Frank Schnabel, Monism & The Argument For Pure-Existence

[MindOverMatter]

Frank Schnabel; I didn’t get a chance to respond to you because the OA thread got shut down. This is a response to your charge of monism, which i do not believe is implied by my arguement at any point.

I made an argument (which is below) that claimed to show that Ultimate-Existence is actually Pure Existence, from which all of physical reality is generated. This means that Existence, in its simplest nature, has no parts or dimensions. It’s an argument from necessity and “hierarchy”(*Its an Argument made according to the principle of **dominance ***rather then causality), and for this reason I believe it is a more effective argument then the Kalam-Cosmological argument; for it is impervious to arguments such as infinite regresses and Infinite Universes. The reason being is that, physical reality, no matter how many parts it has, is made up of “potential reality” and “dimensions”. This being the case, they cannot be said to be Ultimate and is therefore secondary to Ultimate-Being. Hence; cannot be synonymous with Ultimate-Being.

The Argument also has a secondary effect, and that is to show that Pure-Existence is ultimately uncaused by its nature; so far as the cause of it is found in the fact of its simple nature; and that is to Exist. Since Pure Existence (the ground of being) is too simple and cannot naturally be caused by anything, it must necessarily have the power in itself to eternally cause things. Therefore, since all natural explanations are powerless in this event, it follows that the best explanation is a personal will of some kind that eternally generates and permeates all beings. .

I have reformulated the arguement below…

The Argument For Pure Existence

The greatest being is “Pure Existence”.

My argument goes like this……………

Anything that has dimensions of any kind, whether it be space/time or energy, can only have dimensions and forms because they exist, as in, they do not exist just because they are dimensions and forms; they must first exist in order to have those things. Therefore forms and dimensions cannot be, them selves’, necessary beings, for that would mean that they would necessarily transcend Existence, which is absurd. This leaves one crucial point; in order for any dimension to exist, there must first be such a thing as something that is “ultimate and eternal”, which, by its nature transcends all dimensional beings and does not rely on anything else to exist. In other-words; Existence transcends Physical beings.

Therefore, although Existence instantaneously causes and permeates being (as in, necessarily accompanies all existing dimensions as the very ground of their being at all times), it is clear to me that Existence is the only necessary being “hierarchically”, and cannot logically be made synonymous with dimensions and forms. Said another way; Existence cannot be that which is contingent. Given these facts; Pure-Existence is a being in its own right, wholly apart from any dimension or potential, and is timeless. It is the Ultimate-Reality. And as I said at the start, it is “Pure Existence”, for it is without form and dimension.

Formulated & written by M.A.J. Linton.

 

[Dameedna]

That sounds very buddhist like

 

[MindOverMatter]

That sounds very buddhist like

I suppose that we have similar beliefs in the sense that all beings are united by one principle called Pure Existence or “Pure Being”. However; we differ in one vital respect. Buddists tend to indentify themselves with pure being. But I do not.
Although it is true that Pure-Being is everywhere and permeates everything that exists (and has to in order for any kind of dimension to exist), dimensional beings themselves are not identical with Pure-Being and cannot possibly be. This can sound like pantheism; but it is not. Any dimension that exists, is created not out of any part of existence (for Existence has no parts), but rather is generated by the Eternal presence and creativity of Pure Being. All dimensional beings are secondary to Ultimate Reality, and therefore are not Ultimate beings; but rather, they “participate” in being so far as they reflect the glory of being. That is why, in the Bible it dipicts God as saying that creation is good; and that is because it reflects the glory of Good. Pure-Existence is what I mean by the term “Ground of all Being”.

Let me give you an imperfect but important analogy. Think of Ultimate Existence as a vast deep sea. In the Sea are all kinds of life forms that exist as a result of the Sea being there. The life forms themselves have being, but are dependent on the sea in order to have being. The sea permeates their being, and with out it they would cease to be. The creatures have the sea in them, the sea is in their being and it is by the Sea that they exist; but it would be an easy mistake to identify the sea with the creatures themselves. The “Sea” is Being in its own right and would continue to be regardless of whether or not there was ever any creatures, parts, or numbers. The idea that we are all God, is false. But the idea that God is everywhere at all times is absolutely true.

There are elements of truth in all religions; but I believe there is only one religion that has the fullness of truth. When Buddhist speak of having a union with the one, they are correct that in theory we can be united with the Ultimate-Reality of things, but they make the mistake of identifying themselves as one of the various parts that make up the One or the whole. This is a mistake. It is true that we are one with the “Universe”, but the Universe itself is not Pure Being since it has dimensions that are reliant upon being in order to be and so are not necessary beings (look to the original post to see why I make this claim). But Pure-Being transcends all dimensions and numbers and so is with out parts and cannot be caused. It is Eternal and Simple, the Alpha and the Omega. It is Perfection. It is “I AM”.

God please correct me if I teach falsehood.

 

[yppop]

MindOverMatter
Sorry for not answering your post sooner, but I just joined a month ago and have been surfing this web site to see where I might best make a contribution. I did contribute four posts to the “What came before the big bang” thread’, but didn’t get the response I expected even though I purposely made them (I thought) provocative. I happened upon this thread and read your posts very carefully and realized that what you are saying is the same thing I am saying in my posts. Instead of “Pure Existence”, I refer to the “Infinite Nothingness” as the ground of reality.

By arguing that the “space” that defines the finite dimensions of the universe is discrete and allowing the Infinite Nothingness to fill the gaps in the discrete space, we create a duality structure that allows for the spiritual to permeate the physical (Teilhard’s within and without argument). With this model of dual reality it is possible to create answers for many questions (at least to my own satisfaction) left unanswered by modern science, ancient philosophy, and the Christian religion.

Hope you find the commonality in our basic premises. I believe we are on the same wavelength.

Yppop

 

[MindOverMatter]

By arguing that the “space” that defines the finite dimensions of the universe is discrete and allowing the Infinite Nothingness to fill the gaps in the discrete space, we create a duality structure that allows for the spiritual to permeate the physical (Teilhard’s within and without argument). With this model of dual reality it is possible to create answers for many questions (at least to my own satisfaction) left unanswered by modern science, ancient philosophy, and the Christian religion.

Sorry for taken so long to answer your post.
Thanks for the post. But I have two problems with your post.

The main problem is that you use common concepts that are known to everyone, and then you recreate the meaning; which is fine, but you must explain what you mean. Your use of language unfortunately creates confusion where there need not be.

(Problem Number 1.) By speaking about infinite nothingness, one can interpret this as a contradiction in terms. Traditionally speaking, nothing means **non-being **or non-existence. There is no such thing as an infinite non-being or nothingness; as in, the word cannot possibly be applied to beings that exist. In other words, it cannot be applied to God with out causing confusion, and at worse, committing a logical fallacy. However, you can use the term in a relative sense when speaking about physicality, if by nothingness you mean an infinte-being with out physical parts. But you must explain what you mean, especially when you change the meaning or context in which you use the word. The whole reason this thread was created is because people in our day and age assume that when one is speaking about “existence”, one is talking about the universe and nothing else. This is because people have bought in to the naturalistic fallacy the plagues the sciences. Scientists that have a naturalist agenda have hijacked traditional philosophical language, and they have changed the meaning. That’s why Theists on this forum spend most of the time trying to correct the fallacious notion that quantum particles pop out of nothing. Logically speaking this is impossible; but on closer inspection you will find out that Scientists mean something totally different to what we logically conceive as “nothing”. I made this thread because I wanted to explain to Frank what it is that I mean by the term “Existence”.

(Problem Number 2.) Duality, in the traditional sense, can be taken to mean two apposing natures or forces. Also, I don’t think that’s a good term to use when speaking about God and creation, because it sounds as if they both exist by there own necessity. The universe on the other had cannot exist outside of Gods being; for to potentially exist, or to exist as a physical being, is to participate in “Existence”. Thus God necessarily permeates all beings that exist.

(Teilhard’s within and without argument).
Yppop

I have never read Teilhard’s work, but i have heard of him and i am interested. Perhaps you can direct me to a site that specailises in his work. I would buy his work, but im poor and cannot afford it.

Thanks.I would be most happy for your reply. Peace.

 

[yppop]

MOM

Thanks for continuing the discussion. Your points are well taken. “Nothing is confusing”, on the other hand, “nothing matters”, but I contend “nothing exists”. Three nice little paradoxes. That word “nothing” can play games with one’s mind. That is why I use the word “Nothingness”. I assumed that as a frequent contributor you may have read my posts in the “What came before the Big Bang” thread: posts 45, 72, 77, 83. You will see that what I call Infinite Nothingness is not unlike what you call Pure Existence. In the “cute” syllogism” that I refer to in previous posts, replacing nothingness with “existence” or “being” would make the premise a tautology; “nothingness exists” is certainly not a tautology. I use nothingness in the sense of a “plenum”, a word that, to several science writers that I could cite, means space without matter, but with a substantive existence. Plenums include: false vacuums, the ether, a variety of “fields”, and the only thing we can imagine the spirit to be.

You also expressed a problem with my use of “duality”. By the traditional sense I take it you are referring to “dualism”, the proposition that reality consists of two independent and opposing dimensions: the material and the spiritual. I use the term duality in contradistinction to the word materialism as I describe when I wrote in post(4) of this thread: “by arguing that the “space” that defines the finite dimensions of the universe is discrete and allowing the Infinite Nothingness to fill the gaps in the discrete space, we create a duality structure that allows for the spiritual to permeate the physical (Teilhard’s within and without argument).
With this model of dual reality it is possible to create answers for many questions (at least to my own satisfaction) left unanswered by modern science, ancient philosophy, and the Christian religion."

I am a bit disconcerted that such an audacious statement didn’t induce perplexed disbelief. Had I read such a statement, I would have wanted to know what questions can be answered simply by assuming that the space that defines the universe is discrete. I hope we can continue this discussion.

You can get a sense of Teilhard’s seminal work, The Phenomenon of Man, by googling him. Wikepedia does a credible job of presenting his main themes. I included my favorite quote by him in post (31) of the “Concepts That Lead to God” thread.

Sorry to hear that you are poor, I was born in 1933 and understand what it means to be poor. I will remember you in my prayers. God has been good to me for the last fifty-some years.

Thank you for your patience.

YPPOP​