Causes as simultaneous.

All the proofs for the existence of God rest on causality, and none of the proofs work unless we recognize that causes and effects are simultaneous. Notice the difference in meaning between the verbs “to cause” and “to be responsible”: we can be responsible for something that has happened, but we cannot cause something that has happened. The two meanings are easy to confuse, but we always keep the cause and the effect simultaneous. When speaking of causality, it’s best to hold on to the progressive aspect of the verb: say, for example “He was/ is causing” whenever possible.

“The cause” i.e. the noun form, since it is a noun, precinds from temporal signification. The term still has the sort of simultanaity that nouns have, for “the cause” is relative, for it contains “effect” in its definition, and the cause is properly the cause of something, namely the effect.


  1. nik4242 said,

    January 7, 2007 at 1:25 pm

    would you be so kind as to list one proof for the existence of God, if I have a pin you don’t bleed until after you are pricked,nicht vahr?

  2. shulamite8810 said,

    January 7, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    I’d prefer this one, since I’m a disciple of St. Thomas:

    Pure act is causing mixed act
    Mixed act exists.
    All call pure act God.

    Now if that’s the first time you’ve encountered “act” and “potency” then the whole proof should be meaningless jargon to you. In other words, if you wanted to object to the proof or understand it, it would presuppose a great deal of prior knowledge (which you might very well have, for all I know). I don’t know your background so I don’t know where to start. For example, I’m a Chemistry and Algebra II teacher in real life. If someone wrote a comment that said “give me one proof that the quadratic formula is so and so” or “prove to me that chlorine has 17 electrons” I would have to know how much they already knew and were able to grant. I might note that it’s especially hard since you might well be hostile to the possibility of a proof for the existence of God, and so in order to prove anything to your satisfaction it might be necessary to start a very long ways away from the proper principles of the proof. If this is the case, I simply don’t have the time to give the proof- although I think you could piece one together from the various posts at this blogsite.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: