8 Steps To The Existence Of God

[warpspeedpetey]

It strikes me that there is a lot of mockery coming out of some atheists. That only confirms that atheism is a negation. It cannot promote the discovery of new knowledge or new insights about reality and its meaning (as itself - as atheism). It exists to deny something.

I’m carrying this idea over from another thread so please excuse the off-topic-ness of it, but something like the Darwin Fish is an example of the negativity of atheism. Wtihin the very logo promoting atheistic thought there is the mockery of Christianity (the fish) and of Christians (those who post the subtle image of the fish).

A small, non-essential point, but I see it confirmed many times that there is a lot of ridicule and mockery as a substituion for reasoned arguments.

(I’m not talking about anyone on this thread.)

when i strip away the layers of ridicule, mockery and set piece refutations, i find that most, not all by any means, but most have reasons unrelated to rational thought for their position. the most intellectual atheist i know recently admitted privately that he had a chip on his shoulder about religion because he was forced to go to church as a child. years that i have known the man only to find out that the real reason for his positions have nothing to do witrh what he has told me all these years, rather its an emotional reaction to an event in his life. all those arguments meant nothing, he was just mad. what a horribly sad reason to throw away ones soul.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I would agree with this evaluation of atheism, although it doesn’t carry over to agnosticism (when agnosticism is real, and not a pose). The problem is this: denying something emphasizes it. I think of Madonna’s music videos in the 1980s; her hatred of Catholicism was obviously part and parcel to a kind of love, and the videos communicated a great deal about the glory of Catholicism, despite themselves. Vitriol is the product of a magnetic force – a magnet can attract or repel, but it *defines *experience.

When you say not-God, you are yet emphasizing the importance of God. In order to send a pure message about atheism, you cannot be an atheist – you must rather be completely casual about the existence or nonexistence of God.

excellent point. true agnostics dont really fit the same mold as atheists, somehow, ive always seen them as more honest intellectually. though the 2 are conflated much too often in the mind of the public

 

[TheWhim]

I agree with you that there is change and that there truly are things. That’s not the point to discuss here. Rather, I say that the argument flies at one point in the face of this notion of differentiated things in claiming:
An infinite set of beings is a contingent being in itself.
I uphold the challenge that anyone should explain to me how one is logically compelled to take such a stance. In fact, the argument does not work without this stance being taken.

This, obviously:

change indicates the possibility that a beings non-existence is possible . it is not logically necessary and is therefore contingent because it might not have been.

: this is not an answer at all. Indeed, change indicates the possibility that a beings non-existence is possible and thus verifies that it is a contingent being. But this, of course, has nothing to do whatsoever with the above claim, namely, that an infinite set of beings is a contingent being in itself. Why should one perceive the set of beings as a single being? Being will always precede potentiality, mind this, if one goes causally backwards in the members of an infinite set. Only when those members are arbitrarily compressed into a single contingent being is the claim of the argument warranted that such a constantly changing being, that is, potentiality(the universe and everything it contains taken as a whole), is in need of a cause, that is, being, which then must be unchanging.

Well, I’ve all explained this in post #13. Somehow this is getting tiresome… I’m definitely in need of someone who actually understands what I am talking about. Some JDanielism or PunkforChristianism on this point would certainly be of help.

 

[tonyrey]

An infinite set of beings is a contingent being in itself.
I uphold the challenge that anyone should explain to me how one is logically compelled to take such a stance. In fact, the argument does not work without this stance being taken.

1. The infinite set of beings exists in time and space in a physical universe.
2. There is no reason to assume that the physical universe constitutes the whole of reality.
3. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of non-physical reality.
4. There is no evidence that any particular being need exist.
5. The origin of particular beings needs to be explained.
6. An infinite regress is a less economical, less adequate, less intelligible, less coherent, less probable and less fertile explanation than one Supreme Being.

 

[JDaniel]

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

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.

Not so, if infinity is a discrete number, as proposed by some herein, or as all of the other numbers under the genus “multitude” suggests (when it is misunderstood), then ∞ does, in fact, transcend (is above, stands taller than) all of the other numbers under the genus. If, on the other hand, ∞ is not a number, but is instead a beginningless-endless continuum, then it still transcends all other numbered slices, or numbered sets of slices, of said continuum. I think that’s how MoM meant it.

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

So, is dinner served?

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).

MoM is, in fact, exhuming the concept(s) prime mover and first cause from their originally intended settings and placing them in another. Usually, that has been the common mistake of almost everyone who thinks they know what St. Thomas was trying to convey.

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

I will attempt to explain in an ensuing post, as there’s not enough room left in this one.

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.

An excellent summation. It doesn’t have to be so mysterious though. BEING is merely the abstraction from that which has existence. Our experience tells us in no uncertain terms, that all things come to be. Once one, or one hundred, or one hundred thousand, or one hundred million things come to be, our minds can process them through the same steps we use to abstract the essences of anything else. One only needs to experience a few birds to grasp the essence of that which is “bird-ness”.

Further, “potentiality” has to rest in something. It is not an existentially existing thing. “Potentiality” has no BEING-ness. In fact, it is a negation of something, or an absence of something. Thus, potentiality rests, or resides, if you want, in primary or secondary matter. It is in the matter which lacks the something that the having of would impart its perfection. Thus, in MoM’s explanation, it is matter that contains potency and it would have to have existed eternally in it. Then, if there were no existing efficient cause, none of this eternally existing, potency-laden matter would ever be affected such that it would be made to possess said perfection (existence, being, man, woman,etc.), which it lacked. Thus, there must be an existing first efficient cause, or, potency-laden matter is all that there would or could ever be. (I think this is a very interesting take on the matter.)

But BEING, once for all, is a mere monistic fancy of the mind. There is no BEING, but there is an innumerable 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.

Whim, BEING is not “a mere monistic fancy of the mind.” It is understood as the factical of abstraction from its grounding in substance, in things that have existence. In abstracting BEING from a particular MOBILE BEING, we, of course, remove from it all relation to its mobility. Abstraction’s first order of process is the immobilization of that which is under consideration. If it didn’t, even man-ness would be difficult to grasp while in the ongoing stream of living things.

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 homogeneous 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.

Again, not so. It seems that you forgot the work the mind does in order to abstract BEING from existential thingness. BEING is not the same thing as “energy”. In fact, energy has BEING and is a form of BEING. BEING is a factical. Here, I define factical as Heidegger does, as the supreme indication of a basic phenomenon. BEING is the thing. It is what we take away upon abstraction and put back in order to permit the existential thing to be intelligible to us.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

It strikes me that there is a lot of mockery coming out of some atheists. That only confirms that atheism is a negation. It cannot promote the discovery of new knowledge or new insights about reality and its meaning (as itself - as atheism). It exists to deny something.

No doubt. But, the interesting thing to ask is, "What do they, in fact, deny? Do they deny something that, according to them, possesses no existentiality or being? Do they deny some ethereal thing that dissipates at higher altitudes? Do they deny what is to them a myth? Do they actually have a psychological disorder that makes them do what, for all intents and purposes, is an extraordinary expression of obsessive compulsion?

I’m carrying this idea over from another thread so please excuse the off-topic-ness of it, but something like the Darwin Fish is an example of the negativity of atheism. Within the very logo promoting atheistic thought there is the mockery of Christianity (the fish) and of Christians (those who post the subtle image of the fish).

A small, non-essential point, but I see it confirmed many times that there is a lot of ridicule and mockery as a substitution for reasoned arguments.

(I’m not talking about anyone on this thread.)

(At least I got my mockery off my chest! )

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I agree with you that there is change and that there truly are things. That’s not the point to discuss here. Rather, I say that the argument flies at one point in the face of this notion of differentiated things in claiming:
An infinite set of beings is a contingent being in itself.
I uphold the challenge that anyone should explain to me how one is logically compelled to take such a stance. In fact, the argument does not work without this stance being taken.

This, obviously:

: this is not an answer at all. Indeed, change indicates the possibility that a beings non-existence is possible and thus verifies that it is a contingent being. But this, of course, has nothing to do whatsoever with the above claim, namely, that an infinite set of beings is a contingent being in itself. Why should one perceive the set of beings as a single being? Being will always precede potentiality, mind this, if one goes causally backwards in the members of an infinite set. Only when those members are arbitrarily compressed into a single contingent being is the claim of the argument warranted that such a constantly changing being, that is, potentiality(the universe and everything it contains taken as a whole), is in need of a cause, that is, being, which then must be unchanging.

Well, I’ve all explained this in post #13. Somehow this is getting tiresome… I’m definitely in need of someone who actually understands what I am talking about. Some JDanielism or PunkforChristianism on this point would certainly be of help.

the qoute button is below the clockwise arrow, it helps us sort who your replying to.

that said lets examine the nature of the existence of beings. it would seem that there are only 2 possible states for a being to exist,

1. contingent beings, things that might not have been and therefore require a cause
2. necessary beings, that which must exist in order for those contingent beings exist.

there is no third category, and they are mutually exclusive categories. this is the logical basis of the division of existence in that manner.

assume then that we have a universe composed of an infinite chain of contingent beings, does the infinite nature of this universe then justify its own existence? no.

here is why

every contingent being is simply a possibility until it has a cause that brings it into existence nor can a contingent being bring itself into existence. therefore it cannot exist to cause another contingent being even in an infinite chain. so even if you have such an infinite chain of contingent beings they do not justify their own existence and as such require a first cause.

all arguments for an eternal or temporally infinite universe are essentially claims that the universe is a necessary being. obviously, as the universe is nothing more than the sum of contingent beings, and has no existence apart from them, the universe as that collection cannot be necessary, therefore the universe in any configuration then requires a first cause in order to exist.

 

[MindOverMatter]

: this is not an answer at all. Indeed, change indicates the possibility that a beings non-existence is possible and thus verifies that it is a contingent being. But this, of course, has nothing to do whatsoever with the above claim, namely, that an infinite set of beings is a contingent being in itself. .

Ahh, i said and infinite set of changing beings.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Only when those members are arbitrarily compressed into a single contingent being is the claim of the argument warranted that such a constantly changing being, that is, potentiality(the universe and everything it contains taken as a whole), is in need of a cause, that is, being, which then must be unchanging.

Its irrelevant. I just used the “whole” concept as a way of making it easier for somebody to understand. The fact is, none of the beings, singular or otherwise, are responsible for the change which is occurring. Since every cause in the set is in motion by accident and is a “cause” only by accident. None of them are necessary beings, but are contingent on existential events. Every cause in the infinite set is serving merely as a medium of change. In truth, none of them can claim the attribute of cause, in so far as explaining “change”. In reality, the infinite chain, is just an infinite effect, since none of the causes are efficient in explaining why there is change.

The fact is, in order for the potentiality of change to exist, there first has to be that which is being. Being must precede change before there can be change, since change cannot come out of nothing. Placing an infinite number of contingent events in to the past, merely extends the problem infinitely, and only remains a plausible answer because it has the illusion of an efficient cause. It doesn’t solve it. Once you understand contingency and necessity and how it relates to objective reality, you will come to see that it is impossible for an infinite change to exist without a cause. If none of the parts are necessary, then the whole is contingent. And if the whole does not have a cause, then in principle of its contingency the whole ought not exist in the first place.

Well, I’ve all explained this in post #13. Somehow this is getting tiresome… I’m definitely in need of someone who actually understands what I am talking about. Some JDanielism or PunkforChristianism on this point would certainly be of help.

What about some Momism? Don’t i make any sense to you?. Oh well, i hope you get your answers. Peace.

 

[TheWhim]

Thanks JDaniel!! And thanks, MoM. Oh, I’m also fond of Momism, there’s nothing to grudge it particularly.

Okay: to summarize things as far as I’ve understood them by now:
Contingent beings may or may not exist(they are not necessary). That’s why they in themselves don’t provide an efficient cause to their existence. My mother and father were not efficient, but only intermediate causes to my existence. And thus is the way down the ancestorial chain. - The intermediate causes aren’t really causes at all. Rather, they are change. Change that is handed on from link to link of the chain. But change(potentiality) is in itself in need of an explanation because it could be that it were not(it’s not necessary). So why does change exist? Mere randomness is no conclusion. To say: change just happens to exist: is no conclusion. It is not a sufficient answer because it does not explain why it doesn’t happen not to exist. - Thus there is to be a necessary start, an efficient cause to the chain.

Well, the argument above relies, I believe, on ‘the principle of sufficient reason’. I believe punkforChrist has written alot about this and why we cannot just say: irrelevant, who cares, change just happens to exist, that’s all we need to know.

Is the above a just summation of MoM’s argument, non-essential difference of terms and expressions employed granted? (I’m very unconcerned about correct appliance of Thomistic-orientied language. It’s about quintessence and content I care.) Or is there more to his argument?

Perhaps we are in need of seperating the basic idea of a necessary first cause, as outlined above, from MoM’s further proceedings. He does not just say: change requires further explanation because it could be that it were not: no, rather he says: potentiality has to be preceded by being and all the universe, taken together, is potentiality, thus we need being, which is God. I agree with MoM that intermediate causes are not efficient causes. But that’s a wholly different matter. - MoM says: all the universe, taken together, is potentiality, is change. But potentiality has to be preceded by actuality, by being. So where’s the actuality if all the universe is potentiality? It must reside outside the universe. It must reside in God. - But let’s honestly examine his claims. Is it indeed true that the universe is mere potentiality and can be treated like mere potentiality in argument? Obviously not. Obviously, in the contingent world there’s also actuality because things really exist. I’m now actually 21 and I will potentially be 22. The tree in front my house is actually in splendid foliage but will potentially wither away some hundred years hence. And so on… And my parents(actual parents) did actually conceive me and thus generated a being who was potentially to become me as I’m actually right now. In the contingent world, there are things. In the contingent world, actuality preceded potentiality. The contingent world is not just a melting pot of potentiality. In an infinite chain, there would always be actuality to precede potentiality.

Of course, this does not explain why the chain exists in the first place, how it came to be because it must not be. But, again, to me this seems to be a different matter related to ‘the principle of sufficient reason’ or else the argument from causality.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Thanks JDaniel!! And thanks, MoM. Oh, I’m also fond of Momism, there’s nothing to grudge it particularly.

I like the idea of being an “ism”. Thanks. Please read everything before commenting.

no, rather he says: potentiality has to be preceded by being and all the universe, taken together, is potentiality,

Taken together, it is potential being.

Thus we need being, which is God. I agree with MoM that intermediate causes are not efficient causes. But that’s a wholly different matter.

I don’t see that it is a whole different matter, but rather just a different way of looking at the same thing. In fact its all connected.

• MoM says: all the universe, taken together, is potentiality, is change.

I am saying that all the universe taken together is potential being.

But potentiality has to be preceded by actuality, by being.

Correct

So where’s the actuality if all the universe is potentiality? It must reside outside the universe. It must reside in God.

Correct

• But let’s honestly examine his claims.

Okay.

Is it indeed true that the universe is mere potentiality and can be treated like mere potentiality in argument?

If the universe was mere potentiality, it would not exist yet. But this is not what i was saying. I am saying that every actual being is a potential being, thus none of the beings are themselves the giver of “being” for every act in the chain is itself receiving being.Thus the chain of beings ought not to exist, unless there is in fact a being that is necessary being, that which defines existence, and is the giver of being.

Obviously not. Obviously, in the contingent world there’s also actuality because things really exist.

But they are not that which is most real. They proceed in being potentially and by the virtue of that which is necessary. They are not beings in their own right.

I’m now actually 21 and I will potentially be 22.

I understand why you thought I was advocating monism, but this not what I am advocating, at least not knowingly. And i am very careful not to fall in to the trap of any pantheism. However, I can only speak of the facts, and i don’t believe that those facts reflect monism; accept only in appearance.

The fact is you exist potentially, and continue in existence potentially. You exist, but you are not that which is pure existence, or absolute existence. You are not existence. Your being is generated and sustained by existence. You are the actuality of an idea that God has of you. It is thus a mistake to think that you have an absolute being of your own. God is an absolute being, and we understand that a necessary being must exist to account for that which is potential. But we must go one step further in order to render necessity more then just an arbitrary fact. To say that God is necessary is to say that God is identified with his own existence. It is to say that Existence and God are one and the same. because the only thing that can exist necessarily is that which is its own “existence”; and thus is existence. This cannot be true of any being that begins to exist, for their existence is potential, and thus they are actualized by that which is existence by nature and is sustained in their nature by existence. To be more explicit, it does no good to speak of a necessary being with out recognizing what that means in terms of existence. To speak of a necessary being is to speak of a being as that which defines “reality” as apposed to absolutely nothing. Thus God is reality. It is difficult to explain this without sounding monistic, but this is not my intention. God cannot simply be thought of as a being among beings. But rather God is the absolute principle of being, and is the principle behind all of that which is true in reference to being (such as mathematical and logical truth). God is absolute truth, as apposed to that which is not true. Potential beings do not define reality but rather participate in the truth of reality, and receive the truth of their being from reality. God defines reality. Aquinas, in my eyes, made this very explicit claim, although in his own way.

In the contingent world, actuality preceded potentiality.

Yes it must. In a continent world, that is purely physical, potentiality precedes being absolutely, one must say that beings exist because they potentially exist, otherwise one must concede that there is a being that does not potentially exist, but exists absolutely. A being that is contingent, in principle, cannot be the reason for why there are beings, for none of the beings are beings in and of themselves, but are in fact receiving being. If they were beings by definition of their attributes, then they would simply exist. A tree would exist simply because it’s a tree. They would neither, come in to being or pass out of it. And neither would it make sense that things would change and pass out of being. .

The contingent world is not just a melting pot of potentiality. In an infinite chain, there would always be actuality to precede potentiality.

No. The chain would not exist at all, because all of the beings are only beings by accident of being caused by a being that existed potentially. The problem of being is not solved by placing being and potentiality an infinite number of events away into the past, because none of the beings has the reason for why they exist. They are not beings because of the being that came before, because that being has not the explanation for its own being either. It would be like saying that an infinite chain exists by accident or by chance. An Infinite regress does not become a necessary being by virtue of having no beginning, because the problem does not lie in numbers, but instead it lies in the problem of change, potentiality and being.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

you know youve arrived when your an ism! congrats

 

[ljubim]

I way back said Amen to that! to MindoverMatter’s original post, just clearing that up.
Quoting all of that seemed kind of daunting.

 

[TheWhim]

Well, MoM, I think we’re both fully aware now of each other’s meaning. Now we can turn to the more technical questions left.

You argue, then, that actuality needs to precede potentiality. The universe, taken as a whole, is a potential being(due to its contingency). In result, it need be preceded by an actual being, God.

But once you stop to take the universe as a whole, and just regard it as an infinite chain of events, every event has been preceded by an actual event, though a potential actual event, so to say(that it is potential, that is, that it also couldn’t have been, is of no avail here; I’m merely considering the facts - the factual level). Nothing comes out of nothing here; event adds up to event. One can say: I began to exist and thus this potentiality of my existence was preceded by the actuality of my parents’ existence. On a factual level, one cannot say: there was only God to precede the potentiality of my existence(because my parents also were there).

If, of course, you regard the universe not as an infinite chain of events, but as a whole entity, then, on a factual level, there’s only God next to it. – So it’s a matter of perspective – at least on what I would call the factual level: whether one takes physical reality as a whole of change or regards it, instead, as an endless chain of actuality-potentiality.

Besides(I urge not to meddle one with the other), there’s the level of reason, where resonates the question of the ‘why’. Why is this world since it also could not be? The principle of sufficient reason tells us to embrace God as a solution. Therefore, all your reasoning, and all the Thomistic reasoning, on that account, can be reduced to this easy question: Why is there anything if there could also be nothing; how are we to explain this? That’s, in short, the single thought behind all your thoughts on this thread. – I wonder why people just don’t say ‘principle of sufficient reason’ so that everybody can understand what is talked about and instead dive into the mysteries of Thomas’ language: actuality, potentiality, contingency… though adding nothing in content.

 

[reggieM]

If, of course, you regard the universe not as an infinite chain of events, but as a whole entity, then, on a factual level, there’s only God next to it. – So it’s a matter of perspective – at least on what I would call the factual level: whether one takes physical reality as a whole of change or regards it, instead, as an endless chain of actuality-potentiality.

I think the point stands even if you consider the universe to be infinite. The universe still possesses unrealized potential - after an infinity of development. Actual being must precede potentiality. So the potential that the universe possesses today must come from actual being which is not a part of the universe. Our universe cannot explain itself, even if it was proposed to be infinite.

The arguments against an infinite universe are also much stronger anyway.
The potential we see in the universe today must be possible.
If, however, over an infinitity of develoment, that potential is unrealized, then we would have to say that it is not possible – and therefore not a real potential.
But we see potential and we see the universe fulfilling some potential all the time.
Therefore, the universe cannot be infinite and without beginning.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, MoM, I think we’re both fully aware now of each other’s meaning. Now we can turn to the more technical questions left.

You argue, then, that actuality needs to precede potentiality. The universe, taken as a whole, is a potential being(due to its contingency). In result, it need be preceded by an actual being, God.

But once you stop to take the universe as a whole, and just regard it as an infinite chain of events, every event has been preceded by an actual event, though a potential actual event, so to say(that it is potential, that is, that it also couldn’t have been, is of no avail here; I’m merely considering the facts - the factual level). Nothing comes out of nothing here; event adds up to event. One can say: I began to exist and thus this potentiality of my existence was preceded by the actuality of my parents’ existence. On a factual level, one cannot say: there was only God to precede the potentiality of my existence(because my parents also were there).

If, of course, you regard the universe not as an infinite chain of events, but as a whole entity, then, on a factual level, there’s only God next to it. – So it’s a matter of perspective – at least on what I would call the factual level: whether one takes physical reality as a whole of change or regards it, instead, as an endless chain of actuality-potentiality.

Besides(I urge not to meddle one with the other), there’s the level of reason, where resonates the question of the ‘why’. Why is this world since it also could not be? The principle of sufficient reason tells us to embrace God as a solution. Therefore, all your reasoning, and all the Thomistic reasoning, on that account, can be reduced to this easy question: Why is there anything if there could also be nothing; how are we to explain this? That’s, in short, the single thought behind all your thoughts on this thread. – I wonder why people just don’t say ‘principle of sufficient reason’ so that everybody can understand what is talked about and instead dive into the mysteries of Thomas’ language: actuality, potentiality, contingency… though adding nothing in content.

there is no such thing as a “whole” universe other than a designation of a collection contingent beings. its simply a label we use to refer to said collection. one in fact cannot take it as a “whole” then, in any form other than a simpler way to refer to that collection. as copleston said

‘There isn’t any world distinct from the objects which form it, any more than the human race is something apart from the members. Therefore, I should say, since objects or events exist, and since no object of experience contains within itself reason of its existence, this reason, the totality of objects, must have a reason external to itself. That reason must be an existent being.’

so the perspective of a “whole” is false in the idea that one can have that perspective as anything other than a linguistic tool used for ease of address. what i mean is that if you were standing outside the universe and viewing the causal activity, it wouldnt be a complete unit, but rather a series of events.

though i agree with you that all arguments against Aquinan metaphysics boil down to a denial of the PSR, and therefore a denial of all forms of experiential human knowledge, i.e. science. i dont think that simply stating its a denial of the PSR is explanatory to any but those in the “know” so to speak, therefore it is incumbent on us to explain to folks “why” it is such a denial.

case in point, i just carried out an approximately 850 post disscusion with the moderators and officers of a mostly atheistic community forum. though i dragged them into a denial of the PSR, they didnt really seem to know what that meant, of course when i explained that it equalled a denial of the scientific method, they refused to take that tact when offered, instead they simply insisted on an infinite chain of contingent beings can exist without a first cause. when confronted with the bare fact that no contingent being can exist without a first cause, in order to cause the existence of another contingent being, they simply banned me instead of facing the argument.

i mention this because it goes to the motivation many of us have to practice Thomistic metaphysics, one cannot truly understand Aquinas and deny the existence of G-d without denying all experiential human knowledge, however simply stating so without an explanation doesnt satisfy as an answer, and that is why we do this, to answer the evil accusations that deny the existence of G-d.

we are the tip of the intellectual spear. as only metaphysically aware people would understand a simple statement about the denial of the PSR, it is then incumbent upon us to fully explain the chain of reasoning by which one can know that G-d exists. to give a reason for our hope.

 

[Fran65]

I wonder why people just don’t say ‘principle of sufficient reason’ so that everybody can understand what is talked about and instead dive into the mysteries of Thomas’ language: actuality, potentiality, contingency… though adding nothing in content.

Without a great deal of research and thought the statement that you refer to remains opaque to most people.

To my mind, exploring Aquinas’ language enriches my understanding and deepens my appreciation for God’s work and enlarges my knowledge of His nature. In that sense it does indeed ‘add content’.

It is easy for people to assume that others know what is meant by particular phrases - I am acutely aware of this as a teacher, and I have to frequently remind my students that they need to make explicit their understanding of concepts, theories and evidence. Often they ask me why so many disciplines use technical language and one of the things that I say is that is that this language expresses so much more than is possible with ‘ordinary’ language.

I have really enjoyed this discussion and I have learnt a great deal.

 

[JDaniel]

Well, MoM, I think we’re both fully aware now of each other’s meaning. Now we can turn to the more technical questions left.

You argue, then, that actuality needs to precede potentiality. The universe, taken as a whole, is a potential being (due to its contingency). In result, it need be preceded by an actual being, God.

But once you stop to take the universe as a whole, and just regard it as an infinite chain of events, every event has been preceded by an actual event, though a potential actual event, so to say (that it is potential, that is, that it also couldn’t have been, is of no avail here; I’m merely considering the facts - the factual level).

Let’s clarify this a bit, if you don’t mind. What is a “chain of events?” It is either one of two things: (1), it is a succession of unrelated occurrences; in other words, a history of this or that. Or, (2) it is a succession of related occurrences. If the latter were the case, then every occurrence would be dependent upon its immediately prior occurrence. But the latter case is not what we see.

Next, what is an “event”. An event is an occurrence that transpires over time and extends its physical nature into the world. If it does so, then we would have the same problem with events that we have with any actual infinity. It has no beginning and no end. Why are we here now. More importantly, how did all of the past events happen to hit this infinite continuum at their respective and precise times and why are new ones occurring now? That would portend a potential infinite continuum, not an actual one. Nevertheless, a potential infinite can be exchanged for an actual one, in your example. But, in either case, there is no necessity and, therefore, no sufficient reason for anything to exist at this particular time.

What makes MoM’s insight very interesting is that he is making all that is in the universe in potency to not be. By extrapolation then, the universe, having the same property of absolute potency to not be, might not be. If the whole universe might not be, then its current (and past) existence requires something that gives it being and sustains it in being. (I’m not sure if it is God that does those things, but, it sure seems like it is.) What else is there that has the attributes of self-existence, the capability of creating the cosmos, existence outside of the physical realm, the capability of maintaining the existences and being-ness of the myriad of created things, and necessariality?

Nothing comes out of nothing here; event adds up to event. One can say: I began to exist and thus this potentiality of my existence was preceded by the actuality of my parents’ existence.

But that would be a purely Humean sequence, although you are mixing it with dependency upon a prior event. We do not see event-dependency. We do see causality and we do see effects. And, these are different from events, although they could be the same. If a man is killed in a duel in England, and a few minutes later, in America, someone takes a drink of water, we have two, unrelated events. But, they are in succession.

On a factual level, one cannot say: there was only God to precede the potentiality of my existence (because my parents also were there).

That is quite true. But, don’t forget, efficient causes tend to aggregate (in series).

If, of course, you regard the universe not as an infinite chain of events, but as a whole entity, then, on a factual level, there’s only God next to it. – So it’s a matter of perspective – at least on what I would call the factual level: whether one takes physical reality as a whole of change or regards it, instead, as an endless chain of actuality-potentiality.

Besides(I urge not to meddle one with the other), there’s the level of reason, where resonates the question of the ‘why’. Why is this world since it also could not be? The principle of sufficient reason tells us to embrace God as a solution. Therefore, all your reasoning, and all the Thomistic reasoning, on that account, can be reduced to this easy question: Why is there anything if there could also be nothing; how are we to explain this? That’s, in short, the single thought behind all your thoughts on this thread. – I wonder why people just don’t say ‘principle of sufficient reason’ so that everybody can understand what is talked about and instead dive into the mysteries of Thomas’ language: actuality, potentiality, contingency… though adding nothing in content.

You are right. All that MoM was trying to get us to see was that the universe can be taken to be a “one” and not necessarily the “multitude” that it is as well. Plus, it was an essential part of his OP - 8 steps to the existence of God.

jd

 

[TheWhim]

What makes MoM’s insight very interesting is that he is making all that is in the universe in potency to not be. By extrapolation then, the universe, having the same property of absolute potency to not be, might not be. If the whole universe might not be, then its current (and past) existence requires something that gives it being and sustains it in being.

I think this gives a fine conclusion to the bulk of this thread. - I cannot help remarking, however, that MoM would have done just as much, instead of indulging in Thomistic idiosyncrasies in his eight steps, just to pose this single question: Why is there anything if there could also be nothing; how are we to explain this? The OP boils down to this and nothing further.

It’s true I’ve got a more linguistic, or, as I’d fancy, common-sense approach to philosophy. The reason being that I believe many philosophical problems and debates have merely been created by an abundance of technical terms and remain imprisoned in this realm of technical language: self-generated problems. - Content is all that matters, however it might be expressed, and the more simple, the better.

But there’s no pun intended here. It’s actually quite terrific to see how colourful a spectrum of philosophical backgrounds and preferences comes to play in the dicussion of those great questions we face on this board. MoM is always amazing to read, in his own way.

 

[JDaniel]

I think this gives a fine conclusion to the bulk of this thread. - I cannot help remarking, however, that MoM would have done just as much, instead of indulging in Thomistic idiosyncrasies in his eight steps, just to pose this single question: Why is there anything if there could also be nothing; how are we to explain this? The OP boils down to this and nothing further.

It’s true I’ve got a more linguistic, or, as I’d fancy, common-sense approach to philosophy. The reason being that I believe many philosophical problems and debates have merely been created by an abundance of technical terms and remain imprisoned in this realm of technical language: self-generated problems. - Content is all that matters, however it might be expressed, and the more simple, the better.

But there’s no pun intended here. It’s actually quite terrific to see how colourful a spectrum of philosophical backgrounds and preferences comes to play in the dicussion of those great questions we face on this board. MoM is always amazing to read, in his own way.

Not to metion how many posters - particularly non-theist ones - jump on here and make that age old assertion that St. Thomas (and Aristotle) have been proven wrong - yet these asserters have little to no knowledge of what either said.

jd