The Failure of Causal Arguements for Theism

[Ghosty]

First of all, I’m not “advocating Hume”, I’m advocating an argument. I gave credit where credit was do, but I have no interest in getting side tracked into a discussion of Hume. Secondly, I don’t see how nominalism is essential to this argument.

Nominalism is essential to this argument because the idea that “cause” and “effect” can’t be really known is a development on the idea that the “cause” and “effect” in themselves can’t be known as they are in themselves.

I wouldn’t think a moderate realist would have a problem with our concept of ‘one hour’ being reducible to our concept of ‘sixty minutes‘, or our concept of ‘heat’ being reducible to our concept of ‘molecular motion‘. Does EVERY idea have to represent a non-reducible reality?

No, though I’m not sure where you are going with this question. Underlying everything, however, there must be a non-reducible reality. In this case Being suffices to indicate that reality.

If ‘causation’ captures something more than observed regularities under such and such conditions (The details discussed by philosophers of science are irrelevant to this discussion.) please, explain what it captures. Better yet, explained to me how one might learn to apply the term “causality” as you do. How would you teach it to a child?

There are many different kinds of cause. Which are you refering to? Efficient, formal, material, or instrumental? All of those would be valid, and all fall into the traditional “proof from causality”.

Those are not descriptions, they are labels or vague metaphors at best.

I would say it’s definately a description. What exactly are you looking for in terms of description. More detail?

That sounds like Panentheism to me, the belief that the universe is part of God. For the record, I’m not targeting Aquinas specifically, contemporary theists use causal arguments all the time. If Aquinas has a “patch” for his causal arguments, please share it. My immediate response is this: To the extent that we are part of God, God is complex; there is more to him that exists unexplained and unexplainable. To the extent that we are not a part of God, God created us, and the argument that I began this thread with applies.

I don’t know if I could do justice to Aquinas’ explaination in any kind of concise format. Literally the ENTIRE Summa is devoted to this. I must admit that I don’t use or know modern arguments from causality, except I know that they’re all likely derived in some way, perhaps poorly, from Aquinas and Maimonides.

The major distinction between between Kant’s idea of “panentheism” and the Apostolic Christian idea (shared by Catholics and Orthodox) is that God is that in the secular Enlightenment model of Kant, as I understand it, God and the world can be likened to an iceberg, with the world being the part poking out over the top of the water. The world is still a direct “part of God”, but God is more than what we see in the world.

In the Apostolic Christian mindset, the most common description is fire and heated iron. The iron when heated by the fire shares the attribute of heat, but it never becomes fire. Fire remains a distinct and transcendant Nature from iron, but it intimately shares its Natural attribute of heat with the iron that does not naturally possess it. The fire is “in the iron” insofar as its natural attribute of heat is in the iron, and the iron is “in the fire” insofar as it’s held in the fire, but this in no way takes away the truly distinct aspects of either nature.

The rest of the understanding relies on concepts such as “potency” and “act”, but I don’t know if you’re interested in that particular pursuit. If you’re interest is piqued, I’ll do my best to share, otherwise we can continue when you explain which kind of “cause” you’re refering to

Peace and God bless!

 

[Philthy]

I am arguing that God’s causal powers can’t explain anything in any deep sense. Now I admit I am no Aquinas scholar, (and I didn’t cite him specifically) and perhaps there is some subtlety I’ve missed. Where Aquinas isn’t attributing causal powers to God as part of an argument for God‘s existence, I’m not quarreling with him (at least not in this thread).

Thanks,
Michael

Thank you for summarizing what three pages of the OP did only with difficulty. Unfortunately I dont get your point. God’s causal powers can’t explain anything in any deep sense? What the heck does that mean? Why would the depth of the explanation be even a consideration? Causality is a term which unifies the classification and origin of observations. If you challenge such a basic concept, you will never stop challenging anything including the very concept of reality. Yet reality exists and you aware of it despite knowing how.
You should be searching for the validity of the explanation, not the depth of it. Aquinas called God the being whose essence is existence. That being which can’t not exist and who preceded all created things is an excellent solution to the grand questions we have. It may be as deep as the human kind can understand this mystery - we have no reason to believe that our understanding is capable of grasping all Truth.

 

[mosher]

It applies to 4 versions of the cosmological argument, as well as any argument that objective morality exists and therefore must have a cause. (It doesn’t apply to arguments that merely define morality as simply reducible to divine will, only those that maintain that moral truths exist independently of God’s will and that God created them.)

Four of Aquinas’ arguments appeal to God’s causal powers:

1. The power to bring the universe into existence
2. The power to initiate motion
3. The power to bring harmony to the universe
4. The power to keep the universe from ceasing to exist

I am arguing that God’s causal powers can’t explain anything in any deep sense. Now I admit I am no Aquinas scholar, (and I didn’t cite him specifically) and perhaps there is some subtlety I’ve missed. Where Aquinas isn’t attributing causal powers to God as part of an argument for God‘s existence, I’m not quarreling with him (at least not in this thread).

This isn’t the first time that I have credited David Hume for ideas I’ve expressed on these forums, only to have someone respond by disparaging Hume. This is unfair to me because my argument stands upon its own, whatever its origin. It is unfair to Hume because even if he was mistaken on some point, it doesn’t follow that he never made good arguments. Anyway, Hume didn’t “do away with math” for it concerns the relations of ideas, the value of which he recognized. I suppose you mean that he didn’t believe in the Forms? Well neither do I, but I don’t see the relevance of that to my argument.
Thanks,
Michael

Causality in Thomas (realism) is vertical unlike empirical causality which is horizontal. Why I said that it only applies to one of the arguments of Thomas is because even what you cite is only the parts of one of the five ways and because causality as defined in the argument against it can only apply to causality defined in the horizontal which is his argument from motion.

My reference to Hume is that he is dishonest in his argumentation and I will assert that there was not a single thing that he said that was of value - similar to Bertrand Russel. Both men was so mistaken in the basic premises of their philosophies and dishonest in definitions that to cite either would be like citing Osama Bin Laden on the merits of Western Culture.

 

[Ghosty]

Causality in Thomas (realism) is vertical unlike empirical causality which is horizontal. Why I said that it only applies to one of the arguments of Thomas is because even what you cite is only the parts of one of the five ways and because causality as defined in the argument against it can only apply to causality defined in the horizontal which is his argument from motion.

Indeed. This is why most secular arguments against the “argument from causality” fail, because they don’t actually address the full scope of meaning. They take things in a linear way, when in fact all of the arguments from causality are transcendent, with linearity being just another thing “below” the Being, and caused by it. This is also why a realist system must deal in many different types of causes, avoiding the “infinite regression” that’s inherent in a linear system of cause and effect.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Krebsbach]

Hey Michael,

The most common response to the causal arguments for the existence of God seems to be that if God can be a brute fact, so can the universe. I think that is a fine response, but it seems that we can go a bit further. For it seems to me that if God does exist, it turns out that there is as much if not more to be explained about the universe itself than there would have been had he not existed, all things being equal. God adds his own weight to our ontology, while at best only shifting our existing burden.

A few observations at the outset. It seems innapropriate to even suggest that God is a mere fact, even a brute fact. Facts are contingent. They conceivable could have been different or not exist at all or might conceivable stop existing. I would suggest that God, whose experience includes the created contingent universe, can have a contingent aspect. But he must also be necessary if we are to have a meaningful conception of him.

Also, being informed by Scripture that we have our being in God (see St. Paul), from a Christian viewpoint it would seem that God does more than just add weight to our ontology. There would be nada without him.

kordially,

karl

 

[PaulusRobertus]

Contingent is never alone, contingent need necessary. Without necessary there’s contraddiction in contingent. But contraddiction is not possibile. This is the 3rd argument explained by Saint Thomas in his Summa Theologiae.

 

[Krebsbach]

Paulus,

Please explain yerself.

kordially

karl

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Dead Thread.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The most common response to the causal arguments for the existence of God seems to be that if God can be a brute fact, so can the universe. I think that is a fine response, but it seems that we can go a bit further. For it seems to me that if God does exist, it turns out that there is as much if not more to be explained about the universe itself than there would have been had he not existed, all things being equal. God adds his own weight to our ontology, while at best only shifting our existing burden.

David Hume demonstrated that our notion of causality is born in response to our observations of the constant conjunctions between certain classes of events. We have observed regularities in the past, and we generally expect them to continue to hold into the future. Furthermore, we come to **count **upon a great number of them continuing to hold, especially those that have held for the entirety of human memory. This is quite reasonable, for after all we couldn’t plan anything; from getting a drink of water to building a computer, if we didn’t explicitly or implicitly assume that the future will resemble the past in certain respects. However skeptical one might be that inductive reasoning will in fact continue to be predictive, one has no other basis on which to deliberately act, and so one might as well accept induction for practical purposes. We should recognize, however, that this basic human belief could never be justified in a non-circular way. We believe that tomorrow will resemble today (in some respects) because today resembled yesterday, yesterday resembled the day before, and so on. Thus we justify our belief in induction by appeal to induction.
(cont…)

Causal arguments might be OK in models of thinking about God, such as purely intellectual structures; but in actuality, without models & among the “brute facts”, I don’t think such arguments hold water.​

The problem I see is that they treat God as just one more entity within the universe. If I hunt an animal, I can follow its trail, the noise it makes, the scent it has left - it is an entity within the same world as its pursuers.

But God, if we are discussing the God of Christian systematic theism & faith, is not like that. God is not (so to put it) deity-in-general; but a highly ambiguous entity, because He is not within the universe at all, but is the Living God of the Patriarchs & Prophets, revealed in Jesus Christ, Who has created all things for His Glory. Our arguments for God are undermined by the fact that they don’t - because they can’t - bring us to the true & Living God, but only to a working model of Him, an automaton of springs, rods & cables & so on. They cannot even bring us to a living man. They have no power to join us with the God of whom we reason. Only God has that, because only God transcends us (and all other creatures too).

Causal arguments rely on a phenomenon observable within the created universe; a phenomenon which is perhaps not even universally valid in those relations which we might think would require it. How can entities within the universe, which is the totality of created beings, lead us from themselves to their transcendent Creator ? Creatures are like bridges between cliffs, one cliff of which has fallen to leave one end of the bridge ending in empty space.

Reasoning about France will never in a million years be the same as going there. To go there, one must travel there - thinking about France, seeking to prove its existence by reason, are not enough; they are not means of going there either. To go there, one must go there and stop debating about the place And that implies having faith in the reality of France. So with God - only far more so. To find God, we must obey the God Whose existence we cannot prove by reason, believe He exists (and does far more than exist), and get on our knees - then we may very well find Him; & we can find God only on His terms God is not to be found by being reasoned about, but by being obeyed. ##

 

[Ghosty]

Causal arguments might be OK in models of thinking about God, such as purely intellectual structures; but in actuality, without models & among the “brute facts”, I don’t think such arguments hold water.​

The problem I see is that they treat God as just one more entity within the universe. If I hunt an animal, I can follow its trail, the noise it makes, the scent it has left - it is an entity within the same world as its pursuers.

But God, if we are discussing the God of Christian systematic theism & faith, is not like that. God is not (so to put it) deity-in-general; but a highly ambiguous entity, because He is not within the universe at all, but is the Living God of the Patriarchs & Prophets, revealed in Jesus Christ, Who has created all things for His Glory. Our arguments for God are undermined by the fact that they don’t - because they can’t - bring us to the true & Living God, but only to a working model of Him, an automaton of springs, rods & cables & so on. They cannot even bring us to a living man. They have no power to join us with the God of whom we reason. Only God has that, because only God transcends us (and all other creatures too).

Causal arguments rely on a phenomenon observable within the created universe; a phenomenon which is perhaps not even universally valid in those relations which we might think would require it. How can entities within the universe, which is the totality of created beings, lead us from themselves to their transcendent Creator ? Creatures are like bridges between cliffs, one cliff of which has fallen to leave one end of the bridge ending in empty space.

Reasoning about France will never in a million years be the same as going there. To go there, one must travel there - thinking about France, seeking to prove its existence by reason, are not enough; they are not means of going there either. To go there, one must go there and stop debating about the place And that implies having faith in the reality of France. So with God - only far more so. To find God, we must obey the God Whose existence we cannot prove by reason, believe He exists (and does far more than exist), and get on our knees - then we may very well find Him; & we can find God only on His terms God is not to be found by being reasoned about, but by being obeyed. ##

This is all true, but I think it merely highlights the need for Grace in order to truly touch God. That is the only way to know God, but reason and natural experience can teach us things about God, even things that have actually been given in Revelation (such as God being One, being all good, being the eternal “Is”, ect).

The benefit of such arguments from logic is that they prevent a person from hiding under a rock intellectually, even if they don’t ensure that the person will truly meet God. I for one came to the Faith from atheism precisely because of philosophical proofs of God such as the argument of Causality. Most significant was realizing that the argument of Causality pointed to a “thing” that was Being, and then I realized that this is exactly the kind of name given by the God of Abraham to Moses: “I Am that Am”. That, along with other aspects of the Jewish story, piqued my interest and eventually roped me in. It was ultimately Grace that allowed me to know God, and this knowledge is far beyond anything that reasoning can bring a person, but my intellectual journey certainly had its beginnings in reason and philosophy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Nullasalus]

Speaking as a man who feels as if his faith in God is hanging by a (steel) thread so often, let me agree with Ghosty. Nowadays we live in an age of science and reason (or what passes for it) - being able to make a strong argument of causality is essential, even if not ultimately decisive.

 

[mosher]

Causal arguments might be OK in models of thinking about God, such as purely intellectual structures; but in actuality, without models & among the “brute facts”, I don’t think such arguments hold water.​

The problem I see is that they treat God as just one more entity within the universe. If I hunt an animal, I can follow its trail, the noise it makes, the scent it has left - it is an entity within the same world as its pursuers.

But God, if we are discussing the God of Christian systematic theism & faith, is not like that. God is not (so to put it) deity-in-general; but a highly ambiguous entity, because He is not within the universe at all, but is the Living God of the Patriarchs & Prophets, revealed in Jesus Christ, Who has created all things for His Glory. Our arguments for God are undermined by the fact that they don’t - because they can’t - bring us to the true & Living God, but only to a working model of Him, an automaton of springs, rods & cables & so on. They cannot even bring us to a living man. They have no power to join us with the God of whom we reason. Only God has that, because only God transcends us (and all other creatures too).

Causal arguments rely on a phenomenon observable within the created universe; a phenomenon which is perhaps not even universally valid in those relations which we might think would require it. How can entities within the universe, which is the totality of created beings, lead us from themselves to their transcendent Creator ? Creatures are like bridges between cliffs, one cliff of which has fallen to leave one end of the bridge ending in empty space.

Reasoning about France will never in a million years be the same as going there. To go there, one must travel there - thinking about France, seeking to prove its existence by reason, are not enough; they are not means of going there either. To go there, one must go there and stop debating about the place And that implies having faith in the reality of France. So with God - only far more so. To find God, we must obey the God Whose existence we cannot prove by reason, believe He exists (and does far more than exist), and get on our knees - then we may very well find Him; & we can find God only on His terms God is not to be found by being reasoned about, but by being obeyed. ##

Again, this is not related to the causal arguments. As I have stated earlier and others mentioned causality is not the same as cause and effect. That view of causality is causality defined by the enlightenment thinkers who denied metaphysics. Causality for Thomas and all other realists is not the same as the cause and effect scenario.

 

[nucatholic]

The problem with Causal arguments is that they make wide assumptions about how the universe came into being and the nature of the universe. There is no conclusive evidence that the universe isn’t infinite and there is no conclusive evidence that this is the only existing universe. There are decent arguments from string theory that says that there could be many universes but once again there is no substantial evidence for string theory as of yet. I do believe they are working with the existing particle accelerators and they are building that new one in Switzerland also. The only reasonable conclusion we can make is that we simply don’t know enough about the universe to introduce an idea about the universe as an assumption in a Causal argument. Once we have a better understanding about the universe, then we can start to introduce these types of assumptions into a logical argument but until that time atheism (I believe) is the most rational choice.