How does immortality of God follow?

[STT]

Agreed. However, that doesn’t mean that the human making the decision is himself in his person uncaused.

Great. That is a huge step. I have two arguments to show that any free agent is uncaused cause.

A) In this argument I show that free agent and free decision are one, uncaused cause:

1. A is the cause of an uncaused cause (for example human makining free decision)
2. Something cannot be cause of uncaused (it is logically wrong to say this)
3. Therefore the uncaused cause and A has to be the same thing (human is uncause cause and free decision is uncaused cause)

B) In here I show that a free agent cannot be caused:

1. Causation requires knowledge
2. Knowledge is structured (because knowledge is about relation between things/concepts)
3. Therefore something which is caused is structured
4. Something which is structured cannot be free (because you cannot have freedom out of relationship between things)
5. Therefore something which is free cannot be caused

 

[StAugustine]

By the very existence of “being” which cannot account for itself. Therefore that which creates being is removed from being and not a being- but uncreated.

As well as the Church fathers and Neoplatonists. God is not a being in the world.

 

[IWantGod]

I accepted that existence implements an eternal truth but that doesn’t mean that the existence itself is eternal.

If it is impossible for an eternal truth not to be true, you cannot say that there is not an eternal reality, because if there were no reality at all then eternal truths would no-longer be eternally true, which is a contradiction.

 

[Elf01]

Therefore the uncaused cause and A has to be the same thing (human is uncause cause and free decision is uncaused cause)

We know we are not uncaused. We exist because of our parents.

 

[STT]

By the very existence of “being” which cannot account for itself. Therefore that which creates being is removed from being and not a being- but uncreated.

I can accept that God is uncaused cause for sake of argument. Why God is immortal? I don’t understand how God is different from created being when it comes to immortality.

 

[STT]

If it is impossible for an eternal truth not to be true, you cannot say that there is not an eternal reality, because if there were no reality at all then eternal truths would no-longer be eternally true, which is a contradiction.

Let me give you an example: Let’s think that A exists and existed but vanishes in future for any given reason. This is eternal truth that A exists for a period of time. Isn’t it?

 

[STT]

Your body is caused. Your mind is not.

 

[Gorgias]

A) In this argument I show that free agent and free decision are one, uncaused cause:

1. A is the cause of an uncaused cause (for example human makining free decision)

Wait… you’re starting with a premise that’s logically impossible? I’ve seen reductio arguments before, but they work because their implications fail, not because their foundational premise is false!

In any case, you’re starting from your conclusion (that humans are an uncaused cause). That’s not an argument, at all!

1. Something cannot be cause of uncaused (it is logically wrong to say this)

So then don’t use that as your first premise.

1. Therefore the uncaused cause and A has to be the same thing (human is uncause cause and free decision is uncaused cause)

You haven’t proven anything. You started with your conclusion, pointed to an absurd premise, and then concluded that your conclusion was valid. Not. The. Way. Logic. Works.

B) In here I show that a free agent cannot be caused:

1. Causation requires knowledge
2. Knowledge is structured (because knowledge is about relation between things/concepts)
3. Therefore something which is caused is structured

Nope. You asserted that causation requires knowledge, not that the thing being caused is knowledge.

1. Something which is structured cannot be free (because you cannot have freedom out of relationship between things)

Nope. Doesn’t hold up. If you want to make claims about determination rather than structure, then go ahead. But, ‘structure’ doesn’t have the constraints you’re claiming. (A football game is ‘structured’; a football game has freedom of action.)

 

[Rovert]

Fun read! Not much to add but the thought popped into my head that a chain can never be broken as no chain would be independent of other chains. It is infinitely reducible or expansive based on the perception in which one is looking at the “chain”. One action has more than one consequence setting into motion so many effects that following the repercussions of a single act would take more than a lifetime to plot it out, impossible actually. At least this is how I see it.

 

[STT]

A) In this argument I show that free agent and free decision are one, uncaused cause:

1. A is the cause of an uncaused cause (for example human makining free decision)

What do you mean when you say human makes free decision? This is reductio argument too. We want to show free decision and human are one so we assume that they are different at the first step. We later assume that that is human who makes free decision (causes uncaused cause). This is contradictory obviously. Therefore they have to be same.

In any case, you’re starting from your conclusion (that humans are an uncaused cause). That’s not an argument , at all!

I am not starting from conclusion. By saying that human makes free decision I assume that they are different.

1. Something cannot be cause of uncaused (it is logically wrong to say this)

Does human makes free decision? If not where do they come from? They don’t have existence as human does.

1. Therefore the uncaused cause and A has to be the same thing (human is uncause cause and free decision is uncaused cause)

No. I didn’t start with my conclusion. The starting point is to assume that free will and human are different. I forgot to mention it. Sorry for that.

B) In here I show that a free agent cannot be caused:

1. Causation requires knowledge
2. Knowledge is structured (because knowledge is about relation between things/concepts)
3. Therefore something which is caused is structured

Can you write a sentence without knowing what you want to write? How God could create something without knowing what this is going to be? Knowledge of course is required for causation.

1. Something which is structured cannot be free (because you cannot have freedom out of relationship between things)

A football game is free because players are free. We want to show that something which is free cannot be created. So suggesting a structure which has free parts is not the way to go since it leads to infinite regress.

 

[STT]

Fun read! Not much to add but the thought popped into my head that a chain can never be broken as no chain would be independent of other chains. It is infinitely reducible or expansive based on the perception in which one is looking at the “chain”. One action has more than one consequence setting into motion so many effects that following the repercussions of a single act would take more than a lifetime to plot it out, impossible actually. At least this is how I see it.

That is how subconscious mind work with conscious mind. In reality we receive many chains of causality which this is filtered by subconscious mind. Conscious mind only receives a few chain of causality so it can decide what to do with them by making appropriate decision. Decision then is delivered to subconscious mind which this leads to huge number of chains of causality.

 

[IWantGod]

This is eternal truth that A exists for a period of time.

Well, beside the fact that A cannot come out of absolutely nothing without a cause, there is no truth in absolutely nothing. So if A is the only thing that exists and then it ceases to be, then it also ceases to have any truth value. It becomes meaningless to say that it is eternally true that A existed, unless eternal-truth is something independent of existence. This is a contradiction.

My argument holds.

1. There can be no such thing as eternal truth without existence because there is no truth in absolutely nothing.
2. There is such a thing as eternal-truth, a truth that cannot fail to be true.
3. If there were even a small possibility that there could be absolutely nothing, then it would also be possible that an eternal truth could fail to be eternally true, which is absurd.

Conclusion: There must therefore be an eternal existence.

 

[Rovert]

Yes that is how subconscious mind works but also how everything around you works too. Unless your making a very drawn out and subtle case for solipsism it doesn’t negate the fact that small changes in one system create responses in the larger system composed of said system that influences the even larger system comprised of those systems. Like changing one molecule in an amino acid results in a completely different acid, which goes onto to change the makeup of that protein potentially resulting in a different function of the cell which will influence countless other outcomes in an organism.

 

[Gorgias]

What do you mean when you say human makes free decision?

I mean literally that – humans have free will and agency, and can react to a situation according to their will.

We want to show free decision and human are one

No, we don’t. A person is distinct from the decision they make.
They are not numerically the same.

We later assume that that is human who makes free decision

Yes…

(causes uncaused cause).

No.

An event that a human causes to happen is not an “uncaused cause”. It was, very clearly, caused by the human who set it in motion.

This is contradictory obviously.

That’s because it’s a false conclusion.

I am not starting from conclusion.

You are. The phrase “human making free decision… is the cause of an uncaused cause” literally shows up in your first premise.

Does human makes free decision?

They don’t have existence as human does.

No, of course their ‘existence’ is of a different order than that of a being.

Knowledge of course is required for causation.

But between step 2 and 3 you go from “knowledge is structured” to “the thing that is caused is knowledge”. You never proved that part (nor, I’d assert are you able to do so). You can’t just point at a thing caused and the process by which it is caused and baldly assert “they’re the same thing!”.

A football game is free because players are free.

But a football game is structured. So, your point 4 fails.

suggesting a structure which has free parts is not the way to go since it leads to infinite regress.

You’re still in trouble here, though. You’re saying that a thing that “has free parts” is not, in its aggregate, ‘free’?

 

[Vico]

How does immortality of God follow from the fact that He is uncaused cause?

Only what is created can be mortal. God is not created. Therefore God is not mortal but rather immortal.

 

[STT]

Truth is not subjected to death since it is not objective. Therefore it does’t die even if explains the state of a temporary thing.

 

[IWantGod]

Truth is not subjected to death since it is not objective.

So eternal truth is not objective according to you, and you think eternal truth is still eternally true even if there is absolutely nothing/no existence?

 

[STT]

What do you mean when you say human makes free decision?

It is not about “reacting” but about “making”.

We want to show free decision and human are one

Ok, I want, we don’t.

We later assume that that is human who makes free decision

Great.

(causes uncaused cause).

That is the very meaning of making free decision. You accepted that free decision is uncaused cause. So we have to accept what “making” means. To me making means “causing”.

An event that a human causes to happen is not an “uncaused cause”. It was, very clearly, caused by the human who set it in motion.

It is uncaused cause in case of free decision.

This is contradictory obviously.

It is the second statement and not conclusion.

I am not starting from conclusion.

The conclusion is that free decision and human are one. The first statement is that human makes free decision. These are obviously different.

Knowledge of course is required for causation.
But between step 2 and 3 you go from “knowledge is structured” to “the thing that is caused is knowledge”. You never proved that part (nor, I’d assert are you able to do so). You can’t just point at a thing caused and the process by which it is caused and baldly assert “they’re the same thing!”.

I didn’t say that “the thing that is caused is knowledge”. I said that “the thing that is caused is structured since knowledge is structured”. I think you wanted to ask that “the thing that is caused is structured”. That is easy since from (1) and (2) it follows that causation is structured therefore what is caused is also structured.

A football game is free because players are free.
But a football game is structured. So, your point 4 fails.

Yes, but players are free.

suggesting a structure which has free parts is not the way to go since it leads to infinite regress.

I didn’t say so. The thing which its parts are free is free.

 

[STT]

I am afraid that this is not an argument.

 

[STT]

It depends what do you mean with truth. If truth explains a state of affair then you need existence.