Philosophical Proof of a Creator/Beats Aquinas!

[Dr.Bonnette]

Some sort of natural knowledge of God’s existence is part of the praeambula fidei (preambles to faith) which allow us to see God’s existence as the source of the “things that He has made.” It is the foundation for expecting and then embracing the revelation which He gives us through Catholic tradition, the teaching authority of His Church, and Scripture.

Often overlooked is the fact that we know we can trust the word of God only because we have some natural knowledge that God cannot be a liar. Even if you were to grant that Scripture is the word of God, unless you know by some other means that God cannot tell a lie, you would never know whether to believe what he has revealed to us in Scripture. After all, what liar does not first take pains to convince you he is telling you the truth? That is why you cannot prove God’s truthfulness merely by quoting Scripture which attests to his veracity.

For all these reasons, we need some natural knowledge of God’s existence and veracity in order to receive and believe His revealed truth when we encounter it in history and written word.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Don

I haven’;t the time to read all the posts here, but your introduction identifies Einstein as a self-professed atheist. If it hasn’t already been pointed out to you, he went overboard to deny that he was an atheist. Sorry if these quotes are redundant.

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.”

Albert Einstein cited in Max Jammer’s Einstein and Religion.

 

[Don_Schneider]

Don

I haven’;t the time to read all the posts here, but your introduction identifies Einstein as a self-professed atheist. If it hasn’t already been pointed out to you, he went overboard to deny that he was an atheist. Sorry if these quotes are redundant.

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.”

Albert Einstein cited in Max Jammer’s Einstein and Religion.

Yes, others have made this point. I took my view largely from a letter that Einstein had written rebuffing a Jesuit priest over an assertion that the latter had made concerning the former. However, it’s beginning to appear as if the weight of evidence is against my view. From all the seemingly conflicting evidence based upon Einstein’s utterances, it’s difficult to ascertain what he was. Perhaps agnostic comes closest.

Thanks for apparently having read my proof! I remain appreciative to all.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Dear Don,

If, contrary to the interpretation of relativity theory normally given by Einsteinians, absolute simultaneity did exist in the cosmos, what, if any, impact would that have on your proof?

 

[Don_Schneider]

Dear Don,

If, contrary to the interpretation of relativity theory normally given by Einsteinians, absolute simultaneity did exist in the cosmos, what, if any, impact would that have on your proof?

Dear Dr. Bonnette,

I’m not certain what you mean by your question. If there were no gravity, centrifugal force or ice cream, how would that affect my proof? Counterfactual conditionals have no meaning. Matters are as they are and no different. Positioning laws of physics that are different than the ones we know as real involves invoking fantasy

The concept of the relativity of simultaneity antedates Einstein’s STR by about ten years. The most common thought experience is using the example of a moving train.

If one lights a strobe light in the center of a moving train then a passenger on the train—thus moving at the same speed as the train—would observe (if the human eye had that level of capability) the light reaching the front and the rear of the train simultaneously because they are equally distant from the source… However, an outside, stationary observer standing along the track would observe the light reaching the rear of the train before reaching the front as the train’s rear is moving towards the point of the light emission, while the front is moving away from it. Therefore, the light would have less of a distance to travel before reaching the train’s rear than its front.

So which observer is correct? Both can equally claim to be.

Einstein’s STR rests on the assumption that light always travels at a constant speed in a vacuum relative to an observer regardless of what the speed of the observer is. If that were not the case, then the underpinnings of STR would be demolished and my proof along with it. However, as I state within the proof, every empirical observation thus far conducted bears out the validity of the theory.

Einstein’s theory merely formalized what had been instinctively assumed previously based upon thought experiments such as the one I described. MInkowski then mathematically interpreted the theory to establish the reality of what is now commonly referred to as “spacetime” (or the block universe) by establishing a four dimensional coordinate system to explain the theory’s ramifications. It is Minkowksi’s interpretation, which Einstein eventually came to embrace, that my proof is based upon. Vonnegut used the same scenario in his masterpiece Slaughterhouse Five.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Dear Don,

I had originally posed this question:
*
“If, contrary to the interpretation of relativity theory normally given by Einsteinians, absolute simultaneity did exist in the cosmos, what, if any, impact would that have on your proof?*”

To which you replied, citing a proper example of relativity of observers of a strobe light in a train:

*"So which observer is correct? Both can equally claim to be.

"Einstein’s STR rests on the assumption that light always travels at a constant speed in a vacuum relative to an observer regardless of what the speed of the observer is.** If that were not the case, then the underpinnings of STR would be demolished and my proof along with it**. However, as I state within the proof, every empirical observation thus far conducted bears out the validity of the theory.

"Einstein’s theory merely formalized what had been instinctively assumed previously based upon thought experiments such as the one I described. MInkowski then mathematically interpreted the theory to establish the reality of what is now commonly referred to as “spacetime” (or the block universe) by establishing a four dimensional coordinate system to explain the theory’s ramifications. It is Minkowksi’s interpretation, which Einstein eventually came to embrace, that my proof is based upon."* [Bold type is mine.]

Thus you have answered my hypothetical question clearly: Absolute cosmic simultaneity independent of any observer would render your proof for God’s existence invalid.

I have been hesitant to criticize your proof, since I know you are trying to defend God’s existence – and that is most laudable in an age of militant atheism. But I must comment because I fear attempts to replace traditional metaphysical proofs with those based on modern physics may inadvertantly undermine the traditional teaching of the Church as well as arguments which the Church Herself deems as valid.

The Catholic Church teaches that God’s existence can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason (Vatican I, Denziger 1806), and that this is done formally by reasoning “from the things that He has made” in terms of the kind of causal arguments made by St. Thomas Aquinas. Pope Pius X warned in his encyclical against Modernism that professors *“cannot set aside St. Thomas, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave disadvantage.”
*
Since the Church Herself defends and prefers the philosophy of St. Thomas, we must use caution in embracing reasoning which would undermine his central theses, especially in metaphysics.

I posted earlier explaining the crucial role of simultaneity in St. Thomas’ Five Ways because they simply do not work unless causality in them is understood as absolutely simultaneous.

The concept of “relativity of simultaneity” destroys the Five Ways if relativity is understood in absolute terms as describing being itself. If we cannot say events in the world are actually simultaneous in themselves, how can we say that a cause is simultaneous with its effects?

Does modern physics actually demand that we say events - even distant events, or bodies moving at great speed relative to each other - cannot be simultaneous in themselves? If so, we undermine, not only the Five Ways, but the basic metaphysical principles which gird all of classical metaphysics, including non-contradiction, sufficient reason, and causality.

Some Einsteinians claim that it is possible for an effect to exist before its cause because of the relativity of observations made at great distances. No competent metaphysician would accept that an effect could exist before its cause, and any physical theory making such a claim would contradict the first principles it presupposed in developing its own science. That is to say, in developing modern physics, every scientist presupposes that observed phenomena must have causes that explain what is observed, and certainly none that come-to-be after the phenomena is observed.

If by “relativity of simultaneity” one means merely that absolute simultaneity cannot be determined by observers, then relativity itself remains “relative” to the limitations of the observer. That is not a problem. But if “relativity of simultaneity” means that simultaneity has no absolute meaning in itself, then all metaphysics is destroyed – and, thereby, so is all natural science (since it presupposes metaphysical first principles itself).

There is no problem in saying that there is no simultaneity for observers in the physical world – as far as they can make observations. That is a statement of epistemological limitations. But to say that there is no simultaneity in itself would be a metaphysical statement which goes beyond the competence of observational physics. Even the fact that “every empirical observation thus far conducted bears out the validity of the theory” does not affect the matter, since all this proves is that an observational (epistemological) theory is consistent with actual observations.

Unfortunately, if you grant the truth of what I am saying, then Einsteinian physics becomes a mathematical expression of observational phenomena, not a description of the actual state of the universe itself. That is why, when you say that both observers can equally claim to be correct, it is not a problem as long as this merely describes the epistemological limits of empirical observation. But if claimed as an ontological truth, it would entail the simultaneous affirmation of contradictions – something no rational being can embrace.

But if Einsteinian physics is restricted to an epistemological schema accurately describing observable phenomena, it can hardly be used as the basis for proving the transcendental reality of God.

 

[Don_Schneider]

[One of two]

Dear Dr. Bonnette,

In regard to your lengthy, erudite clarification of your views regarding Aquinas’s metaphysics versus the modern theoretical framework of physics as ushered in by Einstein, what I feel you fail to understand is that with my proof I am attempting a reconciliation of relativity with my theistic beliefs as a Catholic.

The thrust of your arguments is vaguely reminiscent of those of the old guard of Einstein’s younger days that so resisted his ideas and had been so exemplified by Johannes Stark, the Nobel Prize winning German physicist who recoiled into anti-Semitism and a tragic embrace of National Socialism due to his bitterness at the increasing acceptance of Einstein’s ideas. Please note that this in no way implies any association on your part with such a mendacious reaction or any implication that your views reflect any personal malice towards the person of Einstein.

The point of mentioning this is that what Stark so resented with the advent of Einstein’s STR was that it abolished the need for the assumed existence of a luminiferous aether which permeates the cosmos and provides a basis for an *absolute frame of *reference. The presumed existence of the aether was an essential assumption in regard to Stark’s most cherished views regarding the nature of reality and was integral to his own work. Thus, your comments in your last post remind me of Stark’s insistence that there must be some absolute frame of reference.

You state:

“If by ‘relativity of simultaneity’ one means merely that absolute simultaneity cannot be determined by observers, then relativity itself remains ‘relative’ to the limitations of the observer. That is not a problem. But if ‘relativity of simultaneity’ means that simultaneity has no absolute meaning in itself, then all metaphysics is destroyed – and, thereby, so is all natural science (since it presupposes metaphysical first principles itself).

“There is no problem in saying that there is no simultaneity for observers in the physical world – as far as they can make observations. That is a statement of epistemological limitations. But to say that there is no simultaneity in itself would be a metaphysical statement which goes beyond the competence of observational physics. Even the fact that ‘every empirical observation thus far conducted bears out the validity of the theory’" does not affect the matter, since all this proves is that an observational (epistemological) theory is consistent with actual observations.”

My response is:

I agree.

As stated within my proof, as implied by Minkowski’s mathematical formulation which yielded the concept of spacetime (as opposed to space and time), it would appear that Parmenides and Zeno, his star pupil, were right after all all those years ago. Nothing within the reality that we perceive actually moves or changes. Motion and change are mere illusions as Zeno’s renowned paradoxes (which contrary to the assertion of some, were indeed intended quite seriously and not as exercises in logical absurdities in a tongue-in-cheek fashion) prove in their formulator’s estimation.

Why then does STR hold that the concept of motion is the key to understanding the relativity of simultaneity? Because “motion” is a mere translation explaining how at a given observation material objects are at different points relative to one another than they were at a previous observation. If a human being is one mile away from his previous position between two observations a mere minute apart (with the concept of a minute being relative to the rotation of the sun), then we impute he has “moved” at a speed of 60 MPH to account for the change of position.

But Minkowski’s interpretation implies that these two events (which are observed) are in reality static and (presumably) eternal. Our minds simply make sense of the variation between the two observations by imputing the concept of motion as a causative agency, even though logically, as argued by Zeno, motion cannot exist. Why then the obvious variation?

As Vonnegut suggests within Slaughterhouse-Five: “The moment is structured that way”. In other words, not only are motion and change illusions, but so are apparent causes and effects. The universe “just is,” exactly the way a theist argues to explain God’s existence.

What my proof attempts to do is to acknowledge the validity of the implications of STR (via Minkowski), but to also assert that the notion that the causes and effects within our reality which appear to explain the obvious order we perceive do not in fact exist is absurd. A baby really is the effect of the procreative actions of his or her parents. Therefore, somehow the parents must have preexisted their offspring. *

Once again, when you assert:

“If by ‘relativity of simultaneity’ one means merely that absolute simultaneity cannot be determined by observers, then relativity itself remains ‘relative’ to the limitations of the observer. That is not a problem. But if ‘relativity of simultaneity’ means that simultaneity has no absolute meaning in itself, then all metaphysics is destroyed – and, thereby, so is all natural science (since it presupposes metaphysical first principles itself)”

you are exactly correct. The absolute frame of reference you insist upon comes from without our spacetime, our perceived reality. This is from the vantage point of the higher dimension in which our reality was created: The Creator’s dimension of reality.

(Continued)*

 

[Don_Schneider]

To: Dr. Bonnette: [Continued–Two of Two]

Refer once again to my thought experiment within my proof concerning a novel in which somehow its characters gain sentience and intelligence. Now suppose the author of this hypothetical novel writes into its logic the effects of relativity. Suppose that the characters experience the train/strobe light thought experiment as I presented it. Through the argument I offer within my proof, they could in the exact same way infer the existence of their creator (the book’s author) as I do ours. Now here is the key to the analogy and my proof. From the author’s perspective, there *is *an absolute simultaneity of events. That is, the author simultaneously observes that the moving passenger on the train observes that the light reaches both ends of the train at the same time, while the outside, stationary observer observes the light hitting the rear end first.

It was the author who created the logic of the scenario within the novel on a sequential basis. When the novel was completed it became static, but to the characters within it, it appears dynamic because it had been at the time the author was writing it.

They are endlessly experiencing the actual causes and effects that the author created at the time the writing was taking place. It also might well appear to them eternal (“just is”) because their time dimension is self-contained within the novel, their perceived reality. They have no way of directly experiencing the higher dimensional time of the author, because they have no way to access it. However, as with my proof, they could infer its existence exactly as I have.

On a final note in regard to the basic thrust of my proof, you assert the prime importance of Aquinas’s point that a cause is simultaneous with its effect. In a previous exchange between us I said (and you concurred) that by this I thought you (and Aquinas) meant that the effect comes into existence concurrently with the convergence of the factors that constitute its cause.

When the lit match is held to the bare finger, pain is an effect. Thus, the two in that sense are indeed simultaneous; i.e, the action of the burning matche being held to the finger and its effect that is pain. But this requires causes antecedent to the immediate cause. These antecedent causes must by definition exist before the end effect of this example.

Not only must both the match and the finger exist to account for the effect of pain in this example, but so must all the antecedent causes that account for the existence of both as well. It is the obvious existence of this series of causes and effects, and not just any single one of them, that my proof invokes to prove the existence of a higher dimensional time and a Creator because they cannot be explained within the context of the static, block universe that STR implies.

 

[nosadl]

Absolutely brilliant.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Dear Don,

Thank you for such a detailed explanation of the nature of your proof – and also for the charity and intelligence with which you defend it.

As I said, I hesitated to raise an objection, and would just as soon not do so now. I am still reflecting on the force of your argument. Perhaps, it would do merely to say that if it works it does so by raising the demonstration to a metaphysical perspective which in itself transcends Einsteinian relativity theory.

In this age of militant atheism, the last thing we need is unnecessary disputes between those who actually are in agreement theologically and philosophically.

I would point out that when you talk about the causes antecedent to, say, the flame under the finger, we must distinguish between causes of becoming and causes of being. The causes which appear antecedent are causes of coming-to-be – and they are simultaneous with their effects in their own order. The causes, such as the flame under the finger, which are simultaneous in the present order may be viewed as causes of being.

We may return to some of these themes later. But for now, I want to commend you for working with such diligence and creativity in developing an argument for God’s existence which uses the very vocabulary adopted by modern physics to remind of the need for an overarching Creator. Also, note that every such proof has evoked both supporters and critics historically, as witnessed by the controversies over the Ontological Argument of St. Anselm as well as even St. Thomas’ Five Ways.

There remain philosophical issues which need examination in reference to Einstein’s relativity theory, but it would be unjust to prejudge that your own argument entails what may be philosophical errors made by others less sympathetic to God’s existence.

Thank you again for your illuminative response to my post.

 

[JDaniel]

To: Dr. Bonnette: [Continued–Two of Two]

On a final note in regard to the basic thrust of my proof, you assert the prime importance of Aquinas’s point that a cause is simultaneous with its effect. In a previous exchange between us I said (and you concurred) that by this I thought you (and Aquinas) meant that the effect comes into existence concurrently with the convergence of the factors that constitute its cause.

When the lit match is held to the bare finger, pain is an effect. Thus, the two in that sense are indeed simultaneous; i.e, the action of the burning matcher being held to the finger and its effect that is pain. But this requires causes antecedent to the immediate cause. These antecedent causes must by definition exist before the end effect of this example.

Not only must both the match and the finger exist to account for the effect of pain in this example, but so must all the antecedent causes that account for the existence of both as well. It is the obvious existence of this series of causes and effects, and not just any single one of them, that my proof invokes to prove the existence of a higher dimensional time and a Creator because they cannot be explained within the context of the static, block universe that STR implies.

Don:

No doubt Dr. Bonnette can more than adequately speak for himself, however I wanted to butt in in hopes of alleviating what might otherwise be a difficult road to go down. Your concept is still misunderstanding the meaning of cause as St. Thomas explained it and Dr. Bonnette is explaining it. The following is a crude example of what is meant.

Consider a color TV set. Consider that there are about 500 parts inside that set. Consider being. Being is no more and no less than the TV set in full operation at any Now. It is not in being, when turned off. When turned on, all 500 parts PLUS all extraneous parts are all in simultaneous action in order for the TV set to be in being. All of the parts in simultaneous action are efficient causes. There can be, and usually are, more than one efficient cause of a thing.

That each part are efficient causes is exemplified by the fact that the removal of the first cause (most likely the cause that is the precise beginning cause of the electricity being delivered to the TV set, which can be traced back to the electrical turbines, the causes for the operation of the turbines, etc., etc.) also removes the effect. (What makes this analogy crude, among other things, is that a TV set can be switched on and off, for various human reasons, such as the power company desiring to be compensated for the use of the electricity.) Now, the important thing to remember is that in order for the TV set to be in full being, all of the causes must be in simultaneous action, from the original causes of power all the way to the cathode tube and speakers. Just turned off and sitting quietly, in the living room, is not being in the sense of true being. Although, in another sense as a quiet piece of furniture, full of parts, it has being as well - because it’s a crude analogy.

The act of coming to be, or becoming, is like this except it is on the level of full being that is greater yet than an operating TV set, although the very existence of the TV set resulted from a coming to be. The difference is, primarily, that the action that brings true being into being is a change of being from one type of being to another. The effect is usually the result of a substantial, or fundamental change. So, when wood is burned, it becomes ash. Do not think how the fire takes a while to burn it all completely, think of the very instant the smallest part that can still be considered wood changes to ash. The change of being is not as simple as the process seems. In the burning of the wood, a simple explanation is that the fire is the primary efficient cause. But, simultaneously, other efficient causes are in action, such as those coming from the heat, preparing the wood by drying it completely, the oxidation, the occurrence of the carbon, the occurrence of the CO2.

This explanation is, as was the earlier example, very crude and simple. But, the point is that what seems like a procession of causes-in-time is not. The actual change takes place within a Now: the time (moment) and place whence the motion first begins. The chain of causal action is one simultaneous action. In the case of being coming to be, it emanates from the First Efficient Cause through to the effect through a succession of causes that are in an order of succession, but, not in the continuum of time.

Secondly, the efficient cause is not only external to the Material Cause, but also, external to the Effect. Thus, it is said to be an extrinsic cause. The Material Cause and the Formal Cause are said to be intrinsic because they are in the Effect when the Effect is. So, you must think of efficient cause as an agent outside of the matter and the effect, but, whose participation is essential to causing the action.

I think you can wrap your Physics around this. Think in terms of one substance becoming another substance, such as, Helium becoming Hydrogen, or water electrolyzing into Hydrogen and Oxygen, but, don’t think of it as just the simple chemical reaction. That’s the mechanics only, not the full change of being.

jd

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Dear JDaniel,

You said it better than I could.

These are hard insights to explain. Every example can be misunderstood and well as understood, but your example of the color TV set is a very good one – if properly grasped.

Thank you.

 

[nkbeth]

Dear Don,
I would point out that when you talk about the causes antecedent to, say, the flame under the finger, we must distinguish between causes of becoming and causes of being. The causes which appear antecedent are causes of coming-to-be – and they are simultaneous with their effects in their own order. The causes, such as the flame under the finger, which are simultaneous in the present order may be viewed as causes of being.

But, the point is that what seems like a procession of causes-in-time is not. The actual change takes place within a Now: the time (moment) and place whence the motion first begins. The chain of causal action is one simultaneous action. In the case of being coming to be, it emanates from the First Efficient Cause through to the effect through a succession of causes that are in an order of succession, but, not in the continuum of time.

I’m like a rather ignorant outsider looking into these philosophical discussions, but I’ll “pipe up” anyway…

Dr. Bonnette, I’m not sure what you mean by causes that “appear” to be antecedent, but are “simultaneous in their own order”. Aren’t some causes truly antecedent in time (as we know it), when speaking of “causes of coming to be”?

I can (at least somewhat) understand causes of “being” as being simultaneous. I can understand how each change (each coming to be) must have causes that are simultaneous at every NOW in the change (where God is the first cause). But aren’t some causes of coming to be truly antecedent to the change? E.g. the wood in a fire must be gathered, chopped, carried, dried, etc before the fire is started. Each of these things truly ends before the wood is changed to ash (not at the NOW of the change), but isn’t each a partial cause of the fire?

 

[JDaniel]

I’m like a rather ignorant outsider looking into these philosophical discussions, but I’ll “pipe up” anyway…

Dr. Bonnette, I’m not sure what you mean by causes that “appear” to be antecedent, but are “simultaneous in their own order”. Aren’t some causes truly antecedent in time (as we know it), when speaking of “causes of coming to be”?

I can (at least somewhat) understand causes of “being” as being simultaneous. I can understand how each change (each coming to be) must have causes that are simultaneous at every NOW in the change (where God is the first cause). But aren’t some causes of coming to be truly antecedent to the change? E.g. the wood in a fire must be gathered, chopped, carried, dried, etc before the fire is started. Each of these things truly ends before the wood is changed to ash (not at the NOW of the change), but isn’t each a partial cause of the fire?

Correct. They are a type of efficient cause called preparatory efficient causes. They are agents that bring the matter (the wood) into a proper disposition to receive the new form (ash). They can be antecedent, certainly, but, no substantial change, i.e., no new form has yet to be brought forth. In other words, no change has occurred that one would call “fundamental” to the matter in any sense.

All the preparatory efficient causes you mention, “gathered, chopped, carried, dried, etc.”, do, is arrange the matter so that the intended effect will come forth from it. The natural form of ash is contained within the potencies of the wood, and, as change goes on there is an emergence of the form into act. In times past, it was said that the statue was “in the stone”; that the artist merely chipped away the excess stone in order to bring forth the form. This is a way of thinking of how privation “exists” in primary and secondary matter.

Don’t get wrapped around the mechanical aspects of what I said. Think about the change at the precise moment of it, when the wood ceases to be wood and becomes ash. Prior to that, it was still wood.

jd

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To nkbeth and JDaniel:

You have done it again, JDaniel. You have answered nkbeth’s enquiry most adroitly, demonstrating that you do understand the key insights about the simultaneity of cause and effect. I would hope all the thread participants would now grasp this also, but many years of teaching students makes me skeptical.

Part of the problem is that most people are not very conversant with hylemorphic or metaphysical terminology. So, when they hear about causes being simultaneous with effects, they get confused. Too many causes: efficient, preparatory, final, instrumental, principal, material, formal, secondary, primary, exemplary, moral, antecedent, and so forth.

That is why I always try to get people to think in terms of BEING, not “standard Aristotelian terminology.” If we can learn to think in terms of BEING, we can do metaphysics. It really isn’t that hard. As I have explained earlier, the need for simultaneity arises because of the existential dependence of the effect on its cause. An effect is a being whose sufficient reason for its being or becoming isn’t totally within itself. A cause is simply an extrinsic sufficient reason. A cause “makes up” for the part (or whole) of the effect which the effect fails to explain for itself. 100% of being needs to be explained. So, to the extent that a being fails to fully explain itself, it needs something extrinsic to it to enable its full explanation to add up to 100%. If a being fully explains itself, it needs no cause. The only example of this is God, who is his own fully adequate sufficient reason for being. All creatures need a cause. Any aspect of a creature that it itself fails to explain needs a cause. Thus, while a thing’s nature might explain why it is movable, it may still need something else to explain it’s actually IN motion. (Save that for another time.)

Let me try to give an example which will bore you with details (and sometimes has taken me two classes to explain while dealing with all objections), but which will help a great deal in providing the key insight we seek to attain: the true meaning of “to take away the cause is to take away the effect.”

Imagine that I am planning to rob a bank and intend to blow up a safe. I light a fuse on some, say, dynamite – exit the room, and the safe blows up. This entails a series of actions: (1) striking a match, (2) lighting the fuse, (3) the fuse burning into the dynamite, and (4) the dynamite exploding.

(1) When I strike the match, I rub its tip against an abrasive surface. As long as the rubbing occurs, the tip of the match is heated. But sometimes, the match does not light. The friction continues only as long as I rub the match on the surface, causing heat. When the rubbing ceases, the heat ceases. If the match does not ignite by then, it remains unlighted. When the cause (rubbing) ceases, the effect (heat) ceases.

(2) and (3) The fuse “ignites” only when the heat caused by the rubbing is sufficient to initiate a mutual causation of oxidation and reduction between the chemical agents in the black powder and the oxygen in the air. The burning will then continue only as long as these reagents are present and continue to interact with each other, one donating electrons to the other, the other receiving electrons from the first. Sometimes the fuse “burns out” without igniting the dynamite. When the cause (mutual interaction of reagents) ceases causing, the effect (continued burning of the fuse) ceases.

(4) The dynamite explodes. That means that the fuse has raised the temperature of the dynamite sufficiently to initiate its OWN reaction with the oxygen in the air. How do I know how MUCH dynamite to use? Why doesn’t the explosion go to infinity once initiated? How do I make this calculation? Probably from practical experience, but theoretically by calculating the weight of the reagents in the dynamite in terms of knowing that each gram molecular weight of the combined reagents (including oxygen in the air) will produce exactly 22.4 liters of gas. Know the weight of the dynamite and you can determine exactly how much volume the product gas will occupy, and hence, the explosive force. The point is that when the dynamite runs out of “stuff” to react with the air, the explosion ceases. Removing the cause stops the effect.

Thinking carefully about this example should help one to realize that in each and every case of causation, removing the cause removes the effect. When people think of effects remaining after the cause is gone, it is because they have the wrong thing causing the wrong effect! We are not here because Adam and Eve originally started our procreation, but because of causes existing here and now. Our own parents can be dead, but we survive.

All those prior causes in the example are causes in the sense that if they did not occur, the final effect (explosion) would not occur. But they, in themselves, do not produce the explosion. The black powder in the fuse simply isn’t powerful enough to blow up the safe. But the reagents in the dynamite ARE powerful enough WHEN they are acting.

I am the MORAL cause of the safe door being blown off, but I am not the direct cause of it coming off because I am too weak to pull it off. That is why I employ the causative power of the dynamite which does it for me. Chains of events going into the past are “causes” of present events and effects in the sense that if they did not happen the present effect would not occur, but only the presently acting direct causes of effects now being produced actually cause them here and now.

Thinking about this kind of example should eventually give all readers the insight needed to understand the absolute truth that every cause actually producing an effect here and now must be acting here and now to produce it. You might call it an “existential tautology!”

 

[Don_Schneider]

Absolutely brilliant.

Er, I hope you’re not waiting for me to disagree. I don’t suppose you’d care to write a review of my short story?

Seriously, I’d reserve the “absolutely brilliant” characterization for greater minds than my own, such as Dr. Bonnette’s and Daniel’s (and possibly Aquinas’s). But thanks all the same!

Best regards,

Don

**P.S. To all: Please take note! Here’s an example of a truly intelligent poster; succinct and eminently perceptive.

 

[Don_Schneider]

Dear Daniel and Dr. Bonnette,

My time is limited today. Therefore, I am printing out your most recent posts for further study and reflection before preparing a response this weekend. For now, however, I want to ask if it is true that we all agree that for an effect to be a product of a particular cause then it must be stated that the effect never would have come into being were it not for the cause.

Thank you.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Dear Daniel and Dr. Bonnette,

My time is limited today. Therefore, I am printing out your most recent posts for further study and reflection before preparing a response this weekend. For now, however, I want to ask if it is true that we all agree that for an effect to be a product of a particular cause then it must be stated that the effect never would have come into being were it not for the cause.

Thank you.

Dear Don,

Since you are in a hurry, I will give my initial response in like fashion.

Truthfully, I am not sure how to answer you – since I am not exactly certain what you have in mind by the terms, “effect” and “cause.”

While I can affirm the truth of your statement as it stands, I am not certain but what I would give the wrong impression, since its meaning to me might not exactly conform to your understanding.

We divide causes into “causes of coming-to-be” and “causes of being.” What causes something to come-to-be may also keep it in being.

Moreover, as I look at your words, it almost sounds to me as if you are thinking of the cause somehow pre-existing the effect in the temporal order. Do you intend that?

Causes of coming-to-be co-exist temporally with the coming-to-be which is being effected by them when they actually cause something to come-to-be. They might exist earlier, but not be acting as a cause, and thus, can be called a “cause” only in virtue of that which they can potentially produce or in virtue of that which they do actually produce at a later time.

This gets complicated, which I why I would rather just have people think about all the factors in that “exploding safe” example for a while before trying to sort out the details!

What is salient about the example, though, is that there are a series of “causes” sequentially viewable through time, but that the actual causation occurring at any given time is always simultaneous. In that sense, the “temporally sequential” causality is in a way secondary to the “temporally simultaneous” causality. And it is the latter which is operative in the Five Ways.

Always remember that we would not be here save for Adam and Eve, but they are not here on earth with us today. Thus, what causes us to be today is NOT Adam and Eve.

We can continue this when we have more time. But these sorts of clarifications are more useful than trying to settle broad confrontations without understanding precisely the details.

Thank you, too.

 

[JDaniel]

Dear Daniel and Dr. Bonnette,

My time is limited today. Therefore, I am printing out your most recent posts for further study and reflection before preparing a response this weekend. For now, however, I want to ask if it is true that we all agree that for an effect to be a product of a particular cause then it must be stated that the effect never would have come into being were it not for the cause.

Thank you.

In a sense, I’m OK with your thought. The problem is that its wording seems to imply the wrong sense of causation again. There are at least four causes of being (and possibly a fifth cause if we include chance as a cause). All four of these causes must be present for change to occur.

As you know, they are: (a) material cause (the matter); (b) efficient cause (the outside agent); (c) formal cause (the form which the matter was formerly in privation of), and, (d) the final cause (the razon d’etre or reason for the action). The removal of any of these removes the Effect. Now, you might ask, why is the Final cause of any importance in the action of the first three causes? It is because it is, “that for the sake of which the agent acts.” Without it, the agent, the efficient cause, would not act. It is involved with the presence or removal of the efficient cause.

However, the Effect is absolutely dependent upon each of these causes, and will not come into being without them.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Dear Daniel and Dr. Bonnette,

My time is limited today. Therefore, I am printing out your most recent posts for further study and reflection before preparing a response this weekend. For now, however, I want to ask if it is true that we all agree that for an effect to be a product of a particular cause then it must be stated that the effect never would have come into being were it not for the cause.

Thank you.

Don:

Please read post # 33 and # 34 to see how the Church views what we’re talking about. This gives you a little of the background for why we think that matter cannot of itself move (or change), that the form can’t migrate over to the matter on its own, and why an efficient cause is necessary, and why a First (Efficient) Cause is imperative.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5422746#post5422746

jd