- Out of nothing comes nothing.
MoM:
Here’s how I see your argument: “Out of nothing comes nothing.” This is simply an
a priori declaration about our universe, that must obtain. Nothing more and nothing less. To say the opposite is either a statement exposing a muddled thinker, or just plain argumentative.
- Potentiality is dependent on actuality in-order to become a real being, and therefore potentiality cannot infinitely precede actuality, because that would be an example of actuality coming out of nothing.
This is a complex premise. It says that the closest thing that we have that can be thought of as “nothingness,” is
privation. Privation is not a thing. It is an absence, quite like
nothingness. Yet, we see substantial change every day. The growth of a leaf exemplifies plant cells undergoing substantial change. So, instead of exemplifying
nothingness as a
thing (of some sort?), it is best exemplified as the “
privation of any-thing and every-thing.”
So, because privation is the absence of things in the order of
matter, including, perhaps, the order of the “physical,”
nothingness cannot obtain
privation. That would be an absurdity. It
is “privation,” i.e., the
absence of any and all things AND the absence of thing-ness. Yet, as we can plainly see, substantial changes take place every day. In what, then, does “privation,” i.e, “potentiality” (in the Scholastic sense) inure? It inures, as St. Thomas makes clear, in the “matter,” or “subject.” And, since that’s the case, privation, i.e., “potentiality,” can be neither logically, nor ontologically, prior to the matter (subject) that expresses said absence. Therefore, it is, in some way, dependent upon the matter. And, since the matter is finite, it cannot be grounded in anything but the finite. (A complex, but understandable, premise - I think.)
- Therefore there has to be an absolute and timeless actual reality that transcends all potential states (irrespective of their number) so that its being is not preceded by any potentiality; and thus not violating the first and second premise.
In “3” you affirm the prior two premises and conclude that there must be an existing cause/maker/creator. And, that entity must exist
prior to any and all acts of causation, making, creating, or even happening - including any kinds of quantum fluctuations, I presume. Everything physical, and/or material, must have a prior
actual (already in actuality) real cause that is capable of presenting matter, or a subject, that expresses the nothingness of privation (potentiality). Plus, it must not only be “present,” beforehand, but also, it must be that which makes the “matter” have absence.
I didn’t have much time to give about your argument proper thought, so, please correct me where I’m off.
God bless,
jd
First prove to me that he is the thetruecentrist.