The existence of an Absolute Intelligent First Cause has been proven to exist with absolute metaphysical certainty. So why are people still atheists?

[rossum]

So you are arguing that immaterial (non-physical) reality is essentially identical in nature to that which is physical (material) and therefore what is true of one is true of the other?

No, I am not arguing that. The universe has material components (the STEM universe of science) and non-material components: angels, gods, djinn, devas, kinnaras and other proposed immaterial entities.

They do not have everything in common, but they do have some things in common. Concepts like existence apply to both material and non-material entities. Similarly change is universally applicable.

Other concepts are not universally applicable; electric charge is only applicable to entities in the material part of the overall universe.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

A lot of Catholic (Thomist?) argument seems to depend on what is, and is not Necessary. I reject that concept.

Can you or can you not refute the argument that i have presented for the existence of a first cause that is not physical reality? Yes or no?

 

[MPat]

A lot of Catholic (Thomist?) argument seems to depend on what is, and is not Necessary. I reject that concept.

Of course you do.

But, um, have you seen how you worded that? The word “reject” indicates the act of will, not act of intellect.

That “Freudian slip” seems to be pretty relevant for this thread.

If your First Cause is Necessary, then the actions of that First Cause are also Necessary.

How is it possible for a Necessary entity to cause any non-Necessary entity?

Would you like to prove that?

Also, it would be interesting to see you argue (or even claim) that 2+2=4 is not “necessary”.

 

[rossum]

Can you or can you not refute the argument that i have presented for the existence of a first cause that is not physical reality? Yes or no?

I accept the multiverse, so I have no problem with the general concept of a first cause. It is the other attributes, like intelligence, that I have a problem with.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Would you like to prove that?

• A Necessary entity is Necessary.
• One entity cannot be both Necessary and non-Necessary.
• If the Necessary entity takes an action, then that action is either Necessary or non-Necessary.
• If the action is non-Necessary then it is separate from the Necessary entity, and hence part of a different, non-Necessary, entity.
• Hence all actions of a Necessary entity are also themselves Necessary.

The question is related to whether or not God has free will, since He can infallibly see His own future actions, thus making them necessary. If He did not take those actions then His foresight would be in error, and hence He would not be God. God cannot make an error…

Also, it would be interesting to see you argue (or even claim) that 2+2=4 is not “necessary”.

Mathematics is an axiomatic system, and the truth, or not, of any statement in mathematics is contingent on the axioms currently in use.

• 2 + 2 = 4 is true in any number base of 5 or greater.
• 2 + 2 = 10 is true in number base 4.
• 2 + 2 = 11 is true in number base 3.
• 2 + 2 is meaningless in number bases below 3 since the symbol ‘2’ has no meaning in those bases.

It is generally a mistake to use a mathematical statement as an example of absolute truth. The truth of the statement depends on the various stated and assumed axioms that apply. That makes the statement contingent.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

Are you saying the multiverse is the first cause?

 

[MPat]

A Necessary entity is Necessary.

Good.

One entity cannot be both Necessary and non-Necessary.

Questionable. I’d say you should add some qualifications. For example, “in the same sense”.

If the Necessary entity takes an action, then that action is either Necessary or non-Necessary.

OK…

If the action is non-Necessary then it is separate from the Necessary entity, and hence part of a different, non-Necessary, entity.

And where did you get an assumption that “action” can be a “part” of an “entity”?

Hence all actions of a Necessary entity are also themselves Necessary.

And here you smuggle in an assumption that “action of entity” must be a “part” of the same “entity”…

No, I don’t see why we should grant it. It is not even clear if it actually means something.

Thus your argument fails.

2 + 2 = 4 is true in any number base of 5 or greater.

2 + 2 = 10 is true in number base 4.

2 + 2 = 11 is true in number base 3.

2 + 2 is meaningless in number bases below 3 since the symbol ‘2’ has no meaning in those bases.

Here you give the same proposition expressed in different ways. I’m afraid that confirming that it is really true even if it is expressed in a different way does nothing to prove that it is not necessary. In fact, you end up making a contrary case (maybe not in the best possible way, but still).

It is generally a mistake to use a mathematical statement as an example of absolute truth. The truth of the statement depends on the various stated and assumed axioms that apply. That makes the statement contingent.

Does it?

 

[HarryStotle]

An atheist, who denies the existence of any and all uncaused intelligences, does not have this particular problem.

The above seems consistent with the following:

I accept the multiverse, so I have no problem with the general concept of a first cause. It is the other attributes, like intelligence, that I have a problem with.

The problem, it seems to me, is that merely accepting, say, the multiverse as a brute fact rather than abiding by the principle of sufficient reason (the grounding principle of intelligence) is that you are setting a precedent with regard to the kind of grounds you will allow as the “ultimate reality” behind the ATE universe.

There is nothing in the idea of multiverse that explains why it ought to exist, let alone exist necessarily. It is very ad hoc, in fact.

Seems to me that the principle of sufficient reason requires that wherever the causal “buck stops,” so to speak, THAT terminus must be self-explanatory, I.e., explains itself along with everything else. Otherwise the principle of sufficient reason is not satisfied.

If you simply want to permit brute facts, I.e., that the terminus or Uncaused Cause can be one, as a matter of brute fact, then there is no reason why we wouldn’t just accept brute facts at any point along every causal sequence and claim the ATE universe just is that way in this universe or that one because such things are quite permissible in infinite sets of universes, especially when rossum needs them to be, i.e., to conveniently address the discussion where he chooses to appeal to brute facts, after “rejecting” all other competing possibilities.

Why did that vase fall and break? Well, it just did as a brute fact in the way this particular universe functions as one of the infinite set in the ATE universe, just as the ATE multiverse is a matter of brute fact that we can just conjure up in order to explain the unimaginable fine tuning in our universe. Why does the multiverse exist eternally and necessarily? Well, it just does. No reason except that we can imagine it as the spawning principle of an infinite set of universes.

Seems like the mother of all wish fulfillments for those who need one.

Seems, also to set an awful precedent for intelligent beings.

I have another issue with not accepting intelligence as uncaused and explanatory which I will address in the next post.

 

[HarryStotle]

Perhaps an atheist doesn’t have the particular problem of needing intelligence to be necessary, but it seems to me that an atheist has an entirely different problem. To wit: the problem of having devalued whatever currency the atheist wishes to warrant his beliefs and reasoned convictions in all four areas of knowing (listed below). After all, the atheist is trying to appeal to what s/he claims is most rationally warranted in order to refute claims about the existence of God. If intelligence is unnecessary then why would any logical principle AT ALL, even the principle of sufficient reason, be required since explanations have been tossed out as necessary when the atheist or rossum tossed out the necessity of intelligence and intelligibility in the ATE universe

Recall that in another thread, I wrote:

If we break possible human knowledge into domains, which may or may not completely overlap, we can come up with at least four.

1. knowledge of the observable world – I.e., the knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, metaphysics, etc., treating observable things in the material world.
2. knowledge of moral agency – knowledge of how I, as an undeniable subjective agent of my actions, ought to act in the world.
3. knowledge of value – knowledge of the relative importance or significance (whether relative or absolute) of beings, entities, events, actions, etc., in the realm of being or existence.
4. knowledge of personal identity and subjectivity – an understanding of my internal subjective world as I experience being, thoughts, ideas, emotions, etc., from a first person perspective as the loci of all experience, along with the ultimate significance of what it means to be in the world that I find myself in.

It seems to me that the atheist or rossum, by denying the necessity of intelligence simply denies that knowledge of all four types above has any validity in any universe because knowledge (intelligence) is not necessary to explain any natural phenomena because ultimately the ATE universe isn’t grounded in intelligibility as foundational and necessary.
It seems to me that morality, value (as in the significance of beings, events, actions, etc.,) knowledge of our own subjective existence and the objective knowledge of the observable world, all completely lose their underlying propositional grounds. If there are no intelligible and. necessary grounds for our knowledge, all our knowledge becomes ultimately groundless and meaningless. All morality, all values, all self-awareness and all factual knowledge become unwarranted. We may as well believe anything arbitrarily because that position is as valid as any other.

 

[rossum]

Are you saying the multiverse is the first cause?

No. You are assigning a lot of extraneous characteristics to your first cause. The multiverse does not have all those characteristics: intelligence etc. The multiverse is the cause of the Big Bang which is the initial cause of the rest of our particular universe.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Questionable. I’d say you should add some qualifications. For example, “in the same sense”.

This is basic logic: the law of the excluded middle. One entity cannot be both X and non-X. There must be at least two entities present.

And where did you get an assumption that “action” can be a “part” of an “entity”?

If the action exists then it is part of an entity. Perhaps the entity designated “actions of God”.

And here you smuggle in an assumption that “action of entity” must be a “part” of the same “entity”…

No I do not. I am merely showing that God’s actions are Necessary. Given that they are Necessary, then does God have any choice about whether or not to perform them? Is it within God’s power to refuse to perform a Necessary action?

Given that the action is Necessary, then the result of the action must also be Necessary. Hence all things that trace their origin back to a Necessary God are also themselves Necessary, and the concept becomes useless.

Here you give the same proposition expressed in different ways.

No I do not. The proposition in base 2 is meaningless which makes it a different proposition from the same symbols interpreted in base 8.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The problem, it seems to me, is that merely accepting, say, the multiverse as a brute fact rather than abiding by the principle of sufficient reason (the grounding principle of intelligence) is that you are setting a precedent with regard to the kind of grounds you will allow as the “ultimate reality” behind the ATE universe.

I do not accept the existence of any “ultimate reality”. Such concepts are merely reifications and I do not accept any reifications as real. At best they are useful shorthands, to be rejected when no longer useful.

There is nothing in the idea of multiverse that explains why it ought to exist, let alone exist necessarily. It is very ad hoc, in fact.

Yes. Much of science is ad hoc. Scientists look at what is present in the world and try to fit it together into a coherent pattern. As is often observed, then Big Bang had to have some trigger, and cosmologists are looking at possible triggers: the multiverse, colliding branes etc.

Perhaps an atheist doesn’t have the particular problem of needing intelligence to be necessary, but it seems to me that an atheist has an entirely different problem.

I would remind you that I am Buddhist. I have tens of thousands of gods in my scriptures. You need to discuss these questions with an atheist.

1. knowledge of the observable world – I.e., the knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, metaphysics, etc., treating observable things in the material world.
2. knowledge of moral agency – knowledge of how I, as an undeniable subjective agent of my actions, ought to act in the world.
3. knowledge of value – knowledge of the relative importance or significance (whether relative or absolute) of beings, entities, events, actions, etc., in the realm of being or existence.
4. knowledge of personal identity and subjectivity – an understanding of my internal subjective world as I experience being, thoughts, ideas, emotions, etc., from a first person perspective as the loci of all experience, along with the ultimate significance of what it means to be in the world that I find myself in.

Science covers the first of your four while Buddhism covers the other three: morality, value and meditation. You will need to ask an atheist for their perspective.

rossum

 

[MPat]

This is basic logic: the law of the excluded middle. One entity cannot be both X and non-X. There must be at least two entities present.

No, it is not the application of the law of excluded middle. Before this law can be applied, all ambiguities have to be taken care of.

For example, let’s take “American flag is red.” and “American flag is non-red.”. The first proposition is true when “is red” is understood as “having some red parts”, second proposition is true when “is red” is understood as “being completely red”. If we do not take care of that, both of them can be true at the same time.

If the action exists then it is part of an entity. Perhaps the entity designated “actions of God”.

I’m afraid that mere repetition does not count as an argument.

No, I do not see why “action” has to be “part” of an “entity” yet.

No I do not. I am merely showing that God’s actions are Necessary. Given that they are Necessary, then does God have any choice about whether or not to perform them? Is it within God’s power to refuse to perform a Necessary action?

Given that the action is Necessary, then the result of the action must also be Necessary. Hence all things that trace their origin back to a Necessary God are also themselves Necessary, and the concept becomes useless.

So, yes, you do smuggle in an unsupported assumption that “action of entity” must be a “part” of the same “entity”, but do not like when that is pointed out.

No I do not. The proposition in base 2 is meaningless which makes it a different proposition from the same symbols interpreted in base 8.

The proposition in base 2 would be expressed as “10 + 10 = 100” and, obviously, would be true, not meaningless.

So, yes, you are making a good point - against your own position. Please proceed.

By the way, there are some clues that there might be some misconceptions here:

No, I am not arguing that. The universe has material components (the STEM universe of science) and non-material components: angels, gods, djinn, devas, kinnaras and other proposed immaterial entities.

They do not have everything in common, but they do have some things in common. Concepts like existence apply to both material and non-material entities. Similarly change is universally applicable.

In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas argues that nothing can be predicated of creatures and God equivocally, only analogically.

As is often observed, then Big Bang had to have some trigger, and cosmologists are looking at possible triggers: the multiverse, colliding branes etc.

That would be relevant for Kalam argument. Most similar Thomistic argument does not try to find out what caused the universe to begin, but what keeps it in existence, what makes change possible.

 

[rossum]

For example, let’s take “American flag is red.” and “American flag is non-red.”

The American flag is not a unitary entity, it is a compound entity with parts. Any compound entity can be analysed into its component parts, and each part analysed separately.

I am often assured that the Christian God is not a compound entity, but a single uncompounded entity. That being the case, your point is not applicable in that case.

No, I do not see why “action” has to be “part” of an “entity” yet.

Do the actions exist? If they do then at the very least they are part of the compound entity “things that exist”.

So, yes, you do smuggle in an unsupported assumption that “action of entity” must be a “part” of the same “entity”, but do not like when that is pointed out.

I say nothing about “part”. I am merely seeing is the actions are Necessary or not. Whether or not the actions are part of the initial entity is not relevant; only whether or not the actions are Necessary is relevant.

The proposition in base 2 would be expressed as “10 + 10 = 100” and, obviously, would be true, not meaningless.

You are correct, thank you for the correction. The proposition 2 + 2 = 4 remains meaningless in base 2, but now it is even more meaningless than I initially thought.

In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas argues that nothing can be predicated of creatures and God equivocally, only analogically.

He may argue that; I do not. Does God exist? Do creatures exist? That is the same existence predicate which applies to both.

rossum

 

[MPat]

I say nothing about “part”. I am merely seeing is the actions are Necessary or not. Whether or not the actions are part of the initial entity is not relevant; only whether or not the actions are Necessary is relevant.

You say nothing about “part”? Let’s see:

If the action is non-Necessary then it is separate from the Necessary entity, and hence part of a different, non-Necessary, entity.

I do see the word “part” here (also “separate”). Are you saying that it is not here? Or that this your claim is irrelevant?

I guess that your argument proved to be a bit too confusing. If even you yourself can’t follow it, perhaps we should drop it as “inconclusive at best”. Especially given that I see something more interesting:

You are correct, thank you for the correction. The proposition 2 + 2 = 4 remains meaningless in base 2, but now it is even more meaningless than I initially thought.

No, the proposition is still true. The same proposition can be expressed as “2 + 2 = 4” (using numbers in base 10), “10 + 10 = 100” (using numbers in base 2), as “Two and two is four.” (using English), as “Du plius du yra keturi.” (using Lithuanian).

Once again: there is a difference between proposition and its expression. Is that much clear to you?

He may argue that; I do not. Does God exist? Do creatures exist? That is the same existence predicate which applies to both.

Yes, we get it - you are not a Catholic. You do not have to repeat that in different ways again and again.

And yes, it is probably true that you use “exist” for God and for creatures equivocally. After all, you seem to talk as if God and Buddhist gods were somehow similar.

But we believe that God is Existence itself. And thus when we say “God exists.” and “Tree exists.” by “exists” we mean something somewhat different, although similar (thus “analogous”).

 

[rossum]

I do see the word “part” here (also “separate”). Are you saying that it is not here? Or that this your claim is irrelevant?

Can X be both Necessary and non-Necessary? No it cannot, unless you deny the logical law of the excluded middle. God is Necessary. If God’s actions are non-Necessary, then those actions are separate from God and are not God. God is Necessary. Anything that is non-Necessary is not God but something else.

Once again: there is a difference between proposition and its expression. Is that much clear to you?

The difference is clear. We cannot understand the proposition without assumptions about what number base it is in, what language it is in (’=’ looks very like the Chinese character for ‘2’). Does “elf” mean an imaginary humanoid (as in English) or 11 as in German?

All discussion or any proposition starts with the expression of that proposition in some symbols. You cannot separate the proposition from its expression.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

Are you going to give an answer to my first cause argument?

The universe or multiverse exists (physical reality). So the question is, is the universe or multiverse necessarily actual?

Physical reality is changing, its parts are constantly in a state of becoming. New forms become actual whereas before they were only potential. The universe or multiverse (physical reality) is a sequence of potential states. The universe or multiverse has emergent properties none of which are necessarily actual and yet they are a part of what the universe or multiverse is (physical reality). If physical reality was necessarily actual it would not have emergent properties or new forms or new states of being. This is to say it would not be in any respect potentially actual, but rather everything that it is or could possibly be would be fully actual from all eternity. There would be no evolution of forms because they would all be actual - necessarily real…

Thus the universe or multiverse (physical reality) cannot be considered to be a necessarily actual being or collection of beings.

Therefore that which is necessarily actual is not that which is changing or a process. It is not the Universe.

Therefore the universe or multiverse does not exist because of its own nature, because if it did it would be pure actuality - having no emergent properties or potential parts or forms. Therefore it exists because of some other nature (something that is not a physical process).

A thing either has the reason for its actuality in its own nature or it is contingent upon the actuality of another nature distinct from itself for its existence. Therefore the universe or multiverse (physical reality) and anything that is not necessary is contingent on the existence of a being that exists because of its own nature - its nature is to exist.

Of course, this doesn’t by itself argue for an intelligent first cause, but it is an argument for a necessary act of reality that is essentially distinct from physical processes or the Universe or multiverse; also it shows that the Universe or multiverse is in fact dependent for its existence on that which necessarily exists since the Universe or multiverse does not exist by its own nature.

Please explain why this argument doesn’t hold up or what you think are the assumptions that it makes. After that we can discuss whether or not i can prove that such a cause is intelligent.

 

[rossum]

The universe or multiverse exists (physical reality). So the question is, is the universe or multiverse necessarily actual?

I reject the Thomist/Aristotelian concept of Necessary. It says nothing. The STEM universe exists. It had a cause, which we can, arguendo call the multiverse.

Physical reality is changing, its parts are constantly in a state of becoming. New forms become actual whereas before they were only potential.

Again, potential in this sense is a reification, which I do not accept. A potential X is not an X since it does not yet exist. Things exist as a result of their causes and conditions. They cease to exist because of causes and conditions.

Therefore the universe or multiverse does not exist because of its own nature

Anything that exists does so as a result of the relevant causes and conditions. Assigning an inner “nature” to things is another reification; another projection of an internal mental concept onto the external world.

A quote from Borges:
Borges:

Not only was it difficult for him to comprehend that the generic symbol dog embraces so many unlike individuals of diverse size and form; it bothered him that the dog at three fourteen (seen from the side) should have the same name as the dog at three fifteen (seen from the front).

– “Funes the Memorious”

Consider a car. Does that car have a “nature”? Remove one atom of the car. Does the nature stay with the bulk of the car or does the nature stay with the individual atom? Now remove the next atom, and the next, … Finally remove the last atom. What is left is the “nature” of the car, which has remained behind as all the atoms were individually removed. A ‘nature’ is a useful rule of thumb which our brains use to simplify a complex world. It is an error to elevate that convenient rule of thumb to a real existent.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

I reject the Thomist/Aristotelian concept of Necessary.

Why do you reject the idea of a nature that is necessarily actual? You cannot just arbitrarily reject something just because you don’t like it or because it doesn’t jive well with your beliefs. I have come to the conclusion of a necessary act of reality through reason and you seem to reject it because it’s not consistent with your beliefs. In my opinion, based on what i have read from you so far, you are just redefining reality to suit yourself so that you don’t have to face my argument. You are simply avoiding the consequences of my argument rather than actually doing philosophy. You even have the gull to dictate to me what a universe should be when doing philosophy so that you can control the direction of the argument. You are smart enough to do that even though it leads to absurdity. In fact, in my opinion, you are rejecting it merely because you know that if you accept in principle the idea of a necessary act of reality then my argument will hold true and your worldview falls apart. I could be wrong of course. Please prove me wrong.

The STEM universe exists. It had a cause, which we can, arguendo call the multiverse.

So you are saying the multiverse is a collection of physical universes that are necessarily actual and and are therefore collectively the first cause of our particular universe?

 

[MPat]

Can X be both Necessary and non-Necessary? No it cannot, unless you deny the logical law of the excluded middle. God is Necessary. If God’s actions are non-Necessary, then those actions are separate from God and are not God. God is Necessary. Anything that is non-Necessary is not God but something else.

OK, let’s try it again. You wrote:

If the action is non-Necessary then it is separate from the Necessary entity, and hence part of a different, non-Necessary, entity.

When I challenged that noting that it makes an assumption about being a part, you replied:

I say nothing about “part”.

I asked you if you see a word “part” in the step of your argument I have quoted, and I got what might as well be a word salad. So, again: do you see a word “part” there? Possible answers:

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. I don’t know.
4. Partially.
5. There is a problem with the question.
6. I refuse to answer.

(Naturally, if you want to use the Law of excluded middle unthinkingly, without checking for ambiguous meaning, you can’t use options other than “Yes.” or “No.”, but maybe you should be allowed more options just once.)

All discussion or any proposition starts with the expression of that proposition in some symbols. You cannot separate the proposition from its expression.

Specifically I cannot? Maybe. If you say so. Maybe I can’t think about a proposition without any expression of it.

But are you sure no one else can? For example, the gods you talked about? (Presumably, that’s your name for what we call “angels” and “demons”.)

And even I can separate a proposition from its expression conceptually - that is, to think about proposition in abstract. Which is what is important here.