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

[Gorgias]

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

Things that are not beings cannot bring themselves into existence. They need something that does have existence in order for them to be created.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

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

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.

So the universe exists. Let’s say that it was caused to exist by something. Let that something be X. You are saying that X, having caused the universe to exist, still exists in itself.

That is an assumption.

 

[IWantGod]

So the universe exists. Let’s say that it was caused to exist by something. Let that something be X. You are saying that X, having caused the universe to exist, still exists in itself.

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…

I admit that perhaps the first premise can seem a bit enigmatic. But if a thing is contingent, that contingency can only be resolved by something that necessarily exists. Of course, some transformative physical process may have caused the universe that is not necessarily real, but eventually you have to admit to the existence of that which is necessarily real.

I am happy to rephrase the first premise.

Premise 1: Physical reality is contingent. We can know this because physical reality changes and a necessary act of reality does not. We cannot have a state of affairs where only contingent beings exist, and therefore physical reality and any contingent thing is ultimately dependent on the existence of a necessary-being in order to exist.

 

[TechieGuy]

Things that are not beings cannot bring themselves into existence. They need something that does have existence in order for them to be created.

Please prove this…

 

[IWantGod]

Please prove this…

It doesn’t need proof. If a thing does not exist it cannot cause itself to exist.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So the universe exists. Let’s say that it was caused to exist by something. Let that something be X. You are saying that X, having caused the universe to exist, still exists in itself.

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…

I admit that perhaps the first premise can seem a bit enigmatic. But if a thing is contingent, that contingency can only be resolved by something that necessarily exists. Of course, some physical process may have caused the universe that is not necessarily real, but eventually you have to admit to the existence of that which is necessarily real.

I am happy to rephrase the first premise.

Premise 1: Physical reality is contingent. We can know this because physical reality changes and a necessary act of reality does not. We cannot have a state of affairs where only contingent beings exist, and therefore physical reality and any contingent thing is ultimately dependent on the existence of a necessary-being in order to exist.

Are you missing the point? If it was agreed that something caused reality to exist (past tense: ‘caused reality to exist’), then there is nothing to suggest that that something STILL exists.

You are making an assumption.

 

[IWantGod]

Are you missing the point?

No i am not. Your argument fails because you missing the point that contingent beings cannot exist without the existence of a nature that necessarily exists and has the power to cause the existence of contingent things. If a thing does not exist necessarily then it is contingent on something else. Even if there were a being that regressed infinitely but failed to exist after causing the universe, that too would be a contingent being because it does not exist in virtue of it’s own nature (it is not in it’s own nature to exist for the simple fact that it failed to exist). It is not a necessary being and therefore cannot account for the existence of it’s own nature.

 

[catholicray]

I would agree that a being that necessarily exists would not fail to necessarily exist. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Gorgias]

Please prove this…

Hopefully, examples will suffice as a demonstration of the philosophical principle. Can a tree will itself into existence? A planet? A star?

They don’t have agency, let alone the ability to create themself ex nihilo. Something – outside of them – and something with agency, as it were, is required for them to come into existence.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Are you missing the point?

No i am not. Your argument fails because you missing the point that contingent beings cannot exist without the existence of a nature that necessarily exists and has the power to cause the existence of contingent things. If a thing does not exist necessarily then it is contingent on something else. Even if there were a being that regressed infinitely but failed to exist after causing the universe, that too would be a contingent being because it does not exist in virtue of it’s own nature (it is not in it’s own nature to exist for the simple fact that it failed to exist). It is not a necessary being and therefore cannot account for the existence of it’s own nature.

If something caused the universe then it would need to be not part of the universe. It causes the universe, then ceases to exist.

When a tree is brought into existence by an acorn, the acorn no longer exists. When a star explodes, it seeds the universe with material but the star no longer exists.

 

[AlNg]

physical reality changes and a necessary act of reality does not…

Infallible Scripture tells us that God has changed His mind. Also, Catholics believe that God came down from heaven. At one time He was in heaven, at another time, He came down from Heaven. That is a change in location.

 

[AlNg]

Hopefully, examples will suffice as a demonstration of the philosophical principle. Can a tree will itself into existence? A planet? A star?

They don’t have agency, let alone the ability to create themself ex nihilo .

There is the macro world and there is the quantum world. The quantum world has virtual particles which pop in and pop out of existence. The quantum world does not operate the same as the world of classical physics.

 

[Bradskii]

Gorgias:

Hopefully, examples will suffice as a demonstration of the philosophical principle. Can a tree will itself into existence? A planet? A star?

They don’t have agency, let alone the ability to create themself ex nihilo .

There is the macro world and there is the quantum world. The quantum world has virtual particles which pop in and pop out of existence. The quantum world does not operate the same as the world of classical physics.

There’s an interesting theory that was developed by Roger Penrose. It proposes that the universe keeps expanding until there is nothing left but light. Consequently no distances, consequently no time - the same conditions as the original singularity. And it becomes cyclical.

Each universe has a begining but the cycle is infinite.

Or maybe God instead.

 

[AlNg]

Each universe has a begining but the cycle is infinite.

When I think of cyclical, I think of an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. Except for the enormous number of theoretical solutions to the string problem, I haven’t seen the experimental confirmation of the multiverse.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Each universe has a begining but the cycle is infinite.

When I think of cyclical, I think of an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. Except for the enormous number of theoretical solutions to the string problem, I haven’t seen the experimental confirmation of the multiverse.

I’m not sure we’ll see it. Although the maths points to inflation which points to a multiverse scenario.

 

[AlNg]

the maths points to inflation which points to a multiverse scenario.

As far as inflation is concerned, we do have inflation now. It is not clear whether or not there will come a point when inflation stops and we begin the deflationary Big Crunch. Further, I don’t see why inflation would point to a multiverse. All inflation says is that this universe is on an expansion trajectory. I dont see where that implies the existence of other universes. Science is supposed to be a study where theories are confirmed by an experimental process. If you are going to say that something exists but it can never be experimentally verified, then would this not be philosophical speculation and not science?

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.

I am not clear about what is meant by these terms:
necessary existence
Contingent existence
artificial existence.
It is said that the physical world is not necessary because it changes. But how would you show that these changes are essential and not superficial. God changes location, since He has come down from Heaven. But His essence has not changed. You can argue the same thing about physical reality. All the transformations we see in the physical world are not essential changes in matter because matter can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another, while its essence of being matter never changes essentially.

 

[Bradskii]

Inflation means something other than the expansion of the universe. It refers to a period of massive expansion very early on. Can’t post links at the monent but Google it and you’ll be good.

And yeah, it coukd be described as a philosophical position at the moment.

 

[AlNg]

Inflation means something other than the expansion of the universe. It refers to a period of massive expansion very early on.

So the idea is that one Big Bang resulted in the creation of millions of universes, not just one?

 

[IWantGod]

If something caused the universe then it would need to be not part of the universe. It causes the universe, then ceases to exist.

The point i’m trying to make is that it is impossible for only unnecessary beings to exist because something that is existentially unnecessary does not exist in virtue of it’s own nature. A necessary act of reality follows necessarily in-order to account for the existence of unnecessary acts of reality.

This is true despite what you have claimed. It is not necessarily true that once something has been created that it’s cause must cease to exist. True, there are examples of this in the physical order like the transformation of one form into another, but it is irrelevant.

 

[IWantGod]

Each universe has a begining but the cycle is infinite.

Or maybe God instead.

I don’t see the idea of a creator and a cyclical universe as being mutually exclusive. You can’t explain away contingency by adding an infinite number of cycles.

When all physical explanations are exhausted, you still have to explain existence - Why is there something rather than nothing at all.