First Cause

[warpspeedpetey]

You claim that it does. Your claim is incorrect.

You cannot reject a proof because it disproves your cherished beliefs. You either have a valid formal logical refutation to the proof, or you don’t. And you don’t. So you either accept the proof or you hold a belief that is disproven, which is irrational.

Please demonstrate why your argument requires that its subject be a cause.

I don’t have an argument. I have a proof. The proof demonstrates that First cause is logically necessary. Thus it cannot be contingent on anything else. Not universes, not causes, not grammar, not a language. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Please demonstrate why an eternal universe cannot fulfil the requirements of your argument and hence remove the need for a First Cause.

I don’t have an argument. I have a proof. The proof demonstrates that First cause is logically necessary. Thus it cannot be contingent on anything else. Not universes, not causes, not grammar, not a language. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Please demonstrate how to refute the existence of any proposed particular thing; I have been using Jesus’ older brother as an example.

As I pointed out 6 or 7 times now, Particulars and Universals require entities, “the act of not existing” is not a thing its a logical contradiction, an impossibility. That’s all there is too it. That fact is not going to change no matter how many times you make me repeat it.

Please demonstrate how to refute the existence of any proposed universal thing; we can use the Invisible Pink Unicorn as an example.

See above.

Your argument has many logical problems. Merely asserting its correctness does not remove those problems.

I am not making an assertion about an arguments correctness. I offered a proof. If my proof is invalid, then you have a formal logical refutation. Where is it?

 

[rossum]

You either have a valid formal logical refutation to the proof, or you don’t. And you don’t.

I do. Your proof establishes the existence of anything I wish to apply it to.

• The Invisible Pink Unicorn is Actus Purus.
• Therefore by your proof the IPU exists.

See what I mean? If you reject the existence of the IPU then you are rejecting your own proof.

Do you accept the inevitable existence of the IPU?

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I do. Your proof establishes the existence of anything I wish to apply it to.

• The Invisible Pink Unicorn is Actus Purus.
• Therefore by your proof the IPU exists.

See what I mean? If you reject the existence of the IPU then you are rejecting your own proof.

Do you accept the inevitable existence of the IPU?

rossum

Warp’s argument evidently does not prove that the first cause is a pink unicorn. If it does, then can you please show us how?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You claim that it does. Your claim is incorrect.

Please demonstrate why your argument requires that its subject be a cause.

Please demonstrate why an eternal universe cannot fulfil the requirements of your argument and hence remove the need for a First Cause.

The proofs have been shown to you. You are simply not honest enough to address them.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

W
He seems to be hiding behind semantic sophistry with his statement

Why is the ‘state of non-existence’ a logical contradiction? This is a preposterous
misuse of logic.

You have been fooled, probably because you take the issue for granted and thus haven’t given much thought to it. This isn’t helpful to your brothers. It seems to me that you have fallen victim to a semantic deception. You need to understand that people often use words in a contradictory manner, but do no mean to imply the object of the contradiction. In the context of ontology the way the words are being used here are certainly contradictory; that is if respect the ontological intentions of those words.

The word “state” signifies something which has an act of reality. The word “Nothing”, is not intended to imply the existence of an actual reality. It is not a state, simply because it is not a being. The word nothing is a negation of existence, in so far as the word is intended to signify the absence of some possible or impossible state of existence. You’re confusing the fact of truth as having some necessary connection with some particular things actual existence. It can be generally true of reality that there is no “being” in existence that can be identified as Jesus brother; and this is generally true of reality. But it does not follow from this fact that it is true that his brothers “non-existence” is in fact an act of existence. Non-being is not a being. This is shamefully obvious to people who pay attention to reality.

So let me get this straight. You think that “non-existence” has an act of “existence”? You think that the absence of an ontological object is itself an ontological object? A negation of being is a being?

Yes or no.

Lets see if your pride will allow you to admit that you are at fault.

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with Nagarjuna. I do not know a great deal about Hume’s thinking.

In general there is more than just “bundles of perceptions” to things. For example, a human is analysed into five constituent parts, only one of which is perceptions. However, that is perceptions from the receiving side, not the sending side. I don’t know which direction Hume means.

rossum

Hume’s position is phenomenalism - the view that nothing exists but perceptions, not even the perceiver! It amounts to atomism taken to its logical (and absurd) extreme.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I do. Your proof establishes the existence of anything I wish to apply it to.

• The Invisible Pink Unicorn is Actus Purus.
• Therefore by your proof the IPU exists.

See what I mean? If you reject the existence of the IPU then you are rejecting your own proof.

Do you accept the inevitable existence of the IPU?

rossum

For the 3rd time. Term replacement only works if the terms are equivalent.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warp’s argument evidently does not prove that the first cause is a pink unicorn. If it does, then can you please show us how?

A=notA. lol

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I have noticed that i have tendency to miss out letters or words when i make posts. Please forgive me for any difficulty this causes when trying to read what i have said. Trust me, there is nothing more frustrating then not being able to correct your post because you have past the twenty minute mark. I will try to not make this mistake in the future.

Peace.

 

[rossum]

For the 3rd time. Term replacement only works if the terms are equivalent.

Then it is incumbent on you to show that “First Cause” and “Actus Purus” are equivalent.

rossum

 

[rel1]

I would appreciate help from ALL as I find your discussion very interesting. First concerning the first cause and effect, don’t you think that both could have been self containing? For example an EFFECT being in the nucleus of the CAUSE or visa versa. Similar to the nucleus of a human cell or the singularity of the BIG BANG. Second, isn’t the first cause conditioned on our interpretation of our own minds perception of reality and existence? For example, did ANYTHING exist before our OWN existence? How could it? Was there a world? Were we NOTHING? We were probably STARDUST, but stardust has no mind and without mind we were indeed NOTHING. Isn’t the mind where the true first cause and effect originated? So in my view that is how I interpret NOTHINGNESS. It needs your OWN conscious mind…not someone else’s. I believe the world of universes and your OWN concious mind are CODEPENDENT. They cant’ exist seperately…EVERYTHING in existence is created in your own mind. Third can we say that anything is truly infinite when the your own mind is still creating successive events? Fourth, we have never experienced an actual present moment. Our brain senses are not immediate so we never actually have a present thought and we are living our lives on memories alone. Are our memories reality or can true reality exist only if we catch time in its actual present state? Would our reality just consist of a still frame such as a picture hanging on a wall if consciousness was immediate? Would reality cancel itself out? Would an inversion of reality occur? Is traveling at speed of light and our senses similarly distorted to create a much different reality? Would we see ourselves or events in the perceived future? Could the first cause and effect be just a still frame?
Food for thought…I appreciate any replies…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Then it is incumbent on you to show that “First Cause” and “Actus Purus” are equivalent.

rossum

Your logical error does not obligate me to do anything. Now do you have a formal logical refutation of the proof, or are you ready to concede the proof is valid?

 

[rel1]

I would appreciate help from ALL as I find your discussion very interesting. First concerning the first cause and effect, don’t you think that both could have been self containing? For example an EFFECT being in the nucleus of the CAUSE or visa versa. Similar to the nucleus of a human cell or the singularity of the BIG BANG. Second, isn’t the first cause conditioned on our interpretation of our own minds perception of reality and existence? For example, did ANYTHING exist before our OWN existence? How could it? Was there a world? Were we NOTHING? We were probably STARDUST, but stardust has no mind and without mind we were indeed NOTHING. Isn’t the mind where the true first cause and effect originated? So in my view that is how I interpret NOTHINGNESS. It needs your OWN conscious mind…not someone else’s. I believe the world of universes and your OWN concious mind are CODEPENDENT. They cant’ exist seperately…EVERYTHING in existence is created in your own mind. Third can we say that anything is truly infinite when your own mind is still creating successive events? Fourth, we have never experienced an actual present moment. Our brain senses are not immediate so we never actually have a present thought and we are living our lives on memories alone. Are our memories reality or can true reality exist only if we catch time in its actual present state? Would our reality just consist of a still frame such as a picture hanging on a wall if consciousness was immediate? Would reality cancel itself out? Would an inversion of reality occur? Is traveling at speed of light and our senses similarly distorted to create a much different reality? Would we see ourselves or events in the perceived future? Could the first cause and effect be just a still frame? Is your own mind eye scanning this still frame picture and in doing so creating a perception of motion and time?
Food for thought…I appreciate any replies…

 

[davidv]

I would appreciate help from ALL as I find your discussion very interesting. First concerning the first cause and effect, don’t you think that both could have been self containing? For example an EFFECT being in the nucleus of the CAUSE or visa versa. Similar to the nucleus of a human cell or the singularity of the BIG BANG. Second, isn’t the first cause conditioned on our interpretation of our own minds perception of reality and existence? For example, did ANYTHING exist before our OWN existence? How could it? Was there a world? Were we NOTHING? We were probably STARDUST, but stardust has no mind and without mind we were indeed NOTHING. Isn’t the mind where the true first cause and effect originated? So in my view that is how I interpret NOTHINGNESS. It needs your OWN conscious mind…not someone else’s. I believe the world of universes and your OWN concious mind are CODEPENDENT. They cant’ exist seperately…EVERYTHING in existence is created in your own mind. Third can we say that anything is truly infinite when the your own mind is still creating successive events? Fourth, we have never experienced an actual present moment. Our brain senses are not immediate so we never actually have a present thought and we are living our lives on memories alone. Are our memories reality or can true reality exist only if we catch time in its actual present state? Would our reality just consist of a still frame such as a picture hanging on a wall if consciousness was immediate? Would reality cancel itself out? Would an inversion of reality occur? Is traveling at speed of light and our senses similarly distorted to create a much different reality? Would we see ourselves or events in the perceived future? Could the first cause and effect be just a still frame?
Food for thought…I appreciate any replies…

If something depends on you, it cannot be first, either temporally or logically. Your parents existed before you, both temporally and logically.

That said, whatever it was that is dependent on your observation of it is not, and cannot be, the first cause.

 

[rossum]

Your logical error does not obligate me to do anything. Now do you have a formal logical refutation of the proof, or are you ready to concede the proof is valid?

So, you have no argument to show that the “First Cause” and “Actus Purus” are equivalent beyond mere assertion.

I do not accept mere assertion as a valid argument.

Show me why the “First Cause” and “Actus Purus” are equivalent.

You argument starts with this assertion. I am asking you to justify it.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with Nagarjuna. I do not know a great deal about Hume’s thinking.

In general there is more than just “bundles of perceptions” to things. For example, a human is analysed into five constituent parts, only one of which is perceptions. However, that is perceptions from the receiving side, not the sending side. I don’t know which direction Hume means.

rossum

But you believe things are composed only of their attributes:

I do not accept any form of inner essence in things. What you see is what you get. There is no Thomist substance, or Platonic ideal, sitting behind reality.

Without substance nothing is substantial! Nothing to which the attributes refer…
In fact the appearances must constitute reality!!!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So, you have no argument to show that the “First Cause” and “Actus Purus” are equivalent beyond mere assertion.

No, I am not obligated to repeat myself from more than 200 posts ago because you made an error. You know exactly why First Cause is Actus Purus because I pointed it out many times on this very thread. Now, do you have a valid formal logical refutation to the proof, or are you ready to accept that First Cause is not contingent as you have asserted?

 

[JDaniel]

Of course he doesn’t think the exact same way we do, but we have good reason to suspect that he does think somewhat like we do - the mind after all is the essence of the Imago Dei.

Razredge:

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Work is, for some of us, which includes me, a very separating venture.

Thought for God is an extremely difficult thing to grasp. It is difficult to consider human thought without its conjunction with time. But, an Infinite Being is not in time. How can He think like us and not have His thoughts occur in time? Thought is a progression, a sequential thing. Consider James’ words: in the activity of Deity “there is no change, nor shadow of vicissitude” - (James i 17).

Yes, we cannot imagine what it must be like to have an eternity to think but the act of thinking itself necessarily involves change by definition otherwise God would spend all eternity thinking the one thought.

And that’s precisely the problem: we find it extremely difficult to conceive of anything with the ability to hold all possible thoughts simultaneously.

I really don’t see the huge deal with agreeing with Rossum, where in the Bible does it say that God is unchanging? What are the implications to our faith if He does change?

Well, I gave you James i 17, above for one. What implications would it have on our faith? Immeasurable! It is imperative to understand that all change involves being moved to change by something else. Nothing in our finite realm is self-moved. If God is moved by another being, then He is clearly not God. His entire definition then becomes non-sensical.

That is a different meaning to the mathematical concept of ‘infinite’ that you are using, (ie. God having the greatest possible power imaginable etc.) so I can’t argue with you there. And mathematics and logic are transcendental, even God is bound by logic - for example He can’t create a rock so big even He cannot move it and so on.

I don’t think mathematics and logic are ‘transcendental’. I do think that geometry and logic are bound to God by way of their veracity, i.e., their affinity with Truth. (The old ‘big rock’ question is absurd and contradictory.)

But this is besides the topic at hand.

Agreed.

God bless,
jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Razredge:

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Work is, for some of us, which includes me, a very separating venture.

Still diggin’ up bones?

 

[JDaniel]

Still diggin’ up bones?

Warp:

Nope. I left WY a little over a year ago, and came back to Florida. I do tax returns and accounting. Not nearly as exciting as looking for fossils!

God bless,
jd