The Cosmological Argument, Part II

[wanstronian]

It might seem that way, but it’s really a result of the logic. The First Cause of all things stands alone. If something existed before it – then it wouldn’t be the First Cause.

If some other being existed before the First Cause, for example, where would it come from?

I have no problem with the First Cause being the First Cause. What I don’t understand is how we can get from this single event, which need have no intelligence, purpose or sentience, to the supposedly benevolent, all-powerful God of the OT etc.

Ok, but that sounds like a different question. If you are willing to accept (at least for the argument) the existence of the First Cause, we can then demonstrate how this leads to our understanding of God.

I am willing to accept it for the sake of the argument, as I said to WSP. That wasn’t good enough for him though - he wanted to win an argument, whereas I just want to understand the rationale, whether I believe it or not.

 

[Leela]

Hi Wastronian,

William James answered your question in the Varieties of Religious Experience:

"If philosophy can do so little to establish God’s existence, how stands it with her efforts to define his attributes? …
Since God is First Cause, this science of sciences [theology] says, he differs from all his creatures in possessing existence a se. From this “a-se-ity” on God’s part, theology deduces by mere logic most of his other perfections. For instance, he must be both necessary and absolute, cannot not be, and cannot in any way be determined by anything else. This makes Him absolutely unlimited from without, and unlimited also from within; for limitation is non-being; and God is being itself. This unlimitedness makes God infinitely perfect. Moreover, God is One, and Only, for the infinitely perfect can admit no peer. He is Spiritual, for were He composed of physical parts, some other power would have to combine them into the total, and his aseity would thus be contradicted. He is therefore both simple and non-physical in nature. He is simple metaphysically also, that is to say, his nature and his existence cannot be distinct, as they are in finite substances which share their formal natures with one another, and are individual only in their material aspect. Since God is one and only, his essentia and his esse must be given at one stroke. This excludes from his being all those distinctions, so familiar in the world of finite things, between potentiality and actuality, substance and accidents, being and activity, existence and attributes. …

This absence of all potentiality in God obliges Him to be immutable. He is actuality, through and through. Were there anything potential about Him, He would either lose or gain by its actualization, and either loss or gain would contradict his perfection. He cannot, therefore, change. Furthermore, He is immense, boundless; for could He be outlined in space, He would be composite, and this would contradict his indivisibility. He is therefore omnipresent, indivisibly there, at every point of space. He is similarly wholly present at every point of time – in other words eternal. For if He began in time, He would need a prior cause, and that would contradict his aseity. If He ended it would contradict his necessity. If He went through any succession, it would contradict his immutability.

He has intelligence and will and every other creature-perfection, for we have them, and effectus nequit superare causam. In Him, however, they are absolutely and eternally in act, and their object, since God can be bounded by naught that is external, can primarily be nothing else than God himself. He knows himself, then, in one eternal indivisible act, and wills himself with an infinite self-pleasure. Since He must of logical necessity thus love and will himself, He cannot be called “free” ad intra, with the freedom of contrarieties that characterizes finite creatures. Ad extra, however, or with respect to his creation, God is free. He cannot need to create, being perfect in being and in happiness already. He wills to create, then, by an absolute freedom.

For the scholastics the facultas appetendi embraces feeling, desire, and will. Being thus a substance endowed with intellect and will and freedom, God is a person; and a living person also, for He is both object and subject of his own activity, and to be this distinguishes the living from the lifeless. He is thus absolutely self-sufficient: his self-knowledge and self-love are both of them infinite and adequate, and need no extraneous conditions to perfect them.

He is omniscient, for in knowing himself as Cause He knows all creature things and events by implication. His knowledge is previsive, for He is present to all time. Even our free acts are known beforehand to Him, for otherwise his wisdom would admit of successive moments of enrichment, and this would contradict his immutability. He is omnipotent for everything that does not involve logical contradiction. He can make being – in other words his power includes creation. If what He creates were made of his own substance, it would have to be infinite in essence, as that substance is; but it is finite; so it must be non-divine in substance. If it were made of a substance, an eternally existing matter, for example, which God found there to his hand, and to which He simply gave its form, that would contradict God’s definition as First Cause, and make Him a mere mover of something caused already. The things he creates, then, He creates ex nihilo, and gives them absolute being as so many finite substances additional to himself. The forms which he imprints upon them have their prototypes in his ideas. But as in God there is no such thing as multiplicity, and as these ideas for us are manifold, we must distinguish the ideas as they are in God and the way in which our minds externally imitate them. We must attribute them to Him only in a terminative sense, as differing aspects, from the finite point of view, of his unique essence.

God of course is holy, good, and just. He can do no evil, for He is positive being’s fullness, and evil is negation. It is true that He has created physical evil in places, but only as a means of wider good, for bonum totius praelig;eminet bonum partis. Moral evil He cannot will, either as end or means, for that would contradict his holiness. By creating free beings He permits it only, neither his justice nor his goodness obliging Him to prevent the recipients of freedom from misusing the gift. …

I will not weary you by pursuing these metaphysical determinations farther…What I have given will serve as a specimen of the orthodox philosophical theology of both Catholics and Protestants."

Best,
Leela

 

[reggieM]

As I said in the other thread, once you reject an infinite regress then a First Cause is the only alternative. But I don’t think we have the information to reliably reject an infinite regress.

That’s a matter of personal judgement based on what you see in the evidence - agreed. But I think that’s where we would look at other arguments which are supportive. It’s a matter of analysing reasonable ideas from various sides of the question and the cumulative effect becomes stronger.

We just don’t know either way. This is where the Cosmological Argument falls down. But even if it stood up to scrutiny, I don’t see how it concludes with the existence of God - that’s the reason for this follow-up thread.

… I have no problem with the First Cause being the First Cause. What I don’t understand is how we can get from this single event, which need have no intelligence, purpose or sentience, to the supposedly benevolent, all-powerful God of the OT etc.

That’s why I was looking for you to give as much detail as you could about the First Cause – as a starting point. Forget about any additional evidence and arguments about whether the First Cause exists and just assume that it has been proven with 100% certainty. We have the first, uncreated, uncaused Being. This Being cannot have a beginning point. This Being is Existence – it is also the power and idea and motive behind any next, subsequent action that took place.

I think we looked at some of the issues involved. Things like power, laws, processes, beginning points, energy, sentience, purposes, meaning, rationality … those come from some origin.

So, at a minimum – what would be some of the necessary characteristics that the First Cause would have to possess? It’s through that kind of analysis and inference that can show related concepts about the existence of God.

 

[wanstronian]

That’s a matter of personal judgement based on what you see in the evidence - agreed. But I think that’s where we would look at other arguments which are supportive. It’s a matter of analysing reasonable ideas from various sides of the question and the cumulative effect becomes stronger.

Okay, I’m not sure which other arguments there are that support a First Cause over an infinite regress - or at least, not enough to warrant an objective, firm conviction that the former is true.

That’s why I was looking for you to give as much detail as you could about the First Cause – as a starting point. Forget about any additional evidence and arguments about whether the First Cause exists and just assume that it has been proven with 100% certainty. We have the first, uncreated, uncaused Being. This Being cannot have a beginning point. This Being is Existence – it is also the power and idea and motive behind any next, subsequent action that took place.

As I said, I don’t like the term ‘being’ because of what it instinctively implies colloquially. But okay, if there was a First Cause it must have contained the energy necessary to produce everything we know today. I don’t think there’s any reason to give it intelligent characteristics like ‘idea’ and ‘motive.’ Energy is the only thing we can be reasonably sure of.

I think we looked at some of the issues involved. Things like power, laws, processes, beginning points, energy, sentience, purposes, meaning, rationality … those come from some origin.

Indeed, but there is no reason to postulate that these phenomena existed in those forms at the moment of the First Cause.

So, at a minimum – what would be some of the necessary characteristics that the First Cause would have to possess? It’s through that kind of analysis and inference that can show related concepts about the existence of God.

Energy is the only one I can think of.

 

[wanstronian]

Hi Wastronian,

William James answered your question in the Varieties of Religious Experience:

"If philosophy can do so little to establish God’s existence, how stands it with her efforts to define his attributes? …
Since God is First Cause, this science of sciences [theology] says, he differs from all his creatures in possessing existence a se. From this “a-se-ity” on God’s part, theology deduces by mere logic most of his other perfections. For instance, he must be both necessary and absolute, cannot not be, and cannot in any way be determined by anything else. This makes Him absolutely unlimited from without, and unlimited also from within; for limitation is non-being; and God is being itself. This unlimitedness makes God infinitely perfect. Moreover, God is One, and Only, for the infinitely perfect can admit no peer. He is Spiritual, for were He composed of physical parts, some other power would have to combine them into the total, and his aseity would thus be contradicted. He is therefore both simple and non-physical in nature. He is simple metaphysically also, that is to say, his nature and his existence cannot be distinct, as they are in finite substances which share their formal natures with one another, and are individual only in their material aspect. Since God is one and only, his essentia and his esse must be given at one stroke. This excludes from his being all those distinctions, so familiar in the world of finite things, between potentiality and actuality, substance and accidents, being and activity, existence and attributes. …

This absence of all potentiality in God obliges Him to be immutable. He is actuality, through and through. Were there anything potential about Him, He would either lose or gain by its actualization, and either loss or gain would contradict his perfection. He cannot, therefore, change. Furthermore, He is immense, boundless; for could He be outlined in space, He would be composite, and this would contradict his indivisibility. He is therefore omnipresent, indivisibly there, at every point of space. He is similarly wholly present at every point of time – in other words eternal. For if He began in time, He would need a prior cause, and that would contradict his aseity. If He ended it would contradict his necessity. If He went through any succession, it would contradict his immutability.

He has intelligence and will and every other creature-perfection, for we have them, and effectus nequit superare causam. In Him, however, they are absolutely and eternally in act, and their object, since God can be bounded by naught that is external, can primarily be nothing else than God himself. He knows himself, then, in one eternal indivisible act, and wills himself with an infinite self-pleasure. Since He must of logical necessity thus love and will himself, He cannot be called “free” ad intra, with the freedom of contrarieties that characterizes finite creatures. Ad extra, however, or with respect to his creation, God is free. He cannot need to create, being perfect in being and in happiness already. He wills to create, then, by an absolute freedom.

For the scholastics the facultas appetendi embraces feeling, desire, and will. Being thus a substance endowed with intellect and will and freedom, God is a person; and a living person also, for He is both object and subject of his own activity, and to be this distinguishes the living from the lifeless. He is thus absolutely self-sufficient: his self-knowledge and self-love are both of them infinite and adequate, and need no extraneous conditions to perfect them.

He is omniscient, for in knowing himself as Cause He knows all creature things and events by implication. His knowledge is previsive, for He is present to all time. Even our free acts are known beforehand to Him, for otherwise his wisdom would admit of successive moments of enrichment, and this would contradict his immutability. He is omnipotent for everything that does not involve logical contradiction. He can make being – in other words his power includes creation. If what He creates were made of his own substance, it would have to be infinite in essence, as that substance is; but it is finite; so it must be non-divine in substance. If it were made of a substance, an eternally existing matter, for example, which God found there to his hand, and to which He simply gave its form, that would contradict God’s definition as First Cause, and make Him a mere mover of something caused already. The things he creates, then, He creates ex nihilo, and gives them absolute being as so many finite substances additional to himself. The forms which he imprints upon them have their prototypes in his ideas. But as in God there is no such thing as multiplicity, and as these ideas for us are manifold, we must distinguish the ideas as they are in God and the way in which our minds externally imitate them. We must attribute them to Him only in a terminative sense, as differing aspects, from the finite point of view, of his unique essence.

God of course is holy, good, and just. He can do no evil, for He is positive being’s fullness, and evil is negation. It is true that He has created physical evil in places, but only as a means of wider good, for bonum totius praelig;eminet bonum partis. Moral evil He cannot will, either as end or means, for that would contradict his holiness. By creating free beings He permits it only, neither his justice nor his goodness obliging Him to prevent the recipients of freedom from misusing the gift. …

I will not weary you by pursuing these metaphysical determinations farther…What I have given will serve as a specimen of the orthodox philosophical theology of both Catholics and Protestants."

Best,
Leela

I like this - it’s a distillation of all the pseudo-logical sentiment I see posted here!

 

[Leela]

I like this - it’s a distillation of all the pseudo-logical sentiment I see posted here!

Then you’ll love his conclusions on the matter:

"If…we apply the principle of pragmatism [any difference must make a difference in practice] to God’s metaphysical attributes, strictly so called, as distinguished from his moral attributes, I think that, even were we forced by a coercive logic to believe them, we still should have to confess them to be destitute of all intelligible significance. Take God’s aseity, for example; or his necessariness; his immateriality; his “simplicity” or superiority to the kind of inner variety and succession which we find in finite beings, his indivisibility, and lack of the inner distinctions of being and activity, substance and accident, potentiality and actuality, and the rest; his repudiation of inclusion in a genus; his actualized infinity; his “personality,” apart from the moral qualities which it may comport; his relations to evil being permissive and not positive; his self-sufficiency, self-love, and absolute felicity in himself: – candidly speaking, how do such qualities as these make any definite connection with our life? And if they severally call for no distinctive adaptations of our conduct, what vital difference can it possibly make to a man’s religion whether they be true or false?

For my own part, although I dislike to say aught that may grate upon tender associations, I must frankly confess that even though these attributes were faultlessly deduced, I cannot conceive of its being of the smallest consequence to us religiously that any one of them should be true. Pray, what specific act can I perform in order to adapt myself the better to God’s simplicity? Or how does it assist me to plan my behavior, to know that his happiness is anyhow absolutely complete? In the middle of the century just past, Mayne Reid was the great writer of books of out-of-door adventure. He was forever extolling the hunters and field-observers of living animals’ habits, and keeping up a fire of invective against the “closet-naturalists,” as he called them, the collectors and classifiers, and handlers of skeletons and skins. When I was a boy, I used to think that a closet-naturalist must be the vilest type of wretch under the sun. But surely the systematic theologians are the closet-naturalists of the deity, even in Captain Mayne Reid’s sense. What is their deduction of metaphysical attributes but a shuffling and matching of pedantic dictionary-adjectives, aloof from morals, aloof from human needs, something that might be worked out from the mere word “God” by one of those logical machines of wood and brass which recent ingenuity has contrived as well as by a man of flesh and blood. They have the trail of the serpent over them. One feels that in the theologians’ hands, they are only a set of titles obtained by a mechanical manipulation of synonyms; verbality has stepped into the place of vision, professionalism into that of life. Instead of bread we have a stone; instead of a fish, a serpent. Did such a conglomeration of abstract terms give really the gist of our knowledge of the deity, schools of theology might indeed continue to flourish, but religion, vital religion, would have taken its flight from this world. What keeps religion going is something else than abstract definitions and systems of concatenated adjectives, and something different from faculties of theology and their professors. All these things are after-effects, secondary accretions upon those phenomena of vital conversation with the unseen divine, of which I have shown you so many instances, renewing themselves in saelig;cula saelig;culorum in the lives of humble private men.

So much for the metaphysical attributes of God! From the point of view of practical religion, the metaphysical monster which they offer to our worship is an absolutely worthless invention of the scholarly mind."

TBC…

 

[Leela]

James cont.:

"What shall we now say of the attributes called moral? Pragmatically, they stand on an entirely different footing. They positively determine fear and hope and expectation, and are foundations for the saintly life. It needs but a glance at them to show how great is their significance.

God’s holiness, for example: being holy, God can will nothing but the good. Being omnipotent, he can secure its triumph. Being omniscient, he can see us in the dark. Being just, he can punish us for what he sees. Being loving, he can pardon too. Being unalterable, we can count on him securely. These qualities enter into connection with our life, it is highly important that we should be informed concerning them. That God’s purpose in creation should be the manifestation of his glory is also an attribute which has definite relations to our practical life. Among other things it has given a definite character to worship in all Christian countries. If dogmatic theology really does prove beyond dispute that a God with characters like these exists, she may well claim to give a solid basis to religious sentiment. But verily, how stands it with her arguments?

It stands with them as ill as with the arguments for his existence. Not only do post-Kantian idealists reject them root and branch, but it is a plain historic fact that they never have converted any one who has found in the moral complexion of the world, as he experienced it, reasons for doubting that a good God can have framed it. To prove God’s goodness by the scholastic argument that there is no non-being in his essence would sound to such a witness simply silly.

No! the book of Job went over this whole matter once for all and definitively. Ratiocination is a relatively superficial and unreal path to the deity: “I will lay mine hand upon my mouth; I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth Thee.” An intellect perplexed and baffled, yet a trustful sense of presence – such is the situation of the man who is sincere with himself and with the facts, but who remains religious still.

Pragmatically, the most important attribute of God is his punitive justice. But who, in the present state of theological opinion on that point, will dare maintain that hell fire or its equivalent in some shape is rendered certain by pure logic? Theology herself has largely based this doctrine upon revelation, and, in discussing it, has tended more and more to substitute conventional ideas of criminal law for a priori principles of reason. But the very notion that this glorious universe, with planets and winds, and laughing sky and ocean, should have been conceived and had its beams and rafters laid in technicalities of criminality, is incredible to our modern imagination. It weakens a religion to hear it argued upon such a basis.
We must therefore, I think, bid a definitive good-by to dogmatic theology."

Best,
Leela

 

[reggieM]

Energy is the only one I can think of.

That’s a starting point. So, with a First Cause which is energy alone, how do you view the path and succession (in general terms) from that point?

 

[bdelykleon]

That’s a starting point. So, with a First Cause which is energy alone, how do you view the path and succession (in general terms) from that point?

This is funny, because since energy exists and is conserved, where did it come from? Obviously the world didn’t expand out of energy, it must have a prior origin, a prior cause.

And I hardly see William James as of any relevance here. He only says the teological God has nothing to do with the popular God and, most curiously, this is well agreed by almost everyone.

 

[wanstronian]

That’s a starting point. So, with a First Cause which is energy alone, how do you view the path and succession (in general terms) from that point?

I don’t know! I’m not a physicist. I know that energy can transform to matter and back, but I’m not aware of the detailed process by which this happens. But in (very) general terms, I guess that a portion of the energy would convert to matter, including all the elements that make up the universe that we know.

It sounds like I’m trying to squeeze First Cause into Big Bang Theory - I’m not really, it’s just that if you start with pure energy and a layman’s knowledge that energy and matter are mutually convertible, then look around and see energy and matter, it happens to fit extremely well.

The big assumption, of course, is that the First Cause was pure energy and nothing else. I don’t know if this assumption is true, but I can’t see any reason to speculate otherwise.

 

[reggieM]

The big assumption, of course, is that the First Cause was pure energy and nothing else. I don’t know if this assumption is true, but I can’t see any reason to speculate otherwise.

The problems here are that energy (in the way you’re using the term) is a material substance and is subject to various laws, environmental pressues – and it also possesses many characteristics. So, it’s difficult to say “pure energy and nothing else”. The laws that act upon energy are not produced by energy. The properties of energy were not created by energy. The fact that energy can “do things” is not something that energy creates, but it is what energy possesses. So, energy had to get those properties from somewhere else. If it gets them from another cause, then energy could not be the First Cause.

We run into another problem in having material-energy (bounded or unbounded?) existing for an infinite amount of time. What changes can occur to energy over an infinite period of time? For one, it can be converted to heat and then be dissipated. Over an infinite amount of time, what generates this energy after loss?

Beyond that, we’d have to have an amount of energy as the First Cause. In an infinite amount of time, is the energy an infinite supply or is it limited by something? If infinite, then it could never decrease because it has no boundaries. We would therefore, have evidence of this infinite amount of physical/material energy existing, but we don’t see that. What we do see, as far as I know, is energy fluctuating at different levels – thus, the amount of material-energy could never have been infinite.

If not infinite, then, how could the First Cause be composed of a finite amount of energy? What caused this energy to be limited to a finite amount?

So, we’re back to properties or characteristics of energy that could not be created by energy itself. Energy is limited in its power to create (it cannot create the laws that govern energy, for example).

 

[wanstronian]

The problems here are that energy (in the way you’re using the term) is a material substance and is subject to various laws, environmental pressues – and it also possesses many characteristics. So, it’s difficult to say “pure energy and nothing else”. The laws that act upon energy are not produced by energy. The properties of energy were not created by energy. The fact that energy can “do things” is not something that energy creates, but it is what energy possesses. So, energy had to get those properties from somewhere else. If it gets them from another cause, then energy could not be the First Cause.

Absolutely. We cannot draw any substantial conclusions. We can speculate about what might have shaped the energy to do this or that, but speculation is all it would be, and such speculation is constantly in danger of being shaped by our presuppositions and desired conclusion.

We run into another problem in having material-energy (bounded or unbounded?) existing for an infinite amount of time. What changes can occur to energy over an infinite period of time? For one, it can be converted to heat and then be dissipated. Over an infinite amount of time, what generates this energy after loss?

Bearing in mind the fact that we cannot know what physical laws may have been in effect at First Cause, we do know that energy cannot be created or lost, so I don’t think this is an issue. Sure, heat is dissipated, but that energy is not lost, just converted.

Beyond that, we’d have to have an amount of energy as the First Cause. In an infinite amount of time, is the energy an infinite supply or is it limited by something? If infinite, then it could never decrease because it has no boundaries. We would therefore, have evidence of this infinite amount of physical/material energy existing, but we don’t see that. What we do see, as far as I know, is energy fluctuating at different levels – thus, the amount of material-energy could never have been infinite.

No, nor would it need to have been.

If not infinite, then, how could the First Cause be composed of a finite amount of energy? What caused this energy to be limited to a finite amount?

Why should it be anything other than finite? As to the level of energy - I don’t see how we can ever arrive at an informed answer - it’s just more speculation.

So, we’re back to properties or characteristics of energy that could not be created by energy itself. Energy is limited in its power to create (it cannot create the laws that govern energy, for example).

And we’re back to merely speculating what might have happened, with insufficient information to move that speculation in any particular direction.

 

[reggieM]

Bearing in mind the fact that we cannot know what physical laws may have been in effect at First Cause …

Here’s an important distinction. The First Cause is a philosophical term which hinges on the word “Cause” – that is: the primary action that causes anything else that followed.

With that, we cannot say that there might have been some physical laws in effect – because those laws are Causes of things. When we say First Cause – it means Unique, Sole, Only Cause.

That is a starting point that can just be asserted. But it’s not sufficient to assert multiple First-Unique causes, because those require an explanation.

If we had a First Cause which was “Energy plus all of the laws of the universe” – then this doesn’t provide an explanation for the origin of the laws.

Did the laws which act on energy come before energy existed? Did energy come before there were laws? How did the laws get there? These are the kinds of questions that this problem creates.

So, the classical philosophical answer is that the First Cause is the creator of the Energy and the physical laws that resulted in all all other events which occurred.

Physical laws cannot create energy. Energy cannot create the laws which affect energy.

So, the laws and the energy are created by the First Cause (and therefore, the First Cause cannot be pure-energy alone).

 

[tonyrey]

James cont.:

Pragmatically, the most important attribute of God is his punitive justice. But who, in the present state of theological opinion on that point, will dare maintain that hell fire or its equivalent in some shape is rendered certain by pure logic? Theology herself has largely based this doctrine upon revelation, and, in discussing it, has tended more and more to substitute conventional ideas of criminal law for a priori principles of reason. But the very notion that this glorious universe, with planets and winds, and laughing sky and ocean, should have been conceived and had its beams and rafters laid in technicalities of criminality, is incredible to our modern imagination. It weakens a religion to hear it argued upon such a basis.
We must therefore, I think, bid a definitive good-by to dogmatic theology."

A false conclusion based on a false premise! The most significant attribute of God is not His justice but His love…

 

[wanstronian]

Here’s an important distinction. The First Cause is a philosophical term which hinges on the word “Cause” – that is: the primary action that causes anything else that followed.

With that, we cannot say that there might have been some physical laws in effect – because those laws are Causes of things. When we say First Cause – it means Unique, Sole, Only Cause.

You’re right, I should have been clearer. I meant the physcial laws that would have come into effect starting at the point of the First Cause. Not extant laws, but those laws that came into being at the point of First Cause. The point was to acknowledge that we can’t be sure that the same physical laws we depend on now, would have been the same at the moment of First Cause. Therefore the energy<->matter transformation principle may not have been true at First Cause+1*10^-5000 seconds, for example.

That is a starting point that can just be asserted. But it’s not sufficient to assert multiple First-Unique causes, because those require an explanation.

It’s an interesting point. What’s to stop two or more codependent Causes occurring? Why must ‘the’ First Cause have been unique? What’s the cause of an explosion - is it a source of ignition or a source of fuel?

If we had a First Cause which was “Energy plus all of the laws of the universe” – then this doesn’t provide an explanation for the origin of the laws.

Nor indeed, for the energy!

Did the laws which act on energy come before energy existed? Did energy come before there were laws? How did the laws get there? These are the kinds of questions that this problem creates.

So, the classical philosophical answer is that the First Cause is the creator of the Energy and the physical laws that resulted in all all other events which occurred.

Physical laws cannot create energy. Energy cannot create the laws which affect energy.

So, the laws and the energy are created by the First Cause (and therefore, the First Cause cannot be pure-energy alone).

Okay, so both energy and laws are created by First Cause. We’re still in the realm of conjecture, and we’re still left with nowhere near enough information to reach a robust conclusion about what the First Cause actually was. Maybe it was the amount and/or type of energy that dictated the physical laws that also came into effect. If there were twice as much energy in the Universe, would the physical laws that bound it be different? Who knows?

I still see no arguments leading towards a creator God.

 

[reggieM]

It’s an interesting point. What’s to stop two or more codependent Causes occurring? Why must ‘the’ First Cause have been unique? What’s the cause of an explosion - is it a source of ignition or a source of fuel?

Those are excellent questions and I was struggling to answer them myself while typing that the First Cause has to be unique and one, not multiple. The answer has to do with the “codependency” – but this brings us back to establishing the First Cause (and I’ll need more time to think about that) – which might have been a part of your previous discussion with WSP (which I didn’t read). For now, let’s just accept a single First Cause – and go back to the reasons for that later.

Okay, so both energy and laws are created by First Cause. We’re still in the realm of conjecture, and we’re still left with nowhere near enough information to reach a robust conclusion about what the First Cause actually was. Maybe it was the amount and/or type of energy that dictated the physical laws that also came into effect. If there were twice as much energy in the Universe, would the physical laws that bound it be different? Who knows?
I still see no arguments leading towards a creator God.

What we’d have to have in this case is a First Cause which is “something” other than energy and laws. The First Cause created energy (at whatever amount or with whatever properties and power) and the laws that bound that original energy.

So, the First Cause has to have enough creative-power to create energy and the physical laws of the universe. Yes, it’s conjecture in many ways, but we can infer how much power it would take to create energy and laws. We also have a problem with trying to define what the First Cause could be, since it is not matter, energy or the laws.

Going back to the argument – the options are:

1. Absolute nothing
2. An infinite regression of causes
3. The First Cause

#1 is impossible. If there could be a condition of absolute nothing, then there could never be any causes forever. So, that is ruled out.
We ruled out #2 for the sake of this argument.

With #3, we really have “Absolute nothingness except for a First Cause”.

Whatever the First Cause does or creates, it all happens from absolute nothing.

So, we propose pure being, with non-material power, creative intelligence and will (ability to decide and direct things).

That is the only way to go from absolute nothing to the creation of energy and the physical laws of the universe.

In order for the First Cause to be able to create energy, the First Cause must have the power to create things (like natural laws) from nothing. So, the First Cause possesses the knowledge and capability to do these things – and the power to actually create them.

That is massive power and intelligence. It’s non-material power which is greater than the capability of any combination of material substances.

 

[wanstronian]

Those are excellent questions and I was struggling to answer them myself while typing that the First Cause has to be unique and one, not multiple. The answer has to do with the “codependency” – but this brings us back to establishing the First Cause (and I’ll need more time to think about that) – which might have been a part of your previous discussion with WSP (which I didn’t read). For now, let’s just accept a single First Cause – and go back to the reasons for that later.

That’s fine - I don’t think it makes a difference either way!

What we’d have to have in this case is a First Cause which is “something” other than energy and laws. The First Cause created energy (at whatever amount or with whatever properties and power) and the laws that bound that original energy.

So, the First Cause has to have enough creative-power to create energy and the physical laws of the universe. Yes, it’s conjecture in many ways, but we can infer how much power it would take to create energy and laws. We also have a problem with trying to define what the First Cause could be, since it is not matter, energy or the laws.

Going back to the argument – the options are:

1. Absolute nothing
2. An infinite regression of causes
3. The First Cause

#1 is impossible. If there could be a condition of absolute nothing, then there could never be any causes forever. So, that is ruled out.
We ruled out #2 for the sake of this argument.

With #3, we really have “Absolute nothingness except for a First Cause”.

Whatever the First Cause does or creates, it all happens from absolute nothing.

Okay so far.

So, we propose pure being, with non-material power, creative intelligence and will (ability to decide and direct things).

That is the only way to go from absolute nothing to the creation of energy and the physical laws of the universe.

This is where I have to disagree. I see no reason to posit creative intelligence and will.

In order for the First Cause to be able to create energy, the First Cause must have the power to create things (like natural laws) from nothing. So, the First Cause possesses the knowledge and capability to do these things – and the power to actually create them.

Again, I see no reason to ascribe properties of sentience.

That is massive power and intelligence. It’s non-material power which is greater than the capability of any combination of material substances.

Massive power, undoubtedly. Intelligence? Why? And what’s your justification for your final sentence?

 

[reggieM]

Massive power, undoubtedly. Intelligence? Why?

I might be wrong here about the kind and amount of power needed, but it’s a power that is beyond our ability to comprehend fully. The reason for that is that there has to be enough power (and the right kind of power) to create energy and all of the natural laws of the universe starting from nothing (that is, nothing else existing except the First Cause).

So, it’s not just massive power – but an immaterial power. Why immaterial? Because no matter or energy could exist at the time the First Cause created them. We would say it was a massive amount of power because all of the energy and laws of the universe were created and we can only imagine how much power that would take.

But it’s not just pure-undirected-power that would be able to create the balance, consistency, rationality and inter-connectedness of the natural laws of the universe. The natural laws can be measured and predicted by mathematics – so they’re consistent and complex.

One of the most important set of laws that could not be caused by energy, matter or other laws is that of logic. Through logic and the law of non-contradiction, we are able to use mathematics – and basically all human reasoning is based on logic.

So, logic is one of the laws that governs things in the universe (it enables us to reason) and that was created by the First Cause.

If the First Cause created the method that humans rely on for intelligent reasoning – by inference we propose that the First Cause had to posssess enough intelligence to create the laws of logic – in other words, a very vast and powerful intelligence which is not dependent on any material substances.

And what’s your justification for your final sentence?

This sentence: “It’s non-material power which is greater than the capability of any combination of material substances.”

The amount and kind of power is greater than anything that all of the material substances or processes combined possess because it has to create all of the energy and natural laws of the universe – starting with no material substances or laws.

It’s like saying that “something was created out of nothing” – which is impossible. So, the only way the First Cause could create anything at all is if that Cause has some kind of massive, immaterial power to do such a thing.

This is not just a conjecture but a logical inference based on what reason tells us would be required for the beginning of all things. Any action or matter or energy or process that came from the First Cause could only be created by a power that is greater than anything known, because all other powers require some material substance and work with pre-existing laws.

 

[wanstronian]

I might be wrong here about the kind and amount of power needed, but it’s a power that is beyond our ability to comprehend fully. The reason for that is that there has to be enough power (and the right kind of power) to create energy and all of the natural laws of the universe starting from nothing (that is, nothing else existing except the First Cause).

No argument there - it must have been a lot of power!

So, it’s not just massive power – but an immaterial power. Why immaterial? Because no matter or energy could exist at the time the First Cause created them. We would say it was a massive amount of power because all of the energy and laws of the universe were created and we can only imagine how much power that would take.

But it’s not just pure-undirected-power that would be able to create the balance, consistency, rationality and inter-connectedness of the natural laws of the universe. The natural laws can be measured and predicted by mathematics – so they’re consistent and complex.

Are they though? E=mc² is a pretty simple equation, for example. But even if they’re complex, why does that imply sentience? Why does complexity have to be a result of intelligence? The standard example is a snow flake - it’s incredibly complex, yet each one isn’t hand-crafted by an intelligent creator!

One of the most important set of laws that could not be caused by energy, matter or other laws is that of logic. Through logic and the law of non-contradiction, we are able to use mathematics – and basically all human reasoning is based on logic.

So, logic is one of the laws that governs things in the universe (it enables us to reason) and that was created by the First Cause.

Why would the First Cause have had to create logic and maths? Are you suggesting that P might have been equal to not-P prior to the First Cause? That 1+1 might not have equalled 2?

Well, the answer is that we don’t know, of course. But it seems to me that logic and mathematics are immutably ‘true,’ and they don’t need to have been ‘created.’ Prior to the First Cause, 1+1 would surely still equal 2, even if nothing existed to make use of such a truth. And P would still not have equalled not-P, even though there were no actual proposition in existence. What we call Maths and Logic are really just abstract processes that we use to formulate fundamental truths.

I might be wrong, I might be right. The point is that we can’t just assert something like this and hang the rest of the argument on it. Well, not if we want it to be a robust argument, anyway.

If the First Cause created the method that humans rely on for intelligent reasoning – by inference we propose that the First Cause had to posssess enough intelligence to create the laws of logic – in other words, a very vast and powerful intelligence which is not dependent on any material substances.

I think this is a false inference, for the reasons above.

This sentence: “It’s non-material power which is greater than the capability of any combination of material substances.”

The amount and kind of power is greater than anything that all of the material substances or processes combined possess because it has to create all of the energy and natural laws of the universe – starting with no material substances or laws.

It’s like saying that “something was created out of nothing” – which is impossible. So, the only way the First Cause could create anything at all is if that Cause has some kind of massive, immaterial power to do such a thing.

This is not just a conjecture but a logical inference based on what reason tells us would be required for the beginning of all things. Any action or matter or energy or process that came from the First Cause could only be created by a power that is greater than anything known, because all other powers require some material substance and work with pre-existing laws.

The power of the First Cause would undoubtedly be greater than anything we know, because it would have to be the distillation of all the energy and matter in the universe down to a single point in ‘time’ and ‘space’ (apostrophes used for hopefully obvious reasons).

Thanks, I understand what you were saying in this sentence now!