What property of the universe leads us to conclude that it required a cause to exist?

[PJY86]

Moonstruck,

First, let me make sure and define my term, ‘reason’. In my use of the word while stating the principle of sufficient reason, I mean it in the explanatory sense, not in the sense that everything has a “purpose”. (Although, I do think that everything does have a final cause, but that is another argument.)

Now, it is self-evident that only the actual can act, that potentialities can perform no action. We know this from the meaning of the words ‘actual’ and ‘potential’. Therefore, if there is a potentiality which has been actualized, it must have been actualized by an already actual agent. If the universe is an actualized potentiality (i.e., if it is only an actualized possibility among other possibilities and not pure act itself), then we must posit a being outside the bounds of the universe, as a matter of metaphysical necessity, which is Pure Act in order for the universe to be actualized.

From the very first act of the intellect the first principles of logic and metaphysics are implicit in our knowing, and the second act of relfexion brings those principles to the foreground, namely the principle of identity, of non-contradiction, sufficient reason, and so on. Without these principles, all deductive reasoning would be impossible. And, given these principles, the above argument works. If you do not affirm the principle of sufficient reason and that only the actual can act, then I can only assume you do not understand the meaning of the words used to state those principles. Please, provide a philosophical reason to deny the strength of the argument, or take the time to inform yourself by reading good philosophy. You won’t regret it, I promise.

 

[davidv]

Exactly.

All assumptions are to be avoided.

Impossible for finite beings with limited knowledge.

They interpret what exists in a way that helps me to stay alive. They do not tell me one iota of information regarding the imponderables of metaphysics.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Impossible for finite beings with limited knowledge.

Not if they’re willing to admit they don’t know the answer to everything.

 

[davidv]

Not if they’re willing to admit they don’t know the answer to everything.

What does this mean in relation to my comment?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Moonstruck,

First, let me make sure and define my term, ‘reason’. In my use of the word while stating the principle of sufficient reason, I mean it in the explanatory sense, not in the sense that everything has a “purpose”. (Although, I do think that everything does have a final cause, but that is another argument.)

Now, it is self-evident that only the actual can act, that potentialities can perform no action. We know this from the meaning of the words ‘actual’ and ‘potential’. Therefore, if there is a potentiality which has been actualized, it must have been actualized by an already actual agent. If the universe is an actualized potentiality (i.e., if it is only an actualized possibility among other possibilities and not pure act itself), then we must posit a being outside the bounds of the universe, as a matter of metaphysical necessity, which is Pure Act in order for the universe to be actualized.

From the very first act of the intellect the first principles of logic and metaphysics are implicit in our knowing, and the second act of relfexion brings those principles to the foreground, namely the principle of identity, of non-contradiction, sufficient reason, and so on. Without these principles, all deductive reasoning would be impossible. And, given these principles, the above argument works. If you do not affirm the principle of sufficient reason and that only the actual can act, then I can only assume you do not understand the meaning of the words used to state those principles. Please, provide a philosophical reason to deny the strength of the argument, or take the time to inform yourself by reading good philosophy. You won’t regret it, I promise.

Thanks PJY86. You are more patient then me. Good post.

Godbless.

 

[Moonstruck888]

What does this mean in relation to my comment?

It means that one can simply admit that one does not know rather than make an assumption.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Moonstruck,

First, let me make sure and define my term, ‘reason’. In my use of the word while stating the principle of sufficient reason, I mean it in the explanatory sense, not in the sense that everything has a “purpose”. (Although, I do think that everything does have a final cause, but that is another argument.)

I understand that.

Now, it is self-evident that only the actual can act, that potentialities can perform no action. We know this from the meaning of the words ‘actual’ and ‘potential’. Therefore, if there is a potentiality which has been actualized, it must have been actualized by an already actual agent.

Which causes a pretty big problem.

If the universe is an actualized potentiality (i.e., if it is only an actualized possibility among other possibilities and not pure act itself), then we must posit a being outside the bounds of the universe, as a matter of metaphysical necessity, which is Pure Act in order for the universe to be actualized.

How was this being actualized?

If this being can be pure act, then why can’t the Universe just be pure act?

From the very first act of the intellect the first principles of logic and metaphysics are implicit in our knowing, and the second act of relfexion brings those principles to the foreground, namely the principle of identity, of non-contradiction, sufficient reason, and so on. Without these principles, all deductive reasoning would be impossible. And, given these principles, the above argument works. If you do not affirm the principle of sufficient reason and that only the actual can act, then I can only assume you do not understand the meaning of the words used to state those principles. Please, provide a philosophical reason to deny the strength of the argument, or take the time to inform yourself by reading good philosophy. You won’t regret it, I promise.

It works as an argument perhaps, but arguments are not admissable as evidence. They must be backed up with proof that they are correct.

 

[PJY86]

Moonstruck,

Thanks for the reply.

Pure Act does not require another being to actualize it, because “pure act” means it is not a mere actualized potentiality; it means, rather, that the being exists of necessity.

The universe is not pure act because it is an actualized possibility. The reason I say that it is is because the universe as it now exists is filled with potentiality, and matter is the very principle of potentiality in the material universe. Please refer back to my previous two posts for a slightly fuller explanation.

Moonstruck, a deductive argument from first principles constitutes a proof. If the argument “works”, that is, it is sound, then the conclusion must be true. By asserting that “arguments are not admissible as evidence”, you betray a lack of philosophical and logical understanding. A deductive argument need not be admitted “as evidence”. If the argument is sound, that is, the conclusion follows from the premises and the premises are all true, then it is irrational to deny the conclusion. You must show an error in the reasoning or that one of the premises is false. Now, my premises are (1) That only the actual can act, a possibility can perform no action; (2) that the universe is an actualized possibility among other possibilities. Given these two premises, the conclusion follows that some agent who is not part of the universe itself is required as the actualizing agent of the universe. If you can show that the universe is not an actualized possibility, then the argument fails. But this would involve proving something along the lines of matter being pure act, which has already been shown to be absurd.

I would also add that unless we posit a being who is Pure Act, we will fall into an infinite regression, which is absurd. If no being is Act by nature, then nothing else could be actualized. As I have also said, neither would their be any unactualized possibility (i.e., prime matter).

 

[Moonstruck888]

Moonstruck, a deductive argument from first principles constitutes a proof.

I couldn’t disagree more. In order to proven, a hypothesis must make predicitions that will either agree or disagree with experience, to wit: The hypothesis must predict what would verify or falsify it and the predictions must be subjected to repeatable testing.

Otherwise, your argument is nothing more than cleverly arranged words.

 

[Moonstruck888]

By asserting that “arguments are not admissible as evidence”, you betray a lack of philosophical and logical understanding.

Not at all. I simply don’t accept philosophical and logical arguments as proof of anything.

The modern world was created by science, that is to say testing ideas by comparing to physical experience. This gave us extended lifespans, telescopes that can see billions of years through space and time, microscopes and colliders that can see the constituents of reality, the very computers that you and I are typing on, heat and light in winter, medicines to combat certain diseases…

The results of the scientific method are utterly incontestable. The key to understanding the Universe is through science.

 

[Moonstruck888]

(1) That only the actual can act, a possibility can perform no action; (2) that the universe is an actualized possibility among other possibilities. Given these two premises, the conclusion follows that some agent who is not part of the universe itself is required as the actualizing agent of the universe. If you can show that the universe is not an actualized possibility, then the argument fails. But this would involve proving something along the lines of matter being pure act, which has already been shown to be absurd.

My premise is that it is unknown and may even be unknowable how and why the Universe is here. We know that it is unknown at the present time, that is indisputable.

Now, your conclusion is only valid if you can demonstrate your premise (1) and (2) to be correct. Can you?

 

[PJY86]

Moonstruck,

If you reject logic and philosophy as means to truth, then I’m afraid whatever I say will be useless to you. You seem to hold the empiricist position, that only things which are empirically testable can be true. I’d like for you to consider, however, that this position itself is not empirically verifiable. That is because it is a philosophical presupposition. Whether you like it or not, science as knowledge relies on logic and philosophy. Science itself is motivated by the principle of sufficient reason, and is guided by the law of non-contradiction. And since the goal of science is to affirm something true about the nature of its object (which it can only do by induction), it presupposes the principle of identity. Given your position, I doubt any of this will change your mind, but could I recommend a book? It is fairly advanced and dense at times, but it contains brilliant insights into what science is. It is The Degrees of Knowledge by Jacques Maritain.

As for defending the premises of my argument, (1) is self-evident. That is, it is impossible to conceive of a mere potentiality performing an action. If you do not see this, it must be because you don’t have an adequate understanding of the words ‘actual’ and ‘potential’.

I have defended (2) in my previous posts. Would you mind looking over them briefly instead of me saying the same thing and uselessly extending the post?

Please consider the book,

Peter

 

[Moonstruck888]

Moonstruck,

If you reject logic and philosophy as means to truth, then I’m afraid whatever I say will be useless to you. You seem to hold the empiricist position, that only things which are empirically testable can be true. I’d like for you to consider, however, that this position itself is not empirically verifiable. That is because it is a philosophical presupposition. Whether you like it or not, science as knowledge relies on logic and philosophy. Science itself is motivated by the principle of sufficient reason, and is guided by the law of non-contradiction. And since the goal of science is to affirm something true about the nature of its object (which it can only do by induction), it presupposes the principle of identity. Given your position, I doubt any of this will change your mind, but could I recommend a book? It is fairly advanced and dense at times, but it contains brilliant insights into what science is. It is The Degrees of Knowledge by Jacques Maritain.

I would say rather that one should hold judgement on anything that cannot be verified empirically, that is to say that it may or may not be true. It certainly can be true, but whether it is or not remains to be demonstrated.

I have nothing against the logical absolutes, but I have to say that some of the interpretations I have seen of them here have been a bit of a stretch.

As for defending the premises of my argument, (1) is self-evident. That is, it is impossible to conceive of a mere potentiality performing an action. If you do not see this, it must be because you don’t have an adequate understanding of the words ‘actual’ and ‘potential’.

I don’t think your argument is self evident. I think there is one major flaw in it that many people who use it to justify a belief in the supernatural are conveniently whitewashing.

The argument seems to run thus. A pontentiality cannot perform an action, so we’ll create a potentiality, call it God, and just make an exception for this potentiality for no demonstrable reason.

But this, all of this, is mere words. If there is a prime mover if you will, a necessary being as I’ve heard some of you call it, from whence did it come and what exactly is it? If you can’t even define what it is, then all you’re doing is palying games rearranging words.

I have defended (2) in my previous posts. Would you mind looking over them briefly instead of me saying the same thing and uselessly extending the post?

I don’t see any adequate defense of it anywhere, certainly nothing that comes near to my criteria for evidence.

Please consider the book

I’ll take this under advisement.

 

[PJY86]

Moonstruck,

I mean absolutely no offense to you, but you simply do not understand what is being said. That isn’t to say I am right, but that we can’t even begin the debate until we get straight the dialectic. I will just briefly address some of your misunderstandings.

First, even if you restate and say that we can only judge a thing to be true once it’s empirically demonstrated, you still have to face that fact that such a claim cannot be empirically demonstrated. Thus you should withhold judgment on your principle of judgment, leaving you without an objective basis for affirming the truth of anything.

Second, I did not say that my argument was self-evident, but that (1) was self-evident. Do you deny that only the actual can act?

Third, we posit Pure Act out of necessity, without which no potentiality could be actualized. Pure Act in not an actualized potentiality, but a necessary being. If you can honestly ask (which I presume you are doing), “Where did the necessary being, Pure Act, come from?”, then it must be the case that you do not understand what ‘pure act’ or ‘necessary being’ means. A necessary Being is one who cannot not exist. Pure Act is a being that is actual by its very nature. Therefore, it does not even make sense to ask what caused that being. I have argued that without such a being, no other beings could possibly be. In other words, we are led by reason to posit such a being in order to explain how anything could exist. We may not know the intimate details of that being from this argument, but we know at least it must exist.

All of this may seem like mere words to you, but I ask you to at least consider the possibility that you may simply not understand what I am saying. I hope this consideration prompts you to study, and hopefully talk more with me in the future.

 

[JDaniel]

First of all this is not the cosmological argument or the first cause argument. This is the so-called “Sustaining Cause” argument, which is different. Before we even start to examine it, I would suggest we conclude the original one. Wouldn’t you agree that it is better to find conclusion to a problem, before we start a new one?

RDaneel:

Respectfully, I disagree. We’re talking about creation, which is, as it has been defined for centuries, a singular action. So, there really is no “sustaining cause” in “time.” The sustaining case is the first and only action of God, which only seems to be associated with time in our view.

Creation cannot be a gradual process. There can’t be any measurement in or of time. There can’t be any succession of events or states in the creation anything. Between being and not-being, there can’t be a middle-ground, or a middle state, or a middle thing, or half-thing. If there was, it would already be something.

Since time is only gradual to us, it is an irrelevant exigency to God. We may view our world as if it was being gradually sustained, but, it is not. The pure logic of Creation gives us clear and ample proof of this.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I’ve obviously upset you, but I’m afraid I have to press this further.

1. How can everything that exists have an external cause?
2. How do you know the Universe had a beginning, or what the extent of the Universe is in space and time or the extent of space and time in the Universe?

Moonstruck:

Two reasons:

1. Science says it began about 13.75 billion years ago, and;
2. Logic says that it consists of finite beings, with finite spaces in between. If the universe did not have a beginning, it would be infinite. If it was infinite there would be no space(s) in between.

In fact, science is saying that the space(s) in between is/are expanding as the universe expands. All the more reason for the second premise’s restriction of the universe to a being that had a beginning and was created (caused)…

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Again, how can “everything that exists” have an external cause?

Care to have a shot at that one?

C’mon, Moonstruck. You know MoM meant “everything” in the sense that every material thing has a cause. He wasn’t speaking about immaterial being(s).

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I never accused him of mendacity, I was merely making a point that anyone who thinks he or she knows why the Universe is here is in my opinion deluded.

My argument is cogent. No one knows how or why the Universe is here. Anyone who claims to is just plain wrong.

Hmmm. A baseless assertion. Demonstrative logic can produce a cogent reason as to why the universe is here. It can’t produce a cogent resolution why it wouldn’t be here.

God bless,
jd

 

[Moonstruck888]

Hmmm. A baseless assertion. Demonstrative logic can produce a cogent reason as to why the universe is here. It can’t produce a cogent resolution why it wouldn’t be here.

God bless,
jd

Demonstrative logic can only produce cognent reasons why logic is consistent. That does not in any way prejudice how one should view the natural world.

1. Everything has to have a cause.
2. The Universe is a definite article, and must have a cause.
3. The Universe must have an uncaused cause or you have an infinite regress.

So let’s invent an uncaused cause, call it God, and even though there is no way to demonstrate that it even exists, we’ll just make it exempt from rule 1) to keep things tidy looking.

That’s nonsense. Pure nonsense.

 

[Alindawyl]

Demonstrative logic can only produce cognent reasons why logic is consistent. That does not in any way prejudice how one should view the natural world.

1. Everything has to have a cause.
2. The Universe is a definite article, and must have a cause.
3. The Universe must have an uncaused cause or you have an infinite regress.

So let’s invent an uncaused cause, call it God, and even though there is no way to demonstrate that it even exists, we’ll just make it exempt from rule 1) to keep things tidy looking.

That’s nonsense. Pure nonsense.

It’s only pure nonsense because you’ve misstated the logic. I’m not a theologian or philosopher or anything, but would word it kind of like this:

1. We can observe that stuff exists
2. Stuff can’t bring itself into existence because it would have to first exist to do that, making it illogical for stuff to be its own cause
3. Stuff can’t exist in a causal loop because a loop has no beginning and stuff can’t cause itself (no infinite regress)
4. Therefore something uncaused has to exist for anything else to exist

You are forced to argue that either what we can observe (ie, the universe) is uncaused, or that there is something outside the universe which caused it. If you wish to argue that the universe is uncaused, you are faced with a wealth of scientific data that the universe appears to be expanding rather than static and has only been in existence for approximately 13.75 billion years.

The cosmological argument doesn’t prove that God as described by Christianity is the first cause. It doesn’t say anything about the nature of the first cause other than it must be something which has no cause. But it does demonstrate rather clearly that the universe must have some sort of cause outside of itself.