How does immortality of God follow?

[STT]

We know what uncaused mean, not caused. Therefore uncaused cause is an thing which is not caused but can cause.

 

[whatistrue]

None of what you just said makes any sense at all. One cannot be both caused and uncaused. That’s like being both a fish and a chipmunk. I am done with this.

 

[STT]

Who said that you are caused when you decide?

 

[Gorgias]

Your mind is part of your body, thus your mind is also caused.

No… a mind is part of a person.

If you want to play the game (argue philosophy) you have to follow the rules (established definitions, etc.).

Or, at the very least, prove that your definitions are logical and reasonable.

The very fact that you can interrupt a chain of causality and decide means that you are not a part of chain of causality therefore you are uncaused cause.

No, it means that you can make a decision based on free will. When you do that, you still have a mama and a papa; you don’t say “cogito, ergo sum!” and suddenly become an orphan.

Do you have any proof that I, my mind, am caused?

Yes. There was a time when you did not exist. Therefore, you were created, and this implies that you were caused by someone else. QED.

That’s like being both a fish and a chipmunk.

Well, if you believe in evolution, then at some point sufficiently up the evolutionary tree, there was a being who was actually some sort of animal, but was also both a fish and a chipmunk in potentiality.

 

[STT]

No, it means that you can make a decision based on free will.

Free will ability is like being uncaused cause otherwise you were a part of chain of causality.

Yes. There was a time when you did not exist. Therefore, you were created, and this implies that you were caused by someone else. QED.

Your body was caused but not your mind.

 

[Gorgias]

Free will ability is like being uncaused cause otherwise you were a part of chain of causality.

It’s “like being uncaused”? Well… at least now you’re not claiming that it is actually something uncaused. That’s a positive development.

However, I think you’re still in trouble here, with this idea. When I act, I insert myself into the chain of causality, rather than “breaking causality”.

Your body was caused but not your mind.

So… you’re claiming that your mind always existed, separate from you as a person? How can you back up such a claim?

 

[STT]

It’s “like being uncaused”? Well… at least now you’re not claiming that it is actually something uncaused. That’s a positive development.

I actually mean it that you are uncaused cause since you have the ability to decide freely.

However, I think you’re still in trouble here, with this idea. When I act, I insert myself into the chain of causality , rather than “breaking causality”.

You have the ability to break the chain of causality when you decide. Think of a situation that you are typing something. That is like following a chain of causality. Don’t you have the ability to stop typing at any moment you wish?

So… you’re claiming that your mind always existed, separate from you as a person?

True.

How can you back up such a claim?

You are uncaused cause therefore you have existed. Otherwise you started to exist which mean that you were caused.

 

[catholicray]

I think the OP is asking a fair question but it is hard to understand. I’m trying to imagine a timeline where the future is infinite but the past is not.

I would suggest that an infinite future logically dictates an infinite past. An uncaused cause then assumes a finite past and future. An uncaused cause has its existence before time begins.

That’s as far as I have gotten I’ll think on this and share more later. Going to dinner for now.

But I think the OP is kind of asking whether the fact of an uncaused cause logically dictates that such existence can not cease to exist and if so how so.

 

[catholicray]

B.) Okay so an infinite future dictates an infinite past. If we conclude an uncaused cause then time is finite. An uncaused cause necessarily exists with an infinite past or it can be said to be caused.

C.) An infinite past dictates an infinite future. Therefore an uncaused cause necessarily has an infinite existence.

Does that help and have I made an error?

 

[catholicray]

To be clear though I don’t think infinite time is the proper understanding of Gods existence. An uncaused caused must exist before time. Otherwise there is a time before the uncaused cause which is a logical contradiction.

In order for time to progress it must be finite. Gods eternal existence is not one of progression. He is the same yesterday today and tomorrow.

God would have his existence as infinite past and infinite future in an imediate infinite present.

 

[Gorgias]

Don’t you have the ability to stop typing at any moment you wish?

Sure. And that decision to stop typing has me as its cause. However, that doesn’t mean that I myself am uncaused.

You are uncaused cause therefore you have existed.

You haven’t proven this claim, but merely asserted it.

Otherwise you started to exist which mean that you were caused.

That’s exactly the point.

 

[STT]

B.) Okay so an infinite future dictates an infinite past.

That doesn’t follow.

If we conclude an uncaused cause then time is finite.

Yes.

An uncaused cause necessarily exists with an infinite past or it can be said to be caused.

What do you mean?

C.) An infinite past dictates an infinite future.

True.

Therefore an uncaused cause necessarily has an infinite existence.

True but we are dealing with finite past.

 

[STT]

Sure. And that decision to stop typing has me as its cause. However, that doesn’t mean that I myself am uncaused.

Where the decision comes from? From previous event or you just abruptly made it?

You are uncaused cause therefore you have existed.

You need to understand both statements together to see what I meant.

 

[Gorgias]

Where the decision comes from? From previous event or you just abruptly made it?

The previous event caused me to contemplate my action. I contemplated it (because I was caused to contemplate it) and I acted. No break in causal chain.

You need to understand both statements together to see what I meant.

I see what you mean. Your assertion is manifestly in error.

 

[STT]

The previous event caused me to contemplate my action. I contemplated it (because I was caused to contemplate it) and I acted. No break in causal chain.

But you accepted that you can break a chain of causality in your previous post.

I see what you mean. Your assertion is manifestly in error.

Where is the error?

 

[catholicray]

Pump the breaks! Skrrrrrrrrr!

It does follow that an infinite future dictates an infinite past.

Otherwise any point in the future could be measured eventually if you worked backward to a finite past.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

STT , the underlying clause of your argument is wrong. They are almost always wrong in every one of these posts you make. Your conclusions never flow from your premises.

There’s nothing more we can say to help you understand what’s wrong because you are unwilling to admit that your first principles are in error.

Seriously, are you Bahaman? He’s gone and now you’re here, and you two act basically identically.

 

[Gorgias]

But you accepted that you can break a chain of causality in your previous post.

I don’t think that I did. I noted that a human who is part of a chain of events, participates in a way that does not constrain his agency.

Where is the error?

A couple of places.

“You are uncaused therefore you have existed.”

• You’re stating your conclusion as a premise.

“Otherwise you started to exist which mean that you were caused (meaning that you were not uncaused cause).”

• That’s precisely the claim: only God – and nothing which He created – is an uncaused cause.
• If God created all of the universe (including you!), THEN. YOU. ARE. NOT. UNCAUSED.

 

[STT]

Pump the breaks! Skrrrrrrrrr!

It does follow that an infinite future dictates an infinite past.

Otherwise any point in the future could be measured eventually if you worked backward to a finite past.

Infinite future dictates an infinite past only if you can go to infinite future. Of course you are immortal if you can survive infinite amount of time but that is what we want to prove.

 

[catholicray]

You misunderstand infinity. If we had an infinite number line then any point on that number line would have infinite numbers before it and infinite numbers beyond it.