Re: Meet your God.
lifegazer said:
There are two distinct aspects to this conversation. Firstly, does an existence full of effects have an absolute-origin via a primal-cause? This is probably the easiest aspect to argue for... since how can anyone seriously argue for infinite regression of cause (= no cause)?
I see you ignored my earlier post, and have once again reverted to assuming the conclusion you want.
Whether or not you find an infinite regress easy to visualize, you have not demonstrated that it is logically incoherent. You therefore cannot simply dismiss it so cavalierly and consider the matter proven.
Not too many of you (unsurprisingly, since it is the obviously-rational option) have argued against the existence of a primal-cause.
I can think of three possibilities:
1) There is or was one acausal thing that is the first cause of all other things.
2) There is or was more than one acausal thing that together caused all other things.
3) The universe existed for an infinite time in the past and there is no first causes.
In order for your "proof" of God to work, you must prove that 2 and 3 are logically incoherent.
*A primal-cause is the only cause = a singular cause = an indivisible cause.*
Basically your entire rant boils down to the idea that when you say "primal cause", you are referring strictly to case 1 above. Note that this does not prove that cases 2 or 3 are false (i.e. that there is or was a primal cause).
What else can we say about a primal-cause? Well, as it is the only cause of existence, we can know that nothing else embraces it. I.e., that there is no external reality to it. I.e., that a primal-cause is the absolute whole of existence.
Here you restrict your definition (and so far that is all it is) to a subcase of case 1- call it 1a.
1a- Reality itself is the primal cause. It is the set of all effects.
1b-There is a single first cause that is an element of the set "things that exist". All elements other than the first cause are ultimately caused by the first cause.
We can know these things because a primal-cause cannot be a primal-cause if its own existence is dependent upon other realms/dimensions and/or entities (a primal-cause cannot depend upon an external reality (have an abode)).
Actually, it is conceivable that some reality,"set of things that exist", that is simply the empty set. No effects, hence no need to invoke a cause. The set itself would not be a cause of any type since it does not cause anything (i.e. there are no effects). You must prove that 1a is the case.
We can actually say that Primal-cause Is.
Well, no actually. You could only say that Primal Cause (as you define it) "is" by proving that cases 2,3, and 1b above are logically incoherent.
Matters already become highly interesting at this point, since we've already substantiated that a primal-cause is an absolutely-singular and indivisible entity.
No, you
defined it that way.
Therefore, by simple default, the effects of a primal-cause can only exist as illusionary-effects, within perception (of a mind).
If primal cause is reality itself, how then can its effects be all illusory? What then does it mean to distinguish between "real" and "illusory" effects? I'm sorry, but your statement simply doesn't follow. To say that A is the set of all effects does not imply in any way that the elements of A are all illusory or the product of a mind .
Anything else? Yes! A primal-cause embraces the whole of existence and is responsible for every-thing created within it. So, we can say that a primal-cause is definitely omnipresent. Also, the forces of existence emanate from It... hence, we can say that a primal-cause is also an omnipotent being.
I hope you are aware that you cannot
define your way to any sort of meaningful deduction.
So, in the beginning there was the primal-cause.
Then, that primal-cause acted to effect the succession of things.
How?
...By itself. There was nothing else.
... Meaning, ultimately, by self-will.
There's your assumption. It is meaningless to ask how a first cause causes its effects. That is inherent in the nature of first cause. In effect, you are getting trapped asking "why did the first cause
cause anything?", which of course presupposes a cause behind the first cause (which is incoherent).
Will is a requirement for a primal-cause to act. Think about it - there are no other entities or forces around. There cannot be, or else we are not within the realm of a primal-cause... and yet, that's where we are as we discuss this matter. So, if the primal-cause acts, what causes that act?
To say "the primal cause acts" begs the question. If the primal cause exists, then its existence alone is sufficient to cause all effects- otherwise it is not the primal cause. If some 'thing' requires an impetus in order to cause, it cannot be a primal cause. The impetus in question would be one first cause, and the 'thing' would be another (The impetus would not be the primal cause unless it caused the 'thing').
It is absolutely impossible for a primal-cause to act, absolutely by itself, without will. How could it?
It doesn't need to 'act'. Its existence implies causation. That is the very nature of a first cause.
