First Cause

[tonyrey]

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

They have causes but the causes are unknown?

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

Please define “beauty” in the absence of any other objects.

Spiritual beauty exists in goodness, justice, freedom, physical beauty and love.

Beauty only has meaning as a comparative. It has no existence on its own.

A comparative of what? Are goodness, justice, freedom and love comparatives and adjectives?

Do you believe anything is transcendent?

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

Is everything equally dependent?

Why is the First Cause dependent?

See my post #422 above.

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.

How do you know the universe is eternal?

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.

A criterion need not entail dependence. It is a means of recognition.

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.

That is putting the cart before the horse! Horses existed before carts…
And men did not need carts in order to exist!

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.

We can determine their ontological precedence by their power. We know that persons are more powerful than things. They are also the ultimate causes of their actions whereas things are not.

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

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

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

How do you know human beings are the only persons that exist?

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

Yes, they are.

Do you understand how persons are the causes of their actions?

What evidence is there for your belief?

Scripture.

How do you know Scripture is true?

BTW Thank you for answering my questions.

 

[rossum]

Effects do need a cause but that is the* only* direction of any contingent requirement.

All I am doing is using basic symbolic logic. Given (A => B) then we must have (~B => ~A).

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?

Excellent. Cause and effect are indeed mutually conditioning and each requires the other. You are now ready to start reading Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika on the non-existence of ultimates. The first chapter is about causation:Not from itself, not from another,
Not from both,
Not without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

• MMK 1.1
  Causation is a purely conventional thing, it is not ultimate; Nagarjuna’s verse refers to ultimate, not conventional causation. Hence my reluctance to accept the non-dependence of the First Cause. Almost anything in a philosophical discussion that is capitalised will raise my hackles somewhat.

The rest of the MMK goes through other things often considered to be ultimate and shown that they are not. Yes, nirvana is included, Chapter 25; Nirvana is not ultimate either:There is not the slightest difference
between Samsara and Nirvana.
There is not the slightest difference
between Nirvana and Samsara.

Whatever is the end of Nirvana,
that is the end of Samsara.
There is no distinction between them,
Not even a very subtle slight one.

• MMK 25:19-20

My sig is a humorous summary of Nagarjuna.

rossum

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Excellent. Cause and effect are indeed mutually conditioning and each requires the other. You are now ready to start reading Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika on the non-existence of ultimates.

I guess it’s time for me to convert then. Unfortunately, I think you misconstrued the comment. There is no mutual conditioning as I understand it in cause-effect events.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

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

I guess you deem my view defficient. What do you recommend as good reading?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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

Your position is a logical contradiction. Care to respond to post #423?

 

[rossum]

Your position is a logical contradiction.

Where is the logical contradiction in a statement by me about my beliefs?

Care to respond to post #423?

You say, “If the universe and logic conflict there is an error in your observation.” You are assuming that there is no error in your logic.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Where is the logical contradiction in a statement by me about my beliefs?

ultimate truth=no Ultimate Truth. Your position is a logical contradiction. But as you do not accept logic it shouldn’t matter to you. Right?

You say, “If the universe and logic conflict there is an error in your observation.” You are assuming that there is no error in your logic.

You’re absolutely right. So what? Irrationality is almost universally rejected. You are the first person to admit to it that I have ever met.

 

[shoe]

Excellent. Cause and effect are indeed mutually conditioning and each requires the other.

I think that cause and effect require each other only on things that had a beginning. The word “beginning” makes all the difference. All things that have a beginning have a beginner and are dependent on the law of cause and effect. But God, the eternally self-existent “I am,” dwells outside the boundaries of time where the law of cause and effect does not exist; God, therefore, is not contingent upon a cause or on a point in time in which to begin existing.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think that cause and effect require each other only on things that had a beginning. The word “beginning” makes all the difference. All things that have a beginning have a beginner and are dependent on the law of cause and effect. But God, the eternally self-existent “I am,” dwells outside the boundaries of time where the law of cause and effect does not exist; God, therefore, is not contingent upon a cause or on a point in time in which to begin existing.

You started out with an honesty I can’t argue with. These are your thoughts.

How did you test them for truth?

Did you follow the evidence or did you follow another means?

 

[rossum]

I think that cause and effect require each other only on things that had a beginning. The word “beginning” makes all the difference. All things that have a beginning have a beginner and are dependent on the law of cause and effect. But God, the eternally self-existent “I am,” dwells outside the boundaries of time where the law of cause and effect does not exist; God, therefore, is not contingent upon a cause or on a point in time in which to begin existing.

I merely cut out the middle man. Rather than having a beginningless God who creates a universe with a beginning, I have a beginningless universe/multiverse.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I merely cut out the middle man. Rather than having a beginningless God who creates a universe with a beginning, I have a beginningless universe/multiverse.

rossum

No quantity of contingent beings equals its own cause. That means it doesn’t matter if the universe had a beginning or not, all universes require a First Cause.

 

[JDaniel]

I merely cut out the middle man. Rather than having a beginningless God who creates a universe with a beginning, I have a beginningless universe/multiverse.

rossum

Rossum:

Impossible. Pick a point anywhere along your imaginary infinite continuum. Then, pick another point. It will take an infinity to get there from your first point. In an infinite universe we’re not here now. You are conflating the infinite with the finite.

Unless, of course, we’re all gods. But then, if we’re all reincarnated gods, what use are all of these material trappings?

God bless,
jd

 

[rossum]

Impossible. Pick a point anywhere along your imaginary infinite continuum. Then, pick another point. It will take an infinity to get there from your first point. In an infinite universe we’re not here now. You are conflating the infinite with the finite.

Exactly the same argument applies to where we are in God’s “lifetime”. Whether we have an eternal universe or an eternal God, we are all here and now, with an eternity of God or universe behind us and an eternity of God or universe in front of us.

As long as there is something eternal in existence, which we both agree on, then we are somewhere in the middle of it. Given that fact, then there is obviously an error in your reasoning.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

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

If you don’t know what their causes are how do you know they have causes?

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

Please define “beauty” in the absence of any other objects.

Spiritual beauty exists in goodness, justice, freedom, physical beauty and love - which are not objects.

Beauty only has meaning as a comparative. It has no existence on its own.

A comparative of what? Are goodness, justice, freedom and love comparatives and adjectives?

Do you believe anything is transcendent?

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

If everything is dependent everything is self-explanatory.

Why is the First Cause dependent?

See my post #422 above.

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.

How do you know the universe is eternal?

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.

A criterion need not entail dependence. It is a means of recognition.

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.

That is putting the cart before the horse! Horses existed before carts…
And men did not need carts in order to exist!

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.

We can determine their ontological precedence by their power. We know that persons are more powerful than things. They are also the ultimate causes of their actions whereas things are not.

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

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

How do you know human beings are the only persons that exist?

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

Yes, they are.

Do you understand **how **persons are the causes of their actions?

What evidence is there for your belief?

Scripture.

How do you know Scripture is true?

 

[Pieman333272]

Exactly the same argument applies to where we are in God’s “lifetime”. Whether we have an eternal universe or an eternal God, we are all here and now, with an eternity of God or universe behind us and an eternity of God or universe in front of us.

As long as there is something eternal in existence, which we both agree on, then we are somewhere in the middle of it. Given that fact, then there is obviously an error in your reasoning.

rossum

Except that you still fail to grasp that God doesn’t work IN TIME. God transcends time, doing and seeing everything at once. When JD replies I think he will talk about his idea of the “eternal now”, which I find highly agreeable. God can create the universe whenever he feels like it, and is able to reach that point because there isn’t a line - it’s a bracket which encompasses both the line of time below it and everything before [and after] it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…

rossum

Is your lack of a response a tacit agreement, that your claimed position is meaningless because it is a logical contradiction? As demonstrated?

 

[shoe]

You started out with an honesty I can’t argue with. These are your thoughts.

How did you test them for truth?

Did you follow the evidence or did you follow another means?

For me, I believe that the simple logic and reasoning from just the Cosmological Argument alone shows evidence for the truth about the reality of God. I think it’s a good argument in that it shows that it’s quite illogical to believe the world came into existence completely uncaused from nothing. I believe it also demonstrates quite nicely that the cause of the universe itself is uncaused: that is to say that the first cause is God.

In a way, the uncaused first cause, the eternally self-existent God, is the only mystery that theists have to explain. My atheist friends, however, have many mysteries to explain because they are dealing with an infinite number of effects with non-existence postulated as the first cause, which is scientifically illogical and impossible.

 

[rossum]

If you don’t know what their causes are how do you know they have causes?

Do you know anything that does not have a cause?

Spiritual beauty exists in goodness, justice, freedom, physical beauty and love - which are not objects.

Please define goodness, justice etc. in the absence of any other objects.

A comparative of what? Are goodness, justice, freedom and love comparatives and adjectives?

They have no meaning on their own, they need a referent. I can ask “Is X good?” I cannot ask “Is good?”

How do you know the universe is eternal?

Scripture and science has not ruled out the possibility either.

A criterion need not entail dependence. It is a means of recognition.

The description “First” must have a dependence on the criterion. It is how we recognise first rather than second or fifteenth.

That is putting the cart before the horse! Horses existed before carts.

Carthorses did not exist before carts.

We can determine their ontological precedence by their power.

I disagree. Power has no relation to cause and effect. A father may be stronger than his son, or the son may be stronger than his father. The power relation between them may change over time.

How do you know human beings are the only persons that exist?

In Buddhism they aren’t; in Christianity they are. I was using the Christian definition of person.

Do you understand how persons are the causes of their actions?

I have an understanding. Being as it is based in the Buddhist analysis of what constitutes a person then I suspect you would not agree with it.

How do you know Scripture is true?

Scripture works. How do you know Scripture is true?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Except that you still fail to grasp that God doesn’t work IN TIME.

Jesus existed and worked IN time. Jesus was God. QED.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Is your lack of a response a tacit agreement, that your claimed position is meaningless because it is a logical contradiction? As demonstrated?

My lack of response to you is a reflection of your lack of response to me.

I requested either a short restatement of your claimed logical proof or a link to your previous statement of that claimed proof. You have so far failed to provide either.

rossum