Using causality based in space time to explain how God caused the universe

[catholictiger]

Ok this will need some explinations but I would like to see you thoughts on this objection of thomistic thought on why God must exist.

Anyway I’m sure you all know the basic thomistic theory of the first cause. All existing things must have a reason (cause) for its existence either in itself or in another. Aquinas uses this principle to argue for God. All finite things have their sufficient reason in something else, or another way to put it finite things have something else as its cause. No things that must be caused can be their own cause. It would be absurd to claim that. And if everything in the world needed a cause to exist then nothing would exist because there would be nothing to cause the first thing to exist. So there must be something that is uncaused that causes everything. This is what we all call God.

There is an argument against this I believe Hume uses. The idea is that he says STA uses a causality based on space time to argue for the existence of God. A causes B B causes C and so on and so forth. From my understanding of Hume’s view of Causality he sees it like a sequence of events event A causes event B which causes event C and so on and so forth. Space and Time started to exist at the the big bang. The argument is you can’t use a causality founded in time to argue how the universe is created before there was time. So apparently there is some logical fallacies or bad reasoning going on here.

my objection to this argument is that Aquinas and Aristotle (who Aquinas bases alot of his stuff off of) don’t understand causality as A cashes B like a secession of things in time. Rather they look at causality as a singular moment. The cause and effect in fact happen at the same time. (someone clarify this for me I may be off on this). Also causality is about the reasons why things are like they are and do what they do it has nothing to do with time. So it isn’t absurd to use causality to argue to God because it isn’t based on Time.

thoughts on this?

thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[WoundedIcon]

Aquinas’ argument is generally misunderstood. It has nothing to do with “A caused B which caused C”. Basically it means that nothing that currently exists has its existence of itself. It’s dependent upon a being which does have existence of itself to exist. Therefore it applies to you, me, our computers, and everything else existing now. God is constantly the cause of all things existing.

Basically, it’s not “cause” like a row of dominoes falling, it’s “cause” like a reason for being.

 

[ColdComfort]

Ok this will need some explinations but I would like to see you thoughts on this objection of thomistic thought on why God must exist.

Anyway I’m sure you all know the basic thomistic theory of the first cause. All existing things must have a reason (cause) for its existence either in itself or in another. Aquinas uses this principle to argue for God. All finite things have their sufficient reason in something else, or another way to put it finite things have something else as its cause. No things that must be caused can be their own cause. It would be absurd to claim that. And if everything in the world needed a cause to exist then nothing would exist because there would be nothing to cause the first thing to exist. So there must be something that is uncaused that causes everything. This is what we all call God.

There is an argument against this I believe Hume uses. The idea is that he says STA uses a causality based on space time to argue for the existence of God. A causes B B causes C and so on and so forth. From my understanding of Hume’s view of Causality he sees it like a sequence of events event A causes event B which causes event C and so on and so forth. Space and Time started to exist at the the big bang. The argument is you can’t use a causality founded in time to argue how the universe is created before there was time. So apparently there is some logical fallacies or bad reasoning going on here.

my objection to this argument is that Aquinas and Aristotle (who Aquinas bases alot of his stuff off of) don’t understand causality as A cashes B like a secession of things in time. Rather they look at causality as a singular moment. The cause and effect in fact happen at the same time. (someone clarify this for me I may be off on this). Also causality is about the reasons why things are like they are and do what they do it has nothing to do with time. So it isn’t absurd to use causality to argue to God because it isn’t based on Time.

thoughts on this?

thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut.

E.Feser’s book on Aquinas deals with some of the issues you raise. He explains it much better than I could including Hume’s idea of cause… Even efficient causality is something that happens simultaneously: although there can be causal sequences like a father begets a son who then begets a son and so on that do involve time Aquinas is not thinking of these. He is thinking more of a man swinging an ax who then strikes a tree which do happen simultaneously.

In my far from expert opinion I’m not sure how the argument from efficient causality works in itself. I only see it when combined with the other types of causes.

 

[SonCatcher]

The title reminds me of recent press about a test that would theoretically demonstrate that the Universe is a computer simulation. The rules defined in the experiment (like space-time causality) would supposedly be able to determine whether this was the case.

 

[catholictiger]

E.Feser’s book on Aquinas deals with some of the issues you raise. He explains it much better than I could including Hume’s idea of cause… Even efficient causality is something that happens simultaneously: although there can be causal sequences like a father begets a son who then begets a son and so on that do involve time Aquinas is not thinking of these. He is thinking more of a man swinging an ax who then strikes a tree which do happen simultaneously.

In my far from expert opinion I’m not sure how the argument from efficient causality works in itself. I only see it when combined with the other types of causes.

see this is what I remembered when I first learned about thomistic cause (well it was cause as Aristotle sees it but Aristotle is alot like Thomas.)

my teacher of the course kinda tore down Hume objection of Thomistic argument for God. Because Hume completely misunderstood what Thomas was saying when he talked about cause meaning Hume criticism falls short because he misunderstands it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

see this is what I remembered when I first learned about thomistic cause (well it was cause as Aristotle sees it but Aristotle is alot like Thomas.)

my teacher of the course kinda tore down Hume objection of Thomistic argument for God. Because Hume completely misunderstood what Thomas was saying when he talked about cause meaning Hume criticism falls short because he misunderstands it.

Yes, you have it correct. All causality is " here and now " and must be viewed vertically , so to speak, not horizontially in time. By the way, I think Thomas’ five ways also help explain how God acts " innermostly " in all things as their primary mover, efficient cause, sustainer, final cause without violating their own real causality as secondary causes ( just my little idea, not necessarily Thomas’ ).

Fesser’s " Aquinas " would be a good read, if you have the time. He also has a very good blog.

Don’t let this forum eat up too much of your time and don’t let some of the discussions here bother you. Sometimes it gets a little hot.