it is a potential parent. A potential parent is not an actual parent; there is a real (even ‘substantial’ ) difference.

1. This gives us the logical implication ~cause => ~effect. This I will accept.
2. Reverse the implication: ~~effect => ~~cause. I reject this premise. This is merely self-serving.

If you accept 2 then 3 follows by the standard rules for reversing an implication. This is basic to symbolic logic: (A => B) => (~B => ~A).

1. Remove the double negatives: effect => cause. If there is an effect then it must have had a cause. This does not follow: not only is the premise in error, but also, the conclusion is in error.

How is it that you do not accept the removal of double negatives? ~~A => A

You are defining “eternality” incorrectly. An eternal being may have a beginning, but, it has no ending. That is how it is understood in everyday and philosophical language.

That is not how I define it. Something is eternal if if exists for all possible values of time. A half-eternal object does not exist for all possible values of time. There are times when it did not exist.

This is correct.

razredge seems to disagree.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Only in a universe which has a beginning. Only that which has a beginning needs a cause.

You have still to explain why there can be a cause which does not have any effect. Something which does not have any effect is a non-cause, not a cause. That is also logical.

The logical necessity of First Cause is the result of its negation being a contradiction. That’s the standard method of determining logical necessity. That is a true statement regardless of the existence of any other beings. What is logically necessary must exist more surely than the Sun must rise. Which means it does so without regard to anything else, literally nothing else, matters to the necessary existence of First Cause.

Then how can you know that it is the First Cause and not the Second Cause? You need some way to differentiate the two, otherwise you are just guessing and you have a 50% chance of being wrong. Hardly a good basis for your philosophical position.

First Cause is logically necessary. That means it is precedent to any other beings.

Agreed, but they do exist. The question is if they exist independently of the First Cause or not.

The assertion that time exists needs some proof, all I see is change. That is all that anyone sees. Even if it is the change in a pocket watch it is still just change. Not an independent ontological object. Yet if we assume the existence of time then it would be depend on First Cause as every other contingent being does.

 

[shoe]

god is identical to his nature - so that doesn’t work.

A being who causes change must change himself to cause any change.
Otherwise it would suggest that the universe always existed since god always existed (and god does not change so can’t cause change)

Yes, God is identical to His nature, but the universe is God’s creation and not His nature. God does not need to change, and it is impossible for Him to do so because He is perfect. If a perfect thing can change in any way, shape, or form, then it wasn’t perfect in the first place. All creation is evidence of God’s Intelligent Design, and bears witness of Him; but God’s creation does not stand as an equivalent to His nature in that His creation does change and He does not.

 

[JDaniel]

Just as a Deist style First Cause may no longer be extant. My great grandparents are all dead, yet I still live. A cause need no longer exist after the immediate act of of causation. Just ask a male Praying Mantis.

Rossum:

Yes.

I am not sure if you are using “accident” and “substance” in the Thomist essence here. Since I reject all reification I also reject both Thomist substance and Platonic ideals.

In furtherance of your statement above, I must make clear that I, on the contrary, accept Thomistic essence, and reject any philosophical theory that rejects it.

There is only accident.The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday.

Very surprising! Very surprising, indeed! I thought you said you rejected abstraction, abstractions and abstractioning?

Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces.

High-sounding.

Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

Ditto.

All there is is accident.

It appears that we are at a log-jam on this, then.

We may think that there is substance lurking beneath the surface, but that it just another of our mental overlays. It is not out there in reality, but added by our minds to the incoming sense data.

Well, that makes everything perfectly clear. That is a conclusion without premises. It may be called an ‘insight’, or a ‘delusion’. It is nothing more than a imaginary way of looking at it. But, it is not proof.

No, you are eight hours older. Your accident has changed and since there is no substance then you have changed.

No, only substances can change, per se. Accidents can only be replaced - by another accident. Accidents inhere in substances, not the other way around.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

No, you are eight hours older. Your accident has changed and since there is no substance then you have changed.

A million times: incorrect. I am substance.

You seem to be assigning “cause-ness” to the substance of the object. It has some innate cause-ness which it has whether or nor it has actually caused anything. That I reject. A one year old child is not a parent, even if we admit that it is a potential parent. A potential parent is not an actual parent; there is a real (even ‘substantial’ ) difference.

A fisherman sitting on a pier with his line, hook and bait, in the water, is a fisherman.

If you accept 2 then 3 follows by the standard rules for reversing an implication. This is basic to symbolic logic: (A => B) => (~B => ~A).

No. Not in this case. It is a self-serving twist of that which is merely partially true: it is like saying that 1 = (1 + 1), then by reversing the premise, (1 + 1) = 1. Both premises are merely partially true, but are not completely true. That is self-serving.

How is it that you do not accept the removal of double negatives? ~~A => A

I don’t accept the prior premise. There’s no sense going on to this one.

That is not how I define it. Something is eternal if if exists for all possible values of time. A half-eternal object does not exist for all possible values of time. There are times when it did not exist.

Another logjam, then.

Dictionary.com: 1. permanent, unending. Eternal, endless, everlasting, perpetual imply lasting or going on without ceasing. That which is eternal is, by its nature, without beginning or end: God, the eternal Father. That which is endless never stops but goes on continuously as if in a circle: an endless succession of years. That which is everlasting will endure through all future time: a promise of everlasting life.

While it is sometimes used alternately with infinite, it’s everyday meaning is clear from the above. (Underlining mine.)

God bless,
jd