Posted by Miguel  3/14/2018 1:44 pm | #1 |
That is, your favorite way of solving the "gap problem". Showing why the first cause or necessary being is an agent (has intellect, will, etc), is good, and so on. Share arguments, everyone. Let's discuss them.
|
Posted by aftermathemat 3/14/2018 2:32 pm | #2 |
One reason to accept PSR is because otherwise one is faced with the existential problem of things being able to cease to exist for no reason, and us being forced to take this idea seriously.
The only way out of this dilemma is to affirm PSR, and thus end up accepting that reality won't magically cease to exist. But that means reality is rational, and that the ultimate cause of existence is rational as well, and is also commited to keeping the universe in being. But this also implies final causality / teleology, so you get the idea.
Last edited by aftermathemat (3/14/2018 2:35 pm)
|
Posted by Ouros 3/14/2018 4:37 pm | #3 |
It's not something too formal, but I always think that we can show that the First Principle is God with something like that:
1. Whatever wich is finite is constrain by something external to itself. (In the sense that if X is finite, then it's because of something wich is not identical to X.)
2.But the First Principle is not constrain by anything. Therefore, the First Principle is infinite in whatever he is.
3. By the principle of proportionate causality, the First principle got every "positive property", at least formally. Therefore, the First principle got at least will and intellect.
4. Therefore, the First principle have infinite will and intellect, but whatever wich has those is what we call God.
Don't know if it work complety, but it doesn't use directly divine simplicity.
|
Posted by Miguel 3/14/2018 6:26 pm | #4 |
aftermathemat wrote:
One reason to accept PSR is because otherwise one is faced with the existential problem of things being able to cease to exist for no reason, and us being forced to take this idea seriously.
The only way out of this dilemma is to affirm PSR, and thus end up accepting that reality won't magically cease to exist. But that means reality is rational, and that the ultimate cause of existence is rational as well, and is also commited to keeping the universe in being. But this also implies final causality / teleology, so you get the idea.
I like that too. Pruss mentions it in his discussion of arguments for PSR based on the fact that things don't pop into existence uncaused (or out of thin air) and mentions how to rule it out we'd need both PSR and the fact that whatever beings there might exist with the power of creating things, such beings would have a predilection for order and would be predisposed to not randomly create things out of thin air, a fact which is relevant for the Gap Problem. The same can be said about the continuous existence of things. Once we've reached an independent being that is responsible for the existence of dependent beings, these basic facts strongly suggest that it is a rational being who acts with a predilection for order and with purpose.
Standard teleological aspects of reality may alao be added, as Samuel Clarke does in his proof (Pruss too)
|
Posted by Miguel 3/14/2018 6:31 pm | #5 |
It's not something too formal, but I always think that we can show that the First Principle is God with something like that:
1. Whatever wich is finite is constrain by something external to itself. (In the sense that if X is finite, then it's because of something wich is not identical to X.)
2.But the First Principle is not constrain by anything. Therefore, the First Principle is infinite in whatever he is.
3. By the principle of proportionate causality, the First principle got every "positive property", at least formally. Therefore, the First principle got at least will and intellect.
4. Therefore, the First principle have infinite will and intellect, but whatever wich has those is what we call God.
Don't know if it work complety, but it doesn't use directly divine simplicity.
Why would steps 1 and 2 be necessary? Samuel Clarke gives the argument that the first cause is intelligent since it is also responsible for the existence of intelligent beings, and by PPC the effects of the first cause cannot have a perfection (such as intelligence) in a greater way than the first cause, so the first cause is intelligent. All that is needed is PPC and for intelligence to be a positive perfection .
From 1 we can make an argument for will and freedom, however, in the sense that the first cause cannot be determined to create anything external to itself. Feser gives some interesting arguments for that, and, if I remember, Plotinus also gives some curious arguments for will and freedom in the One.
|
Posted by Ouros 3/14/2018 7:04 pm | #6 |
Why would steps 1 and 2 be necessary? Samuel Clarke gives the argument that the first cause is intelligent since it is also responsible for the existence of intelligent beings, and by PPC the effects of the first cause cannot have a perfection (such as intelligence) in a greater way than the first cause, so the first cause is intelligent. All that is needed is PPC and for intelligence to be a positive perfection .
Well, God isn't a simple agent, with a finite will and intellect right? He's the Infinite, the Absolute. We want to show that the First Principle is not merely a god, but clearly God.
From 1 we can make an argument for will and freedom, however, in the sense that the first cause cannot be determined to create anything external to itself. Feser gives some interesting arguments for that, and, if I remember, Plotinus also gives some curious arguments for will and freedom in the One.
What do you precisely mean by will?
I think that from 1, we could only show that the First Principle can do things, but not necessarily that is an agent with intellect.
There's still the possibility that there is an impersonal being who cause everything by contingent mean, like stochastic process... or could he? I think that Joshua Rassmussen argued that an impersonal being like that would be contingent, because you would have to fix an arbitrary value, so a contingent one, to what he can do: like he would have a 13% chance to make our world, but that 13% would be a unexplained value, so we would need something external to explain it.
|
Posted by Miguel 3/14/2018 8:10 pm | #7 |
Why would steps 1 and 2 be necessary? Samuel Clarke gives the argument that the first cause is intelligent since it is also responsible for the existence of intelligent beings, and by PPC the effects of the first cause cannot have a perfection (such as intelligence) in a greater way than the first cause, so the first cause is intelligent. All that is needed is PPC and for intelligence to be a positive perfection .
Well, God isn't a simple agent, with a finite will and intellect right? He's the Infinite, the Absolute. We want to show that the First Principle is not merely a god, but clearly God.
From 1 we can make an argument for will and freedom, however, in the sense that the first cause cannot be determined to create anything external to itself. Feser gives some interesting arguments for that, and, if I remember, Plotinus also gives some curious arguments for will and freedom in the One.
What do you precisely mean by will?
I think that from 1, we could only show that the First Principle can do things, but not necessarily that is an agent with intellect.
There's still the possibility that there is an impersonal being who cause everything by contingent mean, like stochastic process... or could he? I think that Joshua Rassmussen argued that an impersonal being like that would be contingent, because you would have to fix an arbitrary value, so a contingent one, to what he can do: like he would have a 13% chance to make our world, but that 13% would be a unexplained value, so we would need something external to explain it.
Besides the problem that Rasmussen pointed out, there's also the issue that if the First Cause operated by stochastic processes, it would be very hard to explain why it never anihilated the universe; why it keeps it in bei; why it doesn't just create random things out of thin air, all the rest, which are the sorts of issues pointed by teleological considerations. If the first cause is neither determined to create nor randomly creates, it can only create in a free, rational manner; the explanation must be personal.
Yes, we wanna show that it is clearly God, but for all intents and purposes it is sufficient to merely argue that the first cause has intellect in some manner. As a classical theist I agree with simplicity, but its importance shouldn't be overstated in an argument. Prsgmatically, if we can show there is an intelligent first cause that will be good enough. Divine Simplicity can come afterwards as an explanation for God's own necessary existence.
Last edited by Miguel (3/14/2018 8:13 pm)
|
Posted by Miguel 3/22/2018 4:07 pm | #8 |
I want more answers. Come on, guys, this is THE question for cosmological arguments. We accept that things must have explanations; that there must be a necessary foundation for the existence of contingent things; an independently existing being responsible for the existence of dependent things. What else can we infer from there?
Last edited by Miguel (3/22/2018 4:08 pm)
|
Posted by aftermathemat 3/22/2018 6:16 pm | #9 |
I want more answers. Come on, guys, this is THE question for cosmological arguments. We accept that things must have explanations; that there must be a necessary foundation for the existence of contingent things; an independently existing being responsible for the existence of dependent things. What else can we infer from there?
Since being is rational, this means the universe will not stop existing for no reason. For the universe to stop existing for no reason would be very similar to a symphony stopping midway for no reason. But this implies the First Cause is acting rationally, which cannot be said for non-personal non-rational causes. So the First Cause is rational.
But it is also good that things exist, and since it is rational for them to continue to exist, it is also good for things to continue to exist, so the First Cause must also be acting in an ontologically good way, or even be the Good.
And as Craig points out, if the fate of everything were death and a cold universe that will eternally stay like that, the meaning for our lives and motives for morality would be severely undermined as everything will be forgoten and erased, so it seems it would be quite frustrating for things to end this way, so it would be very fitting if God existed, so this would add meaning and uphold morality, and besides this it would be fitting if the universe didn't end the way of absolute death, and so the First Cause might also fittingly either prevent this from happening or allow this to happen but redeem it somehow or add significance to our actions.
In other words, the First Cause must also be relevant for morality and the ultimate meaning for both mankind and the rest of the cosmos as well.
Last edited by aftermathemat (3/22/2018 6:19 pm)
|
Posted by Ouros 3/23/2018 7:31 am | #10 |
Well, after reading Samuel Clark, I think that there a basically two big ways to show that the first cause is God:
- Either by arguing that the universe show order, wich is a sign of a designer, so a personal first cause: but that is basically the teleological argument, wich doesn't need the cosmological argument in the first place.
- Or by arguing that because there is intellect in the universe, and that it's irreductible to non-intellectual things, then the first cause posseses intellect, and can inject it in the creation. That means that materialism is possibly, in the ontological sense, false.
Ironically, that would mean, contra Kant, that the cosmological could depends on the physico-theological argument, and not the opposite.
So, for me, if we want to have a cosmological argument who doesn't need another theological argument, then we need to show that materialism is possibly false.
Thoughts?
