Creationism

[Belacqua]

Thanks Belaqua.

So quantum weirdness such as Hawking radiation and radioactive decay pretty much show that the Greek αἰτία is 'out dated'?

There are things (Particles) and events (The decay) that happen 'spontaniously' without a previous αἰτία?

Cheers.

Not at work

No, quantum weirdness and spontaneous decay don't affect the first cause argument at all. I think you didn't read carefully. 

You're still thinking of "cause" as an agent which pushes something to happen. It may be the case that particles decay without that happening. (Such an agent is what Aristotle called an efficient cause. We're not talking about efficient causes here.)  

But all kinds of things must still be the case for such decay to happen. You still need the laws of nature. You still need time and space. You still need being. All of these are the αἰτία of radioactive decay.

[GrandizerII]

Thanks Belaqua.

So quantum weirdness such as Hawking radiation and radioactive decay pretty much show that the Greek αἰτία is 'out dated'?

There are things (Particles) and events (The decay) that happen 'spontaniously' without a previous αἰτία?

Cheers.

Not at work.

Virtual particles are contingent on vacuum energy. They don't come "out of nowhere" or "spontaneously". My view is that Aristotelian language itself might be unnecessary to explain the things discussed in modern cosmological science, but these observations we find in quantum mechanics don't necessarily falsify the metaphysics of Aristotle.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Hubris?  Meh.  Bel's a feckless troll, not a person for whom hubris is an issue.

Complete off topic, but I think ‘feckful’ should be a word, in the same sense as careless/careful and hopeless/hopeful. We could use it to describe a person with great strength of character. I think I’m going to start using it in casual conversation, see what happens.

Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There's nothing to stop god being a created being itself.  In a timeless existence there is no infinite regress problem.

Then any number, up to infinity and beyond, of gods could have created themselves.

[brewer]

Maybe somebody should type out what the first cause argument actually says.

Here is a thumbnail version of the Aristotelian/Thomist version (not Kalam).

First, the word "cause" is misleading. It isn't used in the way we use it in conversational English. It is the translation of the Greek αἰτία, which might better be said as "explanation."

The various αἰτία of something are all the things that must be the case in order for that thing to be the case. So you ask yourself, what has to be in order that I can be? The answer will include your parents, but also things like the food you eat, and the sunlight that makes the food possible. All those things which had to be the case so that you can exist are your causes.

There is a chain of αἰτία which is essential, not temporal. That is, we're not talking about one event or action in history which started the ball rolling. We're talking about things that may exist simultaneously, but are necessary for the existence of other things. (You can continue to exist even if your parents die, but if the First Cause disappeared, you would disappear too.)

So for example, for the sun to exist you have to have hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen atoms are among the αἰτία of the sun. If the sun blew up, the hydrogen atoms would still exist. But if all the hydrogen atoms disappeared, so would the sun. Thus the atoms are an αἰτία of the sun.

Then you follow the chain. What is necessary for the hydrogen atoms to exist? Among other things, subatomic particles. What is necessary for these to exist? Time and space. What is necessary for time and space to exist? When you get to the end of the chain, this is the First Cause.

It's common to say therefore that the First Cause is existence itself. For anything else to exist, you must have existence. Existence is therefore the end of the essential chain of αἰτία. This is why it is common to say that God is the Ground of Being, or just Being itself.

This should make it clear that nothing about salvation or the Trinity or any other detail of a religion is included in the first cause argument. To show that the First Cause is the Ground of Being, but is also intelligent, good, etc., requires further argument.

To conclude "therefore god" is an argument from ignorance and the conclusion from persons with a specific agenda. It would be more honest to conclude "we don't know".

Again, flawed argument/proof. Not very honest Bel.

[Mister Agenda]

Apologists from Kalam to Craig beg to differ.

Neither the Thomist first cause argument nor the Kalam one does more than prove God as a first cause. 

To get from there to the God of the Bible or of the Koran requires additional steps.

If you know of anyone claiming that a first cause argument shows, for example, that the Trinity is true or that Jesus is the savior, please post a link or other source.

How does the Kalam get you to any God at all? It doesn't establish that a first cause has to be a God. Some sort of eternal state of affairs that allows for the universe to exist does not have to have consciousness, thought, intent, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, or a goal.

PS: Sorry Bel, looks like you addressed this in a later post.

[Abaddon_ire]

Thanks Belaqua.

So quantum weirdness such as Hawking radiation and radioactive decay pretty much show that the Greek αἰτία is 'out dated'?

There are things (Particles) and events (The decay) that happen 'spontaniously' without a previous αἰτία?

Cheers.

Not at work

No, quantum weirdness and spontaneous decay don't affect the first cause argument at all. I think you didn't read carefully. 

You're still thinking of "cause" as an agent which pushes something to happen. It may be the case that particles decay without that happening. (Such an agent is what Aristotle called an efficient cause. We're not talking about efficient causes here.)  

But all kinds of things must still be the case for such decay to happen. You still need the laws of nature. You still need time and space. You still need being. All of these are the αἰτία of radioactive decay.

Your claimed "first cause" is exactly an agent which pushes something to happen.

[Paleophyte]

If you know of anyone claiming that a first cause argument shows, for example, that the Trinity is true or that Jesus is the savior, please post a link or other source.

Maybe somebody should type out what the first cause argument actually says.

Here is a thumbnail version of the Aristotelian/Thomist version (not Kalam).

Can we safely say that Saint Thomas Aquinas was one such individual who argued precisely that or are you going to suggest that the Summa Theologica was arguing for deism?

First, the word "cause" is misleading.

As much as I love the redefinition game it should be noted that Thomas Aquinas argued for both a temporal sequence and logical primacy. As for Aristotle, the phrase "unmoved mover" pretty much shrieks of a temporal sequence.

Typing out what the Argument From First Cause "actually" says would be a damned sight easier if there weren't dozens of different ones to pick from. Little matter since they all founder on our complete ignorance regarding plucking a universe from nothing. From that fatal flaw they either degenerate into unsupported argumentation or complete non sequitur.

[The Grand Nudger]

What saint tommy argued for was a reconciliation between his faith and reason - but he made a distinction between natural theology, what things about gods a person might arrive at by reason - and christian theology, which was a product of divine revelation. In his view, a person might be able to logically demonstrate the existence of a god, but they wouldn't be able to do the same for the trinity.

[GrandizerII]

As much as I love the redefinition game it should be noted that Thomas Aquinas argued for both a temporal sequence and logical primacy. As for Aristotle, the phrase "unmoved mover" pretty much shrieks of a temporal sequence.

Of course they considered temporal sequencing, but:

Based on my reading (and it's been a while so might not be remembering it right), Thomas Aquinas accepted that you couldn't use logic to prove the universe had a temporal beginning, but he nevertheless believed that it did (by revelation). There's a reason WLC doesn't like using Aquinas' Ways to argue for God.

And Aristotle clearly argued that the universe is eternal.

First cause in this case should be understood as not temporal first cause, but logical.