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

[IWantGod]

I mean all.

And what does that mean?

 

[STT]

I think you are arguing in favor of Pantheism.

 

[IWantGod]

I think you are arguing in favor of Pantheism.

Am i?..

I think my argument proves the exact opposite.

 

[STT]

Am i?..

Yes, you do. Something which has no potentiality is all.

I think my argument proves the exact opposite.

You don’t.

 

[Wesrock]

Pure Actuality simply means that it is actual without being actualized by anything else, and that it has no passive potency which could be actualized.

It would follow from an argument from motion that everything else that is or could be is dependent upon this Prime Mover for its actuality, as only the Prime Mover could be actual in an underived manner, and furthermore that there could only be one Prime Mover for reasons of [insert argument here].

I think the misunderstanding is coming from the idea of “Existence Itself” and “fullness of being” which are being misunderstood outside the context of other cosmological arguments such as the argument from contingency and the established relationship between the Prime Mover and its effects.

 

[STT]

Pure actual cannot be prime mover since there is no potentiality left in Existence which is Him, God.

 

[Wesrock]

Existence Itself is, to a degree, derived from the argument from contingency, but we may be able to contextualize “fullness of being” in relation to the Prime Mover being Pure Actuality.

Effects bear some likeness to their cause, and in the case of creator-creature and the argument from motion, that likeness can be found in the actuality of things. Insofar as a thing is actualized, it is a conditioned similitude of that which is Pure Actuality. All creatures then, bear a semblance to the Prime Mover in this way. But to be actual is simply the way in which something is (to be). So to be Purely Actual without being actualized by another is to be Subsistent Being. And while Pure Actuality cannot be represented in any one created mode of being, a diversity of beings more closely manifests that which is Subsistent Being, but through many, not as one whole.

“Fullness of being” isn’t a technical term, but I do think if we meditate on this and flip it around, it becomes apparent that if all beings that are in their increasing multiplicity and diversity create a better image in creation of that which is Subsistent Being, then their cause and that which they are in the image of is a “fullness” of being from which all other things take their image.

That wasn’t as “on point” as I intended, but I got to step away.

 

[Wesrock]

Pure actual cannot be prime mover since there is no potentiality left in Existence which is Him, God.

…I don’t even know how to address this, because that’s precisely what it means to be the Prime Mover. Or rather, “Prime Mover” is the title given to the necessary Actus Purus which is demonstrated.

Like I said, I have to step away.

 

[IWantGod]

To me the more interesting question is, if the " Alpha-Reality ’ isn’t physical, then how can the reality that it gives rise to be physical?

If the argument succeeds, then the consequence of that would mean that physical reality is not a natural form of existence,; it is not intrinsic to the necessary nature of Alpha-Reality and therefore physics cannot be considered as something that naturally arises from Alpha-Reality or an emergent property of Alpha Reality. Physical objects or processes are not naturally real but are instead being made real. I would argue that physical reality is an artificial form of existence.

Some have argued that it would be better to not think of physical objects as concrete things, but rather more like a simulation that has it’s own set of rules. But i am not sure that it is necessary to think of it in that way. Ontologically speaking, it’s just easier to think of physics as fundamentally being nothing more than Realized-Information.

 

[IWantGod]

If the necessary cause isn’t physical…is anything literally physical?

The word physical is just a word we give to the objects of our senses. Even if physical things are not concrete in the way we tend to imagine, It is still correct to say that there are physical processes. We still perceive a reality that is changing, a reality that is limited in it’s expression, a reality that has dimensions. I don’t think it would be correct to say that it is not physical, and it is certainly an assumption to suggest that it possesses the same kind of nature as alpha reality. After-all, Alpha-Reality is not essentially realized information.

So i don’t see any reason to think that physical existence is just an aspect of alpha reality since they are completely distinct in nature. One necessarily exists, and one is not necessary at all, and only exists because alpha reality is causing it to exist.

 

[IWantGod]

I agree that the alpha reality and “ physical ” reality have distinct natures, but I think of it in the same manner that Catholics consider God to be triune in nature.

That’s one nature with three persons. There is only one nature, one God. Physical reality and Alpha Reality are distinct natures and one of them does not naturally exist.

This is one of those places where I think that you’ve made an assumption, that there are things that don’t exist necessarily.

It was never my intention here to prove the contingency of physical reality, but instead my intent was only to prove that Alpha reality is not physical and cannot be considered so in any meaningful sense. However one only has to point to the fact that physical being has a limited expression of existence, which is most evident in the fact that it is moving from potentiality to actuality, in-order to know that it is not necessarily actual. It is not pure-actuality and is thus not a necessary being. It’s existence is not natural and is therefore not Alpha-Reality.

 

[IWantGod]

I have in the past used the example of the person who mows the golf course. And how his existence means that other things must also exist.

You are describing a dependency-relationship between physical objects. But this is not evidence of ontological-necessity. It does not follow that if the mower did not exist that therefore the grass would not exist, or that if there were no grass that nothing would exist.

On the other-hand, if there were no such thing as Alpha-Reality, then absolutely nothing would exist and there would be no possibility of existence (which admittedly is a given in the OP, but i have shown why this must be true elsewhere)

Describing a dependency between things is not necessarily the same thing as proving existential necessity.