From First Cause to Jesus Christ

[lelinator]

lelinator:

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

Understanding it is irrelevant.

I beg to differ. I think that understanding the sense in which the necessary cause is infinite, is essential. Because I think that your understanding of the necessary cause is wrong.

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.

When I consider the keyboard on which I’m typing this, there’s a sense in which the keyboard is infinite. Because it could be argued that the characters on the keyboard contain every novel that could ever possibly be written, and every post on every forum. In fact there’s nothing that can possibly be written, that isn’t contained within the characters on this keyboard.

Or consider a few tubes of paint, from which every painting that exists, or ever has existed, or ever will exist, can be created. In a sense, those few tubes of paint could be considered to be infinite. But what those tubes of paint contain, and what this keyboard contains…is potential. The potential for every novel, and the potential for every painting.

What you’re describing when you describe the necessary cause as being infinite, isn’t pure actuality, it’s pure potentiality. Potentiality is infinite, actuality isn’t. Actuality is finite.

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”.

This is where I believe that you’ve made an assumption. Because I don’t think that you’re infinite necessary cause intentionally “creates” anything. I think that what arises out of potentiality does so simply from the nature of potentiality itself, and not from any intention on its part. And I think that what naturally arises out of potentiality is reality and consciousness. They’re the inevitable outcome of potentiality.

But, you’ll be happy to know, that I don’t think that that rules out the existence of a final cause. But it’s identifying what that final cause is, that’s the tricky bit. However, that’s something that’s definitely going to have to be left for another post, and more than likely, we’'ll never get to it at all.

 

[Gorgias]

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

Is that why you’re willing to place limits on it, then?

In fact, it could be argued that the infinite, and nothing, are identical. Thus neither of them can exist.

Anything can be argued. Doesn’t mean that it can be argued reasonably, or successfully…

But it really depends upon what the nature of reality is. Some people believe that it’s simply information, and if that’s true, then nothing, and infinity, are for all practical purposes…identical.

Notice what you’ve done there? You’ve conflated something that is objectively real (“the nature of reality”) with something that is merely conjectural (“some people believe”). When you mix reality with opinion, you don’t get good results.

Imagine a hard drive that contains ones and zeroes. If it’s blank, meaning it contains all zeroes, then it contains no information.

That’s not true. Zeroes are information. It may not contain files, or file systems, but it’s not in a null state.

So a hard drive that’s empty contains the same amount of information as a hard drive that’s full.

Not true. It just doesn’t have the kind of information you’re expecting.

Thus it could be argued that nothing, and infinity are identical.

Sigh. Wrong again. Not “identical”, unless you’re asserting that “1” and “0” are identical. (Hint: they’re not.)

You’re merely asserting that the information in the data is not useful to you. That’s a completely different assertion.

 

[lelinator]

Is that why you’re willing to place limits on it, then?

Yes, it depends upon the nature of what you’re describing. For example, when I look at my keyboard, it contains everything that could ever possibly be written, but what can be written isn’t actually infinite…it’s finite. There’s a finite number of ways that those characters can be arranged. The same is true of my hard drive. There’s a finite number of ways in which those 1’s and 0’s can be arranged.

So when we’re talking about a necessary cause, what does it mean when we say that it contains an infinite amount of something? If we’re simply saying that it contains everything that could ever possibly exist, just as my keyboard contains everything that could ever possibly be written, then we may actually be talking about something that’s finite, and not actually infinite.

Anything can be argued. Doesn’t mean that it can be argued reasonably, or successfully…

True, but it’s also true that a hard drive that contains all zeroes, and a hard drive that contains all ones, both contain the same amount of information. On that basis I can argue that under certain conditions, absolutely nothing, and absolutely everything will in some sense be indistinguishable. Whether that applies to the necessary cause or not, depends upon the nature of the necessary cause.

That’s not true. Zeroes are information. It may not contain files , or file systems , but it’s not in a null state.

Not true. It just doesn’t have the kind of information you’re expecting.

Sigh. Wrong again. Not “identical”, unless you’re asserting that “1” and “0” are identical. (Hint: they’re not.)

It really depends upon what one considers to be information. Which is itself dependent upon the context. If the FBI is looking for information on my hard drive, and all that they find is either all zeroes, or all ones. They would conclude that it contains no information.

But the operative point here, is that reality as you perceive it, consists of patterns, and those patterns are essentially information. Remove the patterns, and reality ceases to exist. Thus, two extremes can be functionally identical.

 

[Seekingthetruth]

• A FC exists, but we know nothing of its nature. But we can infer…
• That since it sustains us now in existence ((because it is existence and it gives existence to us)…
• This infers that it wants us to exist here and now, so its not ‘walking away’ as Aristotle supposed…
• And since its already Infinite, it gains nothing by creating us, so we can infer that our creation is ‘free’ with no strings attached…
• We exist in an universe finely tuned to allow us to exist…
• We have grounds for a reasonable belief that the FC is concerned and cares for us.
• Oh look! Here is a book that comports very well with what we can reason about the FC…

Perhaps you could tighten it down a little bit. There seems to be some leaps in logic. If you wanted to go with a polysyllogism perhaps start here.

P1: if the material universe began to exist than it must have a FC
P2: if the universe must have a FC, that FC must be without time, space, matter and limitation
P3:if the FC is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and omnipotent it must be infinite
P4: if the first cause created all and established order it must have a mind
(Here you’ve established what the FC must be)
P5: humans are not timeless, spaceless, immaterial or omnipotent
P6: it follows humans must be material
P7: if humans are material than they must be created
P8: if humans have been created than it must be due to the FC
P9: if the FC has a created all humans distinct then the FC must be personal
P10: if the FC is personal then the FC would not abandon creation
P11: since the FC is personal then FC would establish communication with its creation.
C: it is that FC which we call God

Its slightly longer but i feel as if it helps establish each premise a little better. Of course you can tweak my variation of it or throw it out all together if you want haha

 

[mardo225]

Very well articulated!

 

[Gorgias]

So when we’re talking about a necessary cause, what does it mean when we say that it contains an infinite amount of something?

Well, first off, it’s not an amount. God isn’t physical, and therefore, we cannot measure Him as if He were quantitatively measurable in any way. So, if we’re talking about God as “infinite”, it’s a qualitative assessment.

On that basis I can argue that under certain conditions, absolutely nothing, and absolutely everything will in some sense be indistinguishable.

I still think you’re not making sense here. Let’s suppose that there are 1012 bits in a hard drive. Let’s claim that z is the number of bits in the “1” state, and w is the number of bits in the “0” state (such that z + w = 1012). You’re claiming that, for all possible values of z (0 <= z <= 1012), the state of the hard drive is indistinguishable?

Let’s make the claim a little easier to debunk. Let’s pick an arbitrary eight bits in the drive. You’re claiming that all of these are indistinguishable:

0000 0000
0100 0001
0101 0101
0111 1111
1111 1111

That’s just silly. If interpreted as numbers, you’re looking at:
0, 65, 85, 127, and (either 255 or -1, depending on how you interpret the encoding). If interpreted as ASCII values, you’ve got the NUL character, the letter “A”, the letter “U”, the DEL character.

And so on and so on. To call these “identical” strains the imagination. Are they all identically-sized? Sure. Do they contain identical data? Nope. Are they interpreted identically? Nope.

If the FBI is looking for information on my hard drive, and all that they find is either all zeroes, or all ones. They would conclude that it contains no information.

Actually, they would conclude something else entirely: they’d conclude that you did a good job of wiping your drive clean in an attempt to hide information.

But the operative point here, is that reality as you perceive it, consists of patterns, and those patterns are essentially information. Remove the patterns, and reality ceases to exist.

Close. Not quite, but close. Again, you’re conflating “reality” with “perception”. So, the correct conclusion would be “remove the patterns, and the perception ceases to exist.” You wouldn’t have changed reality – just the way you interpret it.

Thus, two extremes can be functionally identical.

Nope. Again: they can lead you to an identical perception (which might be “there’s no information here” or “someone’s attempting obstruction of justice”), but they aren’t the same thing at all.

 

[lelinator]

I still think you’re not making sense here.

Since the concept seems to be too difficult for you, let me see if I can simplify it.

Which of the following two squares contains more information?

I hope the fact that they’re not black and white won’t throw you off. But white on white doesn’t show up real well.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[HarryStotle]

True, but it’s also true that a hard drive that contains all zeroes, and a hard drive that contains all ones, both contain the same amount of information. On that basis I can argue that under certain conditions, absolutely nothing, and absolutely everything will in some sense be indistinguishable. Whether that applies to the necessary cause or not, depends upon the nature of the necessary cause.

You could argue that, but it would be a horrible argument because you want to completely ignore the capacity of the drive to carry that information, as if the form of the drive does not involve any information at all in terms of its construction and implementation.

What we don’t have when the drive is all zeroes is “absolutely nothing.” Neither is the mere quality of containing all ones absolutely everything.

The number zero is hardly the same thing as the philosophical concept of nothing. Zero would describe the absence of a quantity, not an ontological state of being.

Likewise, a material being black means there is an absence of colour in the material so all light is absorbed and not reflected. That does not imply there is no material.

And the FBI looking for information on your computer and finding all zeroes wouldn’t conclude there is “no information.” They might conclude you zeroed-out your drive and that might give them some information/evidence about your guilt. They would start looking for the cause of the drive being zeroed out and when that occurred. The hard drive, the volume headers on the drive, and the drive user are still out there and they are NOT nothing.

Sounds like you’ve been reading too much Lawrence Krauss and taking him far too literally.

 

[lelinator]

You could argue that, but it would be a horrible argument because you want to completely ignore the capacity of the drive to carry that information, as if the form of the drive does not involve any information at all in terms of its construction and implementation.

You do understand that it’s an analogy…right?

 

[HarryStotle]

Gorgias:

I still think you’re not making sense here.

Since the concept seems to be too difficult for you, let me see if I can simplify it.

Which of the following two squares contains more information?

I hope the fact that they’re not black and white won’t throw you off. But white on white doesn’t show up real well.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

In Java, the information for each would be about the same, something like:

public static Image getImageFromArray(int[] pixels, int width, int height) {
    BufferedImage image = new BufferedImage(width, height, BufferedImage.TYPE_INT_ARGB);
    WritableRaster raster = (WritableRaster) image.getData();
    System.out.println(pixels.length + " " + width + " " + height);
    raster.setPixels(0,0,width,height,pixels);
    return image;
}

public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
    JFrame jf = new JFrame();
    JLabel jl = new JLabel();

    int[] arrayimage = new int[784];
    for (int i = 0; i < 250; i++)
    {   for (int j = 0; j < 250; j++)
            arrayimage[i*250+j] = 0;
    }
    ImageIcon ii = new ImageIcon(getImageFromArray(arrayimage,250,250));
    jl.setIcon(ii);
    jf.add(jl);
    jf.pack();
    jf.setVisible(true);
}

Only the colour values would be different 255 = white, 0 = black

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

You could argue that, but it would be a horrible argument because you want to completely ignore the capacity of the drive to carry that information, as if the form of the drive does not involve any information at all in terms of its construction and implementation.

You do understand that it’s an analogy…right?

Not really. The analogy doesn’t exactly transpose properly.

You want to turn the absence of a quantifier into the philosophical concept of nothing as if one can be transposed holus-bolus to the other. An analogy recognizes that two things are alike in some respect or other, it doesn’t assume they are alike in every respect just because they are analogous.

 

[lelinator]

lelinator:

You do understand that it’s an analogy…right?

Not really.

Ah, so you don’t understand that it’s an analogy. My bad…I overestimated the audience that I was speaking to, from now on I’ll try to keep the analogies simpler for you.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

You could argue that, but it would be a horrible argument because you want to completely ignore the capacity of the drive to carry that information, as if the form of the drive does not involve any information at all in terms of its construction and implementation.

You do understand that it’s an analogy…right?

Technically, all ones on a drive and all zeroes on a drive are the same amount of information. So you couldn’t argue that, “If it’s blank, meaning it contains all zeroes, then it contains no information.”

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

lelinator:

You do understand that it’s an analogy…right?

Not really.

Ah, so you don’t understand that it’s an analogy. My bad…I overestimated the audience that I was speaking to, from now on I’ll try to keep the analogies simpler for you.

So you are ignoring the rest of my post, as if that is “nothing.” I see what you did just then.

Out of sight, out of mind.

What cognitive level is it where object permanence hasn’t been acquired yet?

It all makes sense, now.

Something and nothing are all the same. The ability to makes sense of symbols is just being acquired, so 0 and 1 are all too easily confused with nothing and everything.

Please do keep your analogies simpler for me.

 

[lelinator]

Please do keep your analogies simpler for me .

Trust me, they’re going to be very simple from now on…practically non-existent you might say.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Please do keep your analogies simpler for me .

Trust me, they’re going to be very simple from now on…practically non-existent you might say.

Some people think nothing (non-existence) is everything, so I suppose I am about to be showered with great manifestations of everything.

Sounds delightful. Can’t wait.

 

[Gorgias]

Which of the following two squares contains more information?

You’re moving the goalposts.

You didn’t claim “more” or “less” information – you claimed that the two were “functionally” identical. A grey square and a black square are not identical.

My bad…I overestimated the audience that I was speaking to, from now on I’ll try to keep the analogies simpler for you.

Nah. Just try to make them good analogies. That’ll go a long way…

Trust me, they’re going to be very simple from now on…practically non-existent you might say.

So… reading you say nothing sensible is functionally identical to not reading you say anything? Yeah… I can buy that.

 

[lelinator]

Well, first off, it’s not an amount . God isn’t physical, and therefore, we cannot measure Him as if He were quantitatively measurable in any way.

That much I gathered.

So, if we’re talking about God as “infinite”, it’s a qualitative assessment.

So trying not to use analogies, because we’re avoiding those at the moment. What do you mean when you say that God is qualitatively infinite?

 

[Gorgias]

What do you mean when you say that God is qualitatively infinite?

It speaks to Him as the quintessence of existence. He is existence and perfection itself.

 

[lelinator]

It speaks to Him as the quintessence of existence. He is existence and perfection itself.

It took me a while to track down this post.

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/t/how-did-god-become-all-powerful-pure-luck/580704/28?u=lelinator

If this is true. That even if all that exists is an inert lump, then that inert lump is all powerful. We can extrapolate from that that being existence itself isn’t necessarily saying very much. When you’re all that exists, you’re pretty much “infinite” by default. But that really doesn’t give me a definitive answer as to whether there’s anything other than being the essence of existence, that makes God infinite, rather than just the essence of all that happens to exist.