Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

[Samuel_Maynes]

The following Cosmological Argument is excerpted from my draft book (see Preview at www.religiouspluralism.ca). No less a critic than Immanuel Kant said that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that if something exists, then something exists necessarily. In other words, not all things can be contingent, but there must be some necessary being.

Then, either there is a First Cause, which is God transcendent; or else the universe is eternally recreating itself, which is God immanent. God may be either the one or the other, or some combination of both. If it is a combination, then all three explanations may be true in different respects. To preserve systematic unity, each explanatory factor might be an expression of One God manifest in three dimensions or personae: God the prime creator, God the supreme being, and God the ultimate unconditioned (limitless) source/destiny of all that is.

If this Trinity is the necessary and sufficient cause of itself, then this threefold expression of divinity must be inseparably united, with the three personae existing all at once and simultaneously, in order to complete the circle of creation out of nothing but the idea of each other, and reason itself.

Thus there may be a Causal Loop, in which case the beginning is also the ending, and the universe may be periodically creating itself. Causal loops are impossible if time is a linear sequence of cause and effect stretching eternally into the past, and infinitely into the future. However, a loop may be possible if time has a beginning from nothing at some point in the past, and an ending in “nothing” at some point in the future. Creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) – the Deity is originally an existential potential and his Universe becomes eventually an experiential actual.

Based on observations of the expanding universe and other evidence, the Big Bang theory suggests that about 14 billion years ago the universe exploded into existence out of an infinitesimal singularity, and this constitutes the beginning of the universe, i.e. matter, energy, space, time, and all physical laws out of nothing. Now, if entropy eventually reduces the universe to “undifferentiated sameness, which is indistinguishable from nothingness” (Eddington), then the destiny of the universe may be virtually the same as its beginning.

Therefore, from the universe point of view, the explanation of reality may be a causal loop which creates itself periodically as some sort of systematic unity or “gestalt” of energy and consciousness, with the pinnacle of this “creation” amounting to a Universe Allsoul or Supreme Being, who is God (or a personification of God).

It has been said that “nothing comes from nothing,” but the three persons of the Trinity apparently solve this metaphysical problem by sharing the Absolute in a united construct of mutual support, depending only on the notion of each other and the ‘force’ of pure and practical reason. In abstract terms, these three absolutes of creation may be called the Deity Absolute, the Universe Absolute Supreme Being, and the Unconditioned Absolute Spirit of Consummation.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thomas Aquinas wrote a rather long essay entitled Ente et Essentia, Existence and Essence. In the essay he has a " proof " for the existence of God that isn’t often seen. Most people interested in God’s existence are familiar with his Five Ways, but not many are familiar with his argument based on the act of existence.

First, the preamble to the argument.

1. Whatever is not of the understood content of an essence or quality is something which comes from without and makes a composition with the essence, because no essence can be understood without the things which are parts of it. Now, every essence or quiddity can be understood without anything being understood about its existence. For I can understand what a man is, or what a phoenix is, and yet not know whether they have existence in the real world. It is clear, therefore, that existence is other than essence or quiddity, unless perhaps there exists a thing whose quiddity is its existence.
2. And there can be but one such thing, the First Thing, because it is impossible to plurify a thing except: (1) by the addition of some difference, as the nature of the genus is multiplied in its species, or (2) by the reception of a form into diverse matters, as the nature of the species is multiplied in diverse individuals, or (3) by this: that one is absolute and the other is received into something; for example, if there were a separated heat, it would by virtue of its very separation be other than heat which is not separated. Now, if we posit a thing which is existence alone, such that this existence is subsistent, this existence will not receive the addition of a difference because it would no longer be existence alone, but existence plus some form. And much less will it receive the addition of matter because it would no longer be a subsistent existence, but a material existence. Whence it remains that such a thing, which is its own existence, cannot be but one.
3. Whence it is necessary, that in every thing other than this one its existence be other than its quiddity, or its nature, or its form. Whence it is necessary that existence in the intelligences be something besides the form, and this is why it was said that an intelligence is form and existence

The argument.

1. Now, whatever belongs to a thing is either caused by the principles of its nature, as the ability to laugh in man, or comes to it from some extrinsic principle, as light in the air from the influence of the sun. But it cannot be that the existence of a thing is caused by the form or quiddity of that thing ─ I say caused as by an efficient cause ─ because then something would be its own cause, and would bring itself into existence, which is impossible. It is therefore necessary that every such thing, the existence of which is other than its nature, have its existence from some other thing. And because every thing which exists by virtue of another is led back, as to its first cause, to that which exists by virtue of itself, it is necessary that there be some thing which is the cause of the existence of all things because it is existence alone. Otherwise, there would be an infinite regress among causes, since every thing which is not existence alone has a cause of its existence, as has been said. It is clear, therefore, that an intelligence is form and existence, and that it has existence from the First Being, which is existence alone. And this is the First Cause, which is God.

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEnte&Essentia.htm

The Trinity cannot be inferred from a philosophical analysis of the universe. That is a matter of Divine Revelation. But of course we can see reflections of the Trinity in the universe of material things, but that is not " proof. "

Thomas’ proof here does not depend on any particular scientific theory. Nor do his more well known Five Ways.

Linus2nd

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

It is clear, therefore, that an intelligence is form and existence, and that it has existence from the First Being, which is existence alone. And this is the First Cause, which is God.

Linus… But where did the “First Being” come from? What is the origin of the “First Cause?” If the Creator is self-existent, then He must have created Himself (or be creating Himself periodically).

In order to make sense of this, I am merely suggesting that the Trinity provides a more intellectually satisfying answer to the question of who created God. As C. S. Lewis might have put it, there never was a “time” when the Deity Absolute Creator was not the Father of the Son, and with him, coordinate of their Holy Spirit. Thus, the three divine persons are all past-eternal, and the Trinity may be eternally creating itself out of nothing but the rational notion of each other and the ‘force’ of reason itself.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus… But where did the “First Being” come from? What is the origin of the “First Cause?” If the Creator is self-existent, then He must have created Himself (or be creating Himself periodically).

In order to make sense of this, I am merely suggesting that the Trinity provides a more intellectually satisfying answer to the question of who created God. As C. S. Lewis might have put it, there never was a “time” when the Deity Absolute Creator was not the Father of the Son, and with him, coordinate of their Holy Spirit. Thus, the three divine persons are all past-eternal, and the Trinity may be eternally creating itself out of nothing but the rational notion of each other and the ‘force’ of reason itself.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

God always existed. And C.S. Lewis had no doubt about that. He was neither Pantheist nor a Panantheist. Since God always existed he is the cause of the existence of everything else. One cannot reason to the Trinity of Christianity, that is a matter of Divine Revelation. I’m sure you are aware of how the Catholic Church explains that Doctrine.

Linus2nd

 

[empther]

Hard to believe what I’m reading…

Linus… But where did the “First Being” come from? What is the origin of the “First Cause?” If the Creator is self-existent, then He must have created Himself (or be creating Himself periodically).

In order to make sense of this, I am merely suggesting that the Trinity provides a more intellectually satisfying answer to the question of who created God. As C. S. Lewis might have put it, there never was a “time” when the Deity Absolute Creator was not the Father of the Son, and with him, coordinate of their Holy Spirit. Thus, the three divine persons are all past-eternal, and the Trinity may be eternally creating itself out of nothing but the rational notion of each other and the ‘force’ of reason itself.

This was written by somebody who’s selling a philosophical/cosmological book. :bigyikes:

The nuns taught us more from the Baltimore Catechism when we were in the third grade.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hard to believe what I’m reading…

This was written by somebody who’s selling a philosophical/cosmological book. :bigyikes:

The nuns taught us more from the Baltimore Catechism when we were in the third grade.

Yes, but he is very polite about it. Not at all like the drum beating, cymbal rattling perveyors of modern cosmology.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Then, either there is a First Cause, which is God transcendent; or else the universe is eternally recreating itself, which is God immanent. God may be either the one or the other, or some combination of both. If it is a combination, then all three explanations may be true in different respects. To preserve systematic unity, each explanatory factor might be an expression of One God manifest in three dimensions or personae: God the prime creator, God the supreme being, and God the ultimate unconditioned (limitless) source/destiny of all that is.

If this Trinity is the necessary and sufficient cause of itself, then this threefold expression of divinity must be inseparably united, with the three personae existing all at once and simultaneously, in order to complete the circle of creation out of nothing but the idea of each other, and reason itself.

You look like a nice retired guy (an NRG ) in your photo, and you may not realize that lots of NRGs invent new religions. Usually the new religion is a rehash of the one the NRG is most familiar with. Why else use the word God to mean “any and every possible first cause”? Why use the word Trinity to mean nothing like its normal definition? If your aim is some kind of synthesis of world religions, you’ve now given all non-Christians the impression you’re trying to push Jesus on them, and all Christians the impression you’re fudging wildly. Hopefully you see what I mean.

But by strange coincidence your new religion is precisely like one invented by an NRG who got himself banned a while back, right down to the same misunderstanding of the big bang, the same gesture to entropy, the same energy + consciousness thing, the same idea of using a website to trial a book.

Not saying you’re him or anything, just that you got pipped to the post, there’s already another self-published book out there on the same idea (which btw bombed).

Your new religion is infringing that guy’s copyright.

 

[empther]

But by strange coincidence your new religion is precisely like one invented by an NRG who got himself banned a while back, right down to the same misunderstanding of the big bang, the same gesture to entropy, the same energy + consciousness thing, the same idea of using a website to trial a book.

Not saying you’re him or anything, just that you got pipped to the post, there’s already another self-published book out there on the same idea (which btw bombed).

This new religion isn’t exactly new.

Back in the 1920s, Bishop Sheen was a young priest studying in England. A philosopher wrote a bestselling book in which he claimed God was an evolving God. The King of England even gave him a medal for this travesty.
Young Father Sheen went to see this guy and explained why God could not change. The man said, “I never thought of it that way.”
Sheen asked if he had ever read the works of Aquinas?
The man answered, “No, and I don’t think I will. You become known in the world not through truth but through novelty, and my theory is novel.”

:bigyikes: :banghead: :hey_bud: :takethat: