Proportionate Cuasality: All Effects Require an Ultimate Existential Cuase that is Greater Than its Effects

[MindOverMatter2]

If a thing begins to be, it is only because there is already an existing thing in which it has its genesis. This is to say that when a thing begins to exist, its existence is generated by the presence of another reality, for out of nothing comes nothing.Thus there is an ultimate being in which all effects have there existential origin since no effect is the cause of its own existence or power.

This is an argument for proportionate causality; this is to say that while an effect can essentially be different to its ultimate origin, it cannot be more powerful than its** ultimate cause**. This is just another way of saying that an effect cannot generate its own power or existence. It borrows its power.

 

[CatSci]

This is to say that when a thing begins to exist,

Nothing has ever began to exist. Everything is just a rearrangement of previously existing stuff.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Nothing has ever began to exist. Everything is just a rearrangement of previously existing stuff.

This is evidently false. The essence or nature that is a tree is evidently not the same nature of a conscious person. Thinking People begin to exist and so do trees. I did not always exist. This of course would require you to admit that the whole is greater in essence than the nature of its parts. There are many qualities that exist that at one time did not exist, and were only potential realities.

Also the future is evidently a potential coming in to being of more reality that did not exist and comes in to existence as an extension of the past. This means there is a continuous adding of reality, not simply a rearrangement.

 

[CatSci]

This is evidently false. The essence or nature that is a tree is evidently not the same nature of a conscious person. Thinking People begin to exist and so do trees. I did not always exist.

All the atoms that you are made of have existed for all points in time. But anyways, you’re calling the “nature of a conscious person” a “thing”, right?

This of course would require you to admit that the whole is greater in essence than the nature of its parts. There are many qualities that exist that at one time did not exist, and were only potential realities.

Sure, my pencil didn’t have the quality of “length” until it was fomed into a pencil. I’m not sure I’d call “length” a thing though.

Also the future is evidently a potential coming in to being of more reality that did not exist and comes in to existence as an extension of the past. This means there is a continuous adding of reality, not simply a rearrangement.

So as more pencils are manufactured, more qualities of length will be added to reality.

How does this lead to your claim in the OP:

This is to say that when a thing begins to exist, its existence is generated by the presence of another reality, for out of nothing comes nothing.Thus there is an ultimate being in which all effects have there existential origin since no effect is the cause of its own existence or power.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

This is evidently false. The essence or nature that is a tree is evidently not the same nature of a conscious person. Thinking People begin to exist and so do trees. I did not always exist. This of course would require you to admit that the whole is greater in essence than the nature of its parts. There are many qualities that exist that at one time did not exist, and were only potential realities.

Also the future is evidently a potential coming in to being of more reality that did not exist and comes in to existence as an extension of the past. This means there is a continuous adding of reality, not simply a rearrangement.

Your objection assumes a great deal. First, you assume that consciousness is something other than an emergent behavior. Different qualities can easily be obtained by rearranging old existences, there is no reason to assume you are greater than the sum of your parts. Second, you assume the future does not already exist but provide no reason. All I know about the future is that we haven’t experienced it yet.

 

[Luke_K]

Nothing has ever began to exist. Everything is just a rearrangement of previously existing stuff.

All the atoms that you are made of have existed for all points in time. But anyways, you’re calling the “nature of a conscious person” a “thing”, right?

Well, no they haven’t. The very early universe was too hot for atoms, and the atoms we’re made of were formed in a star before our current one. I’m not a particle or astro-physicist, but considering the very early moments of the Big Bang, and the phenomenon of matter-antimatter annihilation into energy, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that everything is just a rearrangement of previously existing stuff.

Considering your statement…:

Sure, my pencil didn’t have the quality of “length” until it was fomed into a pencil. I’m not sure I’d call “length” a thing though.

…and the assertion that everything is just a rearrangement of previously existing stuff, depends entirely on the abstract concept of quantity, which isn’t any more a “thing” than length. Sure, mass can be transformed into energy and the total abstract quantity of “stuff” would be conserved, but it can’t be said to be the same thing existing as it previously was.

Even if everything is simply a re-arrangement of existing stuff such as atoms, it still makes sense to say that something new has come into existence because the whole has properties which are different from and non-existent in the parts. A computer does not exist until 10^25 atoms (guesstimate value) are arranged in a certain way. 10^25 atoms existing as compounds in the earth’s crust are an entirely different existence than in a computer. The atoms in the earth’s crust can’t and aren’t performing computations, for example.

My self-consciousness did not exist until my brain was formed. Its existence was caused by my brain- something already existing. This is true for everything which exists and changes.

 

[CatSci]

Well, no they haven’t. The very early universe was too hot for atoms,

Woops, yeah, you’re right. I should’ve phrased that differently.

Still though, all of the matter/energy present in the Universe, has been there at every point in time. It doesn’t get created or destroyed, and time, itself, is within the universe. There is no point in time where there’s a different amount.

and the atoms we’re made of were formed in a star before our current one. I’m not a particle or astro-physicist, but considering the very early moments of the Big Bang, and the phenomenon of matter-antimatter annihilation into energy, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that everything is just a rearrangement of previously existing stuff

It has to be because all that stuff has always been here.

depends entirely on the abstract concept of quantity, which isn’t any more a “thing” than length. Sure, mass can be transformed into energy and the total abstract quantity of “stuff” would be conserved, but it can’t be said to be the same thing existing as it previously was.

Yeah, you can say they’re different, but the OP is talking about things beginning to exist. The “stuff” you’re made of never began to exist, it is rearranged stuff that has existed for all points in time in the universe.

Even if everything is simply a re-arrangement of existing stuff such as atoms, it still makes sense to say that something new has come into existence because the whole has properties which are different from and non-existent in the parts. A computer does not exist until 10^25 atoms (guesstimate value) are arranged in a certain way. 10^25 atoms existing as compounds in the earth’s crust are an entirely different existence than in a computer. The atoms in the earth’s crust can’t and aren’t performing computations, for example.

Okay, and I realized this from the reply from the OP. So then, how does this lead to the conclusion in the OP:
OP:

This is to say that when a thing begins to exist, its existence is generated by the presence of another reality, for out of nothing comes nothing. Thus there is an ultimate being in which all effects have there existential origin since no effect is the cause of its own existence or power.

I’ve never seen this tired old argument done with qualitative properties like “length”, and am more used to the YEC version that implies an eh nihilo type of emergence of things.

My self-consciousness did not exist until my brain was formed. Its existence was caused by my brain- something already existing. This is true for everything which exists and changes.

But not that “ultimate being”, right?

Too, not the universe, itself.