Source @

The Force Science: A Game of Cause and Reason.

Good day readers, in the course of our discussion in my previous article, Religious Science II: A Universal dichotomy, we raised a thought-provoking mystery and the opposing arguments which circumspect the question: what created what? In this issue, a concept of Force was implied, and the need to trace our development back to its origin, or source if we may. This force which results in our etymology has on many occasions be referred to as the first cause, or initial cause. It is a subject that offers a lot of answers and brews up new questions as well. Some of these questions affect us personally, while some affect us in a general and intellectual sense. In this article, we shall direct our attention to answer the question, what was the first cause? And shall look at various compelling arguments that have been presented on the issue, and how the scientific community, the philosophical community and of course, the religious community view the subject. Also, we will examine the birth of a classification and how the mystery tends to resolve itself.

Ready...Good. Let's Begin.

Force as we know it

When we say "force", or try to describe the concept of " force", many a thought stream through our minds and we are left wondering whether we can understand what this concept really is. When we say "force" in this discussion, we are not talking about the use of violence or "dominion" to obtain and satisfy our desires, to explain force in its aesthetic value is a problem I leave to the ethical community. The "force" i wish to explain here is that which results in an "effect" by an exertion or influence.
Merriam-webster dictionary defines "force" as strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change, that is, an active power.
The encyclopedia britannica defines force as an agent or action that tends to alter or maintain or distort the nature of an object. And by "nature" it means the all-encompassing aspects of the object.
For simplicity sake, I proceed to define force an influence or agent that exerts a change i.e that which results or produces an effect. So there we have it, force produces an effect, that is what it does in its intrinsic essence.

So why then is force a very important concept?

Because although we understand that the nature of force is to produce an effect, how we understand this concept varies at length and this in turn affects us in general. For instance, the disagreement which was described in my previous article ( we shall see how this is affected by this discussion later on), the difference in the understanding of this concept and its etymology is seen at the heart of this dispute.

Now we understand force in its general definition, what about the specifics?

Hold on, we are forging ahead.

Force and Philosophy

One thing we can be sure of is that in every sphere of knowledge, the concept of force tends towards a unification i.e there is a form of a mutual agreement with minor differences, and developing ideas. The philosophical sphere is no different and of course, has not held back its tongue when the question of force (or cause, as used in speculative terms) comes into view and how it proposes to answer the question, "what created what?" . Aristotle in his book physics and metaphysics describes force (cause) not as a single concept but as a conglomeration of four different concepts all pointing in one direction. This he referred to as the four causes, which are material, efficient, formal and final causes.

Lets make this simpler than he anticipated shall we?

The first cause, is that which is material or in a more definitive term, matter, is the actual matter, that without which nothing can be effected or made. The second cause, that which is efficient, is the "worker" or that which transform the matter into something. The third cause, the formal, is the impression impressed upon the matter. The fourth cause, the final cause, can be described as the purpose of the effect. For example, in the case of a potter and a clay pot: clay is the first cause of the pot, since it couldn't have been made unless there was something from which it could be made. The second cause is the potter, without whom the pot could not have also been shaped and casted. The third cause is the form, that is the special shape (impression) with which a clay pot is associated. The fourth cause, is the purpose of molding a clay pot, for if this purpose had not existed, the clay pot could not have been made.
What does this purpose mean? It is intention, that Is, the end to which the clay pot was molded. It might be for marketing, or domestic uses, or for other purposes, therefore this can be considered as a cause in the molding of the clay.

There then, questions answered and all is settled right? Not at all

Plato comes along and says, "hey there is something else", a fifth cause. This he calls the " idea", that is, a picture, either mentally conceived within the potter or is an external pattern which influences how he moulds the clay pot. Plato refers to this idea i.e This fifth cause, as eternal, imperishable and unchangeable. Hence the famous apothegm, "ideas are immortal."
Combining Aristotle's and Plato's view of cause, there are in total five causes, the matter, the agent, the impression, the purpose and the result i.e the effect of all the other four.

Source@

The Creative Reason

Implementing the philosophical concept of force, Plato tried to conjure a logical speculation of the origin of the universe. That is, the first cause. In his opinion, The agent is a creator, matter is the source, the form, impressions and arrangement which gives rise to an end result, the idea.

However, in one of his letters, Stoic philosopher, Annaeus Seneca argues that there is an independent cause, an initial cause, one on which all the cause described by Aristotle and Plato hinges upon, this he calls the Creative Reason. In this letter, he argues that form, agent, impression, idea and purpose are parts of causes, but neither of them is the cause.
Here he brings a difference to light, differentiating between an effect and the cause of an effect where he classifies the causes into two separate and distinct entities, the accessory cause and the efficient cause, claiming that the forms of cause stated by Aristotle and Plato are only accessory causes, but not efficient causes which include only one form of cause, the Creative Force. He asserts this creative force to be God and from whom all other forms of force can be traced.

Source@

Drawing the curtains

What do you think? Is this a valid conclusion? Does it hold any consistency or seem to agree with science in any aspect seeing that a very tight bond exist between philosophy and science?

As for the validity of the conclusion, we must contemplate it for ourselves and see if the reasoning of the so-called "advocates of speculative logic" holds any water. In my next article, we shall discuss how science propose the concept of Force and how it answers the question "what created what?" In its own terms. Once again, this is aseneca reminding you to stay scientific, always.