(July 13, 2019 at 11:03 pm)Belaqua Wrote: You have argued that there must be existence. That non-existence makes no sense. Since it is one of the main claims of traditional theology that God just IS existence, and that he is necessary because existence is necessary, you're not actually arguing against a First Cause (as described by Aristotle or Thomas).

If God just IS existence, then that's not anywhere close to the God that most Christians believe in. I don't even think Aquinas saw God that way either.

(July 14, 2019 at 7:54 pm)sdelsolray Wrote:

(July 13, 2019 at 7:59 am)Nogba Wrote: ...Second law of thermodynamics says that the energy is decreasing over time
and some day will be consumed.
...

It does not say that at all.

Study hard.

He is wrong about that, and has been thoroughly schooled on his errors on another forum. Not only is he wrong, he appears to be incapable of learning.
He even posted a video on the subject which DOES NOT say what he claims it says. He has a severe problem.

(July 14, 2019 at 7:39 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

Quote:I keep coming back to the same problem in my mind. Aristotelian thinking seems to insinuate that existence is in some way separate, or beyond, or ontologically different from that which exists; that existence can somehow be “prior” to things existing. I feel like that’s unnecessary. It’s a tautology. Existence is simply a state of being. The cosmos exist. Earth exists. This pencil exists. I’ve asked this before, but I’d like to address the question again: do you think that there is a good reason why we shouldn’t accept existence as a brute fact?  Is there a good reason to believe that “the cosmos” and “existence” can’t be synonymous terms?

I don't think Aristotle makes that separation. (I wish I spoke Greek so I could look at his grammar.) It is a brute fact that stuff exists. It is logically incoherent to talk about a state of absolute nothingness.

Yes, that’s exactly what I mean.

Quote:Therefore, the brute fact of stuff existing is the First Cause. It is the deepest foundation of talking about all the various stuff. 

So people may say that the First Cause is the Ground of Being, or existence, or -- in an attempt to be more careful -- the unavoidability of stuff being around. When we say that, for example, the continued existence of space-time depends for its continuation on the brute fact that there has to be stuff, we have come to the necessary end of the chain. Which makes it the First Cause.

But, if things exist necessarily; if existence is not contingent on any other pre-condition; if stuff exists simply because there is no alternative, why call it a “cause” at all? My understanding of the way most theists utilize this argument is to say that there has to be some uncaused thing that caused stuff to exist, and that thing is god. God, in this commonly presented version of the argument, is entirely separate and categorically different from the reality it caused to exist. 

Quote:The word "prior" is misleading because we are so used to using it in a temporal sense. But in logic, it just means X has to be the case for Y to be the case. Or in the present discussion, there has to be stuff in order for there to be hydrogen. The fact that there is stuff isn't a "cause" in the modern English sense of an act or event which made something else come about.

Right. That’s what I was getting at above. So, if this is the correct philosophical  interpretation of first cause arguments, then I can’t see why theists think it’s an argument for god.

Quote:Whether all this is true -- that existence is inevitable and nothingness is nonsense -- I can't say. But in terms of a First Cause, it is part of the old argument.

This would make for a great thread in the philosophy sub forum!

*ducks as the philosophy-haters throw tomatoes*

(July 15, 2019 at 12:44 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(July 13, 2019 at 11:03 pm)Belaqua Wrote: You have argued that there must be existence. That non-existence makes no sense. Since it is one of the main claims of traditional theology that God just IS existence, and that he is necessary because existence is necessary, you're not actually arguing against a First Cause (as described by Aristotle or Thomas).

If God just IS existence, then that's not anywhere close to the God that most Christians believe in. I don't even think Aquinas saw God that way either.

Christians believe in God as First Cause. As has been pointed out, showing that the First Cause is also good, conscious, etc., is not part of the First Cause argument. You need additional arguments for that.

---

(July 15, 2019 at 3:31 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: But, if things exist necessarily; if existence is not contingent on any other pre-condition; if stuff exists simply because there is no alternative, why call it a “cause” at all? My understanding of the way most theists utilize this argument is to say that there has to be some uncaused thing that caused stuff to exist, and that thing is god. God, in this commonly presented version of the argument, is entirely separate and categorically different from the reality it caused to exist. 

I despair of ever getting people to see what Aristotle used the word "cause" for. The word has a very specific meaning in modern English, and it seems hard to get past that. 

In the First Cause argument, it just means "something you have to have for something else to exist." 

So for example, if you have a bronze statue, the bronze is called the "material cause." Not because the bronze took some action to make the statue, but because a statue has to be made of something, and in this case it's bronze. 

(It's not so unusual for philosophical language to have a special sense. If you talk about Plato's Eros, or Kant's Intuition, those words don't mean the same thing as in common English conversation. To talk about those philosophers, we have to learn the vocabulary. Also Gothic art has nothing to do with the Goths, and the World Series excludes most of the world.)

The First Cause is separate and different because it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence. Everything else relies on the First Cause (and a chain of other stuff) to exist. 

Quote:So, if this is the correct philosophical  interpretation of first cause arguments, then I can’t see why theists think it’s an argument for god.

It's part of an argument. To show that the First Cause is also good, conscious, etc. needs more argument.

Well. If we’ve seen the best argument for a god...........

(July 15, 2019 at 2:36 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(July 14, 2019 at 7:54 pm)sdelsolray Wrote: It does not say that at all.

Study hard.

Quote:Second law of thermodynamics says that the energy is decreasing over time
and some day will be consumed.

Actually it says PRECISELY the opposite.

He is wrong about that, and has been thoroughly schooled on his errors on another forum. Not only is he wrong, he appears to be incapable of learning.
He even posted a video on the subject which DOES NOT say what he claims it says. He has a severe problem.


entropy
noun
en·tro·py| \ ˈen-trə-pē      \
plural entropies
Definition of entropy

1 thermodynamics : a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system

2a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity Entropy is the general trend of the universe toward death and disorder.— James R. Newman
b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder The deterioration of copy editing and proof-reading, incidentally, is a token of the cultural entropy that has overtaken us in the postwar years.— John Simon

3 : chaos, disorganization, randomness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law...modynamics
"The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time."

---

(July 15, 2019 at 5:12 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(July 15, 2019 at 12:44 pm)Grandizer Wrote: If God just IS existence, then that's not anywhere close to the God that most Christians believe in. I don't even think Aquinas saw God that way either.

Christians believe in God as First Cause. As has been pointed out, showing that the First Cause is also good, conscious, etc., is not part of the First Cause argument. You need additional arguments for that.

---

(July 15, 2019 at 3:31 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: But, if things exist necessarily; if existence is not contingent on any other pre-condition; if stuff exists simply because there is no alternative, why call it a “cause” at all? My understanding of the way most theists utilize this argument is to say that there has to be some uncaused thing that caused stuff to exist, and that thing is god. God, in this commonly presented version of the argument, is entirely separate and categorically different from the reality it caused to exist. 

I despair of ever getting people to see what Aristotle used the word "cause" for. The word has a very specific meaning in modern English, and it seems hard to get past that. 

In the First Cause argument, it just means "something you have to have for something else to exist." 

So for example, if you have a bronze statue, the bronze is called the "material cause." Not because the bronze took some action to make the statue, but because a statue has to be made of something, and in this case it's bronze. 

(It's not so unusual for philosophical language to have a special sense. If you talk about Plato's Eros, or Kant's Intuition, those words don't mean the same thing as in common English conversation. To talk about those philosophers, we have to learn the vocabulary. Also Gothic art has nothing to do with the Goths, and the World Series excludes most of the world.)

The First Cause is separate and different because it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence. Everything else relies on the First Cause (and a chain of other stuff) to exist. 

Quote:So, if this is the correct philosophical  interpretation of first cause arguments, then I can’t see why theists think it’s an argument for god.

It's part of an argument. To show that the First Cause is also good, conscious, etc. needs more argument.

But it's a trick. It's not an argument for "first" anything. It's an argument for a cause, not "first" cause.
Proximate cause .... ie "nearest cause", not first cause.
An omnipotent deity (in their world) could create any number of levels of universe makers, and one of them could be (in their logic) the cause of the universe.
In fact, this same deity could have created robotic universe creators who are sitting somewhere playing "evil universe" .... how many children can we give cancer to, today ?

(July 15, 2019 at 5:25 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: But it's a trick. It's not an argument for "first" anything. It's an argument for a cause, not "first" cause.
Proximate cause .... ie "nearest cause", not first cause.
An omnipotent deity (in their world) could create any number of levels of universe makers, and one of them could be (in their logic) the cause of the universe.
In fact, this same deity could have created robotic universe creators who are sitting somewhere playing "evil universe" .... how many children can we give cancer to, today ?

The First Cause argument is specifically an argument that one cause has to be first.

Of course there are nutty or insincere people who will make up whatever they feel like. And not just among the religious. 

There are also sincere people who work on what they think is good logic. You can disagree with the conclusions of their argument, but it's not fair to say they're just being tricky.

(July 15, 2019 at 5:12 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(July 15, 2019 at 12:44 pm)Grandizer Wrote: If God just IS existence, then that's not anywhere close to the God that most Christians believe in. I don't even think Aquinas saw God that way either.

Christians believe in God as First Cause. As has been pointed out, showing that the First Cause is also good, conscious, etc., is not part of the First Cause argument. You need additional arguments for that.

---

(July 15, 2019 at 3:31 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: But, if things exist necessarily; if existence is not contingent on any other pre-condition; if stuff exists simply because there is no alternative, why call it a “cause” at all? My understanding of the way most theists utilize this argument is to say that there has to be some uncaused thing that caused stuff to exist, and that thing is god. God, in this commonly presented version of the argument, is entirely separate and categorically different from the reality it caused to exist. 

I despair of ever getting people to see what Aristotle used the word "cause" for. The word has a very specific meaning in modern English, and it seems hard to get past that. 

In the First Cause argument, it just means "something you have to have for something else to exist." 

So for example, if you have a bronze statue, the bronze is called the "material cause." Not because the bronze took some action to make the statue, but because a statue has to be made of something, and in this case it's bronze. 

(It's not so unusual for philosophical language to have a special sense. If you talk about Plato's Eros, or Kant's Intuition, those words don't mean the same thing as in common English conversation. To talk about those philosophers, we have to learn the vocabulary. Also Gothic art has nothing to do with the Goths, and the World Series excludes most of the world.)

The First Cause is separate and different because it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence. Everything else relies on the First Cause (and a chain of other stuff) to exist. 

Quote:So, if this is the correct philosophical  interpretation of first cause arguments, then I can’t see why theists think it’s an argument for god.

It's part of an argument. To show that the First Cause is also good, conscious, etc. needs more argument.

Then the word you seek is contingent. Your bronze statue is contingent upon the existence of bronze in the first place. That does not mean the bronze caused the statue, it means there had to actually BE bronze for any agent to make a bronze statue.

(July 15, 2019 at 6:35 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: That does not mean the bronze caused the statue, it means there had to actually BE bronze for any agent to make a bronze statue.

In the vocabulary used to translate Aristotle, "there actually had to be X for Y to exist" is called "cause." 

I agree that this is different from the way we use the word "cause" today. But I didn't decide the translation.

It's only important if we're talking about First Cause arguments; we have to know what the word means as used in that case. Aristotle and Thomas's First Cause argument means "there has to be a First Cause for other things to exist."

---

Wikipedia:

Aitia, from Greek αἰτία, was the word that Aristotle used to refer to the causal explanation that has traditionally been translated as "cause", but this specialized, technical, philosophical usage of the word "cause" does not correspond exactly to its most usual applications in everyday English language.[4] The translation of Aristotle's αἰτία that is nearest to current ordinary language could be "question" or "causal explanation",[5][2][4] although any such terms may mask the fact that Aristotelians consider the four causes to be more fundamental in nature than mere explanations. In this article, the peculiar philosophical usage of the word "cause" will be employed, for tradition's sake, but the reader should not be misled by confusing this technical usage with current ordinary language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

(July 15, 2019 at 5:12 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(July 15, 2019 at 12:44 pm)Grandizer Wrote: If God just IS existence, then that's not anywhere close to the God that most Christians believe in. I don't even think Aquinas saw God that way either.

Christians believe in God as First Cause. As has been pointed out, showing that the First Cause is also good, conscious, etc., is not part of the First Cause argument. You need additional arguments for that.

---

(July 15, 2019 at 3:31 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: But, if things exist necessarily; if existence is not contingent on any other pre-condition; if stuff exists simply because there is no alternative, why call it a “cause” at all? My understanding of the way most theists utilize this argument is to say that there has to be some uncaused thing that caused stuff to exist, and that thing is god. God, in this commonly presented version of the argument, is entirely separate and categorically different from the reality it caused to exist. 

I despair of ever getting people to see what Aristotle used the word "cause" for. The word has a very specific meaning in modern English, and it seems hard to get past that. 

In the First Cause argument, it just means "something you have to have for something else to exist." 

So for example, if you have a bronze statue, the bronze is called the "material cause." Not because the bronze took some action to make the statue, but because a statue has to be made of something, and in this case it's bronze. 

(It's not so unusual for philosophical language to have a special sense. If you talk about Plato's Eros, or Kant's Intuition, those words don't mean the same thing as in common English conversation. To talk about those philosophers, we have to learn the vocabulary. Also Gothic art has nothing to do with the Goths, and the World Series excludes most of the world.)

The First Cause is separate and different because it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence. Everything else relies on the First Cause (and a chain of other stuff) to exist. 

Quote:So, if this is the correct philosophical  interpretation of first cause arguments, then I can’t see why theists think it’s an argument for god.

It's part of an argument. To show that the First Cause is also good, conscious, etc. needs more argument.

Yes, I am aware of Aristotle's different notions of cause, such as formal, efficient, etc. I just think they are poor categories and not helpful for analysis.

The problem with the 'First Cause' argument is that it fails to show there is only *one* uncaused cause. Why can't there be 20? Or a million? Or, for that matter, an infinite number?