How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God

[Partinobodycula]

Generally, claims to the impossibility of infinite regresses stem from the fact that the regresses are vicious, ie. that the existence/action of each element depends on the existence/action of the previous element. If this were not so, it would be consistent to say that the regress is infinite. But if it is so, then without some first element, the regression is ungrounded.

polytropos, I’m doing my best to follow your reasoning, and I believe that I have an essential understanding of it, but if I’m not mistaken it leads back to the same paradox. We have two choices, both of which seem logically absurd.

1. The universe is the result of an infinite regression of causes.
2. There is at some point N, an uncaused cause.

I’m not particularly happy with either of these two choices, but like it or not, it seems to be what we’re stuck with.

But then again, if push came to shove, I could imagine at least one more possibility. This may be difficult for my ninth grade education to explain clearly, so please try to bear with me. Suppose that at some point N, there was a cause, which although not truly uncaused, may have a cause which is in some sense, ambiguous. In other words, a cause for which the preceding cause isn’t directly discernible. Not because it is in some way hidden or mysterious, but because by its very nature, and the nature of its environment, it cannot be specifically determined which is the cause, and which is the effect.

Think of this as being somewhat like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, wherein the position and momentum of a particle cannot both be known at the same time. Not because we lack the capacity to measure them both, but rather because the particle itself cannot be said to have a specific position and momentum, until measured. And even then the more accurately you know one, the less accurately you can know the other. There are a number of examples in quantum physics where systems cannot be said to have a specific state, until observed. Under such quantum conditions the whole idea of cause and effect may itself become absurd.

Perhaps there might be a point during the regression of causes when we come to a situation where it is impossible to tell specifically, what preceded what, or which event could be said to be the cause, and which could be said to be the effect. It might be possible that under the right conditions the whole idea of cause and effect loses its meaning, and the concept of an infinite regression of causes becomes meaningless.

I’m not saying that I believe this to be the case, only that there may be other options besides the two listed above. Even the example that I just gave does nothing to resolve the first cause problem. One could still ask where the initial state came from. So all that I’ve really done is to add a third option to the above list.

But there are a vast number of people out there a whole lot smarter than I am, so perhaps one of them can determine a way around the first cause/infinite regression problem.

With all due respect to Aquinas et al, all attempts to invoke God as the ultimate solution seem to be an example of structuring a solution to fit a preconceived answer.

But I’m open to all arguments to the contrary, although I do have a strong predisposition to logic and reason, contrary to KingCoil’s claims to the opposite.

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Poly, thanks for your post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
By bringing in the word logic frequently, I am saying it is not logical as opposed to illogical in usual understanding of the word.
**Unquote
**

In your OP you said that the second premise was “the logic.” Do you mean now to say that you are using logic there to mean not logical? Or is that a typo? Did you misread what I was referring to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
In brief, what is logic or logical in my frequent use of the word is broadly my saying, according to my great principle of using the brain to solve problems or discover facts or invent things and speculate on things and or ideas, the principle as follows:

Intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts,

it is not logic, not logical.
Unquote

I have to confess, I have no idea what you are talking about. When someone talks about “logic,” I tend to think of formal logic, ie. valid rules of inference, the propositional calculus, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
You notice what you might call a tautology: that I am talking about what for me is logic or logical, and then bringing up the word logic in stating what to myself is the great principle of using my brain.
…]
Would you like to talk about how I am not into a tautology at all in the instant case where I ask you if you notice and will say that I am into a tautology? that will be a most absorbing undertaking; but I tell you, no it is no instance of a tautology.
Unquote

To repeat: I did not say that it was a tautology. I took your calling your second premise in your OP “the logic” to imply that you thought it was some sort of “logical truth.” I inquired as to what sort of logical truth you meant, for there are several (tautologies, self-evident principles, synthetic a priori statements, etc.).

You still haven’t told me what it is.

---

Philosophy always buries its undertakers.

    Etienne Gilson

Pray the Rosary

Here is the snapshot of the post you are commenting on:



You are talking in term of formal logic, I am using the word logic and the word logical, and their opposites, illogic and illogical in the wide embrace of “intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.”

Formal logic is the logic, correct me if I am mistaken, we embed in robots, that is why computer programmers cannot produce a humanly intelligent and creative robot whatever the latest most sophisticated computer hardware.

You talk first premise and second premise, please forgive me, I just reason without really all the time keeping in strict adherence to first premise, second premise, etc.

Okay, just take it from me as a thinker and writer who does not engage in fraudulent tricky word games, just to deceitfully win an argument.

For me, logic is not illogic, period.

Take these first words from my post on which you are confused:

By bringing in the word logic frequently, I am saying it is not logical as opposed to illogical in usual understanding of the word.

Am I saying that logic is congruent to not logical which is in turn is congruent to illogical? so that to put it symbolically [in my attempt at my own kind of math notation]:
logic=>not logical=>illogical

NO, NO, NO, of course not!

I am almost certain that if I continue to try to explain to you, you are going to get more confused, what with your formal logic and it being distinct from metaphysics, and first premise and second premise, etc.; just get the whole drift of the post and the whole drift of my advocacy in this thread.

Okay, what is your beef with me, on the personal level?

Please, for the love of God the creator of heaven and earth and the Father almighty also creator of heaven and earth, abstain from nitpicking.

KingCoil

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Disregard that sentence, I just use it to get to see in preview how the png file is going to turn out or the whole quote will turn out…

 

[KingCoil]

O.K., you can’t go from a concept to a really existing thing, God or a Sphinx. Concepts do not necessarily exist.

Linus2nd

All kinds of words even absurd ones and all kinds of concepts, namely, all kinds of thoughts can exist in our brain, that is why I always ask folks to look for possible at all possible existing things and events in the universe or in the totality of existence corresponding to our thoughts in the mind.

That is one of my stock tools in the work of getting to know as opposed to not know i.e. to stick to stubborn refusal against seeking knowledge,* namely, the distinction between the realm of thinking in our mind and the realm of the objective actual factual real existing universe of concrete things and events.

If you care to read further, here is my diagram of the realms of human knowledge, in picture file:



KingCoil

*Die hard atheists are notorious with the resort to ignorance, like we don’t know, and to seek to know is arrogance, in connection with what can be drawn from the scientific fact of the existence of the universe some 13.8 billion years ago.

 

[polytropos]

We have two choices, both of which seem logically absurd.

1. The universe is the result of an infinite regression of causes.
2. There is at some point N, an uncaused cause.

One must specify what sort of regression one is talking about. (Though perhaps an argument can be developed) I am willing to grant that an infinite regress of temporal causes is consistent, since there is not a dependence of each effect on its cause (ie. a child exists and can act to have his own children, even if his father passes away).

It is strictly causal regresses marked by instrumental dependence that cannot be infinite.

I don’t see an uncaused cause as “logically absurd.” Changes are reductions from potentiality to actuality. To be caused (or to be changed) is to have some potentiality actualized. It doesn’t follow that everything has a cause. That which does not have potentialities cannot be changed or caused, however, and so serves as a suitable terminus of a instrumentally dependent causal series.

The word terminus, however, is misleading. Some remarks by Ed Feser:

This does not require such a cause to come at the head of some metaphysical queue. Even if we suppose there to exist a series of instrumental causes that regresses to infinity or loops around in a circle, there would still have to be a “first” cause in the sense of an underived or non-instrumental cause outside the infinite regress or loop, otherwise the infinite or circular series as a whole – comprised as it is of instrumental causes having no causal power of their own – could not exist.

The issue is that some causal series are ungrounded, ie. each contingent cause in the “chain” depends for its activity on that of other causes. (So the issue is not really the “number” of causes.)

Suppose that at some point N, there was a cause, which although not truly uncaused, may have a cause which is in some sense, ambiguous. In other words, a cause for which the preceding cause isn’t directly discernible. Not because it is in some way hidden or mysterious, but because by its very nature, and the nature of its environment, it cannot be specifically determined which is the cause, and which is the effect.

I don’t think that the notion of an uncaused cause is inconsistent, so long as we consider what restrictions that places on the kind of entity that could be uncaused. So I don’t agree that there is any motivation for a solution like you propose here.

It seems to me like what is proposed here is largely an epistemic indiscernibility. You seem to anticipate this charge in relating your analogy with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. But I do not find that analogy to be strong enough. (I also wouldn’t agree that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle undermines cause and effect, for that would require that we accept reductionism, which I don’t. The quantum mechanics formalism categorically distinguishes between the physical aspects of the system, ie. the evolution of the Schrodinger equation, and the interactions of the physical system with the observable, corporeal world.)

With all due respect to Aquinas et al, all attempts to invoke God as the ultimate solution seem to be an example of structuring a solution to fit a preconceived answer.

Perhaps. But there are a number of points to make:

1. To fault his argument on this basis would be to commit the genetic fallacy.
2. Aquinas did not accept all arguments for the existence of God, ie. he rejected the kalam argument that is “defended” in this thread, so he seems to have had an interest in truth apart from whatever motivations he had in proving God’s existence.
3. Aquinas adapted Aristotle in his most eminent proof, and Aristotle certainly had no Christian motives.

 

[polytropos]

You are talking in term of formal logic, I am using the word logic and the word logical, and their opposites, illogic and illogical in the wide embrace of “intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.”

Formal logic is the logic, correct me if I am mistaken, we embed in robots, that is why computer programmers cannot produce a humanly intelligent and creative robot whatever the latest most sophisticated computer hardware.

Formal logic may not be identical to intelligent thinking, but I think it is rather obviously a necessary condition. (I don’t mean that you have to symbolize all of your arguments. But the rules of inference being employed should be apparent, and when a claim is said to be “logical” it should be defended with logic, rather than the assertion that it is “not illogic.”)

Case in point: It is manifestly fallacious to infer from the fact that we embed formal logic in robots, and that it is impossible for robots to be intelligent, that formal logic is the reason why robots fail to be intelligent.

(This is another topic entirely, but I would argue that we do not properly embed formal logic in robots. Formal thinking, ie. the application of pure functions whether they be addition or modus tollens, cannot be physically realized, since all physical processes are indeterminate with respect to the instantiation of pure functions. A computer simulates addition for our own ends, but what goes on if you pop open the arithmetic logic unit is not actually addition; it is the manipulation of electrical circuits to output a result that simulates real addition and facilitates our own reasoning. This can be grasped given that the different basic logical operations that a computer “performs” at the hardware level can all be mapped to different outputs, in which case the computer “does” something else, even though the underlying hardware and software are essentially the same.)

You talk first premise and second premise, please forgive me, I just reason without really all the time keeping in strict adherence to first premise, second premise, etc.

I have been pretty clear in saying that what I am talking about is the claim that “that which begins to exist has a cause” (or similar statements), which is found listed as premise 2 of your OP.

For me, logic is not illogic, period.

So you are saying that it is “not illogic” that that which begins to exist has a cause?

So do you mean to imply that it is “illogic” to say that something can begin to exist without a cause? Then we can ask why, and to avoid circularity, it must be explicated in terms that do not redefine “illogic” in terms of “logic.”

I am almost certain that if I continue to try to explain to you, you are going to get more confused, what with your formal logic and it being distinct from metaphysics, and first premise and second premise, etc.; just get the whole drift of the post and the whole drift of my advocacy in this thread.

My concern with the “whole drift” is that the parts do not withstand scrutiny.

Okay, what is your beef with me, on the personal level?

I do not have a beef with you on a personal level. However, I do not think that the kalam cosmological argument is a very strong argument. You have presented it here and have consistently neglected to defend its premises in a clear way. I believe that reflects poorly on theism.

 

[KingCoil]

Quote from Bodicula in post #201.

We have two choices, both of which seem logically absurd.

1. The universe is the result of an infinite regression of causes.
2. There is at some point N, an uncaused cause.

Tell me how is choice 2 logically absurd?

Do it in less than say 100 words, so don’t just tell me that you have explained already in the body of your postt, and you are not going to tell me again when I can just read it myself.

I on my part will always tell people again and again and again to explain every time in another way or by another approach, how I come to a position or an opinion.

How did you come to the judgment that choice 2 is logically absurd?

KingCoil

 

[Partinobodycula]

How did you come to the judgment that choice 2 is logically absurd?

I can understand how you may have misinterpreted the subtle nuance of what I said. But I didn’t actually say that either of the two choices was logically absurd. What I said was that the two choices may seem logically absurd. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t categorize either choice as being logically absurd. If quantum physics has taught me anything it is that what seems intuitively impossible, oftentimes isn’t.

But I should also admit that I’m not a fan of either of the two choices, and I would much prefer a third option, or a variation on one of the two.

I hope this cleared things up

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
O.K., you can’t go from a concept to a really existing thing, God or a Sphinx. Concepts do not necessarily exist.

Please pay attention to the revised diagram corrected of Human Knowledge as follows in png image:


And following is the text version with bulleted indentation to show the hierarchy order.

HUMAN KNOWLEDGE

A. In the realm of the objective existing universe
B. In the realm of the thinking mind

1. Non Fictions
2. Fictions

* Fictions concording with logic and facts
[ii] Absurd fictions contrary to logic and facts
​

Please be guided accordingly.

KingCoil*

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks, Poly, for your post.

…]

So you are saying that it is “not illogic” that that which begins to exist has a cause?

So do you mean to imply that it is “illogic” to say that something can begin to exist without a cause? Then we can ask why, and to avoid circularity, it must be explicated in terms that do not redefine “illogic” in terms of “logic.”

…]

You ask me, So do you mean to imply…?

Okay, I will tell you even though if you were not so robotic and instead get the drift of my thinking you know it already, but [comic relief] you are really one nitpicker son of your mother: let you just get these two lines of thinking from me as follow:

[No more 1. and 2. premises, just get these thoughts into your skull, comic relief only please bear with me; and I bear with you, you are really one pain in my butt.].

It is logic to say that anything with a beginning has a cause.
It is against logic to say that anything with a beginning has no cause.

Okay, what else do you want me to clarify, you [comic relief] nitpicker son of your mother.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Addendum:

Admin exclaims, “Thank you for your post!”

And to you, Admin, thanks for publishing it, even though I said someone is a pain in my butt.

Comic relief only.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

I can understand how you may have misinterpreted the subtle nuance of what I said. But I didn’t actually say that either of the two choices was logically absurd. What I said was that the two choices may seem logically absurd. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t categorize either choice as being logically absurd. If quantum physics has taught me anything it is that what seems intuitively impossible, oftentimes isn’t.

But I should also admit that I’m not a fan of either of the two choices, and I would much prefer a third option, or a variation on one of the two.

I hope this cleared things up

Okay, just tell me why you state that "What I said was that the two choices may seem logically absurd.

Just use not more than a 100 words to talk about those appearances of things in your mental and visual reach that make those two choices seemingly absurd to you.

I think I have made a grievous mistake to have gone into talking with a solipsist.

You should really add the designation sophistrist to your self-description or better quibblist.

Okay, tell me categorically and no more what seems to you, Is there a cause to the universe?

And tell me what scientists of great repute, esteem, and acceptance say that “what seems intuitively impossible, oftentimes isn’t.”

Give some quotations from them to that effect and the links.

KingCoil

 

[Partinobodycula]

Just use not more than a 100 words to talk about those appearances of things in your mental and visual reach that make those two choices seemingly absurd to you.

Again I apologize for not being clear. I do not believe that either choice seems logically absurd to me personally, but they may seem logically absurd to people in general, and that is what I was referring to. To me personally, neither choice seems logically absurd.

I think I have made a grievous mistake to have gone into talking with a solipsist.

Possibly, but whereas you may gain nothing from the exchange, I shall gain a deeper insight into both you, and I.

You should really add the designation sophistrist to your self-description or better quibblist.

I believe that you will find the designation of solipsist conveniently displayed on the upper right hand corner of every one of my posts.

Okay, tell me categorically and no more what seems to you, Is there a cause to the universe?

Yes

And tell me what scientists of great repute, esteem, and acceptance say that “what seems intuitively impossible, oftentimes isn’t.”

I obviously cannot give you a quote that uses those words verbatim, but I can give you many that convey the sentiment.
*
If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. *Niels Bohr

*Physics is really figuring out how to discover new things that are counterintuitive, like quantum mechanics. It’s really counterintuitive. * Elon Musk

*Nobody understands quantum mechanics. * Richard Feynman

And since I’m quoting Feynman I would be remiss if I omitted my favorite:

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. Richard P. Feynman

Give some quotations from them to that effect and the links.

Google should be a sufficiently adequate source.

 

[KingCoil]

Well, you give quotes but no links.

Beware of journalists’ media hypes.

But I am glad that you state definitely that you accept the universe has a cause.

For the time being, until you come up with a quibble, do you identify this cause with God in the Christian faith, Who is first and foremost in concept the creator of heaven and earth, understanding that as the universe?

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Poly and Linus2, what do you say about the gambit from Candide, that he wants to presume that I will say I cannot think of any alternatives outside of the three,* therefore I am arguing from the fallacy of ignorance.

He did that already in my earlier thread on experimenting on God; I asked him – as he claims to know other alternatives outside of the three (see quote below) – to present another alternative, and he gave this alternative;
“The alternative that springs to mind is that the Big Bang wasn’t the start of our universe but rather just a change in it.” – forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11823324&postcount=36

Later, he shifted to accept that the universe has a beginning etc., saying fuzzily that: “I’m simply stating that it is possible that it wasn’t. For the sake of discussion I’m happy to assume that it was the beginning (and not for example a change in a state of a pre-existing universe, which could of course also match observation).” – forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11827627&postcount=41

Now, he has accepted or we he and I have concurred on these three statements:
Not withstanding your misunderstanding of the scientific method, we both believe that:

1. We exist
2. The universe exists
3. The universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.

– forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11852200&postcount=147​

My idea is now to get us theists to put our heads together and see how we can uncover the tricks of Candide, instead of nitpicking among ourselves.

The topic here is, forgive me for repeating, “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”

You see, in my earlier thread on experimenting with God, first Candide took the tack of my statements being mere assumptions, then he switched to insisting that I was arguing from the fallacy of ignorance, namely, just because I could not think of other alternatives than the three (which he himself presented): *universe caused itself, universe caused by nothing, universe caused by an outside agent, therefore I am arguing from the fallacy of ignorance.

Let us see what he comes up with next, but I imagine he will go the same routine as he did in my thread on experimenting with God.

Also, Bodicula, if you prefer, you can also join me at least me if Poly and Linus2 are not keen on working with me.

See the snapshot post from me where I replied to Candide on his new but old gambit accusing me of arguing from the fallacy of ignorance.



KingCoil

 

[CandideWest]

Thanks, Candide, for your reply.

You are putting words in my mouth, I haven’t said, “well I can’t think of any other options, can you?”

Ok, I suspected you might make an argument from ignorance in response to this because it’s what you did before when I said that 2. Needed to be supported. You demanded that I had to identify some alternative to those three options. That is a perfect example of an argument from ignorance.

So, let us concur for the time being to put that clause from you in the shelf, okay?

Er, what clause? You mean point 2. of what you have now adopted as your argument? If so then I’m afraid we can’t really put it on the shelf until you have demonstrated it to be exclusive (that is that there are no other possible alternatives).

On the concurrence for the time being from me and thus from us both that you can think up alternatives other than the three you already bring up, please present them, one at a time, start with just one in your next post.

Why? Even if I presented a million alternatives one by one, and you conclusively demonstrated that each one was impossible, we still wouldn’t have demonstrated that 2. is exclusive. We’d still only be left with an argument from ignorance.

Equally if I couldn’t think of a single alternative, we’d still only be left with “well we can’t think of any alternatives” which is also an argument from ignorance.

If you want to support that 2. is exclusive (that one of these options must be true) then you’ll have to find a way to demonstrate this. Our mutual lack of imagination doesn’t achieve this. Sorry if this is inconvenient for you but it’s how logic works.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Dear Poly and Linus2, what do you say about the gambit from Candide, that he wants to presume that I will say I cannot think of any alternatives outside of the three,* therefore I am arguing from the fallacy of ignorance.

He did that already in my earlier thread on experimenting on God; I asked him – as he claims to know other alternatives outside of the three (see quote below) – to present another alternative, and he gave this alternative;
“The alternative that springs to mind is that the Big Bang wasn’t the start of our universe but rather just a change in it.” – forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11823324&postcount=36

Later, he shifted to accept that the universe has a beginning etc., saying fuzzily that: “I’m simply stating that it is possible that it wasn’t. For the sake of discussion I’m happy to assume that it was the beginning (and not for example a change in a state of a pre-existing universe, which could of course also match observation).” – forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11827627&postcount=41

Now, he has accepted or we he and I have concurred on these three statements:
Not withstanding your misunderstanding of the scientific method, we both believe that:

1. We exist
2. The universe exists
3. The universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.

– forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11852200&postcount=147​

My idea is now to get us theists to put our heads together and see how we can uncover the tricks of Candide, instead of nitpicking among ourselves.

The topic here is, forgive me for repeating, “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”

You see, in my earlier thread on experimenting with God, first Candide took the tack of my statements being mere assumptions, then he switched to insisting that I was arguing from the fallacy of ignorance, namely, just because I could not think of other alternatives than the three (which he himself presented): *universe caused itself, universe caused by nothing, universe caused by an outside agent, therefore I am arguing from the fallacy of ignorance.

Let us see what he comes up with next, but I imagine he will go the same routine as he did in my thread on experimenting with God.

Also, Bodicula, if you prefer, you can also join me at least me if Poly and Linus2 are not keen on working with me.

See the snapshot post from me where I replied to Candide on his new but old gambit accusing me of arguing from the fallacy of ignorance.

http://i62.tinypic.com/2hmiqlc.jpg

KingCoil

But you see, that is a waste of time because " C " is an ideologue. He/She will not agree to any point that would threaten his/her faith that there is no other source of knowledge outside the hard sciences or what can be gained from personal experience in the physical world. What is the point in having a discussion with a closed mind?

As to your own method of proceeding, one cannot discount the authority of great men and women who do agree that man can arrive at a true ( though not exhaustive ) knowledge of the existence of God through a study of the universe, proceeding a posteriori…

If you eschew the thought of the great men and women of philosophy you are left with the common opinions of the untutored - which may be true but is too easily dismissed as " ignorance . "

My preferred procedure is to state the truth and let it go at that. In the end Truth will eventually bear its own fruit. We have been promised that.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

It is logic to say that anything with a beginning has a cause.
It is against logic to say that anything with a beginning has no cause.

My question is still why. These seem to be assertions. You have said that logic is not formal logic, but is instead not illogic. So what is illogic? Is it just opposed to “intelligent thinking”? If so, why? To say something is against logic because it is against intelligent thinking seems to be true, but it doesn’t tell me anything about why the proposition itself is against intelligent thinking.

 

[polytropos]

Dear Poly and Linus2, what do you say about the gambit from Candide, that he wants to presume that I will say I cannot think of any alternatives outside of the three,* therefore I am arguing from the fallacy of ignorance.

I don’t find that very cogent. The statement was: “The universe was either caused by itself, caused by nothing or caused by something else.”

The signification of the term caused does not seem to allow for any other disjuncts. Generally we speak of things being caused by other things, and if it is possible for something not to be caused by something other than itself, then it seems like it would be caused by itself or not caused at all (since “caused by nothing” seems to reify nothingness).

Maybe we could be extremely pedantic and say that any disjunction that is not derived from the law of excluded middle is incomplete, but I don’t think there is much room for doubt as to the completeness of the disjunction in this case.

It seems like the proposition can be derived from the law of excluded middle:

1. A thing is either is caused by something or is not caused by anything. (law of excluded middle)
2. If a thing is caused by something, then it is caused by itself or caused by something else. (This is a complete disjunction of “somethings”. Let a be “the thing” we’re talking about. For all x, x is either identical to a or not identical to a.)
3. Therefore, a thing is caused by itself, caused by something else, or not caused by anything. (constructive dilemma)

 

[Partinobodycula]

For the time being, until you come up with a quibble, do you identify this cause with God in the Christian faith, Who is first and foremost in concept the creator of heaven and earth, understanding that as the universe?

Please forgive me, for I’m truly sorry, but if you think that I have been quibbling in the past, you’re really not going to like what I’m about to do now.

For you see, I don’t think your God, and my God, are the same God.

My God is the one who said unto Moses, “I Am That I Am”

My God is the one who hung on a cross and proclaimed, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do”

My God is the one who lives in my heart, and my soul, and my mind.

I do not know who your God is. I’m not even sure anymore who the God of the “Christian faith” is, but I am sure that my God is not first and foremost in concept, the creator of heaven and earth. He is the creator of faith and hope and love, but first and foremost, He is the creator of me. For heaven and earth shall pass away, but these things never shall.

Okay, accuse me of quibbling, or ignore me if you choose, but that is what I believe. Any attempts to get me to accept your understanding of God, will be in vain. For as I say, your God, and my God, are not the same.

 

[Partinobodycula]

polytropos, I have been rereading your posts, and I must say that for the most part I understand and agree with your logic. (Although “understand” may be a bit of an overstatement at times) However there is one particular statement that I am having difficulty with, and that is:

It is strictly causal regresses marked by instrumental dependence that cannot be infinite.

I can understand how an infinite regression of causes is unnecessary to explain the existence of the universe. But I’m not clear as to how it could be categorically impossible.

I can also understand how even an infinite regression of causes does not overcome the first cause problem, but in like manner, I cannot understand how the existence of God overcomes the first cause problem either.