Freedom of action flows from free will, which is an operation of the intellect.
Terms like “principle of its own free operation” or “freedom of action” are unclear. That’s why I used Rete’s “Otherwise, the first cause itself cannot be the first cause, since it would have to be induced by something else to create the universe” which is far more explicit.
If you actually do mean that only intellect can initiate a chain of efficient cause-and-effect without itself being ‘induced’ to do so by a prior efficient cause, see below.
Also, I’m not sure what you’re arguing for here. Are you arguing for determinism?
Not arguing
for anything so much as trying to get you to clarify your argument by challenging what I see as its shortcomings or ambiguities.
But at the same time, if God exists, there would be no such temporal discursive operation of cause and effect in the act of intellection.
It is far from clear that ‘intelligence’ means anything in the absence of temporal cause-and-effect thought processes.
A particle does not decay “for no reason.” Sure, there may not be any determinable efficient reasons, but there is always a formal reason for its decay, namely its own nature.
So what? Look at the context again. If the assertion is that only ‘intelligence’ can be the start of a sequence of efficient cause-and-effect without itself being prompted by an efficient cause, this would seem to be a counterexample. The particle decays due to nothing but its own nature, just as the first cause is alleged to have started the ball rolling due to nothing but its own nature.
If you count ‘its own nature’ as a cause, then even a classic Catholic God choosing to create the Universe has a ‘formal cause’ - his own nature.
This is where I think it is useful to keep the distinctions between efficient cause and other kinds of causes in mind. Most people tend to think of cause simply in terms of the former.
You are the one who raised the assertion that “there cannot be an infinite regress of efficient causes” - again, your words, my emphasis. That was the assertion I was responding to, so was in fact already explicitly limited to efficient causes
by you.
I think this is a case of “special pleading”. All science is based on the treatment of the relationship between cause and effect; we have no experience of non-caused entities.
We have experience of ‘entities’ with no
efficient cause, if we accept QM.
If we accept something’s own nature as a ‘cause’ of that thing or its actions, then it seems trivial that
nothing is uncaused.
What is the meaning of “dynamic thing”
The clap is moving around the circle, in time, so is dynamic. And it is far from clear that there is anything in a causal loop that corresponds to the clap.
And no, this does not constitute an argument that infinite regress (I’m not sure why you switched to talking about loops) is
possible, it explains why you have not shown that they are
impossible.
As I said, I do not want to side-track the thread with (yet another) thread on infinite regress.
You were the one who raised the topic.
Did I in fact say that? I don’t think so.
You said that: “Logic is a discursive method of argumentation.” I would say that it is more than that, that the discursive methods are simply what we use to explore the reality of Logic.
If you
accept that logic has fundamental reality independant of the discursive methods we use to explore it, then your objection to my comment about intelligence becomes meaningless.
I think this is a straw man. You’re putting words in my mouth. I think if you reread my last post, I have said none of this.
If you read my post, you will see that I have not said that you have.
Again, I have not said this.
Of
course you haven’t, that was me explaining
my reasoning to you, for the second time at
your request. You really need to go back and read the sequence of comments again.
DrTaffy;10822813:
No - we don’t need to rule out the other ‘causes’ …]we just need to agree that the pebble is a
cause, and is not ‘greater than’ the avalanche in any normal sense of that phrase. That disproves the assertion that “every cause is greater than its effects” (your words, my emphasis).
I am having a hard time understanding why this is posing a problem for you. It seems evident to me that the builder of a house is qualitatively superior in terms of cause and effect than the house he builds.
Likewise, I am having a hard time understanding why this is posing a problem for you.
Your assertion was that “every cause is greater than its effects”.
The pebble is a cause of the avalanche, and is not ‘greater than’ the avalanche in any normal sense of the word.
This disproves the assertion. QED
One example (your builder) of a cause that is ‘greater than’ its effect does not prove that “every cause is greater than its effects”. One counterexample (the pebble)
does disprove it, however.
Now if you are using ‘greater than’ merely to mean ‘prior to, in the sequence of cause and effect’, the assertion is trivially true, but does not lead to the conclusion that the first cause is intelligent.
