S
STT
Guest
How could you deduce that uncaused cause is perfect?
- Status
S
StAugustine
Guest
That which is perfect is not subject to change- for perfection is fullness of being without deficit.
Now that which is prior to being and the cause of being is itself subject to no being, therefore it’s essence (conceived abstractly and imperfectly by us) is perfection, for all the known conditions that we associate with perfection would come from its act of will.
Therefore the uncaused cause is perfect by reason of lacking potentiality. This is the same as being purely actualized.
Now that which is prior to being and the cause of being is itself subject to no being, therefore it’s essence (conceived abstractly and imperfectly by us) is perfection, for all the known conditions that we associate with perfection would come from its act of will.
Therefore the uncaused cause is perfect by reason of lacking potentiality. This is the same as being purely actualized.
S
STT
Guest
There is no such a thing as perfect. I have an argument for that.
Your conclusion (bold part) doesn’t follow.
S
StAugustine
Guest
What is gratuitously asserted is gratuitously denied- false.
Demonstrate the contrary.
Demonstrate the contrary.
S
STT
Guest
It just doesn’t follow that uncaused cause is perfect. You keep repeating this statement without showing that is correct.
S
STT
Guest
What does it mean to you?
S
StAugustine
Guest
Define perfection.
Fullness of being without deficit. That is perfection. A perfect Cat is a cat that is fully cat. A perfect tree is a tree that is fully tree. A perfect watch is a watch that fully encompasses the idea “watch” without defect.
Now, living in a world plagued by entropy, nothing is perfect because all things are subject to decay. Therefore they always fall short of a real (or perceived) ideal.
But uncaused cause is fullness of being actual because it is completely without potential.
A thing which is potential being is that which can be other than it is. Now a thing can only be other than it is if it is capable of change, and subsequently imperfect. For that which can change must move from one state to another, either higher or lower. And this movement from a higher or lower state is imperfection because it is unsettled in its being, meaning it has intrinsic deficit.
But uncaused cause, as you have admitted, cannot be acted upon by another. So it is at least not capable of external manipulation. But beyond this, it cannot move to a higher or lower state because it is pure immateriality- it is the cause of matter, being itself.
Moreover, due to the fact there is nothing to be besides its own existence it does not exist in comparison to another, making it therefore impossible for it to aspire to ascent, or condescend to descent. For to what would it aspire before the existence of anything outside itself? And to what level would it descend before the existence of anything? Moreover, as the cause of things, it contains within itself the perfections of all things, and therefore it is absurd to posit that there would be an ascent toward perfection by assuming the likeness of the work of its own hands, particularly when that work is damaged by another and intrinsically imperfect.
Therefore, on account of its total lack of potentiality, yet real existence, it is itself fullness of being, and therefore perfect.
And being perfect and prior to all things, it is subject to nothing and therefore not an object of decay.
And therefore immortal. For mortality is in bodily creatures, and even in any created thing, even bodiless creatures which could be annihilated.
But being beyond body and creatures, it is subject to none, and therefore, again, immortal.
Follow the logic, not your preconceived notions.
Fullness of being without deficit. That is perfection. A perfect Cat is a cat that is fully cat. A perfect tree is a tree that is fully tree. A perfect watch is a watch that fully encompasses the idea “watch” without defect.
Now, living in a world plagued by entropy, nothing is perfect because all things are subject to decay. Therefore they always fall short of a real (or perceived) ideal.
But uncaused cause is fullness of being actual because it is completely without potential.
A thing which is potential being is that which can be other than it is. Now a thing can only be other than it is if it is capable of change, and subsequently imperfect. For that which can change must move from one state to another, either higher or lower. And this movement from a higher or lower state is imperfection because it is unsettled in its being, meaning it has intrinsic deficit.
But uncaused cause, as you have admitted, cannot be acted upon by another. So it is at least not capable of external manipulation. But beyond this, it cannot move to a higher or lower state because it is pure immateriality- it is the cause of matter, being itself.
Moreover, due to the fact there is nothing to be besides its own existence it does not exist in comparison to another, making it therefore impossible for it to aspire to ascent, or condescend to descent. For to what would it aspire before the existence of anything outside itself? And to what level would it descend before the existence of anything? Moreover, as the cause of things, it contains within itself the perfections of all things, and therefore it is absurd to posit that there would be an ascent toward perfection by assuming the likeness of the work of its own hands, particularly when that work is damaged by another and intrinsically imperfect.
Therefore, on account of its total lack of potentiality, yet real existence, it is itself fullness of being, and therefore perfect.
And being perfect and prior to all things, it is subject to nothing and therefore not an object of decay.
And therefore immortal. For mortality is in bodily creatures, and even in any created thing, even bodiless creatures which could be annihilated.
But being beyond body and creatures, it is subject to none, and therefore, again, immortal.
Follow the logic, not your preconceived notions.
S
STT
Guest
No, uncaused cause is not fullness of being actual.
Bold part doesn’t follow.
S
StAugustine
Guest
Again, what is gratuitously affirmed is gratuitously denied. Demonstrate the contrary.
But uncaused cause is the source of every being and therefore itself fullness of being and even beyond being as its cause.
Assertions are not arguments STT, and your assumption of correctness on the basis of a mere assertion is simply naïveté on your part.
Argue your point contrary to mine demonstrating the inherent supposed contradictions.
- You admit uncaused cause is a CAUSE.
- Being cause therefore it contains all the things which it does cause. Here is the law if sufficient reason- A thing is accountable for its being either in itself or another.
But uncaused cause is the source of every being and therefore itself fullness of being and even beyond being as its cause.
- Because it is source of being and even beyond being (“being” being any intelligible thing), it is fully existent without potential and therefore fully actual.
Assertions are not arguments STT, and your assumption of correctness on the basis of a mere assertion is simply naïveté on your part.
Argue your point contrary to mine demonstrating the inherent supposed contradictions.
A
AmericanPatriot
Guest
God created time, including the time dimension of this universe we temporarily inhabit. The bible asserts that God is beyond time, which in this universe did not begin until God created the universe. That it was not a creation in time, but a creation of time that God accomplished at the beginning.
The Creator of time can be no more temporal than the Creator of the contingent can be contingent or the Creator of an effect can be the created effect Himself.
Other than fallaciously taking anthropomorphism literally, there is no biblical support for a changing God. Just the opposite, the bible affirms the eternality (and immutability) of creator God.
This universe, with everything it contains, is confined to a single time line (or dimension) and is further confined to moving in one direction along that line. The question of God’s beginning reflects our understanding of these principles: Whatever exists has a starting point along the line of time and was caused by something or someone with an earlier starting point. Which is to say that any entity confined to a single line of time that cannot be stopped or reversed without supernatural intervention, must have a moment of beginning or creation.
But God is not constrained by one time dimension. Consider what an astronomer/astrophysicist person I know published:
"God has the capacity to move and operate backwards and forwards along an infinitely long time line, or along as many time lines, infinite or otherwise, as He chooses. He can operate, if He desires, on a time line parallel to our time line or on one intersecting our time line, but He is not compelled to do either. Thus, God has the capacity to cause effects for infinite time on innumerable time lines that never intersect or touch our time line. As such, we could point to no beginning and no end for Him. Since beginnings only make sense where time in some way is linear, God must be a beginning-less Being.
He has always existed and will always remain. He never had a creation event. This helps us to picture more clearly how the words of John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17 can be true. Just one extra time dimension releases Him from the necessity of a beginning and an ending. As these verses declare, He and He alone was not created."
The Creator of time can be no more temporal than the Creator of the contingent can be contingent or the Creator of an effect can be the created effect Himself.
Other than fallaciously taking anthropomorphism literally, there is no biblical support for a changing God. Just the opposite, the bible affirms the eternality (and immutability) of creator God.
This universe, with everything it contains, is confined to a single time line (or dimension) and is further confined to moving in one direction along that line. The question of God’s beginning reflects our understanding of these principles: Whatever exists has a starting point along the line of time and was caused by something or someone with an earlier starting point. Which is to say that any entity confined to a single line of time that cannot be stopped or reversed without supernatural intervention, must have a moment of beginning or creation.
But God is not constrained by one time dimension. Consider what an astronomer/astrophysicist person I know published:
"God has the capacity to move and operate backwards and forwards along an infinitely long time line, or along as many time lines, infinite or otherwise, as He chooses. He can operate, if He desires, on a time line parallel to our time line or on one intersecting our time line, but He is not compelled to do either. Thus, God has the capacity to cause effects for infinite time on innumerable time lines that never intersect or touch our time line. As such, we could point to no beginning and no end for Him. Since beginnings only make sense where time in some way is linear, God must be a beginning-less Being.
He has always existed and will always remain. He never had a creation event. This helps us to picture more clearly how the words of John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17 can be true. Just one extra time dimension releases Him from the necessity of a beginning and an ending. As these verses declare, He and He alone was not created."
Last edited:
- Status