You are again assuming mutual contingency in terms of the events, which is something you have yet to demonstrate. If the effect event was at one point potential, it does not follow that it is eternal. You are simply confusing the fact or connection of cause-effects with the events of cause-effects. When something is termed a cause, this is simply an exhibition of fact. It is the cause-effects events that we are concerned about.
You have misunderstood me, my apologies for not making myself clearer.
You are assuming the disputed equation. My first two premises were about the First Cause, not about Actus Purus. You cannot use the equation that is in dispute in the course of your argument. You have to establish that equation logically. So far you have failed to do so, you have merely asserted it.
They exist, but they changed from potential parents to actual parents when I was born. Before my birth they were potential, and not purely actual, parents. This is the same argument I am making about the First Cause. It can only be a potential cause before it causes something. Since it is not purely actual it cannot be Actus Purus. Hence your assertion of equality is incorrect.
It doesn’t. It has to do with the First Cause, which is different from Actus Purus. Remember that I am disputing your equating of the two.
Show me a cause that does not have an effect. Do you know any parents who have never had any children?
If the cause is actual and eternal then the effect must have been present from eternity as well. If the cause is unchanging then the effect is always being caused and so is eternal.
And one of the facts is that the effect has to exist for the cause to be an actual cause.
Can you have a cause-effect event without an effect?
I’m not denying the association, merely the mutual contingency.
This is your assertion. Please demonstrate why it an absolute necessity that an eternal cause only have eternal effects. Cause-effect events are not the same as the cause-effect fact.
Again, anything that had potentially cannot be eternal. As a cause precedes the effect, the effect event must have been potential.
Again, I merely dispute the mutual contingency.
By admitting that your parents exist even if you do not, you are admitting that a cause is not contingent on an effect. The definition of contingent is…http://www.philosophy-dictionary.org/Contingent_being
You just admitted your own argument is false.
I can say the same about Christianity. And I DON’T have to subscribe to a school of “thought” which rejects the basic tenets of the major subdisiplines in philosophy.
Isn’t Buddhism based primarily on belief in spiritual causality?
That is so off topic it is not even funny. Address the argument.
There is no need to shout. Better if you made some arguments to support your hitherto unsupported assertions.By admitting that your parents exist even if you do not, you are admitting that a cause is not contingent on an effect. The definition of contingent is…http://www.philosophy-dictionary.org/Contingent_being
You just admitted your own argument is false.
You cannot have an effect without a cause. You cannot have a cause without an effect. How is this not mutual contingency?
First, anything eternal cannot change. Second a cause must at some point in time actually cause an effect. Therefore an eternal cause must cause the same effect at all points in time. An example I sometimes use is:On the first day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the second day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the third day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the fourth day…
Agreed. Potential implies a change to actual and anything eternal cannot change. Since I see the First Cause as both potential and changing, it too is not eternal. My problem with an eternal unchanging cause is shown with the “Let there be light” example above.
Is there no belief in spiritual causality?
If they exist regardless of your existence, they are not contingent on you by definition.
It doesn’t matter what you call them, you cannot discuss parents without talking about human beings.
exactly. i wonder why this is so difficult for some. jane and john smith existed before they had baby smith. just because you are giving them a different label (parent) doesn’t change the fact that they still existed before junior came along.
Its easy peasy lemon squeezy.
With the obvious exception, the other people on the thread seem to feel the same way.There is:Mind precedes all conditions,
As human beings they are not contingent on me. As “parents” they are. When they were two years old they were not parents. They were only parents after I was born. The description “parent” is contingent.
Then the matter is settled, Causes are not contingent on effects as you had claimed.
Causes are contingent on effects if they are to be actual causes. If you assign labels willy-nilly then I can be both omnipotent and omniscient. Hence I win the argument.
