An immaterial point is an abstraction, and an abstraction cannot cause anything.

From Wikidebates
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Parent debateThis argument is used in the debate Does God exist?.
Argument againstThis argument is an objection to The first cause is an immaterial point.
Keywords: Cosmological argument, First cause, God, Causality[ edit ].



“We believe that Smith's solution is not credible, for one simple reason. A point is not a concrete reality, but a pure abstraction. And an abstraction has no causal power. It's perfectly true that a point exhibits a number of the determinations we have demanded of the first cause: simplicity, absence of parts, inextension, etc. All it lacks is existence! All it lacks is existence! Naming the first cause "point" has only one advantage: it doesn't have to be called spirit. But a point is nothing other than the ultimate degree of extinction of physical reality. There is no point reality, except in geometric mathematical abstraction. If we claim not to be doing geometry, but to be situated in the plane of really existing beings, speaking of a point is a way of signifying either nothingness or spirit. Admitting both that the universe has a cause, and that the only way to designate this cause in scientific language is to speak of it as a point, is simply to say, without saying it, that this reality is not physical. For either it really is a point, and is nothing, and can therefore be the cause of nothing; or it has no spatial dimension and really exists, and is then a spirit.”

Frédéric Guillaud, God exists, p.157, Éditions du Cerf, Paris, 2013.


Arguments forJustifications

Arguments againstObjections

Parent debateParent debate