First Cause

[Soldier_Of_God]

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

Thank you for your clarification. In essence, your original comment is simply a personal view and has no material relevancy to the philosophical nature of cause-effect events.

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?

That is not being said and is mere inference on your part. There is an assumption by you that cause must have a chronological primacy over the effect. Please review the example and rethink this objection.

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.

Then you need to show the inherent or ontological requirement of dependencies to support your assertion. Furthermore, in an earlier post you have stated the following:

“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.”

You were then holding that time is a required dependency for cause-effect events. This appears to be at odds to the earlier statement. Would you care to reconcile the two statements?

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.

These are collateral agents you’ve introduced that have no bearing or have material relevance on the given cause-effect example and is seemingly intended to cloud the issue. You are also assuming one or more of these are applicable to the cause-effect scenario. The scenario is intended to show that cause-effect events can be chronologically concurrent. Again, you need to show the inherent or ontological requirement of dependencies (e.g. time) to support your time requirement assertion.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

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.

Unforuntately, your humour (although commendable) is a little flawed. The First Cause argument does not have time requirement, so this narrative is a little mismatched.

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 ∞.

Here, you’ve introduced the concept of a start (a synonym for beginning) point, which appears to be at odds with an eternal universe. Additionally, ∞ and ∞ - 10 are mathematically equivalent, so any attempt to make them distinct would be inappropriate.

 

[rel1]

*You know something…We will never figure out the FIRST CAUSE…There are no arguments that anyone has ever conceived that cannot be free from logical errors. However, here is another twist to the FIRST CAUSE that I’m sure has problems but hopefully will be FOOD FOR THOUGHT for some of you.
How about we not project to the past to find the first cause but instead think of our OWN initial existence as the FIRST CAUSE. Before our own existence there was NOTHING. No sun, no moon, no earth, no time, no space, no parents, grandparents NO ANYTHING!. Can we all agree that nothing can exist without your own human concious mind to perceive it’s existence. So by the functioning of our mind didn’t we as individual start to assemble the cause and effect relationships. Weren’t we the actual first cause? Isn’t time, space, objects or in essence your reality dependent on your concious minds perceptions?

Maybe some will piggyback on this idea, perhaps not. However I thew it out to change the direction of this discussion that appears to be lacking fresh ideas.*

 

[davidv]

You know something…We will never figure out the FIRST CAUSE…There are no arguments that anyone has ever conceived that cannot be free from logical errors. However, here is another twist to the FIRST CAUSE that I’m sure has problems but hopefully will be FOOD FOR THOUGHT for some of you.
How about we not project to the past to find the first cause but instead think of our OWN initial existence as the FIRST CAUSE. Before our own existence there was NOTHING. No sun, no moon, no earth, no time, no space, no parents, grandparents NO ANYTHING!. Can we all agree that nothing can exist without your own human concious mind to perceive it’s existence. So by the functioning of our mind didn’t we as individual start to assemble the cause and effect relationships. Weren’t we the actual first cause? Isn’t time, space, objects or in essence your reality dependent on your concious minds perceptions?

Maybe some will piggyback on this idea, perhaps not. However I thew it out to change the direction of this discussion that appears to be lacking fresh ideas.
Re: your statement highlighted above. I for one cannot agree with this. Can you disregard the testimony of every parent of their own existance that preceeds that of their child’s existance? Their existance does not depend on your perception of their existance, as they existed prior to you perception of them.

 

[tonyrey]

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

Uniqueness is not the unique criterion! Other causes are not eternal or spiritual…

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.

I have pointed out that the First Cause is transcendent. Neither truth nor goodness nor justice nor freedom nor beauty nor love have a beginning or end. Unlike physical objects they are eternal, indestructible and they all converge in the First Cause.

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.

Persons have ontological priority over things because they are the causes of their actions whereas things are not. In a law court you cannot make a plea of not guilty unless there are extenuating circumstances. The buck stops with you.

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.

How you do reconcile that with the statement in the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta:

“There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress.” ?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You know something…We will never figure out the FIRST CAUSE…There are no arguments that anyone has ever conceived that cannot be free from logical errors…

That’s not true. Logic and mathematics, excuse my blatant formalism, could not be conducted were we unable to construct logical arguments free of error.

…Before our own existence there was NOTHING. No sun, no moon, no earth, no time, no space, no parents, grandparents NO ANYTHING!.

 

[rel1]

Re: your statement highlighted above. I for one cannot agree with this. Can you disregard the testimony of every parent of their own existance that preceeds that of their child’s existance? Their existance does not depend on your perception of their existance, as they existed prior to you perception of them.

Remember it’s your mind, not theirs. You are the mental factory that is producing all that there is. You are essentially projecting your mind into the mind of your parents.

 

[davidv]

Remember it’s your mind, not theirs. You are the mental factory that is producing all that there is. You are essentially projecting your mind into the mind of your parents.

Really? How do you know?

 

[rel1]

That’s not true. Logic and mathematics, excuse my blatant formalism, could not be conducted were we unable to construct logical arguments free of error.

 

[rel1]

Really? How do you know?

Remember David I’m just trying to interject a little stimulous for our minds. Anyone can argue this and I’m already receiving some.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey;7987703:

Who said anything about an existent nothing? Your right that is a logical contradiction…

I was responding this part.

Before our own existence there was NOTHING. No sun, no moon, no earth, no time, no space, no parents, grandparents NO ANYTHING!.

I thought you meant this literally.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

You should start a new thread for that, this thread is stale because we are all waiting for one poster to admit that they are cornered and accept the rules of logic so we can continue on with the conversation. When that happens, or more likely the poster jumps thread, this thread will probably die. So starting a new thread about the primacy of consciousness is your best bet to find people interested in the subject

I would agree. I do not think to beset someone with a concept (whether it’s correct or not) they are unable or unwilling to reconcile with is worth the time expenditure. It may also generate unnecessary ill feelings. I think it’s time to move on.

 

[rossum]

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.

Cosmology has advanced since 1947. I suggest you have a look at The Myth of the Beginning of Time.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Thats not an absolute, thats a self refuting statment.

It is an intentionally paradoxical statement about saying the unsayable. How could it be otherwise?

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

I am talking about dependency. It may be a dependency on time or it may be a dependency on something else. Time is not essential to my argument, dependency is. In this case the dependency is on the ordering criterion.

rossum

 

[rossum]

That is not being said and is mere inference on your part. There is an assumption by you that cause must have a chronological primacy over the effect. Please review the example and rethink this objection.

I do not assume primacy without justification. We are discussing the First Cause. If it is “First” then ipso facto it has primacy in some ordering; primacy is essential to the question.

Time is a common ordering to use for cause and effect, but that refers to the “Cause” part of “First Cause”, not to the “First” part. There are two questions here: 1) primacy (First) and 2) causation (Cause).

Then you need to show the inherent or ontological requirement of dependencies to support your assertion.

There is a dependency on the ordering criterion used to determine “First”. This is an ontological requirement if the object in question is to be correctly described as “First”. Whatever ordering we use, there must be some criterion to determine that ordering. Any First Cause must be dependent on the criterion used for the ordering.

Furthermore, in an earlier post you have stated the following:

“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.”

You were then holding that time is a required dependency for cause-effect events. This appears to be at odds to the earlier statement. Would you care to reconcile the two statements?

That is a correct statement of what I hold with reference to causality. We are also discussing primacy, “First”. There are many different possible criteria for primacy, only one of which is time.

These are collateral agents you’ve introduced that have no bearing or have material relevance on the given cause-effect example

My point is that there are such collateral agents in any particular example. “The real world is a complex place, with many interrelating dependencies.” In the real world they are of material relevance.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Unforuntately, your humour (although commendable) is a little flawed. The First Cause argument does not have time requirement, so this narrative is a little mismatched.

Then the First Cause is not eternal, and has no requirement to be eternal? It could merely exist long enough to cause the first effect and then disappear?

Here, you’ve introduced the concept of a start (a synonym for beginning) point, which appears to be at odds with an eternal universe. Additionally, ∞ and ∞ - 10 are mathematically equivalent, so any attempt to make them distinct would be inappropriate.

Since all points in an eternal universe are equivalent, I can start wherever I wish.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Uniqueness is not the unique criterion! Other causes are not eternal or spiritual…

Then you will need to show that your proposed First Cause is both eternal and spiritual as well as unique. There are causes that are not eternal and there are causes that are not spiritual. Neither spirituality nor eternity can be assumed merely by virtue of being a cause.

I have pointed out that the First Cause is transcendent. Neither truth nor goodness nor justice nor freedom nor beauty nor love have a beginning or end. Unlike physical objects they are eternal, indestructible and they all converge in the First Cause.

This is just reification of adjectives. I do not accept such reification. I would also like to see a proof that the First Cause is transcendent. It seems to me that its transcendancy is just assumed. I say that the First Casuse is dependent, therefore it cannot be transcendant.

Persons have ontological priority over things because they are the causes of their actions whereas things are not.

You said “The time factor is irrelevant to ontological priority.” I do not see how the time factor is irrelevant to the priority of people over things. There was a time when there were no people, so in that time there was no ‘ontological priority’. You have not shown me that the time factor is irrelevant here.

How you do reconcile that with the statement in the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta:

“There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress.” ?

Your question was about what is beyond space and time. I said there was much. What you have quoted is a description of nirvana. Earth, water, fire and wind (=air) are the four material elements. Nirvana is not material. Infinite space, Infinite consciousness, Nothingness and Neither perception nor non-perception are four stages of meditation, the arupa jhanas. Nirvana is not meditation either.

“This, just this, is the end of stress.” Stress, dukkha, is often translated as ‘suffering’. Nirvana is the end of suffering.

As a minor point, I think you will find that this quote comes from the Nibbana sutta (Ud 8.1) rather than the Aggi-Vacchagotta sutta (MN 72).

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter2]

“This, just this, is the end of stress.” Stress, dukkha, is often translated as ‘suffering’. Nirvana is the end of suffering.

Does Nirvana have an act of reality, or is it a negation of being.

 

[rossum]

Does Nirvana have an act of reality, or is it a negation of being.

I am not sure what you mean by “act of reality”. It is certainly not a negation of being since the Buddha spent 45 years preaching and being the Buddha between attaining nirvana and his last death.

rossum

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I do not assume primacy without justification. We are discussing the First Cause. If it is “First” then ipso facto it has primacy in some ordering; primacy is essential to the question.

Time is a common ordering to use for cause and effect, but that refers to the “Cause” part of “First Cause”, not to the “First” part. There are two questions here: 1) primacy (First) and 2) causation (Cause).

This is no justification here nor do you substantiate your assertions of chronological primacy. You are merely stating that there is primacy and time is a “common” ordering but do not demonstrate it’s an essential requisite for First Cause.

There is a dependency on the ordering criterion used to determine “First”. This is an ontological requirement if the object in question is to be correctly described as “First”. Whatever ordering we use, there must be some criterion to determine that ordering. Any First Cause must be dependent on the criterion used for the ordering.

You do not substantiate your assertion of dependency of criterion. You do not seem to make argument here other than to say there “must” be criterion.

That is a correct statement of what I hold with reference to causality. We are also discussing primacy, “First”. There are many different possible criteria for primacy, only one of which is time.

Since First Cause is a cause-effect event, then your assertion for a time requisite must hold for it as well. You do not address what I perceive is a contradiction.

My point is that there are such collateral agents in any particular example. “The real world is a complex place, with many interrelating dependencies.” In the real world they are of material relevance.

You are merely shifting the focus and your points are immaterial to the cause-effect event. Your detraction does not address the cause-effect concurrence I have illustrated. Please address the point I’m making directly without trying to obfuscate the discussion with digressive points.