Please explain why the first cause/necessary being must be personal

[Luke_K]

 

[Vico]

Transcendent Personal God

Transcendent means that God is above, other than, and distinct from all he has made. God has created all laws of nature, things, and creatures, but is above, other than, and distinct from all those creations.

Human thought cannot conceive of that which is beyond any attributes.

A personal God enters into covenants with individuals and groups. An impersonal God does not.

 

[DianaCC]

A couple of reasons. First, because if the First Cause wasn’t personal, then there could be no persons among its effects, since an effect can never be greater than its cause. Second, because the First Cause must have acted deliberately and on its own, not automatically, and this is a property of persons.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

This would require an understanding of why our potentiality became actuality, this is the fork in the road between alot of people. Are we nessesary to existence or do we exist by unnessesary means which can be logically deduced to the simpliest word, love. God does not require finiteness to be because God is greater then the first cause (or the act of) and is nessesary for our potentiality to become actuality. So why would a nessesary being who is greater then our actualized existence cause us into being other the fact of love which is a personal attribute?

 

[tonyrey]

Human words are inadequate to describe the Creator of the universe. St Thomas Aquinas wrote

"One thing about God remains completely unknown in this life, namely, what God is" (Commentary on Romans, chapter 1, lesson 6).

What we do know is that love is the most significant fact of life without which everything is meaningless and valueless. Human love must reflect divine perfection even though to an almost negligible extent. Why should what has been created leave no trace whatsoever of its origin?

We are not the measure of all things but we are the highest known form of life with our creative power and our transcendence of the environment which is evident in the remarkable success of science. Pascal observed that we are aware of the universe whereas, vast as it is, the universe is unaware that we exist. That should give anyone food for thought…

We are the only beings regarded as the ultimate causes of our actions because we are regarded as normally responsible for our behaviour. We are prime movers within our own limited realm but we know our astonishing power does not come from us. It must be derived from a greater Source. It is folly to attribute the existence of persons to purposeless, impersonal processes which meander blindly in the obscurity of eternity.

The wisdom of St Thomas is evident in his three ways of knowing God: affirmation, negation and transcendence. Yet his philosophical insight was inspired by divine revelation:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.”

To think of God as personal is not anthropomorphic but ratiocentric and deocentric! We are not sparks in the dark but children of the light…

 

[belorg]

That’s an easy one: the first cause needn’t be personal at all.

The theist’s understanding of a personal first cause is based on antropomorphism.

There is no way of knowing whether a first cause can cause ‘automatically’ or whetehr there is any significant distinction to be made between God’s alleged ‘personal’ decsisions and the ‘decisions’ made by e.g. quantum fluctuations.

The argument that since the first cause is the greatest conceivable being, it must be personal does not work either because why would ‘personal’ be gretaer than non-personal? Just because we happen to be personal does not mean personality has any sort of objective greatness.

Originally posted by tonyrey
It is folly to attribute the existence of persons to purposeless, impersonal processes which meander blindly in the obscurity of eternity.

This is just an argument from ignorance. Just because you cannot imagine how purposeless impersonal processess can lead to personal minds does not mean it cannot happen. And who says impersonal processes are purposeless anyway?

 

[danserr]

There are several reasons the first cause must be personal. I only have a moment, so I’ll mention one for discussion purposes and try to get back to this. Look at William Lane Craig on the Kalam Cosmological argument; he generally covers this.

One reason is that the cause created all space, time, and matter. The cause therefore must transcend space and time and so must be immaterial, atemporal (at least causally prior to the universe’s existence), and non-spatial.

• There are only 2 things which fall into this category: 1. Abstract objects like numbers. But numbers do not stand in causal relation (ex. the number 7 does not cause anything). The other thing is a mind. Minds do cause things, therefore the cause of the universe must be an embodied mind.

Other reasons are that there are two types of causes: personal and physical (exact word?). The cause of the universe cannot be physical because no matter existed, therefore the cause is personal.

Finally, a personal cause also explains why the universe came into being a finite time ago. Since a non-personal cause should always have been causing the effect and we should then observe the universe as infinitely old, which we obviously do not.

 

[Heuchler]

We believe the First Cause is personal because of Divine Revelation. Otherwise there really isnt any definitive evidence to prove this. However, we can still refute the Atheists claims of humanity simply projecting ourselves onto our God. God doesnt reflect humans. The God we preach about is beyond the personal which we as humans present. God is found in the silence, instead of in all the signs and noise which would benefit and reflect the people who “invented” God. We see a God who comes in things such as the Hypostatic Union and the Trinity instead of being simple and reflecting Humanity. If humans invented this, it would be more polytheistic and have many Gods who would kindly explain what we dont understand. God is not like humans, and He is definitely not a projection.

 

[smichhertz]

The above posters raised excellent points, I’ll just tack on another thought: From an inductive standpoint, it makes perfect sense that the first cause would be personal.

When in our experience have we come across a non-sentient creating a sentient? We haven’t, therefore its more likely that the first cause was sentient rather than non-sentient.

 

[danserr]

There are several reasons the first cause must be personal. I only have a moment, so I’ll mention one for discussion purposes and try to get back to this. Look at William Lane Craig on the Kalam Cosmological argument; he generally covers this.

One reason is that the cause created all space, time, and matter. The cause therefore must transcend space and time and so must be immaterial, atemporal (at least causally prior to the universe’s existence), and non-spatial.

• There are only 2 things which fall into this category: 1. Abstract objects like numbers. But numbers do not stand in causal relation (ex. the number 7 does not cause anything). The other thing is a mind. Minds do cause things, therefore the cause of the universe must be an embodied mind.

Other reasons are that there are two types of causes: personal and physical (exact word?). The cause of the universe cannot be physical because no matter existed, therefore the cause is personal.

Finally, a personal cause also explains why the universe came into being a finite time ago. Since a non-personal cause should always have been causing the effect and we should then observe the universe as infinitely old, which we obviously do not.

looking over this, i see if made a typo. perils of typing too quickly and being in a hurry. Above should read, “the cause of the universe must be an un-embodied mind.”

 

[sw85]

The argument that since the first cause is the greatest conceivable being, it must be personal does not work either because why would ‘personal’ be gretaer than non-personal? Just because we happen to be personal does not mean personality has any sort of objective greatness.

It is a property of potentiality.

A thing can only actualize the potential of something else by endowing it with some feature of itself. So a lighter can cause a piece of paper to catch fire, but it cannot cause it to freeze because it does not possess that property.

Therefore the existence of things with personality suggests that personality is a feature of God.

It is, granted, not “personality” in the sense that we understand it. But then neither is God’s “goodness” or “power” good or powerful in a sense that we understand it.

 

[Ahimsa]

When in our experience have we come across a non-sentient creating a sentient?

Define “sentient”.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

I think also what we have to remember is what Aquinas said about being is convertible with good. The existence of evil does not falsify this statement if we understand evil is not a being at all but the absense of being and good. God is ever so personal to us when goodness is our being.

 

[tonyrey]

It is folly to attribute the existence of persons to purposeless, impersonal processes which meander blindly in the obscurity of eternity.

On the contrary it’s an argument from knowledge - and also from knowledge of knowledge! We know atomic particles are devoid of knowledge and intelligence.

Just because you cannot imagine how purposeless impersonal processes can lead to personal minds does not mean it cannot happen.

I’m not concerned with imaginary events but with facts.

And who says impersonal processes are purposeless anyway?

Everyone except those who live in an imaginary world. Have you ever seen an inanimate object doing something deliberately?

 

[smichhertz]

Define “sentient”.

For the purposes of discussion on this thread, let’s go with “personal consciousness” as a working definition.

 

[JDaniel]

Luke:

Now, just you take you hand away from your chin, my brother. Let’s ask ourselves another: "Why would a non-caring, impersonal, non-thoughtful, non-loving, non-delighted, non-empathetic, energy-thingy, who just happened to insert Jesus into the world to suffer in the worst way, create this world and be its Prime Mover? That said, I do not believe that He is quite as “personal” as some people believe. (Which I’ll explain if asked to.)

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

It is a property of potentiality.

A thing can only actualize the potential of something else by endowing it with some feature of itself. So a lighter can cause a piece of paper to catch fire, but it cannot cause it to freeze because it does not possess that property.

Therefore the existence of things with personality suggests that personality is a feature of God.

So, does the existence of material thinhs also suggest that materiality is a feature of God?

It is, granted, not “personality” in the sense that we understand it. But then neither is God’s “goodness” or “power” good or powerful in a sense that we understand it.

Nothing about God seems to be in the sense that we understand it. Therefore we aren’t justified calling God ‘good’ or ‘powerful’

 

[Luke_K]

sw85:

It is a property of potentiality.

A thing can only actualize the potential of something else by endowing it with some feature of itself. So a lighter can cause a piece of paper to catch fire, but it cannot cause it to freeze because it does not possess that property.

Therefore the existence of things with personality suggests that personality is a feature of God.

So, does the existence of material thinhs also suggest that materiality is a feature of God?

I’m with belorg, here. I’ve never understood or found the idea “whatever is in the effect must be in the cause” compelling. A snowball rolling down a mountain may be the cause of an avalanche, but that doesn’t mean it possesses the properties of an avalanche. Or you could easily make a Rude-Goldberg machine where the lighter is the ultimate cause of some water freezing.

And take, for example, a body. None of the atoms of the body have the properties of a living being, but taken together and arranged in a certain way they do. Life is not something any atom possesses itself, but only together. Perhaps it is the same for personality?

And like belorg said, must God also be material? Must he have a mass or speed or dimensionality? Must he have an odor, color, or roughness? I’m pretty sure God actually has none of these features, but he still caused them. So why can’t the first cause not actually have a personality but still cause it to exist?

 

[Luke_K]

There are several reasons the first cause must be personal. I only have a moment, so I’ll mention one for discussion purposes and try to get back to this. Look at William Lane Craig on the Kalam Cosmological argument; he generally covers this.

One reason is that the cause created all space, time, and matter. The cause therefore must transcend space and time and so must be immaterial, atemporal (at least causally prior to the universe’s existence), and non-spatial.

• There are only 2 things which fall into this category: 1. Abstract objects like numbers. But numbers do not stand in causal relation (ex. the number 7 does not cause anything). The other thing is a mind. Minds do cause things, therefore the cause of the universe must be an embodied mind.

Other reasons are that there are two types of causes: personal and physical (exact word?). The cause of the universe cannot be physical because no matter existed, therefore the cause is personal.

Finally, a personal cause also explains why the universe came into being a finite time ago. Since a non-personal cause should always have been causing the effect and we should then observe the universe as infinitely old, which we obviously do not.

Yes, these are good points. I’m still digesting them, though, to see if there’s a problem.

 

[belorg]

There are several reasons the first cause must be personal. I only have a moment, so I’ll mention one for discussion purposes and try to get back to this. Look at William Lane Craig on the Kalam Cosmological argument; he generally covers this.

One reason is that the cause created all space, time, and matter. The cause therefore must transcend space and time and so must be immaterial, atemporal (at least causally prior to the universe’s existence), and non-spatial.

• There are only 2 things which fall into this category: 1. Abstract objects like numbers. But numbers do not stand in causal relation (ex. the number 7 does not cause anything). The other thing is a mind. Minds do cause things, therefore the cause of the universe must be a disembodied mind.

There are NOT 2 things which fall into this category. There is no evidence whatsoever that disembodied minds exist and there is even less evidence that, should these minds exist, they stand in causal relations.
Let’s test this, danserr. use your own mind (let’s concede, FTSOTA, that your mind is immaterial, atemporal and non-spatial) and cause a particle to appear out of nothing. Can you do that? If not, your whole argument falls apart.

And even if a mind were immaterial, atemporal and non-spatial and causally effective, you shouldn’t conflate a mind with a personality. Intelliegance does not (necessarily) entail personality.

Other reasons are that there are two types of causes: personal and physical (exact word?). The cause of the universe cannot be physical because no matter existed, therefore the cause is personal.

The opposite of ‘physical’ is not ‘personal’, danserr, so what you are sayiong here is a non-sequitur.

Finally, a personal cause also explains why the universe came into being a finite time ago. Since a non-personal cause should always have been causing the effect and we should then observe the universe as infinitely old, which we obviously do not.

No, it does not. A personal cause (at least the one WL Craig has in mind, namely a being that is atemporal and unchanging sans the universe) cannot possibly create anything that begins to exist. Wes Morriston (not an atheist, BTW) is correct in saying that a being that does not gebin to exist, does not begin to do anything either, so God cannot have begun to create the universe, hence, the universe created by such a God cannot have begun to exist, contradicting the second premise of the KCA.