God isn't the First Cause

[clem456]

Forgive me for the slow response, but I prefer a discussion that proceeds at a somewhat more leisurely pace, and so I will from time to time step aside briefly to allow for a moment of reflection.

I would like to point out what seems to be the misunderstanding created by the OP. It’s often assumed that Aquinas’ Second Way refers to a line of causation that’s temporal in nature, and one is perfectly justified in interpreting it that way. But its intention was also to argue for a sustaining cause. A cause that while coincidental in time, is none-the-less first in the order of causes. So while a causal chain can be thought of as temporal in nature, it can also be thought of as hierarchical in nature. One in which causes don’t precede each other in time, but rather in order.

So when I argue that consciousness can’t be the first cause, I’m not arguing that it’s preceded in time by something else, I’m arguing that it’s preceded in order by something else. And since its preceded in order, it can’t be Aquinas’ first cause.

Secondary to this argument is the argument that God can be defined by one simple statement “I am, that I am”. His existence and His essence are one and the same. If one begins to add attributes to God, then His existence, and His essence are different. Attributes are those things that we use to define the essence of something. God’s essence can only be defined by one attribute…He exists. To describe Him in any other way is to differentiate between His essence and His existence.

Then don’t add attributes.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Then don’t add attributes.

And what attribute do you believe that I’ve added to God? And please, please, please don’t say time, or I think I’ll pull my hair out in frustration.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Basically the argument boils down to this…consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. It requires the existence of coherent patterns of thought, and they require the existence of something in which to form those coherent patterns of thought. Logically, consciousness can’t create the source from which it arises. It can’t be the cause of itself. Therefore consciousness must have emerged from something else. Some underlying source. Even if everything is all in my mind, my mind is dependent for it’s existence on something more primary than itself.

This argument explains one of the reasons as to why I’m a soft solipsist instead of a hard solipsist. But curiously, this argument also applies to God, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being. Consciousness can’t give rise to itself. It must emerge from something which is itself, not conscious.

Therefore, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being, then God can’t be the first cause. He can’t cause Himself. There may indeed be a first, uncaused cause, but it’s not conscious. It seems to me therefore, that you’re left with two choices, either God isn’t conscious, or God isn’t the first cause.

That’s a very strange argument. You seem to be arguing about our experience of human, embodied consciousness, but nobody would say that God is like this. His consciousness isn’t dependent on pre-existing matter, either logically or temporally, or emergent.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

Attributes are those properties which things possess. People and things have many attributes. God has but one, He exists. Now you can try to use semantics to ascribe more attributes to God, but saying that God IS consciousness, is like saying that God IS human.

Semantics can be hugely important, especially talking online; it’s all we have to communicate meaning! I don’t think it’s small potatoes to stress the traditional understanding that God has not even one attribute. Again, He doesn’t possess existence, He is existence.
Your last sentence draws attention to an important point:

I exist… Surely though there’s a difference between my existence and God’s. My existence is imperfect and limited. But what do you think the nature of the existence of the source of all things would be like? Above our heads, sure. A good answer would be we can’t know.
But don’t we at least have to say it’s all-encompassing? In other words, the existence of all things can be derived from it, perfect existence Himself?

And I think saying that God’s essence encompasses perfect consciousness or awareness–after all these are real creations–is enough to say that God is conscious and aware in any real sense of the words, even perhaps in the realest sense of the words. Your conviction depends on there being a difference between possessing consciousness and being conscious, and finds support in the idea that Christians and theologians have a clear possible motive for humanizing God. But now I’m going to become a hypocrite and say you’re confusing yourself with semantics: God’s reality must encompass the reality of consciousness… period. I would say trying to draw enough of a semantic distinction between God’s being encompassing consciousness and God possessing consciousness to say that God isn’t conscious is risky business at best.
And remember also you’re flying in the face of Christian thinkers much greater than yourself, motive or no. A little shameless argument from authority is OK at times, I think.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Semantics can be hugely important, especially talking online; it’s all we have to communicate meaning! I don’t think it’s small potatoes to stress the traditional understanding that God has not even one attribute. Again, He doesn’t possess existence, He is existence.

I agree that semantics are important, especially as it applies to this discussion. So please, if I should at any time misspeak, feel free to point it out.

That’s a very strange argument.

If the argument seems strange it’s no doubt because I presented it poorly. None-the-less there seem to be three basic objections to it. One is that I fail to take into account that God exists outside of time. The second is that I’m confusing God’s consciousness with mans’ consciousness. And the third objection concerns the difference between our possessing an attribute, and God’s being that attribute.

In this post I’ll do my best to address each of these objections.

Aquinas’ argument for a first cause isn’t primarily an argument for a temporal chain of cause and effect. He was attempting to show that in every moment in time there must be a sustaining cause. Think of it as a chain suspended from the ceiling. Each link in the chain is held in place by the link above it. Each contingent upon the preceding link. But such a chain of causes can’t go on forever, and so there must be a first cause. A first link in the chain. It’s in this sense of the argument that I maintain that a conscious God can’t be the first cause, because consciousness is contingent upon something else. So although it might appear as though I’ve overlooked the fact that God exists outside of time, I really haven’t. This isn’t an argument that’s built upon a temporal chain of cause and effect. It’s an argument that simply maintains that consciousness is contingent upon an underlying cause.

Which brings me to the second objection, that God’s consciousness isn’t like my consciousness. It isn’t contingent upon something else.

Again, let me remind everyone that I’m a solipsist, which means that I don’t begin from a position of believing that my mind is necessarily contingent upon a physical brain. In fact I don’t assume that my mind is contingent upon anything at all. I reason that it is, and I believe that it is, but I don’t assume that it is.

But the reason that I believe that my consciousness is contingent upon something else, is the very same reason that I believe that the first cause isn’t conscious. Because consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. It arises from something else. And to understand what that something else is, you have to consider what it means when you say that God IS.

When I look at the world around me, it’s composed of many different attributes in varying degrees of expression. Each element of the world carries with it its own unique mixture of attributes. And it’s the nuances in the degrees of expression that creates everything that I see around me. Light and dark, hot and cold, good and evil, the world is born of the nuances to be found in things. But there is no light without darkness. No hot without cold. No good without evil. For these are relative terms. They gain their essence only in relationship to their absence. But in God there is no such absence. And thus such terms have no meaning. Which is why all that can be said about God, is what He Himself said to Moses, “I am, that I am”. But the fullness of God finds its expression in the world. Is made manifest in the nuances. And from these nuances are born many wondrous things, including my ability to ponder the existence of God. I wonder, and hope, and grieve, and pray, because of the nuances. I’m conscious, because of the nuances. Nuances that God doesn’t have, but which are made manifest in the world, and in me.

And thus I argue that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, it’s born of nuances, and as such, isn’t an attribute of the first cause, but finds its source there. I’m not questioning the idea that God Is, or even that He’s the first cause. I’m questioning your conception of God. Surely you understand that as a solipsist I question everything. For of what value are beliefs that haven’t been questioned.

 

[yppop]

Consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain; it is a manifestation of the spiritual substance I refer to as nous. The nous along with the language instinct of the brain form the mind. Only humans have minds, but all metazoa have consciousness because they all have nous. Nous is also the substance of God who is “consubstantial” ( the same substance) with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Nous is the substance from which the soul is formed, yes the soul is formed and identified as an individual and eternal entity. God is not a conscious being; God is Absolute Being, Pure Existence.
Yppop

 

[Gregory_Olson]

But the reason that I believe that my consciousness is contingent upon something else, is the very same reason that I believe that the first cause isn’t conscious. Because consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. It arises from something else. And to understand what that something else is, you have to consider what it means when you say that God IS.

But everything we know and understand is contingent upon something else, including being. Because as far as we know being is an emergent phenomenon–something being is always contingent upon something else–couldn’t we by the exact same argument you’re using say God isn’t? It’s already been established that Being Himself breaks the rule with regard to contingency or causality; since consciousness is also part of being, mustn’t we also say He is consciousness (in the Thomist sense)? Again, depending so totally on the assumption that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon in God (or rather NOT in God) just seems like such a terrible risk to me.

 

[Partinobodycula]

But everything we know and understand is contingent upon something else, including being. Because as far as we know being is an emergent phenomenon–something being is always contingent upon something else–couldn’t we by the exact same argument you’re using say God isn’t? It’s already been established that Being Himself breaks the rule with regard to contingency or causality; since consciousness is also part of being, mustn’t we also say He is consciousness (in the Thomist sense)? Again, depending so totally on the assumption that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon in God (or rather NOT in God) just seems like such a terrible risk to me.

The thing is, that I exist. Logically this means that something has always existed, because the very concept of “before” is meaningless without the existence of time. Just as the very concept of distance is meaningless without the existence of space. There’s nothing by which one can measure nothing. Not time. Not distance. Not anything. Now since nothing can never be measured, there’s no “time” in which nothing existed. Therefore, something has always existed.

And by like reasoning there can only ever be one first cause. Because in order to have two of something, you must have a means of differentiating between the two. They can’t be differentiated by nothing. Therefore they must be differentiated by something. Which holds true until you come to something which is so fundamental, that it can only be differentiated by existing, or not existing. Thus if there are two of them, one must exist, and the other one must not. Therefore the first cause, the first way of differentiating one thing from another, is that it exists.

Which is why I maintain that God’s only attribute, the only means by which He can be defined, is that He exists. From this one attribute arises all manner of attributes by which things can be differentiated. But they all share the very first one, they exist.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Again, let me remind everyone that I’m a solipsist, which means that I don’t begin from a position of believing that my mind is necessarily contingent upon a physical brain. In fact I don’t assume that my mind is contingent upon anything at all. I reason that it is, and I believe that it is, but I don’t assume that it is.

But the reason that I believe that my consciousness is contingent upon something else, is the very same reason that I believe that the first cause isn’t conscious. Because consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. It arises from something else. And to understand what that something else is, you have to consider what it means when you say that God IS.

Hi Partinobodycula, I’m still not sure how you argue for consciousness being an emergent phenomenon (arising from something else) if it isn’t contingent upon matter.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Hi Partinobodycula, I’m still not sure how you argue for consciousness being an emergent phenomenon (arising from something else) if it isn’t contingent upon matter.

As a solipsist I would point out that the substantiality of matter is for the most part a product of the conscious mind. Observation reveals that there’s very little if any real matter, in matter. In fact a solipsist would posit the possibility that there’s no such thing as matter at all. That it’s an illusion created by the conscious mind. And yet reason dictates that my consciousness couldn’t have given rise to itself, for such a concept is irrational. And it’s in the attempt to rationalize its own existence that consciousness creates everything that it sees around it. The material world is merely the inevitable byproduct of the conscious mind.

Now if one maintains the position that God is simply consciousness without a cause, then He must inevitably be faced with the exact same dilemma, where did I come from? The result of which should be a reality that looks surprisingly like this one.

Which leads to the possibility that I’m God. The only way out of this dilemma is to demonstrate that consciousness isn’t the first cause.

This is the entire purpose of this thread. To elicit arguments as to why consciousness can’t be the first cause, and why I’m not God.

 

[jonathan_hili]

As a solipsist I would point out that the substantiality of matter is for the most part a product of the conscious mind. Observation reveals that there’s very little if any real matter, in matter. In fact a solipsist would posit the possibility that there’s no such thing as matter at all. That it’s an illusion created by the conscious mind. And yet reason dictates that my consciousness couldn’t have given rise to itself, for such a concept is irrational. And it’s in the attempt to rationalize its own existence that consciousness creates everything that it sees around it. The material world is merely the inevitable byproduct of the conscious mind.

Now if one maintains the position that God is simply consciousness without a cause, then He must inevitably be faced with the exact same dilemma, where did I come from? The result of which should be a reality that looks surprisingly like this one.

Which leads to the possibility that I’m God. The only way out of this dilemma is to demonstrate that consciousness isn’t the first cause.

This is the entire purpose of this thread. To elicit arguments as to why consciousness can’t be the first cause, and why I’m not God.

But what if your consciousness always existed and never came to be? You might say that you were not aware of yourself always existing, which is a fair rejoinder, but then we can ask, what if God as consciousness always existed?

 

[Partinobodycula]

But what if your consciousness always existed and never came to be? You might say that you were not aware of yourself always existing, which is a fair rejoinder,

I would argue that this isn’t the correct way to think of it. It’s not that I’m unaware of having always existed, it’s that “always” is a meaningless concept, because time is a product of consciousness. Like everything else, it’s an illusion. I envision the universe as having existed for billions of years, and I for only a few, but it’s an illusion.

…but then we can ask, what if God as consciousness always existed?

But if we allow that consciousness can exist without a cause, then why should we invoke the existence of one consciousness in order to explain the existence of another one? What need is there of God if consciousness has no need of a cause? What do we gain by saying that God is like me, only better? As a solipsist I would submit that my consciousness is the reason that the world is the way it is. But although my consciousness explains why, it doesn’t explain how. And it’s in explaining how that one recognizes the need for God.

In the solipsistic explanation of reality one simple concept explains everything that I see around me. That one simple concept is this: the world is simply the result of the conscious mind attempting to rationalize the existence of itself. The capacity to understand that “I am”, leads inexorably to the questions of what I am, and where I came from. It’s in the struggle to answer these two questions that the mind creates everything that it sees around it.

Birth, death, inhumanity, and compassion are all the result of the mind attempting to rationalize the existence of itself. For it cannot conceive that it exists without a cause, and so it creates a reality in which it has one. But it can’t create just one cause, for every cause must itself have a cause, and so it creates another, and another. It creates an entire history of causes. But neither can the effect be greater than the cause, and so the cause of the conscious mind must itself be conscious. The mind creates others, like unto itself. Still such a chain of causes cannot be infinite, and so it conceives that each thing in its form, must have a beginning. Even consciousness, must have a beginning. But nothing can come from nothing, so for one thing to have a beginning, another must have an end. And thus the conscious mind creates birth and death. All in an effort to explain the existence of itself.

Reality begins with one simple concept, I am, and from that concept, emerges everything else. But there’s one question that solipsism doesn’t answer, for although solipsism may explain why consciousness creates what it does, it doesn’t explain how. This leaves open the need for something other than itself. Solipsism doesn’t preclude the existence of God. But the religions of the world may simply be the conscious mind’s attempt to express as best it can, the concept of God. The concept of that which explains what it is, and where it came from. Understandably I suppose, one of the ways in which it does this is by conceiving of a God that’s simply an idealized version of itself. Consciousness imagines a greater consciousness.

You believe that consciousness doesn’t require a cause. I believe that consciousness alone isn’t enough to create everything that I see around me, for it explains why, but it doesn’t explain how.

I’m afraid that in the end, these two questions may always remain unanswered, what am I, and where did I come from? Thus the best that we may be able to hope for doesn’t lie in understanding the nature of God, but in understanding the need for God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Therefore, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being, then God can’t be the first cause. He can’t cause Himself. There may indeed be a first, uncaused cause, but it’s not conscious. It seems to me therefore, that you’re left with two choices, either God isn’t conscious, or God isn’t the first cause.

In pure theory, which is all we can go by, there is no reason why a First Cause should not also be a Conscious Cause.

The mathematics of the universe very strongly suggests that all secondary causes relate to each other according to a mathematical system consciously imposed on them all.

 

[Partinobodycula]

In pure theory, which is all we can go by, there is no reason why a First Cause should not also be a Conscious Cause.

As they say, anything is possible for he who won’t listen to reason, but the entire point of Aquinas’ Five ways is that by reason alone one can demonstrate both the nature and the existence of God. However, reason is constrained by the veracity of the information to which one applies it. As such there are things that may have seemed perfectly reasonable in Aquinas’ day, that none-the-less push the envelope of credulity in ours.

A simple example of this is heat. Physicsclassroom.com defines heat as, “A measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a sample of matter, expressed in terms of units or degrees designated on a standard scale.” Using such a definition of heat, reason would seem to dictate that it’s impossible for something which is neither material, nor in motion, to possess kinetic energy. The two things specifically required for heat are the exact two things that God doesn’t possess.

The problem is that people insist upon projecting the emergent phenomena of the creation, unto the creator. The one attribute that we should ascribe to God is the one that He affirmed to Moses, “I am, that I am”. He exists. This is the one attribute that He possesses, and which we cannot possibly ascribe to anything else. Heat we can ascribe to matter and motion, consciousness to the brain. But existence we can only ascribe to God. From existence arises everything else, and thus God can be said to be the source of all. But it’s a mistake to think of God as simply an idealized version of ourselves. The proper thing to do is to ascribe to God the one attribute which cannot be explained in any other way, we exist.

There are things that science can explain today, like heat. And there are things that science may explain tomorrow, like consciousness. But the one thing that science will likely never explain, is existence. The simplest, most basic attribute of all, we exist. This we ascribe to God.

P.S. Gregory Olson, I’m aware of the semantic error, but I couldn’t help myself.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think that when Aquinas attribute First Cause to the power of God he is being eminently reasonable by modern standards. It’s clear from the following that scientists are baffled by what happened before the Big Bang. But they are not baffled by the fact that a Big Bang did occur and at one point the universe began to exist.

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If God is not the first cause, there is no first cause. Then good luck proving that!

 

[Partinobodycula]

If God is not the first cause, there is no first cause. Then good luck proving that!

This thread really isn’t about the existence of a first cause, it’s about the nature of the first cause. Aquinas was right in his Second Way, that there must be a first cause. But his error lies more in the Fourth Way, for he fails to recognize the existence of emergent phenomena. That the complex can arise from the very simple. And so he ascribes to the Creator, the attributes of the creation. He ascribes to the simple, the attributes of the complex.

To say that God is consciousness, isn’t to say that God is conscious. Just as to say that God is heat, isn’t to say that God is hot. But to say that God is…is to say that God is. And that is the essence of God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But his error lies more in the Fourth Way, for he fails to recognize the existence of emergent phenomena. That the complex can arise from the very simple. And so he ascribes to the Creator, the attributes of the creation. He ascribes to the simple, the attributes of the complex.

Even Einstein attributed intelligence to God. What is intelligence if it is not complex?

Are you saying that God has no intellect? No love? No mercy? No justice? That these are all emergent traits of Creation but that they are not in Him?

If you are a Christian you must believe that God made us in his image and likeness.

We are not simple because God is not so simple as you are trying to make out.