Free agent is not contingent

[STT]

Of course, I agree. Now, I assume thus we both think that there had to be an actualized element in any given entity for it to be existent in more than just a conceptual manner. As such, something which is nothing but potentiality and not actuality cannot be existent. Thus, prime matter, being pure potentiality, cannot be existent.

Pure matter is actualized in existence.

 

[quaestio45]

Prime matter is actualized in existence.

Well then you betray the definition of prime matter, which is that entity which holds absolute potentiality and zero actuality.

 

[STT]

Well then you betray the definition of prime matter, which is that entity which holds absolute potentiality and zero actuality.

Then definition has to change.

 

[quaestio45]

Then definition has to change.

Then we are no longer describing pure potentiality, which is exactly the point I am attempting to base my argument around. As I stated here:

to be noncontingent, we can agree, means that the keys to existing are within your nature and not anothers actions. Now, contrary to what Aristotle believed, prime matter or pure potentiality is nonbeing by definition. It is that which holds no actuality, but actuality is any aspect of attained existence. As such, prime matter is nonbeing. Why is that important? Because that fundementally means that actuality is one for one the exact same as existence. So any being which is not pure in actuality and therefore can be reduced to potentiality cannot be eternal through their own nature as that would require ever lasting being which is beginningless, and endless. But their being can have beginning, as it is not pure act and thus able to be caused, and it can have an end, as whatever act it does have can be reduced to potentiality oncemore. Thus, a being must be complete in being to be noncontingent.

Second, there is more to existence then simply the fact that one exists. There is the manner by which one exists. These two things are not disconnected however, for to exist is to exist, manner and all. Any property of the way you exist describes how you are existent at all over being non existent (as both are simple actualities in the end). For example, an immutable being is an eternal and infinite being, for both correspond to each other perfectly, as to be immutable is to hold no change and thus no potentiality, and an eternal and infinite being is simply the complete opposite of potentiality. Eternal being and infinite being must be the same too, as to be eternal is to be unending and unbeginning, but such is in correspondence to an infinite being who s(name removed by moderator)ly is actuality. Now, given that, we know the mind cannot be eternal for it is limited in faculty if it cannot hold memories, as you claim, and even if it did it still lacks in knowledge of all aspects of existence like a pure act being should. Now, to be limited is to be in correspondence with a temporariness over eternality, as to be eternal can only correspond with infinitude. Thus, one who is limited is not eternal without external assistance.

 

[STT]

Then we are no longer describing pure potentiality, which is exactly the point I am attempting to base my argument around. As I stated here:

I resolve the issue already by making distinction between making and creating.

to be noncontingent, we can agree, means that the keys to existing are within your nature and not anothers actions.

But to show that something is noncontingent one needs to prove that the being doesn’t have any creator and does not perish.

Now, contrary to what Aristotle believed, prime matter or pure potentiality is nonbeing by definition. It is that which holds no actuality, but actuality is any aspect of attained existence. As such, prime matter is nonbeing. Why is that important? Because that fundementally means that actuality is one for one the exact same as existence.

I agree. But that does not show that something which is actual is noncontingent. Oppositely something which is non-contingent is obviously actual.

So any being which is not pure in actuality and therefore can be reduced to potentiality cannot be eternal through their own nature as that would require ever lasting being which is beginningless, and endless.

Anything which is actual can turn into potential. A noncontingent being is beginningless and endless though and one has to prove that as I did. For that you need to show that the being is free.

But their being can have beginning, as it is not pure act and thus able to be caused, and it can have an end, as whatever act it does have can be reduced to potentiality oncemore. Thus, a being must be complete in being to be noncontingent.

Actuality does not lead to noncontegency.

Second, there is more to existence then simply the fact that one exists. There is the manner by which one exists. These two things are not disconnected however, for to exist is to exist, manner and all. … Now, to be limited is to be in correspondence with a temporariness over eternality, as to be eternal can only correspond with infinitude. Thus, one who is limited is not eternal without external assistance.

Mind is of course eternal. It cannot be created and does not vanish. It is therefore noncontingent. It is simple. It is uncasued-cause. All of these follow from the fact that the agent is free.

 

[quaestio45]

I resolve the issue already by making distinction between making and creating.

Saying there is a difference between making and creating didn’t resolve anything, I would assert. Pure potentiality is nonbeing regardless. For you admitted:

quaestio45:

For example, I potentially and possibly could have a son right now, but does that automatically mean I do?

Yes.

Thus, pure potentiality we both agree is nonexistence.

But to show that something is noncontingent one needs to prove that the being doesn’t have any creator and does not perish.

Thats one way to do it. Another way to do it is to see if a given entity is in alignment with the qualities that noncontingent being holds, such as all powerful, all knowing, or unchanging.

I agree. But that does not show that something which is actual is noncontingent.

I agree. It has to be more than actual. It has to be pure actuality, with no potentiality, as no noncontingent being can hold potentiality.

Oppositely something which is non-contingent is obviously actual.

I agree

Anything which is actual can turn into potential.

I agree half so. Only half so because nothing can bring potential to the infinite in actual, in the same way that one cannot eliminate infinity by subtracting it with any definate number. Further, if you’re complete in being that means there is no smaller less complete being which can possibly have some sort of power unique to them and not held in the noncontingent being in order to subtract from the being of pure actuality.

A noncontingent being is beginningless and endless though and one has to prove that as I did. For that you need to show that the being is free.

Hmmm… I’m not sure. For your conception of free will still necessitates the possibility of change within its agent in order to produce different thoughts.

Mind is of course eternal. It cannot be created and does not vanish. It is therefore noncontingent. It is simple. It is uncasued-cause. All of these follow from the fact that the agent is free.

The mind is still finite and incomplete in being. If it lacks some faculty, that too suggests it is not noncontingent.

 

[STT]

Thats one way to do it. Another way to do it is to see if a given entity is in alignment with the qualities that noncontingent being holds, such as all powerful, all knowing, or unchanging.

How an all-powerful and all-knowing could be non-contingent?

Further, if you’re complete in being that means there is no smaller less complete being which can possibly have some sort of power unique to them and not held in the noncontingent being in order to subtract from the being of pure actuality.

I agree.

Hmmm… I’m not sure. For your conception of free will still necessitates the possibility of change within its agent in order to produce different thoughts.

As I stressed before the substance of the free-agent does not change.

The mind is still finite and incomplete in being. If it lacks some faculty, that too suggests it is not noncontingent.

What if the mind has finite attributes being non-contingent one of them?

 

[quaestio45]

How an all-powerful and all-knowing could be non-contingent?

It would have to be if we agree that a noncontingent being is a being whose nature wholly explains their existence, for it would require that they be completely beyond the influence of any and all externalities, thus meaning it cannot have the seeds of change, thus meaning that it is devoid of potentiality, thus meaning that it is only pure actuality. Now, I think we should make the distinction between the noncontingent being (whose definition I lay above) and an eternal contingent being. Keep that in mind, for your later objections seem to imply you have the latter idea in mind and not the former.

I agree.

Great.

As I stressed before the substance of the free-agent does not change.

And as I stress, it matters not if the substance doesn’t change because there’s still something changing, whether that be substance or something beyond substance. If any part of a being changes, it cannot be noncontingent.

What if the mind has finite attributes being non-contingent one of them?

Great question. This is where the distinction between noncontingent and eternal contingent beings come into play. For given the definition, one may never be finite and noncontingent, but, that doesn’t mean we can’t concieve of an eternal contingent being, right? Well, here’s my criticism of that idea: in order for something to be eternal it must either be eternal by something ontologically prior to it or through its own nature. I think we may both agree in the former, but the latter is where things get interesting. For, if one is eternal on the basis of their own nature, one would rightfully know that it thus entails that such a being if necessary, for no external or environmental factors could have played any role on such an entities current existence, as that would contradict our idea of an internal nature alone being the reason for ones existence. Thus, if no world effects the nature of said being, and their are infinite possible worlds, it thus finds itself in every possible world, and as such is necessary and not merely possible.

 

[quaestio45]

That be so, we can thus ask the question “what is it that makes the being necessary? The whole of him or a part of him?” If it is the whole of him, then he cannot ever be different, as nothing necessary can ever be not in its necessary state, otherwise it is not necessary but optional. As such, we fall into noncontingency. Well what about the alternative? Well, if it is merely a part of a being, then we can examine that part and know that it too must fall under the same conditions as what is noncontingent, for whatever is necessary in the being can never be different in the being, thus that aspect of necessity cannot change, so we then fall into noncontingency oncemore. That is not to say that the necessary cannot be within the finite, because it can be, but that necessary element would be noncontingent, and it would be in “hypostasis” - I believe is the term - with its subject. The subject it is within however would not be necessary, but only made so by the thing which makes him eternal, thus he falls into the category of contingent yet made eternal by another.

 

[userxbw]

Let us think, the flesh is one part. The soul another. They both have their own conciseness, one is hidden, the souls, it is not self aware, whereas the flesh is self aware. The catch is that they are twins living together and our unware
of each other,

They both learn everything together so they believe everything together as they were taught to believe, or have come to believe on there own together.

The senses are for only the truth,
The eyes sees what is in front of it. What he sees is the truth.
The ears hear sounds, it is a truth.
The nose smeels it is a truth
Touch gives truth that you’re feeling something
Taste gives a truth you’re tasting something.

The mind is where it can become confused with rationality. Which is used for trying to figure out what its senses are telling the mind. The mind also uses rational thought to justify what it is doing with the means given to the mind to carry out it’s thoughts. Ie, limbs and mouth.

The soul is created by God sometime during conception of a child. When it actually is done is up to God therefore a mystery to the exact moment it takes place

The theology of the body has a long history and tradition within the Catholic Church. Early Church fathers wrote on the role of the body and its relation to the soul, often elevating soul over body. But like the soul, it is also created by God in his image.

The soul is not just is. It is created, given a conscious of it’s own to work along with it’s flesh. Therefore, it too has a part in the discussions the flesh carries out. Conflict too can occur within three self, because in all reality the self is made up of two sperate parts joined together by God.

We can see this duality in the judgment of man. Man dies his soul is judged, hell, heaven, or purgatory if the soul is going to heaven.

Then again the ( some flesh) will be raised up them it too shall be judged.

Why two judgements one for the soul and one for the flesh if the soul plays no part in making decisions or having freewill to do so. God is a just God. Would a just person judge someone for something they didn’t do? No.

As the soul is judged at the time of death of the human then it had to have participated in what its flesh did during the time it lived on earth.

Same goes for the flesh. It too is heald accountable for it’s actions while on earth. Else there is no need to rise it up then judge it.

Jesus said that God can distroy ones soul. As matter cannot be distorted only rearranged, then the word distroy is figurative. As God’s distruction of the soul is it’s disfigurement to the soul. As one distroys the car by running it into a wall therefore it is disfigured beyond recondition like a distroyed soul

So by what one in here is trying to say the soul is a free agent, and a free agent cannot be created is an error in thinking of what free agent means.

Perhaps it’s as simple as what it means in human terms.

That the soul is free to exercise it’s own freewill within the means allowed to it by God.

 

[STT]

I am sorry to say that I cannot follow you.

 

[userxbw]

What part are you having trouble with?

A soul is created by God, it cannot be destroyed. As in matter cannot be destroyed, only rearranged. The term Jesus used in the bible about God destroying a soul is figurative.

The soul is a free agent. Meaning it is its own entity. Complete with everything the flesh has, eyes arms, legs and a brain that like the fleshes it has the grow and develop right along with the flesh it’s attached to.

It is contingent only by the need of the flesh it’s attached to. So that it can live in the same reality you live in and do as you do. Conflict between you and your soul can take place because it too is its own self.

The saying, part of me feels like doing this, and part of me feels like doing something else. Shows this phenomena between the two entities.