Jacob86
-
Posts
554 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Jacob86
-
-
My response to this is that the "in virtue of" relation permits of an infinity of relations, without contradiction. This is an interesting point, in my opinion, if only because it brings up the question, "In which contexts is infinity problematic?" In general, I don't believe that relational qualities ever forbid infinity. For instance, I am one foot away from my computer, and many feet away from China, and many more feet away from the next galaxy, and it may be the case that for any arbitrary distance, I am that far away from something (perhaps even if the something is just a point in space, if not an object in the universe). Also, one atom might have infinitely many relations to two other atoms. We could say that atom 1 has x distance to atom 2, distance y to 3, is closer to 2 than 3, has angle theta from 2 to 1 to 3, and so on. It might be possible to list infinitely many relational facts about just three atoms in space, and it is in virtue of these facts that the atoms are the way that they are. But this does nothing to raise suspicion about the fact that they are the way they are. It is not as though a thing's being is somehow in jeopardy, or somehow inconsistent or ill-defined, if it is that way in virtue of infinitely many other facts.
While I appreciate your thoughts here, I'm afraid I don't see the connection to cause and effect which demonstrates that either (1)I am in need of a more thorough explanation from you OR (2) Your perception of my argument wasn't as close as I thought it was. haha. Either way, I apologize.
I'm trying stick with the simplest form possible which is why I keep going back and trying to reword the Law of Cause and Effect. It seems as though what I am trying to say is wrapped up in the very definitions of the words being used so that it is sort of "axiomatic" in a sense.
Every effect has a cause (by definition). This means that every effect must have been preceded by a cause.
Every cause has an effect (by definition). This means every cause must be followed by an effect.
A cause can either be the result of another cause (thus also being an effect in a different relationship) or it can be uncaused. If it is caused, it is preceded by another cause.Thus the "chain" of cause and effect.
Because of these very definitions, there is a necessary "linear" progression that is actual and therefore must have had a beginning at some point and the beginning must be a cause that is not also an effect or "an uncaused cause".
This is a subtle philosophical point, and for that reason I am very happy we've had this conversation. We may still disagree at the end of this, but I thank you for having pressed us all to think about this matter, since it seems to have more philosophical weight than we had probably realized.Inspiring deeper thought is one of my greatest passions and joys in life.
I actually tend to be somewhat of an irritant to most people because of my rabid curiosity...but I'm only so curious because I am certain that behind all the question marks are glorious exclamation points. Hopefully I haven't become too irritating on here yet since I am still only a "newbie".
This makes sense, but I want to make sure I respond to you rather than just my imagination about what you're saying.I appreciate it.
-
Aleph_0, post # 71
I pointed out that the very definition of "quantity" precludes the notion of an infinite quantity. That wasn't an opinion. Quantifying consists in determining a thing's quanitity. It must be measurable or countable. Those processes require a termination point. Being determinate is essential to being a quantity.
In case I missed your specific response to this objection, please direct me to it.
Mindy
Should I take it that you agree with me that an infinite regress of causation is logically impossible then?
-
Thus why the entity/effect clarification was stated. Motions do not act, they are actions. If you doubt this, substitute a spring or a length of string with the same velocity for the pool stick.
I agree with this and remember reading about it in "Objectivism" by Peikoff..that it is the nature of the object which determines the cause/effect not the motion. However, the object alone with all of it's natural qualities would not have produced any motion (causes of effects) so it seems both are necessary when considering cause and effect- but it is helpful to distinguish.
-
What caused the human volition to initiate this chain of effects?
I'm assuming that you are pointing out the problem that the Law of cause and effect poses to the idea of a free human volition?? I have many thoughts (and questions) about the topic myself...but probably won't get into it here unless pressed.
If that's not what you intended, than what are you getting at?
-
In lieu of that, perhaps you can explain why you think that the lack of an uncaused cause would entail the lack of any cause at all. If it is not due to the argument I gave above, then I fear I'm still in need of something more.
I think it is due to the reasoning you gave above- it's just that you put it in different terms which may or may not end up being a completely accurate representation of what I mean. Does that make sense? I'm trying to describe my position with as little "extra" detail as possible because I know how easy it is to get distracted or misguided by the extra details. So the simplest way I can put it is the way I did above.
However, Like I said, let's go with that and flesh it out. As we do, perhaps I will realize that it is a better representation of what I mean.
-
Post #75. The wording suggests that an effect can also be a cause.
That's true in a sense. That which is an effect from a previous cause can (and I think almost always does) become a cause itself for a subsequent effect. I suppose you could take the analogy of the game of pool. The player moves his muscles which causes the pool stick to move (effect) and the pool stick's movement causes the ball to move (another effect). So the movement of the pool stick is an effect in one sense and a cause in another.
-
I think I now understand the motivation of your argument, and it is a more salient point than I had first appreciated. Let me describe your claim to you, rude as that might be, and tell me if I have it right. If so, then you may want to emphasize this way of presenting your case.
You claim that the present is the way that it is in virtue of the way that it was one second ago. The universe was the way that it was one second ago in virtue of the way that it was two seconds ago. If we assume that there is no point at which this reasoning terminates, then there is no foundation upon which current facts are grounded. To draw an analogy it would be like having an infinite regress of reasons for holding some belief. Since this chain of reasons would not be grounded in some indisputable or shared fact, it would not be grounded at all.
Since I'm typing this on an iPhone, I'll wait until I have computer access before I post my response to this view, but perhaps you can confirm whether this is the sort of claim you're making.
I don't know if I would have thought about it in those exact terms but it seems close enough to what I mean so I will await your response.
-
The Law of Causality applies to entities - the actions/effects that entities cause.
I agree. Did I indicate otherwise?
-
I don't think it makes a difference whether we speak in terms of time or cause-and-effect. I deny that there must have been a first cause, or an uncaused cause, or anything like that. The first thing to say about this in response to your argument is that I (unlike other people on this forum) believe there is nothing inherently contradictory in the idea that there is an actual infinity of something. So right off the bat, I'm not satisfied with your argument. The second point is that, even if you accept what Ayn Rand said regarding infinity, this seems to only apply to an infinity of actually existing entities. A cause is not an actual, independent entity. Look back to my example of the ball breaking the glass. In counting the number of entities that exist at any one time in the scenario, there is only a ball and glass; not a ball, glass, a cause, and an effect. Cause and effect is a relationship between actual entities and not an entity itself. So even given the premises that Ayn Rand held, there is no reason to think that there have been finitely many causes.
I'm sorry for the confusion. Your position is much clearer to me now. I understood your emphasis about effects not being entities but I did not realize that you were using it in the context of Rand's contention about the impossibility of an infinity of entities. While I don't think I agree with you, I understand your emphasis. I'm sorry for the slowness.
You believe there may be an infinite regress of cause and effect. I don't...(yet)
Here's why:
If every effect has a cause (via the Law of cause and effect), than if there was never a first cause there would never be any causes or effects to speak of. That's my current reasoning. Do you think it is sound? why or why not?
ps- I appreciate your patience.
Sorry! One more thing. I wanted to make it clear that I am in agreement with you that causes and effects are not entities.
-
Actuall, Peikoff points out on page 16 of OPAR:
The law of causality does not state that every entity has a cause. Some of the things commonly referred to as "entities" do not come into being or pass away, but are eternal—e.g., the universe as a whole. The concept of "cause" is inapplicable to the universe; by definition, there is nothing outside the totality to act as a cause. The universe simply is; it is an irreducible primary.
Yes! Let's talk about that. haha. I agree that if we are referring to the universe as "the totality of all that exists" than there is nothing outside of it which could cause it. But WITHIN that category ("within the universe" or "within existence") there must exist a cause which is not also an effect..IF the Law of Cause and Effect is valid. Agree? Disagree???
-
I've wondered about this for a while now and some of the conversation in my other thread made me want to ask it. But I figured it would be better to start a different topic on it to avoid too much confusion.
What is meant (and NOT meant) by the axiom "existence exists"? I can see that as an answer to a skeptic who wants "proof" that "it's not all just an illusion" or something like that. But what is the appropriateness and usage of it in regard to other questions or objections?? Surely when Newton began to wonder why the apple fell from the tree, and Objectivist would not have replied "Existence Exists. That's the way reality is. Are you trying to subvert reality with your questions!?" I can see it as a foundation in showing THAT there is existence but I'm not sure how it relates to questions concerning "why's" and "how's" about existence. And does it apply to "all existents" in general (raw matter)? Or in particular (a ball)? Or does it simply refer to the fact that SOMETHING exists (regardless of it's identity)?
Does that make sense?
-
What property of an event do you suppose time measures? Length measures a spatial dimension, temperature measures the heat. Surely time doesn't measure every property of an event, just some isolated one, namely its duration. Duration is not a property of any given object at any time, so an infinity of time does not imply an actual infinite quantity of any thing. Again, we revisit the point made earlier, that you seem to be reifying events and time, treating it like an object that is metaphysically indistinguishable from a rock, and this is a premise we all reject--so if you are to make your case in this way, you must first justify the premise that, by counting moments of time or measuring duration, you are counting objects rather than mere relations between objects which have no independent existence. Even understanding your claim as a claim that there must have been some point at which there was perfect stasis, your argument claims that there must have been such a point because changes must be finite--and so my rejection of this premise is the same. A change is not a physical entity, so what should be problematic about supposing that there is an infinity of them?
I only began referring to "time" because it seemed as though everyone else had shifted to using that language and debating about the nature of time and it's relationship to cause and effect. Frankly, I'm not too interested in getting into strict definitions regarding time, etc.. unless they are obviously helpful in fleshing out this debate. I'm not sure yet whether they are or not.
I'd prefer to simply talk about the Law of Cause and Effect which contrary to what many think, does not say that everyTHING must have a cause but that every EFFECT must have a cause. I do not think that I am reifying cause and effect here... though I could be. I know that effects don't "exist" in the same way that a ball does. They are not physical objects. But surely neither of us wants to DENY cause and effect. So how can we talk about cause and effect without denying it while simultaneously not being guilty of reification?? Perhaps my language simply has not been specific enough. If so I apologize.
That is only half of the argument. The other half of the argument is that this uncaused event entails the existence of a free will, which the original poster identifies with god.This is true...but I prefer to take one step of the argument at a time and start with the foundations. Just like when debating a skeptic, i'm not going to begin with ethics- i'm going to begin with the laws of logic because that is the fundamental level of our disagreement. In this argument, if there is no cause and effect, than there is obviously no uncaused cause worth debating about so we should probably stick with this for now.
Anyone who accepts this foundation is welcome to debate the further claims though.. Personally, I am very interested in working this foundation out since it is crucial to my goal in figuring out the answers to some of my questions.
-
I might be wrong at any point in this, but from my understanding;
time is a measurement of events, events are finite and in general have causes and effects (caused by previous events and causing subsequent events), it is impossible that there is an infinite regress of actual events because if there was never a first (or beginning) there would never be any other subsequent events. Therefore there must be a beginning to "time" (IF we are defining time as a measurement of events/changes). I agree with Mindy though, that it's POSSIBLE that "before time" there was stasis. This doesn't change the fact that there had to be a beginning in the cause-effect chain.
**I'm not arguing here that there was a beginning to matter or to "existence", but that there was a beginning to events/motion/changes/etc...
-
This is where I disagree with you. I agree that it cannot be that our "uncaused cause" was affected from the outside, nor that it is divisible and was set into motion by one of its components (which would then simply become the sole uncaused cause). However, those are not the only options apart from a sentient first cause.
You argue that volition is the only possible conclusion, but volition is only one possible aspect of an entity. As a normally-functioning human being, I have volition. It is part of my nature. However, there are also many other aspects of my nature, and they also affect the way that I behave. Volition can explain my actions, but so can other aspects of my nature, as in a myoclonic jerk. So far with your argument, you have argued that it must be an inherent part of the nature of the uncaused entity which causes it to begin the chain. I agree. However, I do not agree with your further jump that the only possible characteristic capable of this is volition. In fact, we have learned a great deal about the nature of the universe from the fields of quantum mechanics, and it has been suggested that the quantum nature of the universe is precisely what set off the Big Bang. Now here is a contending theory, which names the universe as the first cause, which also does not rely on either an outside influence or the influence of a single component of the entity. It explains the origin of cause-and-effect chains through the quantum nature of the universe, much as you would like to explain the origin of those chains through the volitional nature of God.
Thank you for stating your agreement where there is any. It's helpful to meet on common ground and go from there. I don't know what a "myoclonic jerk" is, but I'm assuming that it is an involuntary action caused by chemical reactions in the body or something like that- and wouldn't that fall into the category of "component parts" which you say could not be the ultimate cause???
Concerning quantum mechanics I must admit that I am not very familiar with that issue at all. In fact, I am somewhat adverse to it because the only people who have talked to me about it have done so in an attempt to overthrow or disprove the Laws of Logic. In fact I think they were saying that things were happening without a cause ("popping in and out of existence") and that therefore they had proved that the law of cause and effect is flawed. However, this seems like a dangerous blind leap. The inability to see a cause is not proof that there is not a cause. It seems these people have lost their ability to reason and have forgotten the definitions of the words they are using.
But like I said, I haven't done any first hand studying so I could have just been interacting with a bunch of dunces. haha.
Could you share a little about quantum mechanics and the relationship to this question of causation??
-
**Concerning the Impossibility of an Infinite Regress in causation:
The main argument I heard from Diana concerning this went somewhat as follows:
"The Theist says 'here we have the billionth cause and if there were never a first, there could not be a billionth. There is a billionth and therefore there must be a first'.. but in ascribing a numerical value the Theist has already assumed there is a first. He is committing circular reasoning here because the only way to identify this caused as the billionth is to assume that there is a first AND that you know when it was"
However, that seems silly. I doubt any Theist is claiming that this cause is actually the billionth. The point is that there cannot be a middle without a beginning. There is a middle; there must be a beginning.
If every effect has a cause, and if effects exist, there must exist a cause that was not also an effect. That might be the most succinct way I can put it.
**Concerning "Things"/ "Existence" not "needing a cause/reason":
I understand that some would contend that "things are not caused. events are". While I'm not sure if I am fully convinced of this, it does not necessarily change the nature of this argument. Regardless of what falls into the category of cause & effect (whether matter, events, motion, whatever), there still must be a cause which is not an effect (or an ultimate cause or uncaused cause). I think I would like to figure out the distinction there and I would like to better understand what you mean and don't mean when you say "existence exists"...however, it seems like I should save that for another thread in order not to jumble things too much on here.
-
You asked for help with this issue. You need to take pains to understand what people are writing. If you just wanted to debate, to defend your position, you would have had a little more leeway to damn the torpedos.
Mindy
I very much want to understand what people are writing... however, it seemed that much of it was contained in one of my posts already and therefore it confuses me as to why it would be restated and used against me in the discussion. I had already stated that up to a point I was "ok" with the "ultimate thing" being the Universe or Matter in general, but that after considering other implications (my point 4) that it did not seem likely. And I tried to stress in my posts that I was laboring to avoid the irrational leap of "I don't know, therefore it must be God!". And yet it seemed like I was being accused of just that.
On a side note, it seems that if my sole purpose was debate/defending my position, that I should welcome the strongest torpedoes rather than damn them in order to prove the superiority of my position.
As it is though, I care very little about "boasting rights" or anything of the sort. I do care very much about being right (being convinced of what is true) which means I DO welcome the strongest arguments against my position-- but in order for me to be convinced by those arguments (which is the whole point of this), they need to have a clear and obvious connection to my position AND they need to be understandable to me. "torpedoes" are very much unhelpful in such a situation. I suppose the only thing they can accomplish is applause from others.
-
I don't see why, depending on what you count as a "thing". What is "self-destructive" about it? I take it you mean either self-contradictory or leading to an infinite regress, when you say "self-destructive"
Both. I'll try to elaborate further on your objection here in an upcoming general post..
By the very notion of the fact that it is uncaused, this implies that nothing caused it to do anything. This means that no kind of willpower could have caused the universe to act, since presumably this willpower would be a thing which causes the universe to act, contradicting the supposition that it is uncaused. To this you might reply that willpower isn't really a thing in the universe, but at this point I think, "Then what's the difference between this statement, and saying that the willpower just doesn't exist at all?"Now if you just mean, by "will", the act of doing something which is not at all caused or incited by any antecedent facts, then this might be called an act of will, but there is no reason to think that it was a conscious will, i.e. that this quote-unquote "willing act" is anything like the willpower that humans disputably possess, since there is nothing to suggest that this act of "will" was guided by reason or conscious act.
That is what I mean by will. I mean that the first cause had to be an act of will by nature of the fact that it is uncaused by anything else. It had to be a choice/decision/act of volition that was freely carried out. Concerning the possibility of it not being guided by reason/consciousness; perhaps we have different ideas of "will" or "volition". It seems to me that volition is simply the active corollary of consciousness and preference. Volition is that which acts upon the preferred desire based upon a consciousness which conceives of options. Or the other way, a consciousness conceives of option, preference favors one option over others, and volition is simply the faculty that carries out the sum. Perhaps I am wrong about that though?
This is the question of, why is the universe the way that it is, rather than some other way? As Ayn Rand herself stated, and I agree with her: This question deserves the same answer that the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Namely, all reason is based on the fact of existence, and not just any existence but this existence. We cannot step outside of reality in order to answer questions about reality. The existence, and the form of existence, of the universe is primitive, from which other questions may be answered.I think what I mean is different from what you think I mean... What I mean is that I am convinced that there must be an uncaused cause and that it's original action/"causing" could not have been caused by any other thing. So, when I ask that question, it is sort of a rhetorical restatement of that conviction. I am supposing (for the sake of argument) that Matter is the "ultimate" thing which is eternal and has no beginning, and then pointing out that it cannot be unconscious matter because there would be no way for it to act or begin the chain of causation.. it would have remained static and no cause or effect would have ever taken place.
ps- Thank you for your help with the quotes. I hope I did it accurately. I suppose I will find out in a second.
-
I will try and reply soon....i believe I may have some questions..
In the mean time though, could somebody explain to me how to do the QUOTE thing? haha. I tried clicking the "MultiQuote" button on the bottom left of the post, but it didn't do anything.
I would like to use it so that my replies aren't too jumbled or confusing.
Thanks.
-
Plasmatic and Mindy, I think Jacob answered your questions already with his 4th point. I am not sure why you are asking him to repeat it.
His points 1,2 and 3 state the same thing you are saying, that if there is an uncaused cause it could be the universe. He goes on to argue why he thinks it is god in his 4th point.
THANK YOU! lol.
It almost seems as though people are not even reading what i've said- despite the fact that I have gone to extreme efforts to clarify what I am trying to say and what I am not trying to say. Thank you. again. haha.
To everyone else who has replied thus far, could you please point out WHERE in the argument you disagree (at what point is my "logic" not logical?) and try and explain why? Ex: "I accept that there must be an uncaused cause (points 1-3) but not that it is a person (point 4) because ....."
or "I do not accept that there must be an uncaused cause (point 3) because I believe that there can be an infinite regress of causes (against point 2)"....
This would be much more helpful than reciting something that we all probably all agree on already anyways but which does not seem to pertain to the argument in an obvious way.
-
You have reified "cause" and "effect". Physical entities interact with eachother according to their natures, and these interactions have a "cause" and effect". Their specific natures and initial conditions are the cause, and the effect is the resultant change in their motion, shape, or other measurable quantity. Things are not causes nor effects. The interaction of things has causes and effects.
All referents for the concepts of "cause" and "effect" are existents. So the concepts of "cause" and "effect" logically depend on the concept of existence. To assert that existence can be an effect is to steal the concept of "effect", ignoring the context in which it is grounded. As a result, you necessarily run into the contradiction of saying that something simultaneously exists and does not exist, and has a specific nature and does not.
I am trying to stress that there must be an existent/entity which is uncaused and which caused the entirety of all subsequent effects. I did not say that this cause was not an entity. In fact, since I am trying to argue that it exists, I am arguing that it IS an entity/existent. I am not asserting that existence as existence is an effect. I am simply recognizing that all existents but one can and do fall into either category of cause or effect and that there must be one existent that does not fall in the category of an effect-- thus being uncaused.
Does that help clarify what I'm saying?
-
Ok- I have read and considered the above replies. I have also listened to Diana's lecture on the objections to the Cosmological Argument that was posted (thank you for sharing). I'm going to attempt to respond to all of the above without being too redundant. I apologize if it comes across as choppy. Haha. Here we go:
1) The Law of Cause and Effect does not state that "EVERYTHING must have a cause"..that is obviously self-destructive. It simply states that "every effect must have a cause" (which is really just a way to summarize the definitions of "cause" and "effect"). This is NOT based on inductive observation such as "everything I see has a cause and therefore everything must have a cause". Rather it is based on the logical meaning of "cause" and "effect". A cause is that which has an effect. An effect is that which has a cause. Everything that is in the class of an effect must have a cause.
2) As Rand, Diana, and many others rightly conclude, an ACTUAL infinite regress is impossible. I'm not saying that it's just hard to imagine an infinite regress. I'm saying that logically, it is impossible. There cannot be an actual infinite regress of causation.
3) Therefore there must be something that is an uncaused cause (a cause that is not also an effect); something that is self-sustaining/self-sufficient (NOT self-caused...that is also irrational!). As of right now in the argument, this COULD be "the Universe" or matter in general I suppose or even a blue marble! All that needs to be seen thus far is that there must logically BE an uncaused cause -regardless of what you want to say it is. When I said that this thing must in a sense "have the power of existence within itself" what I mean is that there must be something that simply exists (which means it IS part of existence)- but it must be special in the sense that it is uncaused/"necessary"/not contingent or dependent on anything else. It simply "is" and needs no causal explanation. Therefore no one (on EITHER side) can say "ah, but what caused that thing?" as if that destroys the argument. We are establishing here that there MUST be a thing which is uncaused and therefore cannot rationally have that question asked of it.
**At this point, if you disagree please specify. If not, than it has been established that there is an uncaused cause- If you agree thus far, please do not back peddle and deny this based on something you don't like in the following arguments. We have not established whether this uncaused cause is the universe or matter or a blue marble or God.. we have only established that it is logically necessary and therefore actual.**
Many people would be comfortable stopping the logical inquiry at this point and asserting that the uncaused cause is what ever happens to best suit their current/desired world view (Religionists would say "God", Atheists would say "Matter" or "The Universe" or "A Blue Marble" depending on their particular brand of atheism). However, I cannot consciously do that without violating my value for wanting to know with certainty what is actually true. Therefore, I press on and would encourage others to do so as well. If I did not, I feel that I would be guilty of evasion.
4) The uncaused cause began the chain of causation. Whether you want to say it "created other things" or "acted" or "exploded" or whatever, it "caused" an effect or multiple effects. I suppose it would be helpful to stick with "matter" or "the universe" for now and say that it did not remain static/ "as it was", but it acted and caused effects/"changes" in the form of the matter or the universe. However, if this thing is uncaused, what was the cause of it's acting/ causing or having an effect? Why did it cause an effect rather than remain static? It could not have done so accidentally for this implies that something outside of it acted upon it (caused it). This would say that the uncaused cause was caused to act (Law of Non-Contradiction). It also could not be some arbitrary "part" inside of it that acted upon the whole for we run into the same problem of an infinite regress of causation that is inward rather than outward. The only possibility is that the Uncaused Cause acted wholly of it's own accord in it's causation of effects. It must have purposefully caused/acted. It must have chosen to act. And therefore it must have all the faculties necessary for choice; consciousness (mind), preference (affections), and volition (will). At this point, if you want to still claim that it is the Universe or matter, or a blue marble, I suppose you could, but it would be a Universe, Matter, or Blue Marble, that has all the faculties of person-hood (consciousness, preference, and volition). However, it seems more appropriate to call it God since the traditional definition of God is the the ultimate personal being.
Notice I am not saying that the uncaused cause is solely consciousness (Rand would say that consciousness which is only conscious of itself is illogical)-- I am saying that it is an existent/"being" that is conscious not solely of it's own consciousness but of it's objective existence. I do not think this is any more illogical than it is for me to be conscious of my own existence.
**Once again, if you disagree at this point, please specify. If you agree, than it has been established that there is a "God" (or an ultimate being which is personal). No details have been established about this God YET and therefore it cannot be assumed that it conforms to any current particular view of God, but it's existence has been established so please do not back peddle beyond this if you disagree with further arguments. (Unless of course you realize a flaw in previous arguments).
I will not venture into details about God yet... I think the above is more than enough to chew on and debate for now.
As I said before, this is what I am currently convinced of because of the logical reasons I listed above. If I am wrong, I want to be proven AND convinced that I am wrong. So please, respond in accordance with that.
Quick "one-liner" attacks and scoffs are not helpful. Responses that honestly attempt to deal with what I mean by what I am saying and subsequently attempt to correct or critique are very helpful and anticipated.
Thank you.
-
I know there have been some posts on this topic already, but from a brief skimming it seems that most of them are very old (over a year) and that they do not address some of the more fundamental issues that I am struggling with. So, if I am being annoying/redundant by raising this issue again, please forgive me.
Prior to being introduced to Objectivism, I was introduced to a very rational form of Theism that is rooted fundamentally in logic & reason as opposed to faith and mysticism. I have recently fallen in love (intellectually and morally) with Rand's philosophy- however I struggle a great deal with the issue of Theism vs Atheism and I think it is too important of a question for me to easily dismiss. I need to discover which is true and to be certain of it based on solid reasoning. SO, I will put forth the current argument(s) for the existence of God that I am convinced of along with the basic view of this God that I have and I would appreciate it if anyone could point out legitimate wholes in my thinking and help me to understand the foundational problems with it (if there are any).
It is basically the Cosmological Argument with a few "twists" or commonly missed observations:
Every effect must have a Cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Therefore there must be an "Uncaused Cause" which in a sense has the power of existence within itself.
[i do NOT here mindlessly jump to saying "therefore it must be God!". I'm aware of the "God of the gaps" fallacy and despise it as much as anyone else would so please don't accuse me of that straw man...it would be very unhelpful for me.]
There are certain things that must logically be true about this "Uncaused Cause".
1) It must be "knowable". To say that we cannot know anything about it is a contradiction ("we cannot know anything about it except for the fact that it is the kind of thing that cannot be known" is contradictory). And therefore by the Law of the Excluded Middle, it must be knowable.
2) In it's original action of causing, it's action must not have been "accidental". There is nothing else which exists to act upon it and thus cause it to cause other things. It IS the first cause. So now we are asking, "what caused it to cause/create other things/effects?". The answer could not be anything outside of itself and therefore must come from within itself. BUT it could not be some "part" of itself acting upon it from within for then we are taking the same question and going inward rather than outward and run into the same problem of an infinite regression. Whatever this Uncaused Cause is, it must have fully purposed to cause/create and therefore must have a mind to perceive options (to cause or not to cause), desires/preference to choose an option, and will to execute the option. The Uncaused Cause must be a person in the sense of it having a mind, affections, and will.
I am familiar with atheists suggesting that "the universe is the uncaused cause" but this seems to have some major problems:
1) It does not deal with the problem described in (2) above concerning the impossibility of the Uncaused Cause to act accidentally.
2) The Universe is not really an entity (as I understand it??) but a word we use to describe the collection of all entities- and among all the entities, the Law of Cause and Effect is upheld.
I am also familiar with the objection that goes as follows: "Since the Universe is everything that exists, it is irrational to wonder about something outside of the Universe since it would not be in the class of everything that exists". This seems rather silly-- obviously Theists are not saying that God does not exist since He created the Universe. They are simply using "universe" to mean everything else in existence which is not the Uncaused Cause.
Description of this Uncaused Cause (Or my picture of it):
This ultimate person must be the ultimate embodiment of all rational virtues and perfections. I imagine He would be the ultimate embodiment of Rand's view of humanity (a very "Galt-like God"). He must value above all that which is most valuable (Himself) and be obsessed with Himself. He must do all that He does for the sole purpose of enjoying Himself. In this sense He would be similar to Aristotle's "self-reflecting God" except Aristotle falsely concluded that such a God could never contemplate/create anything lower than Himself-- I would argue that He could contemplate and create things lower than Himself as a means of reflecting upon and enjoying Himself.
I could go into more detail...but that should suffice for now in order to assure you that I am not attempting to make an irrational leap from logic to mysticism.
As I stated above, If I am wrong about this, I want to be CONVINCED of it. As it is, I have been convinced that this is rational and true but it obviously clashes with much of Objectivism as it is currently represented. So please, if you respond, try to avoid straw men by addressing what I have actually said and not what you've heard from others or imagine me to be saying and I will labor to pay any responders the same respect.
Thank you.
Argument for the existence of God
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
But the objects nature ALONE is not sufficient for it to move. I understand that the same motion applied to a ball will result in a different effect than when applied to a brick wall and that therefore it is important to consider the nature of a thing when we are discussing cause and effect. But, left to itself and it's nature, the ball does not move. It is only when a specific type of action is taken that the nature of the ball is effected in a certain way.
Like I said before, I think this is a helpful distinction to point out, but it seems as though you are relegating cause & effect (or motion upon objects) to irrelevance while also assuming that every scientific thinker who has talked about cause and effect has mindlessly forgotten that the nature of the thing causing and the nature of the thing being effected matters...which seems rather unfair.