From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Apr 22 2005 - 16:36:16 BST
Hi Mark (Ian and dmb) --
Okay, I inadvertantly substituted the word "action" for "effect" in stating
the
causality principle. Does that make it "incorrect"?
I found a definition provided by Tom Van Flandern at the Metaresearch
website.
He says: "Perhaps most basic of all the principles of physics is the
causality principle. In its simplest form, it reads: 'Every effect has a
cause.' In more precise language, it reads: 'Every effect has an
antecedent, proximate cause'."
In other words, nothing that happens in the future can be the cause of an
event in the present. I find it interesting that the sequence is critical
to the principle. For
those of us who believe that time is an illusion of the finite intellect,
past and future both belong to the ever-present, in which case cause and
effect are simultaneous.
(I'll leave that conundrum to you analysts.)
But "primary cause" is a fundamental principle, even in the absence of time.
My point was that finite entities and their perceived properties do not
arise from nothingness -- ex nihilo -- they require an uncreated source
which
is not limited by space and time.
msh asks:
> Is your uncaused cause the "Essence" you refer to as anthropocentric?
Ah, clever question! I know I've spoken of an anthropocentric reality, but
have
I said that Essence is anthropocentric? On reflection, I think
anthropocentricity
describes the relation of man to ultimate reality, not the reverse. That
would be like saying that God is made in man's image. Anyway, descriptive
attributes posited for an absolute can be nothing more than speculation.
> If so, you have yet to explain how and why this anthropocentric
> essence existed in the universe prior to the existence of human
> beings.
The "why" is easy, but your phrase "existed in the universe" is
misconstrued.
Essence is primary to the universe rather than contained within it; it is
the "necessary cause", as explained above. That answers the "why". I don't
know what "how" could possibly mean in this context, so I don't see it as a
legitimate question. If what you're really asking is how Essence creates
the universe...well, you'll just have to read my creation hypothesis.
> Isn't this really just a stealth theistic way of referring to
> God? Given your own (incorrect) principle of causality, is it not
> fair to ask what caused this anthropocentric essence? In other
> words, in what way does your idea of an uncaused cause avoid the
> multitude of unanswered refutations of the Ontological argument for
> the existence of God?
The word "God" can conjure up a variety of images, depending on whom you're
talking to. I wanted to avoid such images and connotations like "Supreme
Being", "Divine Providence", "Heavenly Father", etc., which are incompatible
with Absolute
Essence. It wasn't that I'm "sneaking in a divinity" only to name it later;
I simply
wanted to be precise in terms of the fundamental concept. But, yes, if you
can conceive of God as transcendent, absolute and undifferentiated, then God
can name your Essence.
Ham:
> Essence is immutable: it is the indispensable "uncreated"
> source of all things that transcends the limitations of finitude.
msh:
> How does your last sentence, above, differ from this: God is
> immutable: he is the indispensable "uncreated" source of all things
> that transcends the limitations of finitude.
Except for the gender reference, it states the concept quite well.
> And what is your reason
> for believing such a statement? As there is no evidentiary or
> logical basis for such a belief, I can conclude only that you believe
> this as a matter of faith.
What is anyone's reason for believing something? To begin with, I believe
the total concept, not just the "statement". It is intuitively credible, it
resolves the SOM dichotomy, and it offers a meaningful link between Value
and the autonomy of individual Freedom -- a significant connection,
incidentally, that is missing in the MoQ.
But what is plausible and logical for me may seem to you only "a matter of
faith". Why not satisfy your curiosity by giving my thesis a serious
review? If you find it totally nonsensical, you can then dismiss it. If
you find some statements incomprehensible, get back to me with specific
questions. (I can use the critique to improve my presentation.) At least
you will have explored a new metaphysical
perspective on the nature of reality, complete with an original twist or
two.
Essentially yours,
Ham
Ham Priday
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 22 2005 - 16:39:41 BST