The First Cuase Arguement. An answer to Belorg

[Linusthe2nd]

Existence is not necessarily physical or non-physical. At least it is not evident that existence and physical are synonymous terms. I only say that the first cause is non-physical because it does not change; or rather it is not a part of the space-time continuum insofar as it is the cause of “change” as defined by the first premise.

Act and being is used interchangeably here. I simply mean that which is actual as opposed to potentially actual.

You are correct that it does not solve any problems insofar as how God creates where there is nothing. But I am not trying to solve the problem.

Rather i was attempting to show that the problem is irrelevant to the question of how potentiality logically

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linux
3. When looking at the relationship between Being & potential, one must acknowledge as a metaphysical principle that the act of reality logically (as opposed to temporally) precedes all potential possibility.

Correct but in God all possibles are present in God’s knowledge of all possible things, that is as " ideas " only.

Potentiality by itself is not an actual thing and cannot become actual without a being that is already actual.

Correct ( End of Linux’s quote)

.

This is where I find a problem with the first cause argument. How do you know that this statement is true in all situations, including those outside the universe?

Beings existing outside the universe are God and the Angels. In God there is no potential. Angels have an essence which has a potency to a limited existence. This is true of all created beings.

---

My goal is to say something that nobody has said, ask a question that nobody has asked, or answer a question that nobody has answered.

-Z. Robert

(And yes, I know someone has probably said that before. )

Linus

 

[sw85]

The problem with the “objection” is that it equivocates between two different uses of “something from nothing.” Strictly speaking there’s no problem with something from nothing literally understood, i.e., creation ex nihilo. We see it all the time at the quantum level. What we mean by “something from nothing” is causeless creation ex nihilo.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Strictly speaking there’s no problem with something from nothing literally understood, i.e., creation ex nihilo. We see it all the time at the quantum level.

At the quantum level we do not have something from nothing, as physicist Stephen Barr explains:

Another class of ideas involve explaining the Big Bang as a quantum event. In quantum mechanics one can have particles being “created out of the vacuum.” That is, there can be transitions from a state with no particles to a state with one or more particles. By analogy it has been suggested that spontaneous transitions can occur from a state with “no universes” to a state with one (or more) universes.

Whether this makes sense as physics is not yet clear. But if it does, will it give us creation ex nihilo without God? Only if one equivocates about what “nothing” and “universe” mean. A quantum state without any particles or even without any “universes” is not nothing-it is a quantum state.

Perhaps the distinction can be illustrated with an analogy. There is a difference (if not a spendable one) between a bank account with no dollars in it and no bank account at all. To have a bank account, even one with a momentarily zero (or negative) balance, requires having a bank, an agreement with that bank, a monetary system, a currency, and banking laws. Similarly, to talk about states with various numbers of “universes” requires having a quantum system with different possible “states,” and laws determining the character of those states and governing the transitions among them. The term “the universe” should really be applied to this whole system with its laws, and not, as is misleadingly done in such discussions, to “space-times” that are coming into and going out of existence.

Hawking had it right: having equations that describe a “universe” (or anything else) coming into being does not mean that these equations must be describing anything real. Having a story about fairies does not mean there are fairies.

Pascal found the “god of the philosophers” a poor thing; we can only imagine what he would have said about the gods of the physicists. What we should say is that these speculations are pretty, and some may even turn out to be true, but they leave the argument about a First Cause just where it was. There either is a First Cause and it is God, or there is no need of a First Cause. Physics can shed no light on that issue.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

i dont understand this, i thought potentiality precedes actuality.

Of course you don’t, because it isn’t true. What is happening in this forum and probably others is that certain people are trying to sew the seeds of doubt. One way to do this is to make you doubt your own grasp of reality and the essential of rational thought.

God’s creative act was not from potentiality to actuality. It was from no prior existing being or matter of any kind. And he created whole, entire beings, each of whom was composed of the principles of act and potency. So his creation was from nothing, not from potency.

If you listen to some of the " authorities " around here you will soon wind up in the luny bin.

Linus

 

[zro_x]

Of course you don’t, because it isn’t true. What is happening in this forum and probably others is that certain people are trying to sew the seeds of doubt. One way to do this is to make you doubt your own grasp of reality and the essential of rational thought.

God’s creative act was not from potentiality to actuality. It was from no prior existing being or matter of any kind. And he created whole, entire beings, each of whom was composed of the principles of act and potency. So his creation was from nothing, not from potency.

If you listen to some of the " authorities " around here you will soon wind up in the luny bin.

Linus

If it is possible to bring something into existence, then it is a potential. Since the universe could possibly exist before it actually existed, God moved the universe from potentiality to actuality, though it was created from nothing physically.

 

[Linux]

Of course you don’t, because it isn’t true. What is happening in this forum and probably others is that certain people are trying to sew the seeds of doubt.

Is that how you deal with doubt Linus, by accusing people of having a malicious agenda when they don’t agree with you? You poor sod.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If it is possible to bring something into existence, then it is a potential. Since the universe could possibly exist before it actually existed, God moved the universe from potentiality to actuality, though it was created from nothing physically.

This applies only in the created universe in the cause and effect between created beings. In such changes or " coming to be " there is always a " potentiality " brought to " actuality. ‘’ Fire causes water to change into steam. Electricity applied to water in the right conditions can cause water to change into H2 and O. Water is " potentiality " H2 and O. In electralysis Water becomse actually H2 and O.

We cannot speak this way about god. In God there is no potentiality. If there were He wouldn’t be God, would He, because then He would not be perfect. It is correct that God is the actuality which causes the being of all things. But He does not begin with " potentiality." He creates entire beings which are composed to the principles of act and potency. This is pure Thomism.

So God did not move the universe from potentiality to actuality. I think you and some others are confusing God’s act of creation with his causality in the universe once it has been created.

If you and Linux would read S.T. , Ques 44-49 ( where Thomas speaks of God’s creative act ) you will see what I mean. Its tough reading but it needs to be done if you are going to be talking about these things. Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Of course you don’t, because it isn’t true. What is happening in this forum and probably others is that certain people are trying to sew the seeds of doubt. One way to do this is to make you doubt your own grasp of reality and the essential of rational thought.

God’s creative act was not from potentiality to actuality. It was from no prior existing being or matter of any kind. And he created whole, entire beings, each of whom was composed of the principles of act and potency. So his creation was from nothing, not from potency.

If you listen to some of the " authorities " around here you will soon wind up in the luny bin.

Linus

See my post # 28. Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Is that how you deal with doubt Linus, by accusing people of having a malicious agenda when they don’t agree with you? You poor sod.

When people cannot reason logically and insist that they are correct, yes, I have every right to question their agenda. You never know who is on these forums, who you may be talking to. And indeed, there are people here who are trying to " sew the seeds of doubt." I didn’t mention any names nor do I imply any. It is a warning to all on this forum and others that evil is every where, especially where there is a struggle for hearts and minds.

Linus

 

[zro_x]

This applies only in the created universe in the cause and effect between created beings. In such changes or " coming to be " there is always a " potentiality " brought to " actuality. ‘’ Fire causes water to change into steam. Electricity applied to water in the right conditions can cause water to change into H2 and O. Water is " potentiality " H2 and O. In electralysis Water becomse actually H2 and O.

We cannot speak this way about god. In God there is no potentiality. If there were He wouldn’t be God, would He, because then He would not be perfect. It is correct that God is the actuality which causes the being of all things. But He does not begin with " potentiality." He creates entire beings which are composed to the principles of act and potency. This is pure Thomism.

So God did not move the universe from potentiality to actuality. I think you and some others are confusing God’s act of creation with his causality in the universe once it has been created.

If you and Linux would read S.T. , Ques 44-49 ( where Thomas speaks of God’s creative act ) you will see what I mean. Its tough reading but it needs to be done if you are going to be talking about these things. Linus

It seems to me that “sewing seeds of doubt” is a long way to jump from relatively trivial improper word useage. I’m glad you pointed it out, but If you are correct, all we did was use the wrong definition of potential. I can’t speak for Linux, but I meant “creation from nothing”, though I used the wrong words to signify that. I don’t think anyone is making the argument that God created the universe from pre-existing ingredients.

 

[belorg]

Linux

If you use my name in a thread title, I would appreciate it if you at least let me know.

 

[Linux]

Linux

If you use my name in a thread title, I would appreciate it if you at least let me know.

Sorry, i wasn’t thinking.

 

[belorg]

Answer to Objection:

The easiest rebuttal to this objection is not to attempt to prove how it is possible for an immutable first cause to create anything. Rather it is better to point out that it is irrelevant insofar as accounting for the actuality of potential.

So, the best rebuttal is ignore the objection?

It is true that it is a logical contradiction to create something where there is nothing

However; so long as you accept the metaphysical principle that being logically precedes potentiality, then you have to accept the existence of a non-temporal unmoved mover or first cause; since you cannot speak coherently about the possibility of potentiality without first positing an act of reality that can actualize potential.

So, your answer is that, although it is logically impossible, it must be true.

This of course does not solve the apparent contradiction, but as long as you accept the principle of actuality as being the bases of all potential-possibility it cannot be said that an immutable first cause is committing the contradiction of creating something from nothing. At best you can only claim that we have an unsolved paradox and not a refutation of the first cause argument.

Except: you have just admitted that it is not just an unsolved paradox , but “that it is a logical contradiction to create something where there is nothing”

It is not possible to be a rational agnostic about the relationship between Being and potential since “Being” is the bases and the root of all possibility and potential.

Notice i did not quote any theology or dogma as an answer to the objection. Thats how you are meant to do philosophy.

Even if Being is the basis and root of all possibility and potential, how does it follow that Being is immutable?

 

[Bballer32]

Potentiality by itself is not a being or an actual thing. Its nothing, and out of nothing comes nothing.

Contradicts the Big Bang theorists

 

[Linux]

Contradicts the Big Bang theorists

The Big Bang theory does not metaphysically infer that the universe came from nothing

 

[Bballer32]

The Big Bang theory does not metaphysically infer that the universe came from nothing

I know that. I’m saying is that most people who deny the belief in God actually say that “The universe came from nothing even though the big bang says there was stuff there to create the universe.”

Well in that case, than where did that original stuff come from? And if it came from something else, where did that something else come from? The case of nothing cannot create nothing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It seems to me that “sewing seeds of doubt” is a long way to jump from relatively trivial improper word useage. I’m glad you pointed it out, but If you are correct, all we did was use the wrong definition of potential. I can’t speak for Linux, but I meant “creation from nothing”, though I used the wrong words to signify that. I don’t think anyone is making the argument that God created the universe from pre-existing ingredients.

Thank you. The reason for the fuss is because Scholastic Philosophy is a very precise science. Words mean things and when used incorrectly, errors can go on for centuries.

Linus.

 

[zro_x]

Thank you. The reason for the fuss is because Scholastic Philosophy is a very precise science. Words mean things and when used incorrectly, errors can go on for centuries.

Linus.

good point. cummunication and discussion are impossible without agreed upon word definitions.