On the existence of God

[Matthias123]

In nature there are entities that are contingent that require in order to sustain their existence some necessary. This contingency is evident to the senses through natural bodies that corrupt and cease to be.

Now it is evident to us through reason that contingency expands to the whole, as it is an absolute and independent property, as the chair having all parts colored green is considered a green chair, and a table with all parts made of wood is considered a wood table. This is further evident when we consider the chain of essential causes that are necessary to preserve contingent entities in being. As what is necessary cannot necessitate itself, but must be necessitated by an entity prior. Now in chains of essential causes it is necessary for these causes to be subordinated to a primary cause in order to preserve the observed effect in act. Furthermore through modern physics the possibility of the universe is most evidently seen in the conception of the multiverse. In such a conception we see our universe not as a necessary but a possible universe amidst what could be an actually infinite number of potential universes. Therefore it is obvious that the universe is radically contingent.

Now what is possible did not exist at some instance, for everything that exists is either in act eternally by virtue of it’s essence or it was moved into act from potency. Since universe is contingent it, it had to move from potency to act.

Therefore without an absolute metaphysically necessary entity the universe would not exist, which is obviously false. Therefore we must admit the existence of an absolute purely actual metaphysically necessary entity. This is what men call God.

Objection: It is not permissible due to the limitlessness of human reason to conclude that all entities in the universe are contingent. For surely it is possible for a non-contingent entity to exist as part of the universe.

Reply: The existence of a metaphysically necessary part is not possible. For any non-contingent entity would be purely actual. Now any entity that is purely actual can contain no potentiality as this would be a contrary, and two contraries in the same context are not possible. Now since the parts the universe exist in space, they have the potential of the change spatial location. Therefore a non-contingent part is not possible.

 

[kimmielittle]

In nature there are entities that are contingent that require in order to sustain their existence some necessary. This contingency is evident to the senses through natural bodies that corrupt and cease to be.

Now it is evident to us through reason that contingency expands to the whole, as it is an absolute and independent property, as the chair having all parts colored green is considered a green chair, and a table with all parts made of wood is considered a wood table. This is further evident when we consider the chain of essential causes that are necessary to preserve contingent entities in being. As what is necessary cannot necessitate itself, but must be necessitated by an entity prior. Now in chains of essential causes it is necessary for these causes to be subordinated to a primary cause in order to preserve the observed effect in act. Furthermore through modern physics the possibility of the universe is most evidently seen in the conception of the multiverse. In such a conception we see our universe not as a necessary but a possible universe amidst what could be an actually infinite number of potential universes. Therefore it is obvious that the universe is radically contingent.

Now what is possible did not exist at some instance, for everything that exists is either in act eternally by virtue of it’s essence or it was moved into act from potency. Since universe is contingent it, it had to move from potency to act.

Therefore without an absolute metaphysically necessary entity the universe would not exist, which is obviously false. Therefore we must admit the existence of an absolute purely actual metaphysically necessary entity. This is what men call God.

Objection: It is not permissible due to the limitlessness of human reason to conclude that all entities in the universe are contingent. For surely it is possible for a non-contingent entity to exist as part of the universe.

Reply: The existence of a metaphysically necessary part is not possible. For any non-contingent entity would be purely actual. Now any entity that is purely actual can contain no potentiality as this would be a contrary, and two contraries in the same context are not possible. Now since the parts the universe exist in space, they have the potential of the change spatial location. Therefore a non-contingent part is not possible.

 

[Matthias123]

Touchstone is going to say that the above is “word salad” and then I am going to go into a tirade saying that the vagueness of vocabulary has nothing to do with the truth value of propositions – don’t make me a prophet touchstone.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Lots of problems here.

In nature there are entities that are contingent that require in order to sustain their existence some necessary. This contingency is evident to the senses through natural bodies that corrupt and cease to be.

The first sentence isn’t grammatically correct, but I assume what you mean is there are entities that require some other entity in order to exist. This is a different definition of “contingent” than what is usually meant in modal logic (“contingent” means “not logically necessary” or “exists in at least one, but not all, possible worlds”), but that’s OK. This is not evident through corruptions of natural bodies, however. I can show this as a logical fallacy by putting it as follows:

1. If there are bodies dependent on some other entity for their existence and that other entity no longer exists, then those bodies will no longer exist either.
2. There are bodies which corrupt and go out of existence.
3. Therefore, there are bodies dependent on some other entity.

Clearly, this is affirming the consequent. It’s possible for beings to go out of existence for another reason.

Now it is evident to us through reason that contingency expands to the whole, as it is an absolute and independent property, as the chair having all parts colored green is considered a green chair, and a table with all parts made of wood is considered a wood table.

Two problems here. First, you’re making the leap from showing some contingent beings in nature to assuming that all beings in nature are contingent. Second, this is the fallacy of composition; while your two examples above are true, it is also true that a floor constructed of square tiles need not be square. Now the fallacy of composition isn’t always a fallacy, there are occasions when you can argue from parts to the whole. In this case however there’s a defeater: A is contingent on B while B is contingent on A. Here while A and B are both contingent the combination of A and B is not contingent on anything outside the whole.

This is further evident when we consider the chain of essential causes that are necessary to preserve contingent entities in being.

Now you’ve changed your definition of contingent; not only must there exist other entities for a contingent being to exist but the contingent being must be being caused to exist, or continue to exist, by those entities, or at least one of them. The same objections above however still apply even to this new meaning, with the exception that in the case of A causing B and B causing A, one can make the act of causation an entity and ask what causes A to cause B.

As what is necessary cannot necessitate itself, but must be necessitated by an entity prior.

You haven’t defined “necessary” but I am going to assume it is the opposite of your definition of “contingent”: an entity which does not require another entity, or the causal action of another entity, to remain in existence. So what you are saying here is in order to get to that “necessary” state, it had to have been put there by something prior. Now if that something prior is also necessary itself, then that also had to have been necessitated by something prior, and thus you are in an infinite regress.

Now in chains of essential causes it is necessary for these causes to be subordinated to a primary cause in order to preserve the observed effect in act.

By “essential causes” I assume you mean “essentially subordinated” causes. Yes, obviously, there must be a first necessary, or non-contingent, cause in the chain, since every contingent cause must be itself caused by something else. But according to you even a necessary cause must be necessitated by some other entity, leading to an infinite regress.

Furthermore through modern physics the possibility of the universe is most evidently seen in the conception of the multiverse. In such a conception we see our universe not as a necessary but a possible universe amidst what could be an actually infinite number of potential universes. Therefore it is obvious that the universe is radically contingent.

You’re now using the conventional definition of “contingent” as “not logically necessary”. Yes, the universe is contingent according to that definition as you’ve shown, but not according to your original definition; thus, this is an equivocation.

Now what is possible did not exist at some instance, for everything that exists is either in act eternally by virtue of it’s essence or it was moved into act from potency. Since universe is contingent it, it had to move from potency to act.

You can’t really mean “what is possible did not exist at some instance” - otherwise, God did not exist at some instance. What you must really mean is “what is contingent did not exist at some instance” but that statement is controverted even among theism - for many theists hold the possibility of an eternal universe - yes, contingent insofar as God’s action is necessary for it to exist - yet there is never an instance at which it doesn’t exist.

In that case however I doubt you would say the universe was in act eternally by virtue of its essence, since it’s not part of the essential nature of the universe that it exist eternally, and thus you would say even in that case the universe was moved from potency to act. But this kind of language just goes to show the problem. If we define the “universe” as all that exists, excluding God, how can a universe be “moved” from potency to act - that assumes the universe already exists in order for it to be moved! You can’t move something that doesn’t exist. (Cont…)

 

[NowAgnostic]

Perhaps you really mean that the possibility of the universe is actualized. But that again implies something must “already” exist in addition to God. Assume a hypothetical world where God, and absolutely nothing else, exists. Well, God has no potency, and “absolutely nothing” has no potency either. Therefore, there is no potency in this world and no possibility for a universe to spring into being. But if there is “something” in that world besides God giving rise to the potency for the universe, then the universe already exists by definition, for there is something besides God.

Of course, you can take it one step further and postulate that that “something” is contingent. Which means there is a possibility of its existing or not, but if not, then again absolutely nothing exists (except for maybe God) and there is no potency for anything else. So it ends up in an infinite regress.

Your argument thus relies on an equivocation of “universe” as meaning “the specific kind of universe that we are in” vs. “anything which exists outside of God”. The former is metaphysically contingent, the latter metaphysically necessary.

Therefore without an absolute metaphysically necessary entity the universe would not exist, which is obviously false.

OK but your definition of “necessary” is “not contingent” which means existing on its own not dependent on another entity and not caused by another entity.

Therefore we must admit the existence of an absolute purely actual metaphysically necessary entity. This is what men call God.

You haven’t shown the entity to be purely actual, just metaphysically necessary. Moreover, I just showed above why the universe itself is metaphysically necessary.

Objection: It is not permissible due to the limitlessness of human reason to conclude that all entities in the universe are contingent. For surely it is possible for a non-contingent entity to exist as part of the universe.

Reply: The existence of a metaphysically necessary part is not possible. For any non-contingent entity would be purely actual.

Begging the question. I deny that all metaphysically necessary entities are purely actual and you have not shown it.

 

[Matthias123]

I had a response written out but my MS word nuked it.

The gist was that I really wrote this in like 5 min before I went out to eat, and yeah…perhaps I should have thought it out more. The reason I posted this was because I was having problems understanding it to begin with, and nothing sorts things out better then it being taken apart.