Causality and God

[Prince_James]

Once again, a discussion stemming from an earlier one held betwixt Light Gigantic and myself.

Suppose that God is the creator of causality. That is to say, causality was once, and will potentially be again, non-existent, and that God was the one whom has established causality and whom, if he so chooses, annihilate it. Yet wait a minute, for if this is held to be so, we clearly are met almost immediatly with a problem! For causality is what demands that causes and have effects, and for effects to precede causes, and for indeed, causes and effects to even exist whatsoever. So if causality did not precede God's creation of it, he himself could not create it! For in not being able to be a cause, the effect of causality could not be manifested. Indeed, God with all his omnipotence could not move a single thing, because no action of his - if indeed there could be action or even thought! - could be a cause nor could produce an effect. In essence, God would be impotent! Yet it is held by theistically inclined people that God does indeed cause things. Does not then this mandate that God needs causality prior to any creation of his? And therefore is not the originator of causality at all?

I postulate that indeed it does.

 

[lightgigantic]

First you have to establish the cause and effect for god operates out of the same principles of cause and effect for the living entity - kind of difficult since there are clear scriptural statements that even time is contingent on god's existence

 

[KennyJC]

LG: I think you need to forget this notion that scripture has any significance. Let's say that there is an intelligent creator of the universe, why is the word of man 2,000 years ago any more significant than what we say today? This creator is beyond everyone's perception. Nobody is a 'prophet'.

 

[baumgarten]

LG: I think you need to forget this notion that scripture has any significance. Let's say that there is an intelligent creator of the universe, why is the word of man 2,000 years ago any more significant than what we say today? This creator is beyond everyone's perception. Nobody is a 'prophet'.

I agree. If only for to have meaningful discussion, this must be assumed. Otherwise, lightgigantic, you are just making an appeal to authority, something Lawdog was able to make rather clear in a single post that stated he knows God exists simply because the Catholic church says so. Which is not really something you can effectively argue with, because no one is going to accept that as evidence.

 

[Prince_James]

Lightgigantic:

"First you have to establish the cause and effect for god operates out of the same principles of cause and effect for the living entity - kind of difficult since there are clear scriptural statements that even time is contingent on god's existence "

I am not refering to cause and effect for the living entity, but cause and effect from anything.

Let me ask you this: Is God causing anything a causal interaction?

And furthermore: Can a cause exist without an effect?

 

[Satyr]

Keep on beating that brain-dead horse.

 

[francois]

God, being omnipotent above all things, does not require causality in order to initiate something. In fact, being omnipotent, he doesn't require anything. Which sort of makes anything he does pointless.

 

[Prince_James]

Francois:

Omnipotence necessitates causality as the ability to have power requires there be causes and effects.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG: I think you need to forget this notion that scripture has any significance. Let's say that there is an intelligent creator of the universe, why is the word of man 2,000 years ago any more significant than what we say today? This creator is beyond everyone's perception. Nobody is a 'prophet'.

Actually most scriptures I work out of are 5000 years old - as for why I assign credibility to them its because modern thinkers don't appear to be very good thinkers

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince_James

"First you have to establish the cause and effect for god operates out of the same principles of cause and effect for the living entity - kind of difficult since there are clear scriptural statements that even time is contingent on god's existence "

I am not refering to cause and effect for the living entity, but cause and effect from anything.

Then you have to establish if "anything" innvolves uniform rules of cause and effect - kind of difficult from the empirical stand point

Let me ask you this: Is God causing anything a causal interaction?

yes of course

And furthermore: Can a cause exist without an effect

How would you propose to detect that a cause did not give an effect when obviously there is no effect to be seen and the cause is beyond your material vision?

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"Then you have to establish if "anything" innvolves uniform rules of cause and effect - kind of difficult from the empirical stand point"

I'm actually evaluating it philosophically. Empirically speaking would be very poor indeed.

But you want me to show you how causality works?

"How would you propose to detect that a cause did not give an effect when obviously there is no effect to be seen and the cause is beyond your material vision?"

If there is no effect to be seen - and if we assume seen means "resulting", unless you meant actually "invisible" - then there was no cause. A cause demands an effect in order to be a cause (it is defined as the foundation for effects). Moreover, causes beyond my material vision, if they can occur and are necessary, can be evaluated philosophically.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

"How would you propose to detect that a cause did not give an effect when obviously there is no effect to be seen and the cause is beyond your material vision?"

If there is no effect to be seen - and if we assume seen means "resulting", unless you meant actually "invisible" - then there was no cause. A cause demands an effect in order to be a cause (it is defined as the foundation for effects). Moreover, causes beyond my material vision, if they can occur and are necessary, can be evaluated philosophically.

On what grounds do you assume your philosophical understanding is broad enough to determine the nature of effects you do not perceive - I mean when you start talking about god, who is defined as being the source of time itself, you are cetainly getting yourself in to deep water

 

[Gordon]

Once again, a discussion stemming from an earlier one held betwixt Light Gigantic and myself.

Suppose that God is the creator of causality. That is to say, causality was once, and will potentially be again, non-existent, and that God was the one whom has established causality and whom, if he so chooses, annihilate it. Yet wait a minute, for if this is held to be so, we clearly are met almost immediatly with a problem! For causality is what demands that causes and have effects, and for effects to precede causes, and for indeed, causes and effects to even exist whatsoever. So if causality did not precede God's creation of it, he himself could not create it! For in not being able to be a cause, the effect of causality could not be manifested. Indeed, God with all his omnipotence could not move a single thing, because no action of his - if indeed there could be action or even thought! - could be a cause nor could produce an effect. In essence, God would be impotent! Yet it is held by theistically inclined people that God does indeed cause things. Does not then this mandate that God needs causality prior to any creation of his? And therefore is not the originator of causality at all?

I postulate that indeed it does.

Logically there is a requirement that all causes have effects and all effects have causes and this logically requires an uncreated first cause, but there is not a logical requirement for things which are not effects to have causes. There is no logical basis therefore for causality to have a cause as it's not an effect. Causality is a property and can logically have existed infinitely. What you choose to believe is your choice but there is absolutely no logical reason for causality not to have existed infinitely. As causality is merely the ability for something to be caused, you would expect it to be part of any infinite power, force or whatever you might wish (or not wish) to call it!

regards,


Gordon.

 

[Prince_James]

Lightgigantic:

"On what grounds do you assume your philosophical understanding is broad enough to determine the nature of effects you do not perceive - I mean when you start talking about god, who is defined as being the source of time itself, you are cetainly getting yourself in to deep water "

Does one need to explain how a piano works in China if one understands how a piano works in Bolivia? The foundations of each are the same.

Moreover, the idea of God being the source of time is absurd, for in order for God to be such a source as an action, necessitates that time exist before he creates it.

Gordon:

"Logically there is a requirement that all causes have effects and all effects have causes and this logically requires an uncreated first cause,"

Save if the thing is eternal, which would prohibit such a first cause.

"but there is not a logical requirement for things which are not effects to have causes. There is no logical basis therefore for causality to have a cause as it's not an effect. Causality is a property and can logically have existed infinitely. What you choose to believe is your choice but there is absolutely no logical reason for causality not to have existed infinitely. As causality is merely the ability for something to be caused, you would expect it to be part of any infinite power, force or whatever you might wish (or not wish) to call it!"

I agree. Obviously causality must be either a metaphysical property or stemming from a larger metaphysical property. I count it as one of the chief manifestations of "relation", which I accord a status as the third of the metaphysical fundamentals (the other two being space and time respectively).