A Proof For Gods Existence By M.O.M

[James_S_Saint]

Are you saying that nothing exists? If so then there is no point in us having this discussion. To be fair, i did say in the OP that if you had issues with the connection between logically necessary truth and ontological reality, then you ought to make a new thread.

I think his point was that to say, “nothing exists” is an oxymoron. Obviously you meant “nothing as a state of reality” rather than “there is this existence we call ‘nothing’”.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Doesn’t this indicate that you accept that there was no “beginning of the universe” before which was only “nothing”? It seems that you are getting distracted.

Logic will force the conclusion that the physical universe could never have had a beginning, with or without any God.

Out of nothing comes nothing.

This forces the conclusion that all “potential realities” are the product of “Necessary Reality”, regardless of whether or not “potential reality” is finite or infinite. Perhaps i wrote my argument in a confusing manner?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Obviously you meant “nothing as a state of reality” rather than “there is this existence we call ‘nothing’”.

Yes this is correct. I should have made that clear in the OP.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Out of nothing comes nothing.

This forces the conclusion that all “potential realities” are the product of “Necessary Reality”, regardless of whether or not “potential reality” is finite or infinite. Perhaps i wrote my argument in a confusing manner?

To me that kind of wording is ambiguous. I can deduce what Thomas meant when he was using such, but as to what other people think, that is another issue.

The problem as I see it is the word “potential”. Does “nothing” have zero potential?

Does a non-moving, non-changing being have the “potential” to alter anything? If He isn’t Himself changing at all, then how can He do anything different than He already did? If He is changing within Himself (a violation of the CC), then time exists for Him.

Any verbs of action can’t really make sense when discussing God. God simply “is”. He is not “doing”.

 

[hatsoff]

Are you saying that nothing exists? If so then there is no point in us having this discussion. To be fair, i did say in the OP that if you had issues with the connection between logically necessary truth and ontological reality, then you ought to make a new thread.

“Nothing” is an abstraction. There is no concrete object of that term which can be said to exist or not exist.

 

[MindOverMatter]

“Nothing” is an abstraction.

An abstraction of what?

 

[MindOverMatter]

To me that kind of wording is ambiguous. I can deduce what Thomas meant when he was using such, but as to what other people think, that is another issue.

The problem as I see it is the word “potential”. Does “nothing” have zero potential?

Does a non-moving, non-changing being have the “potential” to alter anything? If He isn’t Himself changing at all, then how can He do anything different than He already did? If He is changing within Himself (a violation of the CC), then time exists for Him.

Any verbs of action can’t really make sense when discussing God. God simply “is”. He is not “doing”.

I am not sure what your difficulty is with understanding my argument? I am being as clear as possible. However, because we are reduced to analogy when talking about Gods act or will, confusion can arise.

Existence can be understood as an act, not in the sense of change, but in the sense of being; since existence is not separate from its expression of that fact. Ultimate reality isn’t just a static entity but rather it is the perfect expression of the “real”. To perfectly express existence is to transcend all change, since a perfect existence cannot be gained potentially or fail to exist or change. As you say, God simply is; but God is also simply act. Perfection does not fail to express its perfection; for if this were to happen, it would fail to be perfect. This is why God is timeless. The creation of time can be seen as an existential analogy of Gods timeless expression of the real.

 

[James_S_Saint]

An abstraction of what?

He meant “a concept”.

 

[MindOverMatter]

He meant “a concept”.

I have debated with hatsoff before, and i know exactly what he means. He means that we cannot know that something cannot come out of nothing. From what i can determine from our little conflicts of interests, whether directly or indirectly he comes from the school of “Hegels dialectic” (which seems to be permeating quantum physics); at least in so far as he seems to think that the logically *impossible *could possibly happen. Hatsoff can correct me if i am wrong.

He is ignoring what i said at the beginning of the thread and so i can only assume that he is trying to derail the discussion.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I am being as clear as possible. However, because we are reduced to analogy when talking about Gods act or will, confusion can arise.

Existence can be understood as an act, not in the sense of change, but in the sense of being; since existence is not separate from its expression of that fact. Ultimate reality isn’t just a static entity but rather it is the perfect expression of the “real”. To perfectly express existence is to transcend all change, since a perfect existence cannot be gained potentially or fail to exist or change. As you say, God simply is; but God is also simply act. Perfection does not fail to express its perfection; for if this were to happen, it would fail to be perfect. This is why God is timeless. The creation of time can be seen as an existential analogy of Gods timeless expression of the real.

I realize all of that makes perfectly clear sense to you and if you were merely trying to convince yourself. I wouldn’t interrupt. But to many of us, such wording is far too ambiguous, meaning that what you mean by it might be something different than what we or others might think you said.

“Ultimate reality is the perfect expression of the real.”

That might or might not be a true statement. I couldn’t decipher it.

Logical proofs require close attention to exact definitions of words and terms if they are to be convincing to the logical minded, especially if those are skeptical people. Who else would be trying to “prove” anything to?

 

[MindOverMatter]

I realize all of that makes perfectly clear sense to you and if you were merely trying to convince yourself. I wouldn’t interrupt. But to many of us, such wording is far too ambiguous, meaning that what you mean by it might be something different than what we or others might think you said.

“Ultimate reality is the perfect expression of the real.”

That might or might not be a true statement. I couldn’t decipher it.

Logical proofs require close attention to exact definitions of words and terms if they are to be convincing to the logical minded, especially if those are skeptical people. Who else would be trying to “prove” anything to?

Okay what is perfect reality to you?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Okay what is perfect reality to you?

To me the word “perfect” is a comparative term, dubious to use in any proof. It means that something matches something else without flaw of significance. You would have to exactly spell out what you were comparing to something else, spell out that something else, and show how each exactly matched the other with respect to any concerning value.

Best to just not use it.

But I also had troubles with “expression” and “ultimate”. How do you logically define what those mean? “Ultimate” is also a comparative value concern. “Expression” - geees… how do you work that into a logical statement? “It looks like…” “It seems like…” …?

Take those words out and all you have is “Reality is real”.

 

[MindOverMatter]

To me the word “perfect” is a comparative term, dubious to use in any proof. It means that something matches something else without flaw of significance. You would have to exactly spell out what you were comparing to something else, spell out that something else, and show how each exactly matched the other with respect to any concerning value.

Best to just not use it.

Its already been spelled out to you. Potential realities are not perfect realities, Since they can fail to exist they do not embody reality perfectly. Or they do not express reality perfectly. That which is perfect, cannot fail to exist, since it exists perfectly.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Well, just trying to help.

If you are going to convince the Chinese of a recipe for cookies, it helps to speak Chinese.

 

[hatsoff]

An abstraction of what?

As I said, there is no concrete object X to which “nothing” refers. In other words, it’s not an abstraction of anything concrete. We can only describe it in terms of other abstractions. In particular, “nothing” refers to the absence of anything.

 

[hatsoff]

I have debated with hatsoff before, and i know exactly what he means. He means that we cannot know that something cannot come out of nothing.

That’s not an intelligible position, much less my position.

he seems to think that the logically *impossible *could possibly happen. Hatsoff can correct me if i am wrong.

I do not believe the “logically impossible” is intelligible, and so it would be nonsensical to contend that it might be possible.

He is ignoring what i said at the beginning of the thread and so i can only assume that he is trying to derail the discussion.

Not so. I see nothing (no pun intended) in the OP about withholding objections to your first point, to Thomism/Aristotelianism/etc., nor to the (in my judgment) reification of the concept called “nothing.”

I don’t mind if you’d rather not tackle my objection in this thread. However, I must point out that I received no warning other than this, if you are going to claim that I should not have responded in the first place.

 

[NowAgnostic]

There can’t be any change before time.

Look, the very expression “before time” makes no sense. It’s like “North of the North Pole” or “under the center of the earth”.

That does not equal to the idea that there can’t be any “being” before time, so long as you understand the word "before

There can’t be “before t = 0”.

What do you mean by conceiving of a universe in which God exists? The word universe corresponds to physical reality does it not?

No the universe or world philosophically means “the collection of all that exists” (perhaps excluding God from the collection depending on context).

In order for there to be change in the first place, there has to be a timeless (unchanging) act at the root of change; its a logical necessity.

This is what you need to prove by logical argumentation and not merely by assertion. All you’ve shown is that something must exist in order for change to occur. Also, you’d need to show your act is necessarily unchanging, not just contingently unchanging.

While i can certainly can see the difficulty in understanding how a timeless entity can have an effect in time, it is still the case that two logical necessary truths cannot contradict each other. Out of nothing comes nothing. To come out of nothing is not possible and so change is not logically necessary; its a logical fallacy to say that change necessarily begins from nothing.

Yes it is, only I’m not saying it anywhere, so I don’t understand the relevance.

You assume that the only thing that can have an effect is that which is in motion.

No I don’t. Why would I assume that?

However difficult we might find it to comprehend, both kinds of time have to accept a timeless reality as being the ultimate basis of their potential existence; or they must accept that it came out of nothing. A foundation of being has absolute logical authority.

This needs logical argumentation otherwise it is a false dichotomy.

I agree that a changing being like physical entities cannot logically have an effect in time. It seems to me that you are thinking of Gods actions in a similar manner. However; God is a completely immaterial perfect act. When we speak of “act” in relation to God we do not mean “motion” or “change”. God does not “change”; but rather God "wills

" eternally according to his eternal and perfect nature. It is because God is perfect that he doesn’t need to change. I explained this in the OP.

I understand all the philosophical connotations of God. And I really appreciate the fact that your argument actually attempts to argue for the existence of God with all those philosophical connotations, not some vague “first cause” or “cause of the universe”.

But the possibility of change can’t be “caused” by something, as though there were ever some point at which change was impossible - otherwise, that itself could never change to make change possible. You didn’t really answer the argument that if at one point only God, and nothing else, existed, the universe could not have come into existence, as change would be impossible.

So does the existence of change, or the possibility of change, entail a necessarily unchanging being? This is what you are trying to prove. And all you’re going to succeed in doing at best, by applying the Principle of Sufficient Reason, is to arrive at a contingently unchanging entity. An argument could go like this:

1. Every event of change needs a sufficient explanation.
2. Every event of change is contingent (not logically necessary) and is thus not self-explanatory.
3. Even if every event of change were to be explained by every other one (e.g. an infinite regress), there is still no explanation for the collection of all events of change.
4. Therefore, since events of change can’t be explained by something changing, they must be explained by something unchanging.

OK, but this doesn’t show that “something unchanging” must necessarily exist. This argument is flawed anyway, an event of change can be explained by a contingent fact or set of facts.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Look, the very expression “before time” makes no sense. It’s like “North of the North Pole” or “under the center of the earth”.

I agree that we cannot talk about physical changes or causes before t=0. We certainly cannot talk of a time before t=0. But we can talk about that which is “ontologically first” in respect of existence, without reference to change/time. When i say before, i do not mean a time before time. I mean that which is existentially necessary in order for there to be such a thing as time; that which is before existentially speaking. In other words i am speaking of *before *in a purely hierarchical sense and not in the same sense of time. An immaterial entity has no particular spatial or time location; the first cause permeates everything but is not itself caused or changing. The first cause has to transcend space and time in order to account for change and the potentiality of new realities. It is either that, or the world came out of nothing.

If what you are meaning is what else is logically necessary in order for time to exist, that’s fine. It’s still not “before” time, it’s just a necessary condition for time.

Again, it depends what you mean by “before”, and i explained what i meant. Change does not equal the beginning of existence. But yes, a timeless necessary “un-caused cause” is required for the potentiality or possibility of “events” in which new qualities unravel.

There can’t be “before t = 0”.

I explained this to you already. Your insistence that i meant a time before time, contradicts my explanation. There was no change before t=0, but there has to be a foundational reality from which t=0 can meaningfully count as the beginning of time. The beginning of time cannot logically be the beginning of existence/reality, since out of nothing comes nothing. Thus existence has to transcend time. Just like there has to be a planet before we can meaningfully speak of a south and north pole. It did not begin from nothing. To say that it is meaningless to speak of a time before time, does not solve the the problem of change or existence; since change is still beginning to exist at t=0, and thus it is contingent on something.

• otherwise, that itself could never change to make change possible. You didn’t really answer the argument that if at one point only God, and nothing else, existed, the universe could not have come into existence, as change would be impossible.

I did answer it. You chose not to respond to it. Time has always existed in respect of Gods act, and this is because Gods act is eternal/timeless and perfect. However, time began to “exist”.

 

[MindOverMatter]

So does the existence of change, or the possibility of change, entail a necessarily unchanging being?

Yes, as my argument has proven, since out of nothing comes nothing.

You are applying the principle of sufficient reason. (Paraphrasing is mine).

Nope. I applied the principle of logical necessity.

This is what you are trying to prove. And all you’re going to succeed in doing at best, by applying the Principle of Sufficient Reason, is to arrive at a contingently unchanging entity. An argument could go like this:

1. Every event of change needs a sufficient explanation.
2. Every event of change is contingent (not logically necessary) and is thus not self-explanatory.
3. Even if every event of change were to be explained by every other one (e.g. an infinite regress), there is still no explanation for the collection of all events of change.
4. Therefore, since events of change can’t be explained by something changing, they must be explained by something unchanging.

OK, but this doesn’t show that “something unchanging” must necessarily exist.

My argument in the OP, in its proper understanding, certainly does, since out of nothing comes nothing. We are not just explaining the existence of change but also the existence of potential realities. Therefore there must be that which is absolute existence/reality by nature of being and is at the same time that which gives reality to other beings; rather than just that which only exists because it is being caused by the existence of something potentially changing. Past events are contingent on events that precede them, so on and so forth. But if all past events are potential events, then none of them can explain existence, since they all exist potentially and not necessarily by themselves. Thus the entirety of potential events began to exist and therefore cannot account for the potentiality or possibility of beings or realities that have an extension in time. Potentiality and possibility are not beings by themselves. A thing is possible or has the potentiality to exist because of the act of another being. Whether it be an infinite past or a finite one, both realities require a cause that is not itself caused or changing (that is to say, it has no past from which its present existence has begun and is contingent upon) but has the explanation for existence in itself; since out nothing comes nothing. Such a being has to be pure reality by nature of being, rather than by participation and potentiality. It has to be a perfect reality, since if it were not, it could possibly fail to exist or might not have existed at all, in which case it would not explain the existence of reality or ontological truth. In other words; only a perfect existence can explain the existence of potential realities. Please refer back to the OP for further details.

This argument is flawed anyway, an event of change can be explained by a contingent fact or set of facts.

Simply saying this does not make it true; and i have already shown you why something very much like the existence of God must exist; that is to say that many of the attributes that are relevant to God are provable or must exist by logical necessity.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Yes, as my argument has proven, since out of nothing comes nothing.

So your argument is, out of nothing comes nothing, therefore, God exists?

Nope. I applied the principle of logical necessity.

When you talk about the necessity of an explanation you are invoking the PSR, not just logical necessity.

I certainly agree that out of nothing comes nothing; that is a logical impossibility. For if absolutely nothing exists, time does not exist. Yet time must exist for there to be change from “nothingness” since time is a measure of change.

But if time exists, it must always exist, there can’t be a time before time by definition - that is also a logical impossibility.

My argument in the OP, in its proper understanding, certainly does, since out of nothing comes nothing. We are not just explaining the existence of change but also the existence of potential realities.

Just a clarification to avoid confusion: potential realities don’t “exist” in the real sense of the word, which you yourself state later on.

Therefore there must be that which is absolute existence/reality by nature of being and is at the same time that which gives reality to other beings; rather than just that which only exists because it is being caused by the existence of something potentially changing.

OK, this is a false dichotomy. Your two classes here are things which exist:

1. That which is absolute existence by nature of being; or
2. That which exists because it is caused by something else which is changing (therefore, it would begin to exist in time).

But there is a third type of possible entity:
3) An uncaused (e.g. eternal) but logically contingent entity.

Unless you are going to claim time as logically necessary (certainly not the case under theism) then time is a logically contingent yet eternal entity.

Past events are contingent on events that precede them, so on and so forth. But if all past events are potential events, then none of them can explain existence, since they all exist potentially and not necessarily by themselves.

I agree with your conclusion but not your logic. “All events are potential at some time” is false whether time is finite or infinite. If time is infinite, there never is a time when all events are in the future. If time is finite, the first event occurs at t = 0 and is “never” in the future. Yet you are certainly correct in that events don’t explain existence - existence has to explain events not the other way around - for the existence of time is logically prior to the existence of events.

Thus the entirety of potential events began to exist and therefore cannot account for the potentiality or possibility of beings or realities that have an extension in time.

It is a category mistake to talk of something potential “beginning” to exist.

Potentiality and possibility are not beings by themselves.

Yes, my point earlier.

A thing is possible or has the potentiality to exist because of the act of another being.

Again it is a category mistake to say the act of another can bring about potentiality. God can’t make the impossible possible. What is logically possible is logically possible, such as a pink unicorn. Now an act of God might indeed (under theism) be necessary to cause the pink unicorn to exist, but the pink unicorn’s existence must be possible prior to God’s act. Again, God can’t make the impossible possible.

Whether it be an infinite past or a finite one, both realities require a cause that is not itself caused or changing (that is to say, it has no past from which its present existence has begun and is contingent upon

) but has the explanation for existence in itself; since out nothing comes nothing.

A false dichotomy. You haven’t considered the possibility of logically contingent yet eternal and unchanging entities. Until you are able to logically rule this out, your argument is a non sequitur.