The mixing of religious and non-religious beliefs in an individual.

First Cause - Did You Mean Cause or BEcause?

There is a very common misunderstanding that a "cause" is something that preceded in time.

A cause is a situation. "What causes a leaf to appear green?" "What is the cause for this big box not fitting into that small box?"

A situation can cause an effect of appearance, size, or arrangement and is the result of static logic. Or it CAN also cause a change in the situation, a temporal cause. Due to the situation, an imbalance yields a motion, a change.

What is referred to as the "First Cause" concerning God is not a temporal cause about change. It is not about "what brought anything into existence". But rather "what is the beginning of all causes related to the reasoning that in turn brings changes."

"This is true beCAUSE (by the cause of) that being true."

But if you examine every truth, you can regress causes for their truth back to a "First Cause" for anything being true.

This was expressed in KJV by "I am that I am". That isn't exactly what the Hebrew meant. The first cause of reasoning is, "It is what it is", which just happens to be stated in Hebrew with the exact same lettering. Aristotle listed 3 such first axioms of reasoning, a "Triune" First Cause. But all three of those can be stated merely as "Distinction".

Distinction causes all things. (omnipotent)
Distinction is within all things. (omnipresent)
Distinction forms all knowledge and intelligence. (omniscient)

God is Distinction, the ultimate Father.

Consciousness is the awareness of distinction. The awareness of God, the very First Cause.

--

Does a motion cause the situation or does the situation cause the motion? Does the voltage appear on the wire because the current is flowing or is the current flowing because of the voltage being on the wire?

In the long run, each in turn causes the other. But isn’t the motion of something merely the situation of motion? Thus in both cases the situation is the cause.

If my situation is that I have an imbalance of force (for whatever reason) then motion will take place. That is the situation of reality – local imbalance, a distinction between a force and its counter force, but the specific distinction of having one greater than the other.

“The effect” when there is a situation of imbalance is that change occurs. “The effect” when there is balance is that no change can occur. The effect is that it is locked, incapable of change. It has inertia - the effect of being truly balanced.

The distinctions might cause an effect in time (a mover) or it might cause the effect of no time, no change (immutable). The situation determines which it CAUSES.

--

God == Who/Whatever absolutely determines what can or cannot be (what changes AND what doesn't. The Logic never changes).

If it is not God that is doing the determining, then whatever other idea you have for "God" would be subject to the determiner and could only do what that determiner allowed and in fact, would only do what that determiner caused. Thus in reality, that determiner would be the God or your God. I would say that your "God" is only "a god", not "The God" in such a case.

Tags: God, cause, determination, distinction, first

Comment by david thurman on December 23, 2009 at 12:04am: there is no such thing as first cause. that is purely fiction. There is only a series of interconnected events. The start of the universe is related to events that preceded it backwards and forward forever it's exactly the same, There is no beginning, their is no end. If there is no first cause there cannot be a being that is is super duper before no first cause. If you think about it that would create 2 distinct realities, and that is simply odd to me since there is but one reality as far as i can tell. Is my argument against the existence of God, no, not at all but if there is no first cause, then An independent agent outside reality acting upon reality is certainly a very questionable notion.

Comment by Jeff H on December 23, 2009 at 12:14am: David.. what proofs do you have of your contribution?

Comment by James S Saint on December 23, 2009 at 12:43am: David,

Read the OP a little more carefully. It explains something that you are missing (like the entire point).

]:o)

Comment by Kernel John on December 23, 2009 at 1:02am: The 1st cause might be that from which all other things flow. It true the notion that God is all that which is (ATWI) would no longer make much sense. If God is ATWI, how could anything flow from Her. It doesn't make logical sense, at least to this illogical person.

Comment by James S Saint on December 23, 2009 at 1:08am: Because of All That Which Is, things occur the way they do.

How can that not make sense?

Comment by Kernel John on December 23, 2009 at 1:11am: Jeff, suddenly you are looking for proof? What proof is there that Mary was a virgin, or Jesus of Nazareth awoke somehow from death or Moses parted the Sea. Yes, James explanation of his personal thoughts and theories may be a little thing and worthy of some expansion, are you sure you want to start the custom of asking RG members for proof of their hypotheses. Do you believe the world was created by God in 6 days and on the 7th He rested or do you think this was simply and untrue description of what people might understand to be true 2,500 years ago. . . and to you honestly believe that a mere 2,500 (or so) years before that that God created Adam?

Comment by Jeff H on December 23, 2009 at 11:11am: John... Is there proof Mary was a virgin. Yes. Proofs.... God is alive and well and doing miracles in my life today. He has always been faithful to His Word to me, in this present day. The truths He revealed to me there hold true in my life. Faithful in part builds credibility in the whole.

Additionally 3 of the 4 that penned the Gospels said so and were willing to suffer martyrdom rather then recant of their testimony. (John having been excluded) Their teachings of higher morals, love for one another, and dedication to truth are evident in their impact. We see that still, and celebrate Christ Mass as a result. Talk about a splash.

Who am I to second guess the prophet Isaiah?

Also opposing sources, both religious and secular say it was so, even if obliquely. The inscription inside the Dome of the Rock Mosque refers to Jesus as the Son Of Mary (It also sites the He died and God raise Him up), not mentioning his father, and the Jewish Talmud refers to him as having a father other then Mary's betrothed.

The Babylonian Talmud: "R. Shimeon ben Azzai said [concerning Jesus]: 'I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress'". (b.Yebamoth 49a; m Yebam. 4:13)

In another passage we are told that Mary, "who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters" (b. Sanh. 106a)
In another passage we find: "His mother was Miriam, a women's hairdresser. As they say, ...''this one strayed from her husband'" (b. Sabb. 104b).

You can search this sight for my thoughts on creation for the answers to your timeline questions.

I actually agree with your assessment of Causality and ATWI. The whole of Roman's 1 deals with the separation of Creator and creation.

Comment by Jeff H on December 23, 2009 at 12:35pm: doone, that is exactly what I was saying. They don't deny Jesus existed, and the fact that they have Him as the "Son of Mary" means that everyone knew Joseph wasn't the father.

Islam doesn't teach the truth about Jesus, but the evidence and power was too strong to nay say His existance, or His being of a son other then Joseph but instead a "is but a messenger of Allah and His word which He cast upon Mary and a spirit from Him"

compare that to...
Luke 1:34-35
Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?”
The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God."

Cool, huh?

and

O Allah; pray upon Thy messenger the servant Jesus – (N-W Wall) the son of Mary and peace be upon him the day of his birth, the day of his death and the day of his being raised alive. That is Jesus, son of Mary – a statement concerning which you are in doubt.

Virgin Birth and Resurrection all in one. Sweet!

Thanks doone...

Comment by Seth Rogers on December 24, 2009 at 12:19am: A perfect being that simply popped the universe into existence from nothing other than himself makes no logical sense.

Ask yourself...

Assuming the existence of God, and that he created the universe ex nihilo - from nothing...

What was he doing before he created the universe?

Was he a perfect being before he created the universe?

If he was perfect, why did he feel the need to change things by creating a universe?

Isn't any change to a perfect situation, by definition, going to result in imperfection?

And yet traditional Christianity would have us believe in a being suddenly made a switch at one point to change from a being who doesn't create stuff to a being who creates stuff. By definition, God changed what kind of being he was in the moment he created everything.

Which forces us to conclude that either:

a. God was not perfect before he created the universe, and therefore created the universe to change that situation, or

b. God was perfect before he created the universe, but he screwed things up by changing that perfect state he was in by creating the universe - and thus, he is no longer perfect.

It is for this reason that creation ex nihilo, and the idea of a "first and final Cause", is logically incoherent.

It also has the negative side-effect of making God at least an accessory to every evil that exists in the universe, but I digress...

Comment by James S Saint on December 24, 2009 at 1:12am: Seth, try reading the OP. - Okay, try again.

All of your concerns were addressed and answered by the very point of the OP - "First Cause" never meant the "First Event".

I'm beginning to think I have to use cartoon pics to communicate here. ]:o/

Comment

You need to be a member of Open Source Religion to add comments!

Join Open Source Religion

‹ Previous
1
2
3
4
Next ›

RSS

Welcome to
Open Source Religion

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

Just mention Open Source Religion, Proprietary Religion, Belief Genome, Belief Modules, or Prerequisite Beliefs in a tweet to appear in this twitter feed.