An Arguement for the Existence of a Timeless Non-Physical Cuase

[norain]

The property of existing can be applied to things. Nothing is not a thing, but the absence of things. You make it sound complicated but it’s really very simple.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Why? Where is your rebuttal of “my” argument (as opposed to your straw-man)

If you give me one more assertion I will have no choice but to think that you’re trolling. And I will ignore you from then on.

My rebuttal is that Premise (2) does not follow from Premise (1). If you cannot argue that Premise (2) does indeed follow from Premise (1), then your argument is worthless. I gave more than this in my first post that you nearly completely ignored, but if you want it again, I shall oblige.

Think about it for a little bit. Premise (1) states that nothing cannot exist. Premise (2) says that because nothing cannot exist, there is a Being whose nature is Reality. There is no link between the two here.

I could be wrong, but this appears to be a Principle of Explosion fallacy.

 

[ReapReason]

Think about it for a little bit. Premise (1) states that nothing cannot exist. Premise (2) says that because nothing cannot exist, there is a Being whose nature is Reality. There is no link between the two here.

What is your reasons for thinking there is not a link between 1 and 2.

I am not going to do your job for you.

 

[ReapReason]

Here is the first premise again.

"1. Absolutely nothing cannot objectively exist, because there is **no objective truth **in absolutely nothing. If it existed, not only would it not be nothing by the fact that it “exists”, it would also be objectively true, and thus such cannot ever be the case because it is an ontological contradiction.

Notice, given the parts in bold of this post, I am not simply saying that absolutely nothing is not real. I am saying that there is no objective truth in absolutely nothing, since objective truth is dependent upon the existence of an objective being, and absolutely nothing is the absence of all objective beings. Therefore the state described as absolutely nothing cannot become a true objective state. Its a metaphysical contradiction.

Here is the second premise.

“2. Therefore there is a being that is absolutely and intrinsically real, in the sense that reality is its nature.”

in other-words, If absolutely nothing cannot be an objectively true state, this necessarily means that objective truth is a function of being, and not non-being. There is no truth in nothing.

Therefore there has to be an objective being that exists necessarily, and the only way a being can exist necessarily is for the “act of reality” to be an intrinsic expression of its core nature. Its nature has to be existence.

Aquinas said the same thing about first cause in a different way. He is the one that speaks of esse and essence being one and the same thing in God or the first cause.

Everything I have said follows logically and necessarily.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

What is your reasons for thinking there is not a link between 1 and 2.

I am not going to do your job for you.

Your Premise (2) follows the same logic as the following (assuming the ‘because’ items were defined in a prior premise):

• Because 4 is not equal to 6, there is a Being whose nature is Reality.
• Because apples are not oranges, there is a Being whose nature is Reality.
• Because Shakespeare did not write The Hobbit, there is a Being whose nature is Reality.

Do you now see the disconnect between your Premise (1) and Premise (2)?

Your argument states that Premise (2) is conditional upon Premise (1), that a Being whose nature is Reality stems from the fact that nothing does not exist. Your job is to explain why a Being whose nature is Reality must exist if and only if nothing does not exist. Until you do so, your argument is worthless.

 

[ReapReason]

Your argument states that Premise (2) is conditional upon Premise (1), that a Being whose nature is Reality stems from the fact that nothing does not exist. Your job is to explain why a Being whose nature is Reality must exist if and only if nothing does not exist. Until you do so, your argument is worthless.

Go to post 44.

 

[empther]

ReapReason :hey_bud:'ed…

It might not make sense to you, but to be frank you are evidently not a worthy judge.

You say it doesn’t make sense but you can’t even point out what you don’t understand, while others have.

So you can assert what ever floats your ego until you are blue in the face for all i care.

Face it, ReapReason. You’re trying to build a house of cards in a tornado and you try to divert people’s attention by making this an issue of my ego ( magnificent though I may be ).

After first noticing this thread I saw that my old friend and imminent theologian Perplexity had already pointed out that your point #2 didn’t follow from your point #1, as others on this thread later pointed out. I agreed with dear old Perplexity.
That killed your entire argument right there.
There are other problems with the rest of your argument, but why bother? It’s like a racehorse dying at the starting line.

Mind the feared words of many a doctoral thesis examining committee on rejecting somebody’s doctoral thesis: “Start over.” :bigyikes: :banghead: :bighanky:

 

[ReapReason]

After first noticing this thread I saw that my old friend and imminent theologian Perplexity had already pointed out that your point #2 didn’t follow from your point #1, as others on this thread later pointed out. I agreed with dear old Perplexity.
That killed your entire argument right there.

Nobody, accept for one person, has given a legitimate rebuttal. Perplexity did not give a legitimate rebuttal, he merely attacked my character and asserted that I don’t know how to think logically. They have merely “asserted” that 2 does not follow from one, and because you cannot reason for yourself, you have merely agreed with them because you think they have some kind of rational authority. All i see from both you and perplexity is Ad hominem attacks and assertions with no content.

Norain in post 35, is the only person who attempted to refute one of the premises after being pushed to do so.
I Rebutted his argument in post 38.

How can you deduce that an argument is false just because people assert that its wrong?

Your reasoning is flawed.

If you are interested i explain premise 1 and 2 in more detail in post 44

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9820519&postcount=44

 

[empther]

I checked your post 44

I am saying that there is no objective truth in absolutely nothing, since objective truth is dependent upon the existence of an objective being,

It’s true that if there is absolutely nothing there is no truth, objective or otherwise,
because there is no “knower” to know the truth.
But this does not prove the necessity of a being.

Took me about 27 nanoseconds to see the fallacy in your statement.

Aquinas says God is necessary because he already proved from the impossibility of an infinite pass that there had to be a God to start the universe, and he must be necessary since he exists. He doesn’t explain why there has to be a necessary being. But you try to say there has to be a necessary being or there can’t be objective truth, although you don’t explain why there has to be objective truth. You just make an “assertion”, which you criticize others for doing.

Give it up, ReapReason.

 

[ReapReason]

I checked your post 44

It’s true that if there is absolutely nothing there is no truth, objective or otherwise,
because there is no “knower” to know the truth.
But this does not prove the necessity of a being.

Took me about 27 nanoseconds to see the fallacy in your statement.

Give it up, ReapReason.

You don’t need a knower in order for there to be objective truth. Also you have yet again asserted something without explaining the reasons why.

 

[empther]

You don’t need a knower in order for there to be objective truth.

So what is knowing the truth?

Where there is nothing there is no relationship of any kind.

On this assertion you base your philosophy?

Also you have yet again asserted something without explaining the reasons why.

Your “why’s” are nothing but assertions.
Such as…

You don’t need a knower in order for there to be objective truth.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Go to post 44.

I read it a couple times now. You still do not show why there is a Being whose nature is Reality, only that one must exist because you say so.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I see now that empther has come to a similar conclusion (that is what I get for not reading ahead ). Unlike him, though, I encourage you to adjust and amend your argument so as to not leave gaping holes in the logic.

 

[ReapReason]

I read it a couple times now. You still do not show why there is a Being whose nature is Reality, only that one must exist because you say so.

I am not simply saying that absolutely nothing is not real. I am saying that there is no objective truth in absolutely nothing, since objective truth is dependent upon the existence of an objective being, and absolutely nothing is the absence of all objective beings. Therefore the state described as absolutely nothing cannot become a true objective state. Its a metaphysical contradiction.

If absolutely nothing cannot be an objectively true state, this necessarily means that objective truth is a function of being, and not non-being. There is no truth in nothing.

**Therefore there has to be an objective being that exists necessarily, and the only way a being can exist necessarily is for the “act of reality” to be an intrinsic expression of its core nature. Its nature has to be existence. **

Aquinas said the same thing about first cause in a different way. He is the one that speaks of esse and essence being one and the same thing in God or the first cause.

Everything I have said follows logically and necessarily.

 

[ReapReason]

So what is knowing the truth?

Where there is nothing there is no relationship of any kind.

On this assertion you base your philosophy?

What are you talking about?

your “why’s” are nothing but assertions.
Such as…

Do you know what is meant by the term “objective reality” or “objective truth?”

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I am not simply saying that absolutely nothing is not real. I am saying that there is no objective truth in absolutely nothing, since objective truth is dependent upon the existence of an objective being, and absolutely nothing is the absence of all objective beings. Therefore the state described as absolutely nothing cannot become a true objective state. Its a metaphysical contradiction.

If absolutely nothing cannot be an objectively true state, this necessarily means that objective truth is a function of being, and not non-being. There is no truth in nothing.

**Therefore there has to be an objective being that exists necessarily, and the only way a being can exist necessarily is for the “act of reality” to be an intrinsic expression of its core nature. Its nature has to be existence. **

Aquinas said the same thing about first cause in a different way. He is the one that speaks of esse and essence being one and the same thing in God or the first cause.

Everything I have said follows logically and necessarily.

This still does not follow. No objective truth in nothing does not force the case that there is a Being whose nature is Reality.

 

[norain]

It’s not everyday that one gets to see Catholics **objecting **to the proof of a Creator’s existence.

 

[empther]

norain wrote:

It’s not everyday that one gets to see Catholics objecting to the proof of a Creator’s existence.

I understand what your saying,

but if what somebody claims is a “proof” in invalid then we must reject it vigorously.

Aquinas has written the best proof of God ever conceived and followed it up with deductions of what this God is like.

Along comes ReapReason who tries to convince people God, or god with a small g, is something very diffferent from the the Judeo-Christian God, that is, a Esse-Panentheistic God…
It is heresy. It must be vigorously rejected.

This is not a matter of opinion like whether Romney or Obama is best for the country.
This is about God, and what people believe about him. Nothing could be more serious.

 

[empther]

Alberti Devoveo wrote:

I see now that empther has come to a similar conclusion (that is what I get for not reading ahead ). Unlike him, though, I encourage you to adjust and amend your argument so as to not leave gaping holes in the logic.

ReapReason is trying to get people to believe in something very different from our Judeo-Christian God, an Esse-Panentheistic God.
HIs argument cannot be amended to get rid of holes in the logic.

 

[empther]

Aquinas begins by saying there had to be a Prime Mover. From there, he goes on to deduce other things about God. He uses terms which can easily be understood by any thoughtful person. There is no misunderstanding about the definitions of motion, infinite etc.

Where does ReapReason begin? Has anybody figured it out yet?

Something about “objective truth”, the definition of which could be anything somebody says it is :banghead: , making it necessary that a being exists etc etc etc.
Oh really?