A Logical Proof Of God According To The Aquinian/Metaphysical Concept Of Being

[MindOverMatter2]

Can we prove that the ground of all potential being is God?

1. There are only two possible kinds of causes, intelligent or non-intelligent. Non-intelligent causes work by dynamic spatial relation; and intelligent causes work by the intention of some kind of mind. Intelligent causes, like non-intelligent causes, can be broken down in to kinds. For instance an intelligent cause can either be because of a need, or because of a selfless act of love (sharing the good of existence).

2. It is evident that at least something exists.

1. We see forms, essences, or different kinds of being passing in and out of existence. For instance, the form that is actually you and I had a beginning in time.
   **
   4.** The universe is dynamic. The past is made up of potentially real states of being, and so is the future; thus, the universe itself is made up of potential states, and is thus potentially real.

**5. **A necessary distinction arises between that which is potentially real and the actual existence of a thing. For example; a donkey cannot be a real donkey because of its nature of being a donkey (which is its essence). If a donkey was real because of its nature of being a donkey, then it would simply exist, timelessly, because it would have no beginning in time or potentiality. Thus potential forms, beings or essences, are not real because of their own natures. Therefore they cannot begin to exist or be sustained in existence by their own natures, since it is not in their nature to exist.

**6. **But we see these things existing. Therefore there has to be more to reality than dynamic secondary causes. There has to be that which is also sustaining, in existence, the very being of potential essences at every moment. In which case, secondary causes are not necessary causes; they are in fact the effects of one necessary cause. There has to be that which is the very act of existence in which potential essences participate. There must be that which is existence by nature, and by being so this act must have a timeless transcendent nature. It is Transcendent in the sense that it is distinct from anything that is dynamic or potentially real. It must be non-physical, because energy is dynamically real. This being is none other than reality itself. It is the only being that deserves to be called existence because it exists in virtue of its own nature. It is the ground of potential reality. But it is much more than that. It is the very nature through which potential things can possibly exist; without which there could be no such thing as possibilities or potentialities. It would be impossible for anything potential to exist with out that which is existence by nature.

7. Therefore, there must in fact be such a thing as a perfectly real being, through which all potential natures derive their power of existence.

8. Because physical reality is not ultimate reality and therefore does not have to exist, we must conclude that physical reality does not exist by chance and neither does it exist in virtue of some sort of physical determinism. Neither does that, which is existence by nature, require more existence, because it perfectly exists. Therefore the only efficient cause there can be for the existence of physical reality is some sort of intelligent will on the part of that which is existence by nature. We must say that the first principle of all potential being has intention, and that therefore potential reality exists in virtue of somethings intention.

9. Such a will has to exist necessarily in the absence of a possible physical explanation. But it cannot have the kind of mind or will that we as humans are accustomed to. Because the first cause is timeless, this intelligent will has to be a perfect expression of its perfect nature. It must have a perfect mind, with perfect knowledge of its nature and all that which is possible in virtue of its natural expression.

To be continued…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Continued…

10. No potential being or nature exists of its own accord. The effect cannot be greater than the first cause. Everything that is potentially existent, the first cause possesses to a perfect degree, which means that it is either so infinitely perfect that it transcends the finite imperfect structures which it creates, or it has an attribute that expresses the nature of that which we perceive in essences to a perfect degree. For instance Human beings, in this life, can be happy to a degree, but the first cause is perfectly happy. Happiness is either known or experienced personally rather than creatively imagined. Out of nothing comes nothing, thus human beings could not experience happiness unless it actually exists to a perfect degree in the first cause. Another example would be that the first cause possesses person-hood to a perfect degree.

11. Such a mind that perfectly exists does not require fulfilment, since it already contains all fulfilment, given that it is the very principle of reality. Therefore, while one can perhaps argue that God transcends the human sense of happiness, it cannot be said that such a being is lacking in happiness, since this would suggest that the first cause has the potential to be happy. This would imply that God is imperfect in some sense of being. But, as I said, the first cause already possesses “being” to perfect degree and thus cannot potentially be anything. Thus it can only be said that God transcends the human form of happiness.

12. The creative will of the first cause is identical with its being and nature, because there is no potentiality in it. The first cause is a perfect act of reality. Because the first cause is being to a perfect degree, one cannot argue that the first cause creates in order to fulfil some potential or animalistic instinctual desire in its being, because this would be an imperfect act of reality. The existence of the universe does not fulfil Gods being and thus does not have to exist in that respect. Thus the cause is necessarily selfless in its intention. We must therefore attribute a selfless agenda to the nature and creative will of the first cause.
**
13.** Thus, the potential existence of the universe can only be understood if we acknowledge the fact that the first cause is sharing the good of its being. Therefore the first cause is an act of love. Another way we can know this is by our experience of existence. It is evident to me that things such as happiness, fulfilment, and love, perfects existence, it makes existence worth living. The value of existence, that it is better to exist than not to exist, is most evident to me when it actualizes these realities. Most evidently these things cannot be expressed by the necessary imperfection of potential reality since they are nothing without the first cause. Therefore, love, happiness, and virtue, exists in the first cause to a perfect degree, and is thus identical with the nature of the first cause. Love and moral goodness is an expression of love. In order for the first cause to love perfectly, love must be a perfect expression of its nature as well as it will; since out of nothing comes nothing. Hence, the first cause is love by nature and will.
**
14.** Remember, the first cause cannot be potentially fulfilled, and is thus already love by nature. But Love is only meaningful as an expression between persons. Love is actual and real only when expressed within a communion of persons. The first cause is perfectly actual and real; and the first cause, by nature of being perfectly real, is love. Thus if we are to avoid attributing potentiality to the first cause, we must conclude that the first cause is existentially a communion of persons. Therefore the first cause is one ultimate existence expressed through a communion of persons.

This is what Christians understand to be God.

 

[Soulewolf]

i am confused about #9.

If #9 states that “Such a will has to exist necessarily in the absence of a possible physical explanation.” doesnt that defeat the purpose of trying to explain it?

 

[Redratfish]

i am confused about #9.

If #9 states that “Such a will has to exist necessarily in the absence of a possible physical explanation.” doesnt that defeat the purpose of trying to explain it?

God is not a physical entity. You cannot touch God, and that something physical that we can see cannot fit the previous proofs.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

i am confused about #9.

If #9 states that “Such a will has to exist necessarily in the absence of a possible physical explanation.” doesnt that defeat the purpose of trying to explain it?

I’m not sure what you mean?

 

[Soulewolf]

maybe i misunderstand. please expand on #9 if you would.

also i asked a few questions in the “god as the ground of being” thread on this subject.

 

[JohnDamian]

Very good…

However; I would challenge Points; 3, 5 & 9.

1. We see forms, essences, or different kinds of being passing in and out of existence. For instance, the form that is actually you and I had a beginning in time.

The form per se; or quiddity can easily be argued to have either no existence; or to have a seperate existence that is necessary; thus it cannot be argued with certitude and/or without objection that the forms we inhabit are passing in and out of time; merely the substance that is inhered.

1. A necessary distinction arises between that which is potentially real and the actual existence of a thing. For example; a donkey cannot be a real donkey because of its nature of being a donkey (which is its essence). If a donkey was real because of its nature of being a donkey, then it would simply exist, timelessly, because it would have no beginning in time or potentiality. Thus potential forms, beings or essences, are not real because of their own natures. Therefore they cannot begin to exist or be sustained in existence by their own natures, since it is not in their nature to exist.

As a quiddity of a thing has being as first in the heirachy of existence; then it may be correct to say; if any individual inheres a quiddity; it exists by necessity through that act; at least if the antecedent is true. There is no reason to make a distinction between essence and existence; unless one is taking a position of nominalism in which case equivocal misunderstandings follow and so forth etc.; insofar as one cannot claim any univocity of essences and thus any analagorical comparitive to that of infinite bodies is meaningless; as not grounded in a real understanding and so on etc.

1. Such a will has to exist necessarily in the absence of a possible physical explanation. But it cannot have the kind of mind or will that we as humans are accustomed to. Because the first cause is timeless, this intelligent will has to be a perfect expression of its perfect nature. It must have a perfect mind, with perfect knowledge of its nature and all that which is possible in virtue of its natural expression.

It does not follow that because the will has necessary existence; that this will is perfected by such an existence; for neither contingency nor necessity perfect an entity; and thus it is not by necessity that the will is perfect by the necessity of that which inheres it; thus; it is a presumption to claim that the will is perfect; it is also a presumption that a nature must be perfected for the act of creation or to elicit any other act per se; at least above the numerical necessity of the act; which is not infinite - thus; we cannot with full accuracy upon the basis of what has been said here say that it must be perfect in will or intellect.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

maybe i misunderstand. please expand on #9 if you would.

Out of nothing comes nothing. Therefore, In the absence of a physical explanation or an efficient physical cause for the existence of the physical universe, the only other possible cause is an intelligent non physical cause.

also i asked a few questions in the “god as the ground of being” thread on this subject.

Please post them here.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Very good…

Thanks.

However; I would challenge Points; 3, 5 & 9.

Okay.

The form per se; or quiddity can easily be argued to have either no existence;

We evidently see the form that is a tree; and this is to say that there is a definite nature which we understand to be a tree. The form that is a tree is evidently not the form that is a hippopotamus.

Or to have a separate existence that is necessary; thus it cannot be argued with certitude and/or without objection that the forms we inhabit are passing in and out of time; merely the substance that is inhered.

I admit this is difficult to refute because we can imagine things without the objectivity of their existence. However, our knowledge of things are informed by our experience of physical reality. If we perceive an objective sphere, we know of the existence of that sphere according to its finite physical attributes. Without those attributes we are no longer talking about a real objective spherical object. The form ceases to exist as soon as the substance ceases to take on that shape.To think that a real sphere can exist objectively in a non physical state is incoherent and an exaggeration of what the power of abstraction can tell us about an object. To imagine a sphere is to imagine it according to its physical dimensions. A “concept” or an idea of a sphere is not a real sphere; but rather it is an abstraction from the reality of a sphere or sphere like things, much like a picture. It is evidently possible for the idea of a sphere to exist, but it makes no sense to say that a non-physical sphere can exist outside of the function of ideas, because it has none of the things that define it as a real sphere. In the case of ideas, it is the principle of the mind that defines and expresses the existence of the “idea of a sphere” according to knowledge that it has taken from real objective experience. I can imagine something changing, but i cannot argue from this fact that there is a change that exists separately from the objective reality of change.

In any case physical reality cannot explain the existence of the various forms that are potentially expressed via physical substances.

As a quiddity of a thing has being as first in the heirachy of existence; then it may be correct to say; if any individual inheres a quiddity; it exists by necessity through that act;

I don’t understand what you mean.

It does not follow that because the will has necessary existence; that this will is perfected by such an existence; for neither contingency nor necessity perfect an entity; and thus it is not by necessity that the will is perfect by the necessity of that which inheres it; thus;

I am not sure what you mean here or how it applies to my argument. You seem to be asserting things without proving your point. I also suggest that you use familiar language.

it is a presumption to claim that the will is perfect;

Not according to logic. It is perfect according to the nature of its existence.

it is also a presumption that a nature must be perfected for the act of creation or to elicit any other act per se; at

There is no presumption. In order for there to be something rather than nothing, there must be that which is perfectly real without potentiality in its own being. There can be no potential changing beings with out that which necessarily exists.

least above the numerical necessity .

I do not know what numerical necessity is, or why it should apply to my argument.

 

[JohnDamian]

The form ceases to exist as soon as the substance ceases to take on that shape.

So the form is perfected by matter? (or made individual through it); rather than being an accident which is predicated of a form?

Not according to logic. It is perfect according to the nature of its existence.

Why? What specific thing leads to the necessary conclusion that the will is a perfect expression of it’s perfect nature?

The will is not an expression of anything; it is the actions coming from the will that express something; the will is identical to the essence of God according to Divine Simplicity; but philosophically there is no reason to accept that necessarily it is perfect; at least from this argumentation.

There is no presumption. In order for there to be something rather than nothing, there must be that which is perfectly real without potentiality in its own being. There can be no potential changing beings with out that which necessarily exists.

Granted; it must have a perfect and necessary being; however we cannot presuppose that the other attributes of God (as we understand them) are identically perfect; merely through the tenants of Divine Simplicity; for this is a presumption that needs to be verified. Merely because an entity has perfect being; does not mean it has perfect will.

I do not know what numerical necessity is, or why it should apply to my argument.

Well creation is numerically finite; a thing must only meet or exceed our numerical finitude in order to allow creation. There is no reason to presume it is omnipotent; even if we can claim that qualitatively; creation from nothing overcomes an infinite difference; we cannot claim that necessarily the thing creating must be infinitely powerful in quantity; omnipotence implies both quality and quantity; the potency and the extent. So whilst we can both agree that “out of nothing” creation overcomes an infinite distinction of quality; we cannot presume that numerically God can perform this act infinitely; either in terms of space or time; unless we presume God is omnipotent; which would be begging the question.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

So the form is perfected by matter? (or made individual through it); rather than being an accident which is predicated of a form?

I don’t know what you intend to imply by the word perfected in this context.

Why? What specific thing leads to the necessary conclusion that the will is a perfect expression of it’s perfect nature?

The will is identical to its perfect being, thus it is a perfect expression of that which is intrinsic to its being.

The will is not an expression of anything; it is the actions coming from the will that express something; the will is identical to the essence of God according to Divine Simplicity; but philosophically there is no reason to accept that necessarily it is perfect; at least from this argumentation.

It depends on the context in which you invoke the word perfect will. And when I say expression, we must understand that Gods will or expression is first and foremost an expression of his being, since Gods willing something is identical to what God is. This is not to say that what he creates is himself, this is not what I meant by expression. But rather, God eternally expresses himself, his intrinsic fundamental nature. Thus it is not unreasonable to say that Gods will is an expression of Gods nature since the two are identical and cannot possibly be otherwise.

Granted; it must have a perfect and necessary being; however we cannot presuppose that the other attributes of God (as we understand them) are identically perfect; merely through the tenants of Divine Simplicity; for this is a presumption that needs to be verified. Merely because an entity has perfect being; does not mean it has perfect will.

Gods being is Gods power is Gods will is Gods Love is Gods eternity. The attributes are not separate things in God. They are all one thing.This is necessitated by Gods simplicity.

a thing must only meet or exceed our numerical finitude in order to allow creation.

Since this is the premise of everything that followed, please clarify what you mean and why I ought to agree with this statement? Thanks.

 

[JohnDamian]

I don’t know what you intend to imply by the word perfected in this context.

Is a form made more perfect; ie - greater - through matter; or is matter an accident to the form? Does existence individuate?

The will is identical to its perfect being, thus it is a perfect expression of that which is intrinsic to its being.

The will is formally distinct from the being; thus we cannot say that per se as the being is perfect; even if they are really identical that the will must be perfect. There is no reason to hold that it (will) must logically necessarily be perfect even if we accept divine simplicity and the perfection of being.

It depends on the context in which you invoke the word perfect will. And when I say expression, we must understand that Gods will or expression is first and foremost an expression of his being, since Gods willing something is identical to what God is. This is not to say that what he creates is himself, this is not what I meant by expression. But rather, God eternally expresses himself, his intrinsic fundamental nature. Thus it is not unreasonable to say that Gods will is an expression of Gods nature since the two are identical and cannot possibly be otherwise.

Even if God’s will is really identical to his being (which is acceptable) there is no reason to believe that it is formally identical; or indeed modally identical; thus we cannot by necessity claim that even if God’s will is an expression of his nature; that his will shares the perfection of his nature per se; or that by necessity we can hold that it is logically certain that divine simplicity is the case. Divine simplicity is a theological concept which cannot be used to support a philosophical argument without a logical demonstration of it’s truth – it is clear that logically speaking; we can accept Divine simplicty and still believe in distinctions (intentional, modal, formal, conceptual) even if we accept God as really identical. Noting that we can see his will and his nature as formally distinct; how can we know with certainty that the will (the posterior) shares the perfection of the prior (nature). This would seem dubious.

Gods being is Gods power is Gods will is Gods Love is Gods eternity. The attributes are not separate things in God. They are all one thing.This is necessitated by Gods simplicity.

There is clearly a plurality of formalities within God; hence there are clearly formal distinctions; hence God is not formally identical; even if he is really identical. Furthermore what (logical) reason is there to accept that divine simplicity is a unity beyond a real unity (ie; also a formal and modal unity)?

Since this is the premise of everything that followed, please clarify what you mean and why I ought to agree with this statement? Thanks.

A cause must only be sufficient to contract what it causes; it is improper to assume a cause is greater than that caused without good reason. We have no (logical) reason to accept that that God is omnipotent; as nothing we have observed elicits a necessity for an infinite potency. IE; the created world is finite; it does require a necessary creator; but there is no reason to presuppose that necessary creator has an infinite potency (omnipotence) using logic alone. Such appeals only to faith and the teachings of the Church; which does not constitute a satisfactory logical argument.