Another Arguement For The Existence Of A Timeless Cuase

[ReapReason]

The fact of “Metaphysical impossibilities” reflects the nature of reality.

For example, a square triangle cannot actually exist because the nature of reality is as such that distinctions in the essence of things are absolute; you are either a square or a triangle. It is logically meaningless to be both.
Another example of a metaphysical impossibility would be existing and not existing at the same time. You either exist or you don’t, you cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. This is because there is an absolute distinction between being real and not being real.

The most important thing to keep in mind here is that metaphysical truth is an expression of reality as act.

1. That a square triangle cannot be real is true in all possible worlds since all possible worlds are logically possible worlds.
2. A metaphysical impossibility cannot begin to be impossible. This is to say that metaphysical impossibilities such as a square triangle does not begin to be impossible.
3. Therefore that which makes a thing impossible cannot begin to exist. That which begins to exist is not the reason why a thing is possible or impossible
4. The universe is the sum total of potential states that have become actually real.
5. Therefore the universe (space - time - energy: Physics) is not the existential reason why some things are metaphysically impossible.
6. Therefore that which determines metaphysical impossibilities and possibilities is the intrinsic expression of a reality that transcends physical nature. This is simply to say that the reason why there is such a thing as metaphysical impossibilities is not because of physical nature; it is not something that is subject to the nature of “time space or energy”. Metaphysical logic is not caused by physics.

Conclusion: It is therefore the case that the embodiment of metaphysical truth is an entity that is not changing: it does not have a beginning or end. It is not potentially real: it does not move from one potential state to the next. It is pure actuality, having no physical dimensions and cannot meaningfully be defined as such.

 

[Poseidon]

But even if all this turns out to be true it says nothing about the nature of this timeless cause. It could simply be that the universe has always existed, or that a multiverse has always existed.

 

[ReapReason]

But even if all this turns out to be true it says nothing about the nature of this timeless cause. It could simply be that the universe has always existed, or that a multiverse has always existed.

It does not seem to me that you have read this argument properly, because I clearly argue that physical nature cannot be defined as that which is the root of metaphysical truth.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The fact of “Metaphysical impossibilities” reflects the nature of reality.

For example, a square triangle cannot actually exist because the nature of reality is as such that distinctions in the essence of things are absolute; you are either a square or a triangle. It is logically meaningless to be both.
Another example of a metaphysical impossibility would be existing and not existing at the same time. You either exist or you don’t, you cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. This is because there is an absolute distinction between being real and not being real.

The most important thing to keep in mind here is that metaphysical truth is an expression of reality as act.

1. That a square triangle cannot be real is true in all possible worlds since all possible worlds are logically possible worlds.
2. A metaphysical impossibility cannot begin to be impossible. This is to say that metaphysical impossibilities such as a square triangle does not begin to be impossible.
3. Therefore that which makes a thing impossible cannot begin to exist. That which begins to exist is not the reason why a thing is possible or impossible
4. The universe is the sum total of potential states that have become actually real.
5. Therefore the universe (space - time - energy: Physics) is not the existential reason why some things are metaphysically impossible.
6. Therefore that which determines metaphysical impossibilities and possibilities is the intrinsic expression of a reality that transcends physical nature. This is simply to say that the reason why there is such a thing as metaphysical impossibilities is not because of physical nature; it is not something that is subject to the nature of “time space or energy”. Metaphysical logic is not caused by physics.

Conclusion: It is therefore the case that the embodiment of metaphysical truth is an entity that is not changing: it does not have a beginning or end. It is not potentially real: it does not move from one potential state to the next. It is pure actuality, having no physical dimensions and cannot meaningfully be defined as such.

Your " philosophy " is strange to say the least. Why not just follow Aquinas - much easier to follow.

The mistake you make is that " impossibilities " or " contradictions " do not exist, so they are not caused because they never existed. You see, this kind of logic is a contradiction in terms.

I do like your conclusion, at least " potentially. " Especially, I like the " nature " of your " entity “. You say it is a non physical, non changing, pure actuality, without beginning or end. That sounds like Thomas’ Prime Mover. But I would have to hear more about this " entity " you call a " metaphysical truth.” You need to carefully define all these terms and draw out their metaphysical possibilities. Looks like you are trying to write a new philosophy when Thomas would do just as well. It is time tested.

From my point of view, why should I be interested? Thomas answers all the philosophical problems that existed up to the 13th century and seem to work fine today.

 

[mymamamary]

But even if all this turns out to be true it says nothing about the nature of this timeless cause. It could simply be that the universe has always existed, or that a multiverse has always existed.

Wrong, universe had to have a beginning. Otherwise all the physics science and expirements are futile.

 

[ReapReason]

The mistake you make is that " impossibilities " or " contradictions " do not exist, so they are not caused because they never existed. You see, this kind of logic is a contradiction in terms.

I made it clear at the start of the post that a thing is either impossible or possible because of the “nature of reality”; not because of contradictions in themselves.

They do not exist in the sense of being distinct actual entities independent of objects. That was not what I intended to mean, and i did not describe a contradiction being as such. However what I did say is that metaphysical truth does exist in the sense of being a description of reality. I say exist for lack of better word. It is objectively true that square-triangles cannot exist, and my argument sets out to discover which object determines that truth. I end by showing that it is not a physical object.

see here…

The fact of “Metaphysical impossibilities” reflects the nature of reality.

For example, a square triangle cannot actually exist because** the nature of reality** is as such that distinctions in the essence of things are absolute; you are either a square or a triangle. It is logically meaningless to be both.
Another example of a metaphysical impossibility would be existing and not existing at the same time. You either exist or you don’t, you cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. This is because there is an absolute distinction between being real and not being real.

The most important thing to keep in mind here is that metaphysical truth is an expression of reality as act.

So I don’t understand why you failed to see that. Much less do I understand why you are attempting to discourage me from making philosophical arguments for God. Aquinas is not the be all an end all of philosophy, and if anything his arguments were an editors edition to arguments that already existed.

This idea that if there is already a set of arguments that fulfil an intended Goal then one should not seek other means of proof, is purely a reflection of your pragmatic attitude to philosophy.

Not everybody agrees with or understands those arguments, thus if one can provide other kinds of arguments, or express their own take on arguments that have been given before then surely that is a good thing.

I like Aquinas to, but he is not my idol. Philosophy is not like supporting a football team, where you support your favourite philosopher. Philosophy is about a search for truth and a love of truth. like Aquinas I don’t just read philosophy, I do philosophy.

 

[empther]

I like Aquinas to, but he is not my idol. Philosophy is not like supporting a football team, where you support your favourite philosopher. Philosophy is about a search for truth and a love of truth. like Aquinas I don’t just read philosophy, I do philosophy.

Oh pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezz !

Don’t try to score points with us by saying you like Aquinas. You trash his theology with your alternate theories. You want to do things your own way, but your system can’t hold a candle to his.

 

[ReapReason]

Oh pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezz !

Don’t try to score points with us by saying you like Aquinas. You trash his theology with your alternate theories. You want to do things your own way, but your system can’t hold a candle to his.

I never said I was like Aquinas. I said like Aquinas, I do philosophy. Thanks for clarifying your inability to think properly.

Also, this is not a competition. Whether I want to do things my own way or not, has no relevance to whether or not my argument actually succeeds.

Personally I think my arguments are perfectly in line with the Aquinas/Aristotelian metaphysical system, regardless of the difference. And if you think I do trash it, then it is your responsibility to show me how I have done this with my arguments. Forget your resentment towards me for describing my self as an esse-panentheist, and do some real philosophy for change.

Stop being childish.

 

[ReapReason]

This argument still has not been refuted.

 

[empther]

I never said I was like Aquinas. I said like Aquinas, I do philosophy. Thanks for clarifying your inability to think properly.

I never said you said you were like Aquinas.

Do you deliberately get everything wrong?

 

[ReapReason]

I never said you said you were like Aquinas.

Do you deliberately get everything wrong?

Do you deliberately mislead people to save face?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

A significant improvement over your previous argument. I still think you should take a look at Bernard Lonergan’s proof as described in fine detail by Fr Spitzer in his book New Proofs.

 

[empther]

Do you deliberately mislead people to save face?

Anybody can read post 7 for themselves and see that you’re deliberately trying to mislead people now, even after I caught you with your pants down.

 

[empther]

With (dis)respect to your argument in post 1 …:hey_bud:

Conclusion: It is therefore the case that the embodiment of metaphysical truth is an entity that is not changing: it does not have a beginning or end. It is not potentially real: it does not move from one potential state to the next. It is pure actuality, having no physical dimensions and cannot meaningfully be defined as such.

Metaphysical truth has no substantiality, any more than your “objective truth” in the other failed argument in your other thread,
and something with no substantiality does not have anything to do with the actual existence of God, the universe, or anything else.

 

[ReapReason]

after I caught you with your pants down.

I guess you wanted to run away after you saw my big argument.

I see now that you was accusing me of scoring points by saying I like Aquinas. I mistook you for saying that I am like Aquinas.

In any case why would you say that? I couldn’t care less whether or not you believe I like Aquinas. What I am concerned with is whether or not you have a rebuttal.

You don’t have a rebuttal; just a lot of hot head jive talk.

Case closed.

 

[empther]

I mistook you for saying that I am like Aquinas.

No.
You said that I said that you said you were llike Aquinas, which anybody who can read can see for themselves is not true.

You’re still trying to mislead people.

 

[ReapReason]

With (dis)respect to your argument in post 1 …:hey_bud:

Metaphysical truth has no substantiality, any more than your “objective truth” in the other failed argument in your other thread,
and something with no substantiality does not have anything to do with the actual existence of God, the universe, or anything else.

Metaphysical truth is either a true measure of reality or it is not.

What has substantiality got to do with it? I never said that the impossibility of a square triangle is substantially real. I said that some things are impossible because of the nature of reality.

Stop making up straw-men.

 

[empther]

You don’t have a rebuttal; just a lot of hot head jive talk.

Case closed.

Oh. You want a rebuttal?
See post 14.

Cased reopened.

I have to leave the house for the rest of the day, now. Some of us have a life.

 

[empther]

So according to you metaphysical truth is not a true measure of reality.

Metaphysical truth does not cause reality, but is our understanding of reality after we get here.

Good by 'til later.

 

[ReapReason]

Metaphysical truth does not cause reality, but is our understanding of reality after we get here.

Good by 'til later.

Clearly I never said that metaphysical truth is a cause of reality.

Metaphysical truth reflects reality.