You need to show that your initial step: First Cause = Actus Purus is anything more than the equivalent of First Cause = First Cause. What are the properties of Actus Purus? What properties the First Cause allow us to say it equates to Actus Purus?
A justification you were given in detail several times more than 200 posts ago, which you acknowledged seeing several times. So drop the act. You do not have a valid formal logical refutation. Do you accept the proof, admit you were wrong, or do you reject the proof and admit you are irrational?
“First” in this context means ontological priority. As a Buddhist you must believe that causality is not always physical.
I remember seeing the equation. I do not remember seeing the justification for the equation. My apologies for that. Please give a reference or a summary of the justification.
Which brings us back full circle. A cause cannot exist independently of its effect. Without an effect it cannot be a cause. At most it is a cause-to-be and needs to change in order to become a cause.
The cause of which you speak, namely the one that isn’t without a corresponding effect, is not a “first cause”. Based on this it seems as though your arguing against a straw man.
I think this is only relevant in spatiotemporal terms to the effect, not as an absolute statement of being. For instance, by flicking a domino and starting a domino cascade, I (as the cause) am required to exist in order to start the effect (domino cascade). However, if there is no domino cascade, I can still exist. The lack of effect does not negate my existence nor my dominion to be a first cause of an effect.
That depends on the context. The act of causality does not exist with out the effect. We call something the first cause only because we perceive the effect. We say cause in reference to what something is doing. If a thing is causing something to exist then there is necessarily going to be an effect. But that doesn’t negate the fact that the effect is a contingent product of the cause and exist only by the power and necessary existence of cause.
You are assuming that the First Cause is subject to all the conditions that apply to physical causes - which is by no means self-evident. There is no obvious reason why the Being that has ontological priority is a physical cause or that it needs to change.
You have also disregarded the fact that as a Buddhist you must believe causality is not necessarily physical.
Nope. Making me repeat myself isn’t going to work anymore. You do not have a valid formal logical refutation of the proof therefore you accept its validity. Period.
This statement has been disproven
I am extremely wary of making absolute statements. For something to be absolute it cannot be dependent on anything else, and as you have probably noticed by now, I am arguing that everything is dependent on something else.
Correct. First Cause is dependent on time, yout “precede”, and on the First Effect.
Yet another dependency.
You are correct as far as you go, however this argument works both ways. The effect is just as necessary as the cause. Each conditions the other. Every effect must have a cause, otherwise it wouldn’t be an effect. Every cause must have an effect, otherwise it wouldn’t be a cause.
Isn’t this a self-contradictory position? You’ve cited a philosophical absolute to affirm your position that there isn’t any philosophical absolutes.
Precede is not necessarily time specific or dependent. It can mean to come before in order or position.
It seems self-evident to me. We call it a “cause” so it needs to meet all the conditions required of a cause.
There is no need to change if the effect is as long lived as the cause. If the cause is longer lived than the effect then there is a time before the effect when the cause has not yet caused the effect. During that time the cause is in the “cause-in-waiting” state. Afterwards it is in the “causing-completed” state. That is a change. If there was no change then the effect would have been caused immediately with no delay, making it as long lived as the cause.
I have not disregarded that. My argument applies to all causes, both physical and non-physical. I do not use a special set of rules for non-physical causes.
No, it is not self contradictory. I did not state a philosophical absolute. I made a statement about what I would not accept. My acceptance or rejection of anything is not a philosophical absolute.
Then there is a dependency on order or position. Just replace a dependency on time with an equivalent dependency on space.
You said you 'do not accept any form of philosophical absolute’ which is a position you hold but also said ‘there is always some dependence on something else’, which is also a position you hold. Defining one as merely your acceptance criteria doesn’t change its nature, which in this case is a position you hold. When combined, it becomes a self-contradicting position.
Are you holding that dependencies must be regarding time and space? Dependencies are not by nature contingent on time or space. If you are holding that causality cause-effect scenarios are required to hold time-space as necessary dependencies, would you provide a substantiation for this position?
