From First Cause to Jesus Christ

[mardo225]

Hi, I’m new to the forum, so please excuse me if this topic has already been discussed ad nauseam. I find that it’s relatively easy to get someone to acknowledge a First Cause (FC), but there it stops. They argue, 'Just because there is a First Cause doesn’t mean anything to us. It could have made us and then walked away." In fact, Aristotle thought the same thing. Aristotle also reasoned there must be a First Cause, but saw no reason to worship it.

So can one take the FC argument farther and reason that the FC could or even should have qualities like love and concern for its creation? My argument formulates something like:

1. A FC exists. A FC is infinite being, it lacks nothing that can exist.
2. By definition the FC knows everything about us and what we need to thrive.
3. Besides the physical basics, we need love to thrive.
4. If the FC made us, then walked away, it appears the FC has a lack of love. But that contradicts #1.
5. So we have some grounds for believing the FC should also love us.

So far that is deductive. Then the argument moves to more inductive, trying to provide evidence to support a degree of belief:

Oh look! Here’s this book called the Bible that comports very well with what we can reason about the FC! (I’m making no claims about divine authorship or anything at this point, only that it aligns with what we’ve already reasoned about the FC.) And here’s this person called Jesus Christ who seems to know an awful lot about the FC. Let’s see what He has to say…"

I’m trying to establish that there is a rational basis to listen to Jesus because what He says aligns with our reasoned approach to the FC. Jesus picks up where our reason takes us, but where reason can go no further on its own.

Thanks for taking the time to read this thread. I appreciate any holes you can knock in it or modifications you could add.

Marty

 

[Gorgias]

They argue, 'Just because there is a First Cause doesn’t mean anything to us. It could have made us and then walked away."

Aquinas would argue that a First Cause needs to be a sustaining cause, so “walking away” doesn’t work.

• By definition the FC knows everything about us and what we need to thrive.

This doesn’t imply that the FC gives us these things, though, does it?

Oh look! Here’s this book called the Bible that comports very well with what we can reason about the FC! (I’m making no claims about divine authorship or anything at this point, only that it aligns with what we’ve already reasoned about the FC.)

Correlation and causation, though, right?

 

[po18guy]

Welcome!

Jesus Christ is First Cause.

 

[IWantGod]

1. A FC exists. A FC is infinite being, it lacks nothing that can exist.
2. By definition the FC knows everything about us and what we need to thrive.
3. Besides the physical basics, we need love to thrive.
4. If the FC made us, then walked away, it appears the FC has a lack of love. But that contradicts #1.
5. So we have some grounds for believing the FC should also love us.

So far that is deductive. Then the argument moves to more inductive, trying to provide evidence to support a degree of belief:

Oh look! Here’s this book called the Bible that comports very well with what we can reason about the FC! (I’m making no claims about divine authorship or anything at this point, only that it aligns with what we’ve already reasoned about the FC.) And here’s this person called Jesus Christ who seems to know an awful lot about the FC. Let’s see what He has to say…"

I’m trying to establish that there is a rational basis to listen to Jesus because what He says aligns with our reasoned approach to the FC. Jesus picks up where our reason takes us, but where reason can go no further on its own.

Thanks for taking the time to read this thread. I appreciate any holes you can knock in it or modifications you could add.

Marty

I see nothing wrong with your argument.

One can say…

1. The FC lacks nothing and needs nothing.
2. The creative act of the FC has no ulterior motive (creation is not done out of desire or a lack of something)
3. The act of creation is a gratuitous act.
4. The FC is sharing it’s act of reality and sustaining the act of creation in existence.
5. Because number 4 is true it cannot be said that the FC is indifferent to the existence of creation because creation cannot exist by itself without the continued sustenance of the FC.

Conclusion: Because the FC lacks nothing, has no limitations, has no material desires, has no ulterior motives, is gratuitous in it’s act of creation, is not indifferent insomuch as it is sharing and sustaining existence, because of these things creation only makes sense if it is done out of love and for a purpose.

 

[Gorgias]

Jesus Christ is First Cause.

Well… be careful with that argument. If you’re talking about the incarnate Son of God, then He came into existence around 2000 years ago.

If you simply mean the second person of God (the “Logos”), then He – as God – is eternal.

 

[IWantGod]

Just because there is a First Cause doesn’t mean anything to us. It could have made us and then walked away." In fact, Aristotle thought the same thing.

Where Aquinas shines is when he makes the esse and essence distinction. It’s on this foundation that Aquinas’s is able to infer the absolute dependency of creation on the first cause.

From Aquinas’s point of view it makes no sense to conceive of God as a being that creates and walks away, because as soon as that happens creation ceases to be.

 

[po18guy]

Your second statement is correct and consistent.

 

[Thom18]

The argument, there is a first cause, asserts nothing more than that a first cause exists. In order to debate the nature of the first cause, a new line of argumentation needs to be opened.

For example, I know of the existence of a group of people I saw today. Therefore, I can say, these persons exists. However, I know nothing about their personalities, and without speaking to them, I can only make assumptions. “I saw them in the bookstore, so they must like books”, sounds like a reasonable enough assumption to make. However, they would have to reveal their qualities to me in order to confirm or deny my hypotheses. This could happen via direct revelation, where they tell me about themselves, or through indirect revelation, where I reach certain broad conclusions with what little information is available.

With indirect revelation, I can say with certainty that they had some business in the bookstore. However, this store sells books, games, DVDs and music, and also has an attached coffeehouse. I couldn’t see if they were holding anything, and they were talking amongst themselves at the time rather than browsing, so I can’t make any conclusion besides they had some sort of business there.

Via direct revelation, they would be able to tell me that they were waiting for one of their friends who’d wanted to do some Christmas shopping or whatever their business there was. Whether they tell me or not depends on how willing they are to share that information. Whether they tell me or not depends on if they feel a need to share it. Whether they tell me or not depends on if they feel I should know for some reason.

As far as the first cause is concerned, there are some things which we can know just via their Creation. It sustains life, so life was either directly willed by them, or it was indirectly willed. We can also know that the first cause is not reliant on anything it created for its continued existence. These things are known indirectly.

Some things we just can’t know in this way. We wouldn’t know that God is a communion of persons if He didn’t tell us. We wouldn’t know that He took on human flesh if He didn’t let us know. We wouldn’t know that He died for us (or why He died for us) if He didn’t tell us. Perhaps we wouldn’t know why we ought to worship Him if he didn’t tell us, but since false religions also have the idea of worship, it stands to reason that this is also known via indirect means.

 

[neophyte]

That the First Cause exists can be known through reason, as can be many things about its nature. Many more things about it can only be known if it tells us, such as its purpose in creating us.

That the First Cause has entered time and space to communicate with us can also be known through reason, by examining the evidence of history. This is what leads me to conclude that Jesus is the First Cause, and that he established the Catholic Church.

 

[mardo225]

Yes, thank you and everyone for all of your very helpful replies. If I can try to encapsulate them:

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

Again, let me explain the problem and purpose here:

1. There seems to be a disconnect between knowing a FC exists and connecting the FC to Jesus.
2. I want to show that if you continue to follow reason, you will find evidences and a reason to believe in a good-natured or benevolent FC.
3. The Bible then becomes the continuation and culmination of reasoning. In fact, we could argue that the existence of the Bible is yet another evidence of a benevolent FC. And the incarnation of Jesus is the best evidence of all of a benevolent FC!

My goal is that someone can use any excuse or reason for not wanting to acknowledge God, except reason itself. Because reason will take you towards the benevolent FC (Jesus).

Can you please comment/improve on this line of argument? Thank you all so much for your contributions to this discussion.

 

[MarkRome]

Might I suggest you read JPII’s encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason).

Reason alone cannot get you to a knowledge of the Trinity. That’s why we have revelation.

 

[mardo225]

Thank you, I will.

 

[lelinator]

1. This infers that it wants us to exist here and now, so its not ‘walking away’ as Aristotle supposed…

This implies both that the FC is conscious, which hasn’t been established. And that it can “want” something in preference to something else. It has desires.

The alternative is that it simply does what it does, because of what it is, without any conscious awareness of what it’s doing, or any desire to do it.

And since its already Infinite, it gains nothing by creating us, so we can infer that our creation is ‘free’ with no strings attached…

And since it’s infinite, it has no choice in what it does or doesn’t create. For it to not do something, which it’s capable of doing, would be a limitation of its infinite nature. What it does, it does out of a necessary consequence of what it is. It has no choice.

We exist in an universe finely tuned to allow us to exist…

Which is easily explained by something as simple as the anthropomorphic principle. No omniscient/conscious designer required. The necessary cause simply does what it does, because of what it is. To envision some underlying purpose, is to envision something that’s not there.

We have grounds for a reasonable belief that the FC is concerned and cares for us.

You have no such grounds at all. You’re simply seeing what you’re predisposed to see. You’ve started with a conclusion, and then structured an argument to support that conclusion.

Oh look! Here is a book that comports very well with what we can reason about the FC…

Except that your reasoning is extremely flawed. So what you actually have is a book that contains your conclusion, and an argument that you’ve created to reach that conclusion.

So if you were to present this argument to a skeptic, they would very politely try not to laugh in your face.

 

[Gorgias]

Your second statement is correct and consistent.

As is the first.

 

[Gorgias]

And since it’s infinite, it has no choice in what it does or doesn’t create. For it to not do something, which it’s capable of doing, would be a limitation of its infinite nature.

Now you’re the one with unreasonable implications!

An infinite nature is not constrained by anything, let alone its own nature… or else it isn’t infinite! I’m afraid that you’re not making sense here.

You have no such grounds at all. You’re simply seeing what you’re predisposed to see. You’ve started with a conclusion, and then structured an argument to support that conclusion.

And your argument is different, how, again?

 

[mardo225]

Hi lelinator, Thanks for the replies. I appreciate any counter evidences to this line of reasoning. Some thoughts on your replies:

To imply the FC has no choice in what it does implies there is something greater than the FC that the FC must obey. We’ve established there can be nothing greater than the FC, so it is free to create or not to create.

The fact that there are things that can question their own existence is caused by a universe that is finely tuned to allow life (any kind of life) to occur/evolve, etc. We are the effect of a finely tuned universe, so the anthropomorphic principle can’t be used as an explanation. It is simply a tautology. See Anthropic principle in Wikipedia, Reception & Controversies.

Thanks again.
Marty

 

[mardo225]

Your other objection, that I’m simply seeing what I’m disposed to make, is a fair objection. I can only, as anyone else, try to make what evidences I see into a coherent line of thought. It will never be conclusive, but the evidences, along with whatever counter evidences there are, will form some degree of belief. At some point I have to choose what to believe.

 

[lelinator]

An infinite nature is not constrained by anything, let alone its own nature… or else it isn’t infinite! I’m afraid that you’re not making sense here.

Understanding the nature of the infinite is extremely difficult, if not impossible. In fact, it could be argued that the infinite, and nothing, are identical. Thus neither of them can exist.

Now I’m sure that most of the people here are going to think that that’s absolutely delusional. Infinity is the antithesis of nothing, it can’t possibly be identical to nothing.

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.

Imagine a hard drive that contains ones and zeroes. If it’s blank, meaning it contains all zeroes, then it contains no information. If we start to add ones, we begin to add information. But if we continue to add ones, until the hard drive contains only ones, then again it contains no information. So a hard drive that’s empty contains the same amount of information as a hard drive that’s full.

Or one could consider it as Penrose does in CCC. The universe begins with low entropy, and then entropy inevitably increases until it reaches its maximum. At which point it’s identical to the low entropy universe that you began with.

Thus it could be argued that nothing, and infinity are identical. To assume that they’re not, is to assume an understanding of the nature of reality that you simply don’t have.

 

[Freddy]

Yes, thank you and everyone for all of your very helpful replies. If I can try to encapsulate them:

1. A FC exists, but we know nothing of its nature. But we can infer…
2. That since it sustains us now in existence…

That’s an assumption.

 

[Rhubarb]

So I have issues with 1, 2, 4, and therefor 5. But I won’t go into that right now.

Because the bigger issue is that other religious texts also comport with what you’ve described. How does one pick one over the others.