God and Quantity

An interesting conclusion follows from the logical deduction of God in terms of Quantity. Anyone who knows how to count can easily follow my reasoning in this matter, let me illustrate my meaning. God is 1 thing, therefore It can’t be nothing, and must be something. However, to know of God, an observer must perceive either God’s form or God’s motion. Now this can follow with several conclusions concerning Quantity and God. First there must be at least 2 things, God and the observer. God is also known by Its form or motion, making at least 3 things. If we negate the statement, “God is also known by Its form or motion, making at least 3 things,” we still end with 3 things. For, at the very least, the observer is 2 or more things, observer qua observer(Form) and observer qua observing(Motion); less any observer as such denies this determination. Thus resulting in the outcome still ending in 3; God, the observer, and the observer observing; this being the case regardless if God is known or not.

Another odd conclusion follows from God as First Cause. Considering the concept of a 1st Cause, this cause in itself, in relation to quantity, necessarily is 1 thing. But, a cause, in itself, necessitates an effect, making 2 things. And if a cause has no effect, then it can’t be considered a cause qua cause, rather the concept(idea, event, phenomena, etc.) must be an effect itself, or nothing at all(non-existent). Effect as an necessity is one circumstance of a 1st Cause; a causeless cause, a cause resulting from no effect, is another, and a paradox indeed. For a causeless cause can only come from 2 things, nothing and itself. The result of this is drastic, for if the causeless cause came from nothing, then we would still have 2 thing; the causeless cause and nothing. But, if nothing does anything it will cease to be nothing, and become something. No longer being nothing, it would be a falsehood to say a causeless cause came from nothing.

The second circumstance results in the same case. If a causeless cause caused itself, then we have still 2 things. For the effect of the causeless cause is the causeless cause itself. This leads to the cause of the causeless cause being itself, and the effect of the causeless cause being itself. Therefore the causeless cause must be somehow outside itself to cause itself, i am not quite sure how this is done. One way is for there to be 2 causeless cause, problem with that is 1 causeless cause would end up as an effect. Another way would be to make the causeless cause cause only itself. But how could a causeless cause become anything more than a causeless cause if it can only cause itself; for a causeless cause only effect would be itself, itself being nothing more than a causeless cause. A causeless cause seems to have the ability to exist as a causeless cause, but as nothing else.

Let us say the causeless cause caused itself and a man. The causeless cause would have caused 2 things. The cause of the causeless cause being the causeless cause itself, therefore the causeless cause is either 1 thing or 2 things. But how could the causeless cause cause a man? A man is a complex of things, to keep it simple let’s say 10 things, how did the causeless cause acquired 10 other things? the causeless cause hasn’t become anything more in itself but a 1st Cause, at most it is 2 things, which are both causeless causes. And in itself, it is nothing more than 1 thing, itself. For a causeless cause can only come from nothing and itself, and in itself it is nothing more than a 1st Cause.

Unless the causeless cause causes something other than itself, it is essentially always close to nothing(non-existence or null-existence). In the case of the causeless cause causing itself and a man, it can only cause a man. For it being a causeless cause would force it to result in a man. But, man qua man is the configuration of many things, and each thing related to something else. So from where could the causeless cause have preceded from causeless cause to a man? For, if such a proposition were to stand without validation, it would be the same as a man coming from nothing and from nowhere. And this is a result we have concluded before, that a causeless cause can only be caused by nothing or itself. A man can’t be the cause of himself, but if a man is caused by a causeless cause, then he would be the cause of himself. The cause of the causeless cause would be man, and man would be caused by the causeless cause.