Please explain why the first cause/necessary being must be personal

[MindOverMatter2]

The inference of his necessary existence is based on tyhe alleged inability to give an explanation without invoking God.
To admit that you can see no logically possible way for God to create from nothing means that creation from nothing,should be dismissed until it is shown that it is at least possible.

That would be true only if “Actual Reality” wasn’t necessary and fundamental to the existence of potential entities. Out of nothing comes nothing still applies. Actual reality is necessary as an absolute foundation of potential things, thus we are not required to have knowledge of how that actual reality produces new objects, so long as we understand that its existence is necessary. This is for the simple fact that if we dismiss the existence of an absolute actual reality this would also be dismissing the possibility of potentiality. Potentiality is a product of existence, for the fact that it cannot come out of nothing and it is meaningless and logically impossible for it to cause or exist by itself without actual reality. Therefore we must assume that any inability to grasp how God creates is merely an epistemological problem for finite human-beings.

Therefore we cannot simply dismiss the idea of a first cause on the basis that we don’t understand how it works.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That means that without ‘giving’ , love isn’t complete

Like a circle doesn’t exist without being round, Perfect Love doesn’t “exist” without expressing that love in some way shape or form. This isn’t about completion. This is a matter of existential identity. Perfect love is pure actuality. Its existence and what it does are identical; they do not exist without each-other. It is timeless because there cannot be a time when the nature of love does not love.

… but more importantly: thus makes the universe necessary. God could not have chosen not to create the universe, which denies God’s free will.

It depends on the context in which you express necessity. The idea that Gods nature is necessarily creative and thus the creation of something is certain, does not change the fact that creation is contingent upon Gods love in order to exist.

As for freewill, you would be correct in saying that the human idea of freedom is an imperfect representation of Gods nature. God does not have human freewill. Its an imperfect analogy meant only to express the fact that God does what he does without being forced to do so by something outside of himself; God is not limited by other beings, other than those logical limitations imposed by his own nature. A truly perfect being only makes choices that reflects its perfect nature. It is impossible for God to do something which does not reflect his perfect nature because that would contradict his very existence, and thus in some ways in a most general sense God is entirely predictable, because he only does what he is. None of Gods choices or actions are arbitrary. God only discriminates between two possibilities if he finds that one of those possibilities do not reflect his perfect nature. In that respect God timelessly creates the potentiality for all possibilities that in some way reflects his perfect nature. God, being a perfectly infinite being, transcending the limitations of space-time, does not require human freedom, and in fact, in the context of doing only that which is existentially-perfect, human free-will would be an impediment to Gods perfect nature. Gods freedom is measured in respect of his ability to express his nature to a perfect degree; to do what he is without being limited by something outside of himself or his power.

 

[belorg]

That would be true only if “Actual Reality” wasn’t necessary and fundamental to the existence of potential entities.

Point is, since it is not even possible for Pure Actual Relaity to produce potential entities, , it cannot be necessary.

Out of nothing comes nothing still applies. Actual reality is necessary as an absolute foundation of potential things, thus we are not required to have knowledge of how that actual reality produces new objects, so long as we understand that its existence is necessary.

I am not dismissing a first cause, I am only dismissing a first cause that cannot possibly work as a first cause.

 

[belorg]

Like a circle doesn’t exist without being round, Perfect Love doesn’t “exist” without expressing that love in some way shape or form.

To use your analogy, an imperfect circle would be e.g. an oval (that’s not actyually true, but it’s an analogy. The oval will only become a perfect circle if it is perfectly round.
Same way, God’s love is an oval sans creation , and it is a circles with creation. That means that ontologically, God’s love is imperfect until He has created the universe.

This isn’t about completion. This is a matter of existential identity. Perfect love is pure actuality. Its existence and what it does are identical; they do not exist without each-other. It is timeless because there cannot be a time when the nature of love does not love.

There cannot be a time, but since God is supposed to be a creator, there must be an ontic instance at which God’s love isn’t perfect.

It depends on the context in which you express necessity. The idea that Gods nature is necessarily creative and thus the creation of something is certain, does not change the fact that creation is contingent upon Gods love in order to exist.

As for freewill, you would be correct in saying that the human idea of freedom is an imperfect representation of Gods nature. God does not have human freewill. Its an imperfect analogy meant only to express the fact that God does what he does without being forced to do so by something outside of himself;

That’s compatibilist freewill.

God is not limited by other beings, other than those logical limitations imposed by his own nature. A truly perfect being only makes choices that reflects its perfect nature. It is impossible for God to do something which does not reflect his perfect nature because that would contradict his very existence, and thus in some ways in a most general sense God is entirely predictable, because he only does what he is.

So, God can only create this universe and none other.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**He apparently need to express His love in order for His love to be perfect. **

Not so, or God would not have been perfect before the Creation. You are confusing God with humans, who certainly do need to create in order to be fulfilled.

God is love, according to the Gospel of John. Therefore God is pure Esse, pure Being without dilution, Alpha and Omega, not as we are.

It is a fact that atheists, unwilling to grant the existence of God, will always insist on speaking of God as if he were just another creature, as if the Infinite were just another finite being who, if He exists, should be just as easily comprehensible, and subject to the laws of, all other finite beings.

“Show me this God of yours,” the atheist demands. He has shown himself indirectly in the order, beauty, and vastness of the universe. He will not show Himself directly until we have earned the right to be in His presence.

Atheists do not earn the right, nor do they even recognize the right or want it.

One cannot know God until one first *wants *to know God.

 

[Luke_K]

But we are required to have knowledge **that **it can produce new objects. And if ‘Out of nothing comes nothng’ applies, then obviously, it can’t.
And then tio say, “Well, it’s a mystery” is a cop-out.

I think this issue of creation out of nothing is one of semantics. Catholic theology doesn’t propose that God somehow used “nothing-ness” to create stuff. He simply created without prior existing materials. He didn’t use anything except his will.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

To use your analogy, an imperfect circle would be e.g. an oval (that’s not actyually true, but it’s an analogy. The oval will only become a perfect circle if it is perfectly round.

Gods nature is love. His will is a perfect expression of his nature. It doesn’t begin to be love, just like a circle doesn’t begin to be a circle; and anything that God gives out of love exists simultaneously with God. The universe is a contingent entity; but there isn’t a time when the universe did not exist. In the context of being finite and contingent the universe can be said to have a beginning, but this is not itself a temporal event with a before an after, and this is because time itself began with the universe.

Same way, God’s love is an oval sans creation , and it is a circles with creation. That means that ontologically, God’s love is imperfect until He has created the universe.

Well it seems your trying your very best to ignore what i am saying. It is true that the God who does not share is not God by identity. But God merely has to have an eternal will to create and share his being in-order to have that identity, and that in itself is an act of perfect love. it does not matter when or where the pending creation event takes place. Its good enough that we know that it will take place because God is perfect love. A God who is perfect love by nature will certainly share his perfection, because he is perfect love. You attempt to place a duration of time between Gods will and the existence of the universe will not change that fact.

There cannot be a time, but since God is supposed to be a creator, there must be an ontic instance at which God’s love isn’t perfect.

There is never an instant, ontic or otherwise, where God does not will the existence of the universe. His will never changes; its timeless.

So, God can only create this universe and none other.

God creates any and all logically possible things that corresponds with his nature. God doesn’t create the universe by fiat. He creates physical laws and allows the universe to develop its potentialities via the principle of evolution.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

b erf

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Point is, since it is not even possible for Pure Actual Reality to produce potential entities, , it cannot be necessary.

Potentiality is a produce of actual reality, so the contradiction you think that you have discovered is only apparent.

But we are required to have knowledge **that **it can produce new objects.
And then tio say, “Well, it’s a mystery” is a cop-out.

Before i continue, let me make it clear to you that it is not my position that God actually creates out of absolutely nothing, and neither do i believe that this is the position of the church.

Actually i have my own understanding about how God creates without contradiction. But thats besides the point. Nobody is coping out. The theist is merely admitting they don’t Know how God created potential reality. But this doesn’t permit the philosopher to say that therefore potentiality came out of nothing; and this is because we know that being is the absolute principle of potentiality and thus actual “being” must absolutely precede potentiality on a ontological level. You cannot have the principle of potentiality at all without first having an actual being that is not itself a potential thing.

One other problem with your position is that, assuming that reality is intrinsically rational, you fail to take in to account that Actual Realty is the foundation of metaphysical logic itself; since in nothing there is nothing. And since the universe is subject to rational truth; in terms of being, logic truth has to transcend potential reality absolutely; this is because potential reality cannot be the cause of logical truth. Because logical truth is an expression of being, this means that all logical truth has to be rooted in an absolute being that transcends space-time, and thus never had a beginning or changed.

You have no choice, but to accept the first cause argument; since if you remove absolute being you remove the existence of rational reality; thus absolutely undermining all forms of rational knowledge, including science.

That would only mean that every potentiality also has actual reality, and the actuality and potentiality really are two sides of the same coin.

This does not solve the problem. It doesn’t matter how many potential beings you add together, none of them can give a sufficient reason or absolute explanation for the existence of potentiality, since each being that you call a cause was itself a potential reality and thus none of the causes in that string of being can be considered the source or the root of potentiality or reality; since they are merely mediums to those factors. All you will end up doing is passing the buck ad-infinitum. Its a good way to waste time; thats all.

The same logic that teaches us that there must be a purely actual being, also teaches us that a purely actual being poses more problems than it solves. So either, we drop all logic, or we look for other solutions.

Or you can simply admit that your wrong, and that there is an answer that you at this moment in time cannot fully comprehend. Its not surprising that you want to drop logic, since you know that there is no other reasonable explanation. There are no other rational solutions. While an absolute being may create an apparent contradiction in terms of causality it is not clear that such is anything more than an epistemological difficulty, because on the other-hand the first cause argument does logically solve the existence of potentiality in terms of “ontology”, in the sense of providing an actual foundation through which potential reality can become actual, without which we can be sure nothing is possible. Thus the first cause is necessary to explain why there is something rather than nothing.

But if your desperate to be an atheist…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I think this issue of creation out of nothing is one of semantics. Catholic theology doesn’t propose that God somehow used “nothing-ness” to create stuff. He simply created without prior existing materials. He didn’t use anything except his will.

Thanks Luke.

 

[belorg]

Gods nature is love. His will is a perfect expression of his nature. It doesn’t begin to be love, just like a circle doesn’t begin to be a circle; and anything that God gives out of love exists simultaneously with God. The universe is a contingent entity; but there isn’t a time when the universe did not exist. In the context of being finite and contingent the universe can be said to have a beginning, but this is not itself a temporal event with a before an after, and this is because time itself began with the universe.

We are not talking temporality, we are talking ontology. So, yes, ontologiclally God does ‘begin’ to love.

Well it seems your trying your very best to ignore what i am saying. It is true that the God who does not share is not God by identity. But God merely has to have an eternal will to create and share his being in-order to have that identity, and that in itself is an act of perfect love. it does not matter when or where the pending creation event takes place. Its good enough that we know that it will take place because God is perfect love. A God who is perfect love by nature will certainly share his perfection, because he is perfect love. You attempt to place a duration of time between Gods will and the existence of the universe will not change that fact.

I don’t attempt to place a duration of time between God’s will and the existence of the universe. I am referring to ontic prioroty of God’s will over the act of creation itself.

There is never an instant, ontic or otherwise, where God does not will the existence of the universe. His will never changes; its timeless.

If that is true, it makes the whole ‘personal’ aspect of the First Cauqe redundant.

God creates any and all logically possible things that corresponds with his nature. God doesn’t create the universe by fiat. He creates physical laws and allows the universe to develop its potentialities via the principle of evolution.

Which means that God can only create this universe and none other.

 

[belorg]

Potentiality is a produce of actual reality, so the contradiction you think that you have discovered is only apparent.

No it isn’t because if potentaility is a produce of actual reality, then actual reality does change.

Before i continue, let me make it clear to you that it is not my position that God actually creates out of absolutely nothing, and neither do i believe that this is the position of the church.

I don’t know what you belive, but it most certainly is the position of the church.

Actually i have my own understanding about how God creates without contradiction. But thats besides the point. Nobody is coping out. The theist is merely admitting they don’t Know how God created potential reality.

If that were all, it wouldn’t be a problem, but potentiality from actuality is logically impossible per the very definition of actuality, it’s not just ‘hard to grasp’. And the failure to get out of the problem shows that Thomism in fact has no cosmology at all, beacsue that cannot account for potentiality.

But this doesn’t permit the philosopher to say that therefore potentiality came out of nothing;

It could be eternal too, of course.

and this is because we know that being is the absolute principle of potentiality and thus actual “being” must absolutely precede potentiality on a ontological level. You cannot have the principle of potentiality at all without first having an actual being that is not itself a potential thing.

In fact, it is not logically impossible for the First Cause to be actual and potential.

One other problem with your position is that, assuming that reality is intrinsically rational, you fail to take in to account that Actual Realty is the foundation of metaphysical logic itself; since in nothing there is nothing.

Here you are contradicting yourself, because ‘in nothing there is nothing’ is a statement of metaphysical logic.

And since the universe is subject to rational truth; in terms of being, logic truth has to transcend potential reality absolutely; this is because potential reality cannot be the cause of logical truth. Because logical truth is an expression of being, this means that all logical truth has to be rooted in an absolute being that transcends space-time, and thus never had a beginning or changed.

That’s a conceptualist view and a very debatable one.
Anyway:if an absolute being that transcends space-time roots logical truth that what roots the truth of ‘an absolute being exists’. For such a being to exist, metaphysical logic has to onyologically preceed it, because the absolute being is subject to rational truth too.

You have no choice, but to accept the first cause argument; since if you remove absolute being you remove the existence of rational reality; thus absolutely undermining all forms of rational knowledge, including science.

As I showed above, that is an absolute non-sequitur.

This does not solve the problem. It doesn’t matter how many potential beings you add together, none of them can give a sufficient reason or absolute explanation for the existence of potentiality, since each being that you call a cause was itself a potential reality and thus none of the causes in that string of being can be considered the source or the root of potentiality or reality; since they are merely mediums to those factors. All you will end up doing is passing the buck ad-infinitum. Its a good way to waste time; thats all.

Potentiality is necessary. Here is my explanantion.

Or you can simply admit that your wrong, and that there is an answer that you at this moment in time cannot fully comprehend.

You actually mean: that no-one at this moment can fully comprehend.

Its not surprising that you want to drop logic, since you know that there is no other reasonable explanation.

I am just looking for a reasonable explanation. If the Thomist explanantion were a little bit reasonbale, I wouldn’t have to look for another one.

While an absolute being may create an apparent contradiction in terms of causality it is not clear that such is anything more than an epistemological difficulty, because on the other-hand the first cause argument does logically solve the existence of potentiality in terms of “ontology”, in the sense of providing an actual foundation through which potential reality can become actual, without which we can be sure nothing is possible. Thus the first cause is necessary to explain why there is something rather than nothing.

I am not disputing that there is a first cause, I am just disputing it’s pure actuality

But if your desperate to be an atheist…

Well, actually it’s the theist who seems so dsparate that he’ll accept a pseudo-explanation.

 

[belorg]

I think this issue of creation out of nothing is one of semantics. Catholic theology doesn’t propose that God somehow used “nothing-ness” to create stuff. He simply created without prior existing materials. He didn’t use anything except his will.

Yes, of course, and that’s the whole problem. If God was thought to have used ‘nothing-ness’ the problem would be much smaller.
But God not using anything except his will means that potentiality cannot possibly be accounted for.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

In fact, it is not logically impossible for the First Cause to be actual and potential.

Assertions don’t count as rational arguments

Here you are contradicting yourself, because ‘in nothing there is nothing’ is a statement of metaphysical logic.

The word nothing is a concept referring to a negation of being; it is not referring to an actual thing or object. Nothing is not real. You have only demonstrated that you treat nothing as a being or a thing making you look more irrational then you did before you made the statement.

Anyway:if an absolute being that transcends space-time roots logical truth that what roots the truth of ‘an absolute being exists’.

The existence of an absolute being makes it true that there is an absolute being

For such a being to exist, metaphysical logic has to onyologically preceed it, because the absolute being is subject to rational truth too.

Like God is love, God is truth. Gods nature is intrinsically rational because his nature is intrinsically necessary and perfect. Perfection is the root of all truth. Rational truth is an intrinsic expression of an actual nature; and that nature is God. A concept cannot precede being, but rather we become aware of rational truth because of the logical nature of reality. Absolute necessary being = objective logical truth. Without a necessary bring there is no objective logical truth.

The act of reality is either rational or it is not.

Potentiality is necessary. Here is my explanation.

Its an irrational explanation since potentiality is not an “actual being”.

You actually mean: that no-one at this moment can fully comprehend.

I bet you would like that.

I am just looking for a reasonable explanation.

No you are not. You are looking for an explanation that suits your atheism, otherwise you would not concoct ridiculous come backs such as “Potentiality is necessary”.

If the Thomist explanantion were a little bit reasonbale, I wouldn’t have to look for another one.

Right now you are faced with two choices. Either potentiality came out of nothing, in which case you accept the view that there is no objective rational reality and thus no rational truth; since there is no ontological distinction between something and nothing. Or, there is an necessary absolute reality in which potential beings are rooted; in which case you accept that reality is fundamentally rational with the caveat that we cannot comprehend what it means for God to create the potential universe. In effect this is to say that we should treat your so called contradiction as being merely apparent, because…

1. Actual reality is the absolute principle through which potential things gain reality,

and

1. Actual reality is the absolute principle through which logical distinctions have an objectively meaningful ontology.

An honest person who supports a rational view of existence will have no choice but to accept the latter explanation despite any apparent contradiction, for the simple fact that a first cause, that is absolutely perfect and is purely actual, is required in order for reason to apply objectively.

Well, actually it’s the theist who seems so dsparate that he’ll accept a pseudo-explanation.

Your view is that potential reality is necessary. It doesn’t get more irrational, desperate, or pseudo than that!!!

 

[belorg]

Assertions don’t count as rational arguments

Then show me why it is logically impossible.

You have only demonstrated that you treat nothing as a being or a thing making you look more irrational then you did before you made the statement.

I have never treated nothing as a thing or a being,
In fact that’s why I don’t buy into the whole ‘creation from nothing’ by a purely actual being.

The existence of an absolute being makes it true that there is an absolute being

The existence of a potential being makes it true that there is a potential being **and **acounts for other potential beings.

My argument, however, is :

The existence of an absolutely purely actual reality makes it impossible for reality to become potential

Potential reality exists

Hence potential reality is NOT rooted in actual reality.

Like God is love, God is truth. Gods nature is intrinsically rational because his nature is intrinsically necessary and perfect. Perfection is the root of all truth. Rational truth is an intrinsic expression of an actual nature; and that nature is God. A concept cannot precede being, but rather we become aware of rational truth because of the logical nature of reality. Absolute necessary being = objective logical truth. Without a necessary bring there is no objective logical truth.

This is just circular. God is logic because if God was not logic, God wouldn’t exist.

The act of reality is either rational or it is not.

Reality is either rational or it is not is a law to which reality is subject. And I don’t dispute that irrational reality cannot exist. in fact, that’s why I am an atheist.

Its an irrational explanation since potentiality is not an “actual being”.

actuality= potentiality - time.

Or, i plain English: the only difference between actuality and potentiality is time.At every instant of time, every potential being is purely actual. That’s all there is to it.

I bet you would like that.

It’s just the truth, and yes, I like the truth.

No you are not. You are looking for an explanation that suits your atheism, otherwise you would not concoct ridiculous come backs such as “Potentiality is necessary”.

I repeat my request: can you give an argument against it?

Right now you are faced with two choices. Either potentiality came out of nothing, in which case you accept the view that there is no objective rational reality and thus no rational truth; since there is no ontological distinction between something and nothing.

That is a complete non-sequitur. “Potentilaity is eternal” is a third choice, which you have asserted is wrong, but for which you have given no argument.

Or, there is an necessary absolute reality in which potential beings are rooted

Well, I can accept that. Only: potential beings cannot be rooted in a purely actual reality, as I showed above.

; in which case you accept that reality is fundamentally rational with the caveat that we cannot comprehend what it means for God to create the potential universe.

It’s not a caveat. It is a logical impossibility. As I showed above.

In effect this is to say that we should treat your so called contradiction as being merely apparent, because…

1. Actual reality is the absolute principle through which potential things gain reality

,
Is impossible, and here you are in fact, treating nothing as a being or a thing. How irrational .

and

1. Actual reality is the absolute principle through which logical distinctions have an objectively meaningful ontology.

Actual reality necessarily is subject to the laws of logic.

An honest person who supports a rational view of existence will have no choice but to accept the latter explanation despite any apparent contradiction,

An honest person does not accept contradictions.And as I have shown above, they are not merely 'apparent.
The fact that you choose to ignore the contradiction makes me wonder whether you are ‘an honest person’ in fact.

for the simple fact that a first cause, that is absolutely perfect and is purely actual, is required in order for reason to apply objectively.

There are arguments for and against this notion. An obvious argument against this is that a purely actual being has to be objective, and, by defintion, personal beings cannot be objective.

Your view is that potential reality is necessary. It doesn’t get more irrational, desperate, or pseudo than that!!!

Nice assertion. I guess an argument is it’s too much to ask?

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Apologies for the delay belrog, two 10 hour days in a row. Glad to have the work though in this economy

See things have… Evolved. Going to keep my concerns towards our original conversation.

I am not sure anout that. It sounds a lot more logical than the alternative. Sarting out with a changeable entity at least accounts for change.

As stated earlier by quoting Dr. Feser we’ll be happily to concede this, for strictly the sake of argument, that an eternal prime matter/potentiality because it vindicates the theistic stance the same. Potentiality can not direct/change itself, only did change happen in this possible world by a cause of a supreme intelligence with active power. So if your not going to budge from this stance of eternal prime matter… are you going to become a theist now? Or did a hypothesis of quantum vacuum theory give you enough to not make that jump? Honest questions, not trying to be provocative. If it comes off that why, apologies.

But logically speaking, this potentiality has to have an efficient cause otherwise you’d be speaking of intrinsic impossibilities. In which case, you’re just choosing what “less” impossible to your personal view to support your personal ideal of a lifestyle.

If God was all of existence, it is not just ‘unexplainable’ how anything can be created outside him, it’s logically impossible for anything to exist outside of him.

Understandable from you prospective but from mine, it is logically possible. I’m factoring in a possible variable to account for the lack of human understanding on how such a thing could happen that is intrinsically impossible to human casual power and thought but could very well be intrinsically possible to the Pure Actual Being, and that variable is omnipotence. But not only is my position supported by that possible variable, but all other possible explanations are indefensible thus making the theistic stand point the only defensible argument. Even though we are not going to agree, but in fact fight each other on that, I don’t think we are going to convince each other anyways.

That’s not a problem: just remove the ‘ex deo’ and conceive of this Actual Being as non-personal.

If you wish. But your implying passive change, with this stance there wasn’t a beginning. This is a separate debate unto itself, that of eternal chains of events, atemporal reality, etc… think we can leave it out of this to minimize our concerns to the topic at hand.

Sorry, but that sound like a cop-out. “We theists can explain the cause of the universe.”

-Of yes? “Yes, the universe is in an unexplainable way created by an unexplainable entity”

• Very impressive.

Isn’t is a good idea then , to become somewhat more intellectually honest and admit that at the basis of it all lies a mystery and that calling it ‘God’ or even ‘personal’ is unjustified?

As mind over matter stated, that’s a strawman and a copout. But I’ll bite and retort.

The counter argument is more logical to you?

“We atheists can explain the cause of the universe.”

-Of yes? “Yes, potentiality/prime matter had no efficient cause. This existence directed/changed itself by accident into a orderly and law restricted state bound by absolutes. Chaos created order and unintelligible things gave birth to intelligible beings.”

• …Very impressive

Failure to see the justification isn’t my problem. But I’ll be fully honest with you, to say potentiality was created outside of the PAB may imply intrinsic impossibilities to our limited thought and that accepting it as a possiblity is a “leap of faith” in the omnipotence observation. But know, it’s a very very short leap.

That’s amatter of opinion. Maybe the ‘corruptible good’ part is merely an illusion.

I’m not going to even dignify this. I like to see this said in the social justice forum.

The obvious answer to that problem is: we probably do not have free will.

:banghead:

It’s funny, being a Thomist Catholic you know the dogmas and doctrines I adhere too. In all fairness, think you should state what you believe is truth to you in few words. I’m not going to continue to debate two separate possibilities presented by you, that of uncaused potentiality acted on by the PAB or the PAB was the passive recipient of change or whatever else you think could be a possibility. Choose an single argument, present it, and back it. Otherwise, I’m done.

 

[Faithdancer]

As I understand it, this would contradict current Big Bang Cosmology, the point (singularity) is typically considered to be only an ideal point, it does not actually have physical existence. The Big Bang describes the expansion of the universe from nothing 13 billion years ago.

Can you please supply a reference for your last sentence? I am not aware that astronomers or physicists have agreed that the Big Bang expanded from “nothing.” In fact noted SETI astronomer Seth Shostak, who is a regular guest lecturer for Stanford University’s Astrobiology seminar, is on record as saying, in this class on 08/25/2008 that in effect, that scientists can only reasonably discuss what happened from a few milliseconds after the Big Bang began, onward, not what initiated the Big Bang or what occured before the Big Bang.

 

[belorg]

As stated earlier by quoting Dr. Feser we’ll be happily to concede this, for strictly the sake of argument, that an eternal prime matter/potentiality because it vindicates the theistic stance the same. Potentiality can not direct/change itself, only did change happen in this possible world by a cause of a supreme intelligence with active power.

But what’s the basis of that stance? Why can’t potentilaity change intself?
Isn’t this only beasue Thomists have defined potentiality as unable to change itself?

So if your not going to budge from this stance of eternal prime matter… are you going to become a theist now? Or did a hypothesis of quantum vacuum theory give you enough to not make that jump?

Yes, a hypothesis of quantum vacuum theory gives me enough to make the jump, because it porvides a logically possible way in which potentialities in fact can change themselves. I say a ‘logically possible way’, not a ‘plausible way’. It could have happened in another way too.

Honest questions, not trying to be provocative. If it comes off that why, apologies.

No need to aopologize.

But logically speaking, this potentiality has to have an efficient cause otherwise you’d be speaking of intrinsic impossibilities. In which case, you’re just choosing what “less” impossible to your personal view to support your personal ideal of a lifestyle.

As I told MindoverMatter, if we view this potentiality as necessary, it has an efficient cause. MindoverMatter reacts to this by mocking me, but if you can give an argument for why this is logically impossible, we would have a basis for discussion? Merely asserting that this is an absurdity does not suffice.

Understandable from you prospective but from mine, it is logically possible. I’m factoring in a possible variable to account for the lack of human understanding on how such a thing could happen that is intrinsically impossible to human casual power and thought but could very well be intrinsically possible to the Pure Actual Being, and that variable is omnipotence.

Thyat reason why ‘that variable’ does not work is because it does not make the impossible possible. Omnipotence deos not entail the pwoer to create square circles e.g.
So, that’s why I said that 'omnipotence( is really a cop-out.

But not only is my position supported by that possible variable, but all other possible explanations are indefensible thus making the theistic stand point the only defensible argument.

Firstly, you ‘d have to show that other possible explanantions are indefensible (if they are possible they seem defensible) and then you’ d still have to show your explanantion is possible. If we are allowed to say, "Well, maybe it is possible because there is so much about this supernatural reality that we do not knwo anything about, then thiks equally holds for every other conceivable explanation/ Maybe things can pop into existence uncaused, maybe potentialities can chnage themselves by some mysterious internal “mechnaqnism”, etc…

If you wish. But your implying passive change, with this stance there wasn’t a beginning.

No, I am not implying that there was no beginning.

This is a separate debate unto itself, that of eternal chains of events, atemporal reality, etc… think we can leave it out of this to minimize our concerns to the topic at hand.

I am not talking about an eternal chain of events.

As mind over matter stated, that’s a strawman and a copout. But I’ll bite and retort.

The counter argument is more logical to you?

“We atheists can explain the cause of the universe.”

-Of yes? “Yes, potentiality/prime matter is necessary. This existence directed/changed itself into a orderly and law restricted state bound by absolutes. Chaos created order and unintelligible things gave birth to intelligible beings.”

• …Very impressive

I’ve changed it a bit, but the bottom line is: is this logicaly impossible? It may sound very implausible, and it may even be evry implausible, but is it logically impossible? If you think it is, then please present an argument.

Failure to see the justification isn’t my problem. But I’ll be fully honest with you, to say potentiality was created outside of the PAB may imply intrinsic impossibilities to our limited thought and that accepting it as a possiblity is a “leap of faith” in the omnipotence observation. But know, it’s a very very short leap.

I think the leap is infinitely long and has nothing to do with our limited thought.

I’ll rephrase my objection, so that it may become a little more obvious which ‘leap’ we are talking about.

Let’s satr out with the basic Thomist concept:

A purely actual being caused all potential beings.
Purely actual is defined by Thomists as ‘totally unable to change’

now we get

ontic instant 1:

The only thing that exists is purely actual reality
(IOW at ontic instant 1, all that exsied was unchangeable reality)

ontic instant 2;

Potential relaity exists.

(IOW the unchangeable reality has changed)

Now you can add as mich omnipotence as you like or even add some other myterious power or whatever, the fcat remaons that you have to account for the fcat tha reality that by your own definition was logically impossible to change, did in fc at change and become potential.

It seems to me that this requires quite a a leap.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

But what’s the basis of that stance? Why can’t potentilaity change intself?
Isn’t this only beasue Thomists have defined potentiality as unable to change itself?

I’ve changed it a bit, but the bottom line is: is this logicaly impossible? It may sound very implausible, and it may even be evry implausible, but is it logically impossible? If you think it is, then please present an argument.

A piece of wood has the potentiality to be ash. This potentiality is not an inherent active/passive power within wood, but is able to be ash. By application of fire to wood does the actuality of ash come forth. Does this happen per accidens? Yes, ie. natural forest fires. But let’s not forget when speaking of a purely potential state, or nothingness, there isn’t a multiplicity of elements or physical laws interacting with each other per accidens. This nothingness has the potentiality of becoming something but per accidens cannot be the cause, ex nihilo nihil fit. Only by an external application of matter/physics can the nothingness actualize into something, an event such as this is directed and not an accident.

As I told MindoverMatter, if we view this potentiality as necessary, it has an efficient cause. MindoverMatter reacts to this by mocking me, but if you can give an argument for why this is logically impossible, we would have a basis for discussion? Merely asserting that this is an absurdity does not suffice.

I’m sorry, it’s necessary and has an efficient cause? I’m guessing that was a typo or something, because that’s a contradiction. Your conclusion does not inculde an external agent acting on this potentiality, only by accepting the fact that God acts on this potentiality does it become free from contradiction.

This potentiality is necessary in order for the PAB to stay a PAB and act upon with active power. But this potentiality is only realized when the PAB desires to change outside of Himself. Without a desire to change, there is no potentiality to the PAB. Was the potentiality in existence prior to the first cause? I truly wonder if there was such a state, if God acted out of agape love. Tell you what, this merits a separate thread and going to start it with this line of thought. Would like your (name removed by moderator)ut in it if it’ll relate to your question.

Thyat reason why ‘that variable’ does not work is because it does not make the impossible possible. Omnipotence deos not entail the pwoer to create square circles e.g.
So, that’s why I said that 'omnipotence( is really a cop-out.

Omnipotence does not entail the power to create contradictions, but only what is intrinsically possible. Very true. But who’s to say that this event is contradictory/impossible to the PAB? Perhaps the PAB has the power to subtract Himself from a particular space, thus creating a space of non-being. We have seen multiple accounts of the power of God doing something that is intrinsically impossible to our limited human thought in our physical existence, ie. water from stone (Moses), multiplying bread and fish (Christ), self-resurrection (Christ), resurrection of the dead (Christ, St. Peter, St.Vincent), saints levitating, apparitions, giving sight to the blind (Christ, St. Padre Pio, etc…), list goes on. No offense but I couldn’t care less if you don’t accept those events as facts, but the fact is there is basis to say there is an ability to create outside of Himself.

 

[belorg]

A piece of wood has the potentiality to be ash. This potentiality is not an inherent active/passive power within wood, but is able to be ash. By application of fire to wood does the actuality of ash come forth. Does this happen per accidens? Yes, ie. natural forest fires. But let’s not forget when speaking of a purely potential state, or nothingness, there isn’t a multiplicity of elements or physical laws interacting with each other per accidens. This nothingness has the potentiality of becoming something but per accidens cannot be the cause, ex nihilo nihil fit. Only by an external application of matter/physics can the nothingness actualize into something, an event such as this is directed and not an accident.

A purely potential state or nothingness? That’s a contradiction Nothingness is **not **a purely potential state. nothingness is completely nothing. So, your argument deos not work.

I’m sorry, it’s necessary and has an efficient cause?I’m guessing that was a typo or something, because that’s a contradiction.

The efficient cause is the necessity of the beiing. Maybe that’s a sloppy formulation, but you see what I mean.

Your conclusion does not inculde an external agent acting on this potentiality, only by accepting the fact that God acts on this potentiality does it become free from contradiction.

No it doesn’t.

This potentiality is necessary in order for the PAB to stay a PAB and act upon with active power. But this potentiality is only realized when the PAB desires to change outside of Himself. Without a desire to change, there is no potentiality to the PAB. Was the potentiality in existence prior to the first cause? I truly wonder if there was such a state, if God acted out of agape love. Tell you what, this merits a separate thread and going to start it with this line of thought. Would like your (name removed by moderator)ut in it if it’ll relate to your question.

Sure

Omnipotence does not entail the power to create contradictions, but only what is intrinsically possible. Very true. But who’s to say that this event is contradictory/impossible to the PAB? Perhaps the PAB has the power to subtract Himself from a particular space thus creating a space of non-being

No, the PAB does not have the power to subtract himself from a particular place, because that is a change, and the PAB is changeless.

We have seen multiple accounts of the power of God doing something that is intrinsically impossible to our limited human thought in our physical existence, ie. water from stone (Moses), multiplying bread and fish (Christ), self-resurrection (Christ), resurrection of the dead (Christ, St. Peter, St.Vincent), saints levitating, apparitions, giving sight to the blind (Christ, St. Padre Pio, etc…), list goes on. No offense but I couldn’t care less if you don’t accept those events as facts, but the fact is there is basis to say there is an ability to create outside of Himself.

No, I don’t accepts those events as facts, but that’s irrelevant. Those facts, although physically (name removed by moderator)ossible are not logically impossible. Creating potentiality from actuality is logically impossible…