8 Steps To The Existence Of God

[MindOverMatter]

1. Out of nothing comes nothing, for potentiality is a product of being.

2. Potentiality is not an actual being.

3. All beings that change are not absolute beings, for they are contingent on preceding events in order to be, and are gaining in being by proceeding into the future. Thus they proceed in being by potentiality, which is in itself founded upon a preceding reality.

4. There cannot be an infinite regress in which potentiality precedes being. Neither can time be synonymous with ultimate being/existence. In order for something to change, it must have the potentiality to do so, and its changing is evidence of that potentiality. Thus there cannot be such a thing as an infinitely changing being, since potentiality would have to infinitely precede being. Potentiality must be founded upon being. Thus change is ultimately caused by a being that is not changing; transcending the potentiality and being of that which changes.

5. Its logically impossible and meaningless for there to be such a thing as an infinite “number” of events since an infinity transcends all numbers, and thus all events.

6. Nothing is not a being or an actual thing. Therefore it is impossible for it to be positively true that there is such a thing as absolute nothingness, because “truth” is founded on being. That being the case, a positive nothingness is meaningless. Therefore there must be a necessary absolute eternal being that is existence by nature, is the immutable root of all truth, and is therefore perfect being, and is also the timeless principle by which things have the potential to be; for out of nothing comes nothing.

7. The first cause cannot be an accidental physical cause, since accidents require the potentiality to gain in space/time. Absolute Existence transcends all space/time, and thus all potentiality.

8. If a first cause cannot be an accidental cause in space/time, then there is only one other possibility. The first cause has a perfect, transcendent and personal will.

This is what i understand to be God.

 

[Detales]

God** IS**,

However, (and that is a heck of a lot more than 8!)

1. Potentiality is not a product, it is an aspect of the Nature of Being, equatabel with God, namable only from the perspective of mortal mind, but inseperable in Fact, and called by some ALLness, or “I”
2. See 1)
3. Change is the test of Reality. If it changes, it is not Real, though it may exist phenomenally as a part of, and not separate from, a totality of manifestation, which manifestation is not separate from Being, and called “AM”. So, derivative creatures exist dependent on the Ground of Being and appear timed from the perspective of linearity in the dimentions we are sense equipped to live, move, and have our Being.
4. Time is a relative perception concurrent with or manifesting as change, which change is by laws inherent in Being. Potentiality, as an aspect of Being, seeks to manifest as forms more simply featured to reflect ALLness, each higher order constituting a realiztion of AMing which incorporates and transcends the previous manifestations in four fields of catagoriztion: interior, exterior, individual and group. These catagories emerge and inter-relate simultaneously and inseparably.
5. Yes, though the idea of infinite numbers at our current level of Being manifestation can be used to analyze, predict , and utilize laws heretofore unincorporated in awarensss, which awareness is the loaclization of the Principle called Consciousness.
6. God, Consciousness, Principle, etc, are not “things.” Yet from the perspecitve of individuated awareness, the ALLnes of God may appear to a mortal mind as void, or nothingness, yet be experienced as the feeling of ultimate Significance, Meaning, Satisfaction, and more. Absolute Eternal Being is the ground for existance, but Being itself is not in the quale of existance. It is the immutable Root of all that exists, not seperate from THAT existance. THAT existance is not necessary to BEing, yet Being is not apart from THAT existing. That BEing is the Perfect Timeless Principle which is the potential for all manifestaion or existence, which yet does not need to manifest to BE.
7. IS has nor needs cause, and BEing all Potentiality, appears from the perspective of mortal mind to be transcendent.
8. IS, is uncaused.** IS** as such, appears to mortal mind as transcendent, and appears for the sake of education of mortal mind to be ascribed “personal will” untill the Truth of BEing dawns in the awareness as “I and the Father is One, Now, and not shall be.” It is why it is sometimes said “I AM the light to the World” by those who experience transcendence. That statement is taken as ascribable to a Teacher, Master, or Sage until such Greace descends that the awareness transforms, or resurrects, in a new state of Understanding called the Son/Sun. Untill then, the life of duality is expereinced as the cross of being stretched vertically as BEing and horizontally as timed, untill the moment that the picture collapses into a point of Light.
   Then stories can be made by witnesses about what happened, and one groups can even make it into religions that excludes them from the experience until they wake up.

 

[ljubim]

Amen to that!
Are these your words?

 

[Detales]

Yes, mostly, but there are no new ideas.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

To start with, I think it would be good if you spelled out exactly what you mean by things like potentiality, actual beings, and absolute beings.

I also think you need to elaborate on almost all of your steps. You make a number of claims in your argument without giving reasons to think those claims are true. That’s fine if the truth of it is obvious, but there are some that don’t seem correct, and there are others that are just too ambiguous. You might want to start by giving reasons why we should reject the possibility of an infinite past.

 

[MindOverMatter]

You might want to start by giving reasons why we should reject the possibility of an infinite past.

First explain to me, step by step why my arguement against an infinite past was not sufficient to you?

 

[punkforchrist]

Thomas’ argument from De Ente et Essentia! We can actually reduce the number of premises:

1. Changing things exist.
2. Everything that changes is composed of actuality and potentiality.
3. No potentiality can actualize itself.
4. Change must be grounded in Pure Act.*
5. Therefore, Pure Act exists.

(1) isn’t at all controversial, unless one adopts some form of absolute monism. We observe that things change, so it makes sense to start an a posteriori argument with such an experience. (2) is explicable in that actuality is what something is and potentiality is what it could be. For example, an acorn is merely an acorn in actuality; but in potentiality, it is an oak tree.

We can support (3) through observation, as well. An acorn requires things like soil, water, and sunlight in order to grow into an oak tree. If we remove what actualizes something, then a thing’s potentiality cannot itself be actualized. (4) rejects the possibility of an infinite regress, but this isn’t necessarily a temporal regress of events. Rather, the kind of regress we’re talking about is hierarchical, e.g., it refers to source or rank. If there is no Pure Act, then nothing would change at all. Think of a watch with no spring. Even if there were infinitely-many gears, none of them would move. Hence, a first member in the series is needed.

Another argument in favor of (4) is that an infinite regress would require an infinite series of changing things to change something within a finite period of time. However, it would take infinite time for an infinite series to do anything at all! Therefore, the series must be finite.

If the first member of this series were composed of potentiality, then its actualization would result in its not being first, which is a contradiction. This means that the first member must be Pure Act. We can then infer the divine attributes.

*Short for “Pure Actuality”

 

[Detales]

I wourld conjecture that, at the end of his life, St Thomas would have agreed with the first of those five, dismissed the middle three, and modified the last, unless it is all poorly translated. “Idem non idem.” as they used to say.

 

[j1akey]

MindOverMatter:

First explain to me, step by step why my arguement against an infinite past was not sufficient to you?

To be honest with you I read over your 8 steps at least half a dozen times trying to figure out what is is you’re trying to say. The entire way it’s worded prevents me from fully wrapping my head around what it. It’s just written in a confusing way, at least to me.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

First explain to me, step by step why my arguement against an infinite past was not sufficient to you?

I’m with j1akey, I just don’t understand what you’re trying to say. For example, you say that “an infinity transcends all numbers, and thus all events.” By “transcends”, do you mean that infinity is greater than any specific number? I don’t see how this shows anything about events. It’s almost like you’re saying that infinity is greater than all finite numbers, so there cannot have been infinite events. This conclusion does not logically follow.

I really think you need to define your terms and clarify the various steps in your argument.

 

[HelenaMT]

1. Out of nothing comes nothing, for potentiality is a product of being.

2. Potentiality is not an actual being.

3. All beings that change are not absolute beings, for they are contingent on preceding events in order to be, and are gaining in being by proceeding into the future. Thus they proceed in being by potentiality, which is in itself founded upon a preceding reality.

4. There cannot be an infinite regress in which potentiality precedes being. Neither can time be synonymous with ultimate being/existence. In order for something to change, it must have the potentiality to do so, and its changing is evidence of that potentiality. Thus there cannot be such a thing as an infinitely changing being, since potentiality would have to infinitely precede being. Potentiality must be founded upon being. Thus change is ultimately caused by a being that is not changing; transcending the potentiality and being of that which changes.

5. Its logically impossible and meaningless for there to be such a thing as an infinite “number” of events since an infinity transcends all numbers, and thus all events.

6. Nothing is not a being or an actual thing. Therefore it is impossible for it to be positively true that there is such a thing as absolute nothingness, because “truth” is founded on being. That being the case, a positive nothingness is meaningless. Therefore there must be a necessary absolute eternal being that is existence by nature, is the immutable root of all truth, and is therefore perfect being, and is also the timeless principle by which things have the potential to be; for out of nothing comes nothing.

7. The first cause cannot be an accidental physical cause, since accidents require the potentiality to gain in space/time. Absolute Existence transcends all space/time, and thus all potentiality.

8. If a first cause cannot be an accidental cause in space/time, then there is only one other possibility. The first cause has a perfect, transcendent and personal will.

This is what i understand to be God.

What is the difference between an “absolute” being and a “contingent” being? Can you give a real world sort of example of what that means?

Why does being have to be caused by an unchanging being? Why, philosophically, does God have to be unchanging to be real?

Why is “truth” founded on being? What do you mean by that?

I am very interested in understanding your concepts but have not taken graduate level philosophy, so am kind of lost in the verbiage.

 

[JDaniel]

1. Out of nothing comes nothing, for potentiality is a product of being.

When you say, “potentiality is a ‘product’ of being,” do you mean that it is an “attribute” of being? In other words, since all things are in some process of change then all things or beings (except a prime mover or first cause) have as a determinate of their being change and, therefore, potency or, potencies.

2. Potentiality is not an actual being.

Now, I think you mean here that “potentiality” (or potency) does not have “being” by itself, but, only as part of something that has being, has actuality, such as primary or secondary matter would have the privation(s) necessary for change. Am I with you here?

This is an interesting conception. I have more questions of you, but, need these answered first so that I am comfortable that we are on at least a similar wave length. Also, I am out of time for today and would hope to have your permission to resume tomorrow after I have read your reply.

jd

 

[TheWhim]

Okay, first of all, let’s briefly look at this sentence:

Its logically impossible and meaningless for there to be such a thing as an infinite “number” of events since an infinity transcends all numbers, and thus all events.

Another poster has already expressed confusion as to what meaning this phrase purports to convey. Worded as it is, it’s quite unintelligible. Of course an infinity does not transcend all numbers; in fact, it includes all numbers. - I wonder if you were trying to summarize shortly the old argument: an infinite regress of events cannot be for if it were, the present would never have arrived. If not, please explain again your thoughts.

Well, but now we get to the fillet steak of the cow, so to say:

Thus there cannot be such a thing as an infinitely changing being, since potentiality would have to infinitely precede being. Potentiality must be founded upon being. Thus change is ultimately caused by a being that is not changing; transcending the potentiality and being of that which changes.

To me, this is extremely interesting. I’ve never understood this special turn of Aquinas argument. I think it’s fallacious and no one has been able to convince me yet that it is not(a fact that may well stand in no relation to an alleged fallaciousness of the argument, but rather to the fallaciousness of my mind).

Well, I cannot help thinking that Aquinas has fallen into the trap of something remotely ressembling what one commonly calls a ‘fallacy of composition’.

Indeed, it is plain for everyone to see, and I agree so far that there cannot be such a thing as an infinitely changing BEING, that is, all being, all matter, all physics tightly enclosed in this conceptual composition termed ‘BEING’. If there were only BEING, considered as a singular entity(like, say, Tom, Paul, a cow, or a blade of grass), then, indeed, it would be senseless to appeal to an infinite causal regress. If there were such a thing as an infinitely changing BEING, then potentiality would have to infinitely precede BEING, what is impossible, since potentiality must be founded upon being, but since there is no other thing save the single entity called BEING, it cannot be founded upon anything else. - So far, all is sound.

But BEING, once for all, is a mere monistic fancy of the mind. There is no BEING, but there is an innumberable throng of ever changing beings, mutually influencing each other causally. Paul is preceded by potentiality and well can be so, because what preceded him, say, the sperm and the egg, were also(existent, being). And thus the chain goes back and back… Of course, I think an infinite regress is impossible because today could never have happened if possible it were. Therefore, I do not question the outcome of your argument, MindOverMatter, but the way you arrive at your conclusion.

There’s simply a wild contradiction inherent to the argument. PunkforChrist has clarified that premise the first(of his rendering of the argument) is founded on the rejection of an absolute monism - for changing things to exist, there indeed must be things that can be differentiated, it cannot be that the only fundamental truth is mere homogenous matter, energy, whatever. If you like, call it BEING instead of energy, it amounts very much to the same. This, therefore, is premise one: There are things and it is wrong to say that BEING is all that is. The argument is an initial abortion without taking this premise for granted.

However, in the further proceeding of the argument, this premise is daringly rejected; and here lies the glaring contradiction in the argument. For, as I said, it makes only sense to say what you have said and what I have put in quotation marks above, if one does not think of things anymore(Paul, Tom, the cat, the tree, the sperm, the egg) but subsumes everything under the flattening aegis of BEING, thus creating a single existent thing, namely BEING. And only when this Frankensteinian creation is accomplished does the argument work. - One cannot help it. A contradiction is always something monstrous.

 

[wanstronian]

First explain to me, step by step why my arguement against an infinite past was not sufficient to you?

Ah, MoM, up to your old tricks again - make a statement, then when it is challenged, fail to answer the challenge, preferring instead to counter-challenge. That way, you don’t have to justify any of your fallacious reasoning.

Two people have challenged your initial assertions, and now you can add me to the list. So come on, ante up and explain your rationale.

 

[Fran65]

That way, you don’t have to justify any of your fallacious reasoning.

I would like you to explain why Mind’s reasoning is fallacious. Let’s start with the idea of an infinite past. Why and how is that illogical?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I would like you to explain why Mind’s reasoning is fallacious. Let’s start with the idea of an infinite past. Why and how is that illogical?

Even if God existed and an infinite past was impossible, it is possible to make bad arguments for those facts. For example, suppose I said that pigeons exist, therefore an infinite past cannot exist, therefore God exists. Even if all the premises and conclusions were true, this would not be a good argument since the conclusions do not follow from the premises. The point of an argument is to convince a reasonable person of the truth of your claim, not just to assert it.

 

[Fran65]

Stating that the argument is flawed is not clear enough for me. Why, where and how is it flawed?

So please explain what the problem(s) are with the premises e.g. that the number of events canot be infinite and why those premises do not support MoMs conclusion e.g. that God exists.

Thanks

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Stating that the argument is flawed is not clear enough for me. Why, where and how is it flawed?

So please explain what the problem(s) are with the premises e.g. that time is not infinite and why those premises do not support MoMs conclusion e.g. that God exists.

Thanks

I pointed out one problem I saw with the argument in post #10. Other people have pointed out other problems. I’d be happy to discuss this argument in more depth, but first I’d like to hear how MoM responds to some of the problems we’ve already identified.

 

[Fran65]

I’m with j1akey, I just don’t understand what you’re trying to say. For example, you say that “an infinity transcends all numbers, and thus all events.” By “transcends”, do you mean that infinity is greater than any specific number? I don’t see how this shows anything about events. It’s almost like you’re saying that infinity is greater than all finite numbers, so there cannot have been infinite events. This conclusion does not logically follow.

Why doesn’t the conclusion that there cannot have been an infinite number of events follow from the premise that an infinity is greater than any number of possible events?

It seems straightforward to me. I would like an explanation - I’m always keen to increase my understanding.

I really think you need to define your terms and clarify the various steps in your argument.

I would say that this is also the case with your own post.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Personally, I couldn’t prove my own existence in 8 steps, and certainly not to a skeptic’s satisfaction. I know this whole “proof of God’s existence” thing has a long history, but I’m not sure it’s ever very convincing.

But there are plenty of reasons to doubt atheism – perhaps even reasons to doubt the existence of atheism.