Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If "fact" existed before a supposed "first cause", it is a principle from outside of that supposed "first cause"; therefore it is not first cause after all, but the principle of "fact" is first cause, unless something else caused the principle of "fact".
If a principle is fact "before" (I mean a logical "before", as demanded by cause-and-effect --not necessarily a time-"before") a supposed first cause, first cause is subject to it, and not the other way around. First Cause must CAUSE all things, including fact and principle, or it does not make sense to say it is first cause.I apologize for digging back a ways, but I was wondering if you could elaborate on this statement. Because as far as I can tell, it's a nonsensical assertion. You seem to be attempting some sort of logic here, but it falls flat.
So you are suggesting multiple causes?
Correct. Agreed.(Emphasis added.) This applies with especial strength to assertions that one has perceived a truth, but has no universally accessible evidence to support it. All that can then say with confidence of the assertion is that is an opinion that might, or might not, mirror some aspects of the truth.
If a principle is fact "before" (I mean a logical "before", as demanded by cause-and-effect --not necessarily a time-"before") a supposed first cause, first cause is subject to it, and not the other way around. First Cause must CAUSE all things, including fact and principle, or it does not make sense to say it is first cause.
My bad. I don't know how I have used "cause" incoherently, as you seem to imply, but:No, it's not my posit. I haven't posited anything in this discussion. I was merely encouraging you to define and use "cause" in a coherent manner. It would make it easier to understand your argument.
Assuming you mean by "reality", something we can put a handle on to carry around in our heads, I would agree (ignoring, of course, the obvious fact that there is such a thing as existence, that science isn't ready to explain yet). But that isn't reality. That is mere concept.You're claim OF A FIRST CAUSE is just something you need, nothing to do with reality
You haven't gone deep enough into it. If you are going to argue on the basis of classical metaphysics it's best to start with the originator of the discipline:My bad. I don't know how I have used "cause" incoherently, as you seem to imply, but:
Per Google:
"cause
/kôz/
noun 1.a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
"the cause of the accident is not clear
Also per Google:
Similar:
source, root, origin, beginning(s), starting point, seed"
"First Cause
noun
PHILOSOPHY
- a supposed ultimate cause of all events, which does not itself have a cause, identified with God."
I do not hold exactly to Google's definition of First Cause, unless by "all events" is implied "all effects", whether immediate or subsequent ("by proxy" so to speak). (To me all effects are not only subsequent but immediate to First Cause, but that is another discussion)..
As far as I know, the logical principle of Cause-and-Effect rules all considerations right back to First Cause. I have seen no reason to believe otherwise. If you can show me how it can be otherwise, we can discuss that, though I have already done so ad infinitum. Maybe you can show me where I went incoherent or even incogent.
I believe it was Post #1348 you were shown a viable alternative to your claims, you have yet to respond.For my personal satisfaction, I agree, I "need" first cause, as an end to otherwise infinite regression. As I have said before, so far, nobody has shown me any viable alternative.
I'm of course assuming multiple causes, as is self-evident. Almost all effects are also causes, even the motions of a butterfly cause effects. But I am positing there can be only ONE First Cause.
I don't. All causes that happen at the same time are simultaneous.How did you eliminate multiple simultaneous causes?
I believe it was Post #1348 you were shown a viable alternative to your claims, you have yet to respond.
You are asking me how could rocks exist by themselves? Really? What could possibly prevent material and energy from existing by itself?
Mark says: “Eternal existing” is not the same as “self caused”.
You were insisting the first cause had to be singular, conscious, intelligent, animate etc; I was pointing out it was not necessary to be all of those things.I'm not sure how that is a viable alternative,
So you agree the first cause could be inanimate, like material or energy?but to answer the question of that post:
In and of itself means its existence does not depend on anything else. No cause at all.
Yes First Cause has to be singular, conscious, intelligent, animate, among other things. Where do you get the idea I now agree first cause could be inanimate, like material or energy? If from discussing "in and of itself" I was only pointing out what existence "in and of itself" means; I am NOT saying first cause could be inanimate, nor that anything except first cause can exist in and of itself.You were insisting the first cause had to be singular, conscious, intelligent, animate etc; I was pointing out it was not necessary to be all of those things.
So you agree the first cause could be inanimate, like material or energy?
Why does it have to be all of those things?Yes First Cause has to be singular, conscious, intelligent, animate, among other things.
There ARE (present tense) multiple simultaneous causes. I never said there were multiple simultaneous FIRST causes. In fact I went out of my way to say there could not have been multiple First Causes.So you admit that maybe there was no first cause, but instead multiple simultaneous causes?
This is a mistake because it implies that the infinite past is a point in time from which you start. In an infinite temporal past extent, no time is privileged; between any two points in time there is always a finite amount of time and any point in time has an infinite past.- An infinite sequence of cause and effect. The obvious problem here is that with an infinite chain, we would never arrive at the present... unless at some point the sequence passes outside of what we conceive as spacetime, in some weird and incomprehensible way.
That is NOT a reliable long term basis for faith!Dad says that complexity of human DNA proves that there is an intelligent creator behind the existence of mankind. He points to that as evidence of GOD and of his faith.
This is a mistake because it implies that the infinite past is a point in time from which you start.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?