The Infinitely lazy God?

[Leonhard]

Good, but the effect is in the cause, and the cause is in the effect, the potential is in the actual and the actual is in the potential.

I'm not sure what to make of this statement.

The effect [is] in the cause, yes, otherwise the effect couldn't possible come about. If the phosphorous compound at the end of the matchstick didn't have the properties it has, the match might not even light up. I'm not sure how you could say coherently that matchsticks are in a flame. The rest of the sentence is unintelligible to me. As if most of the rest of the next paragraph.

It would be silly to argue that fire was created by the universe ex-nihilo, and just as silly to argue that the cosmos was created ex-nihilo.

It would be silly to say that universe had powers to create ex nihilo, but that is no argument against the notion that universe itself was created from no prior substance. That we haven't observed this, is no more an argument against it, than a failure to observe free quarks are an arguments against their existence.

I call it science because it is an observed fact.

Suit yourself. You're defining science to be a fairly broad topic here, if it covers all observable facts.

Now of course one can argue that this fact may be true with regards to the internal nature of the universe itself, but the universe itself came from nothing! But that is not science, but an argument from ignorance, a begging of the question.

I've stated before that I won't make an argument for God's existence based upon the universe having been created by God, from nothing. If you want to discuss it, open a thread entitled "Can God create ex nihilo?"

Classical theology does not claim it can be known through natural reasons that the universe came into existence from nothing. It considers this to be the case based on revelation. Therefore you can't claim there's an argument from ignorance, since we're not claiming that "science or natural philosophy has no account of the the beginning, ergo the universe came into being out of nothing" or something to that effect.

There's no begging of the question either, you'll need to get more specific with that. What conclusion is used as a premise?

if you would rather focus on why there is an object that undergoes change it is because the object is a part of the universe and it is the nature of the universe to undergo change.

All things that are composed of actuality and potentiality, which includes all things in the universe, are moved from actuality to potentiality by something else. Here you must be careful to distinguish accidental chains of causality, namely the historical ones that William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument focuses on, and the essential chains of causality. A hand is bounsing a ball; the hand has these properties because its connected firmly to a human arm, connected to a torso, standing firmly on the ground; the hand has the proper bio-mechanical properties, because of its muscles, nervous system, bones, etc...; these in turn have their properties from the biological cells and the way they're connected together; all the way down to interactions between molecules and atoms; each layer has potentialities and actualities, so they must all be moved by something else.

So at one point you reach what... basic mechanics of fundemental units, quarks, leptons, gluons and photons... but they too have potentiality and actuality, so how come they move? The chain of essential causality can't be infinitely long, because then nothing would litterally happen. Its like having an ill defined recursive function, like the fork bomb :(){ :|:& };: (gives me the shivers... never type this into a bash shell) of Unix infamy, recursively calling another instance of itself without returning. To explain how the hand could even bounce a ball, there must be some cause, which itself is purely actual, containing no potentiality.

There is motion, ergo such as a purely actual cause must exist.

We can furthermore conclude that the power of this cause must be unlimited, since there's nothing that could happen in the universe, which it isn't a cause of, which implies that if anything could possible be, it is a potential cause of them. Hence this cause is omnipotent.

We can furthermore conclude that this cause is static, unchanging, as it has no potentiality, but is purely actual. From this consideration it must also be timeless and omnipresent, as its present everywhere without boundaries. Anywhere, anything happens, or could happen, it is.

We can also conclude that this cause is simple, containing no division in its substance or complexity, and is a soliton, its the only one of its kind. This follows because if there were two or more such causes, something would have to exist that could be different between them, otherwise they'd be identical. But then there would be potentiality of the cause, as it could be in one or many other different ways, and then they'd need a cause for them. Reducto ad absurdum: there is only one such cause.

Hence we get an unchanging, static, perfectly simple, unique, omnipresent, omnipotent, cause of everything.

And that is what we call God.

Note that the universe itself fails to fulfill the requirements, as it is undergoing change, and so is also composed of actuality and potentiality.

You are making a distinction between the universe and the things within it in your analogy as if they do not all belong to one and the same universe, are not all of one and the same substance.

"No cow's like a horse,
and no horse like a cow.
That's one similarity
anyhow." - Piet Hein

[JimL]

I'm not sure what to make of this statement.

The effect [is] in the cause, yes, otherwise the effect couldn't possible come about.

What is meant by the effect being in the cause is that the effect is of the same substance as the cause. An acorn is of the same substance as its cause aka the oak tree. They are of the material nature because the universe to which they are a part is of a material nature. The effects may be distinct in form, but they are not distinct in substance, from that of their causes. It doesn't make sense to claim that the effect is in the cause, if there is nothing of the effect which is actually in the cause.

If the phosphorous compound at the end of the matchstick didn't have the properties it has, the match might not even light up. I'm not sure how you could say coherently that matchsticks are in a flame. The rest of the sentence is unintelligible to me. As if most of the rest of the next paragraph.

Thats because you are misinterpreting what i said. Using your analogy for instance I am not arguing that the matchsticks are in the flame, but that the substance of the flame is in the matchsticks. If it weren't, then there would be no flame!

It would be silly to say that universe had powers to create ex nihilo, but that is no argument against the notion that universe itself was created from no prior substance. That we haven't observed this, is no more an argument against it, than a failure to observe free quarks are an arguments against their existence.

The point is that it is an argument from ignorance. We know that what we have named free quarks exist through scientific discovery, not from ill informed guesses.

Suit yourself. You're defining science to be a fairly broad topic here, if it covers all observable facts.

Yes, I am.

I've stated before that I won't make an argument for God's existence based upon the universe having been created by God, from nothing. If you want to discuss it, open a thread entitled "Can God create ex nihilo?"

If you can not make an cogent argument for it, which apparently you can not, then there is no sense in opening a thread to discuss it.

Classical theology does not claim it can be known through natural reasons that the universe came into existence from nothing. It considers this to be the case based on revelation. Therefore you can't claim there's an argument from ignorance, since we're not claiming that "science or natural philosophy has no account of the the beginning, ergo the universe came into being out of nothing" or something to that effect.

Revelation is a belief, just like any other belief. Therefore the argument that the universe came into existence from out of nothing is a belief based on a belief.

There's no begging of the question either, you'll need to get more specific with that. What conclusion is used as a premise?

The premise is creationism, that the universe is not eternal, that something comes from nothing, and the conclusion is that something, the universe, comes from nothing.

All things that are composed of actuality and potentiality, which includes all things in the universe, are moved from actuality to potentiality by something else. Here you must be careful to distinguish accidental chains of causality, namely the historical ones that William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument focuses on, and the essential chains of causality. A hand is bounsing a ball; the hand has these properties because its connected firmly to a human arm, connected to a torso, standing firmly on the ground; the hand has the proper bio-mechanical properties, because of its muscles, nervous system, bones, etc...; these in turn have their properties from the biological cells and the way they're connected together; all the way down to interactions between molecules and atoms; each layer has potentialities and actualities, so they must all be moved by something else.

So at one point you reach what... basic mechanics of fundemental units, quarks, leptons, gluons and photons... but they too have potentiality and actuality, so how come they move? The chain of essential causality can't be infinitely long, because then nothing would literally happen.

Says who? The properties of anything that is itself infinite and eternal must also be infinite and eternal. I understand that people argue this point all the time, and that infinity is a difficult concept to wrap ones head around, but to me it is also just common sense that if anything can be said to be infinite and eternal, including God, then the properties that it has, such as change, are also without beginning. People argue that God doesn't change, but if that is true, then like you said above, nothing would ever happen.

Its like having an ill defined recursive function, like the fork bomb :(){ :|:& };: (gives me the shivers... never type this into a bash shell) of Unix infamy, recursively calling another instance of itself without returning. To explain how the hand could even bounce a ball, there must be some cause, which itself is purely actual, containing no potentiality.

If the hypothesized purely actual contains no potential, then again, nothing would ever happen.

There is motion, ergo such as a purely actual cause must exist.

Unproven assertion as faict.

We can furthermore conclude that the power of this cause must be unlimited, since there's nothing that could happen in the universe, which it isn't a cause of, which implies that if anything could possible be, it is a potential cause of them. Hence this cause is omnipotent.

More assertion. Power, unlimited power, implies a potential. One would define the oak tree as having the power within itself to bring the potential existence of the acorn into being, but that doesn't make the oak tree pure actuality. The universe is no different, the things that come to be within the universe are not distinct from the universe, they are just changes in form.

We can furthermore conclude that this cause is static, unchanging, as it has no potentiality, but is purely actual. From this consideration it must also be timeless and omnipresent, as its present everywhere without boundaries. Anywhere, anything happens, or could happen, it is.

Again, if it has no potentiality then how does anything happen. As to the last part of your statement, the universe as it is considered as a whole does exist everywhere without boundaries. Anywhere, anything happens, or could happen, it is.

We can also conclude that this cause is simple, containing no division in its substance or complexity, and is a soliton, its the only one of its kind. This follows because if there were two or more such causes, something would have to exist that could be different between them, otherwise they'd be identical. But then there would be potentiality of the cause, as it could be in one or many other different ways, and then they'd need a cause for them. Reducto ad absurdum: there is only one such cause.

So, conclude then that there is nothing other than the material world. Sounds as though you are defining your creator as nothingness, but calling it something. Nothingness would be simple, containing no division or complexity aka a soliton without the substance.

Hence we get an unchanging, static, perfectly simple, unique, omnipresent, omnipotent, cause of everything.

Yes, we get a nothingness, with the super added omnipotence, causing something.

And that is what we call God.

I know, and as simple as he is, he changes, and turns himself into human form, and walks around and does stuff.

Note that the universe itself fails to fulfill the requirements, as it is undergoing change, and so is also composed of actuality and potentiality.

Well, it fails to fulfill what you believe to be the requirements.

"No cow's like a horse,
and no horse like a cow.
That's one similarity
anyhow." - Piet Hein

Theres another similarity as well, they are both, the cow and the horse, material forms.

[Leonhard]

What is meant by the effect being in the cause is that the effect is of the same substance as the cause.

I think it would be more clear then if you simple said that they're made from the same substance. The former isn't really language that makes proper sense. I guess I can see sorta, kinda, how you get it to be the latter, but I'd vastly prefer the latter then. I think it would be much clearer.

I certainly don't deny that they're both composed of matter, even if its not the same matter in all circumstances: my table is made wood, my body is made of flesh and bone. Both wood and flesh is made from atomic elements, so they have properties in common with that, however what is made out of one or the other won't have the same properties.

But if that's what you mean, then I'm afraid you can't say that the universe is the source of the universe.

It would be silly to say that universe had powers to create ex nihilo, but that is no argument against the notion that universe itself was created from no prior substance. That we haven't observed this, is no more an argument against it, than a failure to observe free quarks are an arguments against their existence.

The point is that it is an argument from ignorance. We know that what we have named free quarks exist through scientific discovery, not from ill informed guesses.

But I haven't made any argument. I haven't argued for the temporal beginning of the universe. Or for Creatio Ex Nihilo. So how can I make an argument from ignorance? You can't make one unless an argument has been made.

If you can not make an cogent argument for it, which apparently you can not, then there is no sense in opening a thread to discuss it.

I'm willing to discuss it in another thread. Goading me won't help you. I know you're itching to talk about this because you disagree, but we can't start discussing every single tangent you disagree with, otherwise this already severely fragmented discussion will go off track.

There's no begging of the question either, you'll need to get more specific with that. What conclusion is used as a premise (in the 2nd way of Aquinas)?

The premise is creationism, that the universe is not eternal, that something comes from nothing, and the conclusion is that something, the universe, comes from nothing.

You can read the argument yourself. At no point does St. Aquinas assume that the universe began to exist. In fact later in his works he argues that its impossible to establish by natural arguments whether that time had a beginning.

You share a misunderstanding many have about his arguments, they're not founded on the idea that the past can't be infinite. I've never talked about temporal succession at all. That would be the accidental (has nothing to do with 'oops i broke it' accidents) chain of causality. I explicitly marked it as not being what St. Aquinas was talking about. It was talking about essentially ordered chains of causality. Your hand is simultaniously moved by its bones and flesh, which are moved by their cells, moved by their molecules, moved by their atoms, moved by their quarks, leptons, gluons and photons... moved by something else. This chain, has nothing to do with time, just with the fact that there's motion. It is this chain, which St. Aquinas argues, has to terminate in a purely actual cause.

If the hypothesized purely actual contains no potential, then again, nothing would ever happen.

This doesn't follow. If it does, you need to show it. Currently you're only making an assertion.

There is motion, ergo such as a purely actual cause must exist.

Unproven assertion as faict.

JimL, do you just wrap quote tags around every single statement in a post, and treat every quote as a context-less mini-post you respond to? The past few paragraphs were the argument, this line was a summary recap.

In other words, its a conclusion not an assertion. The fact that you later cite an argument, and call it an assertion says much. You can either attack the logical structure of the argument, or its premises, but calling it assertion amounts to ignorance about what formal arguments are.

As to the last part of your statement, the universe as it is considered as a whole does exist everywhere without boundaries.

But the universe moves from potentiality to actuality. Hence it must have a cause other than itself. This cannot be itself, as all things that are moved from potentiality to actuality, are done so by something else. To deny this would effectively be to deny causality as such, as then things could happen without cause.

Sounds as though you are defining your creator as nothingness, but calling it something. Nothingness would be simple, containing no division or complexity aka a soliton without the substance.

On the contrary: nothingness would neither have actuality nor potentiality. Nothingness has no being, and can't be the cause of anything. However this cause must be purely actual, and so its distinguished from nothingness. And since it contains no potentiality, its distinguished from the universe itself.

I know, and as simple as he is, he changes, and turns himself into human form, and walks around and does stuff.

This would be a challenge for Christianity, one I think we can meet, but its not a challenge for theism.

Well, it fails to fulfill what you believe to be the requirements.

Which of the requirements do you disagree with?

[JimL]

I think it would be more clear then if you simple said that they're made from the same substance. The former isn't really language that makes proper sense. I guess I can see sorta, kinda, how you get it to be the latter, but I'd vastly prefer the latter then. I think it would be much clearer.

I certainly don't deny that they're both composed of matter, even if its not the same matter in all circumstances: my table is made wood, my body is made of flesh and bone. Both wood and flesh is made from atomic elements, so they have properties in common with that, however what is made out of one or the other won't have the same properties.

Everything is composed of the same fundamental substance.

But if that's what you mean, then I'm afraid you can't say that the universe is the source of the universe.

You can if the Cosmos, of which our universe is just a part, is eternal.

But I haven't made any argument. I haven't argued for the temporal beginning of the universe. Or for Creatio Ex Nihilo. So how can I make an argument from ignorance? You can't make one unless an argument has been made.

Of course you have. Revelation! That is an argument from ignorance.

I'm willing to discuss it in another thread. Goading me won't help you. I know you're itching to talk about this because you disagree, but we can't start discussing every single tangent you disagree with, otherwise this already severely fragmented discussion will go off track.

No, I'm not goading you, nor am I in the least bit itching to talk about it. I already know that there is nothing to discuss, no empirical argument that you can make for ex-nihilo creation other than your non empirical based belief in revelation.

You can read the argument yourself. At no point does St. Aquinas assume that the universe began to exist. In fact later in his works he argues that its impossible to establish by natural arguments whether that time had a beginning.

You share a misunderstanding many have about his arguments, they're not founded on the idea that the past can't be infinite. I've never talked about temporal succession at all. That would be the accidental (has nothing to do with 'oops i broke it' accidents) chain of causality. I explicitly marked it as not being what St. Aquinas was talking about. It was talking about essentially ordered chains of causality. Your hand is simultaniously moved by its bones and flesh, which are moved by their cells, moved by their molecules, moved by their atoms, moved by their quarks, leptons, gluons and photons... moved by something else. This chain, has nothing to do with time, just with the fact that there's motion. It is this chain, which St. Aquinas argues, has to terminate in a purely actual cause.

Whether the chain ends in what you would call a purely actual cause or not says nothing about the purely actual cause being a deity or a mind. Also if the universe is infinite and eternal then the chain needn't end at all. The properties of anything that is eternal and infinite must themselves be eternal and infinite as well.

This doesn't follow. If it does, you need to show it. Currently you're only making an assertion.

You made the assertion that the purely actual had no potentiality in it, not me. So, if it has no potentiality how does anything happen?

JimL, do you just wrap quote tags around every single statement in a post, and treat every quote as a context-less mini-post you respond to? The past few paragraphs were the argument, this line was a summary recap.

No I do not, I never even snip your posts as you do mine, but in this case I had already answered your argument, and then responded to your summary of the argument as well.

In other words, its a conclusion not an assertion. The fact that you later cite an argument, and call it an assertion says much. You can either attack the logical structure of the argument, or its premises, but calling it assertion amounts to ignorance about what formal arguments are.

I believe I responded to everything you posted, have not snipped anything. If I have please let me know exactly what I omitted and I will be glad to opine.

But the universe moves from potentiality to actuality. Hence it must have a cause other than itself. This cannot be itself, as all things that are moved from potentiality to actuality, are done so by something else. To deny this would effectively be to deny causality as such, as then things could happen without cause.

Not if the actual and the potentiality are one and the same thing. You are assuming in this line of reasoning that our universe, our particular universe, is a thing in itself and thus needs a cause that is external to it. If our universe is a part of the greater eternal and infinite cosmos then the potentiality is naught but a change within the actuality. In other words they are one and the same, the potentialities being merely changes taking place within the actual.

On the contrary: nothingness would neither have actuality nor potentiality. Nothingness has no being, and can't be the cause of anything. However this cause must be purely actual, and so its distinguished from nothingness. And since it contains no potentiality, its distinguished from the universe itself.

One could define a space, totally void of anything, a vacuum, ergo nothing, to be simple, containing no division or complexity. Thats basically how you describe God, but then you call it substance, a being, a cause of all else. Kind of like creation ex-nihilo! From nothing, something comes!

This would be a challenge for Christianity, one I think we can meet, but its not a challenge for theism.

Well, being that you are a christian, don't you think it a challenge you should undertake?

Which of the requirements do you disagree with?

Which have I agreed with so far?