First Cause Argument: Finite Universe

A Finite Universe: A Premise for a First Cause 

There are two main schools of thought regarding the origins of the universe: Either the universe has always existed with an infinite past, or the universe was at one point created and thus finite. I will contain my response as another essay to support the premise of a finite universe in linear form and why the universe could not have always existed in a state of actual infinity. This essay will not address causal loops - that is addressed here.

Before we even dive into the why's and why not's of an infinite universe, we need to understand a basic idea of Mathematical Set Theory. Below are two mathematical sets, labeled "A" and "A1", and we will use them to explain the basic ideas of what we will be discussing later:

A - {0,1,2,3,4 ...}

A1 - {0,2,4,6,8 ...}

As you can see set "A" contains all numbers up to infinity, while set "A1", a sub set of "A", contains all the even numbers up to infinity. What has been presented is one Mathematical Set and one Mathematical Subset. For anything to be a subset every member in that subset must be contained in the parent set. So if subset "A1" has the letter "a", then "A1" could not be a subset of "A" because set "A", the parent set, does not have the letter "a" as a member.

Now here is a question. If set "A" and subset "A1" are actual infinity, which is larger? The answer is that they are equal. This conclusion is derived from the fact that each member of both sets can be evenly paired.

A -   { 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ...}

A1 - { 0 , 2 , 4 , 6 , 8 ...}

Since these two sets continue on for infinity they would continue to be paired equally.

On the other hand, outside of actual Infinity, there is potential infinity. A potential infinity designates a set of numbers which can be continually added, but is unlike actual infinity in that the subsets are not equal to the parent set. The latter is seen in every day life, the prior, I will contend, does not exist.

The first argument is that actual infinity cannot exist in our universe. In actual Infinity, the old saying, "The whole is greater than its parts", is false because the parts are equal to the whole. I am going to give a couple of examples to show the nature of actual infinity:

Imagine a library that contains an infinite amount of red books and an infinite amount of black books. Each book contains an infinite amount of pages. There are two specific assertions that we will be taking note of. First, the total combined amount of infinite red and black books would equal the amount of infinite red books. Secondly, if we read every page in the library, consisting of an infinite amount of pages, it would be equal to reading only one book with the infinite amount of pages. As you can see, actual infinite decimates addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

Another example of a part being equal to its whole is in the affirmation that one-billionth of an inch would have an equal amount of points as the universe does in its totality. Again, every part, in actual infinity, is equal to the whole. This again is not possible because in our universe we have accumulation (ie. added parts equals a whole, not every part equaling a whole).

The second argument against an actual infinite universe is noting that infinity is Non-Transversal. What this means is that if our universe always existed, the universe should have an infinite past. With the premise established, we can say that, if the past could not be transversed, then we do not have the present; for the present equals the past transversed.

When we see a plane flying over head we can assume a chain of past causes had to be tansversed to the point of the present state. For the plane to be flying we could assume that the pilot got into the plane. Perhaps we could also assume that the plane needed fuel before departing the airport. In any assumption we make, we can assume that there has been a series of past events which were transversed and lead up to the present plane flying over head.

The next thing we must consider is the idea of counting to infinity. You may have pulled this one out during a game of hide-and-seek where you tell the counter to count up to infinity so you have enough time to find the awesome hiding spot everyone knows about. The problem is if you count for the duration of your life you will never reach infinity. Why? This is what we call potential infinity. The mathematical set we deal with in this equation is concerning the possibility of continual addition. Meaning the numbers are finite, but can always be continually added by 'x' number. An easy rule is if you can state the number it is finite because you can always add 1 to it; which you cannot add 1 to infinity and change its nature. You cannot count up to infinity and likewise you cannot count down from it.

With these two premises, that you have chained events and that you cannot count up or down from infinity, tells us one thing. If the past was infinite, an infinite chain, you cannot transverse the infinite as you similarly could not do so in counting. The conclusion is that the past could not have been transversed and thus we could not have the present. The past would still be continuing and we would not have a present state (Remembering that the present is equal to the past transversed). Of course this is not so and another reason why the universe is not infinite.

As Blaise Pascal stated, "The finite are annihilated in the presence of the infinite." Whenever the actual infinite are applied to the finite application of our day-to-day universe, we find not only no ability to tend the actual infinite, but if it were applicable, time itself would cease to exist. The most classic example is Zeno's puzzle. If actual infinity did exist, we could not even declare motion as being real because we would have to transverse infinity in each step we took - again 1) we know motion does exist and 2) it isn't possible for actual infinity to exist.

Hope this helps.

Dracula: A Book Review

A Midnight Terror
(A Book review of Dracula by Bram Stoker)

"No man knows till he experiences it, what it is like to feel his own life-blood drawn away into the woman he loves." – Dr. Seward’s Diary

What would you do? What do you hope? When darkness grimaces above and the endless sea crashes below. From the silent halls you answer with speed. From the desolate you run to stop the coming tide. Beneath the bowing walls and rushing swords you find your friend, your greatest companion, your lovely wife, holding open wide your soul - death is within and not without.

From deep within Transylvania, Bram Stoker reveals the horrors of a nameless evil, an evil that shadows every dream and steals from every soul. Fused with superstition, religion and sacrifice, these collections of diary entries would become known as Dracula and has survived the destruction of time for one reason: This is not about a vampire, but the vampire.

We all know his name, but few know why this book has survived as a timeless classic; beyond the blood filled movies lays a moving story – a Perl deep in the ocean. It may be true for Dracula, however, this book has not continued to survive by blood alone, but by the seeming unerring loyalty of friendship.

From start to finish, all are Personal Diary entries, newspaper clippings and sparse Journal fragments. This may allude as incompetent in horror and suspense, but in all writing styles, I have never found a more passionate way to write such a tale as this. In ever touching fashion, Bram Stoker depicts the horrifying nightmares and grotesque visages from the people who saw it themselves. But more importantly, the shimmering Perl, is the revealing of the characters’ personal journal entries as they struggle to stand against such an evil; for better or worse, for happiness or sorrow, for death or life, they stood by the friends they knew, the wives they loved, to fight an enemy they feared.

We all understand that honourable sacrifice: to perish for the ones you love. But would one knowingly sacrifice himself to a war one could not believe – ever to be forgotten? Are you willing to sacrifice yourself for the things you believe in, or for the things that will be written down? As the sea of a passing storm may begin to crumble our stronghold, when evil takes the form of the ones we love, Hope is only lost when the lost stop hoping. This Perl is as bright as the morning ere after the passing night and a responsibility that cannot be ignored.

This is true: there is a price that must be paid in the end for the things we want most. The moral of this story, as afraid as I am to say, is perhaps one that comes at too high a cost. I could never recommend this book except for one who already wishes to read it. The mountains are high in the sun, but so the valley plunges deep into the dark.

If all is lost in Stokers' journals, there is one thing to grasp. When death is within and not without, what are we to do but smile back? Act upon what we have already chosen, for to choose our path when it comes, is to be destined to fail before we start.

The Debate Chronicles (I): The Bible Justifies Slavery Pt. 2

The Debate Chronicles (I): The Bible Justifies Slavery
Rom 2:11 - For there is no respect of persons with God.

Atheistic Assertions:
1) Morality: simply acting with the intention to minimize harm. To minimize unnecessary harm and enhance the quality of life, we are moral
2) Endorsement: in support of
3) Jesus Christ supported the Old Testament. This is relevant because the Old Testament endorses and encourages slavery

Response:

Due to the inherent complexity of this argument, I will divide my response into three main categories: the argument of definitions, the argument of contextualization, and, what would be considered, the refutation of your argument.

When it comes to definitions, it is imperative to not only be correct in our affirmation, but to define these words in such a way that they could be applied in our context with homogeneous application.

The three crucial definitions are Morality, Endorsement, and Slavery. You defined them as follows:

Morality: simply acting with the intention to minimize harm. To minimize unnecessary harm and enhance the quality of life, we are moral

Endorsement: in support of

Slavery: is immoral because it causes harm to another {without consent}

First, I will contend that your definition of Morality is insufficient because the base principle is “intent of minimizing harm”. The contention is derived from two basic principles. First, you are affirming that our improvement to society comes as the hands of lesser evils, which by-passes the necessity of any good actions; or that good actions are actions that are lesser evils – good being inherently evil. Either way, you do not uphold inherent “good”, but only gradations of evil. Secondly, as I did, you failed to apply a definition as to why your morality would have any objective validity. If you cannot prove why any other person should ratify your beliefs then you strike down the whole discussion in itself; at least in its absolutist form. I do not intend to incorporate a debate here in itself, but adequate definitions are required.

 Next, the definition of endorsement, and further how you apply it in your argument, is both invalid. To support or advocate something is not at all the same to have a level of permissibility for it. As an example we could use the following side-by-side comparison:

“If you go to the store, please get a gallon of milk.”

or

“When you go to the store, please get a gallon of milk.”

What is the main difference between these two ideas? The level of permissibility. The term “if” designates permissibility in going to the store, while the term “when” only allow permissibility as to “what time” you go to the store and does not question if you are going to the store – you are assumed in going. Thus, my argument that the Bible does not condone slavery is correct because “if” allows for permissibility. Your mistake when you assert a “When” ideology over the stated “If” (Exodus 21:2).

And lastly, I will contend the loose definition of slavery. The problem is that you assume that all slavery is immoral, or at least it should be. However, slavery, in some forms, is still in use in America today and acceptable; we could argue the necessity or inherent barrier of debt slavery or wage slavery. Are these also immoral under your definition? My assumed definition of slavery, when I opposed your statements, was the grotesque extremities and violations of morality that I underlined when I defined love. If slavery, in its form, violates the ethical and meta-ethical definitions that I had provided, then I would assume it to be immoral, if not, then we would assume it to be moral – that is the whole point in providing definitions.

This next piece will be used to contextualize my previous argument and assert my desired implications. I am not rewriting my previous statements, but will provide a more clear application to its uses and why it still stands superior.

When we began our discussion, I established that the teachings of Jesus Christ are foundational to our faith, in both the New and Old Testament doctrines. You rightly recognized his authority in the Old Testament by quoting Matt 5:17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”, however, again, you misunderstand a very important implication. Jesus Christ did not come to preach the Law, but to fulfill the law. What is the difference? Christians do not uphold a majority of the Jewish or Mosaic Laws because they were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. For example, we do not follow the Levitical laws which include Temple ceremonies, animal sacrifices, priesthood authorities, etc. So first in our understanding, there is a difference between Mosaic Laws and Christians obeying of those laws; this distinction should be kept.

After, you quoted extensively from Exodus concerning the Slave laws. The slave laws are also found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and I will be using the entirety of the slave laws to prove its morality.

The argument of a slave should be broken down into three main points: slaves when they are received, slaves when they are under their master’s rule, and slaves when they are released.

First, slavery was introduced under several basic conditions. You could sell yourself as a slave either because you had nothing (you were poor), or because of debt settlement; war was not a major income of slaves. A slave can only be bought, they cannot be stolen – that is a capital offense – and there is no requirement to own slaves; it is optional. If slaves are bought and have a family (including wives and children), they must be kept together; you cannot separate slave families. In other words, your characterizing of inducting slaves is not proportionate to actuality.

The life of the slave, in agreement to my prior point regarding your remarks, is equally out of proportion. If you read the complete extent of the laws, you will understand the full rights of the slaves and the restrictions of their masters. The slave masters had capital offenses because they were still governed by the Ten Commandments and other Jewish laws; there was no partiality under the laws because both, free and slave, were governed by the same laws. Even the extent of marriage and punishment of the slaves were of equal value. It was not uncommon in their day to choose the husband of their daughters, so it was equal that slave daughters could be chosen a husband (punishment was dealt in a similar fashion). The only arguable extent that the slaves were different from their free counter-parts was forced labor. But of course this would revisit my prior argument of debt and wage slavery – is forced labor inherently evil?

And lastly, the release of the slaves. Every slave was required to be released upon the seventh year without compensation; with their whole family if this slave had a family. Further, you could not just release them, but were required to give them food and livestock when they left; you couldn’t just “kick’em to the curb”. Another interesting fact is that people were not required to return runaway slaves; if they got away from their former masters and were found, they were essentially free without hassle. Alternatively, slaves could, if they wanted to, commit themselves as slaves for life to their owner – interesting to note, if your assumption that slavery was such an abominable act of injustice why would slaves ever want to remain with their masters?

So what is slavery? Slavery is many things, and you have picked the lowest denominator and said this is what the Bible is. If anything could be said, the Bible has put forth the highest moral treatment of slaves that has ever existed in human history. Even in later times when the wealthy would own doctors (they didn’t have medical hospitals) were slaves (like Luke). Because the title of slave was attributed to them, it did not mean they didn’t hold a place of honour or dignity in the area they practiced. Of course, there are bad masters and acts of immorality to slaves, but equally there are bad governments and brutalized civilians. Should we abolish them too? If you wage war against the term slavery, you will undoubtedly be required to answer to the Butler or Maid. What about debt slavery or wage slavery? You may declare it immoral, but through the eyes of the people it was not always.

In the finality of this response I will make one last assertion. This is sort of back tracking, however, I will revisit my ethical and meta-ethical arguments through Jesus Christ. When I spoke that the Biblical doctrines have always spoke upon human equality I used Christian men as examples and Christ as my definition. You agreed to Christ’s authority upon the Old Testament, but do not advocate His authority in its interpretation. The Jews were required to uphold the Mosaic laws in their act towards their Slaves, so are we, in Christ’s fulfillment of the laws, required to uphold the Old Testament as Christ states in the New Testament:

“And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. Luke 10:25-28”

The entirety of my definitions, of Biblical equality and love as stated in my previous remarks, are upheld because Christ’s authority is still commended – His commands still hold to what our actions are to be. If Slavery is defined and upheld under actions of Love, then it is not immoral. If you are permitted to have slaves and treat them under the sole definitions of Biblical doctrine then it is not immoral because, as you stated, “they are truly beautiful passages that characterized the virtues of Christian obedience.”

The First Cause Argument: Causal Loop

The Causal Loop: An Argument against an Infinite Universe
Further Information about the First Cause Argument

In the First Cause Argument (FCA), I made the statement that an overall defense of the argument would be written in Part 2 and would help address the main challenges against it. Well, as you know it hasn't been written and the reasons are why I am writing this now - along with a few more articles. Simply put, to defend something you must know what you are defending. Without knowing the details of the argument I would serve an injustice instead of helping you understand the argument itself; supplying pithy statements over informed assessments. These following articles are written with a more in-depth look at each of the main arguments for the First Cause - starting with the Causal Loop.

An important point was made that something could not be prior to itself: an effect could not cause itself because it must be prior to itself– being false. Why is this false? Why does it matter? This is called the causal loop argument.

A Causal loop, as by its name, is based upon causations; that for each cause there is an effect, however, the difference lies within the idea of it being looped. For the older folks, you may remember in the Atari games once you achieved a certain level the game ‘flips or goes back to level zero and you start the whole process over. Lets take a circle as our example and specify a particular point on the circumference. The circle represents the infinite loop of causations and the specific point on the circle represents any specific cause or group of causes. What you will immediately notice is either way you go about the circle you come back to the same point – nothing is added and nothing is taken away.

This idea is not as complex as it may first seem, but a short story should clarify this. If you have seen any movies or read any books that consist of Time Travel you have heard these type of theories. A young man as he was growing up witnesses an assassination. His desire is to save this person, thus, in his future he desires to travel back in time. When he is sent back into time he walks into the room where the assignation plot were to happen. Instead of saving him, the person was killed because his entrance was believed to be by an intruder; thus being the inspiration of him traveling back in time.

What does this mean? Each cause or causes that that specified point represents must always be prior and later than its self at the same time – remember this is a circle and all direction is bent back to itself. The infinite causal loop defines that each effect caused itself and each cause affects itself simultaneously. The problem with this argument is there are no known, or possibly known, objects that are prior to itself – I was not alive before I lived, nor did I type this letter before it was typed.

For this idea to be correct, that there is a causal loop, the universe would have to have existed before it existed and exist after it existed at the same time. This cannot be so because there would be no origin, no causes, and no effects; all which are observable. Thus, our first substantiated premise for the First Cause Argument is that time arrows in one direction and is not looped.

The Debate Chronicles (I): The Bible Justifies Slavery

The Debate Chronicles (I): The Bible Justifies Slavery
Rom 2:11 - For there is no respect of persons with God.

The Atheist Assertions:
  1) The Bible condones slavery because the Bible doesn't specifically speak against it.
  2) Jesus, the Moral Teacher of Christianity, also did not speak against slavery.

Response:

The single greatest atrocity to plague human rights has held captive our past, gives strife to our present, and casts a veiled shadow to our future - Serfdom, Human Trafficking, Peonage, all are called Slavery. 

Since our discussion will mainly focus on Ethics, morality and value judgments, I will begin by explaining those three terms.

Ethics, the philosophic study of morality, values, motives, characters, and conducts, can be divided into two main sub-groups: Ethics and Meta-Ethics. Ethics, though possibly subjective, makes assertions based on objective Meta-Ethical statements. For example, we could argue that lying is Ethically wrong, but perhaps permissible if we saved the life of another, however, the term “wrong” is Meta-Ethically objective in its assertion of what “wrong” is; for it does not change in either decision.

My definitions for Meta-Ethics would be of Love:

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 - Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

My definition of the objective validity of Meta-Ethical Standards, I would quote:

Romans 2:12-15 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

In following suite, my Ethical definition would be a specific application of love:

Mark 12:30-31 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Thus morality, or the proper behavior, would be defined only if there was agreement and correctness in my Ethical and Meta-Ethical statements, and my Value Judgment would be defined correctly by my assertion of what Slavery is.

My objective, by upholding both my Ethical and Meta-Ethical claims, is to counter-factually provide evidence that the Bible creates a strong case by labeling slavery as immoral. This, of course, could only be justified if Morality and Value Judgment would be in support of my Ethical and Meta-Ethical definitions and if the opposite could not be tenable under Biblical assertions.

Our conversation does not deal with the morality of Slavery, as we agree to its immorality – so no definition of that is needed- , but whether the Bible supports slavery either in practice or application. Your support for this claim amounts to two points. First, the Bible does not explicitly condemn slavery and, secondly, Jesus Christ, the Christian Moral Teacher, did not speak against it himself.

Your latter point, concerning Jesus Christ, is about as valid as citing that H.G. Wells, the father of the SciFi Genre and Scientist, must have wanted an iPad. Your warrant, that if someone does not speak upon a certain subject in his field he must support it, is altogether invalid and, as known prior, unsubstantiated.

This point also ties into your accusations against the Bible. If your evidence for Biblical slavery is concerned with no evidence against slavery then you have started with a faulty premise. However, the Bible does speak against slavery in the terms of moral application.

My definitions, as noted above, could not be upheld if Slavery were permitted. Slavery does not only violate both of my definitions because it is not love or doing unto others as done unto you– for if Slavery was love of another, there would be no issue –, but further, by upholding the objectivity stance of Meta-Ethics, slavery would be a direct argument against the whole of Christendom and philosophical thinking; being untenable to the contrary.

Whenever I study philosophy, or if you study any subject, one thing to remember is the difference between theoretical and practical applications. Thus, to show the practical or substantiated claims to my arguments, I will give a reference to four Christians, William Wilberforce, John Newton, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and Rev. Jessie Jackson, who fought against slavery entirely on Biblical Principles.

“Is it not the great end of religion, and, in particular, the glory of Christianity, to extinguish the malignant passions; to curb the violence, to control the appetites, and to smooth the asperities of man; to make us compassionate and kind, and forgiving one to another; to make us good husbands, good fathers, good friends; and to render us active and useful in the discharge of the relative social and civil duties?” - Wilberforce

“God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners.” - Wilberforce

In conclusion, in the Ethical manner we have approached this topic on slavery, we could not substantiate the support of slavery by Biblical moral assertions, the absent of specific words do not uphold an idea when the idea is condemned by other means, and, by the Christians themselves, we know they held pivotal parts in abolishing slavery. If anything could be noted, if anything could be taken away from our conversation, it is this: the Bible has always spoken upon the social justice of mankind, to do unto others as done unto you, and that all men are equal, indifferent, in the sight of God – this is not slavery but human equality.

The First Cause by St. Aquinas Pt.1/2

Argument for the First Cause - Part 1:2
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:1 (KJV)

After reviewing some recent debates with respectable atheists, I found it necessary to bring the First Cause Argument onto this blog and give it some much-needed explanation.  (Besides – First Cause Argument -> First Topic post)

The First Cause Argument (FCA) was originally penned by St. Aquinas * in the Summa Theologica. This would later be the second of the Quinquae Viae (Latin, Five Ways) and is one of the most cited and, consequently, debated topic for the existence of God.  The FCA attempts to establish the idea that the universe, composed of contingent objects, must have a first cause that is not reliant upon other contingent objects.

While I wish to clarify FCA’s definitions, arguments, and conclusions, I am more concerned with providing the necessary tools to effectively combat the debate in favour of God’s existence and strengthen our faith. I will not defend against the counter-arguments towards the FCA; they will be addressed in part 2:2.

*Other variations have been written by Plato and Aristotle

Definitions:
Def 1: Cause – Something that brings an effect
Def 2: Efficient Cause - A prior condition, entity, or event considered to have caused the thing in question
Def 3: Intermediate Cause – A cause that exists between the efficient and ultimate cause.
Def 4: Effect – Something that is produced by a cause
Def 5: Ultimate Effect – The future effect
Def 6: Causation – Is the act or process of causing

The Cosmological Argument for the First Cause by St. Aquinas

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.   – St. Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Pt.1, Q2, Art.3; pg 13)*, Quinquae Viae (Latin: Five Ways)

The Cosmological Argument Explained:

We are who we are, because we are what we were. This historical cliché states that civilizations and their people are conditioned by their predecessors in some way. A nation of war could have been a nation of defeat, or perhaps a nation of religious freedom was founded because of a prior nation’s religious suppression. Even technological advancements by prior minds affect generations to come.  You may not be familiar with a scythe nor a Beta Tape, but perhaps you use a tractor or Blu-ray device.
 
You may be wondering how this applies to the Argument for the First cause. To believe that we are who we were, is to believe that what we are today is attributed to times past; or our reliance upon prior beings. We have all heard of time marching forward, but we never speak of it as jumping up or diving below; even back-pedalling is contrary to what we understand.  In this, we see that time moves in one direction; if we are to trace contingent beings, we must start by going backwards. The Argument of the first cause, in other words, is the argument of reverse-sequence of all contingent objects (human and nonhuman).

We begin by addressing the dilemma of contingency.  In the universe, every object is finite and thus contingent, or reliant, upon prior objects.  There are no known objects, or possibilities of objects, who could be the cause of themselves – to be the cause of yourself would imply being prior to yourself, which is false.

Similarly, the cause of an effect cannot be the effect itself. For example, if I asked you why your ball is bouncing, you may respond, “Because it is red.”  But if I then asked, “Why is it red?” and your reply was, “Because it is bouncing,” your argument is invalid because of self-substantiating.

This begs the question, “Can there be an infinite regress of contingent beings?” We know that a cause can have an effect, and that effect, in turn, can cause another effect until the Ultimate effect, in a seemingly infinite future. However, does this concept apply to the past? The simple answer is no.

St. Aquinas, and later Modern Mathematical Set Theory, supported this answer by asking, “Is Infinity + 1 greater or lesser than infinity?” The answer is, “They are equal”. As Blaise Pascal, a French Mathematician, once stated, “The finite are annihilated in the presence of the infinite.” The impact of this argument is that if you remove the efficient cause – which an infinite past asserts - you lose all intermediate causes, which eventually would deny an ultimate effect.
  

If I said that turning on your car caused you to drive to the store, and driving to the store caused you to buy something to eat, the ultimate effect would consist of you no longer being hungry. In this chain of causations if I took away starting the car, then you couldn’t go to the store, which then you wouldn’t get something to eat, and thus the ultimate effect would be denied; you would still be hungry. The chain depends upon whether or not there is a first cause; this is where the infinite regression of dependent causes fail. You cannot maintain a necessary cause – a first cause - by adding a large group of contingent causes to already contingent causes.  It is similar to adding an infinite pile of apples to a box of apples to get an orange.

The finite is contingent, the contingent necessitates a non-contingent cause, and the non-contingent cause is God. This is the argument and its conclusion. Outside of all contingency there must have been a necessary cause that began our road. In the Beginning we are who we were because something began. And that beginning was created by God.
  

I hope this article provided more help than confusion, that you faith would be strengthen in understanding that God’s existence can be known and proven. Also, below I attached another example to further explain the relations of causes and effects.


Finite Chain Example:

Imagine sitting at a table with ten dominos standing, right up next to each other, upon the table’s surface  – we will call them D1, D2, D3… D10 – and I hit D1 over. What will happen? D1 will knock over D2, D2 will knock over D3, and this will continue until they knock over D10. This action, of all the dominos falling over, is our chain of causations (it began with me and ended with D10; our chain does not go on for infinity). Within this chain of causations (Def. 6), we have contained all the prior definitions. I was the cause (Def. 1) for D1 falling over, D1 falling over was the effect (Def. 4) of me pushing D1 over. The cause of D2 falling over was D1 falling over and the effect of D2 falling over is D3 falling over.  This system would continue until D10 fell over, completing our chain of causation. Now every cause (as we listed prior) from D1 – D9 are called intermediate causes (Def. 3) because they are neither the first cause nor the ultimate effect; the first cause is me, the ultimate effect is D10 falling over. Now here is the hard part. We would call everything falling over from D1 to D10, the Ultimate effect (Def. 5) of my pushing D1. Also all causes prior to D10 are efficient causes to D10 falling over (Def. 2 - so you would have 9 efficient causes including me because we are counting all causes before D10). This system can be calculated from any Domino. D9 would have 9 causes including me -you don’t count D9 as a cause of itself falling over – and 1 effect (the ultimate effect of D10 falling over). Likewise, D8 would have 8 causes and 1 effect ( the effect of D9 falling over and the ultimate effect of D10 falling over ), D7 would have 7 causes and 1 effect (the effect of D8 falling over and the ultimate effect of D10 falling over), D6 would have 6 causes and 1 effect (the effect of D7 falling over and the ultimate effect of D10 falling over), etc… This would continue until every domino was labeled properly.

*Summa Theologica - Copyright 1948 by Benziger Bros., New York, NY; Inquiries send to: Christian Classics, P.O. Box 428, Notre Dame, IN 46556

The Hobbit: Book Review

There and Back Again.... By Bilbo Baggins
(A Book Review of The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien)

"So snow comes after fire and even dragons have their ending! I wish now only to be in my own arm-chair!" - Bilbo Baggins   Mr. Bilbo Baggins, taking to the usual smoking of his pipe and blowing rings in the bright early morning, believed life couldn't get any better. Between eating the many hobbit meals, six to be exact, collecting gossip about the, supposedly, private business of others, and enjoying the splendid gift giving and merry making, nothing seemed better. This is the story of Mr. Bilbo Baggins - or at least it was. For just down the road where he sat, a wizard, whose eyebrows bristled out past his wide brimmed hat and his staff which thudded along, was coming to give happy Bilbo a visit. Being the first book by J.R.R. Tolkien that I have read, I was very well pleased. The style was simple and the story fantastic. Though it was not such a labyrinth as other mysterious phantasy books, The Hobbit delivered an adventure as written through the eyes of a friend; and more closely the adventures of living as one. With a book of this sort, one must begin with the Title and storyline itself. J.R.R. Tolkien's title, "The Hobbit", and Bilbo's "There and Back Again..." are perfectly suited to tell the reader what to expect; the adventure of a Hobbit going There and Back again. However, soon before the closing pages, you will find that the letters, "There and Back Again..", were written with a heavy laden pen. It all began with twelve dwarves and an old grey wizard, at tea, pushing Bilbo out of his house and upon the road to retrieve the old dwarven treasures - Of course guarded by the evil dragon Smaug. Though his twelve dwarvish companions prove to be much more a problem than help, Gandalf, the wizard, played the guiding hand and ultimately the more mysterious of the characters. As they travel through thick and thin, mysterious and wondrous, to the last safe haven of Rivendell and to the more hostile Mirkwood Forest, Bilbo fights the idea of going back to the Shire and at every turn wishing to be in the comfort of his home. This constant fight to go home proves to be the bases of the story and moral: That an adventure worth going on always makes for a better story. Once Bilbo had finished his adventure, he struggled with accepting the idea of going home again. My remarks to the story and language are but short. The story was precise, easy to understand, and always kept you "in the know". Tolkien’s language was nothing short of praiseworthy of E.B. White and his belief in brevity and the use of simple language. But on the flipside, the story at times seemed too predictable and repetitive; a trouble came and a trouble went with almost no consequence and no surprise. Additionally, his use of the English language, I felt, though precise and understandable, were too constrained for the fantasy genre and may have limited some of Tolkien’s fantastic ideas and conceptions. These remarks hold a bit less value when being compared to the characters. Between Bilbo, the dwarves, and Gandalf, they were loveable, humours, and at most times very convincing. If Tolkien's idea was to keep your love for Bilbo, he did just that at the expense of the others. Gandalf was constantly leaving just before trouble and arriving just in time to save them, and the dwarves seemed too numerous and not enough character development to tell between any of them. As for the moral of the story. What more could a book be without a reason to read it? A boat without a captain seems unreasonable enough, but too many people seem to find a modern book without a moral necessary. They used to call them "children’s" books, which were devastating at best, but now they have got into being called "The Adult Section". If modern moral standards were to succeed, The Hobbit would be relocated to the philosophy and ethical section of any local bookstore. The story's moral hinges on a variety of levels – I will list a few. From Bilbo you are given the glimpse of everybody that has lived; to always want to be great and adventurous but never looking far enough (or in this case, close enough) and after, upon completing your task, wondering why it was hard to begin at all. The dwarves gave incite of what numbness of the mind could do, what working hard could accomplish, and how treasures can corrupt a just cause. Even Gandalf, as removed as he was, always proved to show what should be happening; if he was pushing Bilbo to continue, showing them the route best walked (though perhaps not the safest) or counseling the civilizations of others in courses of action. This book would have won my favour on this topic alone; most other books either lack morals or attempt to twist a farce into something profound. In all, the story and language kept this book distinct from all others and gave the reader a taste of things to come. The Hobbit, though it was known prior, doesn't act as the best stand-alone story - it is a wonderful and vast stage to give The Lord of the Rings. In all my personal taste, this is a wonderful book for all ages. I believe if you love The Chronicles of Narnia, the cherishing of simplicity, fantasy, and loveable characters, you will never stop reading The Lord of the Rings - And I loved The Chronicles of Narnia.