Irrefutable series part 1: An Argument For the Existence Of An Intelligent Cause Revised

[IWantGod]

Premise 1. Physical reality either began to exist or is dependent for it’s existence on a being that necessarily exists. We can know this because physical reality changes and a necessary act of reality does not…

Premise 2. That which does not necessarily exist does not naturally-exist. It is not a natural form of existence and neither is any of it’s power’s or forms. Also, because of premise one, we cannot say that physical processes are a natural transformation of some part of that which necessarily exist, because that would mean that a necessary act of reality or nature can change into something unnecessary or be something distinct from what it already was. This is impossible.

Premise 3. Physical reality exists. But because physical reality is not a natural form of existence, this means that it’s powers, forms, and behaviours, have to be some how created; probably by means that are beyond our comprehension to understand.

Premise 4. But what we do understand is that a being with no mind to create cannot produce laws of physical behaviour, because to create them one would have to determine the nature of those laws, and one would have to determine the form that physical reality takes (it’s nature, properties, qualities ex nihilo). And since this cannot be a natural process because of premise 1, 2, and 3, one has no choice but to admit that the existence of physical law and nature is the result of intentionality or goal-direction and is therefore an artificial form of existence.

Conclusion: Despite not knowing how the creative act causes new things to exist it follows necessarily that physical reality has an intelligent cause.

 

[Bradskii]

You used the present tense in option one (necessarily exists). That’s an assumption. All else fails.

 

[IWantGod]

You used the present tense in option one (necessarily exists). That’s an assumption. All else fails.

Please explain.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

You used the present tense in option one (necessarily exists). That’s an assumption. All else fails.

Please explain.

You said that reality exists on a being that necessarily exists. Present tense. Necessarily exists. It is an assumption that said being still exists.

 

[IWantGod]

That’s an assumption. All else fails.

But we can know deductively that a necessary act reality or nature cannot become that which is unnecessary, since to do so necessarily contradicts the fact that it’s act is existentially-necessary.

Physical reality changes (moves from potentiality to actuality), therefore it does not posses the qualities of a being that necessarily exists.

It follows naturally from this point onward that physical reality is a contingent act of existence for the simple fact that it does not necessarily exist.

I think premise one is correct so long as you understand and accept what it means for something to necessarily exist.

 

[IWantGod]

It is an assumption that said being still exists.

We know that said being still exists because physical reality exists and physical reality is contingent. You cannot have a regress of existentially contingent beings without a necessary act of existence that has the power to give existence. Otherwise there is no reason for any contingent being to exist.

I think the argument holds.

 

[Gorgias]

You said that reality exists on a being that necessarily exists. Present tense. Necessarily exists. It is an assumption that said being still exists.

Nice try, but that just doesn’t fly. The assertion doesn’t attempt to discuss when the necessary being exists, but rather, only that it exists. (One can later discuss what it means to be ‘necessary’, and what that implies about ongoing existence, but for the purposes of the present discussion, it’s sufficient to assert merely the existence of a necessary being which gives rise to contingent beings.)

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

You said that reality exists on a being that necessarily exists. Present tense. Necessarily exists. It is an assumption that said being still exists.

Nice try, but that just doesn’t fly. The assertion doesn’t attempt to discuss when the necessary being exists, but rather, only that it exists.

‘…it exists.’ defines the moment. Which is now. The present. That’s an assumption. And my existence is contingent on my grandfather having existed. He doesn’t now.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

It is an assumption that said being still exists.

We know that said being still exists because physical reality exists and physical reality is contingent.

Something that is contingent doesn’t require that which it is contingent upon to have any permanence.

 

[Gorgias]

‘…it exists.’ defines the moment. Which is now. The present. That’s an assumption. And my existence is contingent on my grandfather having existed. He doesn’t now.

Your grandfather existed within the constraints of a contingent entity (the temporal framework). A necessary being, by definition, gives rise to contingent entities, and therefore, he exists outside of the created temporal framework. Therefore, attempting to shoehorn the necessary being inside the context of his creation, as if he’s constrained by it, is the logical error in this conversation.

In any case, you’re still not making your case. “A necessary being has existence” doesn’t imply a ‘moment’. If all you’re doing is being pedantic and requiring a particular form of expression, then fine. But… it doesn’t help move the discussion forward.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

‘…it exists.’ defines the moment. Which is now. The present. That’s an assumption. And my existence is contingent on my grandfather having existed. He doesn’t now.

Therefore, attempting to shoehorn the necessary being inside the context of his creation, as if he’s constrained by it, is the logical error in this conversation.

It is still being stated as a fact that whatever created existence still exists. That, again, is an assumption. As is anthropomorphising it and giving it a gender.

 

[Gorgias]

It is still being stated as a fact that whatever created existence still exists. That, again, is an assumption.

Still, though, that’s irrelevant to the argument which, if I understand it correctly, is merely proposing that an intelligent cause which is a necessary being is what gave rise to created reality. Drop your quibbling about “tense” and we’ll be able to get to the meat.

As is anthropomorphising it and giving it a gender.

O. M. G.

OK… now I know you’re in a mood to troll today!

It’s grammatical gender. And, that doesn’t create physical sex any more than Romance languages attempt to say desks are boys and lamps are girls!

 

[IWantGod]

Something that is contingent doesn’t require that which it is contingent upon to have any permanence.

This doesn’t make sense.

I assume that you understand what contingent existence means. If a thing relies on something else for it’s existence, this means that it does not exist in virtue of it’s own nature or power, but is instead a contingent being.

Premise one merely assumes that by establishing the fact that physical reality cannot be considered as something that is existentially necessary, that you would simply understand that it is contingent and would ultimately require a cause that is existentially necessary (a being that exists necessarily) in order to account for the contingency of it’s nature.

Perhaps you mean something else by the word contingent because i don’t understand what you said.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

It is still being stated as a fact that whatever created existence still exists. That, again, is an assumption.

Still, though, that’s irrelevant to the argument which, if I understand it correctly, is merely proposing that an intelligent cause which is a necessary being is what gave rise to created reality.

And which still exists. That it still exists is an assumption.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Something that is contingent doesn’t require that which it is contingent upon to have any permanence.

This doesn’t make sense.

I assume that you understand what contingent existence means. If a thing relies on something else for it’s existence, this means that it does not exist in virtue of it’s own nature or power, but is instead a contingent being.

Your use of ‘is’ is an assumtion. On what basis do you assume that it still exists?

And glad to see that there is no gender bias in your posts.

 

[TechieGuy]

Re premise 1, why does it have to be a being?

 

[IWantGod]

Your use of ‘is’ is an assumtion. On what basis do you assume that it still exists?

Because you cannot have a state of affairs where only contingent beings exist. The only other type of being is one that exists necessarily. There has to be a being that cannot not exist, or in other-words it naturally exists. It is in it’s nature to exist, otherwise it would be a contingent being because it doesn’t exist in virtue of it’s own nature and there wouldn’t be any reason for any contingent beings to exist.

A thing either exists because it’s nature necessarily exists, or because it is caused to exist. There is no other reason for things to exist.

 

[IWantGod]

Re premise 1, why does it have to be a being?

Because it cannot be dependent on something that doesn’t have an act of existence.

 

[TechieGuy]

How do you know that things that are not beings must be dependent on something that doesn’t have an act of existence?

 

[IWantGod]

How do you know that things that are not beings must be dependent on something that doesn’t have an act of existence?

Please rephrase your question. I don’t mean to be rude but i am having trouble understanding what you mean.