From First Cause to Jesus Christ

[IWantGod]

Understanding the nature of the infinite is extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Understanding it is irrelevant. We don’t much understand quantum physics, but we know it’s there because we have a method by which we can infer it’s particular activity. So when it comes to infinity, it’s simply a question of whether or not we can inference it’s existence based on what we know and whether or not any characteristics follow out of necessity. Infinite in this context is just a word to describe that which has no essential limitation in it’s act of reality. It’s used to describe a nature that has no finite parts and has the fullness of it’s reality - pure-actuality.

The point is, we think we have reason to believe that a being of that general description exists.

Also, that which has the fullness of reality (the uncaused cause) ought to be everything that is necessarily true of existence, because there is no existence other than itself. Therefore for such a being to create it cannot be said that it is creating more “existence” because it’s not logically possible for there to be more “existence”. It is not creating more of it’self, because there is no more of itself, and so it cannot be said that it is “naturally” acting toward any end other than itself. It would be a contradiction to say that it is acting toward an end that does not exist, which it would be if it were a natural cause. And that would be nonsense.

Thus the act of creating is not the creation of more existence, but rather it would necessarily involve the giving of existence to some possibility (a possibility that is not a part of it’s nature) and more importantly it would be sustaining that possibility in existence, since that possibility does not exist by it’s own nature. That can only happen if the uncaused cause has a conscious will to create.

 

[Freddy]

… it would be sustaining that possibility in existence, since that possibility does not exist by it’s own nature. T

There’s that assumption again.

 

[IWantGod]

There’s that assumption again.

It’s not an assumption. That which does not exist necessarily by the power of it’s own nature can only exist by the power of that which gives it existence. And since everything other than the uncaused cause does not necessarily exist by the power of it’s own nature i am correct to say that it is sustained in existence by the power of the un-caused cause.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

There’s that assumption again.

It’s not an assumption. That which does not exist necessarily by the power of it’s own nature can only exist by the power of that which gives it existence. And since everything other than the uncaused cause does not necessarily exist by the power of it’s own nature i am correct to say that it is sustained in existence by the power of the un-caused cause.

I’m sorry, but all you did there is repeat the assumption. There is nothing to say that an uncaused cause (assumed to exist for the purpose of this specific point) did not simply create a self sustaining existence.

If I create an AI then I don’t necessarily have to make sure it continues to exist. It can do that itself. It doesn’t need me. Once created I can cease to exist.

 

[IWantGod]

did not simply create a self sustaining existence.

In this case the uncaused cause would have to create the power of existence. But you cannot get more of the power of existence from nothing. There is no nature that is the power of existence other than the uncaused-cause. The uncaused cause is existence and cannot be something separate from it. For God to create existence in an absolute sense would be like creating another God. You are thinking of the uncaused cause as a being among other beings, and that for you to be a being involves the same thing as saying that God is a being, but to a lesser degree. But that would be incorrect. “Existing” (which is what we are doing) and having a nature that is the act of existence, are two different things. We “exist” but only because something is making us real, and so we are not existence itself. The uncaused-cause is the absolute antithesis of nothing as such that it is the very ontological context in which possibilities come to have reality; and the power that causes things to be real are never distinct from the uncaused cause because that power is intrinsic to what it is.

So in reality, we exist in the uncaused cause. There is no reality outside of it. We have existence, but we are not the power of existence itself because it is not essential to us, and the power of existence cannot exist separately from the uncaused cause because that is what the uncaused cause is essentially. The fact that we are not essentially that power proves necessarily that we only continue to exist because of the power of the uncaused cause.

So creating a self sustaining “existence” out of nothing and giving it to a being that cannot exist by the power of it’s own nature is meaningless because nothing could possibly have the power of existence other than the uncaused. Everything it creates is necessarily dependent on it for existence. It is our natures that are created out of nothing. Existence is something given to our natures, but not created out of nothing; because that’s metaphysically impossible.

Creation ex-nihilo is not technically the creation of more existence in an absolute ontological sense because there is no true existential absolute other than the uncause-cause. Rather, creation exnihilo is the giving of reality to a possible nature that fundamentally has no reality of it’s own.

If I create an AI then I don’t necessarily have to make sure it continues to exist. It can do that itself. It doesn’t need me. Once created I can cease to exist.

That’s not the same thing as creation. You are using materials that already exist. The uncaused cause has no materials and can only create if it has a mind capable of giving reality to possibilities (which are in some sense abstracted from the knowledge of it’s own nature).

God creating is like somebody playing a piano piece. The music only exists so long as the pianist keeps playing. If God ceases to exist then so do we.

 

[tafan2]

[pemphasized text=“mardo225, post:10, topic:580714”]
A FC exists, but we know nothing of its nature
[/quote]

If we can know God exists, we can also know something’s about His nature, eg simplicity, eternal, (see the beginning of the Summa for a complete list)

 

[Freddy]

Everything it creates is necessarily dependent on it for existence.

Your problem is that you’re not starting from first principles. I’m certain that you think you are. But when you refer to ‘it’ above you are referring to God. In every case. If a proposition doesn’t meet the requirements for God then it’s rejected. Let’s face it…it has to be.

Nobody has ever used the first cause argument to see where it might end up.

 

[IWantGod]

Your problem is that you’re not starting from first principles.

What do you mean?

But when you refer to ‘it’ above you are referring to God. In every case.

I don’t understand. Would you please explain yourself more clearly.

If a proposition doesn’t meet the requirements for God then it’s rejected. Let’s face it…it has to be.

What i have argued is either correct or it’s not. If you begin with an absolute ontological cause, you are essentially describing a being that is the absolute antithesis of nothing and is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. If you are not that being, then the power of existence is not essential to your nature and you are therefore necessarily relying on the power of the uncaused cause to continue existing.

I rebutted your proposal of creating a self sustaining existence. And you have no argument.

Nobody has ever used the first cause argument to see where it might end up.

I suspect that this post is a blindfold. Enjoy.

 

[Freddy]

If you are not that being, then the power of existence is not essential to your nature and you are therefore necessarily relying on the power of the uncaused cause to continue existing…

The uncaused cause grants the power of existence.

Spoiler alert: The uncaused cause turns out to be…God. And He can apparently do what He wants.

 

[IWantGod]

Spoiler alert: The uncaused cause turns out to be…God. And He can apparently do what He wants.

I call it God because i think it’s God, but the argument stands by itself whether i call it God or not. It cannot be a natural cause for the reasons i have already explained.

Now you can assert that i am wrong and do absolutely no leg work, but that only feeds into the view that Atheists are not rational, but are instead in denial.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Spoiler alert: The uncaused cause turns out to be…God. And He can apparently do what He wants.

…but the argument stands by itself whether i call it God or not.

The argument only works if it’s God you are talking about. If you start with the answer and look for proposals that will will get you where you want to go then you cannot call it a search for the truth.

 

[IWantGod]

The argument only works if it’s God you are talking about.

Wrong. The argument works if the uncaused cause has the nature i described, and i have shown why that nature must follow necessarily. You reject the argument in principle of the fact that the conclusion is something you rather wasn’t true.

If your accusation was true you would be able to quote my post and demonstrate it.

As of now it’s just wind.

 

[HarryStotle]

IWantGod:

Freddy:

There’s that assumption again.

It’s not an assumption. That which does not exist necessarily by the power of it’s own nature can only exist by the power of that which gives it existence. And since everything other than the uncaused cause does not necessarily exist by the power of it’s own nature i am correct to say that it is sustained in existence by the power of the un-caused cause.

I’m sorry, but all you did there is repeat the assumption. There is nothing to say that an uncaused cause (assumed to exist for the purpose of this specific point) did not simply create a self sustaining existence.

If I create an AI then I don’t necessarily have to make sure it continues to exist. It can do that itself. It doesn’t need me. Once created I can cease to exist.

You may want to read Feser or Aquinas on the difference between causal series ordered per accidens and causal series ordered per se. Only in an accidentally ordered series is it possible for the cause to cease existing while the effect endures.

Not even Aquinas argued that such a series couldn’t go on infinitely. The problem is that such a series does not and CANNOT fully explain its own existence since the sufficient reason for neither the cause nor the effect is contained in either, nor in the series as a whole.

That isn’t what the first cause argument proposes, in any case. Aristotle, Aquinas and every other philosopher who understood what they were getting at with the first cause argument stipulate that the kind of causal series being proposed in one that is per se, i.e., where the cause is the necessary and sufficient condition for the effect. Since the cause is necessary to explain the effect – and does not “accidentally” bring about the effect – the effect is sustained in existence by the cause. The cause cannot “cease to exist” if it is the cause of a causal series ordered per se.

Feser on causal series…

Edwards on infinite causal series

In a comment on a post down below, Richard Hennessey asks me to reply to the criticisms of Thomistic cosmological arguments presented by Pau...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

Aquinas…

Aquinas argues in his Five Ways that with regard to efficient causes (causation per se) “to take away the cause is to take away the effect.” And with regard to efficient causes " it is not possible to go on to infinity."

http://newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article2

Aristotle distinguishes between proper (per se) and accidental causes…

…besides all these varieties of causes, whether proper or accidental, some are called causes as being able to act, others as acting; e.g. the cause of the house’s being built is a builder, or a builder who is building…
strong text
http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/-384_-322,_Aristoteles,_Metaphysics,_EN.pdf

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Suarez…

“A per se cause is a cause on which the effect directly depends with respect to that proper esse that it has insofar as it is an effect, in the way in which (says Aristotle) a sculptor is a cause of a statue.”

"On the other hand, since a per accidens cause is not a true cause but is instead called a cause because of some relation or similarity to a cause or because it is conjoined with a cause, it cannot be appropriately defined by a single general description; rather, a cause is called per accidens in various senses. For a cause is called per accidens sometimes on the side of the cause and sometimes on the side of the effect.

"That which is said to cause per accidens on the side of the cause is something that is accidentally conjoined to a per se principle of causing. Sometimes this is the very subject of the form that is the principle of acting. It is in this sense that water is said to produce heat per accidens , since it is accidental to water that it should be hot and thus accidental to it that it should produce heat. “And it is in this sense,” Aristotle says, “that Polycletus is a cause of a statue” [ Metaphysics 5.2.1013b34-1014a4].

https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/527/create03.htm

The point being that the uncaused cause cannot “simply create a self-sustaining existence,” at least not one that is capable of sustaining itself without the cause, if the cause is properly per se (otherwise called essential or efficient). The cause maintains the effect in existence because the effect directly depends with respect to that proper esse.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The argument only works if it’s God you are talking about.

The argument works if the uncaused cause has the nature i described…

And you’ve described God’s nature. I wonder where the argument will lead.

 

[IWantGod]

And you’ve described God’s nature.

You are trying to create the appearence of an error where there is none.

If we begin with an uncaused cause, we can deduce what it can and cannot be in reference to it’s effect. If the attributes of God follow necessarily, it doesn’t become a circular argument just because you don’t like the conclusion or because the word God was mentioned. Reason does not work like that.

 

[HarryStotle]

IWantGod:

Freddy:

The argument only works if it’s God you are talking about.

The argument works if the uncaused cause has the nature i described…

And you’ve described God’s nature. I wonder where the argument will lead.

Could you attempt to describe an uncaused cause without reference to any qualities that most people would reasonably call God?

Uncaused means it could not possibly have been caused, so it is self-existent in the sense that it exists by reason of its very nature – Ipsum Esse Existens. Also as the cause it must be the necessary and sufficient reason for the effect that has been brought about.

Go ahead, describe the uncaused cause without reference to what have typically in classical theism been dubbed the omni-max properties of God.

I suspect what we have here is a failure to properly understand the terms being discussed.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And you’ve described God’s nature.

You are trying to create the appearence of an error where there is none.

If we begin with an uncaused cause, we can deduce what it can and cannot be in reference to it’s effect. If the attributes of God follow necessarily…

They don’t follow. You applied them to the uncaused cause in tbe first instance.

 

[IWantGod]

They don’t follow. You applied them to the uncaused cause in tbe first instance.

Contrary to your assertion the truth is otherwise unless you can prove it. If you can, i will restate the argument correctly.

 

[IWantGod]

There’s that assumption again.

It’s not an assumption. That which does not exist necessarily by the power of it’s own nature can only exist by the power of that which gives it existence. And since everything other than the uncaused cause does not necessarily exist by the power of it’s own nature i am correct to say that it is sustained in existence by the power of the un-caused cause.

I’m sorry, but all you did there is repeat the assumption. There is nothing to say that an uncaused cause (assumed to exist for the purpose of this specific point) did not simply create a self sustaining existence.

In this case the uncaused cause would have to create the power of existence. But you cannot get more of the power of existence from nothing. There is no nature that is the power of existence other than the uncaused-cause. The uncaused cause is existence and cannot be something separate from it…

…So creating a self sustaining “existence” out of nothing and giving it to a being that cannot exist by the power of it’s own nature is meaningless because nothing could possibly have the power of existence other than the uncaused. Everything it creates is necessarily dependent on it for existence.

you refer to ‘it’ above you are referring to God. In every case.

What i have argued is either correct or it’s not. If you begin with an absolute ontological cause, you are essentially describing a being that is the absolute antithesis of nothing and is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. If you are not that being, then the power of existence is not essential to your nature and you are therefore necessarily relying on the power of the uncaused cause to continue existing.

The uncaused cause grants the power of existence.

Spoiler alert: The uncaused cause turns out to be…God. And He can apparently do what He wants.

The argument works if the uncaused cause has the nature i described, and i have shown why that nature must follow necessarily.

And you’ve described God’s nature. I wonder where the argument will lead.

You are trying to create the appearence of an error where there is none.

If we begin with an uncaused cause, we can deduce what it can and cannot be in reference to it’s effect. If the attributes of God follow necessarily, it doesn’t become a circular argument just because you don’t like the conclusion or because the word God was mentioned. Reason does not work like that.

You applied them to the uncaused cause in tbe first instance.

It’s clear that i have backed up every claim with good reasons from the beginning of our discussion, and you haven’t.