From First Cause to Jesus Christ

[IWantGod]

When you’re all that exists, you’re pretty much “ infinite ” by default.

I never said it that it is rational to conclude that the uncaused cause is an inert lump. I just said that if an inert lump was the uncaused cause then it would literally be existence and all the power that logically follows from being an inert lump.

 

[lelinator]

I never said it that it is rational to conclude that the uncaused cause is an inert lump. I just said that if an inert lump was the uncaused cause then it would literally be existence and all the power that logically follows from being an inert lump.

I thought that would stir you up. And yes, I got the meaning behind that post. But it does raise a question, if God is the essence of all that exists…how does that make Him any more infinite than that rock would be if it was all that existed?

 

[IWantGod]

I thought that would stir you up. And yes, I got the meaning behind that post. But it does raise a question, if God is the essence of all that exists…how does that make Him any more infinite than that rock would be if it was all that existed?

That which is finite by definition is obviously limited. And it makes no sense to say that the uncaused cause is limited in it’s act of reality.

So the conversation is a non-starter.

 

[lelinator]

That which is finite by definition is obviously limited.

But how do you define finite, because that inert lump would seem to be finite, even though it might be all that existed. So can we simply say that because something is all that exists it is by default unlimited. Wouldn’t that make the inert lump unlimited?

 

[IWantGod]

But how do you define finite, because that inert lump would seem to be finite, even though it might be all that existed. So can we simply say that because something is all that exists it is by default unlimited. Wouldn’t that make the inert lump unlimited?

It’s a contradiction. If something is unlimited in it’s act of reality you cannot at the same time define it as having finite dimensions, a finite act of reality. To have the fullness of reality is not simply to have the identity of existence, it also means means that It is not logically possible for it to be more. If the uncaused cause is a particular size then it could conceivably be bigger, but then why isn’t it bigger? You cannot just say that it is because that particular size is all that exists, because it doesn’t follow out of necessity. It’s arbitrary. That it happens to be any particular size is a brute fact.

Something that is finite is by it’'s very nature potentially infinite in some sense.

Another problem also arises and that is to with being a proportionate cause. If a particular size is the ontological standard as such that anything greater cannot in principle exist, then the uncaused cause can never create anything greater than itself in size. Thus uncaused cause cannot for example create that which is potentially infinite, and at the same time be only potentially infinite, because every effect is always potentially greater than the uncaused cause. Thus the potentially infinite cannot be the uncaused cause, because the cuase would have to be infinite to be proportionate to an effect that is potentially infinite, whether that would be to do with power, size, shape etc.

Thus it makes rational sense that the uncaused cause is not physical at all, is not a quantity; is not potentially infinite in any sense.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

It’s hyperbole. It isn’t “just an inert lump”. So, since existence is more than that, then when we say that God is omnipotent… we really are saying much.

When you’re all that exists, you’re pretty much “ infinite ” by default.

No, that doesn’t seem quite right. The last dinosaur wasn’t an “infinite” dinosaur. The first star wasn’t an “infinite” star.

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

The Catechism literally starts off with this sentence: “God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life.” The assertion there is that God is perfection and pure blessedness.

That’s the essence of existence itself – perfection and blessedness (i.e., goodness). That’s what God is – completely, perfectly, and infinitely.

 

[mardo225]

I want to thank everyone for working through this thread. I believe we might be able to bring it to a close. I’d like to summarize as follows and elicit your thoughts.

This allows us to start evangelization on a good footing:

1. An infinitely good and wise God made the world. (Objections? See the logic given above).
2. The infinitely good, wise God endowed us with the ability to reason, so we could understand how the world works and to infer from the effects (a good world made according to reason) to the cause (the infinitely good and wise God).
3. Our reason infers that the infinitely good, wise God could have a reason to make us; beings that can appreciate what the infinitely good, wise God made. So we have some reason to believe we were placed in this world for a purpose. But what could that purpose be?
4. Here’s as far as our reason can take us.

“Oh Darn, I wish we could learn more about this cool God who is both infinitely good and wise and might have made us for some purpose. Hey look! Here’s this book called the Bible…!”

Truth leading to more truth, leading to Source of the Truth.
Light, leading to more light, leading to the Source of Light.

Your thoughts? And again, thanks to all who were involved in this thread.
Marty