The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[arewethereyet]

Ok, so in Good Thomistic Fashion (as in the Summa), let's address the objections first:

The first one, quite common in this thread, seems to be something along these lines.

Objection 1: "The First Cause is not yet proven to be Jesus Christ, therefore I don't have to admit it."
[Alternately, "Since Saint Thomas believed the First Cause is Jesus Christ, ergo ... etc" still fallacious].

Response: that's a Non Sequitur. One could come to Jesus Christ in say premise 10 or so. That does nothing to show step 3 or 4 of the Argument is not logically valid and follows necessarily from the preceding premises. The only way for Atheists to show that is to contest one of those same steps.

Steps 1 to 4 as outlined in the OP could be affirmed by people from various persuasions, including Deists, Hindus, some Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians, beside others. It says nothing, as yet, about the Personality, or Goodness, of the First Being/First Cause, but only about Its Existence.

The Moral Argument, from Conscience, would help in establishing the Creator's Goodness, and thus His Personality as well; this argument is focused first on establishing that a First Cause of the Universe exists, while the Universe itself, and all things within it, exist contingently and not necessarily.

For a secular example: if one proved Pythagoras' Theorem by appealing to Pythagoras' Theorem, that would be circular. But not if one proved it from first principles that can be independently known. And the fact that one may later build on PT, or apply it in various ways, does not diminish the proof.

Objection 2: "Even if a Necessary First Cause of all things exist, this First Cause could allegedly be the universe/something else natural itself."

This objection does not take into account what we proved about B1, the First Being. The First Being is non-contingent. Contingency is shown in 2 ways. First, (1) something that is contingent began to exist; (2) second, something that could even conceivably cease to exist is certainly contingent. Now, most Scientists agree the Universe began to exist, in the Big Bang, and also, almost all agree that, at least in theory, that the Universe either will or could cease to exist one day. Therefore, (3) the Universe exists contingently, not necessarily. Why is this relevant? Because we proved in the OP, mathematically, that B1 exists Non-Contingently. Therefore, B1 cannot be the Universe, but refers to the First Cause of the Universe itself. 

Recall the proof of the non-contingency of B1. Since there is no B0, and Bn by definition is contingent only if it is dependent on a prior being Bn-1, it follows that the First Being in existence is non-contingent; the First Being exists necessarily. And for the above reasons, that the visible universe does not demonstrate the necessary properties of B1, the First Cause is not the universe; rather, it is the First Cause of the Universe that exists necessarily or non-contingently.

Objection 3: I, an Atheist, affirm, just like that, that an Infinite Number of Beings can exist (and the proof for this is?). Therefore, even if the argument holds for all finite n, it fails when n is infinite. Therefore, I don't have to believe in a First Cause".

Once more, notice how Atheists exempt themselves from the obligation to prove what they claim (in this case, the absurdity that an Infinite Number of Beings can exist) and the necessity of demonstrating that in a series of logical steps. Then, they demand that we Theists should do so.

We Theists can, but they cannot. Anyway let's examine this objection.

Firstly, notice we haven't assumed anything about N. N indeed holds good for all values, whether it be 2 or 100 trillion. That shows any and all contingent beings in existence, whether today or 4 thousand years ago, should have been able to use these steps to come to the knowledge of the First Cause. What of the claim that the number of beings in existence could be actually infinite?

I mentioned this objection in the OP and answered it briefly thus: "The only alternative to the existence of an actual first being is an infinite series of contingent beings, but that is impossible because an infinite series never ends; and if there were an actual infinite of real beings, we would never have gotten to the present moment; again, an infinite series cannot be formed by successive addition, because no matter how [many] beings you add to each other, whether it is 1 or 1 trillion, n will always be finite. Therefore, granted that we got here, granted that we are 1 in a series of contingent beings, the number of beings in existence is finite."

Again, a simpler refutation is from Modern Science; since most Physicists are agreed the Universe is of Finite Age (roughly 13.7 BN years), it clearly follows that an Infinite Number of Beings could not have existed in said finite time. That such arguments should be seriously proposed by Atheists, in order to undermine Premise 2, shows how weak the Atheistic position ultimately is. 

Regards, 
Xavier.

You do not speak for atheists.  Stop it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Ok, so in Good Thomistic Fashion (as in the Summa), let's address the objections first:

The first one, quite common in this thread, seems to be something along these lines.

Objection 1: "The First Cause is not yet proven to be Jesus Christ, therefore I don't have to admit it."
[Alternately, "Since Saint Thomas believed the First Cause is Jesus Christ, ergo ... etc" still fallacious].

Response: that's a Non Sequitur. One could come to Jesus Christ in say premise 10 or so. That does nothing to show step 3 or 4 of the Argument is not logically valid and follows necessarily from the preceding premises. The only way for Atheists to show that is to contest one of those same steps.

Steps 1 to 4 as outlined in the OP could be affirmed by people from various persuasions, including Deists, Hindus, some Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians, beside others. It says nothing, as yet, about the Personality, or Goodness, of the First Being/First Cause, but only about Its Existence.

The Moral Argument, from Conscience, would help in establishing the Creator's Goodness, and thus His Personality as well; this argument is focused first on establishing that a First Cause of the Universe exists, while the Universe itself, and all things within it, exist contingently and not necessarily.

For a secular example: if one proved Pythagoras' Theorem by appealing to Pythagoras' Theorem, that would be circular. But not if one proved it from first principles that can be independently known. And the fact that one may later build on PT, or apply it in various ways, does not diminish the proof.

Objection 2: "Even if a Necessary First Cause of all things exist, this First Cause could allegedly be the universe/something else natural itself."

This objection does not take into account what we proved about B1, the First Being. The First Being is non-contingent. Contingency is shown in 2 ways. First, (1) something that is contingent began to exist; (2) second, something that could even conceivably cease to exist is certainly contingent. Now, most Scientists agree the Universe began to exist, in the Big Bang, and also, almost all agree that, at least in theory, that the Universe either will or could cease to exist one day. Therefore, (3) the Universe exists contingently, not necessarily. Why is this relevant? Because we proved in the OP, mathematically, that B1 exists Non-Contingently. Therefore, B1 cannot be the Universe, but refers to the First Cause of the Universe itself. 

Recall the proof of the non-contingency of B1. Since there is no B0, and Bn by definition is contingent only if it is dependent on a prior being Bn-1, it follows that the First Being in existence is non-contingent; the First Being exists necessarily. And for the above reasons, that the visible universe does not demonstrate the necessary properties of B1, the First Cause is not the universe; rather, it is the First Cause of the Universe that exists necessarily or non-contingently.

Objection 3: I, an Atheist, affirm, just like that, that an Infinite Number of Beings can exist (and the proof for this is?). Therefore, even if the argument holds for all finite n, it fails when n is infinite. Therefore, I don't have to believe in a First Cause".

Once more, notice how Atheists exempt themselves from the obligation to prove what they claim (in this case, the absurdity that an Infinite Number of Beings can exist) and the necessity of demonstrating that in a series of logical steps. Then, they demand that we Theists should do so.

We Theists can, but they cannot. Anyway let's examine this objection.

Firstly, notice we haven't assumed anything about N. N indeed holds good for all values, whether it be 2 or 100 trillion. That shows any and all contingent beings in existence, whether today or 4 thousand years ago, should have been able to use these steps to come to the knowledge of the First Cause. What of the claim that the number of beings in existence could be actually infinite?

I mentioned this objection in the OP and answered it briefly thus: "The only alternative to the existence of an actual first being is an infinite series of contingent beings, but that is impossible because an infinite series never ends; and if there were an actual infinite of real beings, we would never have gotten to the present moment; again, an infinite series cannot be formed by successive addition, because no matter how [many] beings you add to each other, whether it is 1 or 1 trillion, n will always be finite. Therefore, granted that we got here, granted that we are 1 in a series of contingent beings, the number of beings in existence is finite."

Again, a simpler refutation is from Modern Science; since most Physicists are agreed the Universe is of Finite Age (roughly 13.7 BN years), it clearly follows that an Infinite Number of Beings could not have existed in said finite time. That such arguments should be seriously proposed by Atheists, in order to undermine Premise 2, shows how weak the Atheistic position ultimately is. 

Regards, 
Xavier.

You can't extend causation into a non-causal state. Hence, the Argument From Causation as an argument for a conscious creator fails before it even gets on the trolley. The ONLY way to save it is an answer to the child's question, 'Where did God come from?', but then you - not atheists - run bang into the infinite regress problem.

Boru

[Deesse23]

Objection 1: "The First Cause is not yet proven to be Jesus Christ, therefore I don't have to admit it."

No one has ever refused to "adit" to anything here. Stop misrepresenting/strawmanning people.
Either you are dishonest, then we cant help you. Or you are too ignorant, then you have any chance to ASK us and correct your misrepresentation.

Guess what you are going to do now!? 10$ on "dishonest preacher".

Objection 2: "Even if a Necessary First Cause of all things exist, this First Cause could allegedly be the universe/something else natural itself."

Misrepresentation #2. No one here said that the universe was a "first cause". Au contraire, according to the big bang model, most people here will claim that the universe is definitely NOT a "first cause".

Ignorant or dishonest? Please show your colors. The ignorant will ask, the dishonest will ignore and go on, like you did in the past.

That such arguments should be seriously proposed by Atheists, in order to undermine Premise 2, shows how weak the Atheistic position ultimately is. 

What IS the "atheistic position"? I am asking to avoid misunderstandings, or expose your dishonesty again. We will see by your (non) reply.

The general defeater for your/Aquin/Bels arguments however, which are based on medieval intuitions of what reality*, is the fact that the current best model to exlpain available date is the Big Bang Model, which predicts that loking back in time at T=10^-34s spacetime breaks down. Space, time and thus causation break down. "when" or "where" and "what caused X" stop making sense. Atheists dont know anyting about this*, and you dont either. The difference is: You are pretending to!

Its really bizarre, that people are so depserately sticking to medieval philosophy in the face of facts of what modern science found out. I dont blame Aquin for not knowing better. He tried his best with the means avaibale to him (well, he still was engaged in motivated reasoning, trying to prove his god, instead of looking where his investigatiions ar leading him to) and i give him many points for effort.
You however, have so much more knowledge than Aquin to base your thoughts on....and look what you are doing. So incredibly intellectually lazy and disingenuous.

We have no idea about t=10^-34s, the human language does not have the words to describe, the human mind (almost) has no ways to grasp this. Just a few very "creative" astrophysicists, cosmologists, mathematicians etc. who are thinking about strings and multiverses maybe do. Still its all conjecture. But one thing is clear: You, the Catholic Church, Aquinas, all of you arent even remotely equipped to make informed (matching available data, and internally consistent) guesses about the "origin of all things". Some, like Aquinas can be blamed less, some like you much more.

Your childish "first casue" word games are just a very naive attempt to cover this fact.


*time, space, causation, etc.*
** what happened "before" this, although the word "before" already does not make any sense anymore

[Nishant Xavier]

Arewethereyet, ok. I don't claim to speak for Atheists, although I have heard/read what Atheists typically argue, both here and otherwise; Atheists are speaking for themselves on this thread, and I was just summarizing their arguments/objections to God.

For e.g. "Fake Messiah" said: "So a Christian theologian, Aquinas, is not associating First Cause with the Christian God"? I answered that, by saying, yes, he was, and so what? St. Thomas never claimed that the First Cause Argument/Demonstration itself proved the Christian God, though it is consistent with it. It only proves a First Cause. The Truth of the Christian God, as Belacqua also said, is supported by further arguments down the line. 

Now, onto Brian's question: First, I want to deduce Two Essential Properties about the First Cause, which will also help answer his objection.

We have seen: "B1, The First Being in Existence, or First Cause of all things, exists Non-Contingently, without Dependence on a Prior Being.". 
Let's call this statement as Axiom I. 

Property I of the First Cause: The First Cause has no beginning but exists eternally [another reason it is not the 13.7 BN y.o. universe]

Proof of Property I: This is evident from the fact that (1) all that begins to exist exists contingently. (2) but the First Cause, as we proved in Axiom I, exists non-contingently. (3) Therefore, the First Cause of all beings/things has no Beginning of Existence, but Exists Eternally.

Property II of the First Cause: The First Cause of all beings also has no end of existence and will continue to exist eternally i.e. forever.

Proof of Property II: The Truth of this 2nd Property can be established in a similar way to the above. If someone contests this, I will spell it out.

Now, the answer to the objection is evident. [again, also note that while not proving the Christian God, a First Cause that has no Beginning or End, as the Bible declares about God, is consistent with the God of Judeo-Christian Revelation; it's therefore part of a cumulative case for His Existence]

Objection 4, Brian's Objection: "The ONLY way to save it is an answer to the child's question, 'Where did God come from?', but then you - not atheists - run bang into the infinite regress problem."

Response: The answer is evident from what was shown above. The First Being in existence, B1, unlike all subsequent beings that follow it, is not contingent upon a previous being/thing (does not "come from" somewhere), as was shown in the OP; and, as was shown in Property I, has no beginning and exists eternally. Therefore, the argument/question "where did God come from" is not a defeater to God's existence. God does not "come from" somewhere, as we contingent beings do, because God is not a contingent being. Basically, the question is characterized by anthropomorphism, and falls into the error of thinking God is a contingent being just like us, and therefore must have a beginning. But since, as the argument showed, B1, unlike other beings, is non-contingent, non-dependent on a previous being, the atheistic argument fails.

Deese I will respond to later. Just a brief word: we use both ancient philosophers/Philosophy and modern scientists/Science in establishing some basic premises from which we deduce God's Existence. The Big Bang Theory btw was first proposed by a Catholic Priest, Fr. George Lemaitre. Truth is Truth no matter who said it and when. Truth is of the greatest importance today, in this modern world that has fallen into so many and such grave errors, from which come its Abortionism, its Atheism, its Communism, its mass-killings, and its indifference to God's Truth.

Regards,
Xavier.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

^Don't you get dizzy from all these circular arguments?

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Your god began to exist just a short few centuries ago. I guess that rules it out as the first cause.

[Silver]

I love the conjecture of claiming a deity meets the requirement of a particular claim based merely on the claim of existence with no knowledge of the deity's constitution.

[brewer]

TA believed that god existed and then produced an argument to justify the belief. No evidence.

No one gets to argue a god into existence. Provide concrete evidence then I'll consider it, until then god remains a product off the mind, a concept, imanginary! The same as all of the other gods people have invented/dreamed up.

[Deesse23]

Deese I will respond to later. Just a brief word: we use both ancient philosophers/Philosophy and modern scientists/Science in establishing some basic premises from which we deduce God's Existence.

No, you dont
You keep babbling about first causes and their properties. Please explain, without using temporal (=time) or spatial (=space) terms. Alternatively eplxain why, in absence of time and space these terms still can be used.

The Big Bang Theory btw was first proposed by a Catholic Priest, Fr. George Lemaitre.

So what?
Be careful arguing that BBT is "true" because a catholic priest was involved. Its the ramifications of the BBT which shoot down your aquinesque "first cause" word games. You seem utterly oblivious to this. Why?

 Truth is Truth no matter who said it and when. Truth is of the greatest importance today, in this modern world that has fallen into so many and such grave errors, from which come its Abortionism, its Atheism, its Communism, its mass-killings, and its indifference to God's Truth.

You are tring to poison the well, insinuating that Atheists etc. are wrong because atheism is *bad*. Is that all you got?
You dont get to say "well, modern people made errors, therefore my medieval philosophy is right". Its one of your fundamental errors of thinking.
You are also engaged in circular reasoning: We are talking about "does god (aka first cause) exist?". And part of your reply to me is "truth is gods truth"?  
As i have said: You are intellectually in no way equipped to discuss these matters.  

What has "abortionism"   or communism to do with all of this? Yeah, nothing. You ar epreaching again. You cant stay on topic, because you dont WANT to.
Still dishonest.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I love the conjecture of claiming a deity meets the requirement of a particular claim based merely on the claim of existence with no knowledge of the deity's constitution.

That’s how it works: you define your god according to the arguments you come up with, not the other way round. Who says God has to be non-contingent? People who need God to be non-contingent so their word salad works out.

Boru