Why does the first cause have to be God?

[ivebeenshown]

“Before” means at a previous time. Thus, if no time = no change, then you cannot say “before” the universe, there was no change. That it implies that there was no change, and that there was change (because “before” means at a previous time).

If the beginning of the universe was the first change to happen in all of existence, and if there cannot be something before the first of something, then we might rightly say that there was no change before the first change, which we might say is the beginning of the universe. Does anyone finish the race before the first place runner, or does an infant take a breath before he takes his first breath? The answer is a resounding NO.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I feel that you go about your objection the wrong way. It is a question of whether the uncaused cause is God, because if it isn’t, then Cosmological Arguments are useless in demonstrating his existence. Also, God is defined as a conscious/ sentient being, if the cause isn’t a sentient being, then we cannot really call it God. If we can, we certainly cannot call it the Christian God.

Not everyone defines God as a conscious or sentient being. I would say that people who refer to God tend to mean, generically, ‘the greatest of all beings.’ Now, if there is a being that solely caused all other beings to be, and the effect cannot be greater than its cause, it is only logical to conclude that this one being, this first cause, is the greatest of all beings. Whether it is intelligent is another question.

 

[Theophorus]

Your position is self-contradictory. If no time = no change, then this means you cannot say “before the universe”, because that would imply there was change, because “before” means at a previous time.

Was is a past tense, you cannot say there was no time without contradicting yourself logically.

Once more, this is self-contradictory. “Before” means at a previous time. Thus, if no time = no change, then you cannot say “before” the universe, there was no change. That it implies that there was no change, and that there was change (because “before” means at a previous time).

It is an analogical use of ‘was not’ here, not a simply a temporal one considered univocally. On your view, taken to reductio, we could not speak of the generation and corruption of anything in the universe either . we could not speak of a particular being coming to be as we could not speak of ‘before it existed’. Before here means prior to, prior to the beginning of time there was lack of time, or if you prefer a reformulation: time began when time began. This is not logically contradictory if anything its a tautology. Change and time operate within the material universe. No material universe=no change or time.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Before here means prior to, prior to the beginning of time there was lack of time, or if you prefer a reformulation: time began when time began. This is not logically contradictory if anything its a tautology.

THANK you for wording it that way!

 

[jonathan_hili]

God is defined as changeless as well. Thus, the same argument applies in reverse as I already explained.

Well, I guess this could be approached in two different ways:

(i) God’s “changelessness” is of character or quality, not of action. If His changelessness was of action then He could never have any affect upon the universe that was a continual affect.

(ii) Even if God’s “changelessness” is of action because He is outside time and all moments in time are present to Him, there is no reason why He could not eternally affect changes at specific points along time, just as an author does with the plot of a book.

Yes it does, or else you are committing the special pleading logical fallacy…Yes it would be the case for a personal cause. Or else, you are committing the special pleading fallacy. It seems you have a bad habit of making illogical statements.

It’s not special pleading. A personal entity has a mind and can will things, whereas laws or abstract objects do not. It would only be true, if you assume the above argument (that is, that God is “changeless” and therefore cannot personally affect change) to be true.

If you’re going to deny personal causation as “special pleading”, then it’s like equating the decision of a small boy not to eat chocolate ice-cream but instead have vanilla with the law of gravity.

Ok, it has to be an immaterial cause. This doesn’t mean it has to be God. To make that claim, you would have to rule out all other immaterial possibilities, even ones that haven’t been thought up of yet

I agree, that’s why we have to consider abstract objects, laws, and so on. But I don’t see these as causally efficacious in the way a mind would be. How on earth is someone supposed to rule out immaterial possibilities that haven’t been thought up? Are you serious? Sure, I agree, we should keep an open mind but we always philosophise from what we know now, not what we could hypothetically know in 5,000 years time, or else we could never say anything about anything. The question is: taking what we know, what is the most reasonable or likely cause? And I think it is some kind of mind.

Just because you cannot think of anything else, doesn’t mean there isn’t anything else. This is called the argument from ignorance logical fallacy you are committing.

Now who’s special pleading! Agnostic, if you can give me even one example that is causally efficacious, that’s something, but I think it’s unfair to expect somebody to deny the most reasonable conclusion based on hypothetical possibilities that we don’t even know.

It doesn’t look like a true dichotomy, because this notion has not been defended. Also, you are switching the burden of proof. I do not have to show it’s a false dichotomy, you have to show it’s a true dichotomy. Regardless, it’s a false dichotomy, because a non-sentient per-universe has not been ruled out. Until you rule this out logically or metaphysically, then what you are proposing isn’t a true dichotomy.

Well, it looks like a dichotomy to me, and not to you, and since neither of us seem to be able to prove to the other’s satisfaction, we may just have to agree to disagree. I’m willing to assume it’s a false dichotomy but I do need something to back this us.

False-analogy. Using what we know of, makes sense when dealing with what we know. However you are trying to use what we know, in an area we don’t know (no space or time). Thus, this analogy is not valid.

I don’t think so. What if hypothetically there is a quality that is neither wet nor dry and it is in fact this quality that water has, but we just don’t know. Is this logically impossible? I guess not. So we have to keep an open mind on the matter. To me, this sounds like nonsense and makes a hash of all attempts at knowing the world. I think the issue with the cause is the same.

Now, what do we know about a “pre-universe” state: there’s no space and no time, essentially nothing material. Okay. we need to look at all possibilities, keeping an open mind. However, just because there could be all sorts of logical possibilities that we don’t know (just as with water being wet or dry or X), it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t opt for the most likely possibility.

This is a logically contradictory statement. Nothing means non-existence, thus a pre-universe cannot be non-existence, because the pre-universe would exist…Switching the burden of proof fallacy. If you claim a pre-universe is nothing, you have to explain why. You cannot make a statement, and then ask me to prove you wrong. That’s illogical. If you make a statement, you have to prove it correct.

Okay, I should have said “nothing material”. But even so, what is this “pre-universe”? If it exists, what is it? What properties does it have that are causally effective?

I’m asking that if you want to suggest a third possibility, it has to be a live possibility. If there was a pre-universal state from which the universe began (as an efficient cause) it would have to be causally efficacious. Okay, how could it be so?

That’s not shifting the burden of proof, that’s trying to see whether such a pre-universal state is actually a live option. I mean, I could say, “Before the universe, there existed the state: ‘3’ as an abstract object” but obviously the state ‘3’ would not be able to cause anything because it’s an abstract object, so it’s not a live option.

 

[jonathan_hili]

If by “like God” you mean immaterial/ non-physical, then sure. However, by “like God” you mean personal/ sentient, then there is no justification for that.

Yes there is, if you don’t deny the causally efficacy of minds.

Maybe there is no sufficient cause, just a necessary cause.

Even assuming that the pre-universal state is a necessary condition, it doesn’t show it’s a cause because I can’t see how such a state devoid of any qualities that are causally effective could be a cause. I think for this state to be a live option, you have to at least suggest:
(i) Some qualities of the state, so that it isn’t just words.
(ii) How this state could cause the beginning of the universe.

This would make the hypothesis stronger. Notice, that the “God hypothesis” does this: it gives qualities to God and explains how God could cause things.

Since your arguments contained:
Arguments from ignorance fallacies
Switching the burden of proof fallacies
Special pleading fallacies
False-analofy fallacies
Then your argument is invalid.

Well, it’s good that you’re able to spot logical fallacies so competently, Agnostic, I just wish you could justify your own arguments a bit better so that they are actually viable alternatives.

 

[DrTaffy]

I agree, there is that category distinction. But again, even if the “cause” was “dropping the pebble”, why couldn’t this be expanded to “dropping the pebble” + “the climactic conditions” + etc.?

I’m not sure how this does not answer itself. If you agree that there is a category distinction between the (a priori) static preconditions making up the potential and the dynamic event that triggers the effect at this one point in time rather than any other, how can you not see a good reason for distinguishing between the two?

More specifically, as regards arguments for a first cause, it is explicitly the dynamic part of what you lump together as the ‘cause’ (let’s call it the ‘trigger’) and not the potential that is claimed to lead to either an infinite regress or a ‘first cause’. e.g. Aquinas’ “Omne autem quod movetur, ab alio movetur” etc…

Now, with regards to the first cause argument, the argument actually doesn’t prove or attempt to prove that “God” is the cause but that there must be a first cause, and this first cause was initiated by some X (let’s say “potential”) that was itself uncaused.

Massive disagreement! If the ‘first cause’ was ‘caused’ (or ‘initiated’ as you put it) by something else, then it was not the first cause but the second.

This potential is identified as God, but I guess you could argue it’s not.

Again, you conflate potential with cause, which as stated I disagree with. As, it seems to me, does Aquinas.

It’s just that it’s difficult to understand how it could not be something like God.

Why not? Like many people, the glib “…and we call this thing God” at the end of many cosmological type arguments stikes me as very weak.

A ‘cause’, for example, is a dynamic event (at least as the term ‘cause’ is used in such arguments). ‘God’ is a term normally associated with a sentient entity.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Massive disagreement! If the ‘first cause’ was ‘caused’ (or ‘initiated’ as you put it) by something else, then it was not the first cause but the second.

Whoops! Sorry, that was my mistake. I don’t know why I typed that…

Why not? Like many people, the glib “…and we call this thing God” at the end of many cosmological type arguments strikes me as very weak.

That’s fair enough. I guess if you approach the argument with a belief in God or other arguments that suggest God, you can recognise God as a reasonable conclusion to the argument; but if you approach it from a sceptical perspective, you probably won’t consider God a reasonable conclusion. Ultimately, I think, you are just stuck with the “uncaused cause” and people will interpret this differently.

I definitely don’t think this argument is sufficient by which to reach God as understood in the Judeo-Christian worldview, but it is a good starting point (or step along the way).

 

[DrTaffy]

Whoops! Sorry, that was my mistake. I don’t know why I typed that…

Fair enough. I’ve done worse myself.

I guess if you approach the argument with a belief in God or other arguments that suggest God, you can recognise God as a reasonable conclusion to the argument; but if you approach it from a sceptical perspective, you probably won’t consider God a reasonable conclusion. Ultimately, I think, you are just stuck with the “uncaused cause” and people will interpret this differently.

Certainly there is a huge difference between a proposed proof of God, and an argument about how God relates to such issues as a ‘First Cause’ assuming you already posit the existence of God.

How do you react to the point that (for example) quantum events such as radioactive decay already provide an example of ‘uncaused causes’?

 

[ivebeenshown]

How do you react to the point that (for example) quantum events such as radioactive decay already provide an example of ‘uncaused causes’?

It does not seem logical for there to be an uncaused motion other than one with no beginning. For example, radioactive decay cannot occur unless the decaying substance first exists, so there is at least that contributing material cause.

 

[Julia_Mae]

To me there is no doubt that there is a first cause instead of an infinite regress, but why does this cause have to be an intelligent, personal, and loving God?

It doesn’t. It just ended up that way.

 

[InJesusItrust]

This first cause has to transcend time and hold all things contingent to it. It has to be self-sufficient, the cause that is holding together all natural laws. Laws exist in relation to other laws and matter and energy. The laws look like the product of a mind.

 

[jonathan_hili]

How do you react to the point that (for example) quantum events such as radioactive decay already provide an example of ‘uncaused causes’?

Well, I’d say that depends on how you interpret it. I’m not very knowledgeable about physics but from what I’ve read, there is varied opinion on quantum physics and how to interpret such things. I guess that’s my reaction.

I think these kinds of scientific propositions need time to be clarified and developed. I’m loathe to throw aside an otherwise philosophical truism because of quantum events, at least for the time being.

 

[Theophorus]

.
How do you react to the point that (for example) quantum events such as radioactive decay already provide an example of ‘uncaused causes’?

I’m curious, how does this demonstrate uncaused causation?

That which decays requires a cause of its existence(as a thing with the potential for radioactive decay) before it even begins to decay.

 

[ilikepizza1]

I’m curious, how does this demonstrate uncaused causation?

That which decays requires a cause of its existence(as a thing with the potential for radioactive decay) before it even begins to decay.

Precisely. The logical principle of sufficient reason/proportional causation doesn’t in any way require that things be caused deterministically, merely that all potencies be actualized by already actual entities. In the case of radioactive decay the particle is the formal cause

 

[Linusthe2nd]

To me there is no doubt that there is a first cause instead of an infinite regress, but why does this cause have to be an intelligent, personal, and loving God?

The First Cause has to be God because the First Cause must in a state of Pure Actuality and having no potential either to change or to be changed ( i.e. to have anything added to or subtracted to its Perfection ), must be Infinitely Intelligent, must be Infinitely Powerful, must be Infinitley Good and Wise, must be a Living Being, cannot be a part of the contingent, limited universe but must Transcend it. Only the God of Christianity meets all these requirements. Therefore the First Cause must be the God of Christianity.

Any lesser cause would not be Pure Actuality but would have to be a contingent, limited being. Thus, it could not be the First Cause of the universe.

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

It does not seem logical for there to be an uncaused motion other than one with no beginning. For example, radioactive decay cannot occur unless the decaying substance first exists, so there is at least that contributing material cause.

You, I think, are confusing potential with cause.

Obviously there has to be the potential for an event for an event to happen. But that is not what we mean by ‘cause’ in the phrase ‘cause and effect’ - the question is what triggered a given event.

So while we do indeed talk about an avalanche being ‘caused’ by a build up of snow, that is not the event that triggered the avalanche. It is the dynamic chain of cause and effect that first cause arguments claim to lead to an infinite regress that is only escaped by invoking God. Aquinas explicitly refers to the ‘movement’ from potentiality to actuality.

But in the case of radioactive decay, the potential is there and then suddenly ‘moves’ without external influence from potentiality to actuality.

So you have a concrete example of an uncaused cause. An uncaused motion from potentiality to actuality if you prefer.

If the preexistence of the unstable particle is the problem, use the example of vacuum particle pair creation, where particles pop out of empty vacuum, again without external cause.

That which decays requires a cause of its existence(as a thing with the potential for radioactive decay) before it even begins to decay.

I’m not sure I get your point. Either see above, or possibly you are talking about a logical ‘first cause’ argument, which is a very different kettle of fish from a first cause in the sense “cause and effect” . Or, again, I just don’t get your point.

Well, I’d say that depends on how you interpret it. I’m not very knowledgeable about physics but from what I’ve read, there is varied opinion on quantum physics and how to interpret such things. I guess that’s my reaction.

Would you know who I was referring to if I said that Sir Humphrey Appleby would be proud of you?

 

[jonathan_hili]

Would you know who I was referring to if I said that Sir Humphrey Appleby would be proud of you?

Haha… I wonder if that’s a compliment? Humpy, proud of me, really?

 

[Theophorus]

.I’m not sure I get your point. Either see above, or possibly you are talking about a logical ‘first cause’ argument, which is a very different kettle of fish from a first cause in the sense “cause and effect” . Or, again, I just don’t get your point.

I think the problem may be with the understanding of the word ‘cause’. You appear to be refering to direct efficent causality only(maybe direct material causality at a push) while disregarding formal causality completely(we’ll leave final causality out of the argument). Now while empirical science should indeed limit itself to material and efficent causality, to say that theses are the only modes of causality, and should only be considered in relation to their direct effects is rather a push.

Getting back to the radioactive decay argument, spontaneous generation/emission cannot be said to be uncaused causation as that which exists has the potential to decay as part of what it is, rather it is the cause is wrapped up with what it is to be a radioactive element. The element exists and as a result of its existence undergoes radioactive decay

This argument remains on the level of being(ontological level) rather than being restricted to the logical level.

Now my understanding of vacuum particle pair creation is admitidly limited(its been a number of years since I’ve last glanced at atomic orbitals), but don’t they usually require an interaction between a nucleus and a proton or some such?

Even this requires some chain of causation if memory serves?

 

[ivebeenshown]

You, I think, are confusing potential with cause.

Obviously there has to be the potential for an event for an event to happen. But that is not what we mean by ‘cause’ in the phrase ‘cause and effect’ - the question is what triggered a given event.

So while we do indeed talk about an avalanche being ‘caused’ by a build up of snow, that is not the event that triggered the avalanche. It is the dynamic chain of cause and effect that first cause arguments claim to lead to an infinite regress that is only escaped by invoking God. Aquinas explicitly refers to the ‘movement’ from potentiality to actuality.

“What triggered a given event”, as you put it, would be called an efficient cause. But a home run cannot be hit unless the playing field exists, and so this contribution to the event (the playing field) would be considered a material cause.

But in the case of radioactive decay, the potential is there and then suddenly ‘moves’ without external influence from potentiality to actuality.

So you have a concrete example of an uncaused cause. An uncaused motion from potentiality to actuality if you prefer.

If we can observe a motion beginning, we can rightly assume that there is some efficient cause, whether internal or external to the moving substance, regardless of whether or not we can discern what that cause is. It seems illogical to propose a motion that begins without any cause, but all the while necessary to propose an immutable motion with no beginning or cause.

If the preexistence of the unstable particle is the problem, use the example of vacuum particle pair creation, where particles pop out of empty vacuum, again without external cause.

Vacuum is space devoid of matter, but not necessarily energy or ‘dark matter’, and on top of this, perfect vacuum is largely theoretical – a possibility, but not obtainable in a lab environment. When I discuss a ‘material cause’, I don’t just mean matter as modern physicists refer to, but ‘prime matter’, which includes all physical entities: dark matter, energy, virtual particles, etc. (I assume that you are referring to virtual particles.)