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

  • Thread starter Thread starter ReapReason
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ReapReason

Guest
  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.
  2. Therefore there is a being that is absolutely and intrinsically real, in the sense that reality is its nature.
  3. It cannot become more real, since it is already reality, and therefore it has no potentiality in terms of becoming. It cannot take on more attributes because it is the source of all reality and thus cannot take on more reality from something else.
  4. If there is no potentiality in its being, then there is no change in its being; and as such it is timeless.
  5. Since this being is timeless it is not apart of the space-time-continuum, it is not energy or space; and therefore this being is not physical.
  6. This being is not the universe and therefore the Universe as a being is contingent upon this ultimate reality in order to be real because it has no reality other than what is given to it by that which is ultimately real.
Conclusion: Our universe is the product of a non-physical being.
 
ReapReason said:
  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.
  2. Therefore there is a being that is absolutely and intrinsically real, in the sense that reality is its nature.
  3. It cannot become more real, since it is already reality, and therefore it has no potentiality in terms of becoming. It cannot take on more attributes because it is the source of all reality and thus cannot take on more reality from something else.
  4. If there is no potentiality in its being, then there is no change in its being; and as such it is timeless.
  5. Since this being is timeless it is not apart of the space-time-continuum, it is not energy or space; and therefore this being is not physical.
  6. This being is not the universe and therefore the Universe as a being is contingent upon this ultimate reality in order to be real because it has no reality other than what is given to it by that which is ultimately real.
Conclusion: Our universe is the product of a non-physical being.
Click to expand...
I can’t believe you said that! Yes, God exists!!! Keep going!!! I’m not sure your argument is valid, I’m too tired to analyze it and I would probably be wrong if I tried anyway. 👍
 
ReapReason said:
  1. This being is not the universe and therefore the Universe as a being is contingent upon this ultimate reality in order to be real because it has no reality other than what is given to it by that which is ultimately real.
Conclusion: Our universe is the product of a non-physical being.
Click to expand...
So how does this realization square with your esse panentheist religious affiliation?
 
ReapReason said:
  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.
  2. Therefore there is a being that is absolutely and intrinsically real, in the sense that reality is its nature.
  3. It cannot become more real, since it is already reality, and therefore it has no potentiality in terms of becoming. It cannot take on more attributes because it is the source of all reality and thus cannot take on more reality from something else.
  4. If there is no potentiality in its being, then there is no change in its being; and as such it is timeless.
  5. Since this being is timeless it is not apart of the space-time-continuum, it is not energy or space; and therefore this being is not physical.
  6. This being is not the universe and therefore the Universe as a being is contingent upon this ultimate reality in order to be real because it has no reality other than what is given to it by that which is ultimately real.
Conclusion: Our universe is the product of a non-physical being.
Click to expand...
The argument is logically invalid; but, I’m guessing there’s to be intuitive connections between premises and (sub)conclusions.

For example, (2) does not follow from (1) by any logically valid rule of inference. The only thing I can intuitively infer from (1) is that at least one thing exists necessarily, but this is quite different from saying this thing’s nature ‘is’ reality.

Part of (3) seems to intuitively follow from (2), though this thing’s being the ‘source’ of reality certainly doesn’t.

(6) also doesn’t seem to follow intuitively from anything preceding it. The premises provide no reason to think there’s only one thing that exists necessarily, and thus the universe must be contingent.

There are many more issues I’d have, especially with the universe being ‘produced’ etc. but, I’ve gotta get going. I’ll give it some more thought though.
 
I never thought I’d agree with Perplexity on anything,
but apparently we have a new first…:eek:
The argument is logically invalid; but, I’m guessing there’s to be intuitive connections between premises and (sub)conclusions.
Click to expand...
For example, (2) does not follow from (1) by any logically valid rule of inference.
Click to expand...
Right on. That far, anyway.

The OP argument is not the way to get to God.
Try Aquinas. 😃
 
ReapReason said:
  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.
  2. Therefore there is a being that is absolutely and intrinsically real, in the sense that reality is its nature.
  3. It cannot become more real, since it is already reality, and therefore it has no potentiality in terms of becoming. It cannot take on more attributes because it is the source of all reality and thus cannot take on more reality from something else.
  4. If there is no potentiality in its being, then there is no change in its being; and as such it is timeless.
  5. Since this being is timeless it is not apart of the space-time-continuum, it is not energy or space; and therefore this being is not physical.
  6. This being is not the universe and therefore the Universe as a being is contingent upon this ultimate reality in order to be real because it has no reality other than what is given to it by that which is ultimately real.
Conclusion: Our universe is the product of a non-physical being.
Click to expand...
Whatever rocks your boat, no matter how non existant your premise is or conclusion is.
 
Perplexity said:
The argument is logically invalid; but, I’m guessing there’s to be intuitive connections between premises and (sub)conclusions.

For example, (2) does not follow from (1) by any logically valid rule of inference. The only thing I can intuitively infer from (1) is that at least one thing exists necessarily, but this is quite different from saying this thing’s nature ‘is’ reality.
Click to expand...
That which is existentially the antithesis of nothing is intrinsically reality. This fact follows necessarily and clearly.
Part of (3) seems to intuitively follow from (2), though this thing’s being the ‘source’ of reality certainly doesn’t.
Click to expand...
That which is intrinsically the antithesis of nothing is the source of what it means to be real.
(6) also doesn’t seem to follow intuitively from anything preceding it. The premises provide no reason to think there’s only one thing that exists necessarily, and thus the universe must be contingent.
Click to expand...
My argument proves that the act of reality is necessary as the antithesis of absolutely nothing. The only thing that is distinct from reality as an intrinsic act is non-reality. Physical nature does not share the attributes which would be require of that which is intrinsically reality. This i made evident from premise 3 to 6.
There are many more issues I’d have, especially with the universe being ‘produced’ etc. but, I’ve gotta get going. I’ll give it some more thought though.
Click to expand...
Its act of physics is produced by that which is intrinsically real.

Please come back with something better.
 
empther said:
I never thought I’d agree with Perplexity on anything,
but apparently we have a new first…:eek:

Right on. That far, anyway.

The OP argument is not the way to get to God.
Try Aquinas. 😃
Click to expand...
Do you even understand the argument? Do you even know why perplexity disagrees? I doubt you fully understand the underlying metaphysical foundations of Aquinas’s arguments, otherwise you would realize the validity of the argument; and even if you didn’t you would give a point for point rebuttal instead of passing the buck to another posters comments of which you clearly have no understanding.

Aquinas approaches the issue differently by arguing from effect to cause, while i am approaching the same issue by first making clear the distinction between nothing and something, that nothing cannot exist, and then revealing the necessary attributes of a being that intrinsically and necessarily exists as a result of acknowledging the impossibility of absolutely nothing; while also making it clear that the Universe does not share the same attributes as that which is intrinsically real.

We reach the same conclusion from different angles.

At least i try to make my own philosophical arguments for God. When is the last time you even tried?

In the future if you are going to criticize one of my arguments, please be kind enough to actually make a constructive rebuttal, instead of asserting error where there is none.

Peace be with you.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I can’t believe you said that! Yes, God exists!!! Keep going!!! I’m not sure your argument is valid, I’m too tired to analyze it and I would probably be wrong if I tried anyway. 👍
Click to expand...
Panentheists (not to be confused with pantheism) generally believe in God, so it shouldn’t be that unbelievable.😛

Thanks anyway. 🙂
 
When you’re trying to impress the impressionable with strings of big words,
write like this… :hey_bud::hey_bud::hey_bud:

ReapReason wrote…
That which is existentially the antithesis of nothing is intrinsically reality.
Click to expand...
Translation for people for whom English is a second language…😃

ReapReason: That which is existentially the antithesis of nothing is intrinsically reality.
Translation: That which is something is not nothing. Right?
:tiphat: :egyptian:
 
ReapReason said:
Panentheists (not to be confused with pantheism) generally believe in God, so it shouldn’t be that unbelievable.😛

Thanks anyway. 🙂
Click to expand...
Except that this premise:
6. This being is not the universe and therefore the Universe as a being is contingent upon this ultimate reality in order to be real because it has no reality other than what is given to it by that which is ultimately real.

appears to be more a description of transcendent theism

“God is not the universe and the universe is not God.”

than panentheism:

Deity is … an inner Presence and Power that permeates, saturates, or infuses the universe and everything in it (including the world and humanity, nature and human nature) from within."
Deity is also transcendent: In addition to infusing the universe and everything in it, there is some aspect of deity that is external to the universe.

From religioustolerance.org/tran_imm.htm

You are implying in #6 that it is not just “some aspect” of deity that is not the universe, but that God is simply not the universe although the universe could not be without God.

A panentheist, though somewhat removed from pantheism, still holds that the universe is an aspect of God, in some sense, otherwise there is no difference between panentheism and transcendent theism, which holds that while God created the universe, the universe is not a part or aspect of God although God’s presence could be immanent in the universe.

#6 affirms that God is not the universe (and the universe is not God), and therefore is more in line with transcendent theism than panentheism.
 
ReapReason: I’m sorry, but I can’t understand what you’re saying. These phrases aren’t intelligible to me, but as I noted the argument is logically invalid. So, whatever the premises mean, the conclusion does not follow from them.

I find it bizarre how many people want to engage in philosophy when they haven’t studied logic.
 
Peter_Plato said:
You are implying in #6 that it is not just “some aspect” of deity that is not the universe, but that God is simply not the universe although the universe could not be without God.

A panentheist, though somewhat removed from pantheism, still holds that the universe is an aspect of God, in some sense, otherwise there is no difference between panentheism and transcendent theism, which holds that while God created the universe, the universe is not a part or aspect of God although God’s presence could be immanent in the universe.

#6 affirms that God is not the universe (and the universe is not God), and therefore is more in line with transcendent theism than panentheism.
Click to expand...
I am an Esse-Panentheist or Esse-Monist. This means that I only believe in one act of reality “God”. I don’t believe there are many acts of reality. In other-words the only ontological distinction I see between me and God is my essence. My essence (my nature) is not God; but my act of reality is God, for I have no reality of my own. Reality is not intrinsic to my essence. Neither can God bring reality out of absolutely nothing to give to me (an ontological contradiction). The only true reality is God. Thus the only way for my essence to be actual and real is for God to be my act of reality.

Thus I believe that God creates contingent essences, but I don’t believe that God creates beings with there own independent act of reality.

I think that a normal Panentheist would include his essence as being a part of God as well. He would say that God is a human being, a house, a car, a horse, a planet, a universe, but is also transcendent.

That is not what I believe. I think there is an absolute distinction between Gods essential nature and the essential nature of the universe; but they share the same act of reality.
 
ReapReason said:
  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.
Click to expand...
I find the rest of the arguments ok, except the first one. Unfortunately, everything else is based upon that first statement. There’s something wrong with it. I think it has something to do with sets.
 
Perplexity said:
ReapReason: I’m sorry, but I can’t understand what you’re saying. These phrases aren’t intelligible to me, but as I noted the argument is logically invalid. So, whatever the premises mean, the conclusion does not follow from them.

I find it bizarre how many people want to engage in philosophy when they haven’t studied logic.
Click to expand...
“whatever the premises mean, the conclusion’s invalid”???

HA ha ha ha ha ha!!!:rotfl:

Here a little tip, unless you know and understand the premise, you cannot determine the validity of the conclusion.
 
I think I got it:

postulate:

For any entity X:
If X exists, then X is not nothing. X is something.

Let X be nothing.

[Nothing] is not nothing? => FALSE

Therefore, nothing does not exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top