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

[belorg]

My statement is not based on ignorance but on knowledge of the fact that impersonal processes lack consciousness and the power of reason. Your view is based on the unsupported assumption that consciousness and the power of reason are derived from things which lack consciousness and the power of reason. There is no other alternative.

My view is based on the fact that it is not known that conscoiusness and the power of reason are not derived things. There is nothing illogical about it, saying that they cannot be derived is just an argument from ignorance.
BTW I am not saying they are derived, just that they may be derived. It think it is plausible that they are derived, but I am open to any serious argument to the contrary, but I am not opne to an assertion based on ignorance. You’ll have to do much better than that.

It does unless you believe you can get something for nothing - magically.

Then you can get something from nothing is enatiled by your view, Tony, mine does not entail this at al. My view entails that you can get something from something else, e.g. by the porcess commonly known as evolution (which misrt Catholics accept, BTW)

Then you cannot be a rational entity, i.e. a person. Unless you can tell me where “you” are, i.e. your “self”…

I am currently in Belgium behind my computer, Tony.

Things don’t have free will or responsibility.

That may be so, but I have never claimed they did.

 

[tonyrey]

My statement is not based on ignorance but on knowledge of the fact that impersonal processes lack consciousness and the power of reason. Your view is based on the unsupported assumption that consciousness and the power of reason are derived from things which lack consciousness and the power of reason. There is no other alternative.

Which amounts to ignorance!

There is nothing illogical about it, saying that they cannot be derived is just an argument from ignorance.

It is illogical if you haven’t the slightest idea of how it could have occurred. It amounts to believing **anything **is possible… no matter now absurd it seems.

BTW I am not saying they are derived, just that they may be derived.

It think it is plausible that they are derived, but I am open to any serious argument to the contrary, but I am not opne to an assertion based on ignorance. You’ll have to do much better than that.

Why is it plausible? You’ll have to do much better than just giving an opinion without any reason to support it.

It does unless you believe you can get something for nothing - magically.Then you can get something from nothing is enatiled by your view…

Not at all. My view is that everything has been created by the Supreme Being.

…mine does not entail this at all.

It does because rational consciousness is not a thing. It is an attribute of a person.

My view entails that you can get something from something else, e.g. by the porcess commonly known as evolution (which misrt Catholics accept, BTW)

No Catholic accepts the accidental evolution of persons from animals.

Then you cannot be a rational entity, i.e. a person. Unless you can tell me where “you” are, i.e. your “self”…

I am currently in Belgium behind my computer, Tony.

Your body is there. Do you equate yourself with a collection of atomic particles?

Things don’t have free will or responsibility.

That may be so, but I have never claimed they did.

You equate persons with things. So either you deny free will and responsibility exist or you attribute them to things.

 

[belorg]

Which amounts to ignorance!

Sure, but I don’t base a positive claim on ignorance. So I do not say: “because we do not know that consciousness is not derived from non-consciousness therefore consciousness is derived from non-consciousness.” That would be an argument from ignorance. What I say is: " it is not known that consciousness cannot be derived from non-consciousness and therefore consciousness is possibly derived from non-consciousness", which is a logically justifoed inference.

It is illogical if you haven’t the slightest idea of how it could have occurred. It amounts to believing **anything **is possible… no matter now absurd it seems.

Well I do have an idea how it could have occurred. But that is too much of a derial of this thread.

Why is it plausible? You’ll have to do much better than just giving an opinion without any reason to support it.

I do not have to do much better, because I am actially making no positive claim here. All I am saying is that your positive claim that consciousness cannot come from non-consciousness is an asserion based on the fact that you personally do not know how something may have occurred. You haven’t given any sort of argument apart from an argument form ignornace.

Not at all. My view is that everything has been created by the Supreme Being.

From nothing. So I repeat: that you can get something from nothing is entailed by your view, and NOT by mine.

It does because rational consciousness is not a thing. It is an attribute of a person.

It is a propety of a complex thing. That is my view.

No Catholic accepts the accidental evolution of persons from animals.

Lots of Catholics do in fact. Most of them refer to some vague divine plan, but they do accept the evolution (I do not know where you get the trem ‘accidental’ BTW) from animal to man, in fact lots of them accept that man is an animal.

Your body is there. Do you equate yourself with a collection of atomic particles?

Until further evidence: yes I do.

You equate persons with things. So either you deny free will and responsibility exist or you attribute them to things.

Let me be clear on this, Tony: I do not believe in libertarian free will, but that is irrelevent for my postion on dualism or physicalism. In fact dualism does not entail libertarian free will and neither does physicalism neceesraily entail a lack of libertarian free will.

 

[tonyrey]

Which amounts to ignorance!

is possible… no matter now absurd it seems. Well I do have an idea how it could have occurred. But that is too much of a derial of this thread.An idea still amounts to ignorance.

Why

is it plausible? You’ll have to do much better than just giving an opinion without any reason to support it.
I do not have to do much better, because I am actially making no positive claim here. All I am saying is that your positive claim that consciousness cannot come from non-consciousness is an asserion based on the fact that you personally do not know how something may have occurred. You haven’t given any sort of argument apart from an argument form ignornace.You are making a positive claim that you are merely a collection of atomic particles

Not at all. My view is that everything has been created by the Supreme Being.

From nothing. So I repeat: that you can get something from nothing is entailed by your view, and NOT by mine.
Not from nothing. Created out of nothing by the Supreme Being.

It does because rational consciousness is not a thing. It is an attribute of a person.

It is a propety of a complex thing. That is my view.In a court of law you are regarded as a person not a complex thing

No Catholic accepts the accidental evolution of persons from animals. Lots of Catholics do in fact. Most of them refer to some vague divine plan, but they do accept the evolution (I do not know where you get the trem ‘accidental’ BTW) from animal to man, in fact lots of them accept that man is an animal.

No Catholic accepts the evolution of the soul from animals.
accidental = fortuitous

Your body is there. Do you equate yourself with a collection of atomic particles?

       Until further evidence: yes I do.Are your thoughts, feelings and decisions tangible?

You equate persons with things. So either you deny free will and responsibility exist or you attribute them to things.

I do not believe in libertarian free will, but that is irrelevent for my postion on dualism or physicalism. It is relevant because without free will you cannot choose what to think!

In fact dualism does not entail libertarian free will and neither does physicalism neceesraily entail a lack of libertarian free will.

How can physical objects which have physical causes have free will?

[/QUOTE]

 

[belorg]

belorg;8130125:

You base your positive claim that we are things

• rather than persons - on ignorance.

Again, if I were to assert we are merely things, then your accusation would be correct. But I don’t assertv it. Unlike you, I keep an open mind and if an argument, other than an argument from ignorance comes along, I will consider it.
But the difference between you and me is that you make the claim that consciousness cannot lead to non-consciousness on the sole bais that you have no idea how that could happen, which is the definition of an argument from ignorance, while I am in fact only saying that the fact that yourcannot explain something does not mean it is inexplicable.

An idea still amounts to ignorance.

Sorry, but I am not going to discuss on the bais of silly semantic games.

You are making a positive claim that you are merely a collection of atomic particles

No, I am making the claim that AFAICT I am merely a collection of atomic particles.
Still, if you have an argument against it, I am all ears, but if you can only present an argument from ignornace, I am afraid there is nothing to discuss.

Not from nothing. Created out of nothing by the Supreme Being.

The supreme being can get something from nothing. So, for the third time, you are the one claiming that it’s possible to get something from nothing. I am not claiming that at all.

In a court of law you are regarded as a person not a complex thing

In a court room, yes. In a philosphical discussion that would depend on the philosopher. But no serious philosopher would claim that something is impossible just because he cannot see how it would be done. Otherwise I have a very strong argument against God/ I do not see how God cahn create from nothing, therefore God cannot create from nothing. That is an argument from ignorance and just as “convincing” as yours.

No Catholic accepts the evolution of the soul from animals.
accidental = fortuitous

Lots of Catholics do, in fact.

Are your thoughts, feelings and decisions tangible?

Perhaps.

It is relevant because without free will you cannot choose what to think!

So what? I have never claimed I could choose what to think.

How can physical objects which have physical causes have free will?

In the same way non-physical objects with non-physical causes would have free will.

 

[tonyrey]

You base your positive claim that we are things - rather than persons - on ignorance.

How can you have an open mind when you are an atheist who categorically rejects the existence of God?

But the difference between you and me is that you make the claim that consciousness cannot lead to non-consciousness on the sole bais that you have no idea how that could happen, which is the definition of an argument from ignorance, while I am in fact only saying that the fact that yourcannot explain something does not mean it is inexplicable.

I offer an explanation that you reject whereas your position is entirely negative and therefore implausible. As Lear remarked, nothing shall come from nothing.

An idea still amounts to ignorance.

Sorry, but I am not going to discuss on the bais of silly semantic games.

It is a fact not a game. Anyone can have an idea, no matter how absurd…

You are making a positive claim that you are merely a collection of atomic particles

No, I am making the claim that AFAICT I am merely a collection of atomic particles.
Still, if you have an argument against it, I am all ears, but if you can only present an argument from ignornace, I am afraid there is nothing to discuss.

Do you have any evidence that atomic particles are aware of themselves and can choose to act in certain ways?

Not from nothing. Created out of nothing by the Supreme Being.

The supreme being can get something from nothing. So, for the third time, you are the one claiming that it’s possible to get something from nothing.

I am not claiming that at all.

You think you are not claiming anything whereas in reality you are claiming that you are not making any claims! As Lear remarked, nothing shall come from nothing.

In a court of law you are regarded as a person not a complex thing

In a court room, yes. In a philosphical discussion that would depend on the philosopher.

You would soon change your tune if you were on trial for your life!

But no serious philosopher would claim that something is impossible just because he cannot see how it would be done.

No serious philosopher would claim it is impossible to reach any valid conclusions - which is what your position amounts to.

Otherwise I have a very strong argument against God/ I do not see how God cahn create from nothing, therefore God cannot create from nothing. That is an argument from ignorance and just as “convincing” as yours.

Can you see how you are capable of making decisions - apparently out of nothing?

No Catholic accepts the evolution of the soul from animals.
accidental = fortuitous

Lots of Catholics do, in fact.

Evidence?

Are your thoughts, feelings and decisions tangible?

Perhaps.

Your negativity is significant. It highlights your lack of rational foundation…

It is relevant because without free will you cannot choose what to think!

So what? I have never claimed I could choose what to think.

In that case your conclusions are worthless! It is only lunatics cannot choose what to think…

How can physical objects which have physical causes have free will?

In the same way non-physical objects with non-physical causes would have free will.

Do you control yourself in the same way that a stone controls itself?

 

[belorg]

How can you have an open mind when you are an atheist who categorically rejects the existence of God?

Well, Tony, with all due respect, since you have presented nothing that even remotely looks like an argument I see no point in continuing this discussion with you.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, Tony, with all due respect, since you have presented nothing that even remotely looks like an argument I see no point in continuing this discussion with you.

The going is getting too tough! Others will draw their own conclusions. Fare well.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Hi Trevor

No, I am not suggesting anything about an infinitely regressing universe. That is a logical possibility, but personally I am not fond of it.
What I am suggesting is a timelessly eternal proto-uviverse that spontantously underwent some change. e.g. some sort of ‘quantum vacuum’ that did not begin to exist and was atemporal until the first 'fluctuation 'occured, which means a change and thus the proto-universe became temporal. To mimic WL Craig in this: the (proto)universe was timeless sans ‘fluctuations’ and temporal with the ‘fluctuations.’

Curious, how does the “quantum vacuum fluctuations” theory escape the need of an efficient cause?

As to the second part of your post, “the agent of the efficient cause is itself infinite, identical of its essence and existence, and pure act void of potentiality”. this seems to be a more orthodox Thomist view on things.
The main problem I see with it is that this seems to entaiil that there was an (ontic) instance at which there was only pure act ,void of potentiality, in which case potentiality cannot possibily be accounted for.
The only way to get out of it would be to posit some kind of eternal potential universe alongside the purely actual first mover (as Aristotle suggested)., which would mean that the Christian idea of God as the creator of everything is false.

I’ll take your observation as an orthodox Thomist as a complement

Your agrument may present a problem to me if I did not account existence as per se cause, not per accidens, and teleological.

 

[levinas12]

Well I do have an idea how it could have occurred. But that is too much of a derial of this thread.

Go ahead and “derail”. In fact, I think your idea on this would not derail at all - it seems to me very germane to the discussion.

This is a genuine request; not a rhetorical ploy.

But please, if possible, explain it all in your own words. No cites (unless maybe at the very end).

 

[belorg]

Curious, how does the “quantum vacuum fluctuations” theory escape the need of an efficient cause?

An indiviual quantum vacuum fluctuation has, at least under some interpretations of QM no efficient cause. There is of course a necessary condition (the vacuum) , but that necessary condition can be regarded as atemporal ‘sans’ fluctuation, just as , in WL Craig’s view, God can be regarded as atemporal ‘sans’ creation.

I’ll take your observation as an orthodox Thomist as a complement

I do not kniw your stance on other things, but what you said struck me as orthodox Thomism, comprared to the heterodox Thomism of e.g. W. Craig.

Your agrument may present a problem to me if I did not account existence as per se cause, not per accidens, and teleological.

I don’t get the grammar of this sentence . Do you mean you account existence as per se cause and teleogical?

Caree to explain some more?

 

[belorg]

Go ahead and “derail”. In fact, I think your idea on this would not derail at all - it seems to me very germane to the discussion.

This is a genuine request; not a rhetorical ploy.

But please, if possible, explain it all in your own words. No cites (unless maybe at the very end).

Explaining this would take me several pages and I don’t have the time to do it now.
Maybe I’ll start a thread on it some day.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

An indiviual quantum vacuum fluctuation has, at least under some interpretations of QM no efficient cause. There is of course a necessary condition (the vacuum) , but that necessary condition can be regarded as atemporal ‘sans’ fluctuation, just as , in WL Craig’s view, God can be regarded as atemporal ‘sans’ creation.

Ehh, done some more reading on the theory and I’m not going to draw up anything about it until there is a definable singular interpretation of it. Not copping out, but a lot of interpretations out there from credible scientists and not a lot of clarity on the issue. Some say what you are saying, others are saying its not a state of nothingness and thus requiring an efficient cause, etc…

I don’t get the grammar of this sentence . Do you mean you account existence as per se cause and teleogical?

Caree to explain some more?

You were stating that potentiality cannot be accounted for because there was only pure actuality. I am stating that the pure actuality was/is able to create potentiality because I observe a teleological (final causality) of nature, or simplest terms, a reason of being. And as Thomas has pointed out, being is convertible with good. Which seems to be the crux of this thread, a necessary being. It’s easy to dismiss the necessary being, that we are contingent of it, if we do not accept final causality at all. Maybe my argument is a stretch but I also observe that a cause is greater then its effect, in which case supports an “ability” of a uncaused causer able to cause potentiality into being from a teleological reason.

 

[belorg]

Ehh, done some more reading on the theory and I’m not going to draw up anything about it until there is a definable singular interpretation of it. Not copping out, but a lot of interpretations out there from credible scientists and not a lot of clarity on the issue. Some say what you are saying, others are saying its not a state of nothingness and thus requiring an efficient cause, etc…

It does not matter whether it is a state of nothingness, if it is in some sense atemporal then, per the KCA it does not need a cause.

You were stating that potentiality cannot be accounted for because there was only pure actuality.

That’s correct.

I am stating that the pure actuality was/is able to create potentiality because I observe a teleological (final causality) of nature, or simplest terms, a reason of being.

I fail to see how that is relevant. And what do you mean by ‘nature’? Does that include the pure actual being? There seems to be something contradictory about a pure actual being possesing some sort of teleology. The problem I see with this is:

If it is a teleology inherent to the being itself, then the being cannot be pure act, becuase pure act does not and cannot change, so teleology wouldn’t mean anything here.

If the teleology only applies to ‘nature’ or whatever is ‘outside’ the pure actual being, then the problem becomes even bigger, because, according to classic Christian theology, God is the cretor of everything and, as I said, there is an ontic instance at which God (the pure actual being) is the only thing that exists. So what is the object of this teleology? Nothingness?

And as Thomas has pointed out, being is convertible with good. Which seems to be the crux of this thread, a necessary being.

I am not really disputing the necessity of the first cause, just the personhood.

It’s easy to dismiss the necessary being, that we are contingent of it, if we do not accept final causality at all.

Well, I do not per se dismiss the necessary being.

Maybe my argument is a stretch but I also observe that a cause is greater then its effect,

I am not sure where you observe this. A snowflake can cause an avalanch, can’t it?

in which case supports an “ability” of a uncaused causer able to cause potentiality into being from a teleological reason.

I really do not understand this. How does nothing become potential if it does not get this potentiality from something else? And it cannot get this potentiality from the PAB, because that being is, by definition, pure act and does not have, has never had and will never have, potentiality. That is, of course, if you are an orthodox Thomist.
WL Craig, on the othre hand, claims that pure act can just at whim chnage into potentiality.

 

[levinas12]

Explaining this would take me several pages and I don’t have the time to do it now.
Maybe I’ll start a thread on it some day.

Please do.

But, for the time being, would it be possible to provide just an “inkling” of your thoughts on this matter?

I don’t know why but I love that word “inkling”.

 

[belorg]

Please do.

But, for the time being, would it be possible to provide just an “inkling” of your thoughts on this matter?

I don’t know why but I love that word “inkling”.

No, an “inkling” won’t do. It’s much too complex a matter to summarize in an “inkling”.

The word does sound nice indeed, I had never heard it, actually.

 

[levinas12]

No, an “inkling” won’t do. It’s much too complex a matter to summarize in an “inkling”.

The word does sound nice indeed, I had never heard it, actually.

Well, until some future thread …

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

If the teleology only applies to ‘nature’ or whatever is ‘outside’ the pure actual being, then the problem becomes even bigger, because, according to classic Christian theology, God is the cretor of everything and, as I said, there is an ontic instance at which God (the pure actual being) is the only thing that exists. So what is the object of this teleology? Nothingness?

I’m guessing you’ve heard the Craig reply to this thought, youtube.com/watch?v=NMgX4a4r8gY

I’m not sure his reply is sufficient reasoning to account for how temporal existence was created from a atemporal being and then not account for what was prior to temporal existence. To be completely honest, I will say from my standpoint I don’t know how but the why must be personal from a logical observation.

If the atemporal agent was without personal attributes, wouldn’t be more logical to assume that nothingness begets nothingness or the pure act would sustain a state of pure actuality and not create potentiality? Or are you saying the effect is atemporal as well, in other words saying the effect and the cause are both necessary and contingent of each other?

I am not sure where you observe this. A snowflake can cause an avalanch, can’t it?

I’m going to do what I probably shouldn’t, but take a reply from another website and apply it.

Objection 1:

Imagine an avalanche. Dropping of a tiny pebble can cause boulders to go careening down a hillside. Therefore, an effect can be greater than the cause.

Reply:

You assume that the dropping of the tiny pebble is the only cause. It is not. The other cause is the position of the rocks on the hillside: their large number, their distribution of weights, and their precarious position. Without all of these causes the avalanche would not have occurred. In many ways this is a physics problem, so we can discuss it with physics language. Before the avalanche, the rocks had potential energy, by reason of their position on the hillside. During the avalanche, the rocks have kinetic energy, by reason of their motion. After the avalanche, the energy has become heat energy and dissipated into the air and earth. At no point was any energy created or destroyed. That the effect was not greater than the cause is a way of saying that no energy was created, just changed.

I really do not understand this. How does nothing become potential if it does not get this potentiality from something else? And it cannot get this potentiality from the PAB, because that being is, by definition, pure act and does not have, has never had and will never have, potentiality. That is, of course, if you are an orthodox Thomist.

Sorry, PAB?

 

[colmywaykurtz]

[QUOTEThere is no evidence whatsoever that disembodied minds exist
[/QUOTE]

This sounds like an equation of mind and materiality. Like saying there isn’t one without the other. Was this intentional?

 

[Edward_H]

The first cause argument doesn’t have to be personal. And in fact there’s nothing in it that necessitates that there was just one first cause. Could have been two or a zillion!

“Parsimony” calls for one cause, however. The simplest solution wins.