Nothing to something

[STT]

To be fair, @LeonardoArruda’s assertion that Trent lays out the argument well is a pretty solid one. You might want to give it another try, @STT.

Show me a single thing which is contingent. Give me a reason why you believe so. At the end, contingent things can cause each other so you don’t face with infinite regress.

Needless to say that I listen to the whole debate and I found many mistakes in the first audition.

 

[Gorgias]

Show me a single thing which is contingent.

You.

Give me a reason why you believe so.

Your parents could have decided to not procreate. Or, they could have died before you were conceived. Either way, it is not necessary that you exist. Therefore, your existence is contingent, and not necessary.

At the end, contingent things can cause each other so you don’t face with infinite regress.

Aquinas’ point about per accidens causal chains (which you reference here) is that they contain within them the causality for the subsequent effect. Therefore, at any given step in the chain, although you don’t have the cause for the actor, you nevertheless do have the cause for the effect it produces.

However, this doesn’t mean that the chain doesn’t proceed infinitely backward. Aquinas claims that it might, and that’s ok (at least in the context of the per accidens chain).

Needless to say that I listen to the whole debate and I found many mistakes in the first audition.

We know. “You have an argument for that.” We’ve been working our way through these arguments for quite a while. Interesting discussions, but rife with problems.

 

[STT]

You.

I have existed since the beginning of time. I have a thread on this very topic where I prove that free being cannot be contingent. There I show that free agent cannot be created.

Your parents could have decided to not procreate. Or, they could have died before you were conceived. Either way, it is not necessary that you exist. Therefore, your existence is contingent , and not necessary .

I was existed in another form if my parents didn’t decide to give birth to another kid.

Aquinas’ point about per accidens causal chains (which you reference here) is that they contain within them the causality for the subsequent effect. Therefore, at any given step in the chain, although you don’t have the cause for the actor, you nevertheless do have the cause for the effect it produces.

However, this doesn’t mean that the chain doesn’t proceed infinitely backward. Aquinas claims that it might, and that’s ok (at least in the context of the per accidens chain).

That is not ok. There was a beginning.

 

[Gorgias]

I have existed since the beginning of time.

Not as ‘you’. Physically, even the sperm and egg which became the source of your body weren’t in existence 200 years ago. So… no – you have not existed eternally (or even since the beginning of time).

There I show that free agent cannot be created.

Yes, and that argument has been convincingly torn down, once we understood how you defined your terms.

I was existed in another form if my parents didn’t decide to give birth to another kid.

Even if I acknowledge the assertion that “I would have existed” (which I don’t!), it’s clear that the “other form” would not have been ‘you’. It would have had a different physical make-up, to begin with. It would have been “someone”, perhaps, but not ‘you’.

That is not ok. There was a beginning.

In terms of the chain continuing on, ad infinitum, it’s ok.

 

[STT]

Not as ‘you’. Physically, even the sperm and egg which became the source of your body weren’t in existence 200 years ago. So… no – you have not existed eternally (or even since the beginning of time).

I am talking about my mind and not my body.

Yes, and that argument has been convincingly torn down, once we understood how you defined your terms.

That is not correct. Perhaps you are not observing the progress that I have with @quaestio45 on the argument.

Even if I acknowledge the assertion that “I would have existed” (which I don’t!), it’s clear that the “other form” would not have been ‘you’. It would have had a different physical make-up, to begin with. It would have been “someone”, perhaps, but not ‘you’.

Again, I am talking about my mind rather than my body.

In terms of the chain continuing on, ad infinitum , it’s ok.

So you can reach infinite future?

 

[Gorgias]

I am talking about my mind and not my body.

Your intellect? And by that, your soul? How would you know such a thing? How would you demonstrate it?

The Church teaches that God creates each soul immediately, but not in the absence of physical conception.

In addition, she teaches that the human person is a “body / soul composite”. So, if you’re going to debate and attempt to overcome the Catholic stance, you’re going to have to deal with it explicitly.

Perhaps you are not observing the progress that I have with @quaestio45 on the argument.

I have, in a few threads. Every time you say “quaestio agrees with me!” and I ask him a question to clarify, he says, “oh, yeah – I agree with you, Gorgias, not with STT.”

Again, I am talking about my mind rather than my body.

It still doesn’t hold up.

You’re not a mind (who owns a body). You’re a composite.

So you can reach infinite future?

No, but you can continue a series indefinitely.

 

[STT]

Your intellect? And by that, your soul? How would you know such a thing? How would you demonstrate it?

For intellect, you need a mind and a brain. There is a mind since there is a change. That is an argument on itself.

The Church teaches that God creates each soul immediately, but not in the absence of physical conception.

In addition, she teaches that the human person is a “body / soul composite”. So, if you’re going to debate and attempt to overcome the Catholic stance, you’re going to have to deal with it explicitly.

I am familiar with hylomorphic dualism. What happen for the form when a person die? It is just there, dead.

I have, in a few threads. Every time you say “quaestio agrees with me!” and I ask him a question to clarify, he says, “oh, yeah – I agree with you, Gorgias, not with STT.”

He, @quaestio45, for example, agree with me that the creation from nothing is impossible. You think it is possible.

It still doesn’t hold up.

You’re not a mind (who owns a body). You’re a composite.

It holds since my body is subject to change and destruction but my mind is not.

No, but you can continue a series indefinitely.

So you cannot reach from infinite past to now too.

 

[Gorgias]

What happen for the form when a person die? It is just there, dead.

And is restored at the end of time, in the eschaton.

He, @quaestio45, for example, agree with me that the creation from nothing is impossible. You think it is possible.

I’m pretty sure he doesn’t, at least in the terms you present it. Maybe he’ll come along and confirm.

It holds since my body is subject to change and destruction but my mind is not.

Your “mind” is a created entity.

So you cannot reach from infinite past to now too.

You can certainly reach from an arbitrary time in the past to now!

 

[STT]

And is restored at the end of time, in the eschaton.

Glad to hear that. So you are not immortal. How about Aquinas argument on immortality of soul based on existence of intellect?

I’m pretty sure he doesn’t, at least in the terms you present it. Maybe he’ll come along and confirm.

We will see.

Your “mind” is a created entity.

Then I invite you to refute my argument in another thread.

You can certainly reach from an arbitrary time in the past to now!

I am talking about infinite past.

 

[quaestio45]

He, @quaestio45, for example, agree with me that the creation from nothing is impossible. You think it is possible.

Not quite my friend. I am convinced that time very specifically cannot go from a state of nonexistence to existence (in a very particular manner), out of the obvious necessity for a dimension of change (i.e time, of course) for the change to occur. As for everything else, I’m still not thoroughly convinced cannot make a change from nonbeing to being (as, I argue, there is no distinction between non-existence and pure potency; and pure potency necessarily holds the possibility of actualization). I feel as if the only way I may convinced that being cannot be derived from nonbeing as perhaps a material cause is if I can be shown that nonbeing is not pure potency and thus cannot change or that it is logically impossible to actualize pure potency.

In that case, although I disagree with @Gorgias on some major things (God’s freedom is a big one), I must admit that on these particular matters I believe I am more in agreement then nonagreement (although I do wonder what he thinks of the idea of non-existence being the exact same as pure potency).

 

[Latin]

@Latin may actually be right, we freely will, what God wills us to will.

IF THE FOLLOWING TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS CORRECT, THEN MY ABOVE STATEMENT IS ALSO CORRECT.

For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 1) that the "Divine will or power is called fate."

But the Divine will or power is not in creatures, but in God. Therefore fate is not in creatures but in God.

The Divine will is cause of all things that happen, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 1 seqq.). Therefore all things are subject to fate.

The same is true for events in our lives. Relative to us they often appear to be by chance.
But relative to God, who directs everything according to his divine plan, nothing occurs by chance.

Hence if this divine influence stopped, every operation would stop.
Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to Him as its cause. (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III.)

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Free Will explains;
“God is the author of all causes and effects. God’s omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen, in the universe.”

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains;
His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized.

God preserves the universe in being; He acts in and with every creature in each and all its activities.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm
.
CCC 308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator.
"For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it.
.
CCC 307 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free, causes in order to complete the work of creation. … Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will.
.
Aquinas said, “ God changes the will without forcing it. But he can change the will from the fact that he himself operates in the will as he does in nature,” De Veritatis 22:9. 31. ST I-II:112:3. 32. Gaudium et Spes 22; "being …
.
St. Thomas teaches that all movements of will and choice must be traced to the divine will: and not to any other cause, because Gad alone is the cause of our willing and choosing. CG, 3.91.
.
I use to believe when we will be in Heaven our will, will be in perfect line with the will of God.

From the above teachings of the Catholic Church I have learned, for our will to be in perfect line with the will of God we don’t have to be in Heaven, because right now on this earth, the will of the entire human race is in perfect line with the will of God.

It makes no difference that someone is a Christian or an Atheist or a Buddhist, the will of the entire human race is in perfect and 100 % line with the will of God.

Because God himself operates in our will, the entire human race will what God wills us to will and we all do what God wills and cause us to do. – No ifs or buts.
.
God bless

 

[IWantGod]

The point of it being that the fact that something changes doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s contingent.

Change is an actualization of potential, an actualization of a state that was not actually real. Energy changes in so much as it consists of an actualization of potential. Potential requires something to actualize it. It’s being is contingent because its entire being is a continuous actualization of potential as opposed to being something that is necessarily actual. No part of it’s being is necessarily actual; otherwise it would not change - it would just exist as pure-actuality.

The fact that energy is neither created or destroyed but is rather something that changes or converts into other states has nothing to do with the question of whether or not it necessarily exists or is contingent. Scientific statements and metaphysical statements are not the same thing. The scientific statement that it is neither created or destroyed does not represent an inference to it’s metaphysical necessity; it is not saying that it’s nature is necessarily real or does not require a cause for it’s existence. It is merely saying that energy converts in to other states as opposed to being created or destroyed.

Something that is necessarily real does not move from potentiality to actuality, and if it’s actuality is not necessary then it is necessarily contingent.

 

[IWantGod]

as, I argue, there is no distinction between non-existence and pure potency; and pure potency necessarily holds the possibility of actualization

As long as you realize that there can be no potential without there also being as act of existence; otherwise nothing is the complete absence of potential. What i mean to say is that we can only meaningfully speak of potential because there is such a thing as being. Without being there is no potential and no meaningful sense in which we could talk about pure potency. If there was no God then pure potency would be meaningless and there would just be nothing.

 

[AlNg]

I would agree that “free act” and “free will” are two distinct concepts, but that doesn’t negate the possibility that it’s the laws of physics that determines both of them.

You are making the unwarranted assumption that all of the laws of physics are deterministic. First of all, there are some laws which are statistical or expressed in terms of probabilities. Secondly, the “laws” of physics may not be all encompassing “laws” but may only be models which express what we know about reality within a given framework. For example, Newton’s Laws of motion do not work in an accelerated frame of reference.

 

[Gorgias]

Glad to hear that. So you are not immortal.

The body will die, the soul is immortal. (It just isn’t “eternal”, in the sense that it had a beginning.)

Then I invite you to refute my argument in another thread.

Which one?

I am talking about infinite past.

Aquinas argued for the possibility, largely because he didn’t want to have to tangle with Aristotle on this one.

I do wonder what he thinks of the idea of non-existence being the exact same as pure potency

Intuitively, that doesn’t seem right.

Let’s imagine a person, prior to their creation. They’re not “pure potency”, since they’re already somewhat actualized (they’re an egg somewhere and a sperm cell somewhere else). These two cells have a great deal of potency (they are able to become a human body), but they aren’t “pure potency”.

We might say that the soul is “pure potency”, but even then, it’s only such inasmuch as God knows that the person will exist at some point within time. That ‘bounds’ the “pure potency”, I would think. (That is, it’s not that there’s some unlimited amount of “pure potency” from every potential soul that might be created, but only from the as-yet-uncreated souls.)

Just shooting off the hip, though…

 

[quaestio45]

As long as you realize that there can be no potential without there also being as act of existence;

Yeah, I agree. For nothing cannot actualize into something without some efficient cause outside of itself being the reason. As such, without an efficient cause, it is impossible for change, and thus there is no potency (which necessitates the possibility of a change).

Let’s imagine a person, prior to their creation. They’re not “pure potency”, since they’re already somewhat actualized (they’re an egg somewhere and a sperm cell somewhere else). These two cells have a great deal of potency (they are able to become a human body), but they aren’t “pure potency”.

Well I think there are two ways of looking at this. First, from that of a fixed essence (like a man not yet existing, yet possibly existing), and that from no fixed essence.

If we were to look at the type from fixed essence we see that there cannot be pure potency in the subject as the subject is a form; forms, necessarily, cannot be mutable or be that which they aren’t, only the things which hold forms. As such, a change from nonexistence to existence (in the sense of a man not existing and then existing) isn’t pure potency coming to act, but instead a limited potency coming to act.

As for the second, we may say there is a difference; as what you are dealing with is not some fixed preconcieved template of what you want, but rather simply the possibility of transformation into anything. Take this for example; there is nothing but air right beside my bed, yet there could be a bat, or a lama, or a zebra, or a table, or anything else, but there isn’t these things. None of them are existent in the state of the here and now. As such, we have nonbeing here because we can think of beings that could be here yet are not. But for anything to be concieved of going from nonbeing to being A, whilst it could’ve gone to an infinite number of other beings, mean that there must be pure potency in the first state (nonbeing) to be able to go to all other states. As such, nonbeing has to be pure potency.

 

[STT]

Not quite my friend. I am convinced that time very specifically cannot go from a state of nonexistence to existence (in a very particular manner), out of the obvious necessity for a dimension of change (i.e time, of course) for the change to occur.

Well if we accept that time cannot be created then it follows that nothing else can be created since creation is a change and you need time for change.

 

[STT]

Yeah, I agree. For nothing cannot actualize into something without some efficient cause outside of itself being the reason.

Why that is true?

 

[STT]

The body will die, the soul is immortal. (It just isn’t “eternal”, in the sense that it had a beginning.)

But the body is subjected to decay. It turns to dust. Dust spreads. Other being feed on this dust. So where is the original form?

Which one?

“Free agent is not contingent”.

 

[Gorgias]

CCC 308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator.
"For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it.

Wow… talk about quote-mining! Let’s look at the whole quote, please, and see what you deleted from it (emphases mine):

308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

As if that isn’t enough, you’re actually changing the quotes you cite, seemingly to change the meaning. The insertion of the comma that you make appears to be an attempt to change the meaning from “God enables men to be intelligent and free causes” to “God enables men to be intelligent and free, causes” (as if the quote means “God causes”). Again, the actual text of CCC 307:

307 To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing” the earth and having dominion over it. God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors.

So, although I haven’t spent much time in your posts’ quote soup, it seems that closer scrutiny may be warranted. It feels like you’re engaging in some spin, here…

It makes no difference that someone is a Christian or an Atheist or a Buddhist, the will of the entire human race is in perfect and 100 % line with the will of God.

So, it’s God’s will that someone deny His existence? Nah… even on the face of it, this doesn’t work.