Questions for warpspeedpetey

[hamsalad1361015]

My question concerns parts of this theory:

1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation [1] for its existence.
3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

Part one: self evident. Ok.

In part two, there is an addition that a contingent being does not necessarily require a creator but that it just must have an explanation for its existence (meaning it might not have been created or it might have).

Part three: It stands to reason that there must be an explanation for the existence of a contingent being.

Part four: How do you know that these are the only two possibilities for the explanation of contingent beings? You could be correct, but the truth is you don’t know for sure. There could be a billion explanations for why a contingent being exists. This could include many gods or magical creatures. What makes you so sure there is only one non-contingent being any way? I just don’t understand how you can be so certain as to state that these are the sole two causes for contingent beings. It might be wiser to admit that we know very little about the possible explanations for how a contingent being might exist. In fact, so far we have only ever observed contingent beings giving birth to contingent beings. The concept of non contingent beings creating contingent beings remains unobserved.

Part five: you could be right, but so far, we have only ever observed contingent beings giving birth to contingent beings. And it’s true that this is not an adequate explanation for contingent beings… But the rest is speculatory. We don’t know, period.

Part six: This leads to an infinite regression. Who made the maker who designed the designer…? It replaces one mystery with another and doesn’t actually explain anything. Why can’t the non contingent being be a non-contingent force or unconscious cause?
Is it impossible for unconsciousness to be the cause of consciousness (setting aside the contingent non-contingent part) Am just curious of your thoughts on that. And once again you make the huge assumption that because a contingent being exists it must have required a non-contingent being for its existence. Just say you don’t know and that you can’t think of any other explanation so it must be a non-contingent being in your view.

Part seven: It should read something like this: Therefore, since we don’t know the exact explanation for the existence of contingent beings, there must be one.

I’m also curious why this theory was limited to beings. Why not go all out and say the creation of all things? Don’t you believe that this non-contingent being created all things? If that’s true, why not say so?

I thank you for your time and look forward to learning and speaking with you.

 

[R_Daneel]

He is not around any more. Either temporarily or permanently.

 

[JohnDamian]

Right. As R Daneel has kindly pointed out warpspeedpetey seems not to be around I shall do my best to answer.

Part four: How do you know that these are the only two possibilities for the explanation of contingent beings? You could be correct, but the truth is you don’t know for sure. There could be a billion explanations for why a contingent being exists.

The function; entity or being that bring’s about a contingency (which per se properly predicates contingency to the posterior) is necessarily prior to the predicated entity. The predicator must by necessity be either contingent itself; or necessary. The predicator is itself either contingent or necessary; as these are the differentia of the genus of causal predication; the predicator per se must fall into one of these categories. Nothing is neither contingent nor necessary; this is consistent with observed reality and logic.

Part five: you could be right, but so far, we have only ever observed contingent beings giving birth to contingent beings. And it’s true that this is not an adequate explanation for contingent beings… But the rest is speculatory. We don’t know, period.

We can know that a species differentiated of the genus of causal predication is necessarily not self instigating; even if it may be self-propelling. Therein; the predication of the prior constituant of the contingent species necessarily is a (or some) necessarily predicated causal agent/s. It is not speculatory; it is called a negation; it has been demonstrably a posteriori proven that the differentiated species of contingency is not self instigating; for this would entail a violation of the law of noncontradiction.

Part six: This leads to an infinite regression. Who made the maker who designed the designer…? It replaces one mystery with another and doesn’t actually explain anything. Why can’t the non contingent being be a non-contingent force or unconscious cause?

This defies the law of noncontradiction; if the prior maker is it’self made then this maker is a consituant of the differentiated species of causally contingent predicated entities; and as such is not a per se creator in any qualified sense. It is true in quale substantiale that such a thing would necessarily be predicated by contingency per se; and as such not constitute an opposition or contradiction to a prior necessary creator; either by a single or a plural extension of an essentially ordered series. This is a posteriori true.

Is it impossible for unconsciousness to be the cause of consciousness (setting aside the contingent non-contingent part) Am just curious of your thoughts on that. And once again you make the huge assumption that because a contingent being exists it must have required a non-contingent being for its existence. Just say you don’t know and that you can’t think of any other explanation so it must be a non-contingent being in your view.

Consciousness is per se a predicate that when predicated in quid or in haec serves no specific function to the act of creation; as per se consciousness does not elicit volition or nolition; which is formally distinct from the mind. That said however; it is a posteriori sensible that a general instigative force acting necessarily must be per se uncaused, which implies a volition; which as not really distinct from intellection elicit’s a necessity for the function of consciousness for the a posteriori certain prior necessary per se instigator.

Part seven: It should read something like this: Therefore, since we don’t know the exact explanation for the existence of contingent beings, there must be one.

The prior cause is necessarily excluded from the totality of contingency by the fact that the totalitys prior consitutant (not the totality per se) is essentially predicated by contingency; ergo to contradict a prior per se necessary entity a contradiction is entertained; which is repugnant and absurd.

I’m also curious why this theory was limited to beings. Why not go all out and say the creation of all things? Don’t you believe that this non-contingent being created all things? If that’s true, why not say so?

Being is first in the heirachy of existent predicates. See Proclus. I don’t want to deviate from the point here; but I shall if you want.

 

[reggieM]

Part three: It stands to reason that there must be an explanation for the existence of a contingent being.

Part four: How do you know that these are the only two possibilities for the explanation of contingent beings?

The only options are contingent beings and a single, non-contingent being. A non-contingent being is, by its nature, “self-explanatory”. It does not require any other beings for the explanation of its existence.

You could be correct, but the truth is you don’t know for sure.

Well, you do know for sure that if you use any contingent beings to explain the existence of contingent beings, then you really haven’t arrived at an answer.

What makes you so sure there is only one non-contingent being any way?

If we posited more than one non-contingent being, we would have to ask how and where that second being got its origin and how it exists *in relation to *the other non-contingent being. The fact that there is some relation between the two beings means that one or both have to be contingent. If a non-contingent being created contingent beings, then the relationship would be of *necessary, sole Creator *to contingent beings. If, however, there were two contingent beings, the definition of both would be “one of the two contingent beings”.

This definition itself (or name) tells us something. We have to call one non-contingent being “one of the two”. So, it is dependent on the other being to explain itself.

When we say “one, sole, necessary being” – that is non-contingent. It doesn’t depend on other beings for the explanation of its existence.

It might be wiser to admit that we know very little about the possible explanations for how a contingent being might exist. In fact, so far we have only ever observed contingent beings giving birth to contingent beings. The concept of non contingent beings creating contingent beings remains unobserved.

This is a philosophical question, not one of empirical science. It is solved through logic. It’s like mathematics. We don’t actually observe in nature the square root of 142. We solve that problem through logic though.

In this case, the logic shows that contingent beings require a cause. Contingent beings themselves are not sufficient to explain the cause of contingent beings. So, we can see that there must be a necessary, non-contingent being as the explanation.

Who made the maker who designed the designer…? It replaces one mystery with another and doesn’t actually explain anything. Why can’t the non contingent being be a non-contingent force or unconscious cause?

I think you’re mixing up your objections here.
First, the question “who made the non-contingent being” should be easy to recognize as a non-sequitur or absurdity. By definition, a non-contingent being cannot depend on another being for its creation. If it did, then it would be a contingent being.
So, that question has to be dismissed.
Again, the solution is a being that is self-explanatory, not one that was created or designed.
You then ask why the non-contingent being cannot be a force or unconscious. This leads us to what is the nature of this non-contingent being and that’s a different topic.
I suggest, that before moving on to that discussion, seems like you recognize the correctness of this argument for the most part and it may be best to just clarify that.

Is it impossible for unconsciousness to be the cause of consciousness (setting aside the contingent non-contingent part)

Yes. And not only that, it is impossible for unconsciousness to engage in a creative act of the will. A creative decision was necessary to explain the origin of the universe. It could not be an accidental cause because this unconscious force would then be subject to accidental mechanisms. In other words, the possibility of accidental outcomes would affect the existence of this supposed non-contingent being, thus rendering the being dependent on accidental forces or mechanisms. Those accidental powers would be independent, and not consciously willed or possessed by that being. So, this would mean that the being wasn’t the sole, necessary and non-continent being as proposed.

I’m also curious why this theory was limited to beings. Why not go all out and say the creation of all things? Don’t you believe that this non-contingent being created all things? If that’s true, why not say so?

Some beings are created directly and some indirectly.

 

[hamsalad1361015]

Responses to responses

Part four: Thanks for your explanation. I now understand the contingent and non-contingent concept better. Would it be ok to replace contingent and non-contingent with reality as we understand it and alternate reality as we do not fully understand it?

More questions for you… You said, “Nothing is neither contingent nor necessary; this is consistent with observed reality and logic”. This does make a lot of sense to me from a logical stand point though I’m not there yet… I disagree that anything non-contingent has been observed. Perhaps you could explain that better? It has been observed through logic? It wouldn’t make sense to me to say that we have observed it through logic if that logic lies within the theory that we are discussing. What I mean is, you can’t point to this theory as evidence that parts of itself are true. There must be another…

I guess this is the wall I keep running into… You see, I can only observe the contingent… When I start thinking about what might exist outside of reality, I feel like I’m not being honest with myself. I feel like I’m just making guesses. Do you know what I mean?

Part five: There must be an uncaused cause. I was going to ask why there is one at all… but when I work the equation backward mathematically the reason is because we exist. This is a similar question but not quite… Why would there be anything at all (contingent / non-contingent)? Why wouldn’t there just be nothing? According to the theory, this is answered the same way… But it doesn’t actually give me an answer that is useful to help me better understand why things exist. The theories explanation is similar to the parent who tells a child to do something and when the child asks, “why?” The parent’s only response is, “because I said so”. Do you know what I mean?

From what I have learned so far, reality existing… though it exists, does not explain the why. I considered the idea that all things are non-contingent (it doesn’t make sense to me though). I would love to get your comments on it all the same this whole theory is but a few days old to me and I am enjoying talking with someone who understands it.
In part five it seems that the only thing that makes sense about the non-contingent being is its definition. What I mean is, the definition can be accurate about something that may or may not exist.

There is more that I would like to learn concerning part five, and some other thoughts that I had. Part five says, “Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.” Contingent refers to what the being is dependant upon for its existence right? But this is incomplete what about non-beings? Is abiogenesis possible? We are made of the same stuff that is found in the universe. Even if it were possible, wouldn’t all the other stuff in the universe require an explanation? Does the explanation for the stuff in the universe also have to find its origins from a non-contingent universe or being? It would have to be a non-contingent universe with a will right? Or a non-contingent being. Is god dependent upon himself for his own existence? This would still make him non-contingent but raise other questions. And as the theory states, he would be necessary. However, he is only necessary because we exist. It’s funny because in a way he is contingent upon us according to the definition because if it were not for us, he would not be a necessary being (according to the definition).

As things stand now contingent beings require the universe and the world for their existence not a non-contingent being (not that this says anything for their origins one way or the other). Is it possible that the explanation for why there are beings is due to the universe, while the explanation for the universe itself is a non-contingent being?
Also, why can’t a non-contingent being make contingent beings and still have another non-contingent being that made it?

Could god create a universe without consciousness where evolution, non-life, and unconsciousness could give birth to consciousness and life? Also, why can’t the explanation for contingent beings be a non-contingent force or something beyond our imagination… Something beyond even our concepts of god and the supernatural? Who knows right? When we start dealing with non-contingent stuff there are no limits right? “Consciousness is per se a predicate that when predicated in quid or in haec serves no specific function to the act of creation; as per se consciousness does not elicit volition or nolition; which is formally distinct from the mind.” Since god would be the one to get the ball rolling, it would be a conscious being as the start of all things… Would this bother your philosopher, Proclus?

The explanation of all things is explained by something that is not dependent upon reality for its existence, and at the same time does not require an explanation for why it is.
Could there be another reality completely separate from our own with beings that have a completely different god as their creator and the two realities never know of one another? If the non-contingent being always had to be, and he was all-knowing, powerful and so forth, wouldn’t this being always be the same?

Part six: Yes I am aware that it would be contradictory by definition, but it appears that there is no requirement to explain the existence of the non-contingent being… In the end, the evidence that there must be a necessary non-contingent being is explained as self evident because we exist. This boils down to we exist so there must be a god.
On a side note, For the most part I understand you but my Latin vocabulary is limited… it would be nice if you used English words. Your response in part six was difficult for me to understand.

I hope you get the chance to respond again.

 

[hamsalad1361015]

Responses to responses ReggieM:

Part four: either you are dependent upon something else to explain your existence or you are not. I fail to see the first cause as self explanatory as to how it came to be. It only explains why it is.

Why can’t there be multiple beings that are non-contingent that just exist? Maybe they exist not to be the causes of other things… though this would pose a problem for the theory in question since a being that exists and is non-contingent seems to have to be the creator of contingent beings in order to exist. Perhaps this is because if such a being were to exist, but never create anything, how could anything ever be aware of it? Then again, if it were as powerful as your god, it could still interact with the creations of other contingent creations of other gods…

I think you misunderstood this question that I asked: “I’m also curious why this theory was limited to beings. Why not go all out and say the creation of all things? Don’t you believe that this non-contingent being created all things? If that’s true, why not say so?”
What I meant was, don’t you think god created matter, space and time as well…

 

[reggieM]

Part four: either you are dependent upon something else to explain your existence or you are not. I fail to see the first cause as self explanatory as to how it came to be. It only explains why it is.

Let’s take a look again …

Either you are dependent or you’re not. A non-contingent being is not dependent on anything else to explain its existence.
Anything that comes into existence, or which begins to exist, must be dependent on something. Why? Because something had to preceed the existence of the thing in question. A chocolate cake comes into existence. The cake is contingent (depends) upon the flour, water, chocolate, oven and baker. Those things had to exist before the cake could come into existence. We wouldn’t have a cake that comes into existence from nothing – with nothing preceeding it.

Now, a non-contingent being does not depend on anything for its existence. For that reason, it cannot ever have come into existence. It had to exist forever. If it ever had a beginning, then something preceeded it which caused it to exist.

So, by definition – a non-contingent being has no beginning. It always existed. Nothing caused it to come into existence – therefore, it had no beginning, it always was and is.

We would say that this non-contingent being is necessarily self-explanatory. Nothing else could explain its existence. It just “is”. It’s just being in itself.

Why can’t there be multiple beings that are non-contingent that just exist?

I gave one reason previously. Multiple beings have a relation from one to the other. That relation is something they must depend on for their own definition. In order for there to be two non-contingent beings, they would have to be different from each other in some way. Where did they get the qualities that make them more or less of the one or the other? In fact, even in comparing one to the other there is contingency since one would depend on the other for comparitive purposes.

Maybe they exist not to be the causes of other things… though this would pose a problem for the theory in question since a being that exists and is non-contingent seems to have to be the creator of contingent beings in order to exist. Perhaps this is because if such a being were to exist, but never create anything, how could anything ever be aware of it? Then again, if it were as powerful as your god, it could still interact with the creations of other contingent creations of other gods…

The biggest problem here is the impact of an infinite existence on any of the beings that are proposed. If you had multiple non-contingent beings then they all would have to have existed from infinity. They could not come into existence from nothing.

We normally would say that the non-contingent being is the Supreme Being because, having existed for an infinity of time, it cannot be subject to change.

I think you misunderstood this question that I asked: “I’m also curious why this theory was limited to beings. Why not go all out and say the creation of all things? Don’t you believe that this non-contingent being created all things? If that’s true, why not say so?”
What I meant was, don’t you think god created matter, space and time as well…

I’m still not understanding where you’re going with that question, but yes - God created matter, space and time also. So, God is the First Cause of physical reality – and therefore exists outside of physical reality (space and time) in order to be able to create it.

 

[hamsalad1361015]

What’s wrong with multiple beings existing from infinity? Or god making beings that have the capacity to make people? He would still be the only non-contingent being… and what he makes (like angels) would be dependant upon him, but not the universe to exist.

 

[hamsalad1361015]

Also, no one addressed my question about the non-contingent being in this theory being dependant upon the contingent beings in order to exist. did you have any thoughts on that reggie? If you look at the theory it is clear that the reason why the non-contingent being must exist, it is because contingent beings require an explination for their existance… Which make the non-contingent being, contingent upon contingent beings… If this is a flaw in the theory, it does not mean that no being exists.

It very well could. I think the problem lies within the theory itself. But there is something to think about here… If you work the theory backward like math, using logic, it is hard to miss…

The problem here is not that there is no such thing as non-contingent beings… there could be. The problem is that the theory is calling the creater of contingent beings, non-contingent when in fact this creater is contingent upon its creation for its existance within the context of the theory. This violates the law of non-contradiction.

 

[PAboy57]

I believe in this and pray that everyone could too:

ACT OF FAITH
O my God, who are infallible Truth and can neither deceive nor be deceived, I firmly believe all that you have revealed and propose to my belief though your holy Church, because you have revealed it. I believe that you are one in nature and three in Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I believe that you are the Creator of all things and that you reward the just for all eternity in heaven and punish the wicked for all eternity in hell. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God made man, that he suffered and died for my sins and rose from the dead in glory, and that it is only in him through the Holy Spirit that eternal life is given to us . I believe in all that your holy Church believes. I thank you for having called me to the true faith, and I propose that with the help of your grace I will live and die in this holy faith. Amen.

Take care.

 

[JohnDamian]

I disagree that anything non-contingent has been observed. Perhaps you could explain that better? It has been observed through logic? It wouldn’t make sense to me to say that we have observed it through logic if that logic lies within the theory that we are discussing.

It can be known a posteriori that the totality of contingent thing’s has a prior constituant; that is to say a first member of the genus. This is so because an actual numerical infinite is not possible; and that we have observed a numerical unicity in Contingent members. Now; as the totality of contingent things has a prior member; this member must have been caused; as it is the prior member of the totality of contingent things it must be caused by something other than a contingent thing - the definition of which is a necessary thing.

The theories explanation is similar to the parent who tells a child to do something and when the child asks, “why?” The parent’s only response is, “because I said so”. Do you know what I mean?

The theories of knowlege and logic only explain insofar as it is possible to explain within the science of these schools. We can know by knowlege and logic that there is a God; but we cannot know by logic that it is this or that God; although we can give general predicates to it.

Is god dependent upon himself for his own existence? This would still make him non-contingent but raise other questions. And as the theory states, he would be necessary. However, he is only necessary because we exist. It’s funny because in a way he is contingent upon us according to the definition because if it were not for us, he would not be a necessary being (according to the definition).

Necessary is a singular definition; not a relational predication. God is necessary because he is necessary (that is to say; he is exempt from the totality of contingency). Now; the totality of contingency is really and numerically distinct from the genus of necessity; that is to say; the latter does not depend on the former for it’s existence.

why can’t a non-contingent being make contingent beings and still have another non-contingent being that made it?

If a particular thing relies upon another thing for it’s existence; it is by definition contingent. This question then seems absurd.

Could god create a universe without consciousness where evolution, non-life, and unconsciousness could give birth to consciousness and life? Also, why can’t the explanation for contingent beings be a non-contingent force or something beyond our imagination… Something beyond even our concepts of god and the supernatural? Who knows right? When we start dealing with non-contingent stuff there are no limits right?

I didn’t get too technical in the first post; because I was giving a general reply; however if there is a specific part of God you would like a justification for; I shall be glad to give it. Obviously; I cannot give a full rundown of each one here and now.

Since god would be the one to get the ball rolling, it would be a conscious being as the start of all things… Would this bother your philosopher, Proclus?

It would not Bother Proclus if the initiater was a conscious being; it seems self-evident that a being producing another entity without a prior cause must elicit this mode within itself; it seems appropriate to determine this as consicousness. However; that is not to say that the predicate consciousness is a necessary predicate for the protraction of ordered sequences; merely that the prior constituent if necessary; and acting uncaused; must elicit an act from volition; and thus have consciousness which is really identical to will.

This boils down to we exist so there must be a god.

Haha! Absolutely right on!

For the most part I understand you but my Latin vocabulary is limited… it would be nice if you used English words. Your response in part six was difficult for me to understand.

Sorry for using latin word’s; it is a bad habit from reading too many “out of date” books. It has been taken on board.

 

[JohnDamian]

Also, no one addressed my question about the non-contingent being in this theory being dependant upon the contingent beings in order to exist. did you have any thoughts on that reggie? If you look at the theory it is clear that the reason why the non-contingent being must exist, it is because contingent beings require an explination for their existance… Which make the non-contingent being, contingent upon contingent beings… If this is a flaw in the theory, it does not mean that no being exists.

Specifically; a contingent being only act’s as observable evidence than a necessary creator exists. This necessary being is not contingent upon the contingent beings for it’s existence; a necessary being could exist without a contingent one. This is called by Scholastics a “real” distinction.

Think of this analogy; a necessary being exists; but leaves “footprints” so to say; in contingent beings. We can see the footprints; therefore we know the (necessary) being exists. However; even if it were to snow and we were no longer able to see footprints; or if it walked on a surface that did not leave print’s; it would not mean this (necessary) being did not exist. For; the evidence is not the existence of the being; but merely it’s proof.

The problem here is not that there is no such thing as non-contingent beings… there could be. The problem is that the theory is calling the creater of contingent beings, non-contingent when in fact this creater is contingent upon its creation for its existance within the context of the theory. This violates the law of non-contradiction.

This; is an easy mistake to make.

If we work back through the evidence; we can see that contingent things are merely the creations of the necessary being. The creator does not rely upon the created. If someone took photos of me; my existence would not depend upon those photos. In the same way; the contingent beings act as proof that the necessary being exists. Even if there were no contingent beings the necessary one would exist (by definition); likewise; if there are no photos of me; I still would exist.

 

[reggieM]

What’s wrong with … god making beings that have the capacity to make people? He would still be the only non-contingent being… and what he makes (like angels) would be dependant upon him, but not the universe to exist.

hamsalad – instead of talking about making people (which is more complex), God could make beings that have the capacity of making things. In fact, that’s what God did – humans can make many things.

But humans cannot make the laws which govern their lives. Humans cannot create the living material from which they are made either. So, we can see some intermediate causes in the universe – contingent things can be causes of things. But eventually, we need a first cause which is non-contingent.

 

[reggieM]

Also, no one addressed my question about the non-contingent being in this theory being dependant upon the contingent beings in order to exist. did you have any thoughts on that reggie?

I tried a little, but I didn’t understand it fully. The way you describe it now is better.

First, we have to understand what a non-contingent being is. To be non-contingent, it means that it cannot depend on anything at all to explain its existence. If it does rely on something else to explain its origin or existence – then, it is “contingent on that thing”, whatever it is.

If you look at the theory it is clear that the reason why the non-contingent being must exist, it is because contingent beings require an explination for their existance… Which make the non-contingent being, contingent upon contingent beings… If this is a flaw in the theory, it does not mean that no being exists.

That’s an interesting way to look at it. But it doesn’t quite work. You’re defining the existence of the non-contingent being from the perspective of the contingent beings. But the non-contingent being does not depend on the contingent beings to explain its own origin. The non-contingent being exists whether any contingent beings exist or not.

Now, once you have contingent beings, they have to be explained somehow. So, we see they have to be dependent on a non-contingent being.

Perhaps we could say “it would be impossible to define the non-contingent being without referring to the contingent beings, therefore the non-contingent being is dependent on contingent beings – and thus is actually contingent also.”

The problem here is that the existence of the non-contingent being is not dependent on the existence of any other beings. If there were no other beings, the non-contingent being would still exist.

It very well could. I think the problem lies within the theory itself. But there is something to think about here… If you work the theory backward like math, using logic, it is hard to miss…

Yes, that’s a good point, but we make the mistake of thinking that the contingent beings are necessary. Since they were caused by the non-contingent being, they cannot also be the cause of the non-contingent being. But because math is not dependent on events occuring in time, we could work backwards and imagine that the formula is dependent on the result.

For example, we see a computer executing code. We conclude that the computer’s actions are contingent on what the code commands.
But it would be wrong to say that the code is contingent on the computer. The code can exist without the computer existing at all.

So, we’re looking for the first cause because we see contingent things and they do not explain themselves. The first cause explains the contingent things, but the contingent things are not the cause of the non-contingent first cause. They are not necessary to the existence of the first, non-contingent cause.

In math, we could take the results of the formula and think that the conclusion causes the formula.

We have the number 5 and the formula 2+3. With math we can work backwards or forwards because it’s not a succession of events in time. Neither the formula or the result necessarily comes first.

If I want 5 apples, I can use the formula of 0 apples plus 5. Or take 10 from 15. So, the result “causes” the formula. It works the other way also. I choose a formula which causes the result.

The problem is that the theory is calling the creater of contingent beings, non-contingent when in fact this creater is contingent upon its creation for its existance within the context of the theory. This violates the law of non-contradiction.

Given the above, I think you need to re-work that idea because the non-contingent creator is necessary to give existence to the contingent beings, but the contingent beings are not a cause of the existence of the non-contingent being.

 

[reggieM]

To summarize again – we trace causes back in time to the First Cause. That’s why we can’t say that the beings that are contingent on the non-contingent first being are causes of the non-contingent being.

For example, in order to determine the cause of your existence, I wouldn’t need to know what you’re going to do in the future. Whatever you create or do in the future does not change your origin or cause.

 

[hamsalad1361015]

John and Reggie thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. If you are interested, I had still more ideas that I was hoping to share with you. Perhaps you would allow me to continue to pick your brains…

John Damian… Your analogy doesn’t quite fit regarding the photograph… If we are going to talk about a picture, the explanation for the picture has nothing to do with you, but the camera which manufactured it. This is one step away from being an explanation by Ray Comfort where he says, “If there is a painting, there must be a painter.” This analogy fails every time. I know you are smarter than he is.

How do you measure existence without time? If something always existed then time always existed. If this is true than time is not the creation of a non-contingent being. It is interesting how obscure the non-contingent being is. It is something similar to magic and by definition does not require an explanation (perhaps deliberately so). But you cannot just say, the being is non-contingent therefore we don’t need to address any specifics about it thanks to its definition. This is why I ask, “How do you measure existence without time?”

Explanation and creation are not the same thing. There is a point in the theory where a possible explanation solely becomes a single non-contingent being. Is it possible that it could have been something else? Who knows… An alternative theory is posted below but incomplete. It seems like I should have understood this part by this point… I don’t understand what is preventing me from believing that it has to solely be a single non-contingent being as the answer… In my mind I think we don’t have enough information to know this.

Does something always have to be created to exist? No. It just requires an explanation,
If space, time and matter always exist in some form would that make them non-contingent? Would they be what you call god? After all, science can only trace space time and matter back so far using evidence from the red light shift… As matter from the universe is condensed into a single point the laws of physics break down as we understand them… This does not mean it came from nothing. It means we don’t know what happened before a certain point during the expansion of our universe it is possible that the universe is eternal. Matter can neither be created or destroyed… So on and so forth… Your thoughts?

If I am to be honest with you and myself I am still unsatisfied with this as an answer… Since it still does not explain consciousness… It does not make it not true… it could have happened this way and we just don’t understand the how or why. I was hoping by mentioning this that you or someone might be able to offer an opinion about the subject of consciousness out of an eternal universe.

 

[JohnDamian]

How do you measure existence without time? If something always existed then time always existed. If this is true than time is not the creation of a non-contingent being. It is interesting how obscure the non-contingent being is. It is something similar to magic and by definition does not require an explanation (perhaps deliberately so). But you cannot just say, the being is non-contingent therefore we don’t need to address any specifics about it thanks to its definition. This is why I ask, “How do you measure existence without time?”

I shall list off a short passage from the Opus Oxioniense that deals with this issue;

“What is prior is what is nearrer to the first principle; therefore where there is no first principle, nothing is essentially prior.”

Now; temporality or “time” is not predicated essentially to any subject; it only exists as an accident of the subject; through the temporally accidental nature of causal sequences that bring it about.

Explanation and creation are not the same thing. There is a point in the theory where a possible explanation solely becomes a single non-contingent being. Is it possible that it could have been something else?

It is entirely plausible that it is some other agent than what we have conceived; we do however know that it is one, timeless, conscious; rational; creator. (See ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/GODASFIR.HTM).

Does something always have to be created to exist? No. It just requires an explanation,

A contingent thing by definition must be created to exist; otherwise it would not be a contingent thing.

A necessary thing by definition does not require creation to exist.

If space, time and matter always exist in some form would that make them non-contingent?

If they had always existed then they would not be contingent.

Would they be what you call god?

Not in an accurate sense; God implies consciousness.