Divine causality

Most of it is found right there in Genesis: having dominion and caring for Creation are two aspects (we have dominion in order to care for Creation) clearly stated.

I always wince when the indefinite article is put in there as it suggests that Yahweh is just one of a broader class, also because what the Greek in John 4 says is that “God is spirit” – not, as the JWs would have it, “a spirit”; they have a theological agenda for that.

Perhaps not the same feelings, but I would say that having feelings is part of it.

That’s probably the core of it, especially given that having dominion and caring for the earth are meaningless without actions, i.e. behavior.

Yes. We cannot avoid being imagers (to use a popular word) of God, we can only be bad or better.

= - = + = - = = - = + = - =

Most of us, anyway – and of those who seemingly can, the approach in every case I’ve known was just to add additional “time-like” dimensions and thus more degrees of freedom.

I think of it like the tree in the Garden: there’s a difference between being able to describe or define evil, it’s another entirely to know it by experience – some humans may be able to conceive of existence not bound by time, but none are able to perceive what that is like.

I’ve seen that thought emerge independently at least three times. I suspect it’s common among Christian mathematicians.

I regularly run into the position that foreknowledge = determinism.


God does not play dice?

This triggered a thought: God as strange attractor.

All they have to do is say that this “single action” was determined.

Or so we hope!

1 Like

that is a nonsequator. Being random does not make it uncaused… Reason and cause are not synonyms.


You and Einstein . . .

1 Like

Then I am in good company.

So, unless there is a definition of cause that is different from the one i use, that is

The elements that bring the event into being.

everything must have a cause.

It does not matter whether it was intended or not.


I cannot exist or I cannot act?

They can say they are unable to act

We seem to be at cross purposes.

An uncaused event cannot exist.

Therefor you cannot cause an uncaused event, besides if you caused it it cannot be uncaused. I just do not understand your reasoning here.

It does not matter whether you intended to cause something to happen or not, what matters is that it occurred, and there were (other) contributing factors to make it occur.


The first cause or uncaused cause is not an event but the person who causes the action

Did you want to sort this out some more?

No, because we are not using the same definition of cause/uncause.

As far as I am concerned uncaused is not a valid word.


Uncaused cause is like an unmoved mover, or a person that can act without being acted upon… I believe it is a worthwhile discussion, but that is up to you. The statement I just quoted is not difficult to dig into.

You are adding an element of intent to causality that is not in my definition.


Please explain without saying an uncaused cause can’t happen

Dictionary definitions
The cause of an event, usually a bad event, is the thing that makes it happen.

To cause something, usually something bad, means to make it happen.

a person or thing acting voluntarily or involuntarily as the agent that brings about an effect or result
(Collins Dictionary)

From what I have seen the definitions of Uncaused refer to something that has no known explanation and appears to have caused itself, which, IMHO is a contradiction of the above definitions because we do not need to know the reason for something only that it exists.
There will still be a reason, even if it is unknown or even unfathomable, be it God or some as yet undiscovered process.

Denying the existence of God does not make something uncaused. It is just refusing to accept the proposed cause.


1 Like

If a person voluntarily snaps their fingers, would you agree the person is not caused to act?

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.