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

[Trevor_Stamm]

A purely potential state or nothingness? That’s a contradiction Nothingness is **not **a purely potential state. nothingness is completely nothing. So, your argument deos not work.

Completely nothing? Even void of the PAB? Sonds like a potential state for change. Unless that’s not what you meant.

No, the PAB does not have the power to subtract himself from a particular place, because that is a change, and the PAB is changeless.

I stand corrected. Trying to explain how from a finite standpoint seems logically impossible.

No, I don’t accepts those events as facts, but that’s irrelevant. Those facts, although physically (name removed by moderator)ossible are not logically impossible. Creating potentiality from actuality is logically impossible…

Not logical impossiblities? I fail to see that. Let’s take one of those miracles, a recent one that was proven to be real. St. Padre Pio gave sight to a woman who had no pupils, absolutely unable to see. For her to see would be a logical impossibility without the necessary fullness of the eyes, especially the pupils. And yet she had sight after the miracle. How is this not logically impossible but only explainable by something that escapes human thought?

Agreed, the effects of these miracles are not relevant to the debate, what is relevant though is the unexplainable causes. Admitting the fact that these causes are unexplainable might give you enough to see how potentiality was created outside the PAB.

 

[belorg]

Completely nothing? Even void of the PAB? Sonds like a potential state for change. Unless that’s not what you meant.

The PAB isn’t relevant here because the PAB by definition has no potentialiyu, so a reality that consists of the PAB + nothing else has no potentiality and will always stay a PAB + nothing else.

I stand corrected. Trying to explain how from a finite standpoint seems logically impossible.

It’s also impossible from an infinite POV.

Not logical impossiblities? I fail to see that. Let’s take one of those miracles, a recent one that was proven to be real. St. Padre Pio gave sight to a woman who had no pupils, absolutely unable to see. For her to see would be a logical impossibility without the necessary fullness of the eyes, especially the pupils. And yet she had sight after the miracle. How is this not logically impossible but only explainable by something that escapes human thought?

No, for this lady to see was physically impossible, but not logically impossible.
It’s logically possible for some miraculous force to create an effect that on a purely physical basis is impossible, but it defies no rule of logic.

Agreed, the effects of these miracles are not relevant to the debate, what is relevant though is the unexplainable causes. Admitting the fact that these causes are unexplainable might give you enough to see how potentiality was created outside the PAB.

I have no problem admitting that there may be some unexplainable causes, but those cuased cannot make the logically impossible happen.

 

[danserr]

Can you please supply a reference for your last sentence? I am not aware that astronomers or physicists have agreed that the Big Bang expanded from “nothing.” In fact noted SETI astronomer Seth Shostak, who is a regular guest lecturer for Stanford University’s Astrobiology seminar, is on record as saying, in this class on 08/25/2008 that in effect, that scientists can only reasonably discuss what happened from a few milliseconds after the Big Bang began, onward, not what initiated the Big Bang or what occured before the Big Bang.

As I said in my post number 109:

PCW Davies, “Space-time Singularities in Cosmology”: …“For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the Big bang represents the creation of event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe,but also of space-time itself.”

– John barrow and frank Tipler, The anthropic cosmological principle p.422: “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before hte singularity, so if the universe originiated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex-nihilo.”

– So the big bang represents the beginning of space, time, and matter. They did not exist, then the were created with the big bang. “before” the big bang, there was no matter, and not even space or time.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

The PAB isn’t relevant here because the PAB by definition has no potentialiyu, so a reality that consists of the PAB + nothing else has no potentiality and will always stay a PAB + nothing else.

But is it illogical to say a reality can consists of PAB + potentiality? Or is it just PAB + 0 = only PAB? Potentiality was acted on, so it’s either the PAB acted on a separate potential state not caused by Him or the PAB was able to cause a potentiality separate from him and act on it. The latter is presents finite illogic because there was no recipient of change but only the PAB, the former presents finite illogic for potentiality cannot be the necessity of itself. Neither is damaging to any theistic stance, for in order for the potentiality to change requires a supreme intelligence able to direct unintelligible things to their ends. You state that there is a hypothesis of quantum vacuum theory that presents a scenario that unintelligible things directed themselves to an accidental end while other scientists have said that QVT (Quatum vacuum theory) does not give any evidence to believe nothing caused it. Are you completely sure of that hypothesis?

No, for this lady to see was physically impossible, but not logically impossible.
It’s logically possible for some miraculous force to create an effect that on a purely physical basis is impossible, but it defies no rule of logic.

I have no problem admitting that there may be some unexplainable causes, but those caused cannot make the logically impossible happen.

Defies logic when she was able to see, and still have no pupils. I was only using this particular miracle because it was recent and undeniable but if you want something that defies logic more, there’s others. But I’m not going to waste anymore time on it though, since it seems in this point of view we have different definitions of logic. Just going to focus on the issue above.

 

[belorg]

But is it illogical to say a reality can consists of PAB + potentiality?

No, that’s not illogical, but that is not Aquinas’ view, it seems more like Aristotle’s view.
Mind, there are still problems with that, but less severe than with Aquinas’ version.

Or is it just PAB + 0 = only PAB? Potentiality was acted on, so it’s either the PAB acted on a separate potential state not caused by Him or the PAB was able to cause a potentiality separate from him and act on it. The latter is presents finite illogic because there was no recipient of change but only the PAB, the former presents finite illogic for potentiality cannot be the necessity of itself. Neither is damaging to any theistic stance, for in order for the potentiality to change requires a supreme intelligence able to direct unintelligible things to their ends. You state that there is a hypothesis of quantum vacuum theory that presents a scenario that unintelligible things directed themselves to an accidental end while other scientists have said that QVT (Quatum vacuum theory) does not give any evidence to believe nothing caused it. Are you completely sure of that hypothesis?

No, I am not. It’s a hypothesis and it may be wrong. But it is not shown to be logically impossible, while Pure Act + 0 can only ever be Purer Act + 0 and not Pure Act + Potentiality. That is ruled out by logic.

Defies logic when she was able to see, and still have no pupils.

If defies naturalism, for sure, but technically it does not defy logic.

I was only using this particular miracle because it was recent and undeniable but if you want something that defies logic more, there’s others. But I’m not going to waste anymore time on it though, since it seems in this point of view we have different definitions of logic. Just going to focus on the issue above.

I use logically possible in the sense I think most philospohers would use it. I don’t think you will find many atheist philophers argue that miracles are logically impossible, at least I do not know a decent argument to show they are logically impossible.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

No, that’s not illogical, but that is not Aquinas’ view, it seems more like Aristotle’s view.
Mind, there are still problems with that, but less severe than with Aquinas’ version.

Starting to connect with that thread I started. Might take an observation stance on it for the time being.

No, I am not. It’s a hypothesis and it may be wrong. But it is not shown to be logically impossible, while Pure Act + 0 can only ever be Purer Act + 0 and not Pure Act + Potentiality. That is ruled out by logic.

Curious, did the vacuum always have the potentiality to produce the universe, or multi-verse? Maybe you see where I’m getting at. Just think these kind of theories fall prey to Parmenides claim change is impossible. Even though I know he’s dead wrong, when both of you do not accept an external influence is the one actualizing potentiality in things (for whatever potentiality that is not already actualized in things, those things cannot actualize those potentials by themselves such as wood cannot actualize ash by itself), I think his argument would be hard for you overcome.

 

[belorg]

Curious, did the vacuum always have the potentiality to produce the universe, or multi-verse?

Yes

Maybe you see where I’m getting at. Just think these kind of theories fall prey to Parmenides claim change is impossible. Even though I know he’s dead wrong, when both of you do not accept an external influence is the one actualizing potentiality in things (for whatever potentiality that is not already actualized in things, those things cannot actualize those potentials by themselves such as wood cannot actualize ash by itself), I think his argument would be hard for you overcome.

No it isn’t. Because obviously ‘those things can actualize those potentilas by themselves’.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Yes

No it isn’t. Because obviously ‘those things can actualize those potentilas by themselves’.

Safe to say, this change was passive then? This goes back to my first reply way back, how is this theory not suggesting infinite regression? The very attosecond, or even smaller then that, this vacuum existed it changed. Either it has always existed and there was no change or it had an efficient cause and change happened. How does this theory work when you have passive change, no efficient cause, and not implying infinite regression?

 

[belorg]

Safe to say, this change was passive then? This goes back to my first reply way back, how is this theory not suggesting infinite regression?

Because it does not presuppose infinite time.

The very attosecond, or even smaller then that, this vacuum existed it changed.

That’s the wrong way of looking at it. The vacuum (or whatever it was) existed timelssly until the ‘very attosecond, or even smaller’ when it changed.
And this change was not ‘uncaused’, the chnage occured due to the quantum conditions that had been eternally present.

Either it has always existed and there was no change or it had an efficient cause and change happened.

Or it had an eternal probabilitic cause, which was only an efficient cause once it became actual. At that moment, time began.
So, there is no need for an infinite regress.

 

[Luke_K]

Because it does not presuppose infinite time.

That’s the wrong way of looking at it. The vacuum (or whatever it was) existed timelssly until the ‘very attosecond, or even smaller’ when it changed.
And this change was not ‘uncaused’, the chnage occured due to the quantum conditions that had been eternally present.

Or it had an eternal probabilitic cause, which was only an efficient cause once it became actual. At that moment, time began.
So, there is no need for an infinite regress.

If the vacuum (or whatever it was) existed by itself, or by virtue of what it was, then it would still exist today. It cannot change into something else if existing is part of what it is. If existence is not intrinsic to what that “vacuum” was, then it must have gotten it from something else and we’re stuck with an infinite regress.

 

[belorg]

If the vacuum (or whatever it was) existed by itself, or by virtue of what it was, then it would still exist today.

Who says it doesn’t?

It cannot change into something else if existing is part of what it is.

Of course (part of)it can change into something else.

If existence is not intrinsic to what that “vacuum” was, then it must have gotten it from something else and we’re stuck with an infinite regress.

Existence is intrinsic to everything that exists, so, yes existence is intrinsic to the vacuum.
It cannot get its existence from anything else; since that ‘something else’ would, according to you, be changeless. Changeless things cannot give anything to anything else. That’s why the first cause cannot be changeless, so there must be something that has existence as part of itself and can change.

The vacuum is a far more parismonious hypothesis for this first cause than God is.