The First Cuase Arguement. An answer to Belorg

[Linux]

1. Change by definition happens when a potential state is actualized that wasn’t actual before.
2. It is one of the fundamental aspects of physical reality that it changes; thus the universe is the sum total of potential states become actual; it is called the space time continuum.
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. Potentiality by itself is not an actual thing and cannot become actual without a being that is already actual.

Conclusion:

Thus there has to be an actual being that is not itself a part of the temporal order of physics, and is not itself changing, since no change can occur at all without a being that logically precedes and transcends all change. Therefore there is such a thing as an immutable uncaused cause, or unmoved mover. It is consequently non-physical.

Possible Objection:

You cannot get something out of nothing. Therefore it is a logical contradiction for a first cause to create something from nothing. As such you must prove to me that it is not a logical contradiction to create physical reality.

(This is the best argument i have seen against the first cause argument. If it is successful then the claimant can argue for agnosticism.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[samiam1611]

Thus there has to be an actual being that is not itself a part of the temporal order of physics, and is not itself changing, since no change can occur at all without a being that logically precedes and transcends all change. Therefore there is such a thing as an immutable uncaused cause, or unmoved mover. It is consequently non-physical.

Where I see a problem is using the word being (or Being, as some would say) and non-physical. Also although you did not use this word I assume you would say the mover exists.(“there is such a thing” = such a thing exists.) But existence indicates being a part of the temporal order of physics does it not?

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.

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 is it an act or a being?

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.

Unsolved indeed. Raises more questions than it answers really.

This stuff is over my head so be gentle with me.

 

[Linux]

Where I see a problem is using the word being (or Being, as some would say) and non-physical. Also although you did not use this word I assume you would say the mover exists.(“there is such a thing” = such a thing exists.) But existence indicates being a part of the temporal order of physics does it not?

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.

So is it an act or a being?

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

Unsolved indeed. Raises more questions than it answers really.

This stuff is over my head so be gentle with me.

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 relates to actual-reality. The point is, no matter what, we cannot rationally deny the fact that actuality logically precedes potentiality. Potentiality and possibility cannot be anything at all and are nothing without an act of reality that can actualize those possibilities and potential.

In “Being” there is possibility.
in “nothing” there is nothing.

It is meaningless to speak of potential without a being to which it relates.

Beings have the potential to do things.
Nothing has no potential.

 

[zro_x]

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

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?

 

[Linux]

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?

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

 

[zro_x]

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

how do you know this?

 

[Linux]

how do you know this?

What are you asking here? How do i know that potentiality is not a thing in and of itself?

 

[zro_x]

What are you asking here? How do i know that potentiality is not a thing in and of itself?

sorry, how do you know that nothing comes out of nothing? How do you know that potentiality, by itself, can not produce actuality?

 

[Linux]

sorry, how do you know that nothing comes out of nothing? How do you know that potentiality, by itself, can not produce actuality?

Potentiality by itself cannot produce a thing because it is not itself a thing. Something coming out of nothing would violate the absolute distinction between a being and nothing. Its a metaphysical contradiction.

Things come into a reality that already exists. If there is absolute nothingness to begin with, and a being came into it, it would exist in absolutely nothing; which is a contradiction since nothing exists in nothing.

 

[zro_x]

Potentiality by itself cannot produce a thing because it is not itself a thing. Something coming out of nothing would violate the absolute distinction between a being and nothing. Its a metaphysical contradiction.

it is only a metaphysical contradiction based on our understanding of metaphysics.

If there is absolute nothingness, and a being came into it, it would come into absolute nothingness and would remain as nothing.

If I understand you correctly, than this is a claim about whether or not something is sustainable in nothing, which is a different subject.

 

[someperson555]

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.

i dont understand this, i thought potentiality precedes actuality.

 

[zro_x]

i dont understand this, i thought potentiality precedes actuality.

Only for things that begin to exist. Or at least, that’s the common understanding. Since God never began to exist, but has always existed, he doesn’t need to be preceeded by potentiality.

 

[Linux]

it is only a metaphysical contradiction based on our understanding of metaphysics.

What does that mean?

If I understand you correctly, than this is a claim about whether or not something is sustainable in nothing, which is a different subject.

It is meaningless to speak of sustaining anything in that which is nothing. It contradicts the meaning of nothing.

 

[zro_x]

What does that mean?

Our understanding of metaphysics is that something can not come from nothing. But we only know this because of observations made of events in our universe. This understanding could be wrong. While it is intuituive, it is not self-evident. It is entirely possible that, outside our universe, something really can come from nothing.

 

[Linux]

Our understanding of metaphysics is that something can not come from nothing. But we only know this because of observations made of events in our universe. This understanding could be wrong. While it is intuituive, it is not self-evident. It is entirely possible that, outside our universe, something really can come from nothing.

That is wrong. Metaphysical principles such as out of nothing comes nothing are based on rational distinctions, not intuition. Its not possible for something to come from nothing without violating the absolute distinction between something and nothing. Nothing by definition is the absence of being; it is the absolute opposite of being. Its no more possible that a being can come from it than saying that a four sided triangle can exist.

 

[Linux]

i dont understand this, i thought potentiality precedes actuality.

See post twelve by Zro x.

 

[zro_x]

That is wrong. Metaphysical principles such as out of nothing comes nothing are based on rational distinctions, not intuition. Its not possible for something to come from nothing without violating the absolute distinction between something and nothing. Nothing by definition is the absence of being; it is the absolute opposite of being. Its no more possible that a being can come from it than saying that a four sided triangle can exist.

In the first place, if the distinction between nothingness and something is that absolute, then it is logically impossible for God to create something from nothing, which raises all sorts of problems.

But for now, I’ll assume that it is logically impossible for something to come from nothing.
let me try a slightly different approach.

You are arguing that in order for some potential to come into existence, there has to be something which brings it into existence, some actuality. But is this really the case?

In other words, instead of claiming that something can come from nothing, I’m now saying that potential might just simply come into existence without any actuality to move it there. In essense, I am challenging the universiality of the law of cause and effect. This isn’t quite the same thing as getting something from nothing. Even if it is logically impossible for something to come from nothing, I strongly doubt that this spontaneous existence I’ve described is logically impossible. In fact, one could argue that the laws of cause and effect are just a temporal aspect of our universe.

 

[Eleve]

Its not possible for something to come from nothing without violating the absolute distinction between something and nothing.

That’s entirely opaque to me. What is “the absolute distinction between something and nothing”? And why would this distinction be violated if something were, without a cause, simply to begin to exist?

Possible Objection:

You cannot get something out of nothing. Therefore it is a logical contradiction for a first cause to create something from nothing. As such you must prove to me that it is not a logical contradiction to create physical reality.

(This is the best argument i have seen against the first cause argument. If it is successful then the claimant can argue for agnosticism.)

Well, I don’t think it’s a very good argument, let alone the best one. But if it is successful, then it’s an argument for atheism, not for agnosticism. Or at least it’s an argument for atheism with respect to a Creator God. If it is impossible for God to create the universe, then clearly there can’t be a God like the one that Christians believe in.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

1. Change by definition happens when a potential state is actualized that wasn’t actual before.
2. It is one of the fundamental aspects of physical reality that it changes; thus the universe is the sum total of potential states become actual; it is called the space time continuum.
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. Potentiality by itself is not an actual thing and cannot become actual without a being that is already actual.

Conclusion:

Thus there has to be an actual being that is not itself a part of the temporal order of physics, and is not itself changing, since no change can occur at all without a being that logically precedes and transcends all change. Therefore there is such a thing as an immutable uncaused cause, or unmoved mover. It is consequently non-physical.

Possible Objection:

You cannot get something out of nothing. Therefore it is a logical contradiction for a first cause to create something from nothing. As such you must prove to me that it is not a logical contradiction to create physical reality.

(This is the best argument i have seen against the first cause argument. If it is successful then the claimant can argue for agnosticism.)

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.

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.

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.

It is true that the efficient causality of secondary causes ( the causes of the limited, contingent beings of the created universe ) requires " potentiality. " But God’s creation is not from potentiality. He creates whole entire beings, having in them the principles of potentiality and act. These are two different kinds of causality.

It is not a logical contradiction for God to create something from nothing. It is a logical necessity. Limited, contingent being could exist only if the First Cause of Being created it out of nothing.

Thomas’ argument, it is true proceedes from potential existence to the necessity of a Being who is Pure Act. However that is only because he had taken the position that it cannot be proven that the universe did not always exist.

But when he gets around to discussing the creation of the universe ex nihil he is accepting this fact on faith as a Catholic Theologian. Given that the universe had an absolute beginning in time, he explains that God created whole, entire beings whose principles of being were act and potency. Each being he created possessed a " potency " principle and an " act " principle. These two principles constitued each being He created. So creation is not from " potency " to " act. " Rather is " acting being " from nothing. There was no " potential " being as such, but beings which had " potency " to futher actuality.

I think you are getting too tied up in these " logical " arguments and often to explain yourself well and make everyone skeptical about what you are trying to do. That is why I say it is better not to envision or dream up possible arguments or scenarios for debate. It just leds to a lot of confusion.

Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Where I see a problem is using the word being (or Being, as some would say) and non-physical. Also although you did not use this word I assume you would say the mover exists.(“there is such a thing” = such a thing exists.) But existence indicates being a part of the temporal order of physics does it not?

" Being " as used by St. Thomas ( and it his definition Linus and I use) is an anological term applied to all things which exist as a single substance, a single thing, whether the being is spiritual ( God and Angels ), or purely material or a combination of material and spiritual, whether existing eternally outside this universe or contingently in the universe of space,time, and limited being. So God, Angels, a man, a horse, a rock, etc are all really existing beings or substances. But God and Angels exist outside the univers that man, horse, and rock exist in.

So is it an act or a being?

In God " Act " and " Being " are synominous. He is a living, intelligent being Who is Pure Act, Subsisting in Himself and by Himself. In God’s case " act " is a noun ( who God is), is a participle ( He is acting, He is living, He is Knowing, He is Loving, He is Willing, etc. ), is a definition ( " Is " defines God, He Is Who Is. ). His nature is " to be " and to " act " which are the same thing.

Created beings on the other hand are not pure act, they are beings having and exercising a limited act " to be " or " existence. " They are limited beings. They have existence, they are not existence. Their nature is to " act " in a limited, contingent way.

Unsolved indeed. Raises more questions than it answers really.

This stuff is over my head so be gentle with me.

A good book to read would be " Aquinas " by Edward Fesser. Reasonably priced.

Also, most of St. Thomas’ works are online. Read the Summa Theologiae here :
newadvent.org/summa/
Start with Part 1, Ques 2, Art 3 and keep it up the rest of your life )). Linus