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

[Peter_Plato]

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.

I think this is an over-reaction to what ReapReason offered. I am not clear that his argument works, for a number of reasons. However, even if it does work, the conclusion he seems to arrive at is not much different from the transcendent God of classical theism.

Think about it. If ReapReason had omitted esse-panentheist from his proclaimed religious views and come on simply as “Catholic,” would you be launching this kind of vitriol? I doubt it. My guess is there are even some Catholics wandering around who have not given the nature of God much thought and could even be stuck with some grey beard in the sky concept of who God is. I am not convinced that ReapReason has attempted to produce some competitor “god” to lead Catholics away from the faith. My guess is that he is trying sincerely to come to grips with his own concept of God and why he thinks this God is a believable concept. He was asking for candid feedback regarding the formulation of his argument. That should be what this thread is about.

 

[Portofino]

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…

This reminds me of Parmenides (I think). There is no such thing as nothing – as “no-thing.” Only being exists, not nothingness.

1. Therefore there is a being that is absolutely and intrinsically real, in the sense that reality is its nature…

Why does it have to be a being? Why cannot it be reality itself? This reminds me of (gasp) Ayn Rand’s statement that “existence exists.” Reality is the nature of what is real; it is the nature of existence to exist. I don’t follow as to why it needs to be “a being”, as opposed to “Being.”

1. It cannot become more real, since it is already reality, and therefore it has no potentiality in terms of becoming.

It seems whatever you are saying hinges on a distinction between potentiality and actuality. Potentiality cannot be nothing (which you’ve already stated does not exist) but you are positing potentiality as less real than reality.

Perhaps it is the ontological status of “potentiality” that needs to be unpacked. I don’t see that there is universal consensus that potentiality is less real than actuality. To give a simple example – water is potentially ice, if the proper conditions are met. Yet water exists, and there is no phantom “out there” that could be called “potential ice” (unless it is water itself that is called this). “Potential”, to me, is more of a mental construct – it takes a mind to understand that there is not only actuality, but potentiality. Actuality is real; potentiality is a mind anticipating that something could be real, if the right conditions were met (e.g., pancake mix is a potential pancake, if water is added, it is mixed, and it is cooked in a pan).

1. If there is no potentiality in its being, then there is no change in its being; and as such it is timeless…

Again, I’m thinking of the Greeks. I don’t see how it is a self-evident truth that what is real cannot change form, or how there cannot be any change in what is intrinsically real.

1. 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…

Again, this is very – wonderfully – Platonic. It is Plato’s distinction between Being and Becoming. Parmenides is probably in there, as well. The problem is, I don’t see it as logically necessary, and I would suspect that not all philospohers would, either.

6

. This being is not the universe…

Is that because the universe is both potentiality and actuality, and reality can only be pure actuality? It seems the whole crux of the argument hinges on the distinction between non-existent, existent (actuality), and potentially existent (potentiality).

Those who define the universe as “everything that exists” would not follow the argument that this reality cannot be the universe, but must be a being that exists outside of 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.

So the universe is the Uncaused Cause; pure actuality, with no potential. This is not a unique argument – in a good way – as you seem to be drawing similar conclusions as Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle (Unmoved Mover) and Aquinas. Your chief rival would be Heraclitus.

Those who disagree would probably say that this argument stands or falls with its semantics. Being/nothing; potential/actual; a being/the universe. The real argument is over how to define those terms, and to what extent language does not fail us in seeking to use these terms as premises from which we draw our conclusions.

 

[norain]

I actually find most of his formulations agreeable. My main objection is he first one. I would rephrase everything simply like this, without the first statement:

First, there is this being that “just is”.
Since this being just is, then it does not change.
If it does not change, then it is timeless.
Since it is timeless, then it is not part of spacetime.
If it is not part of spacetime, then it is not part of the universe.
The universe is not only bound by time, but it also has a beginning.
The universe cannot have been created by itself.
This being, external to the universe, might be postulated to have created the universe.

I think that’s another way of saying it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

I take this as meaning that absolute nothingness is a logical (ontological?) contradiction because the existence of absolute nothingness would make it something - an objective truth - which is not absolute nothingness. Since absolute nothingness is impossible, then “something” must exist.

A skeptic might question whether our knowledge is even capable of conceptualizing with absolute certainty the idea of absolute nothingness or whether we have the kind of epistemological capacity to deal with ontological contradictions. Be that as it may, I am willing to grant you that absolute nothingness is not a possible concept.

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

What we might be able to conclude from premise 1 is that the impossibility of absolute nothingness entails the necessity of “somethingness.” Your wording of “a being” is unfortunate because it conjures up the thought of a “particular” being rather than the “state of existingness” that premise 1 might support. As Alberti_Devoveo pointed out (Post #25), the claims to “absolute and intrinsically real being” that you pull into this premise appear unwarranted from a skeptic’s point of view. This idea hinges on your use of ‘absolute’ and ‘objective truth’ in premise 1, but there doesn’t appear to be enough warrant to posit “a being” rather than “somethingness.” Perhaps an intermediate or supporting premise might tighten up the connection. On the other hand, what do you mean by “a being” rather than “Being itself?”

1. 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.

The uncertain nature of reality is the issue here. Our epistemological limitation, in terms of defining reality with certainty, makes this premise somewhat tenuous. What constitutes reality? What makes things really real? We have ideas, but do we have enough of a grasp of reality to say with certainty what makes something real?

1. If there is no potentiality in its being, then there is no change in its being; and as such it is timeless.

The “somethingness” that seems to be necessary from premise 1 does not, on the face of it, warrant a lack of potentiality. How have you shown there can be no potentiality in the necessary somethingness? A pantheist might dispute this by claiming that being or existence even if it always existed, could still change as part of its very nature. I am not clear there is enough here to counter that objection.

1. 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.

If the pantheist claim that being, even if necessary, can change, then time might be “a part of being” even if being itself is not subject to time. This would be similar to the concept of steady state theorists (pre Big Bang) who accepted that matter “always existed” in a timeless sense, but the changing forms of matter happen ‘in time.’

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.

My suspicion is that this premise presumes something like the cosmological argument or Big Bang cosmology because the premises haven’t shown that some necessary aspect of the universe itself couldn’t be what the contingent aspects depend upon.

Conclusion: Our universe is the product of a non-physical being.

This conclusion seems no more than what Big Bang cosmology confirms. Energy, space, time and matter (physical reality) came into being 13.7 billions years ago, so physical reality could not have been the cause of itself. Therefore, some non-physical reality must have caused the universe, which is your conclusion, almost verbatim. That is, provided “something from nothing” is really nonsensical and a multiverse scenario is as outlandishly speculative as it appears.

I have tried to be thoughtful and fair in this analysis. Please feel free to correct my misperceptions on any of your points.

 

[norain]

One way to reword the first statement is to state that absolute nothingness has no properties, even that of existence.

Yeah, I actually like that.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

One way to reword the first statement is to state that absolute nothingness has no properties, even that of existence.

Yeah, I actually like that.

Yes, very good. No " waves " or measurable anything, only God.

 

[Sair]

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.

Based upon my thus far very limited philosophical education, I would say that the only flaw in your argument that I can readily identify is that by change and development, the “source” of reality doesn’t become “more real”, but just real in a different form. How could it go from being “real” to being “more real”? I haven’t become more real by growing from my infant form to my adult form, surely. Nor has the food I eat, for example, become “more real” or “less real” through being incorporated into my body. The ultimate source of the universe, assuming it has such, would not, surely, have become more or less “real” by changing its configuration.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Alberti Devoveo wrote:

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.

It looks to me that he is just trying to prove that there is a Creator and not enforcing any particular form of God.

Also, I do agree that Aquinas’ proof is very good, but I think that Lonergan’s proof, as given by Fr Spitzer, is a better proof. Just my opinion on the matter though.

 

[empther]

Think about it. If ReapReason had omitted esse-panentheist from his proclaimed religious views and come on simply as “Catholic,” would you be launching this kind of vitriol?

You bet!

If the Pope started supporting ReapReason’s post 1 argument, I would help organize a protest march on the Vatican.

---

By the way…

Not long ago ReapReason only had esse-panentheist in his proclaimed religion. He recently added Catholic, which is like somebody saying he’s a Mormon-Buddhist.

 

[ReapReason]

Why cannot it be reality itself? .

That is precisely what I mean.

I guess I just did not know how to say it correctly. All I mean is that there is a “thing” that cannot cease to be a “thing” because to be a “thing” is its nature.

 

[ReapReason]

What we might be able to conclude from premise 1 is that the impossibility of absolute nothingness entails the necessity of “somethingness.”

Yes, this is my intention.

 

[Marybeloved]

It looks to me that he is just trying to prove that there is a Creator and not enforcing any particular form of God.

Also, I do agree that Aquinas’ proof is very good, but I think that Lonergan’s proof, as given by Fr Spitzer, is a better proof. Just my opinion on the matter though.

Could you explain Lonergan’s proof in simple terms?

 

[Marybeloved]

That is precisely what I mean.

I guess I just did not know how to say it correctly. All I mean is that there is a “thing” that cannot cease to be a “thing” because to be a “thing” is its nature.

Yes, there is- That’s the Actus Purus or YHWH (I am He who is or who am).

 

[norain]

I take this as meaning that absolute nothingness is a logical (ontological?) contradiction because the existence of absolute nothingness would make it something - an objective truth - which is not absolute nothingness. Since absolute nothingness is impossible, then “something” must exist.

Not exactly. The entity “Nothing” has no properties. To insist it to have at least one property (existence) turns it into “something” which it is not, by its definition.

Therefore, “something must exist” is not an imperative since the first premise is not impossible.

If you leave “nothing” alone, exactly nothing will happen, which to me is just fine, logically speaking.

 

[ReapReason]

You bet!

If the Pope started supporting ReapReason’s post 1 argument, I would help organize a protest march on the Vatican.

---

By the way…

Not long ago ReapReason only had esse-panentheist in his proclaimed religion. He recently added Catholic, which is like somebody saying he’s a Mormon-Buddhist.

Do you even know what an esse-panentheist is? In my opinion Thomas Aquinas was an esse-panentheist. Thomas Aquinas only made a distinction between the “essence” of the universe and God. He made no distinction between the “act” or esse (the reality/actuality/esse) of the universe and God. God is the actuality of the universe, he is the esse of all potential beings, but he is not the essence or nature of the universe.

We exist in God, not with God.

 

[ReapReason]

Not exactly. The entity “Nothing” has no properties. To insist it to have at least one property (existence) turns it into “something” which it is not, by its definition.

Therefore, “something must exist” is not an imperative since the first premise is not impossible.

If you leave “nothing” alone, exactly nothing will happen, which to me is just fine, logically speaking.

In order for there to be a true state of nothingness it would have to be objectivity true that there is a state of nothingness. But there is no objective truth in nothingness. This is the contradiction. There is no truth in nothingness, thus it cannot be a true objective state.

The word nothing is objectively meaningless, accept as a term symbolising the absence of a possible object from an already existing state affairs. For example there is no bike in room A. This does not mean that a being called “No-Bike” is in room A. There is only the reality of Room A minus the possibility of a real Bike.

Nothingness in itself and by itself has no meaning. It is not an object.

 

[norain]

In order for there to be a true state of nothingness it would have to be objectivity true that there is a state of nothingness. But there is no objective truth in nothingness. This is the contradiction. There is no truth in nothingness, thus it cannot be a true objective state.

Nothingness in itself and by itself has no meaning. It is not an object.

“has no meaning” means its truth value cannot be determined.

“a contradiction” means the truth value is FALSE.

There is a world of difference between “I don’t know if that is true” and “that is a false statement”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I find it bizarre how many people want to engage in philosophy when they haven’t studied logic.

Are you familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Could you explain Lonergan’s proof in simple terms?

The whole proof actually takes up several chapters in Fr Spitzer’s book, New Proofs for the Existence of God, but it goes into the details of why the premise must be true (because denying the premise would be tantamount to denying the existence of reality, which is absurd)

1. There must be at least one unconditioned reality
2. An unconditioned reality must be unrestricted intelligibility
3. Unrestricted intelligibility must be unique - one and only one
4. Unique unrestricted intelligibility must be an unrestricted act of understanding - understanding itself
5. All other intelligibility besides the one unrestricted act of understanding must be restricted and be a thought content of the one unrestricted act of understanding

I really do suggest picking up Spitzer’s book from the library, or even from his website or Amazon, and just diving into it. It is a great read and has probably the best argument for God’s existence that I have seen.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Are you familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect?

I had never heard of this effect until now. It actually goes a long way in explaining why retired engineers insist that Einstein was wrong on his SR/GR theories.