Mind Is The Fundamental Ground Of All Possibilities

[IWantGod]

In the thread - The Impossibility Of Absolutely-Nothing And the Necessity Of A Fundamental Unchanging Act Of Reality - I argued and succeeded in giving a metaphysical proof of a necessary being that is fundamental to all possibilities including our universe.

Link is here…

(The Impossibility Of Absolutely-Nothing And the Necessity Of A Fundamental Unchanging Act Of Reality)

In that same thread i also argued that this necessary fundamental act of reality could not be a physical-cause because it is not a physical process. Because a necessary act of reality that is fundamental to all possible things has the fullness of reality it cannot become more than what it already is and therefore does not change. Because it does not change it cannot become other possibilities or transform into other possible universes. So something like a static block universe in which change does not occur cannot be the fundamental ontological ground of all possibilities. I think this argument is impeccable.

Link is here…

(The Impossibility Of Absolutely-Nothing And the Necessity Of A Fundamental Unchanging Act Of Reality - #36 by IWantGod)

On the foundation of these arguments i intend to prove that such a being is not only necessary, but is also an intelligent cause…

Edited…

1. A necessary being that is fundamental to all possibilities, including our universe, exists.
2. In general there are only two possible types of cause. Natural causes and intelligent causes.
3. A being that is necessarily what it is cannot become more than what it is or transform into something else, since this would contradict what it necessarily is. Therefore a necessary being cannot be a natural cause.
4. If it is not a natural cause, the only other kind of cause it can be is an intelligent cause, since if it cannot transform into other possibilities, it would have to intentionally give reality to things that did not exist and do not have to exist; otherwise there is no reason for those possibilities to exist. The only thing that can do that is a mind since only a mind has intentionality.
5. Once a contingent reality exists, it cannot continue to exist through the power it’s own nature; because it’s nature is unnecessary, and thus existing is not intrinsic to it’s nature. Thus a mind with the power to give reality must be the sustaining-cause of all possible realities including our universe.

Conclusion; Mind is the fundamental ground of all possibilities.

 

[lelinator]

Conclusion; Mind is the fundamental ground of all possibilities.

So God must be a solipsist, just like me. What a coincidence! Or is it?

 

[lelinator]

In the thread - The Impossibility Of Absolutely-Nothing And the Necessity Of A Fundamental Unchanging Act Of Reality - I argued and succeeded in giving a metaphysical proof of a necessary being that is fundamental to all possibilities including our universe.

Link is here…

(The Impossibility Of Absolutely-Nothing And the Necessity Of A Fundamental Unchanging Act Of Reality )

It’s against my better judgment to join this discussion, but if I’m going to, then I want to go back to the linked thread in an attempt to get some clarification.

Let’s assume that the first 5 premises are correct, and that absolutely-nothing cannot exist. However, when you get to premise 6, the concept of contingent things enters the picture, i.e things that can change, as opposed to a necessary thing that cannot change.

QUESTION: What are contingent things? For example, is the concept of 2+2 = 4 a contingent thing? I wouldn’t think so, because it cannot change. The meaning of the symbols can change, but the concept itself can’t.

So are “truths” such as 2+2 = 4 contingent things?

 

[IWantGod]

It’s against my better judgment to join this discussion

Well that’s none of my business. Your free to join or not join.

For example, is the concept of 2+2 = 4 a contingent thing?

Abstract concepts that are necessarily true are a reflection of the fundamental nature of reality. In other words they are true because the ultimate reality, the very core from which everything springs forth, is as such that irreducible quantities have definite results because they cannot contradict what distinguishes their number. 2 + 2 will always equal 4 as a result.

The meaning of the symbols can change, but the concept itself can’t.

Well, we can change what the symbols mean, but if we mean it the way we mean it, the result will always be the same.

So are “ truths ” such as 2+2 = 4 contingent things?

Not in the same way that beings are contingent. What is meant by contingent in respect of a being is simply that it cannot exist without an existential-cause (Something that can give it existence). But 2 + 2 = 4 isn’t caused to exist. It’s discovered. The symbols are made up, but what those symbols represent cannot fail to be true. It does not begin to be true, and was always true an eternity before humans existed.

One can say that there can be no truth without existence, and that would be correct. But you cannot say that 2 + 2 = 4 is a contingent being.