An Argument For Why The Existential Foundation Of All Contingent Beings Is Not A Limited Physical Nature

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IWantGod

Guest
An Argument For Why The Existential Foundation Of All Contingent Beings Is Not A Limited Physical Nature

This argument assumes that a necessary being has been proven to exist and is the cause and Sustainer of all unnecessary or contingent beings and that there is no other or more fundamental form of existence that is also necessary… So lets call this necessary being “Alpha-Reality”.

I have given an argument before as to why i think Alpha-Reality is not physical in any meaningful sense. I basically argued that Alpha-Reality does not have the attributes of a space-time continuum. I think the argument succeeded but i would like to present another argument.
  1. Because Alpha Reality is the cause and sustainer of any other possible forms of existence, it must be said that Alpha Reality contains in it’s self Pure-Actuality or in other words the fullness of being. There is no other source other than itself.
  2. It cannot be the case that it’s act of existence is in some way limited as that would imply that it could possibly be more than what it already is. For example a circle can be bigger or smaller. But Alpha Reality cannot be described in this manner considering the fact that it is already everything it could possibly be given the fact that it’s existence and therefore it’s nature is necessary. It cannot get more reality from somewhere else (because there is no where else) and therefore it would be incorrect to say that it could actualise more potential in itself. It is meaningless to think of it as having unrealised potential in any way. Thus it has the fullness of reality.
  3. Alpha Reality’s existence and nature are the same thing. It’s nature is it’s existence (they are identical) for the simple fact that it is Alpha Reality and not potentially something else. And so one cannot consider it as having finite dimensions or moving parts as this would be a limitation in it’s being.
  4. Physical reality has finite dimensions and moving parts. Alpha-Reality must therefore be considered it’s opposite (Actually Infinite in every respect)
Conclusion: Alpha-Reality is not physical because any limitation in it’s being leads to a contradiction.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Conclusion: Alpha-Reality is not physical because any limitation in it’s being leads to a contradiction.
Click to expand...
What about the dichotomy of existence/non-existence? Isn’t specifying that this Alpha-Reality must exist a limitation in its being?
 
TechieGuy said:
What about the dichotomy of existence/non-existence? Isn’t specifying that this Alpha-Reality must exist a limitation in its being?
Click to expand...
It’s nature is existence, that is to say it is it’s nature to exist. In fact it is meaningless to say that it could possibly not exist because that would mean that “absolutely nothing” is a possibility. But possibilities cannot exist because of absolutely nothing since there are no possibilities in Absolutely-Nothing; in fact absolutely nothing is the absence of all possibilities. There is nothing to cause anything in absolutely nothing, and out of absolutely nothing comes nothing. Possibilities belong to causes, and since Alpha-Reality is the ultimate cause it is by definition the source of all possibilities. In other words it is the ultimate power.

It is meaningless to say that it’s being is limited by being necessary because the possibility of becoming nothing is a limitation.
 
Last edited:
TechieGuy said:
40.png
IWantGod:
Conclusion: Alpha-Reality is not physical because any limitation in it’s being leads to a contradiction.
Click to expand...
What about the dichotomy of existence/non-existence? Isn’t specifying that this Alpha-Reality must exist a limitation in its being?
Click to expand...
Non-existence isn’t a manner of being or existence. It isn’t a state-of-affairs at all.
 
IWantGod said:
An Argument For Why The Existential Foundation Of All Contingent Beings Is Not A Limited Physical Nature

…
Click to expand...
I think all these points work, but do they address the monist? Those who exclaim the univocity of being and that all reality is an organic, infinite unity?

I think the monist POV is faulty. They don’t seem to buy into the notion that the Alpha-Reality can’t be composed or extended or the problem of contingency. But they are utterly convinced still that it is the fullness of reality and couldn’t be more real.

I’ve just had some recent discussions with a German idealist and we seem to just talk past each other, and I think the root of it is our disagreement between realism and idealism.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
I think the monist POV is faulty. They don’t seem to buy into the notion that the Alpha-Reality can’t be composed or extended or the problem of contingency. But they are utterly convinced still that it is the fullness of reality and couldn’t be more real.
Click to expand...
The thing is, they would have to claim that all physical states are necessary in every respect, or otherwise one cannot claim that it is a necessary act of reality. As soon as their reality becomes something that can be added to or has potentiality that has not been realised, as soon as you introduce limitations of any kind, then the idea that it has the fullness of reality becomes a contradiction.

Alpha-Reality has to be actually infinite in every respect, thus it cannot have the kind of limitations we find in physical beings. Even if one could argue that physical reality is an infinite regress, that still wouldn’t be enough to be Alpha.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
I think the monist POV is faulty. They don’t seem to buy into the notion that the Alpha-Reality can’t be composed or extended or the problem of contingency. But they are utterly convinced still that it is the fullness of reality and couldn’t be more real.

I’ve just had some recent discussions with a German idealist and we seem to just talk past each other, and I think the root of it is our disagreement between realism and idealism.
Click to expand...
I wonder whether philosophical musing can ever lead to God. It can be a form of prayer, but I’m thinking that terms like Alpha-Reality can act as barriers in that relationship. The Reality is God, and when we begin from that assumption, we find everything makes sense. God is Love, and all existence reflects that relational nature of being. Our human nature is in a state of alienation from the Source of our existence, and in its dark emptiness, we conjure up visions of reality. Idealism provides a sense of there being a solid foundation within the abyss.
 
Wesrock said:
I’ve just had some recent discussions with a German idealist and we seem to just talk past each other, and I think the root of it is our disagreement between realism and idealism.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that will happen, after all if you think that the object of your experiences are in some way contingent on your mind or just in your mind then it might seem reasonable to suggest that you are alpha-reality.
 
Aloysium said:
but I’m thinking that terms like Alpha-Reality can act as barriers in that relationship.
Click to expand...
The word simply lends understanding to the ultimate nature of it’s being, that is to say, how it stands in relation to all other beings.

Theistic philosophy is about providing a rational basis for what we believe. It is not theology.
 
I suppose it would constitute the bait, a glimmer of possibilities, required to bring us gradually closer to the Truth.
 
Aloysium said:
40.png
IWantGod:
how it stands
Click to expand...
… He …

Just wanting to point out how the terms we use can act as, or perhaps reveal, barriers in our relationship with God.
Click to expand...
Arguments like the ones presented in the OP generally have skeptics as their target audience. They generally proceed from more fundamental points to higher ones. And asking them to accept a gendered pronoun only knowable by divine revelation will cause them to stumble in the argument and accuse us of assuming the conclusion before it’s justified, of putting the cart before the horse. At the very least they would ask that we reach the point of establishing that the “Alpha-Reality” is personal before using personal pronouns.
 
Last edited:
Not to get too far off tangent, but I do see your concern, Aloysium. This type of talk seems cold and impersonal, especially at first glance. But I would say it’s a mistake to see this type of theology as being cold or as leading to a cold and impersonal God. If anything, they’ve helped me grow in appreciation of both God’s transcendence and imminence, of his omnipresence and personal presence in my life.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming…
 
looskanal said:
The question is…is “ existence ” something which can exist in and of itself, or is it by necessity an attribute that things possess. Such that without the “ things ” that exist, there’s no such thing as “existence”.

Is the “Alpha-Reality” not really a cause of the things that exist, as much as it is an attribute of the things that exist.

In which case there really isn’t a cause per se, there just is. This would seem to be a simpler explanation than hypothesizing that there’s something which just is, and then it by some cause that isn’t a cause, creates everything else. Much easier to assume that everything just is.
Click to expand...
For that to work everything would have to be pure-actuality. It’s existence cannot be in any way incomplete or lacking actuality. There could be nothing that was potentially actual because everything would be necessarily actual. Physical existence is not like that, it’s being is limited in it’s expression, it is something that is continuously being realized, and since physical existence is the sum of it’s parts we cannot say that it is Alpha-Reality. In fact physical reality is able to be as it is precisely because it is limited.

A nature either exists because it is it’s nature to exist, or it exists because of some other nature.
 
Last edited:
looskanal said:
The question is…is “existence” something which can exist in and of itself, or is it by necessity an attribute that things possess. Such that without the “things” that exist, there’s no such thing as “existence”.
Click to expand...
A thing can’t have attributes unless it first exists. Everything else about it is secondary to it being actual. It’s actuality is primary. Existence can’t be lumped into the same category as other attributes such as being green, or being six feet tall. There is also the issue of predicating existence as being innate to concepts, such that by knowing what a thing is you know whether it is. But you can know everything there is to know about what a million sided polygon is without knowing it exists. Or, if you were an alien who’d never been to Earth, learn everything there is to know about what a lion, a t-rex, and a unicorn is but never be able to knowingly tell me which one exists, existed, and doesn’t exist.
 
looskanal said:
40.png
IWantGod:
For that to work everything would have to be pure-actuality. It’s existence cannot be in any way incomplete or lacking actuality. There could be nothing that was potentially actual because everything would be necessarily actual.
Click to expand...
But is “potentiality” simply an illusion? For many theists, including Catholics, it is. Because from God’s perspective nothing ever, ever, ever, changes. EVER. Nothing ever goes from “potentiality” to “actuality”. From God’s perspective you “actually” exist right now, and the future you “actually” exists as well. None of the many versions of anything only “potentially” exists. Thus “potentiality” is an illusion, at least if you’re one of the many theists who believe in a God who exists outside of space and time.

For God reality isn’t something that’s coming into being, it’s something that is.
Click to expand...
This mistakes theists for claiming that reality is a world-block that God exists outside of. Most theists in my experience still take a Type A view of reality insofar as the present is only what is actual. Even with a worldblock, though, to deny that reality as it is requires actualizing would still basically be like stating a book can be supported by a shelf six feet off the ground even though the shelf isn’t mounted on a wall (or mounted in some other way). The worldblock could still only be a derived reality insofar as its actuality cannot be predicated as being innate to it. Plus other issues with it being composed and extended in space and so on.

Anyway, this is really sidetracking the discussion. While certainly your concerns are good questions, the point of this topic wasn’t to rehash these concerns, but to see how the immateriality of the “Alpha-Reality” could be demonstrated after the necessity of an “Alpha-Reality” was already demonstrated. This isn’t meant to prove the Alpha-Reality to the skeptic, just to help work on subsequent arguments that would follow after that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top