lifegazer said:
It looks like I'll have to take the long route to explain this.
Let's examine our primal-cause, which I will label X. This "X" is assumed to exist so that I can show you why it would possess free-will. So:-
(1)X acts, producing the universe of changing effects (I will label this Y).
(2) X is the sole cause of Y. The creation of Y can only be attributed to X and to no other cause.
(3) X, therefore, possesses free-will. This is deducible from "(2)" since if X possesses no free-will, then other causes are invoked for the creation of the effects produced byX. Clearly, 'other causes' are not an option in relation to a primal-cause. Therefore, the conclusion holds true: X possesses free-will.
Did you notice that you added a premise in your conclusion? Let me highlight it for you:
if X possesses no free-will, then other causes are invoked for the creation of the effects produced byX
Whereby you
assume that X cannot be a cause unless it possesses free will. Your conclusion is contained in your premises, therefore your argument is circular.
The actions of a primal-cause are an exhibition of its energy to effect those events. So no, it's not pointless to discuss the energy of a primal-cause.
Energy is a physical property observable in the context of the universe. If there is energy, then there is a universe. If there is not yet a universe, there is not yet any energy. Remember that energy is equivalent to mass (per Special Relativity) so you cannot deny that it is a physical thing.
Furthermore, since a primal-cause must be omnipresent, everything [perceived] within it must be essentially indeterminate anyway, as confirmed by QM, since everything would actually be a form created by the energy of a primal-cause.
This is merely your own crackpot hypothesis. You still have never provided any sort of logical backing for the proposition that all effects must be contained within their cause, or that a cause must last as long as its effects endure.
The primal-cause is the entity itself which effects everything. It is the primal-cause. The primal-act is the reason for the proceeding [perceived] effects of that primal-cause. The reason for the primal-act is to be found within the will of the primal-cause.
Here you go again with the cause of the primal cause. Until you understand what is meant by "first cause" (as it is more classically known), don't bother trying to sermonize about it.
I.e., to discover the reason for the primal-act, you would have to ask the primal-cause why it chose (via will) to effect things. The primal-act originates with will/choice.
Again, if this were true, then your primal cause would not be an entity, but a choice. The fundamental weakness in your argument is that you have
never in any way, shape, or form, demonstrated that primal cause must be a choice.
X causes Y. X is not in time because X is not affected by time - Y is affected by time. Indeed, Y occurs within X = time occurs within X. X does not occur within time.
It is useless to talk about cause and effect outside of time. It's like saying that the space to the left of my keyboard causes the left edge of my keyboard. To use the term "occur" implies an event, and an event implies a time and a place.
"Time" applies to Y - to the effects of time. It does not apply to the primal-cause of Y = it does not apply to X.
Because you said so? Despite your protests to the contrary, you still argue as if you're stuck in the idea that something can take place before time, which is an absurdity.
I have never used that term. It's yours. "Time" is just the changes which are occuring within Y. It has no other meaning beyond this... and certainly has no relevance to X.
Again, brush up on your general relativity. Change is how time is observed, but time itself is a dimension, and can be curved and distorted. It is an integral part of the fabric of the universe, whether or not any change is taking place.
First-cause is God itself - the absolute-source of everything. The primal-cause is the reason for the primal-act, and this reason is to be found within the will of X. That's where the original decision was made, to instigate the origin of Y. From that will, came the primal-act which created Y.
So your saying that the primal cause (which in this case would not be God, but his decision to act) is free will. The proof is that you say so.
Those italics are deducible from the former sentences. If a primal-cause is not dependent upon external needs or influences, then there is no external-realm embracing/housing that primal-cause. Thus, the primal-cause is without bounds = not finite. A finite entity must be embraced by something else...
False. If the whole of spacetime had positive curvature, it would form a region finite in extent, but without boundaries. We need not posit any external force containing it. This shows that the lack of boundaries does not imply infinity, and your argument is false by counterexample.
To be real, 'nothing' cannot have extension around its surface. So, a finite entity is always embraced/housed by another realm. This cannot apply to a primal-cause = not finite.
False, see above.
A primal-cause has no external abode. Therefore, everything which comes into effect, does so within it.
This is nonsensical unless you're willing to define what you mean by "within". If you define it in terms of space, then your proposition is absurd because space is a property of the universe, which is an effect, not the primal cause according to you. If you define it in terms of set theory (i.e. The set of effects within X is the set of all effects Y that are caused by X and the phrase "Has no external abode" means "X is not within any set of effects") then your argument is circular, being a simple reiteration of your own definition.
Whatever is the essence of all things must endure. Or else, the things themselves cannot have existence. God lives.
More dogma? This would require a special proof, since this is clearly not the case for causes in general. You do not, for example, need to hold down the trigger of a gun indefinitely, lest the bullet stop in mid-air.
A primal-cause is existence. Any effects occuring within it are just 'forms' of that primal-cause.
The universe itself is perfectly capable of fitting with this definition.
By that reasoning, this post is the end-product of an infinity without origin. Clearly, the advocation of an end-product from an infinite-chain is absurd.
No, it is not. Try proving the absurdity using logic. Go ahead.
There is no end to an infinity. Likewise, there is no origin. Infinity is a potential - not an actual/tangible reality.
The first sentence is the only part you got right. Someone needs to hit the math books again.
