[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

On Mon, Jan. 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Craig <craigb at comcast.net> wrote:



> I'm all for "the cause-and-effect precept of finitude in
> space/time", but how does it allegedly lead to the paradox
> of infinite regression?  Do you have an argument for that?
>
> [Ham]
>> You expressed [the argument] above when you said
>> "a creator cannot create itself."
>
> This is a true statement, but not the requisite argument.
>
> [Ham]
>> If everything has a cause, then who or
>> what caused the Creator? The paradox, of course, is that
>> the law of 'cause-and-effect' applied to metaphysics would
>> hold that there is no primary source because an infinite series
>> of "causes" is required to create the Creator. The idea of the
>> first cause being an "uncreated" source seems to have eluded
>> the philosophers.
>
> [Ham, reconstructed]
> 1)  If everything has a cause, there must already have been an
>      infinite series of causes
> 2)  There cannot already have been an infinite series of causes
> 3) :. Not everything has a cause
> 4)  Every cause has a source/creator
> 5)  :. There must have been an uncreated source/creator
>
> So it seems that "the cause-and-effect precept of finitude in
> space/time", does not lead to the paradox of infinite regression
> (as you claimed), but rather to the conclusion that 5) There must
> have been an uncreated source/creator?  But that "There must
> have been an uncreated source/creator" does not entail there
> still is one.

I didn't say there could not have been an infinite series of causes, but 
that this precondition is an "infinite regression".  I think most logicians 
would view that as a paradox.  The temporal issue implied by "is" and "was" 
does not affect an immutable source.  Following Meister Eckhart's precept, I 
have posited Essence as Absolute 'IS-ness', which equates to "eternal".

But thanks for your thoughtful analysis, Craig.  You've provided logical 
support for an uncreated Source.

Best regards,
Ham