Originally posted by JimL
View Post
X
-
-
I think we're talking past each other. The question is, how can a cause, also be immutable. How can that which doesn't change be the cause of anything, like actualizing a potentiality. The universe, or the substance thereof, actualizes potential forms of itself, yes? But it does this because it is mutable, and does change. How are you suggesting that the immutable actualizes a potentiality?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI think we're talking past each other. The question is, how can a cause, also be immutable. How can that which doesn't change be the cause of anything, like actualizing a potentiality.
The universe, or the substance thereof, actualizes potential forms of itself, yes?
But since each layer has potentiality and actuality, then in order for them to exist and undergo change and all they have to be actualized by something else which is already actual. Therefore in order for anything that exists to undergo change, something purely actual has to exist.
That is the argument.
There is nothing that prevents a timeless cause from having a timeless effect. It is not going from a state of not-acting, to a state of acting. That would be accidentally ordered causality. It is just pure act, always in action.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostWhat prevents it from actualizing a potentiality?
Only in a set of historical causes, such one domino brick falling on another. I was talking about essentially ordered causality, such a cup that is on a table remaining in position. What is the cause of the cup remaining in its position? It's the table beneath it. What is the cause of the table's properties? It is it's structure and material. Where does it's material get its properties from in turn, it gets it from the micromechanical properties of it's wooden fibers, etc... Each layer simultaneously exists with the other.
But since each layer has potentiality and actuality, then in order for them to exist and undergo change and all they have to be actualized by something else which is already actual. Therefore in order for anything that exists to undergo change, something purely actual has to exist.
That is the argument.
There is nothing that prevents a timeless cause from having a timeless effect. It is not going from a state of not-acting, to a state of acting. That would be accidentally ordered causality. It is just pure act, always in action.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostHow are you suggesting that god creates. Does he just speak, or think things into existence?
What kind of cause is god?
Change is inherent in the nature of the universe itself.
So, how does god cause that which is non-existent to exist?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI'm not sure what you're asking for here. Speaking, thinking? Do you want me to explain what God is doing using human analogies? I don't think there's anything we can compare with in our mundane experience that would be equivalent to what God is doing.
Asking 'what kind' something is, is to ask what sort of class something belongs to. Because of God's properties he transcends any classification.
And yes, it needs a purely actual cause in order to for something that goes change, to do exist. That's what I've been arguing. Stating the opposite conclusion is no argument at all.
By actualizing a potentiality that exists. It is possible for things to exist (do you intend to deny this?). God simply actualized this possibility.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostOriginally posted by LeonhardOriginally posted by JimLHow are you suggesting that god creates. Does he just speak, or think things into existence?Originally posted by JimLOriginally posted by LeonhardAsking 'what kind' something is, is to ask what sort of class something belongs to. Because of God's properties he transcends any classification
This would be true regardless of whether or not He existed.
I think you're the one that's simply asserting this without an argument. Why does an actual cause need be distinct from that which it causes?Why is what you call a purely actual cause necessary at all?
And how does god create the non-existent to become existent? On what basis should it be believed that non-existent things even exist as potentialities. Why should one believe that the substance of existence was at one time just a potential existent which potential was actualized by a being that has the power to create things out of nothing? Upon what reasoning should that be believed?
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 05-01-2024, 09:43 PM
|
1 response
24 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-02-2024, 08:29 PM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-25-2024, 09:42 AM
|
0 responses
11 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-25-2024, 09:42 AM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-15-2024, 09:22 PM
|
0 responses
18 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-15-2024, 09:22 PM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-09-2024, 09:39 AM
|
28 responses
195 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-30-2024, 09:42 AM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-08-2024, 02:50 PM
|
0 responses
15 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-08-2024, 02:50 PM |
Comment