(June 14, 2019 at 4:39 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: It’s a good analogy, thank you.
Thank you!
It's all a bit counterintuitive for us moderns, I think. Not because science has disproved it, but because our use of the word "cause" has narrowed over the last 1000 years or so. For Aristotelians, if A is necessary for B to exist, A can be called a cause. Even if it takes no action.
Quote:I agree that actions in the absence of space-time would be an interesting topic for discussion.
This is also a tricky part of the argument.
It's essential for Aristotle that the First Cause takes no action.
It is eternally unchanging, actus purus, entirely without potential for change. It is called a cause not because it reaches down and pushes something, but because (they argue) it has to be there for even space-time to exist.
Another way to say it is that the First Cause is existence itself. Not a thing that exists, but existence. Without it -- without existence -- there would obviously be nothing.
And of course lots of other arguments are necessary if they want to show that the First Cause is also intelligent, good, etc.