Aristotle's first cause argument and the existence of God

[DivineAmandus]

One would have to define God in order to know whether Aristotle's argument was even relevant. I don't believe there's any way you could get from his argument to Zeus or any remotely Biblical God, even assuming Aristotle's argument worked.

If the 'First Cause' is transcendental then you literally can know nothing about it. Attempts by Abrahamics to use Aristotle's First Cause argument seem to me non sequitur.

 

[idav]

Theists, particularly those of the Abrahamic faiths, follow the logic of Aristotle in assuming that there is a first cause, and that first cause has to be divine.

We'll assume for a moment that Aristotle was at least partly right, that there had to be a first cause to existence.

What is it that makes one think that said first cause has to be divine? Why does one assume that the first cause has to be a god? It could be something completely impersonal, and not divine at all, but nothing more than something as simple as some energy. Theists assume that their god has no beginning, so why is it a stretch to assume that an energy has no beginning?

Theists work with the presupposition that there is a first cause that has to be god, but such assumptions don't exactly hold water logically. To be fully objective, one has to entertain the idea that a supposed first cause doesn't necessarily have to be divine in any way.

The act of creation or existence coming about does sort of bring a type of divinity into the equation. Whether said divine beginning is an entity with any sort of coherence is another question. My opinionated answer to that is that awareness wouldn't be possible otherwise.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That a first cause must be divine, displays a lack of imagination. That there must be a first cause at all, displays an even more severe lack of imagination.

 

[Quiddity]

One would have to define God in order to know whether Aristotle's argument was even relevant. I don't believe there's any way you could get from his argument to Zeus or any remotely Biblical God, even assuming Aristotle's argument worked.

If the 'First Cause' is transcendental then you literally can know nothing about it. Attempts by Abrahamics to use Aristotle's First Cause argument seem to me non sequitur.

It does rule out polytheism rather quickly. I would contend it can even rule out many of the Greek gods you named just based on the various arguments taken into consideration. However, it's not something readily seen (only in that you need some form of training in philsophy in sophism and classics) or that can be pointed in one shot.

 

[Quiddity]

That a first cause must be divine, displays a lack of imagination. That there must be a first cause at all, displays an even more severe lack of imagination.

The latter is not something just assumed if understood properly.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The latter is not something just assumed if understood properly.

By your understanding.

 

[Quiddity]

By your understanding.

Don't stop now; Don't take my word for it. I'm sure there are alternative views to this but I'd be surprised if it went any further then panentheism or pantheism. Either way, the first cause argument stands.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Don't stop now; Don't take my word for it. I'm sure there are alternative views to this but I'd be surprised if it went any further then panentheism or pantheism. Either way, the first cause argument stands.

By your understanding.

 

[Quiddity]

By your understanding.

Oh well, I guess some folks can't help themselves. Maybe your right, but I'm good and comfy knowing such arguments are there for all to read.

 

[Quiddity]

Oh well, I guess some folks can't help themselves. Maybe your right, but I'm good and comfy knowing such arguments are there for all to read.

By my understanding.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Oh well, I guess some folks can't help themselves. Maybe your right, but I'm good and comfy knowing such arguments are there for all to read.

And, to my original point, those arguments display a lack of imagination. Just because something is counter-intuitive or uncomfortable for our tiny minds to grasp or conceive, doesn't mean diddly. The whole idea of time could be an illusion created by conscious minds - time could loop back on itself - or it could be a function within this universe, or on this level of reality, but be meaningless outisde of it, or on other levels - these are just a few simple ideas which scratch the surface. The idea that we have even the faintest grasp of what reality is, or its scale, or how its structured, or whether its finite are assumptions people make based on their infinitesimal perception and understanding, and need to view and organize things according to our very lmited capacity and ideas. And yes, many people feel good and comfy reading such arguments as it provides a safe and logical model of reality for our barely conscious minds, but, going back to my original point, such arguments display a severe lack of imagination, and it's a delusion to think they offer anything close to definitive, or even relevant, on the true nature of reality.

 

[Quiddity]

And, to my original point, those arguments display a lack of imagination. Just because something is counter-intuitive or uncomfortable for our tiny minds to grasp or conceive, doesn't mean diddly. The whole idea of time could be an illusion created by conscious minds - time could loop back on itself - or it could be a function within this universe, or on this level of reality, but be meaningless outisde of it, or on other levels - these are just a few simple ideas which scratch the surface. The idea that we have even the faintest grasp of what reality is, or its scale, or how its structured, or whether its finite are assumptions people make based on their infinitesimal perception and understanding, and need to view and organize things according to our very lmited capacity and ideas. And yes, many people feel good and comfy reading such arguments as it provides a safe and logical model of reality for our barely conscious minds, but, going back to my original point, such arguments display a severe lack of imagination, and it's a delusion to think they offer anything close to definitive, or even relevant, on the true nature of reality.

Nominalist? Or do you hate labeling?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nominalist? Or do you hate labeling?

No idea what that label means. Don't hate labels, but never found them particularly useful or relevant.

 

[Quiddity]

No idea what that label means. Don't hate labels, but never found them particularly useful or relevant.

It's worth a read IMO. At any rate, I suspect you haven't engaged the fullness of these arguments to warrant a "...such arguments display a severe lack of imagination, and it's a delusion to think they offer anything close to definitive, or even relevant, on the true nature of reality." Not even those that disagree take it this far. However, I'm open to you proving me completely wrong on this.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's worth a read IMO. At any rate, I suspect you haven't engaged the fullness of these arguments to warrant a "...such arguments display a severe lack of imagination, and it's a delusion to think they offer anything close to definitive, or even relevant, on the true nature of reality." Not even those that disagree take it this far. However, I'm open to you proving me completely wrong on this.

I'm open to anybody even approaching a proof of anything regarding the nature of reality. Any suggestion that we're doing anything more than speculating is either blatantly dishonest, or displays a lack of being able to fully intellectually comprehend the issue.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm open to anybody even approaching a proof of anything regarding the nature of reality. Any suggestion that we're doing anything more than speculating is either blatantly dishonest, or displays a lack of being able to fully intellectually comprehend the issue.

I suspect it would be a short conversation but worth it.

 

[dust1n]

I'm not sure I understand it, but I'm not (yet) a big fan of panentheism.

Fair enough. I was curious to see if you felt the same with regarding determinism and causation. Spinoza is a tough read, but the little I've put in so far has yielded much, at least in speculation. I've always wondered how Jewish communities felt about him.

 

[Jainarayan]

Plato for the less well educated amongst you, first queried how the world could exist, he then concluded that God must be the creator of the world(/universe), he then queried how could God exist and indeed who created him. And to my knowledge he died a broken man, never able to solve this final riddle of WHO CREATED GOD!

I'm not sure I understand why there is always a question of "who created God?" and "what was God doing before creation?". Those questions, imo, presuppose a being of some type, with attributes rather than something like Nirguna Brahman.

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

Theists, particularly those of the Abrahamic faiths, follow the logic of Aristotle in assuming that there is a first cause, and that first cause has to be divine.

We'll assume for a moment that Aristotle was at least partly right, that there had to be a first cause to existence.

What is it that makes one think that said first cause has to be divine? Why does one assume that the first cause has to be a god? It could be something completely impersonal, and not divine at all, but nothing more than something as simple as some energy. Theists assume that their god has no beginning, so why is it a stretch to assume that an energy has no beginning?

Theists work with the presupposition that there is a first cause that has to be god, but such assumptions don't exactly hold water logically. To be fully objective, one has to entertain the idea that a supposed first cause doesn't necessarily have to be divine in any way.

If there is no answer as to why you are alive or exist, then perhaps one feels, that with an intellect, and emotion, I might wonder, if there is an existence which I do not understand, which might be the cause of life.

 

[Mangosteen]

Tillich more or less believed that there is a self-existent God who may or may not be person. Of course, the interesting part there is he said that God is the ground of being, not being. Aristotle also believed the necessity of being, not just in the necessity of a first cause. In this sense, he is very different than modern thought, but I'm still fleshing this out.