First Cause

[Soldier_Of_God]

Then we will have to disagree. To me eternal and ‘infinite in time’ are the same thing.

Your view of eternal or eternity is a temporalist view, which is more correctly known as sempiternity. You are correct, we will have to disagree.

 

[rel1]

Depending on the vastness of the universe, perhaps the FIRST CAUSE has not yet occurred. If the world is infinite it certainly hasn"t occurred. So instead of trying to find the first cause from the past, perhaps we should think of our own existence as first and then project backwards. Thoughts anyone?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Depending on the vastness of the universe, perhaps the FIRST CAUSE has not yet occurred. If the world is infinite it certainly hasn"t occurred. So instead of trying to find the first cause from the past, perhaps we should think of our own existence as first and then project backwards. Thoughts anyone?

Let’s now talk about Last Cause then?

 

[rossum]

Let’s now talk about Last Cause then?

Or the Lost Cause – getting everyone in this thread to agree.

rossum

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Or the Lost Cause – getting everyone in this thread to agree.

rossum

Verily!

 

[rossum]

It seems you cannot distinguish between the act and it’s culmination. That’s why you fail to understand cause-effect events. Stating the act of crossing the line first is the same as winning demonstrates this lack of perception.

If you are going to separate act and culmination then there is an obvious dependency. The act of winning is not merely crossing the finishing line first. It is dependent on having run the race from the beginning.

Please demonstrate your critique. If you have already do so, let me know which post to reference for review.

Taking the four in order, and briefly:

1 A finite universe is required because in an eternal universe no First Cause is required. See the Kalaam argument. Only things with a beginning need a cause. An eternal universe has no beginning and hence no requirement for any cause, including any First Cause.

2 A precedence criterion is required in order to justify the use of “First”. Precedence in time is a common choice, but there can be others. Whatever criterion is used, there is a dependence on the criterion chosen.

3 An effect is required in order to justify the use of “Cause”. If there is no effect then there is no cause. In logic, if (cause => effect) then (~effect => ~cause). The cause is dependent on the existence of the effect.

4 Time is required for causation to work at all. If there is no time then we cannot determine which of two objects came first, and hence are unable to distinguish between cause and effect.

In all four cases the First Cause is not independent but is dependent on something else.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Cosmology has to do with reality.

The science of cosmology has nothing to do with the logic that disproved the contention that an eternal or infinite universe need not have a First Cause. It wouldn’t matter if we had empirical evidence of an infinite universe or not. No quantity of contingent beings equal their own cause.

If reality and logic conflict then there is an error in the logic.

If the universe and logic conflict there is an error in your observation. Logic defines the universe. Not the other way around. Physics can only describe the universe in mathematical terms. Without logic the universe cannot be reasoned about. Rejecting logic as you do is exactly what it means to be irrational. Though this explains why you think its OK to keep repeating arguments once they have been formally disproven. If you do not accept logic, then nothing can be proven to you or by you. That kind of makes the whole business of these threads moot.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I do not accept absolutes…

That is an absolute.

 

[shoe]

That is an absolute.

Absolutely. It’s also self-defeating.

 

[tonyrey]

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

Do you believe spirituality and eternity are uncaused aspects of reality? If not what causes them?

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.

Are goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love adjectives?

I would also like to see a proof that the First Cause is transcendent. It seems to me that its transcendancy is just assumed.

Do you believe anything is transcendent?

I say that the First Cause is dependent, therefore it cannot be transcendant.

Why is the First Cause dependent?

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 do you know there was a time when there were no persons?
You don’t believe persons are the causes of their actions?

Your question was about what is beyond space and time. I said there was much.

What evidence is there for your belief?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Absolutely. It’s also self-defeating.

Yup.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The science of cosmology has nothing to do with the logic that disproved the contention that an eternal or infinite universe need not have a First Cause. It wouldn’t matter if we had empirical evidence of an infinite universe or not. No quantity of contingent beings equal their own cause.

.

Not to mention that an infinite number by definition transcends all “quantities” (a synonymous term), and therefore cannot truly be a number, and thus the concept cannot rationally or meaningfully be applied to the contingent composition of the measurable universe.

Is this a difficult thing for an atheist to grasp?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Not to mention that an infinite number by definition transcends all “quantities” (a synonymous term), and therefore cannot truly be a number, and thus the concept cannot rationally or meaningfully be applied to the composition of the measurable universe.

Is this a difficult thing for an atheist to grasp?

Yeah, cognitive dissonance is a difficult mental state to budge.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Or the Lost Cause – getting everyone in this thread to agree.

rossum

Second the motion.

 

[rossum]

That is an absolute.

It is a statement of my position. If you think that a statement of my position is a philosophical absolute then my position is that you owe me $5,000.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Do you believe spirituality and eternity are uncaused aspects of reality? If not what causes them?

No. Their causes caused them. I can see that they exist. I cannot see the point in wasting time determining what their causes were.

Are goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love adjectives?

Please define “beauty” in the absence of any other objects. Beauty only has meaning as a comparative. It has no existence on its own.

Do you believe anything is transcendent?

Nothing is independent. If transcendancy implies independence then nothing is transcendent.

Why is the First Cause dependent?

See my post #422 above.

How do you know there was a time when there were no persons?

Try 10 billion years ago. Try day two of Genesis.

You don’t believe persons are the causes of their actions?

Yes, they are.

What evidence is there for your belief?

Scripture.

rossum

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

If you are going to separate act and culmination then there is an obvious dependency. The act of winning is not merely crossing the finishing line first. It is dependent on having run the race from the beginning.

To clarify, the “event” (not act) of winning is a result of crossing the finish line first. Regardless, the point of my example is to demonstrate concerning cause-effect events do not necessitate time and not anything else.

Taking the four in order, and briefly:

1 A finite universe is required because in an eternal universe no First Cause is required. See the Kalaam argument. Only things with a beginning need a cause. An eternal universe has no beginning and hence no requirement for any cause, including any First Cause.

2 A precedence criterion is required in order to justify the use of “First”. Precedence in time is a common choice, but there can be others. Whatever criterion is used, there is a dependence on the criterion chosen.

3 An effect is required in order to justify the use of “Cause”. If there is no effect then there is no cause. In logic, if (cause => effect) then (~effect => ~cause). The cause is dependent on the existence of the effect.

4 Time is required for causation to work at all. If there is no time then we cannot determine which of two objects came first, and hence are unable to distinguish between cause and effect.

In all four cases the First Cause is not independent but is dependent on something else.

Effects do need a cause but that is the* only* direction of any contingent requirement. What you are suggesting that a cause exists only as a result of it having an effect. In other words, it’s not a cause until there is an effect. However, if there is no cause, how can there be an effect if contingency is mutual, especially if there is a time requirement as your assert? Futhermore, my demonstration shows that time is not required for cause-effect events, so your reasoning falls apart.

 

[rel1]

Let’s now talk about Last Cause then?

A rudimentary understanding of quantum physics is required for my last post…I apologize!

 

[rel1]

Verily!

Some understanding of “Quantum Physics” might help broaden your view of causality.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No. Their causes caused them. I can see that they exist. I cannot see the point in wasting time determining what their causes were.

So you don’t see any point in learning. That’s a great attitude . But that’s really no surprise to us, since we already know that you only qeustion rationally supported beliefs.