Talk about self contradictory. You just said never.never say never.
But, for example, can there be a first cause, that doesn’t cause anything? Or will the first cause by NECESSITY include an effect, such that the two can never be separated? You can’t have one without the other. Like having a father, who has never had a son.Not an argument. Every physical or finite entity has characteristics, by definition. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be physical/finite entity. Those characteristics are based on prior cause of the physical/finite entity.
Hey, not my quote. Don’t shoot the messenger.Talk about self contradictory. You just said never.
I think it’s clear that one is only calling something a cause because it has an effect. If a being is not causing something, then it is just a being.and there is no reason to think that it can’t just exist on it’s own.unless it too requires a cause.But, for example, can there be a first cause, that doesn’t cause anything? Or will the first cause by NECESSITY include an effect, such that the two can never be separated? You can’t have one without the other. Like having a father, who has never had a son.
Cause and effect may be like to ends of a pole. You can’t have one without the other.
Ah, but that begs the question, what is the nature of the first cause? And if it’s possible for it to exist without giving rise to an effect. Then what causes it to do so? And if something causes it to do so, then can the “first cause” really be defined as the first cause?I think it’s clear that one is only calling something a cause because it has an effect . If a being is not causing something, then it is just a being.and there is no reason to think that it can’t just exist on it’s own.unless it too requires a cause.
No, because it’s an effect. An effect by defintion requires the existence of the cause in-order to exist, not the other-way round.So the question remains, does the first cause, whatever it may be, require the existence of the first effect?
Aquinas said we cannot know what God IS but rather what God IS NOTwhat is the nature of the first cause?
Correct. No argument from me. But, can the first cause exist without giving rise to an effect?No, because it’s an effect. An effect by defintion requires the existence of the cause inoder to exist, not the other-way round.
Please note that you can decide meaning that your act, your decision, is uncaused cause. Therefore you are uncaused cause.Ah, but that begs the question, what is the nature of the first cause? And if it’s possible for it to exist without giving rise to an effect. Then what causes it to do so? And if something causes it to do so, then can the “ first cause ” really be defined as the first cause?
So the question remains, does the first cause, whatever it may be, require the existence of the first effect? And every subsequent effect.
Free will would seem to demand that I am an uncaused cause. But that wouldn’t make me an uncontingent cause.Please note that you can decide meaning that your act, your decision, is uncaused cause. Therefore you are uncaused cause.
Why not?But, can the first cause exist without giving rise to an effect?
That’s secondary to the idea of free will. If my choices have a cause, then they’re deterministic, not free. If they don’t have a cause, then I constitute an uncaused cause as far as my actions are concerned.Mommy & Daddy prove that wrong
So why does it create? What causes it to do so? If it has a choice to create, or not to create, what causes it to decide one way or the other?What the uncuased-cause cannot be is a cause that is forced to create, since like you said if it is caused, then it cannot be the uncaused cause.
An uncaused cause is not contingent by definition. It is uncaused.Free will would seem to demand that I am an uncaused cause. But that wouldn’t make me an uncontingent cause.
As Aquinas11 said, I have a mother and a father, therefore I’m caused. But I supposedly have free will, thus my choices aren’t caused. Because if they were, then I couldn’t truly be said to have free will. Which means that as far as my choices are concerned, I’m an uncaused cause.An uncaused cause is not contingent by definition. It is uncaused.
No, decisions are affected by life experiences, influences, etc. Not to mention you have limited choices based on prior causes.That’s secondary to the idea of free will
So do I have free will? Or not?No, decisions are affected by life experiences, influences, etc. Not to mention you have limited choices based on prior causes.