The First Cause

[mfbukowski]

I think the fact that it is logically impossible for time to be infinite before the present moment, is very good evidence for a beginning to time.

I missed that proof I guess.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks.

I agree with you, but how does one answer the question that God did "this or that" before "this other thing..." before creating the Universe, does that indicate that part of God's nature is time of some sort?

Uh oh.

You're sounding like a Mormon now.

[mfbukowski]

Sounds like you're describing Process Theism.

Yeah, that's because he is a Mormon.

[cdowis]

Sounds like you're describing Process Theism. Which doesn't make sense to me at all.

It is interesting how you throw out words without any meaning. Actually I am describing Theistic Patrimony, which makes perfect sense.

How can an infinite, perfect, eternal being, with all knowledge and power, learn anything?

Go back and read my post where I answered that question. I really don't like to repeat myself.

[Vance]

Emphasis mine, what compounds the difficulty of the problem of eternal stuff is that is implicitly, if not explicitly, points towards infinite time. I know it's been hashed about already, but the notion of an infinite series of events occurring "in time" prior to this moment is logically intractable.

I think the fact that it is logically impossible for time to be infinite before the present moment, is very good evidence for a beginning to time.

(Emphasis mine)

"fact"?

Just because the thought of it gives you "cosmic sickness" doesn't make it "illogical" nor non"fact"ual.

Logic dictates that before this moment there was another moment. Before this "beginning" there was another "beginning". If you travel back in time to your supposed "beginning", what happened before that? Reason dictates that there was sometime before it.

That's the way I see it.

[Mudcat]

@Hughes, I will try to get you a reply this evening.

Wanted to put up a short "proof" of sorts for discussion.

I missed that proof I guess.

For sake of discussion, I will use an hour as a measurement of time, though second, year, century, etc.. would equally suffice.

Assumption. In any given hour only a quantifiable number things occur.

I am holding this as an axiom.

Reason being, I do not do an infinite number of things in a given hour. Nor does the sum totality of all. (For those that might argue with this assertion, I want to say that if an actually infinite number of things transpire in any given hour, then by virtue this implies me doing and infinite number of things in an hour.. but such is inconsistent with reality) So any hour is quantifiable number of things occurring.

Before any given hour their was a previous hour and one before that .. and so on.

If there were an actual infinite number of hours before this one, this particular hour could never pass, because it could never be reached.

[cdowis]

Before any given hour their was a previous hour and one before that .. and so on.

If there were an actual infinite number of hours before this one, this particular hour could never pass, because it could never be reached.

I suspect that you have already figured out the flaw here.

An hour is granular, it has a boundary, beginning and an end. Let's suppose that I am holding a tape measure that is infinite, I can still use it to measure an inch or foot. The tape measure has no boundaries, but each individual inch is countable and can be measured.

While time has no beginning or end, continuous, when a specific hour ends, the next hour begins. Just as I can measure one inch on an infinite tape measure, I can measure an hour.

[Vance]

Reason being, I do not do an infinite number of things in a given hour.

So, given a finite number of persons, in this case just you, and given a finite amount of time, in this case one hour, only a finite number of things can be done?

I can see why you might accept that as being true, but I don't see that as proof.

But even if we accept all this finite stuff, I don't see how ANY of this has any affect on the infinity of time.

[mfbukowski]

Assumption. In any given hour only a quantifiable number things occur.

I am holding this as an axiom.

Not surprisingly I would disagree- I think you are relying on an odd definition of "things"

Is every chemical reaction in every body of every plant animal person and living entity on this and all other possible planets a "Thing"?

Yet, all of these "things" occur. How about every rock rolling off of every cliff, every wave in every ocean- etc.

It seems the list of "Things" itself is infinite much less a list of what all these "things" do, or what they are doing simultaneously. Each person, for example, has an untold number of "things happening" internally every second of every day, much less than in every hour. Multiply that by 300 billion people, etc. And that is just humans, that doesn't include what is "happening" in every star in the universe, etc.

It all depends on your definition of "thing" and several other definitions. Of course I see "everything" that way; that is why I am a Wittgensteinian.

This reminds me also of Zeno's paradox which is supposed to prove that motion is impossible. Look at 3.1 in this article:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#Dic

Ambrose:

Edited to clarify a comment on Aristotle's world- the entire problem is a question of definitions.

[mfbukowski]

For those interested in Process Theology-

http://www.processandfaith.org/

[Hughes]

Not surprisingly I would disagree- I think you are relying on an odd definition of "things"

Is every chemical reaction in every body of every plant animal person and living entity on this and all other possible planets a "Thing"?

Yet, all of these "things" occur. How about every rock rolling off of every cliff, every wave in every ocean- etc.

It seems the list of "Things" itself is infinite much less a list of what all these "things" do, or what they are doing simultaneously. Each person, for example, has an untold number of "things happening" internally every second of every day, much less than in every hour. Multiply that by 300 billion people, etc. And that is just humans, that doesn't include what is "happening" in every star in the universe, etc.

It all depends on your definition of "thing" and several other definitions. Of course I see "everything" that way; that is why I am a Wittgensteinian.

This reminds me also of Zeno's paradox which is supposed to prove that motion is impossible. Look at 3.1 in this article:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#Dic

Ambrose:

This is an indication of why I have problems with Aristotle.

I'm sure Mudcat will have a better response, but this came to mind reading your response.

Your description of the things happening in an hour ("has an untold number of "things happening" internally every second of every day, much less than in every hour. Multiply that by 300 billion people, etc".) is only a tiny fraction of things compared to infinity.

In other words, even though all these very many things seem overwhelmingly complex and large, they still pale in comparison to the infinite.

[Hughes]

It is interesting how you throw out words without any meaning. Actually I am describing Theistic Patrimony, which makes perfect sense.

How can an infinite, perfect, eternal being, with all knowledge and power, learn anything?

Go back and read my post where I answered that question. I really don't like to repeat myself.

I don't care what you call it. I was simply using mfbukowski's term for it.

And your answer didn't really answer anything concerning how God learns, you simply compared God to us learning and stated it happens, as if it was self-evident.

[cdowis]

For those interested in Process Theology-

http://www.processandfaith.org/

While I do not have an issue with their understanding of the creation process, as far I have read so far, they do not have a correct understanding the total Plan of Salvation. They are still struggling with the problem of evil, and the purpose of life, and the nature of divinity. They have succeeded in getting rid of ex nihlo, but fail to follow it to the natural conclusion.

It makes me think of how I have see pieces and parts of Mormonism is finding its way into evangelical thinking. "I really like that idea" phenomenon. "Too bad that JS was a false prophet. If only he had been one of us."

[mfbukowski]

I'm sure Mudcat will have a better response, but this came to mind reading your response.

Your description of the things happening in an hour ("has an untold number of "things happening" internally every second of every day, much less than in every hour. Multiply that by 300 billion people, etc".) is only a tiny fraction of things compared to infinity.

In other words, even though all these very many things seem overwhelmingly complex and large, they still pale in comparison to the infinite.

My point is more against this entire mode of thinking about "substance", "being", and about infinite regresses and the entire world view of the ancients and those who bring their philosophy into modern times

Do you really want to have your religion hang on having to prove things LIKE "motion is impossible"? Or "time had a beginning"? Or that everything came from nothing?

There are many perfectly reasonable modern theological positions which allow one to be a Christian of any kind one wants- Evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon etc- and square with philosophy which is not thousands of years old.

This is not about Christianity imo, it's about generating a world view which is consistent with what people are experiencing in their lives today.

To me, clearly there are linguistic problems that it is just silly to spend any time on. There is always a "before" and an "after"- you will always be able to ask "What happened BEFORE that, or AFTER that?", and ultimately what does that have to do with Christianity?

[mfbukowski]

While I do not have an issue with their understanding of the creation process, as far I have read so far, they do not have a correct understanding the total Plan of Salvation. They are still struggling with the problem of evil, and the purpose of life, and the nature of divinity. They have succeeded in getting rid of ex nihlo, but fail to follow it to the natural conclusion.

It makes me think of how I have see pieces and parts of Mormonism is finding its way into evangelical thinking. "I really like that idea" phenomenon. "Too bad that JS was a false prophet. If only he had been one of us."

I really would like to discuss this with you because I don't know why you think this does not fit with the plan of salvation.

I found Mormonism because I was trained in process philosophy long before I found the church, and suddenly found a church which was consistent with everything I believed before I became a member.

A God who changes and interacts with his children is more of a "Father" than a God without "Body, parts or passions" who is the Unchanging King of nothing which is understandable, and the prime mover in a Trinity which makes no sense.

To me, such a Father is precisely the kind of being who would WANT to supply a plan of salvation for his children, have a wayward child who brings evil into the world, and want us to "grow up" and be just like him.

I have no idea why you think what you said here.

Process theology also has a world view which is totally consistent with religious experience and being directed by personal revelation.

With all due respect, and I do respect you, I think you are mistaken.

[cdowis]

With all due respect, and I do respect you, I think you are mistaken.

Perhaps you should read what Majorie had to say about evil, and the plan, Adam and Eve, etc. I am only responding to her interpretation.

http://www.processandfaith.org/publications/RedBook/What%20Is%20Process%20Theology.pdf

[Mudcat]

I suspect that you have already figured out the flaw here.

An hour is granular, it has a boundary, beginning and an end. Let's suppose that I am holding a tape measure that is infinite, I can still use it to measure an inch or foot. The tape measure has no boundaries, but each individual inch is countable and can be measured.

While time has no beginning or end, continuous, when a specific hour ends, the next hour begins. Just as I can measure one inch on an infinite tape measure, I can measure an hour.

Hi CD,

Bold mine, on both counts. I actually think for the reason you have stated, there is strength to this position rather than a flaw.

I like your analogy and consider it very illustrative of the issue. I'll continue with it, using the assumption that inch = hour. Here is the problem with the analogy, that I see, and also why I don't feel my position is flawed.

If each individual inch is countable, then by simple arithmetic I should be able to deduce the number of total inches between now and all hours. However, if there is an infinite number of hours that precede the present hour, then there is no way to add them all up to actually reach the number you are at.

Given infinite time, it wouldn't be like a tape measure at all really. I mean you couldn't look at the measure and this is inch number 151 or 151,151,151. The inch number of where you were at would be as completely unquantifiable.

Now this may be something you embrace comfortably.

But given infinite time, it gets much more complicated, when you try adding another inch to the tape measure.

In example, 7 hours or so have passed since I started the OP. This would mean that 7 new hours were added to an already infinite amount of time that has passed.

But the fact that 7 hours could be added to it is logically impossible. I mean how can you add 7 of something to something that is infinite. If it was actually infinite this could not be so.

edit add..

@ Vance

I hope the response I gave to cdowis answers my difficulties with the concept of infinite time.

[Ambrose]

My point is more against this entire mode of thinking about "substance", "being", and about infinite regresses and the entire world view of the ancients and those who bring their philosophy into modern times

Do you really want to have your religion hang on having to prove things LIKE "motion is impossible"? Or "time had a beginning"? Or that everything came from nothing?

I find this curious, mfbukowski. While there is indeed something ancient to the doctrines of Aristotle and the Scholastics, there is also something terribly modern about them.

I offer as a small example this against those who would say that it is demonstrable that the world was created ex nihilo

The Philosopher held that the Cosmos was eternal.

The Angelic Doctor thought it impossible to demonstrate by reason alone that the world was not eternal.

DE AETERNITATE MUNDI

This entire mode of thinking about substance, being qua being, and infinite regresses resulted in two men who held that the "eternality of the world" could not be disavowed by philosophers.

That says something to me about just how important it might be for the Mormon Mind to return to this mode of thinking.

EDIT: One phrase was left ambiguous.

EDIT II: On a smaller note,--I say smaller, because it is personal, not because it lack import--I am not here by accident, nor am I here simply because I enjoy arguing with Mormons.

I found my way here investigating the CoJCoLDS. It is partly because of my following of these ancient worldviews that I once entertained the thought that your church was the true Church.

Of course, that was when I thought Plotinus the greatest mind, and he taught what interestingly I think is echoed in many doctrines (especially in the Lectures on Faith) of your church.

EDIT III: I apologize for editing this post so frequently, but it is far past my bed time and I cannot put all of my thoughts in order. The Angelic Doctor has one of the best lines in the above referenced work, and I should like to highlight it for Hughes and Mudcat should they not follow the link and read this phenomenal work.

"How remarkable it would be that even the most noble of philosophers failed to see a contradiction in the idea that something made by God has always existed. Speaking against the Platonists, Augustine says (XI De Civitate Dei cap. 5), "Here we are contending with those who agree with us that God is the Creator of all bodies and all natures except himself," [PL 41, 320] and then, again about the Platonists, he adds (XI De Civitate Dei cap. 5), "These philosophers surpassed the rest in nobility and authority." [PL 41, 321] Augustine said this even after diligently considering their position that the world has always existed, for they nevertheless thought that it was made by God, and they saw no contradiction between these two ideas."

[Mudcat]

Not surprisingly I would disagree- I think you are relying on an odd definition of "things"

Is every chemical reaction in every body of every plant animal person and living entity on this and all other possible planets a "Thing"?

Yet, all of these "things" occur. How about every rock rolling off of every cliff, every wave in every ocean- etc.

It seems the list of "Things" itself is infinite much less a list of what all these "things" do, or what they are doing simultaneously. Each person, for example, has an untold number of "things happening" internally every second of every day, much less than in every hour. Multiply that by 300 billion people, etc. And that is just humans, that doesn't include what is "happening" in every star in the universe, etc.

It all depends on your definition of "thing" and several other definitions. Of course I see "everything" that way; that is why I am a Wittgensteinian.

I thought Hughes covered this well. In respect to the notion that amount of stuff that happens in any given hour... electrons spin around the nucleus of any given atom a certain number of times, my body exchanges O2 for CO2 only so much in blood gas exchange, my kidneys and liver only process a certain amount of stuff, stellar bodies only move so much, planetary bodies likewise, etc. On some level, what happens in an hour is all quantifiable and the fact that planets, stars, my kidneys and liver processes, my blood gas exchange, et al. only do so some things instead of infinite things give evidence to the fact.

This is the impetus of my point, it is just axiomatic to it.

This reminds me also of Zeno's paradox which is supposed to prove that motion is impossible. Look at 3.1 in this article:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#Dic

We are getting to the point here. I am familiar with paradox, but it does not apply to the actual situation.

The paradox is dealing with a closed set of space between two runners, thus and ending and beginning point. A closed set. It is a reduction to the absurd by subdividing space to the infinitesimal.

This is different, if time is actually infinite then we don't seem to be dealing with a closed set and by keeping the measurement of an hour.. thus infinite hours, we aren't reducing it to the absurd.

The runners were dealing with closing space that lies between them with a fixed starting point.

If time is infinite, we are dealing with an actual infinite amount of time with no beginning point. It's a completely different scenario, thought I understand why you see a resemblance.

[cdowis]

Hi CD,

Bold mine, on both counts. I actually think for the reason you have stated, there is strength to this position rather than a flaw.

I guess I overestimated your abilities.

I like your analogy and consider it very illustrative of the issue. I'll continue with it, using the assumption that inch = hour. Here is the problem with the analogy, that I see, and also why I don't feel my position is flawed.

Oh, dear. OK, let's see what you got.

If each individual inch is countable, then by simple arithmetic I should be able to deduce the number of total inches between now and all hours. However, if there is an infinite number of hours that precede the present hour, then there is no way to add them all up to actually reach the number you are at.

The previous hours, how many previous inches there are on the tape measure has no effect on the "present" inch that I am considering -- they have nothing to do with the one inch in front of my eyes, right now.

I should have used "discrete" rather than countable, and perhaps it would have been more clear.

Just try an experiment. Take a very long tape measure (in your mind), and mark off just one of those inches, which we will call the "present" inch. Now cut off part of that tape measure proceeding the "present" inch.

What effect does it have on the present inch? Go to an extreme, and assume it is an infinite tape measure. You shorten the tape so that there is only 50 feet. How does that affect the present inch? Does changing the length of a tape measure from infinite to 50 feet have any change on that target inch.

Give yourself some time before you answer.

But I guess somehow you will to assert that my experiment here will confirm your position, and that is unfortunate.

Given infinite time, it wouldn't be like a tape measure at all really. I mean you couldn't look at the measure and this is inch number 151 or 151,151,151. The inch number of where you were at would be as completely unquantifiable.

Now this may be something you embrace comfortably.

Sigh. Can you wrap your mind around the concept that prior inches have no effect on the present inch. They are independent, they are discreet.

[Mudcat]

Sigh. Can you wrap your mind around the concept that prior inches have no effect on the present inch. They are independent, they are discreet.

No I can't, because it doesn't make sense.

In example a child was conceived in a particular hour.

9 months of hours later.. the child was born. I see no reason that the events from hour to hour are discreet, rather they are interlinked.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps you should read what Majorie had to say about evil, and the plan, Adam and Eve, etc. I am only responding to her interpretation.

http://www.processandfaith.org/publications/RedBook/What%20Is%20Process%20Theology.pdf

OK

Well I agree with the overall principles but not with her opinions about scripture etc.

Thanks for the clarification.

[mfbukowski]

We are getting to the point here. I am familiar with paradox, but it does not apply to the actual situation.

Well you are right of course. I was speaking more toward the methodology.

[mfbukowski]

I find this curious, mfbukowski. While there is indeed something ancient to the doctrines of Aristotle and the Scholastics, there is also something terribly modern about them.

I offer as a small example this against those who would say that it is demonstrable that the world was created ex nihilo

The Philosopher held that the Cosmos was eternal.

The Angelic Doctor thought it impossible to demonstrate by reason alone that the world was not eternal.

DE AETERNITATE MUNDI

This entire mode of thinking about substance, being qua being, and infinite regresses resulted in two men who held that the "eternality of the world" could not be disavowed by philosophers.

That says something to me about just how important it might be for the Mormon Mind to return to this mode of thinking.

EDIT: One phrase was left ambiguous.

EDIT II: On a smaller note,--I say smaller, because it is personal, not because it lack import--I am not here by accident, nor am I here simply because I enjoy arguing with Mormons.

I found my way here investigating the CoJCoLDS. It is partly because of my following of these ancient worldviews that I once entertained the thought that your church was the true Church.

Of course, that was when I thought Plotinus the greatest mind, and he taught what interestingly I think is echoed in many doctrines (especially in the Lectures on Faith) of your church.

EDIT III: I apologize for editing this post so frequently, but it is far past my bed time and I cannot put all of my thoughts in order. The Angelic Doctor has one of the best lines in the above referenced work, and I should like to highlight it for Hughes and Mudcat should they not follow the link and read this phenomenal work.

"How remarkable it would be that even the most noble of philosophers failed to see a contradiction in the idea that something made by God has always existed. Speaking against the Platonists, Augustine says (XI De Civitate Dei cap. 5), "Here we are contending with those who agree with us that God is the Creator of all bodies and all natures except himself," [PL 41, 320] and then, again about the Platonists, he adds (XI De Civitate Dei cap. 5), "These philosophers surpassed the rest in nobility and authority." [PL 41, 321] Augustine said this even after diligently considering their position that the world has always existed, for they nevertheless thought that it was made by God, and they saw no contradiction between these two ideas."

Thanks for those insights.

I am the first to admit it has been a long time since I have read Aristotle, and I need to give him more attention I see!

[Rob Osborn]

It would be impossible to prove that anything of infinite durations exists. One has to start with a relevent starting point such as a point in time that is known. Then, a person could measure or count events from that moment either backwards or forwards and no matter what, never will he be able to count any events that have ever happened from that point as being anything but finite. Our existance and our ability to have consciousness, etc, is wholly dependent upon the fact of being able to recount only finite sets of things and having them placed in orders relative to each other. There is a reason that God only has "numbered" worlds and "numbered" children- He actually only ever has a finite set of them and will continue to always only have a finite set of them. All of God's actions are thus also numbered. Anything that is thus numbered has to have a beginning.