Wow that’s a bit mind-blowing. I would hasten to say it is more than our perception and that the universe is made of things to which our perception is both composed and designed to see as things? Philosophically it is not enough to loose it all in the transience, we still have to define one thingness or other contrasts up against one another and herein lies their cardinality ~ no matter how vague they are on either the mental or physical plain.
Indeed, ‘omni’ becomes the opposite of the ‘absolute’ in this fashion. When I say ‘object’ I am thinking of a void or an emptiness, perhaps infinity is better thought of as a dimension, however I struggle with this alone without its ‘space’ ~ where it is, what it occupies? [hence the loose usage of the term ‘object’].
Haha sure it does, intellect is the use of combined processes; the capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination, and one who uses the mind creatively ~ which they demonstrate. I am not taking sides though, its an interesting debate on and for both sides.
We have yet to reach a premise, but debate is an intellectual process ~ possible the only one we actually have.
Okay then, then if you agree that it is a possible concept, then we should agree that there is a concept of an uncaused cause that does not look into the proble of how the cause came to be (bringing up matters such as a self-cause or casua sui).
Aposha, I would respond to your words to me here if they had any bearing upon anything that I have said. But they do not. You completely misunderstand what I have said.
But im not going to hold your hand. You are free to think rationally for yourself, or not, as you see fit.
I’m interested in your idea. Although I feel as if you haven’t given quite enough information, For instance, you say you find the idea “nonsensical”, but without giving reasons as to why, though I assume your an Atheist, you would have to provoke an argument against the existence of a first mover(or God) initially.
Well upon reading through the thread, I can only draw the conclusion that you think the idea of a first mover(or an unmoved mover) “nonsensical” because it is logically contradictory? If you could elaborate as to why that would help immensely. I will go back and see if I can find some reasons of yours as to why you think it is logically contradictory if I can.
The positing of a 1st, Uncaused Cause as the creator of the universe goes in steps.
1)It is noted, through observation of phenomena, that one “event” is the consequence of past “events”; causality.
2)It is speculated therefore that such causality is a general rule under which the universe operates.
3)This is taken further into supposing that the universe itself was caused… by something else.
4)Usually this is a monotheistic God, but can be primal chaos or whatever. So, God is said to have created the universe.
5)Someone asks: what created God?
6)In order to avoid infinite regression, the opening premise of causality is undermined through stating that God was “uncaused”.
What is happening here is that the opening premise is being contradicted by the conclusion. In other words, God is posited as the exception to the very premise that cites indisputable evidence for his existence.
Or, one could avoid that by asserting that God arose from nothing and/or was it’s own cause; ex nihilo/causa sui.
I find this nonsensical, as you noted, because this would require that God caused itself to exist, from nothing; that it existed, before existing, in order to bring itself into existence.
In both cases, I find contradictions because in the first causality is applied as a constant in order to “prove” a conclusion which necessarily contradicts it. If God be an uncaused, eternal phenomenon, why not the rest of existence also?
In the other it is simply a paradox; something from nothing.
To move beyond these theories, I state that reality is an infinite process without beginning or end and without extent. That ideas such as cause/effect attempt to freeze this process into static states; states that imply boundaries that do not exist.
There is no gap between one “event” and the next, this is simply inferred by the mind comparing the perception of one moment’s awareness to the next. In reality, there is flow, change of phenomena in constant motion, never still, never frozen.
A process, not a series of distinct events, such that there are “points” where the process could be said to begin or end.
The latter are a humanisation, a simplification.
In order to be considered to exist, a phenomenon must be capable of being perceived by an observer; a human. At the most basic level.
Consequently, in order to be perceived in such a manner, the phenomenon must be capable of interaction that would allow it to affect that observer in any way. Activity, therefore, defines existence.
If a phenomenon is absolutely inert, cannot effect nor be effected, cannot interact … it is non-existent. To assume otherwise is to assume something that cannot be proven.
In other words, you should not be able to see a unicorn… and therefore should not assume one. The burden of proof does not lie on the denier, it lies on the asserter.
So, to bring this into the Actor/Act dichotomy I’ve mentioned elsewhere, activity is the nature of the universe, not the condition of it. There is not an immutable Substance (like Spinoza’s) which performs the activity, there is not an absolute Form of existence which conducts the activity of existence.
Existence is Activity, change, measured by Time. This Activity or process does not have a beginning or end as this would necessitate a contradiction of it’s definition of an ongoing process which did not arise from nothing (or a static state) and will not reach completion in nothing (or a static state).
It is infinite.
Ah I see, a couple of side notes though.
Ill begin first with something you said towards the end. You’re asserting that the universe is infinite, and yet you can only prove that as much as a theist can prove god. In essence you are both just positing your own unprovable explanation(granted that one probably makes more sense).
With the second, I noticed in the chain of reasoning you assert as to why it is an uncaused mover is contradictory, you move from human beings to supernatural ones. You say humans notice this causality, and apply it to the universe eventually tracing it back to who created the universe, supplementing God as the answer(or whatever it may be) ,and from this arises a contradiction based on the fact that the supernatural being can be the exception to the rule. The theory borders a bit on being presumptuous in that your assuming to know the workings of a God and assuming the same rules that we notice on earth and the like apply to a supernatural being which no one could ever know about. It could be equally as true that perhaps God is infinite instead of the universe, or gives meaning to himself, then supposedly created the universe and created the laws of causality, or created things so that they happen in that fashion and then your chain of reasoning takes place. Humans begin to notice it, then apply it to the universe, eventually ending up at a God, and one says, “who caused God?” You mentioned above that it is nonsensical that God have a cause, however I’m just saying that it’s not as farfetched as you may say. For why should God not also be infinite? Granted we humans are applying the principle of causation to God and the supernatural being would be an exception to that rule, but we can only speculate and not know. A contradiction arises immediately to US but it could be just as plausible that a supernatural being is in fact infinite without needing a cause(always has been, always will be) and created the universe with the laws as we know them. In short it would be a humanistic blunder to apply the laws to some unknowable being that could quite possibly defy these rules.
Yes, of course. I’m speculating about something for which empirical data is unavailable.
Generally, I would state that it is the accuracy of a theory, how close it comes to the reality, that determines it’s value.
Not absolute precision.
That’s fair enough, but it presupposes that this God already exists.
My point was that the contradiction arises from the very premise citing the existence of a God.
That it is posited as the cause for the universe, because causation is deemed the constant, and then breaks this supposed constant by being uncaused.
So, the very concept that this argument tries to prove is undermined by the argument itself… as there is an exception to the supposed constant… thereby removing any necessity for the universe to be caused at all… given that causation is not a constant under the principles of this theory.
Should we not stop thinking in terms of ‘this then that’, where ultimately the fundamental nature of reality denies linearity?
That fundamental nature of reality is not infinite nor anything else, it is surely stateless and descriptionless [we could perhaps say its dimension is infinite?]. I don’t really know how we can get any idea of god or creator into that, as any notion we put up against it is incomparative.
I would hasten to add, that from what I am told you don’t get a first cause, because primacy is non-linear too.
Wasn’t it Hume who tried to use this same type of argument?
at any rate, yours(and his?) general procedure is to argue that the material world and the divine cause are similar in the relevant respects, and thus that a divine cause also requires a distinct divine cause, just as the material world requires one. An infinite regress logically follows if and only if those similarities are established, and all subsequent divine causes are also similar in the same relevant respects.
What im proposing is to assume that God had already existed(is infinite) and needs no cause, then created the universe and the laws of causation after God was already in existence. It would in effect put God outside the circle of causation and all other laws of physics/nature.
Yes… and I have articulated why the logic behind such an assumption is self-contradictory and therefore unjustified…
The assumption is that causation is an absolute… therefore as an extension of this the universe was caused necessarily. This Cause is God, who is uncaused… undermining the absolute which is the basis of the premise. Therefore, given that causality is not a requirement, as it is not an absolute, the universe does not have need of a cause: God.
The very positing of the 1st cause as uncaused undermines the very argument which presumes it. The exception, without warrant, but the human need for a final, definite beginning against which to orientate one’s perspective.
If no beginning or end can be demonstrated, but the manifestation of the past in the ongoing process of the present can be… the consequent conclusion necessitates an infinite and ongoing process.
… which did not begin… therefore no creation… therefore no God.
Again, time is the measure of change … the present does not constitute a “completion” of infinity, since it is ongoing and not frozen… infinity therefore simply refuting any notion of an extent implied by Forms/Thingness/Beginning/End/Divisibility/Distance/etc… nor is there any absolute Substance of which reality is composed, which nevertheless “performs” the Activity of reality, being somehow beneath or behind it… Existence is Activity as interaction is a requirement for perception… capacity to be be perceived therefore indicates existence.
Nor is there any “gap” between one “event” and the next, as supposed by language… there is simply a flow, a movement which the mind freezes into Forms in order to comprehend perception… which is why I have moved away from the notion of causality as it carries with it useless baggage in the form of cause/effect dichotomies…
Very true working from that assumption. However no beginning would also entail no end as well? Obviously things do come to an end. As in the case of galaxies and stars and so forth, which have both beginning and end. I follow your argument, but to deny causation seems rather odd. Moreover when working from your assumption, as I have stated earlier it could still be possible that God is outside the spectrum of causality because it would’ve begun after the universe was created. Making all the laws of causation come afterwords as well. A counter example by analogy could be something like to imagine a video game designer/programmer. The designer programs all of the games rules, regulations, stages and the like. However the designer(s) also hold the codes to bypass all the rules. In a sense he/she doesn’t have to conform to the game rules being the creator.
Also working from your assumption that causality is an absolute in premise 1, you could arrive at the conclusion that God doesn’t exist. However working from that assumption would you not end up at the conclusion that the universe doesn’t exist as well? I diagrammed the argument as best I could so it might not be 100% accurate but something like this?
(1) Causality is an absolute (assumed premise)
(2) from (1) entails that everything has a cause
(3) Reaching far enough back, we come to question of “what caused God?”
(4) It is then said by the theist that, “God has no cause but exists nonetheless”
(5) God defies the first proposition
So:
(6)Causality is not an absolute. and since (6)
(7) The universe then needs no cause(God)
So: (conclusion)God does not exist.
Now the argument eventually ends up saying that because God defies the first proposition of causality then causality is not an absolute, meaning the universe doesn’t need a cause, which makes God obsolete if you will. From this it follows that the universe is infinite and has no cause. The universe then is acting just as God would(being infinite) and you must then admit that the universe doesn’t exist as well, because it too defies the same first proposition.
