An argument from absolutely Nothing to Ultimate Reality

[ReapReason]

1. There is no objective truth in absolutely nothing, for there is no real object by which a thing can be classed as true.
2. Therefore things are only an objective truth if they somehow reflect the nature of objective reality, given that objective truth cannot be an expression of nothing.
3. Absolutely nothing Cannot objectively exist as a fact or truth. For Nothing is not an act of reality.
4. Out of nothing comes nothing. Which means that a thing cannot be in a state of change out of absolutely nothing.
5. A being that is changing is made up of potential states which were actualised as it proceeded to the next potential state.
6. There is no being (and therefore no potentiality) in absolutely nothing.
7. Being must ontologically exist first in order for there to be such a thing as change or potentiality.
8. Therefore a Timeless Ultimate Reality must exist, since absolutely nothing cannot be real and potentiality cannot be actualised without there first being a reality that is not itself a potential reality.

 

[ReapReason]

A being that is changing is made up of potential states which were actualised as it proceeded to the next potential state.

Therefore no state which comprises the changing entity is intrinsically real by itself. Such a being is in a state of constantly becoming, toward its natural end.

 

[ReapReason]

1. There is no objective truth in absolutely nothing, for there is no real object by which a thing can be classed as true.

By this I mean that “Nothing” has no objectivity. There is no real object by which nothing can be classed as an objective “thing”.

 

[Amamori]

…So I finally registered an account because someone referred me to this thread.

I apologise for still being rather confused by your posts. Could you please provide a working definition for your terms? “Objectivity”, for example, and “nothing”. For that matter, I have never before seen the phrase “act of reality”, so could you please explain this?

Aside from that…

By this I mean that “Nothing” has no objectivity. There is no real object by which nothing can be classed as an objective “thing”.

Why does anything need the existence of another object in order to be considered objectively real?

Thank you, and sorry again for the trouble. I would simply like to understand your argument better, as it looks very interesting.

 

[Drinkgasoline]

What are you trying to prove?

 

[Amamori]

What are you trying to prove?

As far as I can tell, he is trying to show how an eternal existence must exist.

He does this by:

• Showing why nothingness cannot exist
• Assuming that “beings” change
• Establishing that change cannot come from nothingness (which is redundant if the first point is sufficiently logically correct)
• Concluding that a being must originally exist in order for change to come from it.

I hope this is an accurate enough summary…
(Incidentally, even if the conclusion is correct, such ideas as solipsism are still valid and would need to be argued against separately.)

Ah, that’s right. OP, please define “potentiality” as well. Thank you.

 

[Sair]

This is an argument I have often seen used to “prove” the existence of a personal, theistic god, but it can only go as far as demonstrating that something must have existed eternally, not someone.

 

[tonyrey]

This is an argument I have often seen used to “prove” the existence of a personal, theistic god, but it can only go as far as demonstrating that something must have existed eternally, not someone.

1. We know from experience that a purposeful, rational being is far more powerful and valuable than a purposeless,** non-rational **thing.
2. An explanation in terms of** reasons i**s far more comprehensive and fertile than an explanation in terms of blind causes.
3. Reasoning is a purposeful activity and it cannot be explained coherently by purposeless activity.
4. Life based on answers to “How?” is meaningless without answers to “Why?”
5. The proposition that** all **activity is derived from non-rational, purposeless activity is self-contradictory and self-refuting.

 

[Amamori]

1. The proposition that** all **activity is derived from non-rational, purposeless activity is self-contradictory and self-refuting.

Could you please elaborate on this point?

 

[tonyrey]

1. The proposition that all activity is derived from non-rational, purposeless activity is self-contradictory and self-refuting.

1. If all propositions are produced by processes** without insight** they are virtually worthless.
2. They may occasionally happen to correspond to reality but the probability that they will do so regularly is negligible because there are far more possibilities of error than precision.

 

[ReapReason]

This is an argument I have often seen used to “prove” the existence of a personal, theistic god, but it can only go as far as demonstrating that something must have existed eternally, not someone.

Irrelevant. I am arguing for the existence of an “ultimate reality”; Not the existence of a personal being. Can you please refrain from making straw-men; they are not welcome here.

Please feel free to add something that is relevant to this topic.

 

[ReapReason]

1. We know from experience that a purposeful, rational being is far more powerful and valuable than a purposeless,** non-rational **thing.
2. An explanation in terms of** reasons i**s far more comprehensive and fertile than an explanation in terms of blind causes.
3. Reasoning is a purposeful activity and it cannot be explained coherently by purposeless activity.
4. Life based on answers to “How?” is meaningless without answers to “Why?”
5. The proposition that** all **activity is derived from non-rational, purposeless activity is self-contradictory and self-refuting.

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, but I think its more important to establish the existence of an ultimate being, before asking whether or not it has intelligence. However feel free to continue your discussion. I don’t mind.