P
punkforchrist
Guest
With the new formulation, we can overlook the inclusion of “infinite regress”. The question is: is it possible for every being to be dependent?
- Status
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
I’m really not just being picky with this, but you must very carefully define “being” in this case.
The real answer is “all but one”. But that would require foundational argument to assert.
P
punkforchrist
Guest
Maybe because it’s getting late, and I need some sleep, I just realized I conflated the Leibnizian and Thomistic arguments in post #20. Allow me to reformulate the argument once more, this time in the form of a reduction ad absurdum.
Prove A: A first cause exists.
Assume ~A: A first cause does not exist.
~A → B: If a first cause does not exist, then there are no intermediate causes.
~B: There are intermediate causes.
Hence, ~~A: by modus tollens.
Therefore, A: A first cause exists.
Q.E.D.
(~A → B) is the controversial premise, for I assume we all agree with (~B).
Whether the first cause is self-existent or not, we may leave for later.
Oh, and wassup, I do think there are some similarities to Spinoza. This wouldn’t surprise me, since much of his work was in response to the Scholastics.
Prove A: A first cause exists.
Assume ~A: A first cause does not exist.
~A → B: If a first cause does not exist, then there are no intermediate causes.
~B: There are intermediate causes.
Hence, ~~A: by modus tollens.
Therefore, A: A first cause exists.
Q.E.D.
(~A → B) is the controversial premise, for I assume we all agree with (~B).
Whether the first cause is self-existent or not, we may leave for later.
Oh, and wassup, I do think there are some similarities to Spinoza. This wouldn’t surprise me, since much of his work was in response to the Scholastics.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Very interestingly, and I wouldn’t expect anyone to be able to see why, but actually that statement is not really true.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
There are 2 kinds of First Causes. I think you might be mixing them. Only one of them exists. And Plato would argue that doesn’t exist either, but I can disprove his disproof.
W
wussup
Guest
Sure! and No. God is not dependent. However, that being said, I think you already would agree with that and have stipulated in your St. Thomas/Spinoza argument such. A follow up would be, ‘Can a being become ‘independent’?’, examples of potentially independent beings/Being would be Jesus, or what about Resurrected, Glorified Beings? As Virgil tells Dante, ‘Await no further word or sign from me: your will is free, erect, and whole-to act against that will would be to err’, do you think we will have the same freedom as God, the freedom to act and be acted upon only by the constraints of the attributes necessary for our existence alone?
P
punkforchrist
Guest
James S Saint:
Oh, and it’s good to be down to just one non sequitur!
The statement under consideration is (~A → B): If a first cause does not exist, then there are no intermediate causes.
I can see how (B) might be considered a non sequitur if no argument were offered. But, I’ve defended an inductive argument in support of it. Wouldn’t you agree that we observe that first members of sets are necessary as related to simultaneously acting causes? The foundation-less house comes to mind…
I don’t think I’m confusing them. It’s possible to conceive of a first cause as existing temporally prior to the universe, but this isn’t something I’m assuming. I’m only saying that there must be a first cause that causally or ontologically precedes its effects.
Could you expound?Only one of them exists. And Plato would argue that doesn’t exist either, but I can disprove his disproof.
Oh, and it’s good to be down to just one non sequitur!
The statement under consideration is (~A → B): If a first cause does not exist, then there are no intermediate causes.I can see how (B) might be considered a non sequitur if no argument were offered. But, I’ve defended an inductive argument in support of it. Wouldn’t you agree that we observe that first members of sets are necessary as related to simultaneously acting causes? The foundation-less house comes to mind…
P
punkforchrist
Guest
Good quote.
I don’t believe that dependent beings can become independent, or that potential beings can become Pure Act. In our glorified bodies, we will participate in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), but that’s different from becoming the divine nature.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Are you talking about an infinite progression in time events? Or an infinite progression of logic events?
W
wussup
Guest
I love Dante’s Trilogy. I have only read it a couple times and each time is like I have never read it before. The symbolism is astonishing. Considering that Dante would have had to file the work in his head and not on a computer and still produce a work of such magnificence, wow…Good quote.
I don’t believe that dependent beings can become independent, or that potential beings can become Pure Act. In our glorified bodies, we will participate in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), but that’s different from becoming the divine nature.
Ok, just checking…I’ll just follow along as the string progresses.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Dependent beings become independent by forming a momentum of forgiveness that eventually frees them from consequence - ergo independent.
P
punkforchrist
Guest
James S Saint:
Technically, I’m not talking about events at all. I suppose its closer to what you call “logic events”. Simultaneous causation doesn’t require time necessarily. We might stick with our house analogy. Imagine it’s a timeless house, one that exists without the transition from one instant in time to another. Even though the house is timeless, it still has a “first” member (the foundation), in a purely ontological sense.
P
punkforchrist
Guest
Yes, indeed. The genius of minds like Dante, Virgil, and Shakespeare is awe-inspiring. (Not to mention the many great philosophers and scientists). I often wonder, how did people ever get by without cell phones and computers?
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
In that case, you must begin with “the void” of absolute nothingness as your premise and from that demonstrate the logic of how something MUST exist.
That is the “First Cause”.
That is the “First Cause”.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
I used to do much better when I didn’t have computers.
W
wussup
Guest
Interesting use of the word ‘momentum’. Is it safe to assume you mean something other than the literal P=mv?
I happen to agree with the conclusion, but as you know from previous discussions, with a little different twist. Dependent beings become independent when their imperfect use of will becomes perfect and in line with God’s will. In this life such independence is impossible because we are mortal beings and by definition are dependent. May my inferring from your text, the will of God in this life is we bow to the Son as our Lord and Savior, begging His Forgiveness for our sins?. Humility to the Savior is the Key to Heaven, and in my theology, independence. It should be noted that supplicating ourselves to the Lord is not a lip-service thing where we utter the correct words and a key to ‘whatever’ opens the door. The love for God and Love of God imprinted in our soul is the only sign of a repentant believer.
As an aside and slightly off topic, a priest I had many conversations with explained to me the Beatification and how truly wonderful the experience of worshiping God is when done on the other side. He explained Heaven in terms of Paradise that would have made Dante proud. I replied that seemed to give God the attribute of a drug dealer: God grants us the ultimate opiate of the for return of our unceasing adulation. Worship as a result of a pleasurable experience endowed from a loving God is the ultimate opiate (imo).
Continuing the the Dante poems, he says;
"O Lady, thou in whom my hope is strong,
And who for my salvation didst endure
In Hell to leave the imprint of thy feet,
Of whatsoever things I have beheld,
As coming from thy power and from thy goodness
I recognise the virtue and the grace.
Thou from a slave hast brought me unto freedom,
By all those ways, by all the expedients,
Whereby thou hadst the power of doing it.
Preserve towards me thy magnificence,
So that this soul of mine, which thou hast healed,
Pleasing to thee be loosened from the body."
Thus I implored; and she, so far away,
Smiled, as it seemed, and looked once more at me;
Then unto the eternal fountain turned.
Dante argues the Beauty of Beatrice provided him with the strength to not give up in Hell, I find a semblance rather than a dichotomy with ‘from a slave’ with Beatrice turning back to the ‘eternal fountain’. He seems to ratify this concept when, after his ode to the Virgin Mother, he says;
My mind in this wise wholly in suspense,
Steadfast, immovable, attentive gazed,
And evermore with gazing grew enkindled.
In presence of that light one such becomes,
That to withdraw therefrom for other prospect
It is impossible he e’er consent
Given the eternal nature of the Heaven, such an existence would be as binding as any prison, albeit a rapturous one. It is difficult to argue that man would desire a life of freedom (as Spinoza defines it) vs. a life of eternal beatific worship in bondage. I have a difficult time envisioning attributes such as this in God.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Apparently I have one of those “strange-brains” as I have never seen the real (conceptual) difference in the use of the word “momentum”, but I have noticed that many seem to see some distinction.
In the way I just used it, I meant it in both ways. In physics what actually causes an object to be independent of what else is going on in the universe is a surrounding of literal momentum.
I life, the energetic and massive force of all surroundings being forgiving of your presumptuous mistakes, yields for you a never ending harmony with your surroundings. That which is in harmony cannot perish - ever.
That is basically the whole point in Jesus’ proclamation of eternal life. Truly do as he said, and you CANNOT die be any means.
W
wussup
Guest
S
Spock
Guest
Thank you, I did and I was.
No, not exactly. It is STEM itself that does exist necessarily. Matter, energy, space and time cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore since they exist, they cannot not-exist. The truth is that the argument you proposed is very true, but trivial. It can be summed up as: “since something exists, something must exist.”
W
wussup
Guest
Pardon me for butting in…do you think there is a ‘one’ constituent particle, or otherwise. As far as trivial, Descartes has made some hay of it…
- Status