First Cause

[warpspeedpetey]

…First Cause is dependent on time, yout “precede”, and on the First Effect.

rossum

This statement has been disproven. First cause is logically necessary.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Isn’t this a self-contradictory position? You’ve cited a philosophical absolute to affirm your position that there isn’t any philosophical absolutes.

Absolutely.
Precede is not necessarily time specific or dependent. It can mean to come before in order or position.Yup, logical precedence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…My argument …

Has been proven wrong.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, it is not self contradictory…

Yes it is. A self refuting statement is any statement that being held true makes it false. You stated “I do not accept any form of philosophical absolute” If that is true then you are accepting a philosophical absolute. In this case the absolute that there are no absolutes.

 

[JDaniel]

The universe has no starting point. Neither does the continuum I currently represent. The current I does have a starting point. Remember that with reincarnation “the continuum I currently represent” goes back forever.

rossum

Rossum:

That’s the problem: such a grouping of words gives us nothing that elucidates, nothing that answers pivotal questions. It provides us with nonsense, in the same way that stating “the universe is infinite” does.

God bless,
jd

 

[John21652]

… “the continuum I currently represent” goes back forever.

rossum

Yeah, that’s what scares us.

How do we make it go away?

 

[rossum]

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.

You shortened what I said:

Basically I do not accept any form of philosophical absolute. There is always some dependence on something else.

My “Basically” covers the entire paragraph, both sentences. It is indicating that I am not stating a philosophical absolute. I used the word deliberately and with that intent.

Are you holding that dependencies must be regarding time and space?

No, I am just talking about the particular dependencies we are discussing here. We are talking about the “First” cause, and I am investigating what properties it has that allows us to legitimately call it “First”. Priority in time gives a dependence on time. Priority in space gives it a dependenca on space. If it was claimed to have priority in line to the British throne then it would be a dependency on lineage.

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?

I hold that time is required for causality. A cause must exist before its effect. The effect only comes into existence after the cause. The words ‘before’ and ‘after’ require the existence of time.

If cause and effect are simultaneous then it is not possible to tell which is which. If the effect exists before the cause then there is no need for the cause at all - the effect is already present.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Yeah, that’s what scares us.

How do we make it go away?

Very simple. You already know what to do.
To avoid all evil,
to cultivate good,
and to cleanse one’s mind -
this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

• Dhammapada 14:5
  rossum

 

[tonyrey]

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 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.The time factor is irrelevant to ontological priority. “First” indicates a transcendent source of the series rather than a member of a series. If the Big Bang was the first physical cause it is not thereby the First Cause because it is not self-explanatory.

You have also disregarded the fact that as a Buddhist you must believe causality is not necessarily physical.

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.Is there nothing beyond space and time in the Buddhist scheme of things?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

You shortened what I said:

My “Basically” covers the entire paragraph, both sentences. It is indicating that I am not stating a philosophical absolute. I used the word deliberately and with that intent.

Semantics. What does the word ‘basically’ meaningfully express? The word itself means something that is* intrinsic* or* fundamental*. Your response conveys that you do not quite understand this nor understand what a self-contradictory position is.

No, I am just talking about the particular dependencies we are discussing here. We are talking about the “First” cause, and I am investigating what properties it has that allows us to legitimately call it “First”. Priority in time gives a dependence on time. Priority in space gives it a dependenca on space. If it was claimed to have priority in line to the British throne then it would be a dependency on lineage.

I hold that time is required for causality. A cause must exist before its effect. The effect only comes into existence after the cause. The words ‘before’ and ‘after’ require the existence of time.

If cause and effect are simultaneous then it is not possible to tell which is which. If the effect exists before the cause then there is no need for the cause at all - the effect is already present.

rossum

It is an assumption that cause-effect events must have the cause exist before the effect in time/space. You are only assuming that because you are assuming that cause-effect events are either activities or accomplishments (as shown by your examples), which is not always the case. Cause-effect events can be achievements and states as well. These types of events do not require time chronology.

For instance, a person can win a race by crossing the finish line first. The cause of crossing the finish line first precedes the effect of winning the race in logical primacy but in chronology, both the cause and the effect are concurrent. The instant the person crossed the finish line first, they won the race. The instantiation of the cause of crossing the finish line first merited the effect of winning to be instantly realized.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Rossum:

That’s the problem: such a grouping of words gives us nothing that elucidates, nothing that answers pivotal questions. It provides us with nonsense, in the same way that stating “the universe is infinite” does.

God bless,
jd

The difficulty I see in rossum’s position is that an infinitely old universe goes back infinitely in time. However, to get to the current point in time would mean we would have to have travelled from an infinitely past point. Logically, we could never reach the present from an infinite past.

 

[rossum]

The First Cause is obviously unique and is not subject to the limitations of other causes by virtue of that fact.

This is an incorrect argument. I am unique. My DNA is unique. There is nobody precisely like me. Does that exempt me from the limitations of other causes? Your argument fails. Uniqueness is not a sufficient criterion.

It is also the only alternative to an infinite regress

The First Cause itself also leads to an infinite regress. How did the First Cause start? If it started then there is a “Zeroth Cause” required. If it didn’t start, then you have an eternal First Cause. I merely cut out the middle-man and have an eternal universe. No First Cause required.

The time factor is irrelevant to ontological priority.

I do not accept an undefined “ontological priority” as a concept. Please define it rigorously, and explain how it differs from ordinary priority.

Is there nothing beyond space and time in the Buddhist scheme of things?

There is much. All of space and time are periodically destroyed and remade. The Buddhist universe is more of a multiverse or perhaps an oscillating universe.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You shortened what I said:
My “Basically” covers the entire paragraph, both sentences. It is indicating that I am not stating a philosophical absolute. I used the word deliberately and with that intent.

So then you do accept some absolutes then… which would those be?

No, I am just talking about the particular dependencies we are discussing here. We are talking about the “First” cause, and I am investigating what properties it has that allows us to legitimately call it “First”. Priority in time gives a dependence on time. Priority in space gives it a dependenca on space. If it was claimed to have priority in line to the British throne then it would be a dependency on lineage.

As was formally proven, using the universally accept method of proof by contradiction this idea was shown to be false. First Cause is logically necessary and thus it cannot be contingent on anything else. Not universes, not grammar, nothing.

I hold that time is required for causality. A cause must exist before its effect. The effect only comes into existence after the cause. The words ‘before’ and ‘after’ require the existence of time.

Those words only require an order. The concept of time has nothing to do with it, indeed, time is nothing but change so time doesn’t even really exist. So we might say that before and after only require change, precedent, subsequent.

If cause and effect are simultaneous then it is not possible to tell which is which. If the effect exists before the cause then there is no need for the cause at all - the effect is already present…

Logical precedence. This is a necessary being for that. Simple as pie and explained to you multiple times.

 

[rossum]

What does the word ‘basically’ meaningfully express?

In context I intended it to express, “In simple terms…” My apologies for not making myself clearer.

It is an assumption that cause-effect events must have the cause exist before the effect in time/space.

If the cause does not exist then you have nothing (the non-existent cause) causing something (the effect). Are you really saying that nothing can cause something?

Cause-effect events can be achievements and states as well. These types of events do not require time chronology.

I assert that there will be a dependency to be found. That dependency does not have to be a dependency on either space or time.

For instance, a person can win a race by crossing the finish line first. The cause of crossing the finish line first precedes the effect of winning the race in logical primacy but in chronology, both the cause and the effect are concurrent. The instant the person crossed the finish line first, they won the race. The instantiation of the cause of crossing the finish line first merited the effect of winning to be instantly realized.

Subject to a dependency on an inquiry into any allegations of pushing and running out of lane by the other runners. In most athletics meetings I have seen there is a delay to allow for other runners to protest, and there is always the drug test afterwards which can result in the winner being changed after the event. There are also general dependencies, such as the presence of sufficient oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere. The real world is a complex place, with many interrelating dependencies.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Semantics. What does the word ‘basically’ meaningfully express? The word itself means something that is* intrinsic* or* fundamental*. Your response conveys that you do not quite understand this nor understand what a self-contradictory position is.Bingo. Logic is not the strong suit here.

 

[rossum]

The difficulty I see in rossum’s position is that an infinitely old universe goes back infinitely in time. However, to get to the current point in time would mean we would have to have travelled from an infinitely past point. Logically, we could never reach the present from an infinite past.

The difficulty I see in the First Cause is that an infinitely old First Cause goes back infinitely in time. However, to get to the current point in time would mean we would have to have travelled from an infinitely past point. Logically, we could never reach the present from an infinite past.



You are also assuming that you start from a finite point. The difficulty disappears if you start from an infinite point. In an eternal universe it is only possible to start at an infinite point. Start at ∞ - 10 and it is easy enough to get to ∞.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If the cause does not exist then you have nothing (the non-existent cause) causing something (the effect). Are you really saying that nothing can cause something?

More logical contradictions here. Nothing cannot exist

I assert that there will be a dependency to be found. That dependency does not have to be a dependency on either space or time.

Given that it is formally proven that that First Cause has no dependencies, on what basis can you contradict a formal logical proof?

 

[rossum]

So then you do accept some absolutes then… which would those be?

Read my sig.

Those words only require an order.

Then there is a dependence on whatever ordering method we use.

Logical precedence.

Then there is a dependency on logic to decide priority. If there is an ordering then there is a dependency on the method used to decide the ordering.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You are also assuming that you start from a finite point. The difficulty disappears if you start from an infinite point. In an eternal universe it is only possible to start at an infinite point. Start at ∞ - 10 and it is easy enough to get to ∞.

All infinite and eternal universes were disproven in 1947 during the Copleston Russell debate. As he pointed out no quantity or configuration of contingent beings equals its own cause.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Read my sig.

Thats not an absolute, thats a self refuting statment.

Then there is a dependence on whatever ordering method we use.

Yes, the words “before” and “after” refer to an order. Time is not a necessary concept to order.

Then there is a dependency on logic to decide priority. If there is an ordering then there is a dependency on the method used to decide the ordering.

We depend on logic to form rational thoughts. That’s nothing new.