To make that an argument, you’d have to prove that a thing must have the properties called nature, act and power.If a nature’s existence or act is not necessary then it follows necessarily that the reason for its existence is not in its own nature or act and therefore does not exist by its own power. This means it is a dependent being - dependent on another being for its existence. If there is no necessary being then there is no ontological basis for its existence.
A thing either has the reason for its existence in its self or in another being because a thing cannot cause itself to exist from a state of nothing or potentiality. Thus a being is either contingent upon the power of another being or it exists necessarily.To make that an argument, you’d have to prove that a thing must have the properties called nature, act and power.
But surely they’re unnecessary complications, and even without them there are many issues with the notion of necessary existence, some of which are summarized here - philosophy.lander.edu/intro/necessity.shtml
Things exist but could have failed to exist, including the universe.
If a thing’s existence is separate from its nature as you claim, then a thing could possess a nature but not exist. Existentialism is one school which disagrees - existence precedes essence, without existence there’s no thing to possess a nature.A thing either has the reason for its existence in its self or in another being because a thing cannot cause itself to exist from a state of nothing or potentiality. Thus a being is either contingent upon the power of another being or it exists necessarily.
If a being can fail to exist then its existence is not ontologically necessary. It therefore follows that the source of its being - the thing or power that is making it a real being - is not its own nature (*Nature meaning what it actually is, its whatness *) because a nature cannot cause itself to exist from nothing. It does not exist by its own power or nature. Whereas If the act of existing was identical to its nature it would always exist because it would be its nature to exist.
There must be a being that exists necessarily in order to explain the existence of beings that are not necessary.
I claimed that a natures existence is being caused by something else. Its nature is not the cause.If a thing’s existence is separate from its nature as you claim, then a thing could possess a nature but not exist.
Firstly, let me just say that i hold to the position that a nature either has the reason for its existence in its own nature (its nature simply exists because of what it is) or its existence is generated or caused by another being. The former means that it exists necessarily, the latter means that it is dependent or contingent on another being. These are the only two options because a potential being or nature cannot cause itself into existence.Existentialism is one school which disagrees - existence precedes essence, without existence there’s no thing to possess a nature.
I don’t know what you mean by “a natures existence”. Take the simplest atom, one of hydrogen, which is an electron bound to a proton. The proton, in turn, is three bound quarks. Where does nature of hydrogen atom exist? It’s not in the electron or any of the quarks, they’re far too small to contain a list of all the properties of everything that can be made from them. So does the nature exist supernaturally? Where is this nature?I claimed that a natures existence is being caused by something else. Its nature is not the cause.
Firstly, let me just say that i hold to the position that a nature either has the reason for its existence in its own nature (its nature simply exists because of what it is) or its existence is generated or caused by another being. The former means that it exists necessarily, the latter means that it is dependent or contingent on another being. These are the only two options because a potential being or nature cannot cause itself into existence.
Secondly an atom is the nature of an atom, that is what i understand to be existing. How it exists is another question. This is what i do know; the fact that an atom exists, and is not necessary, logically and ontologically entails that the nature of an atom and whatever it is comprised of has been given existence; it is dependent on another being for its reality and this is to say that its nature is not the source of its reality. We can know this to be true once we understand that a nature, whatever it may be, cannot cause itself into existence from nothing. Therefore a being is either eternal according to its “nature” or contingent on another being.
I argue in the OP that unnecessary beings do actually exist which necessarily means that contingent beings exist which in turn necessitates the existence of a necessary being because otherwise there would be nothing.
If natures don’t exist outside people’s heads then people’s heads don’t exist…I don’t know what you mean by “a natures existence”. Take the simplest atom, one of hydrogen, which is an electron bound to a proton. The proton, in turn, is three bound quarks. Where does nature of hydrogen atom exist? It’s not in the electron or any of the quarks, they’re far too small to contain a list of all the properties of everything that can be made from them. So does the nature exist supernaturally? Where is this nature?
I’d suggest that natures are categories, abstractions by which some philosophers tried to understand the world. They don’t exist outside of people’s heads. An atom is just a name we give to a configuration of certain kinds of things. We may abstract that by talking of forms, and by saying a particular form confers a particular nature. Natures then don’t have an existence outside of forms, outside the configurations of things.
If you claim otherwise, you’ll need to prove how and where natures exist. And of course if you say in the mind of God then your OP is circular, so be careful.
Is a quark a nature?Sorry Mr Forum Elder, didn’t realize philosophical debate on CAF is now confined to tweeting unsupported opinions.
By your definition I don’t know, but according to Aristotle’s definition, I wouldn’t think so.Is a quark a nature?
A quark has a nature. I’m not saying anything that isn’t self evident.By your definition I don’t know.
It seems to me what you are actually saying is that Aristotelian natures are the only possible natures, which is not true (e.g. see Democritus.)You are saying natures don’t exist. Then nothing exists.
I’m am talking about what things are essentially. Even if you said that what we think are natures are not and instead are made up of quarks, we are still talking about a nature.It seems to me what you are actually saying is that Aristotelian natures are the only possible natures, which is not true (e.g. see Democritus.)