Another Arguement For The Existence Of A Timeless Cuase

[Linusthe2nd]

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…

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.

Hey Reap! Lighten up, I didn’t intend to discourage you. Go ahead and do your best and more power to you. Its just that it is awfully hard to do as you well know. And I will look over your argument more closely when I get time. Good luck.

 

[empther]

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

Metaphysical truth reflects reality.

So your argument in post 1 comes down to this:

What can be and actually is, is.
And what can’t be is not.

Thank you for the insights.

 

[empther]

From post one again…

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.

Apparently, then, it, whatever it is, has nothing to do with the universe, since you haven’t said a word about how the universe came to be.

So why do you call the thread:
Another Arguement For The Existence Of A Timeless Cuase.
?

BTW; it’s argument and cause, not arguement and cuase

 

[ReapReason]

So your argument in post 1 comes down to this:

What can be and actually is, is.
And what can’t be is not.

Thank you for the insights.

I point out in premise 1 what a metaphysical impossibility is and that it is because of the nature of reality as an act that something is impossible. Reality is the measure of what’s metaphysically possible and impossible.

 

[ReapReason]

From post one again…

Apparently, then, it, whatever it is, has nothing to do with the universe, since you haven’t said a word about how the universe came to be.

If the universe is not the reason why a thing is metaphysically possible or impossible, then is it not obvious that the Universe itself is contingent upon that which provides the metaphysical possibility of its reality?

I will make sure that I correctly spell it out for you next time.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

So your argument in post 1 comes down to this:

What can be and actually is, is.
And what can’t be is not.

Thank you for the insights.

I got that from one line, but the combined make something like:
(1) What cannot be cannot be due to something transcendental about our universe
(2) Since the universe is, then the universe itself cannot explain why something can or cannot be
(3) Thus, there must be some transcendental being who is outside of the universe (space and time) who defines the metaphysical possibilities

Like I said earlier, it is a significant improvement over the previous attempt. And I still think ReapReason should investigate Father Spitzer’s New Proofs book.

 

[empther]

If the universe is not the reason why a thing is metaphysically possible or impossible, then is it not obvious that the Universe itself is contingent upon that which provides the metaphysical possibility of its reality?

I will make sure that I correctly spell it out for you next time.

You should have started post 1 by saying a timeless unchanging being was necessary for the universe to exist, then argue the point.

Aquinas did it all 700 years ago. He started his Summa by discussing how theology is the most noble science because it talks about God.
Then he proves God’s existence from the impossibility of an infinite past, so that the universe’s existence required a First Mover.
From there he deduces what must be said about the First Mover, that he is omnipotent, omniscient and all the rest, which I suspect you will never get to.

Oh. I see your declared religion is now Theist: Esse-Monism. Before that is was Catholic Esse-Monism. Before that it was Catholic Esse-Panentheism. Before that it was Esse-Panentheism.

 

[empther]

I point out in premise 1 what a metaphysical impossibility is and that it is because of the nature of reality as an act that something is impossible.

But it’s not God’s act, hunh?

Reality is the measure of what’s metaphysically possible and impossible.

God doesn’t decide that, hunh?

A universe is impossible unless God creates it. Sounds to me like he deserves some credit.

Are we ever going to get to a God who can say, “I think. Therefore I am” ?

 

[ReapReason]

You should have started post 1 by saying a timeless unchanging being was necessary for the universe to exist, then argue the point.

Why should i?

Aquinas did it all 700 years ago.

So?

He started his Summa by discussing how theology is the most noble science because it talks about God.

So?

Then he proves God’s existence from the impossibility of an infinite past, so that the universe’s existence required a First Mover.

That is not true. Aquinas proves that a first mover is required in-order to explain the fact of change. His argument has nothing to do with proving the impossibility of an infinite past. The argument would be correct regardless of whether an infinite past exists or not.

An honest to God Thomist would know that.

From there he deduces what must be said about the First Mover, that he is omnipotent, omniscient and all the rest, which I suspect you will never get to.

You assume a great many things about me.

Oh. I see your declared religion is now Theist: Esse-Monism. Before that is was Catholic Esse-Monism. Before that it was Catholic Esse-Panentheism. Before that it was Esse-Panentheism.

So what?

What has any of this got to do with rebutting my argument?

 

[ReapReason]

But it’s not God’s act, hunh?

I did not say that it is not God

God doesn’t decide that, hunh?

What are you talking about?

A universe is impossible unless God creates it.

I never said otherwise.

Sounds to me like he deserves some credit.

Sure does. But you should notice that this is a philosophy forum; thus when attempting to prove Gods existence the last thing i am going to do is make a circular argument…

Are we ever going to get to a God who can say, “I think. Therefore I am” ?

You are certainly an odd chappy.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Why should i?

So?

So?

That is not true. Aquinas proves that a first mover is required in-order to explain the fact of change. His argument has nothing to do with proving the impossibility of an infinite past. The argument would be correct regardless of whether an infinite past exists or not.

An honest to God Thomist would know that.

You assume a great many things about me.

So what?

What has any of this got to do with rebutting my argument?

All true. But Reap you do have a problem getting your thoughts down so people can understand what you are talking about. Please don’t think I am unfairly critical. I certainly had a hard time and so did several others. Look at your original statement in the eyes of someone reading it and see if you don’t agree. It isn’t that what you intended to say is wrong, it is that what you actually did say seems to be wrong. Your conclusion seems right but it can’t be reached from your argument. At least the way I read it.

 

[empther]

I had to read this one four times before I could believe what I was reading…

Originally Posted by empther
Then he proves God’s existence from the impossibility of an infinite past, so that the universe’s existence required a First Mover.

ReapReason replied:
That is not true. Aquinas proves that a first mover is required in-order to explain the fact of change. His argument has nothing to do with proving the impossibility of an infinite past.

It’s true his argument has nothing to do with proving the impossibility of an infinite past, and I didn’t say it did.
Aquinas took it for granted that anybody, certainly the theologians he was writing for, was capable of understanding for themselves that there can’t be an infinite past. Never mind trying to prove it. He didn’t even bother discussing it. It’s self-evident.

I think you’ve used the word “strawman” several times? Your reply is a strawman.

 

[ReapReason]

Aquinas took it for granted that anybody, certainly the theologians he was writing for, was capable of understanding for themselves that there can’t be an infinite past. Never mind trying to prove it. He didn’t even bother discussing it. It’s self-evident.

What a load of crud. You did say that Aquinas proves the existence of an unmoved mover by disproving the possibility of an infinite past. And now you are telling me that he was telling people what they already knew because it is self evident. Your error is as clear as day. Why would you even bring up the idea of an infinite number if that is not what you intended to imply.

I am very saddened by your weak attempts to save face. Aquinas clearly said that he doesn’t think an infinite number can be disproved. You can make up in your head any fantasy you wish; but the fact remains.

 

[ReapReason]

All true. But Reap you do have a problem getting your thoughts down so people can understand what you are talking about. Please don’t think I am unfairly critical. I certainly had a hard time and so did several others. Look at your original statement in the eyes of someone reading it and see if you don’t agree. It isn’t that what you intended to say is wrong, it is that what you actually did say seems to be wrong. Your conclusion seems right but it can’t be reached from your argument. At least the way I read it.

You gave a criticism, and i showed you why that criticism was a misunderstanding of what i said and corrected it. You have not replied to my comment. You are simply asserting that my words are garbled. You are not even trying to understand what i am saying.

In my opinion i don’t think you have any real intention of understanding the argument in the first place.

 

[empther]

What a load of crud. You did say that Aquinas proves the existence of an unmoved mover by disproving the possibility of an infinite past. And now you are telling me that he was telling people what they already knew because it is self evident. Your error is as clear as day. Why would you even bring up the idea of an infinite number if that is not what you intended to imply.

I am very saddened by your weak attempts to save face. Aquinas clearly said that he doesn’t think an infinite number can be disproved. You can make up in your head any fantasy you wish; but the fact remains.

You have serious problems, ReapReason.
I pity you.

 

[empther]

ReapReason’s reply to Linusthe2nd…

You gave a criticism, and i showed you why that criticism was a misunderstanding of what i said and corrected it. You have not replied to my comment. You are simply asserting that my words are garbled. You are not even trying to understand what i am saying.

In my opinion i don’t think you have any real intention of understanding the argument in the first place.

You have serious problems, ReapReason.
I pity you.

 

[ReapReason]

You have serious problems, ReapReason.
I pity you.

If having serious problems is what it means to point out errors in your attitude towards me and the philosophy of Aquinas then i am Glad i have serious problems. No need to pity.

Your whole approach to this thread is wrong.

 

[ReapReason]

ReapReason’s reply to Linusthe2nd…

You have serious problems, ReapReason.
I pity you.

Your ad hominem attacks are worthless. In the eyes of the wise, you only succeed in looking like a bitter person with a chip on your shoulder. Not to mention jealous of the fact that you couldn’t make a philosophical argument of your own if you tried.

I am going to cease replying to you, since what you have said thus far has nothing to do with the thread, but is instead some silly disguised malicious attack.

 

[empther]

Not to mention jealous of the fact that you couldn’t make a philosophical argument of your own if you tried.

Who can make a truthful new philosophical argument on their own?
Everything has been said.

Interesting that nobody has unconditionally accepted your arguments on this thread or the other. Does that tell you anything? Pay more attention to rebuttals. Maybe somebody else knows something too!

Shoulda let the believers keep doing their believing.
Try a Esse-Panentheism-Monism website forum. Oh yeah! There aren’t any.

 

[JDaniel]

Aquinas clearly said that he doesn’t think an infinite number can be disproved. You can make up in your head any fantasy you wish; but the fact remains.

RR:

I’ve heard this assertion before, and would like to read it for myself. The Summa Theologica, Vol I, Q 7 is all about Infinity. St. Thomas does make mention of the possibility of numerical and material infinity, but only under the second form of it, that is: potential infinity. If you understand what “potential” means, in this regard, you will see that it means: possible. Now, possible, i.e., potential is not the same as actual, as St. Thomas indicates in his Commentary on the Physics, Bk. III, les. 11, n. 743: “In the second place, there is the potential infinite, which is that to which there is always something beyond.”
For St. Thomas, there can be no actual infinity numerically or materially. There can only be the possibility of infinity.

The words, aleph and aleph null, are often used to represent infinity or an infinitesimal. As one can see, neither of these words represents a specific difference on a number line, in either direction. They are words representing abstractions that best describe the possible answers to some mathematical equations. You and I both have some idea of what a trillion is, but we have no idea of what an aleph is. Neither does anyone else.

God bless,
jd