The minimum assumption

[narrowpath]

1. The Cause must change from pre-Cause to Cause. If the Cause did not change then the universe must have come into existence at the same time as the Cause as per #1. If two things happen simultaneoulsy then one cannot have caused the other, so the Cause would not be a Cause. Therefore the entity we are talking about must have changed from pre-Cause to Cause.

The first cause must be personal. If the first cause is impersonal and always existed, the effect must have always existed. The first cause must have made a conscious decision to create the effect somehow.

 

[cpayne]

1. The Cause requires the existence of the universe. A cause (or Cause) cannot exist unless it actually is a cause. A cause cannot be a cause unless there is also an effect that it has caused. Hence the Cause requires the existence of the universe in order to be the Cause. Prior to the existence of the universe that entity was a pre-Cause, or a Cause-in-waiting (or possibly non-existent). A childless couple cannot be parents, a cause without any effect cannot be a cause. A Cause without the universe cannot be the Cause.
2. The Cause must change from pre-Cause to Cause. If the Cause did not change then the universe must have come into existence at the same time as the Cause as per #1. If two things happen simultaneoulsy then one cannot have caused the other, so the Cause would not be a Cause. Therefore the entity we are talking about must have changed from pre-Cause to Cause.
3. Time must exist. Change in #2 refers to change in time. Time is also required to distinguish cause from effect - the cause comes before the effect. If the two are simultaneous then we do not have a causal relation between them. Hence the independent existence of time is also required.

rossum

Hi, Rossum. I guess I passed over your post, but now I’m thinking I disagree on some points.

If God is unchanging, He did not change from pre-Cause to Cause. But, as you state, this seems as if it could not be so.

However, the effect we are discussing is the beginning of the universe as we know it, which also includes the beginning of time as we know it. What was happening “before” the singularity? What exactly did “before” or “pre-” mean until the universe came into existence?

In other words, God did not have to be a “pre-Cause” at any time, if time as we know it today didn’t exist, right?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Peoples,

Let us take stock of what progress we have made, if any. And keep in mind that we shouldn’t add assumptions which we import from our traditional notions of deity.

We started out with the minimum assumption of the universe and its Cause.

Rossum pointed out that if we are going to talk in terms of cause and effect, by definition there is no cause until there is an effect. Before the universe was caused to come into being, then, the entity that caused it was a “Pre-Cause,” that is, an entity poised and ready to cause the beginning of the universe but hasn’t done so yet.

Now Rossum was wise to use “pre-cause” because he apparently wanted to preserve our options for a timeless and changeless Primordial Entity. But in doing so he observes that there has to be transition/change/event from pre-cause to cause and effect when the Entity caused the universe to come into being. So we necessarily must say that, at least in this instance, the Entity underwent change. We therefore cannot attribute absolute changelessness to it.

And if we are talking about the Entity changing we therefore must acknowledge that it is a being that experiences time. Is it not so?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

But what about before the Entity caused the universe? We have assumed it was existing, but what does that mean? If we attribute changelessness to its state prior to the causing of the universe what was it doing? Things other than causing the universe? In that case the Entity must be conceived of a being in time. But if we posit that the Entity was doing absolutely nuttin, then I think it can be argued that it wasn’t existing either. In order to exist ya gotta be doin sumptin.

So I think the Entity cannot be conceived of changeless and timeless.

 

[cpayne]

But what about before the Entity caused the universe? We have assumed it was existing, but what does that mean? If we attribute changelessness to its state prior to the causing of the universe what was it doing? Things other than causing the universe? In that case the Entity must be conceived of a being in time. But if we posit that the Entity was doing absolutely nuttin, then I think it can be argued that it wasn’t existing either. In order to exist ya gotta be doin sumptin.

So I think the Entity cannot be conceived of changeless and timeless.

If God is omniscient and knows all past, present, and future perfectly, God would have to possess eternality, or at least a perspective not bound by time. This is what has been called an “eternal present tense,” in which one presumes God existed before time began as an interaction of matter and space (i.e., at creation).

God is completely active, with no potential for lapse or improvement. So there would never have been a moment when God was “doing nothing.” I have the potential to work, for example, which means that sometimes I am not working. However, what God is and does, God is and does all the time, all at once, eternally.

(Thus says Aquinas, at least. )

 

[ateista]

But what about before the Entity caused the universe? We have assumed it was existing, but what does that mean? If we attribute changelessness to its state prior to the causing of the universe what was it doing? Things other than causing the universe? In that case the Entity must be conceived of a being in time. But if we posit that the Entity was doing absolutely nuttin, then I think it can be argued that it wasn’t existing either. In order to exist ya gotta be doin sumptin.

So I think the Entity cannot be conceived of changeless and timeless.

Excellent observations. Any kind of “activity” be it physical or mental presupposes some kind of a time, a “before” the action and an “after” the action. Your question: “what does existence mean for a changeless entity” gets directly at the heart of the matter.

 

[ateista]

The first cause must be personal. If the first cause is impersonal and always existed, the effect must have always existed. The first cause must have made a conscious decision to create the effect somehow.

No, that does not follow necessarily. Impersonal existence does not mean “static”, changeless existence. Our universe may be just a random fluctuation of impersonal forces - like a gravitational collapse of a star.

Even if the cause would be personal, it does not follow that the creation was a “deliberate” act, it could have been an unforeseen side effect. Our universe may even be just a “junk by-product” of a totally unconnected activity.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Let’s forget about revelation in this thread and let’s start from the hypothesis that the Universe “needs” a cause for its existence. Let’s call this this entity the “Cause”, to avoid confusion with the Christian God.

What kinds of corollaries can we deduce from this starting point? What could be the attributes of the Cause? Can this minimum assumption somehow lead to the concept of the Christian God?

The consequences of the existence of the Cause (or more properly the “Uncaused-Cause”) lead directly to the Christian God (and only the Christian God), and they do so as you integrate observations of the Cause’s caused-things.

What is your reasoning? Please do not use the Bible, or revelations here. This is supposed to be a fully secular discussion, based upon one premise: “the Universe needs an external explanation for its existence”.

If the universe, which does exist, doesn’t need the Cause as it’s cause, then the universe was not caused, but either is infinitely “old” or doesn’t truly exist.

To state that the universe doesn’t truly exist is an “interesting” interpretation of what is observable, and would hardly be considered an “acceptable secular answer”.

To state that the universe is infinitely “old” is quite a nice little “mystery”, which is not acceptable as a “secular” answer to any question, as it is merely a statement of ignorance.

So, those two answers are not acceptable as “secular” answers.

This, therefore leaves us only with the option that the universe DOES in fact need the Cause for it’s existence.

Now, WHY would the Cause create the universe?

The Cause either created the universe because it HAD to, which makes it a “machine” of some sort, or because it wanted to, which makes a “willing thing” (elsewise known as either an “animal” or a “person”).

But first, what CAUSED the uncaused-Cause!? Since the UNCAUSED-Cause is uncaused, by definition, nothing caused it, so we don’t have to worry about that. Oh happy day!

So, we’re either left with accepting that the universe DOES exist and was created by some Uncaused-Cause, or that the universe DOESN’T exist, which makes the existence of it’s “cause” irrelevant.

We also have the option of believing that any “uncaused-cause” is itself a “mystery”, and as mysteries are unacceptable as “secular answers”, there is no cause whatsoever for the universe, leading directly to the mystery of the “infintely old” universe, which is also unacceptable, which leaves us with nothing to talk about because everything is an unacceptable mystery.

But, let’s make it an axiom that the universe does exist, and that it had a cause, and that it was caused by an uncaused-cause, so that we have something to talk about. (Which means that “secular rules of ‘answer permissibility’ are nonsense”, as they ultimately leave us with nothing to talk about.)

Now, is the Cause a machine, an animal, or a person?

If it is a machine, who created it, or “bore” it (for those of you who like to think of “animals” as “bio-machinery”)?

This invokes, yet again, another need for an infinite series of “creators”, which we’ve decided we won’t do anymore, as it invariably leaves us with nothing to talk about.

So, the Cause isn’t a machine, and isn’t a bio-machine (an animal), as those things need to be “created by either an animal or a person”.

This leaves us with the Cause being a person, who isn’t an animal.

Now, did this person (or persons!?) create any other persons? Why would the Cause do that?

Well, there are two possibilities for what any individual creation can be:

1. A machine.
2. A person.

Since machines are ultimately perfectly deterministic, nothing “new” ever “comes of” machines. They are created for some other purpose than simply their creation.

Person’s, on the other hand, are not deterministic, and as the only other type of “creature” possible, MUST be the purpose of the creation of those “machine”-type creatures (creations).

But wait! If the Cause is a PERSON, then the aforementioned “love” must exist in it, and as the only object of that love are other persons, their must exist in the Cause other persons, as no other thing exists as yet, and without this or these “other persons” the person called “the Cause” is not a person, which is a contradiction!

So, the Cause is at least TWO persons!

But why wouldn’t the Cause be satisfied with simply having it’s “love” exercised within itself?

I don’t know, but apparently it wasn’t as the “machine” universe and the “person” universe DO actually exist. Perhaps persons just sometimes WANT things, and if they’re capable of making them, make them?

So, as with all persons, who love “the new and different”, the Cause had a reason to create the “machine” universe for the purpose of giving the “person” universe (the creations who are persons) something to do, so that the Cause’s “love” (of the new and different) could be imitated by the Cause’s created persons.

Any objections?

 

[cpayne]

Excellent observations. Any kind of “activity” be it physical or mental presupposes some kind of a time, a “before” the action and an “after” the action. Your question: “what does existence mean for a changeless entity” gets directly at the heart of the matter.

I don’t think the meaning of time before (or even its existence before) the singularity has been specified.

 

[ateista]

I don’t think the meaning of time before (or even its existence before) the singularity has been specified.

You are right. Within the singularity the laws of physics are simply unknown. My remark was a generic philosophical one, about “activity” and “time”.

 

[ilovekittens]

I think the only way to derive the Christian God - a personal god who cares about my individual existence in the universe - from the First Mover Entity is to assume that I, a human being, have a soul which is supernatural. If all of my thoughts and feelings, my sense of self-consciousness and perception of free will, are not just an epiphenomenon of my neural networks but rather something “real” in a higher, special, supernatural sort of way, then I think one can deduce something like the Christian God. If all of that is ultimately biological, as science and psychology increasingly suggest and as the stated minimum assumption would require, then I don’t think one can arrive at the Christian God from the clockmaking First Mover.

 

[ateista]

I think the only way to derive the Christian God - a personal god who cares about my individual existence in the universe - from the First Mover Entity is to assume that I, a human being, have a soul which is supernatural. If all of my thoughts and feelings, my sense of self-consciousness and perception of free will, are not just an epiphenomenon of my neural networks but rather something “real” in a higher, special, supernatural sort of way, then I think one can deduce something like the Christian God. If all of that is ultimately biological, as science and psychology increasingly suggest and as the stated minimum assumption would require, then I don’t think one can arrive at the Christian God from the clockmaking First Mover.

Not a bad concept… But the assumption of your soul is beyond the scope of being “minimal”.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Excellent observations. Any kind of “activity” be it physical or mental presupposes some kind of a time, a “before” the action and an “after” the action. Your question: “what does existence mean for a changeless entity” gets directly at the heart of the matter.

Yes, ateista, I think we are very close to the heart of the matter.

From the catholic perspective, St. Thomas argues that God is meaning (goodness), existence, and happiness.

The answer to the question, “what does existence mean for a changeless entity,” would be, “the meaning of existence for a changeless entity is existence.”

From a secular perspective, it is a self-evident truth that meaning, existence, and happiness exist as one.

A man who has no happiness, and has no meaning in life, seeks nonexistence through suicide.

A man who is happy, and finds meaning in life, protects his existence.

A man who finds little meaning in life, has little happiness.

Even a man who seeks revenge by suicide, senses or expects existence after his suicide, or he could not enjoy his revenge. His suicide would become meaningless.

We know that meaning, existence, and happiness exist as one is a deeply held self-evident truth. After all, self-preservation and suicide are not casual endeavors.

Happiness, meaning, and existence exist as one which we give the name “God.”

Do you doubt the existence of this “God?”

Perhaps you would like to use a different word if you think I’m loading the language.

 

[Pete_1]

1. The Cause requires the existence of the universe. A cause (or Cause) cannot exist unless it actually is a cause. A cause cannot be a cause unless there is also an effect that it has caused.

Hence the Cause requires the existence of the universe in order to be the Cause. Prior to the existence of the universe that entity was a pre-Cause, or a Cause-in-waiting (or possibly non-existent). A childless couple cannot be parents, a cause without any effect cannot be a cause. A Cause without the universe cannot be the Cause.

1. The Cause must change from pre-Cause to Cause. If the Cause did not change then the universe must have come into existence at the same time as the Cause as per #1. If two things happen simultaneoulsy then one cannot have caused the other, so the Cause would not be a Cause. Therefore the entity we are talking about must have changed from pre-Cause to Cause.

If the Cause can change from pre-cause to cause, what caused this change?

The only options are:

Infinite regress, which is illogical (in my opinion).

Or

The cause caused itself, also illogical (in my opinion).

Or the being you speak of is not the first cause.