Philosophy: First Cause is. Everything else is becoming.

[Mark Quayle]

This is a well-reasoned and easy to follow description of the difference between God and everything else. It is a good introduction for, among many other subjects, the philosophical question of objective morality.

R.C. Sproul: Before the Beginning: The Aseity of God - Bing video

Edit: post #8 has a poor synopsis, for those who don't have the time or data limits or inclination.

 

[Astrid]

" well reasoned"

 

[Mark Quayle]

" well reasoned"

I'm not sure if you are agreeing or being sarcastic, or what you are saying...

 

[Tinker Grey]

IBTL

 

[Astrid]

I'm not sure if you are agreeing or being sarcastic, or what you are saying...

You can't tell if referred to passage is well reason ovor noy?

 

[Mark Quayle]

You can't tell if referred to passage is well reason ovor noy?

I agree it was well-reasoned or I would not have called it well reasoned. I just didn't know if you, simply posting the words, "well reasoned", meant to agree or what. I see you do, so GREAT! and thank you.

 

[Ken-1122]

This is a well-reasoned and easy to follow description of the difference between God and everything else. It is a good introduction for, among many other subjects, the philosophical question of objective morality.

R.C. Sproul: Before the Beginning: The Aseity of God - Bing video

Wow! Nearly an hour long. Any chance you can give a quick brief of what this is that you agree with, for those of us who don't have time (or patience) for such a long video?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Wow! Nearly an hour long. Any chance you can give a quick brief of what this is that you agree with, for those of us who don't have time (or patience) for such a long video?

I can try, but a synopsis doesn't do it justice. The main force I wanted folks to see begins very near the beginning, and is mostly in the first half, with some important points in the last half. I understand you though, because I have to use my phone for a hotspot, on limited data. But it was so good, I watched it the whole way through anyhow. Let me try to find the spots, or parts, I most wanted you to see.

Wow, this is harder than I thought it would be. Times are approximate: If one is a believer, I suggest they start at the beginning, but for others, maybe at 1:40, which is just preliminary orientation to what he is going to say, or maybe at 5:46 where he begins the real content and thinking/reasoning, yet still introductory to his point. 9:45 is important, but 8:40 is where the thought begins, and I would stay with him from there on, til

10:20 Ancient philosopher Parmenides said, "What is, is.", which Sproul expands to "For something to exist, there has to be being". But, Parmenides' counterpart, Heraclitus, said that there is no such thing as being, because everything we observe in the world around us, is becoming, and that the only thing constant in the universe, is change. Sproul explains that we can distinguish between that which IS, in a permanent, eternal, non-changing, non-state of flux, being, and that which is BECOMING —anything that manifests the characteristics or the attribute of becoming. He says that the ancient Greeks got it right, that if there is being, real being, it must be eternal, unchanging being, AND must the basis for everything else that 'is', because without being, there can be no becoming.

17:43 - 18:25 As Aristotle shows, if something is in a pure state of becoming, it is in a pure state of potentiality, with no actuality. At 18:26 Sproul goes into a side story, but related.

20:16 Our state of being is one of BECOMING —not BEING. This is what differentiates us from God. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" is one of the most fundamental assertions of Christianity, and it is the most bombarded target of secular philosophy and neo-paganism in our day.

21:38 - 25:00 forward: Sproul had an opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan, pretty compelling stuff. If we can go back 15 billion years to one nanosecond before a stable singularity exploded this whole universe into being, why stop there? Sagan: we don't have to go there. Sproul: Yes, you do! If you are a scientist, you can't ignore the implications: Something caused this.

Something that IS, caused what BECAME.

25:00 - 27:00 forward: If there ever was nothing, no being, no becoming, no potentiality, no actuality, NOTHING, what would there be now?

28:44 Without being, there can be no becoming. And if there was a beginning, there was NOT nothing before it. But there was one who has the power of BEING, in himself.
God is pure being, there is no becoming in him. God does not have a learning curve. He's not evolving into a higher form of being.

32:30 Thomas Aquinas and the philosophical or theological term, "necessary being": dependent on nothing else for existence; such a "necessary being" cannot NOT be.

35:20 God knows all the contingencies (such as of a chess match), but he knows nothing contingently.

36:30 humor: "I'm a human becoming"

36:45 "There's no 'might have been' in his being."

37:30 God's being is 1) ontologically necessary
38:50 God's being is 2) logically necessary (aside: Sproul has a problem with his Christian contemporaries who have abandoned attempts to prove the existence of God from a rational basis: The existence of God is logically necessary. If anything exists, God exists.) If anything exists, something has to have the power of being within itself (or nothing exists).

41:00 The Apostle Paul's speech to the philosophers at Mars Hill: "The God in whom we live and move and have our being."

 

[Mark Quayle]

IBTL

IBTL?

 

[Tinker Grey]

IBTL?

"In Before The Lock".

I anticipate that your OP will be judged to be off topic to the sub-forum.

 

[Mark Quayle]

"In Before The Lock".

I anticipate that your OP will be judged to be off topic to the sub-forum.

Could be, though I had hoped to begin a conversation concerning objective morality. I admit that my MAIN objective in putting the OP in THIS forum, was to include atheists, agnostics and skeptics in a conversation about what Sproul discusses. (As an aside: I believe some atheists can admit to some of the concepts Sproul presents, more easily than even some believers do.)

 

[Tinker Grey]

Could be, though I had hoped to begin a conversation concerning objective morality. I admit that my MAIN objective in putting the OP in THIS forum, was to include atheists, agnostics and skeptics in a conversation about what Sproul discusses. (As an aside: I believe some atheists can admit to some of the concepts Sproul presents, more easily than even some believers do.)

Might be interesting in the Physical Sciences sub-forum (w/o the "philosophy" prefix).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Might be interesting in the Physical Sciences sub-forum (w/o the "philosophy" prefix).

Good idea. Mods, is there a way to change it?

 

[Ken-1122]

I can try, but a synopsis doesn't do it justice. The main force I wanted folks to see begins very near the beginning, and is mostly in the first half, with some important points in the last half. I understand you though, because I have to use my phone for a hotspot, on limited data. But it was so good, I watched it the whole way through anyhow. Let me try to find the spots, or parts, I most wanted you to see.

Wow, this is harder than I thought it would be. Times are approximate: If one is a believer, I suggest they start at the beginning, but for others, maybe at 1:40, which is just preliminary orientation to what he is going to say, or maybe at 5:46 where he begins the real content and thinking/reasoning, yet still introductory to his point. 9:45 is important, but 8:40 is where the thought begins, and I would stay with him from there on, til

10:20 Ancient philosopher Parmenides said, "What is, is.", which Sproul expands to "For something to exist, there has to be being". But, Parmenides' counterpart, Heraclitus, said that there is no such thing as being, because everything we observe in the world around us, is becoming, and that the only thing constant in the universe, is change. Sproul explains that we can distinguish between that which IS, in a permanent, eternal, non-changing, non-state of flux, being, and that which is BECOMING —anything that manifests the characteristics or the attribute of becoming. He says that the ancient Greeks got it right, that if there is being, real being, it must be eternal, unchanging being, AND must the basis for everything else that 'is', because without being, there can be no becoming.

17:43 - 18:25 As Aristotle shows, if something is in a pure state of becoming, it is in a pure state of potentiality, with no actuality. At 18:26 Sproul goes into a side story, but related.

20:16 Our state of being is one of BECOMING —not BEING. This is what differentiates us from God. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" is one of the most fundamental assertions of Christianity, and it is the most bombarded target of secular philosophy and neo-paganism in our day.

21:38 - 25:00 forward: Sproul had an opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan, pretty compelling stuff. If we can go back 15 billion years to one nanosecond before a stable singularity exploded this whole universe into being, why stop there? Sagan: we don't have to go there. Sproul: Yes, you do! If you are a scientist, you can't ignore the implications: Something caused this.

Something that IS, caused what BECAME.

25:00 - 27:00 forward: If there ever was nothing, no being, no becoming, no potentiality, no actuality, NOTHING, what would there be now?

28:44 Without being, there can be no becoming. And if there was a beginning, there was NOT nothing before it. But there was one who has the power of BEING, in himself.
God is pure being, there is no becoming in him. God does not have a learning curve. He's not evolving into a higher form of being.

32:30 Thomas Aquinas and the philosophical or theological term, "necessary being": dependent on nothing else for existence; such a "necessary being" cannot NOT be.

35:20 God knows all the contingencies (such as of a chess match), but he knows nothing contingently.

36:30 humor: "I'm a human becoming"

36:45 "There's no 'might have been' in his being."

37:30 God's being is 1) ontologically necessary
38:50 God's being is 2) logically necessary (aside: Sproul has a problem with his Christian contemporaries who have abandoned attempts to prove the existence of God from a rational basis: The existence of God is logically necessary. If anything exists, God exists.) If anything exists, something has to have the power of being within itself (or nothing exists).

41:00 The Apostle Paul's speech to the philosophers at Mars Hill: "The God in whom we live and move and have our being."

My question is about the part that says

Something that IS caused what BECAME.

Now obviously they feel God IS and created everything else that BECAME; and God is described as a sentient being. But just because something IS doesn’t mean it has to be something that is conscious it could be inanimate objects reacting to chemical reactions. Your thoughts?

 

[Mark Quayle]

My question is about the part that says

Something that IS caused what BECAME.

Now obviously they feel God IS and created everything else that BECAME; and God is described as a sentient being. But just because something IS doesn’t mean it has to be something that is conscious it could be inanimate objects reacting to chemical reactions. Your thoughts?

I heard Sproul's progression of thought as coming from the fact that we can see that there is existence. But that existence we see (as Heraclitus said), is in a constant state of flux, not being eternal and consistent. Heraclitus is said to make the pronouncement: "The only constant fact is change". Sproul is working off the claim that what changes is impermanent, or has a beginning, and what has a beginning has a cause for its beginning. Also, that cause at the end (or beginning, if you prefer) of the chain of causation, is the first cause. Thus we have what is, or being, as opposed to effects, or becomings. The fact we have effects necessarily implies that there is a first cause.

I don't recall him dealing, in the video, specifically with the idea that first cause must be sentient, or as some use the term, "with intent". There are several ways to come at the question, and I forget the one I meant to begin with in pursuit of the other distracting one, so bear with me:

If something is an inanimate object reacting to chemical reactions, it is not only not first cause, but also it is not self-existent. I don't mean that an inanimate object cannot have chemical reactions from within itself, though that is also a consideration, but that the inanimate object, which I refer to as "mechanical fact", is not austere, its nature is not aseity, nor simplicity, but, rather, it is composed of parts, and if influenced by chemical reactions, is not "is", or being, but "changing", or becoming.

Edit: Forgive this word salad. I had meant to organize it, and didn't even realize I had sent it. As I said of another post, I am not satisfied with it either. But comments are welcome. I like the way you make me think.

 

[Ken-1122]

I heard Sproul's progression of thought as coming from the fact that we can see that there is existence. But that existence we see (as Heraclitus said), is in a constant state of flux, not being eternal and consistent. Heraclitus is said to make the pronouncement: "The only constant fact is change". Sproul is working off the claim that what changes is impermanent, or has a beginning,

What does he base this on? Why would he just assume something eternal would not be in a constant state of change?

If something is an inanimate object reacting to chemical reactions, it is not only not first cause, but also it is not self-existent. I don't mean that an inanimate object cannot have chemical reactions from within itself, though that is also a consideration, but that the inanimate object, which I refer to as "mechanical fact", is not austere, its nature is not aseity, nor simplicity, but, rather, it is composed of parts, and if influenced by chemical reactions, is not "is", or being, but "changing", or becoming.

If “X” is an inanimate object, and the chemical reactions X is responding to thus causing his change is a part of X, even though X is changing or becoming, why can’t this X exist eternally under such conditions?

 

[Moral Orel]

If something is an inanimate object reacting to chemical reactions, it is not only not first cause, but also it is not self-existent. I don't mean that an inanimate object cannot have chemical reactions from within itself, though that is also a consideration, but that the inanimate object, which I refer to as "mechanical fact", is not austere, its nature is not aseity, nor simplicity, but, rather, it is composed of parts, and if influenced by chemical reactions, is not "is", or being, but "changing", or becoming.

But the parts are the things that "is". The universe can be composed of different fundamental parts that are unchanging in themselves. Consider this analogy:

Think of atoms. Atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. We could go deeper and talk about quarks and such, but let's just stick to this simplistic analogy. An atom gains a proton or neutron or electron, and it becomes a different kind of atom. Okay, so atoms change. But none of the individual parts changed.

The emergent object might change, but the individual parts did not.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What does he base this on? Why would he just assume something eternal would not be in a constant state of change?

At the risk of repeating myself, because what is BECOMING, requires an IS to cause it. Becoming is potentiality, not actuality. You would be calling a process, self-existent.

If “X” is an inanimate object, and the chemical reactions X is responding to thus causing his change is a part of X, even though X is changing or becoming, why can’t this X exist eternally under such conditions?

It's an awful big 'if', built on pure imagination of what is possible, without any actual knowledge of whether it is possible. For instance, does it make sense that such a process could continue doing this eternally, with no beginning? Sounds like infinite regression of causes.

And, I think you must add, that in the end the changing it is cyclical for X, because if not, this also is, in a way, the argument for infinite regression of causes, that some claim answers the need for first cause.

But yeah, this will have to stew a while, because I haven't produced any answers yet that really satisfy me logically either.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But the parts are the things that "is". The universe can be composed of different fundamental parts that are unchanging in themselves. Consider this analogy:

Think of atoms. Atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. We could go deeper and talk about quarks and such, but let's just stick to this simplistic analogy. An atom gains a proton or neutron or electron, and it becomes a different kind of atom. Okay, so atoms change. But none of the individual parts changed.

The emergent object might change, but the individual parts did not.

Interesting thought!

But I'm not sure what you are getting at. If the "atom" is added to from outside itself, (obviously from an outside source) it is no longer self-existent.

But you are saying that the conglomeration is not the self-existent thing, but rather its various parts are. Have we stopped at the "God particle"? How much deeper than "atom" are we going to go to have given up thinking, "But, the parts!"

But, ironically, I like your analogy because if taken to apply to quarks and leptons and deeper, if they ever find the most basic component of matter/energy, I suspect they will indeed have found something of "IS" there. I like to think that component is made of something very physical indeed: The love of God. Very particular, very involved, very pervasive and essential, VERY basic, and several other things relevant to the notion, but more of a religious nature: prophesies and how they could be possible, for example, or God knowing all things, and God's specific control of absolutely all things, creation itself from apparently nothing, God's love of all things, God's ability to, for example, raise the dead from scattered ashes, "the rocks themselves would cry out", Psalm 19, and all creation praising God, and "in him we live and move and have our being", and so on.

 

[Moral Orel]

But I'm not sure what you are getting at. If the "atom" is added to from outside itself, (obviously from an outside source) it is no longer self-existent.

Like I said, the atom changes, the parts of the atom do not.

But you are saying that the conglomeration is not the self-existent thing, but rather its various parts are.

Yep.

Have we stopped at the "God particle"? How much deeper than "atom" are we going to go to have given up thinking, "But, the parts!"

Like I said, I'm simply offering an analogy. Going deeper requires extra science. That extra science isn't necessary for the analogy to get the point across.

Point is that the things you point to as "changing" are really just changing configurations of parts that might not be changing.

But, ironically, I like your analogy because if taken to apply to quarks and leptons and deeper, if they ever find the most basic component of matter/energy, I suspect they will indeed have found something of "IS" there.

I actually agree with this. I think there is eternally existing stuff of a fundamental nature. Trouble for you is that if there is eternally existing stuff, we don't need a conscious mind, so the first cause need not be "God".