The First Cause

[Tcurry]

Hello all. I have a host of questions here.

Up until very recently, I was quite confident in the existence of the God of Classical Theism due to William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological argument. However, recent reading I have done has poked some holes in that argument, for example the possibility of the multiverse, or the Big Bang being a Big Bang and then Big Crunch which then repeats itself. Another article I’ve read written by an atheist (on all places, Strange Notions) said that time and space all came from the primordial atom. Thus, this primordial atom could be the first cause not God. So first question: can the primordial atom be eternal and a first cause?

Second question: I’m aware that Aquinas’ prime mover, first cause, and contingency arguments are compatible with an eternal universe, that is a universe that has no beginning or end. If the universe could infinite, then could it’s existence not be contingent?

 

[adgloriam]

Big Crunch

Contemporary Physics is more inclined to think the universe tends to dissolve into light. Because currently the galaxies are moving away from each other and it seems the whole universe doesn’t contain enough mass, and thus gravity, to revert the expansion.

 

[Wesrock]

Thomas Aquinas himself rejected the premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and so Thomas Aquinas’ arguments have nothing to do with finding out what started the universe in order to prove God.

Anything that undergoes change or requires the actualization of a potential cannot be the First Cause. Anything that is not Simple cannot be the First Cause. Anything lacking Intellect cannot be the First Cause. The “primordial atom” doesn’t fit any of these things, or others, and so cannot be the First Cause, though again, finding a start to the universe isn’t necessary for his arguments.

Why must the First Cause be purely actual, non-composite, and intelligent? I’d direct you to study Thomist metaphysics more deeply. It’s a big topic.

Sorry I haven’t gone into more depth here.

 

[lelinator]

Anything that undergoes change or requires the actualization of a potential cannot be the First Cause. Anything that is not Simple cannot be the First Cause. Anything lacking Intellect cannot be the First Cause. The “primordial atom” doesn’t fit any of these things, or others, and so cannot be the First Cause, though again, finding a start to the universe isn’t necessary for his arguments.

Why must the First Cause be purely actual, non-composite, and intelligent? I’d direct you to study Thomist metaphysics more deeply. It’s a big topic.

For what it’s worth, I think metaphysics can tell us a great deal about human psychology, but almost nothing about the nature of reality or its cause.

If you want to know how people think, pay attention to what they believe. If you want to know how reality actually works, then by all means ignore what they believe.

 

[STT]

Anything that undergoes change or requires the actualization of a potential cannot be the First Cause.

Why this is true?

Anything that is not Simple cannot be the First Cause.

True.

Anything lacking Intellect cannot be the First Cause.

Why this is true?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Anything that undergoes change or requires the actualization of a potential cannot be the First Cause. Anything that is not Simple cannot be the First Cause. Anything lacking Intellect cannot be the First Cause. The “primordial atom” doesn’t fit any of these things, or others, and so cannot be the First Cause, though again, finding a start to the universe isn’t necessary for his arguments.

Why must the First Cause be purely actual, non-composite, and intelligent? I’d direct you to study Thomist metaphysics more deeply. It’s a big topic.

For what it’s worth, I think metaphysics can tell us a great deal about human psychology, but almost nothing about the nature of reality or its cause.

If you want to know how people think, pay attention to what they believe. If you want to know how reality actually works, then by all means ignore what they believe.

Metaphysics is specifically the study of the nature of reality, so any thoughts and reasons you have on that subject is properly in the field of metaphysics.

 

[lelinator]

Metaphysics is specifically the study of the nature of reality

As such it’s completely ineffective.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Metaphysics is specifically the study of the nature of reality

As such it’s completely ineffective.

I’m not sure you’re hearing me.

Metaphysics is not a certain way of studying the nature of reality.

The studying of the nature of reality, full stop, is metaphysics. Any statement or premise you might make or assume about the nature of reality is a metaphysical statement. Metaphysics is the rationale behind any physical method science (hence meta physics), which precedes and is the foundation for conducting of physical science. Any epistemolgy you have is also based on certain metaphysical beliefs, for example that reality is rational, that experiments are repeatable and yield results that tell you about the subjects and objects, etc… Even the notion that we can construct logical arguments.

 

[lelinator]

The studying of the nature of reality, full stop, is metaphysics.

Ehhh, not quite, metaphysics is philosophy, not science. As such it’s far better suited to illuminating the workings of the human mind, than it is to divining the workings of reality. It tells us much more about the nature of your mind, than it does about the nature of the world.

About the nature of the world it tells us diddly.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

The studying of the nature of reality, full stop, is metaphysics.

Ehhh, not quite, metaphysics is philosophy, not science. As such it’s far better suited to illuminating the workings of the human mind, than it is to divining the workings of reality. It tells us much more about the nature of you, than it does about the nature of the world.

About the nature of the world it tells us diddly.

Yes, metaphysics is philosophy. And physical science presumes certain metaphysical beliefs by necessity. You implicitly take for granted notions of causality, that the same experiment repeated under the exact same conditions with no variance will produce the same results. That requires metaphysical assumptions implicitly which you seem to just take for granted. If I were to ask you why it is rational to expect this, why this tells us anything of value, you’re delving into philosophy of science and metaphysics. Any notion of causality (strong or weak or none) is a metaphysical belief, something which must be presupposed before it even makes sense to consider the physical science itself. That is metaphysics and philosophy.

These axioms upon which you conduct the physical sciences are derived from philosophy and, in particular, metaphysics. That’s what the field is. You may not agree with Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas, but you’re still doing metaphysics or at least implicitly assuming metaphysical beliefs as axioms.

 

[Wesrock]

If you’re telling me metaphysics is bunk, then you’re telling me you have no rational reason for assuming the physical sciences are capable of telling us anything to begin with.

 

[lelinator]

That requires metaphysical assumptions

No, it doesn’t require metaphysical assumptions. It simply requires observation and verification. It’s assumptions that make metaphysics philosophy and not science.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

That requires metaphysical assumptions

No, it doesn’t require metaphysical assumptions. It simply requires observation and verification. It’s assumptions that make metaphysics philosophy and not science.

You can’t use the scientific method to prove the scientific method is valid. You’re right, you observe and you make rational conclusions about the nature of reality. Ta da! That is doing philosophy and metaphysics and you can now proceed with the physical sciences.

 

[Wesrock]

“The same cause will tend to produce the same effect under the same circumstances.” That is a philosophical statement, based on observation and the use of reason.

 

[lelinator]

You’re right, you observe and you make rational conclusions about the nature of reality.

No, you observe and you form hypotheses, not conclusions. Making conclusions is the job of philosophy.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

You’re right, you observe and you make rational conclusions about the nature of reality.

No, you observe and you form hypotheses, not conclusions. Making conclusions is the job of philosophy.

You’re presupposing the reality is logical and that logical arguments and hypotheses lead to truths. Philosophy. You’re presupposing that your observations are informative and caused and revealing some truth about what’s being observed. Philosophy.

 

[Wesrock]

The scientific method presupposes certain philosophical beliefs. There’s no denying that unless your head is in the sand.

 

[lelinator]

You’re presupposing the reality is logical and that logical arguments and hypotheses lead to truths.

You forget, I’m a solipsist…I presuppose nothing. To do so would be an error in reasoning.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

You’re presupposing the reality is logical and that logical arguments and hypotheses lead to truths.

You forget, I’m a solipsist…I presuppose nothing. To do so would be an error in reasoning.

If you believe in errors in reasoning, it seems you’re not skeptical of reality on some level being logical.

 

[Wesrock]

Besides, being a solipsist means you hold certain metaphysical beliefs about the limits of what we can know about reality.