Checkmate in 3 moves

[Perplexity]

Read the rest of the post that you decided to leave out. Or are you incapable of aknowledging that which refutes your arrogance?

Perhaps you can’t stand the idea of a Christian being more inteligent than you.

I don’t think this is about intelligence at all, it’s about education. You may very well be more intelligent than I am (to be honest, I haven’t seen any reason to think so though), but you simply don’t know what logical validity is. Also, I don’t think you have any business pretending to philosophize when you refuse to learn. I know many Christians more intelligent than I, it has nothing to do with this.

I’ve read that sloppy post several times now and not once do you define logical validity. So, how about answering the question? I understand this is probably an embarrassing process but that’s good (we all go through it). You need to learn:

“If the specific form of a given argument has any substitution instances whose premises are true and whose conclusion is false, then the given argument is invalid. We may define the term “invalid” as applied to the argument forms as follows: An argument form is invalid if and only if it has at least one substitution instance with true premises and a false conclusion…Hence an argument form is valid if and only if it has no substitution instances with true premises and a false conclusion. And since validity is a formal notion, an argument is valid if and only if the specific form of that argument is a valid argument form.” [1]

Argument forms are to particular sentences as algebraic formulas are to numbers:

Logical Form:

1. If p, then q
2. p
3. Therefore, q

(p and q stand for any propositions whatsoever)

Algebraic Formula:

(x) + 2 = 5

An Instance of this Logical Form:

1. If I’m hungry, then I should eat.
2. I’m hungry.
3. Therefore, I should eat.

(‘I’m hungry’ is substituted for ‘p’ and ‘I should eat’ for ‘q’, we could choose any statements we like to plug into the form)

Instance of this Algebraic Formula:

(3) + 2 = 5

So, when we look at arguments with specific sentences as their premises (like the example above), we try to look behind them to discern the form (or forumla) they’re being plugged into. Once we find that form, we can discern whether its premises can be true and its conclusion false at the same time. If that can occur, the argument is invalid. Otherwise, it’s valid. We discern this by use of truth-tables (there are many other methods). That is, we list all the possible truth-values the premises and conclusion can take in all their possible combinations, and if there is any instance where the premises are both T (or 1), and the conclusion is F (or 0), then it’s invalid.

So, we the truth-table for the above logical form is as follows:

p | q | p → q (if p then q)|

---

T | T | T |
T | F | F |
F | T | T |
F | F | T |
F | F | F |

‘p’, and ‘p → q’ are the premises and ‘q’ is the conclusion. Do you see any row above in which ‘p → q’ and ‘p’ are T, but ‘q’ is F? No. So the argument form is valid, and so are any arguments taking that form. It’s known as Modus Ponens.

There are many ways to translate your argument into logics because it doesn’t make sense: it never totally translates into any logic. Here’s another try:

1. O
2. P & ~I & A
3. ]R & ∀(x) (S(x) → T(x))] …idk

I’ve been telling you the argument isn’t valid, but technically it isn’t even an argument. It’s literally gibberish.

So, please. Tell us what logical validity is, and why your argument is such?

“It seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know.” - Socrates

[1]

Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen. Introduction to Logic, 12th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005. p. 336

“An argument is valid if it would be contradictory (impossible) to have the premises all true and conclusion false. In calling an argument valid, we aren’t saying whether the premises are true. We’re just saying that the conclusion follows from the premises – that if the premises were all true, then the conclusion also would have to be true…Our argument is valid because of its logical form – its arrangement of logical notions (like “if-then” and “not”) and content phrases (like “You overslept” and “You’re late”).” Emphasis mine. Gensler, Harry. Introduction to Logic. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2010. p. 3.

 

[Sair]

I’ve seen at least 2 or 3 of the people here posting about this same topic at least 1 or 2 times before [and I don’t believe the arguments were ever actually resolved] - can’t we all just acknowledge that the fact we exist makes no sense whatsoever and that we may or may not find an answer when we die?

I mean, I have my own hypothesis concerning the universe, time, existence, etc. but I’m also of the opinion that we will at least gain a greater, better understanding after death. Hypothesize now I guess, but it probably won’t be sorted out until later.

This certainly seems like a sensible way to proceed - it would appear that the OP’s intention was to demonstrate the necessity of a first cause, in order to demonstrate, ultimately, if not in this thread, that this first cause was/is the Christian God, only because it “couldn’t be” unconscious forces or particles.

But we can’t know this - we are limited by what we know of reality. We can’t presume that logic supersedes physical reality, since our logic is derived from our observations of that reality. Scientific enquiry is continually revealing that physical reality is more extraordinary than we had previously imagined - why limit its capabilities?

That said, it’s quite possible that I’m talking through a hole in my head and that there actually is a being fitting the description of the God of Classical Theism. Since this being is apparently reluctant to reveal its existence beyond any reasonable doubt while we live, we might suppose we’ll know more after we die.

But it’s also perfectly possible and highly plausible that when we die, we will simply cease to exist as conscious entities - our individual mental processes will cease and our bodies will gradually decompose, the molecules going to make up other bodies in due course. We might know nothing after we die, since the entities “we” are will no longer exist.

It might be as well to suspend judgement until that time, and simply act in such a way as we see fit for the time being!

 

[tonyrey]

But we can’t know this - we are limited by what we know of reality. We can’t presume that logic supersedes physical reality, since our logic is derived from our observations of that reality. Scientific enquiry is continually revealing that physical reality is more extraordinary than we had previously imagined - why limit its capabilities?

You proceed from **reality **to physical reality as if they are synonymous! Your final statement has the same implication. How would you justify that assumption?

You are also assuming God reluctant to reveal His existence beyond any reasonable doubt in spite of universal belief that there is evidence for divine revelation…

 

[tonyrey]

Now, why would a true centrist ask, “Why?”

It is possible that his user name is ironic. Perhaps he will enlighten us…

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=621373

That is different than your previous statement. All that says is:

Existence exists, therefore there are no situations in which existence does not exist.

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t think this is about intelligence at all, it’s about education. You may very well be more intelligent than I am (to be honest, I haven’t seen any reason to think so though), but you simply don’t know what logical validity is. Also, I don’t think you have any business pretending to philosophize when you refuse to learn. I know many Christians more intelligent than I, it has nothing to do with this.

I’ve read that sloppy post several times now and not once do you define logical validity. So, how about answering the question? I understand this is probably an embarrassing process but that’s good (we all go through it). You need to learn:

“If the specific form of a given argument has any substitution instances whose premises are true and whose conclusion is false, then the given argument is invalid. We may define the term “invalid” as applied to the argument forms as follows: An argument form is invalid if and only if it has at least one substitution instance with true premises and a false conclusion…Hence an argument form is valid if and only if it has no substitution instances with true premises and a false conclusion. And since validity is a formal notion, an argument is valid if and only if the specific form of that argument is a valid argument form.” [1]

Argument forms are to particular sentences as algebraic formulas are to numbers:

Logical Form:

1. If p, then q
2. p
3. Therefore, q

(p and q stand for any propositions whatsoever)

Algebraic Formula:

(x) + 2 = 5

An Instance of this Logical Form:

1. If I’m hungry, then I should eat.
2. I’m hungry.
3. Therefore, I should eat.

(‘I’m hungry’ is substituted for ‘p’ and ‘I should eat’ for ‘q’, we could choose any statements we like to plug into the form)

Instance of this Algebraic Formula:

(3) + 2 = 5

So, when we look at arguments with specific sentences as their premises (like the example above), we try to look behind them to discern the form (or forumla) they’re being plugged into. Once we find that form, we can discern whether its premises can be true and its conclusion false at the same time. If that can occur, the argument is invalid. Otherwise, it’s valid. We discern this by use of truth-tables (there are many other methods). That is, we list all the possible truth-values the premises and conclusion can take in all their possible combinations, and if there is any instance where the premises are both T (or 1), and the conclusion is F (or 0), then it’s invalid.

So, we the truth-table for the above logical form is as follows:

p | q | p → q (if p then q)|

---

T | T | T |
T | F | F |
F | T | T |
F | F | T |
F | F | F |

‘p’, and ‘p → q’ are the premises and ‘q’ is the conclusion. Do you see any row above in which ‘p → q’ and ‘p’ are T, but ‘q’ is F? No. So the argument form is valid, and so are any arguments taking that form. It’s known as Modus Ponens.

There are many ways to translate your argument into logics because it doesn’t make sense: it never totally translates into any logic. Here’s another try:

1. O
2. P & ~I & A
3. ]R & ∀(x) (S(x) → T(x))] …idk

I’ve been telling you the argument isn’t valid, but technically it isn’t even an argument. It’s literally gibberish.

So, please. Tell us what logical validity is, and why your argument is such?

“It seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know.” - Socrates

[1]

Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen. Introduction to Logic, 12th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005. p. 336

“An argument is valid if it would be contradictory (impossible) to have the premises all true and conclusion false. In calling an argument valid, we aren’t saying whether the premises are true. We’re just saying that the conclusion follows from the premises – that if the premises were all true, then the conclusion also would have to be true…Our argument is valid because of its logical form – its arrangement of logical notions (like “if-then” and “not”) and content phrases (like “You overslept” and “You’re late”).” Emphasis mine. Gensler, Harry. Introduction to Logic. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2010. p. 3.

Perplexity:

Thus, the following is not only true but also valid:

Whatever is spiritual is indestructible.
The human soul is spiritual.
Therefore, the human soul is indestructible.

God bless,
jd

 

[Perplexity]

Perplexity:

Thus, the following is not only true but also valid:

Whatever is spiritual is indestructible.
The human soul is spiritual.
Therefore, the human soul is indestructible.

God bless,
jd

Sure, this runs on a different logic than propositional logic, it runs on 1st order:

Where S = Spiritual, I = Induscrtible, and h = Human Soul:

1. ∀(x) [S(x) → I(x)]
2. S(h)
3. I(h) (1), (2), UI, M.P.]

Before I could agree that (1) and (2) are true I’d have to understand what is meant by ‘spiritual’ though.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I don’t think this is about intelligence at all, it’s about education. You may very well be more intelligent than I am (to be honest, I haven’t seen any reason to think so though), but you simply don’t know what logical validity is. Also, I don’t think you have any business pretending to philosophize when you refuse to learn. I know many Christians more intelligent than I, it has nothing to do with this.

I’ve read that sloppy post several times now and not once do you define logical validity. So, how about answering the question? I understand this is probably an embarrassing process but that’s good (we all go through it). You need to learn:

“If the specific form of a given argument has any substitution instances whose premises are true and whose conclusion is false, then the given argument is invalid. We may define the term “invalid” as applied to the argument forms as follows: An argument form is invalid if and only if it has at least one substitution instance with true premises and a false conclusion…Hence an argument form is valid if and only if it has no substitution instances with true premises and a false conclusion. And since validity is a formal notion, an argument is valid if and only if the specific form of that argument is a valid argument form.” [1]

Argument forms are to particular sentences as algebraic formulas are to numbers:

Logical Form:

1. If p, then q
2. p
3. Therefore, q

(p and q stand for any propositions whatsoever)

Algebraic Formula:

(x) + 2 = 5

An Instance of this Logical Form:

1. If I’m hungry, then I should eat.
2. I’m hungry.
3. Therefore, I should eat.

(‘I’m hungry’ is substituted for ‘p’ and ‘I should eat’ for ‘q’, we could choose any statements we like to plug into the form)

Instance of this Algebraic Formula:

(3) + 2 = 5

So, when we look at arguments with specific sentences as their premises (like the example above), we try to look behind them to discern the form (or forumla) they’re being plugged into. Once we find that form, we can discern whether its premises can be true and its conclusion false at the same time. If that can occur, the argument is invalid. Otherwise, it’s valid. We discern this by use of truth-tables (there are many other methods). That is, we list all the possible truth-values the premises and conclusion can take in all their possible combinations, and if there is any instance where the premises are both T (or 1), and the conclusion is F (or 0), then it’s invalid.

So, we the truth-table for the above logical form is as follows:

p | q | p → q (if p then q)|

---

T | T | T |
T | F | F |
F | T | T |
F | F | T |
F | F | F |

‘p’, and ‘p → q’ are the premises and ‘q’ is the conclusion. Do you see any row above in which ‘p → q’ and ‘p’ are T, but ‘q’ is F? No. So the argument form is valid, and so are any arguments taking that form. It’s known as Modus Ponens.

There are many ways to translate your argument into logics because it doesn’t make sense: it never totally translates into any logic. Here’s another try:

1. O
2. P & ~I & A
3. ]R & ∀(x) (S(x) → T(x))] …idk

I’ve been telling you the argument isn’t valid, but technically it isn’t even an argument. It’s literally gibberish.

So, please. Tell us what logical validity is, and why your argument is such?

“It seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know.” - Socrates

[1]

Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen. Introduction to Logic, 12th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005. p. 336

“An argument is valid if it would be contradictory (impossible) to have the premises all true and conclusion false. In calling an argument valid, we aren’t saying whether the premises are true. We’re just saying that the conclusion follows from the premises – that if the premises were all true, then the conclusion also would have to be true…Our argument is valid because of its logical form – its arrangement of logical notions (like “if-then” and “not”) and content phrases (like “You overslept” and “You’re late”).” Emphasis mine. Gensler, Harry. Introduction to Logic. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2010. p. 3.

Can you now please explain why either the premise or the conclusion of my argument is invalid.

 

[Neildown]

This certainly seems like a sensible way to proceed - it would appear that the OP’s intention was to demonstrate the necessity of a first cause, in order to demonstrate, ultimately, if not in this thread, that this first cause was/is the Christian God, only because it “couldn’t be” unconscious forces or particles.

But we can’t know this - we are limited by what we know of reality. We can’t presume that logic supersedes physical reality, since our logic is derived from our observations of that reality. Scientific enquiry is continually revealing that physical reality is more extraordinary than we had previously imagined - why limit its capabilities?

That said, it’s quite possible that I’m talking through a hole in my head and that there actually is a being fitting the description of the God of Classical Theism. Since this being is apparently reluctant to reveal its existence beyond any reasonable doubt while we live, we might suppose we’ll know more after we die.

But it’s also perfectly possible and highly plausible that when we die, we will simply cease to exist as conscious entities - our individual mental processes will cease and our bodies will gradually decompose, the molecules going to make up other bodies in due course. We might know nothing after we die, since the entities “we” are will no longer exist.

It might be as well to suspend judgement until that time, and simply act in such a way as we see fit for the time being!

Exactly - I can tell you and I have very different opinions too, but really at this point in our knowledge of the universe/existence/time it just comes down to that. I’m simply of the opinion that there is a God based on my knowledge of science and other personal reasons. I’ve once experienced what I consider to be a true miracle and that also aids in my decision, but aside from that it’s really just a choice of what you believe in.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Before I could agree that (1) and (2) are true I’d have to understand what is meant by ‘spiritual’ though.

 

[JDaniel]

Sure, this runs on a different logic than propositional logic, it runs on 1st order:

Where S = Spiritual, I = Induscrtible, and h = Human Soul:

1. ∀(x) [S(x) → I(x)]
2. S(h)
3. I(h) (1), (2), UI, M.P.]

Before I could agree that (1) and (2) are true I’d have to understand what is meant by ‘spiritual’ though.

You can look up what “spiritual” means in the New Advent Encyclopedia. But, what follows is a very instructive and down to earth description:

Moreover, in addition to being the principle of chemical, vegetative, and sensitive activities, the soul of man is intellectual. By his intellectual soul, man thinks and wills. In this regard, man stands at the confines of eternity, having a spiritual form that as a form has something in common with material things and as a spirit has something in common with angels. Man is thus a kind of natural mediator between terrestrial and celestial things, a being that is both animal and rational. The soul is the principle of union between the material and spiritual realms in that metaphysical hierarchy of being extending from primary matter, as pure potency, to God, who is pure act. At any rate, the study of man’s soul gives us our best introduction to a knowledge of the higher grades of being. The soul of man is the limit of one universe and the beginning of another. All other creatures in the world contribute to man’s knowledge of himself. - The General Science of Nature, V.E. Smith, Chap 12, p 247.

 

[Perplexity]

Can you now please explain why either the premise or the conclusion of my argument is invalid.

Well, neither premises nor conclusions are valid or invalid in logic: they’re either true or false. Arguments (and the forms they take) are the only things able to be valid or invalid.

Your argument is invalid because its conclusion cannot be deduced from the premises by any rule of inference.

This is another method besides truth-tables for discerning the validity of an argument. It’s known as natural deduction. Essentially, if you can deduce the conclusion from the premises by more elementary, valid, argument forms, then the argument is valid. Take the following as an example:

1. A → B
2. B → C
3. C → D
4. ~D
5. A v E
6. E

If we used the truth-table method on this, we’d have a table with 32 rows…that’s way too tedious. But, having used the truth-table method on much smaller forms, we know of a handful of argument forms which are valid. These include (but aren’t limited to) the following:

I. Modus Ponens (abb. M.P.):

1. p → q
2. p
3. q

II. Hypothetical Syllogism (abb. H.S.):

1. p → q
2. q → r
3. p → r

III. Modus Tollens (abb. M.T.):

1. p → q
2. ~q
3. ~p

IV: Disjunctive Syllogism (abb. D.S.):

1. p v q
2. ~q
3. p

etc.

We can use simple argument forms like these to try and deduce the conclusion from the premises. That is, we take the premises of our argument and try and plug them into these simpler argument forms and see if they fit, if they do, then we can deduce appropriately.

So, from (1) and (2) of our example, we can deduce (6):

1. A → B
2. B → C
   6. A → C

by Hypothetical Syllogism. We’ve merely plugged our (1) and (2) into the Hypothetical Syllogism form which allows us to get (6).

From (6) and (3), by means of H.S., we can deduce (7):

1. A → C
2. C → D
   7. A → D

Using Modus Tollens, we can deduce from (7) and (4):

1. A → D
2. ~D
   8. ~A

Finally, by Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S.), we can deduce from (5) and (8), (9):

1. A v E
2. ~A
   9. E

As you can see, E was the original conclusion. Therefore, the argument is valid. So, if we were to plug (6)-(9) into the argument where they’d naturally belong we get:

1. A → B
2. B → C
3. C → D
   4*. A → C (1), (2), H.S.]
   5*. A → D (4), (3), H.S.]
4. ~D
5. ~A (5), (6), M.T.]
6. A v E
7. E (8), (7), D.S.]

This might look complicated but once you get the hang of it, it’s easy and fun. Anyways, when we apply this method to your argument, the conclusion cannot be deduced. That’s why I said it’s invalid.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well, neither premises nor conclusions are valid or invalid in logic: they’re either true or false. Arguments (and the forms they take) are the only things able to be valid or invalid.

Your argument is invalid because its conclusion cannot be deduced from the premises by any rule of inference.

This is another method besides truth-tables for discerning the validity of an argument. It’s known as natural deduction. Essentially, if you can deduce the conclusion from the premises by more elementary, valid, argument forms, then the argument is valid. Take the following as an example:

1. A → B
2. B → C
3. C → D
4. ~D
5. A v E
6. E

If we used the truth-table method on this, we’d have a table with 32 rows…that’s way too tedious. But, having used the truth-table method on much smaller forms, we know of a handful of argument forms which are valid. These include (but aren’t limited to) the following:

I. Modus Ponens (abb. M.P.):

1. p → q
2. p
3. q

II. Hypothetical Syllogism (abb. H.S.):

1. p → q
2. q → r
3. p → r

III. Modus Tollens (abb. M.T.):

1. p → q
2. ~q
3. ~p

IV: Disjunctive Syllogism (abb. D.S.):

1. p v q
2. ~q
3. p

etc.

We can use simple argument forms like these to try and deduce the conclusion from the premises:

From (1) and (2) of our example, we can deduce:

1. A → B
2. B → C
   6. A → C

by Hypothetical Syllogism, note the above is simply an instance of the Hypothetical Syllogism form.

From (6) and (3), by means of H.S., we can deduce (7):

1. A → C
2. C → D
   7. A → D

Using Modus Tollens, we can deduce from (7) and (4):

1. A → D
2. ~D
   8. ~A

Finally, by Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S.), we can deduce from (5) and (8), (9):

1. A v E
2. ~A
   9. E

As you can see, E was the original conclusion. Therefore, the argument is valid. So, if we were to plug (6)-(9) into the argument where they’d naturally belong we get:

1. A → B
2. B → C
3. C → D
   4*. A → C (1), (2), H.S.]
   5*. A → D (4), (3), H.S.]
4. ~D
5. ~A (5), (6), M.T.]
6. A v E
7. E (8), (7), D.S.]

This might look complicated but once you get the hang of it, it’s easy and fun. Anyways, when we apply this method to your argument, the conclusion cannot be deduced. That’s why I said it’s invalid.

Now explain why the conclusion of my argument does not follow logically from the premise.

 

[Nate13]

So why isn’t “potential” merely a concept in the same sense as time?

Well I think this is where we come around circle to where we started. How can you have potential if nothing exists? That was what the OP was proposing is that you can’t have potential unless you have some sort of actuality to have potential. I think the conclusion that really should be made is that there always existed an actuality with potential. If you just claim an actuality, then that begs the question as to how anything could ever change as you pointed out. Therefore in order to have a timeless actuality you must also have a timeless potential. I think what we have really shown is that you can’t have one without the other.

This puts us right back to my point where you have to decide whether you believe this timeless actual reality with potential is intelligent or not.

 

[Perplexity]

Now explain why the conclusion of my argument does not follow logically from the premise.

MM2’s Argument:

1. Out of nothing comes nothing.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Deep Sea Fishing for a Form:

S = Some existent

~C = Not come (causally) from nothing

P = The first statement of (2) ending before ‘and’

~I = ‘potentiality cannot infinitely precede actuality’

G = the thing you refer to in (3)

Note, I just cut out the last sentence of (2): I’m treating it as an explanation/defense of (2).

Symbolized Argument:

1. ∀(x) [S(x) → ~C(x)]
2. P & ~I
3. G

This symbolized form is an instance of a more general form:

Form:

1. ∀(x) [P(x) → ~Q(x)]
2. S & ~R
3. F

Here, P, ~Q, S, ~R and F stand for any propositions whatsoever, whereas the letters in the Symbolized Argument stood for the specific statements of MM2’s argument.

I can prove that the Form is invalid if I can find substitutions for (1)-(3) such that (1) and (2) are true, but (3) is false:

Refutation by Analogy:

1. ∀(x) [T(x) → ~W(x)]
2. S & ~R
3. G

^ This reads as follows:

1. Given any (x), if (x) is a tree, then (x) is not made of wood.
2. Texas is the capital of Singapore and I can’t read.
3. Therefore, George Washington was the first president of the U.S.A.

(1)-(2) are true while (3) is false. Therefore, the form is invalid, therefore so are the arguments which take that form including your original.

Recommended Reformulation:

1. ∀(x) [S(x) → ~C(x)]
2. S(p)
3. ~C(p)
4. ~C(p) → A
5. A → G
6. G

^ This reads as follows:

1. For any (x), if (x) is something, then (x) doesn’t come (causally) from nothing.
2. Potentiality is something.
3. Therefore, potentiality doesn’t come (causally) from nothing.
4. If potentiality doesn’t come (causally) from nothing, then there is an actuality which transcends all potential states.
5. If there is an actuality which transcends all potential states, then God exists.
6. Therefore God exists.

^ this is perfectly valid, I still find a few premises really vague but that’d be your job to explain what you have in mind. (idk, maybe I’ve misunderstood and these rephrased premises misrepresent you)

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Well I think this is where we come around circle to where we started. How can you have potential if nothing exists? That was what the OP was proposing is that you can’t have potential unless you have some sort of actuality to have potential. I think the conclusion that really should be made is that there always existed an actuality with potential. If you just claim an actuality, then that begs the question as to how anything could ever change as you pointed out. Therefore in order to have a timeless actuality you must also have a timeless potential. I think what we have really shown is that you can’t have one without the other.

This puts us right back to my point where you have to decide whether you believe this timeless actual reality with potential is intelligent or not.

Consider this line of reasoning:

If there were a situation in which there was no existence, then all situations would lack existence.
Existence exists.
Therefore this is a situation which includes existence.
Therefore not all situations lack existence.
Therefore there are no situations which lack existence.

If you read the OP’s post, you will realize that this is all his argument is saying. He says that since nothing can come from nothing, it is impossible for there to ever have been nothing and existence must have always existed. Actuality and potentiality just confuse the issue; its basically a “chicken or the egg” problem and he has chosen the chicken. You could equally change his argument to “all actuality is dependent on potentiality, therefore there exists a timeless potentiality.” The problem with the conclusion in the second premise that if a lack of existence is impossible (i.e. there never existed a state of nothing) then an infinite procession of potentiality-actuality cycles is also possible.

 

[Nate13]

Consider this line of reasoning:

If there were a situation in which there was no existence, then all situations would lack existence.
Existence exists.
Therefore this is a situation which includes existence.
Therefore not all situations lack existence.
Therefore there are no situations which lack existence.

If you read the OP’s post, you will realize that this is all his argument is saying. He says that since nothing can come from nothing, it is impossible for there to ever have been nothing and existence must have always existed. Actuality and potentiality just confuse the issue; its basically a “chicken or the egg” problem and he has chosen the chicken. You could equally change his argument to “all actuality is dependent on potentiality, therefore there exists a timeless potentiality.” The problem with the conclusion in the second premise that if a lack of existence is impossible (i.e. there never existed a state of nothing) then an infinite procession of potentiality-actuality cycles is also possible.

I agreed with in that its stupid to pick the egg or the chicken. Whether it started with an egg with the potential to become a chicken, or a chicken with the potential to become an egg is irrelevant. My point was that you can’t separate actuality and potentiality. They are mutually inclusive. I completely agree that an eternal procession of potentiality-actuality cycles is the only conclusion that can be reached unless it can be shown that nothing can come from nothing. If God exists and created the Universe that is not nothing coming from nothing. That is everything coming from God, which is what I think the OP was trying to lean towards showing. The only question is what form do these cycles take? I think the problem with the original argument is that it is so generalized that it doesn’t really mean much.

 

[Nimeniton]

1. Out of nothing comes nothing.

Fair enough
MindOverMatter2;8633131:

1. 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.

.

The whole point of potentiality is that it is not actual. Potentiality does not cause actuality nor is it dependent on it. Potentiality is not a thing but the speculation of the human mind. It is how the future is anticipated. Actuality is the only possible outcome from previous actual causes. It is never dependent on potentiality. To give an example. Two people at the start of the second world war will see potentials. One potential is that Germany will win and the other potential is that it will lose. Neither opinion caused the actuality of Germany’s loss. To say that potentiality is dependent on actuality to become a real thing is therefore a nonsense. There is no cause and effect relationship between potentiality and actuality. This second premise is false

1. 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.

As the second premise is false the third premise (conclusion ) fails.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The whole point of potentiality is that it is not actual.

yep

Potentiality does not cause actuality

yep

nor is it dependent on it.

There can be no such thing as a potential being, reality, or state, without an actual reality, since out of nothing comes nothing. This is only to say that the possibility of an event is dependent upon actual reality. Therefore the possibility of some new being or state becoming actual is dependent on that which is already a reality or actuality.

Potentiality is not a thing but the speculation of the human mind.

Its neither an actual thing or speculation. To speak of a potential being or state is not to speak of the particular contents of possible events, but rather it is to identify the fact that there are real or actual states or beings that at some point did not exist, or was not actual. For example every thought you have had was at some point only a potential thought. At some point in the past your self-awareness did not exist, but only had a potentiality to exist. I am not saying potential things are real: quite the opposite.

Actuality is the only possible outcome from previous actual causes.

That which is potentially real is dependent on real things in-order to become actually real. There is nothing controversial about this statement if you accept the first premise. Things don’t become real by themselves.

yes

It is never dependent on potentiality.

I never said actuality is dependent on potentiality for its existence

To give an example. Two people at the start of the second world war will see potentials. One potential is that Germany will win and the other potential is that it will lose. Neither opinion caused the actuality of Germany’s loss. To say that potentiality is dependent on actuality to become a real thing is therefore a nonsense.

I am sorry, but what you have said here is nonsense and a straw-man. Nobody has argued that potentiality causes the outcome of events. But rather i have argued that in-order for a possibility to become an actual reality, you need actual reality to bring that possibility into being, since out of nothing comes nothing.

There is no cause and effect relationship between potentiality and actuality. This second premise is false

You have either failed to understand the second premise or you simply don’t want to understand. Either way, your conclusion is false.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing.
2. In order for a potential being or state to become actual we require an actual reality to make it a reality. Otherwise it will remain as nothing or just a possibility. In other words, anything which begins to exist needs a cause.
3. Anything that was at one point only potentially real cannot be the sufficient cause of its own actual reality
4. Therefore there has to be an actual reality that was not a potential being (was not nothing, with only the possibility of being real) in-order to account for the existence of all contingent beings. Thus a necessary being must ontological precede all potentiality and therefore has always existed out side the chain of potentiality as a first cause.

This is not difficult to understand.

 

[CatSci]

Its funny to me that the only way an atheist or philosopher can challenge the argument is by either saying that perhaps time is an illusion or by saying that perhaps a thing can come out of nothing by itself.

They could argue that the universe has existed at every point in time, that there was never a point in time that the universe did not exist (even tho past time is finite).

There has never been nothing. The only place nothing can exist is nowhere.

At every point in time, there is something somewhere.