How do I respond to this argument?

[hicetnunc]

Thank you for your comments WillP. I think I have responded to many of these points in my post to Sair. However, please allow me to make an observation about this new point:

I also think it is counter intuitive to accept the notion that the ultimate principle of the universe requires worship, has a plan for redemption or keeps a score of who’s been to Mass and tithes 10 percent to the Church, or, who is influenced or placated by prayers and devotion. Again this smacks of the pagan practices which Christianity came to replace in the third or fourth century.

First of all, I can’t see how this figures into the argument…it seems like a bit of a red herring, since we’ve been discussing cosmological/metaphysical arguments for the First Cause. But I’m very willing to discuss it if you could clarify a couple of things for me:

What is your basis for claiming that God requires worship is counter intuitive? In order to justify such a claim, you would first have to demonstrate that the non-worship of God is intuitive. What would establish such a claim as being intuitive? Aristotle and Aquinas define intuition as non-discursive, immediate intellectual apprehension. Could you explain how the non-worship of God qualifies as an intuitive apprehension?

I don’t understand why God’s having “a plan for redemption” is a sticking point for you. Is there anything in the nature of a First Cause or necessary being which would obviate the possibility of a redemptive plan? If so, please explain.

As for Christianity replacing pagan worship, it wasn’t on account of the practice of prayer and devotion which has been a common feature of human cosmic consciousness throughout time and culture.

Thanks for taking the time to read my questions.

All the best,

Steve

 

[Viviphilia]

The universe does not contain within itself the reason for its own existence, and therefore we must look for further causes to explain the universe.

I don’t follow how you made that conclusion.

God, St Thomas tells us, is “ipsum esse subsistens”: that is, the source of His own existence. If there was no source of existence, nothing would exist.

The universe could just as easily be the source of its own existence.

 

[Viviphilia]

The Universe did have a beginning, so it does need to have a cause.

I don’t see how you got to the conlcusion that the universe did have a beginning. It could have always existed for all I know.

 

[WillP]

Thank you for your comments WillP. I think I have responded to many of these points in my post to Sair. However, please allow me to make an observation about this new point:

First of all, I can’t see how this figures into the argument…it seems like a bit of a red herring, since we’ve been discussing cosmological/metaphysical arguments for the First Cause. But I’m very willing to discuss it if you could clarify a couple of things for me:

What is your basis for claiming that God requires worship is counter intuitive? In order to justify such a claim, you would first have to demonstrate that the non-worship of God is intuitive. What would establish such a claim as being intuitive? Aristotle and Aquinas define intuition as non-discursive, immediate intellectual apprehension. Could you explain how the non-worship of God qualifies as an intuitive apprehension?

I don’t understand why God’s having “a plan for redemption” is a sticking point for you. Is there anything in the nature of a First Cause or necessary being which would obviate the possibility of a redemptive plan? If so, please explain.

As for Christianity replacing pagan worship, it wasn’t on account of the practice of prayer and devotion which has been a common feature of human cosmic consciousness throughout time and culture.

Thanks for taking the time to read my questions.

All the best,

Steve

My point simply is that your cosmological argument arguably supports the proposition that there must be a first cause or untimate principle. Certainly, in the abstract, this proposition has appeal. However, I note that some respected scientists reason that this is not necessarily so (Lawrence Krauss, for example).

Nonetheless, that there may be an ultimate principle, as I said, is not an unreasonable position. Thus, having accepted, for the sake of this discussion, that it is so, then why do we “personify” this ultimate principle by adding such anthromorphic “toppings” as love, needs or expectations for devotion, worship, plus the other add-on’s like redemptive objectives?

If, though, you merely posit that there is some ultimate defining principle which makes reality real then I don’t find that implausable. Not something I am really convinced of, but, nonetheless, plausable. The difficulty, which I hope I am now clear concerning, is when one attempts to extropolate off of this plausable proposition and endow this ultimate reality with personhood, investing it with plans, desires, motivations and all the elements which makes up the bulk of religion,.

 

[Taestron]

My point simply is that your cosmological argument arguably supports the proposition that there must be a first cause or untimate principle. Certainly, in the abstract, this proposition has appeal. However, I note that some respected scientists reason that this is not necessarily so (Lawrence Krauss, for example).

Nonetheless, that there may be an ultimate principle, as I said, is not an unreasonable position. Thus, having accepted, for the sake of this discussion, that it is so, then why do we “personify” this ultimate principle by adding such anthromorphic “toppings” as love, needs or expectations for devotion, worship, plus the other add-on’s like redemptive objectives?

If, though, you merely posit that there is some ultimate defining principle which makes reality real then I don’t find that implausable. Not something I am really convinced of, but, nonetheless, plausable. The difficulty, which I hope I am now clear concerning, is when one attempts to extropolate off of this plausable proposition and endow this ultimate reality with personhood, investing it with plans, desires, motivations and all the elements which makes up the bulk of religion,.

Well, i have not read all of Aquinas as it seems hicetnunc has, but perhaps the some justification is in the passages he provided for viewing the ultimate principle as a person. However, I would assert that there is evidence to suggest that the ultimate principle has some sort of will. Arguments against this (that I have heard) tend to go something like this: “for all you know it is possible for the universe to have existed for all time.” And for all I know, it is possible, for I do not understand complex mathematics and physics. However, I do know that forces which have been exerted by things with wills tend to be more creative than mindless forces. Wind can knock down a tree, but a carpenter can fell a tree and use it to build a house. The watchmaker argument might not prove the existence of a god who is a person, but it gives evidence for it.

 

[Needtostop]

Sair:

I am wondering what you think of this argument

All things exist in either a state of potential change or actualized change. But a being in a potential state has to be caused in order to reach an actualized state by something outside of itself in order to reach an actualized state, except if everything is in some potential state all change must ultimately lead back to something already in a fully actualized state. This changeless and fully actualized being we call God.

What???

 

[andremiguel]

Sair:

I am wondering what you think of this argument

All things exist in either a state of potential change or actualized change. But a being in a potential state has to be caused in order to reach an actualized state by something outside of itself in order to reach an actualized state, except if everything is in some potential state all change must ultimately lead back to something already in a fully actualized state. This changeless and fully actualized being we call God.

Your argument is fine.
I would say in another way. Now suppose that you have the equation of the Universe. You understand the whole Universe with that equation.
Still, that equation DOES NOT create the Universe. You can have that equation in your hands and you cannot create a Universe with it.
To create the Universe you need the equation and Power. That is what only God can give.
I mean your argument is fine because Scientists think that if they reach the magical formula, they reach the understanding of the Universe. Right. But you need Power to Sustain it.

 

[hicetnunc]

I don’t follow how you made that conclusion.

The universe could just as easily be the source of its own existence.

Hello Viviphilia; thank you for your comments.

The universe does not contain the reason for its own existence because there is no intrinsic principle in it which necessitates its existence. In other words, the universe might not have existed and in fact did not exist.

The universe could not be the source of its own existence since it would then have to be both its own cause and its own effect. But if it were simultaneously cause and effect, there would be no distinction betwene these two operations. Nothing can bring itself into existence, since in order for a thing to be the cause of its own existence, it would have to pre-exist itself, which is illogical. Since nothing can be the efficient cause of itself we must look for a cause elsewhere.

Hope this helps clarify my point.
All the best,
Steve

 

[SwissGuard25]

“i dont understand why you think your god is real. you’re saying its impossible for the universe to have existed always but its perfectly possible for an all powerful all knowing being that apparently is everywhere at once to always exist? doesnt quite add up to me.”

God has always been.

Very confusing for the human brain I know, but God’s knowledge encompasses all. His understanding is better than ours

 

[WillP]

However, I do know that forces which have been exerted by things with wills tend to be more creative than mindless forces. Wind can knock down a tree, but a carpenter can fell a tree and use it to build a house. The watchmaker argument might not prove the existence of a god who is a person, but it gives evidence for it.

the ultimate principle in the universe being “Will”? This reminds me of a German philosopher I read about whern I was a sophomore in college. That was Arthur Schopenhauer who was regarded as very dark and pessimistic in his worldview construct. His famous work was “World as Will and Representation”. In it he claimed that existence is fundamentally what we recognize as our will. He concluded that our emotional, physical, and sexual desires can never be fully satisfied. Hence, we exist in a state of constant need and desire. His antedote was to pursue the ascetic ( Vedanta, Buddhism and the Church Fathers of early Christianity) in order to attain liberation.

I am sure that is not what you meant, but, description of a creative will reminds me of Authur S’s work.

Regardless, when we start mixing personalities into our paridigms of “ultimate principles of existence” i think we become very much like the ancients who thought that thunder was a guy called “Thor” . It sounds very pagan to me.

 

[Partinobodycula]

How do I respond to this argument?

You have received many good answers to your question, but I would just like to add one simple insight.

You respond to this argument humbly, patiently, and with understanding. Realizing that the ultimate reason for your belief, is faith, and that this is something that you cannot give him. There is no sin in admitting this. The evidence for your beliefs will likely not persuade him, but the evidence of your faith may, and these are humility, patience, understanding, and love. Hopefully you have these in abundance, if not, then consider this an opportunity to acquire them.
.

 

[hicetnunc]

The difficulty, which I hope I am now clear concerning, is when one attempts to extropolate off of this plausable proposition and endow this ultimate reality with personhood, investing it with plans, desires, motivations and all the elements which makes up the bulk of religion,.

Hil WillP, thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions and yes, your position is much clearer now to me. I totally understand where you’re coming from. In fact, your position is not at all unreasonable and it’s true that many people eagerly make the leap from a Principle of existence to all manner of characteristics without taking the necessary steps to demonstrate why these additional features should or could be the case.

Enter Thomas Aquinas! Aquinas is very careful so as not to make these leaps, and works in stages from one premise to the next. His book 1 of the Summa Contra Gentiles is a systematic treatment of these steps.

In chapter 44 of Book 1, he attempts to demonstrate why the First Cause must be intelligent. His argument in a nutshell is that every effect bears some trace or likeness of its cause. Hence fire leaves burn marks, water leaves water stains, and so on. There is a correlation in other words between causes and effects. Now it is clear that a certain element of the universe is intelligent and rational–namely ourselves. A non intelligent cause cannot produce an intelligent effect because non-intelligence is a privation of intelligence. “Non-intelligence” in other words is already an intelligent concept, but ontologically is nothing. I am happy to explore this concept with you further if you’re interested.

I should add that Aquinas prefaces all his arguments with a key qaulification: these demonstrations (he does not call them proofs in our contemporary understanding of the term proof) are aids to people of faith, to help them understand that belief in God is not irrational,as I think your own post allowed. Faith in God can never be produced by an argument but faith in God can be enriched by philosophy. God, whose essence is love, can only be experienced in the transcendence of love.

many thanks again for your post, which I enjoyed thinking about.

Best wishes,

Steve

 

[WillP]

Hil WillP, thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions and yes, your position is much clearer now to me. I totally understand where you’re coming from. In fact, your position is not at all unreasonable and it’s true that many people eagerly make the leap from a Principle of existence to all manner of characteristics without taking the necessary steps to demonstrate why these additional features should or could be the case.

Enter Thomas Aquinas! Aquinas is very careful so as not to make these leaps, and works in stages from one premise to the next. His book 1 of the Summa Contra Gentiles is a systematic treatment of these steps.

In chapter 44 of Book 1, he attempts to demonstrate why the First Cause must be intelligent. His argument in a nutshell is that every effect bears some trace or likeness of its cause. Hence fire leaves burn marks, water leaves water stains, and so on. There is a correlation in other words between causes and effects. Now it is clear that a certain element of the universe is intelligent and rational–namely ourselves. A non intelligent cause cannot produce an intelligent effect because non-intelligence is a privation of intelligence. “Non-intelligence” in other words is already an intelligent concept, but ontologically is nothing. I am happy to explore this concept with you further if you’re interested.

I should add that Aquinas prefaces all his arguments with a key qaulification: these demonstrations (he does not call them proofs in our contemporary understanding of the term proof) are aids to people of faith, to help them understand that belief in God is not irrational,as I think your own post allowed. Faith in God can never be produced by an argument but faith in God can be enriched by philosophy. God, whose essence is love, can only be experienced in the transcendence of love.

many thanks again for your post, which I enjoyed thinking about.

Best wishes,

Steve

I also would like to discuss this issue. What troubles me however is that this discussion will turn into a referrendum on Thomas which I think is unjustified in light of the centuries since his arguments and thinking has been formulated.

Certainly I know of Thomas’ work. Its been a time since my under grad days but Thomistic philosophy was part of the diet at the Jesuit university I graduated from. However, Thomas isn’t the culmination of philosophical thought.

Scroll ahead to a few centuries and enter Kant who convincingly argued that we can’t know reality (Things in themselves) because our minds receives only raw experience and structures the same by categories (cause and effect being one such category). Hence all we really “know” are as things appear (phenomenon ). Kant’s work and philosophy is of such magnitude that it can hardly be discussed by means of this mode of “e-mal chit chat” as we’re doing. However, Kant, (by all account and by all reckoning) had demonstrated to modernity a very plausable critque of the mind which would essentially call into question traditional notions of cause and effect.

Scroll ahead yet another few centuries and now we have the science of the quantum, (nasent though it may be). Even so, it scientifically turns notions of cause and effect on its head.

So we find ourselves in the 21st century with a rich tradition of learning, academics built from past centuries. Reliance on solely one of the thinkers (i.e. Thomas) in arriving at definitive conclusions on a matter so profound and so complex ( i.e. what the ultimate principle is, from which all existence springs) is, in my judgment, simply naive.

 

[tonyrey]

However, Kant, (by all account and by all reckoning) had demonstrated to modernity a very plausable critque of the mind which would essentially call into question traditional notions of cause and effect.

mate principle is, from which all existence springs) is, in my judgment, simply naive.

You are confusing Kant - who didn’t reject the reality of the mind - with Hume who regarded it as a “bundle of perceptions”.

 

[cc42]

WillP:

Kant did nothing to damage traditional notions of cause and effect and neither do quantum physics.

The problem is that modern philosophy has confused what Aristotelian causes are, when in fact they are logically required to make sense of anything and all people implicitly accept them.

Tell me what you think of the argument below.

All things exist in either a state of potential change or actualized change. But a being in a potential state has to be caused in order to reach an actualized state by something outside of itself in order to reach an actualized state, except if everything is in some potential state all change must ultimately lead back to something already in a fully actualized state. This changeless and fully actualized being we call God.

 

[WillP]

You are confusing Kant - who didn’t reject the reality of the mind - with Hume who regarded it as a “bundle of perceptions”.

Actually, my true point was that Thomas added much to plilosophical discourse, but, there is so much more, so many more differing perspectives, and, now there is science and its fruits by which we, as a species, can “know” things about who we are and from where we came.

However, you are right, I most certainly lacked completeness in describing Kant.

 

[WillP]

WillP:

Kant did nothing to damage traditional notions of cause and effect and neither do quantum physics.

The problem is that modern philosophy has confused what Aristotelian causes are, when in fact they are logically required to make sense of anything and all people implicitly accept them.

Tell me what you think of the argument below.

All things exist in either a state of potential change or actualized change. But a being in a potential state has to be caused in order to reach an actualized state by something outside of itself in order to reach an actualized state, except if everything is in some potential state all change must ultimately lead back to something already in a fully actualized state. This changeless and fully actualized being we call God.

Well, if you want me to be perfectly honest, the argument sounds rather medieval to me. It seems so to me in the same way that Anselm’s so called onthologogical argument for the existence of god also seems medieval.

I know you and many others in this forum group feel that Thomas answers everything, but, I don’t. Rather, I think what medieval philosophers engaged in was “wordsmithing” and in the process developed syllagisms which have appeal, charm and at least surface validity. They did so, however, without benefit of 21st century science.

I also don’t overlook the fact that Plato, Aristotle, and others add a fullness or dimension to philosophical discussions which we should never discount. And, maybe you have a concept in your question to me that I simply didn’t catch. I have sad before in these “post-it disussions” that it is really difficult to adequately convey our thoughts to one another. Typing snigletts of “deep thoughts” and then retorting with similar "snigletts is tedious and even frustrating at times, But, to be honest, from what I read, it sounds irrelevant to any logic that I can relate to.

 

[Taestron]

Well, if you want me to be perfectly honest, the argument sounds rather medieval to me. It seems so to me in the same way that Anselm’s so called onthologogical argument for the existence of god also seems medieval.

I know you and many others in this forum group feel that Thomas answers everything, but, I don’t. Rather, I think what medieval philosophers engaged in was “wordsmithing” and in the process developed syllagisms which have appeal, charm and at least surface validity. They did so, however, without benefit of 21st century science.

Interesting, this reminds me of Stephen Hawking claim that philosophy and metaphysics have lost contact with science and popular thought and so no longer provide practical knowledge. I always kind of find this argument a little disingenuous. Although I have no detailed knowledge about the working modern physics, the way they are presented at a popular level is no less abstract than say medieval metaphysics. It almost seems as if one prefers math or logic as the basis for all knowledge. But since I have no real knowledge of these concepts, my opinion isn’t worth that much. However, I do agree with you that having abbreviated philosophical discussions are very unsatisfying.

 

[Viviphilia]

The universe does not contain the reason for its own existence because there is no intrinsic principle in it which necessitates its existence. In other words, the universe might not have existed and in fact did not exist.

The universe could not be the source of its own existence since it would then have to be both its own cause and its own effect. But if it were simultaneously cause and effect, there would be no distinction betwene these two operations. Nothing can bring itself into existence, since in order for a thing to be the cause of its own existence, it would have to pre-exist itself, which is illogical. Since nothing can be the efficient cause of itself we must look for a cause elsewhere.

The universe could have always existed. I have no reason to believe there was a time when the universe did not exist. I certainly don’t understand why you claim it is a fact that the universe did not exist at some point.

 

[Viviphilia]

A non intelligent cause cannot produce an intelligent effect because non-intelligence is a privation of intelligence. “Non-intelligence” in other words is already an intelligent concept, but ontologically is nothing.

I have no reason to agree with the claim that a non-intelligent cause cannot produce an intelligent effect.

As a matter of fact, complexity emerges from simplicity all over nature. It appears safe to assume that intelligence could have emerged out of a non-intelligent source.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly