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.
looskanal said:
40.png
Wesrock:
A thing can’t have attributes unless it first exists.
Click to expand...
And existence is an attribute that’s only applicable to something that exists, thus you can never have existence alone, it must always be an attribute of something. So things, and existence are inseparable.
Click to expand...
You’re being a little circular. This isn’t in contradiction with what IWantGod is saying about the necessity of an Alpha-Reality, though, as the Alpha-Reality is claimed here to be actual, not just an abstract concept.

Edit: You can have the last post in this tangent, if you wish. I’m participating in taking the OP’s topic off track.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
  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.
Click to expand...
I can think of two beings each being contingent yet they complete each other and one sustains another.
IWantGod said:
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
God is not tree, stone, etc. Therefore He is not pure actual since He has realizable potential.
IWantGod said:
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
I cannot follow you here. To me nature is obviously is different from existence.
IWantGod said:
  1. Physical reality has finite dimensions and moving parts. Alpha-Reality must therefore be considered it’s opposite ( Actually Infinite in every respect )
Click to expand...
Do you know that there is bigger number than infinity. The reality is unbound therefore it is a mistake to consider a supreme being which is bounded (He cannot be better than Himself), even to infinity, but the best.
IWantGod said:
Conclusion: Alpha-Reality is not physical because any limitation in it’s being leads to a contradiction.
Click to expand...
In fact, this reality is limited because of the very fact that it cannot be physical.
 
Since it’s related to moving the topic back on point…
looskanal said:
40.png
Wesrock:
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.
Click to expand...
This is often one of my issues with IWantGod’s threads. He seems to always begin by asking us to assume that all of his previous arguments are correct.Thus he structures the argument to make his conclusion practically unavoidable.

What good is an argument if the core of its premises are a given?
Click to expand...
If two people are discussing “given that we’ve established the climate is warming, how do we then demonstrate the warming is man made?” Are they beholden to the skeptic who comes in every topic to say “hold it! you haven’t demonstrated here in this very topic that the globe is warming!”

It happens often (but not all the time) in discussion that a skeptic gives ground and says, “okay, yes, I will concede that a first cause seems rational, but that doesn mean it’s intelligent or personal… it could be the universe itself.” Cannot theists of like mind have a discussion about how to address points like these among themselves without rehashing everything from the beginning?
 
Last edited:
STT said:
In fact, this reality is limited because of the very fact that it cannot be physical.
Click to expand...
But to be physical is to be limited in some way. Having a limited extension, having unrealised potential , finite dimensions, being subject to change, etc… Thus it would not be reasonable to argue that a lack of those limitations is a limitation.
 
Physical reality cannot be limited when you consider the fact that it exhaust all forms. You are saying that there is something which is not physical yet has no limitation, not being aware that excluding physical is limit.
 
looskanal said:
Am I to expect that if I start a thread with the presumption that ToE is correct, that someone won’t vehemently object, and from many people’s perspective rightly so. In a mixed forum one shouldn’t expect that one’s premises are going to be accepted without question. If you wish to begin with an assumption, be prepared to back it up.
Click to expand...
Well you did say that the conclusion of the OP is unavoidable, so if all you need is an argument that backs up the OP why don’t you start a new thread like “is there an Ultimate-Reality/Alpha-Reality”. No doubt i will get involved at some point.
 
STT said:
Physical reality cannot be limited when you consider the fact that it exhaust all forms.
Click to expand...
Why do you conclude that exhausting all forms means that physical reality is not in some way shape or form limited?

If i have a complete collection of something, does that mean their forms are not limited in their extension? Of course not. The same thing applies for something moving from potentiality to actuality; it doesn’t matter if physical reality has exhausted all forms, there is still a limitation in it’s act of existence. Thus it doesn’t make rational sense to say that a lack of physical limitation is a limitation.
 
IWantGod said:
Why do you conclude that exhausting all forms means that physical reality is not in some way shape or form limited?
Click to expand...
How it could be limited when it exhausts all forms?
IWantGod said:
If i have a complete collection of something, does that mean their forms are not limited in their extension? Of course not. The same thing applies for something moving from potentiality to actuality; it doesn’t matter if physical reality has exhausted all forms, there is still a limitation in it’s act of existence. Thus it doesn’t make rational sense to say that a lack of physical limitation is a limitation.
Click to expand...
The point is that you were arguing that there is no potentiality in God yet you exclude God from other beings/things. There is of course a potentiality in God to be something else then, a stone for example, and if He is not then He is not pure actual.
 
STT said:
There is of course a potentiality in God to be something else
Click to expand...
There is no limitation in God’s nature. For God to transform into a rock would require God’s nature to take on the physical limitations that defines a rock. Also, God necessarily is what God is.Thus there is no potentiality in God to become a Rock.
 
Last edited:
But that require a change. Does’t it? God should be everything in order to be pure actual which of course not.
 
STT said:
God should be everything in order to be pure actual which of course not.
Click to expand...
God has to have a limited physical existence in-order to be pure-actuality? This is obviously wrong, but perhaps not so obvious for somebody that doesn’t understand the terms under discussion.

Do you understand what pure-actuality means?
 
To be Pure-Actuality means that a being has no unrealized potential in it’s nature. It simply is everything it’s nature could possibly be. It has no limitation in it’s nature since a limitation implies a lack of or possibility to become more. Which means pure-actuality cannot have the limitations of a rock and therefore cannot be one. To not have the potential to become a rock is not the same thing as having a limitation but rather it is because it necessarily has no limitations. Similarly, Alpha-Reality cannot cease to be or move from potentiality to act precisely because it has no limitation in it’s act of existence. It’s pure-actuality.
 
Last edited:
Given your definition which is what I said requires that God to be everything, existence, since not being something is state of potentiality. It is clear God could be something more given state of affair, I or you are not God.
 
STT said:
since not being something is state of potentiality.
Click to expand...
No it is not. Having the potentiality in ones nature to become something else or become more than what one already is, is what it means to have unrealised potential. It means there is a limitation in the expression of somethings actuality. That which is pure-actuality does not have limitations in it’s being and necessarily cannot transform into a rock for precisely those reasons.
 
Last edited:
I mean all. This discussion started from the point that I raise a problem to premise (2).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top