Proof Of An Intelligent Neccesary Cause

[IWantGod]

Premise 1: Out of nothing comes nothing.

Premise 2: Something exists. Therefore something must have always existed if premise 1 is true.

Premise 3: Something necessarily exists and therefore it does not potentially exist if premise 1 and 2 is correct.

Premise 4: If something necessarily exists, then every aspect of its being is necessarily actual and therefore does not change. Its being is not potentially actual, it does not become potentially more than what it is because it is eternally everything that it is and ever will be. There is no potency in it.

Premise 5: Physical reality changes. It is potentially more, it is in a continuous state of evolution and becoming. Therefore Physical reality or activity and the laws that govern its being is not necessary reality because it has potency/potential in its being.

Premise 6: Potential/potency cannot be actualised from nothing according to premise 1 and as such neither can physical laws since physical laws are intrinsic to the nature of potential physical beings.

Premise 7: Therefore physical activity or physical being and physical laws require an existential cause according to premise 1.

Premise 8: If physical being or physical activity requires a cause according to premise 1 then its cause is not physical being or physical activity or any of the laws that govern it according to premise 4, 5 and 6.

Premise 9: According to premise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and 8, necessary being is the necessary cause of anything that has potency/potential in its being. And according to premise 8, we can see that necessary being is not physical activity or physical being. Therefore necessary reality cannot be defined as having moving parts or dimensions. Also it must follow that such a being is not governed by physical laws.

Premise 10: Therefore physical reality cannot have a “natural” cause as that would require moving parts or dimensions. It would require potency/potential.

Premise 11: Necessary reality must therefore be a super-natural cause. However since it has no parts from which physical reality and it laws can be formed naturally – having no potency in its being – then there is only one other kind of cause that can actualise physical potential and the laws that govern it. An intelligent cause.

Premise 12: According to premise 1, out of nothing comes nothing. Thus a necessary being is also an intelligent cause. Everything that has potency and therefore - contingent laws of activity - must therefore exist and have its being in something like an intelligent mind.

Premise 13: If necessary reality has an intelligent mind and we exist in its intellect, then it is self-knowing or self-aware, and all that which has potency including ourselves and the laws of nature is a creation of its self-knowledge and is sustained within its self-knowing.

Conclusion: Ultimate reality is an intelligent necessary cause.

 

[dmar198]

Premise 1: Out of nothing comes nothing.

Premise 2: Something exists. Therefore something must have always existed if premise 1 is true.

Premise 3: Something necessarily exists and therefore it does not potentially exist if premise 1 and 2 is correct.

Premise 4: If something necessarily exists, then every aspect of its being is necessarily actual and therefore does not change. Its being is not potentially actual, it does not become potentially more than what it is because it is eternally everything that it is and ever will be. There is no potency in it.

Premise 5: Physical reality changes. It is potentially more, it is in a continuous state of evolution and becoming. Therefore Physical reality or activity and the laws that govern its being is not necessary reality because it has potency/potential in its being.

Premise 6: Potential/potency cannot be actualised from nothing according to premise 1 and as such neither can physical laws since physical laws are intrinsic to the nature of potential physical beings.

Premise 7: Therefore physical activity or physical being and physical laws require an existential cause according to premise 1.

Premise 8: If physical being or physical activity requires a cause according to premise 1 then its cause is not physical being or physical activity or any of the laws that govern it according to premise 4, 5 and 6.

Premise 9: According to premise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and 8, necessary being is the necessary cause of anything that has potency/potential in its being. And according to premise 8, we can see that necessary being is not physical activity or physical being. Therefore necessary reality cannot be defined as having moving parts or dimensions. Also it must follow that such a being is not governed by physical laws.

Premise 10: Therefore physical reality cannot have a “natural” cause as that would require moving parts or dimensions. It would require potency/potential.

Premise 11: Necessary reality must therefore be a super-natural cause. However since it has no parts from which physical reality and it laws can be formed naturally – having no potency in its being – then there is only one other kind of cause that can actualise physical potential and the laws that govern it. An intelligent cause.

Premise 12: According to premise 1, out of nothing comes nothing. Thus a necessary being is also an intelligent cause. Everything that has potency and therefore - contingent laws of activity - must therefore exist and have its being in something like an intelligent mind.

Premise 13: If necessary reality has an intelligent mind and we exist in its intellect, then it is self-knowing or self-aware, and all that which has potency including ourselves and the laws of nature is a creation of its self-knowledge and is sustained within its self-knowing.

Conclusion: Ultimate reality is an intelligent necessary cause.

Premises 1-12 seem very good and defensible to me. There are some “hidden premises” that would need to be uncovered for this to be a strict demonstration on logical grounds, but they appear minor to me. I like your proof, good job.

 

[Rhubarb]

Premises 1-12 seem very good and defensible to me. There are some “hidden premises” that would need to be uncovered for this to be a strict demonstration on logical grounds, but they appear minor to me. I like your proof, good job.

Your’re right. Many of the premises listed have sub-premises. There are also sub-arguments within the main argument. If we want a straightforward deductive proof everything needs to be arranged properly - one proposition per premise with the patterns of inference spelled out line-by-line.

The argument also rests on Aristotelean metaphysics which opens up many lines of attack. A complete argument for the OP’a conclusion would require a side-trip to explain and argue for their use. An explanation would probably suffice for now to make the argument more defensible. Though given most people here take Aristotle’s metaphysics for granted I don’t know how inclined anyone is to go down that rabbit hole.

Also I’d be curious to hear more about how the OP defines a physical law. It’s my understanding that scientific laws do not govern, but describe. That might throw a wrench into a few of the premises. I’ll have to think more about it.

 

[Tomdstone]

Premise 1: Out of nothing comes nothing.

Premise 2: Something exists. Therefore something must have always existed if premise 1 is true.

Premise 3: Something necessarily exists and therefore it does not potentially exist if premise 1 and 2 is correct.

Premise 4: If something necessarily exists, then every aspect of its being is necessarily actual and therefore does not change. Its being is not potentially actual, it does not become potentially more than what it is because it is eternally everything that it is and ever will be. There is no potency in it.

Premise 5: Physical reality changes. It is potentially more, it is in a continuous state of evolution and becoming. Therefore Physical reality or activity and the laws that govern its being is not necessary reality because it has potency/potential in its being.

Premise 6: Potential/potency cannot be actualised from nothing according to premise 1 and as such neither can physical laws since physical laws are intrinsic to the nature of potential physical beings.

Premise 7: Therefore physical activity or physical being and physical laws require an existential cause according to premise 1.

Premise 8: If physical being or physical activity requires a cause according to premise 1 then its cause is not physical being or physical activity or any of the laws that govern it according to premise 4, 5 and 6.

Premise 9: According to premise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and 8, necessary being is the necessary cause of anything that has potency/potential in its being. And according to premise 8, we can see that necessary being is not physical activity or physical being. Therefore necessary reality cannot be defined as having moving parts or dimensions. Also it must follow that such a being is not governed by physical laws.

Premise 10: Therefore physical reality cannot have a “natural” cause as that would require moving parts or dimensions. It would require potency/potential.

Premise 11: Necessary reality must therefore be a super-natural cause. However since it has no parts from which physical reality and it laws can be formed naturally – having no potency in its being – then there is only one other kind of cause that can actualise physical potential and the laws that govern it. An intelligent cause.

Premise 12: According to premise 1, out of nothing comes nothing. Thus a necessary being is also an intelligent cause. Everything that has potency and therefore - contingent laws of activity - must therefore exist and have its being in something like an intelligent mind.

Premise 13: If necessary reality has an intelligent mind and we exist in its intellect, then it is self-knowing or self-aware, and all that which has potency including ourselves and the laws of nature is a creation of its self-knowledge and is sustained within its self-knowing.

Conclusion: Ultimate reality is an intelligent necessary cause.

Premise 3? I don’t see why something exists necessarily? What do you mean by necessary? I don’t think it is necessary that the universe exists. It could collapse, for example, by way of a Big Crunch, and thus collapse itself out of existence as we know it. This might be followed by a Big Bang and thus we would have the universe going back and forth cyclically.

 

[Nixbits]

Both Premise 1 and Premise 3 need justification. I don’t accept either as necessarily true.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Both Premise 1 and Premise 3 need justification. I don’t accept either as necessarily true.

Premise 1: Every observation and study supports this notion. Nothing has ever popped into existence out of nothingness. this is one of the most basic principles underlying most scientific fields… if this is not true, then none of the sciences could be considered accurate.

Premise 3: Something exists… you exist, I exist, the screens we’re viewing these posts on exist. Since something exists, and since something cannot come from nothing (based on every last known scrap of information in the whole collective knowledge of the human race.), then the “something” that exists requires an exterior creator to have created it.

If you want to waste your time positing that something could come from nothing, have fun; but that’s an even greater faith claim than the claim that there is a God. We can provide philosophical proofs for God; you cannot provide a philosophical proof that something could come from nothing.

 

[Nixbits]

ProdglArchitect:

Premise 1: Every observation and study supports this notion. Nothing has ever popped into existence out of nothingness. this is one of the most basic principles underlying most scientific fields… if this is not true, then none of the sciences could be considered accurate.

Have the observations and studies considered all the possible conditions of the physical universe, including those at the moment (assuming that is even a valid concept) of the Big Bang, and within all phenomena such as black holes? Surely the sciences work because they are based on observations of the universe in our space/time locality? Have the physical laws that describe how the universe operates always been the same in every place and at every time? What precisely is meant by ‘nothingness’ in this premise? Does it mean a condition of no matter, energy or space/time? If so, how has it been determined how such a state of ‘nothingness’ always behaves?

ProdglArchitect:

Premise 3: Something exists… you exist, I exist, the screens we’re viewing these posts on exist. Since something exists, and since something cannot come from nothing (based on every last known scrap of information in the whole collective knowledge of the human race.), then the “something” that exists requires an exterior creator to have created it.

Your argument here does not relate to Premise 3. Premise 3 asserts that something ‘necessarily’ exists. My interpretation of this premise is that it is impossible that it could be otherwise. I accept that something does exist. What I am suggesting is that the poster needs to justify why things had to happen in this way. Why did something have to exist?

ProdglArchitect:

If you want to waste your time positing that something could come from nothing, have fun; but that’s an even greater faith claim than the claim that there is a God. We can provide philosophical proofs for God; you cannot provide a philosophical proof that something could come from nothing.

I have no desire to posit that something could come from nothing. I have no knowledge to support such a contention. But, within the context of a supposed logical proof, I don’t think it is valid to make the assertion that something cannot come from nothing without defining terms and without providing justification of the claim.

 

[Entwhistler]

Have the observations and studies considered all the possible conditions of the physical universe, including those at the moment (assuming that is even a valid concept) of the Big Bang, and within all phenomena such as black holes? Surely the sciences work because they are based on observations of the universe in our space/time locality? Have the physical laws that describe how the universe operates always been the same in every place and at every time? What precisely is meant by ‘nothingness’ in this premise? Does it mean a condition of no matter, energy or space/time? If so, how has it been determined how such a state of ‘nothingness’ always behaves?

I don’t think “nothing” is a thing really. It is an absence of something. So, (just thinking out loud here) if “nothing” is an absence of something, how can it behave at all? How can “nothing” behave?

Anyway, either the original poster meant absolute nothing or he meant something. There can’t be a kind of nothing. Or a nothing that has something.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Have the observations and studies considered all the possible conditions of the physical universe, including those at the moment (assuming that is even a valid concept) of the Big Bang, and within all phenomena such as black holes? Surely the sciences work because they are based on observations of the universe in our space/time locality? Have the physical laws that describe how the universe operates always been the same in every place and at every time? What precisely is meant by ‘nothingness’ in this premise? Does it mean a condition of no matter, energy or space/time? If so, how has it been determined how such a state of ‘nothingness’ always behaves?

I didn’t say that our knowledge of the universe was exhaustive, only that all know evidence points to the conclusion that something cannot come from nothing. There’s no evidence to suggest that the laws of physics have ever been different, so it would not be smart to base an argument on the presumption that they were at some point in the past. Doing so would make your arguments literally baseless. Thought games are all well and good, but if you’re going to make an actual argument on a subject, you should base that argument on the collected data. Feel free to seek out alternate data, that’s half the point of the sciences, but until evidence is found that contradicts the observed reality there is no rational reason to reject that reality.

Your argument here does not relate to Premise 3. Premise 3 asserts that something ‘necessarily’ exists. My interpretation of this premise is that it is impossible that it could be otherwise. I accept that something does exist. What I am suggesting is that the poster needs to justify why things had to happen in this way. Why did something have to exist?

I misread that premise, and internally combined it with number 2.

That said, If premise 1 is true, (and you’ve given no reason based on evidence to assume otherwise), and if premise 2 is true (which it obviously is), then it is absolutly necessary that something exists which has no cause of an external creator (i.e., it is something that necessarily exists as a result of it’s own nature. In other words, it is that things nature to exist.)

I have no desire to posit that something could come from nothing. I have no knowledge to support such a contention. But, within the context of a supposed logical proof, I don’t think it is valid to make the assertion that something cannot come from nothing without defining terms and without providing justification of the claim.

The terms are fairly basic ones, and not really in need of definition. As for the justification for the claim, it has been given. All known evidence supports the fact that something cannot come from nothing. You cannot circumvent this without ignoring the facts, or without instigating a “science of the gaps” type argument, claiming that there may be some evidence for it that we just don’t know yet, so we should therefore treat it as a valid alternative. Either option is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Tomdstone]

Premise 1: Every observation and study supports this notion. Nothing has ever popped into existence out of nothingness. this is one of the most basic principles underlying most scientific fields… if this is not true, then none of the sciences could be considered accurate.

Premise 3: Something exists… you exist, I exist, the screens we’re viewing these posts on exist. Since something exists, and since something cannot come from nothing (based on every last known scrap of information in the whole collective knowledge of the human race.), then the “something” that exists requires an exterior creator to have created it.

If you want to waste your time positing that something could come from nothing, have fun; but that’s an even greater faith claim than the claim that there is a God. We can provide philosophical proofs for God; you cannot provide a philosophical proof that something could come from nothing.

Premise 3 says something necessarily exists. Why is it necessary?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Premise 3 says something necessarily exists. Why is it necessary?

Becomes something exists period.

Nothing comes from nothing (something cannot come from nothing). If something exists, we know that something else must have created it. Since an infinite regression of creators is impossible (any sequential chain, no matter how long it may have existed, must have a starting point to set the chain in motion.), we know that there must be a creator who exists without an external cause. This is what we mean when we say something exists necessarily. It exists because it is in its nature to exist.

Trent Horn’s book Answering Atheism does this subject far more justice than I ever could. If you’re interested in it, I’d definitely pick that up.

 

[IWantGod]

Premise 3 says something necessarily exists. Why is it necessary?

Premise 1,* on which the entire argument rests*, states that nothing comes from nothing. If the first premise is true (And must be unless we are willing to throw out reason entirely) then something must necessarily exist eternally without potential. An unmoved mover, something that is not actualised potency/potential. Otherwise nothing would exist. There would be no being. Thus its very nature is to exist, and this is to say its nature is the absolute antithesis of nothing. It is pure actuality.

 

[IWantGod]

Both Premise 1 and Premise 3 need justification. I don’t accept either as necessarily true.

Saying that something can come from absolutely nothing is like saying that a square-triangle can exist. I don’t have to justify premise 1 at all. And premise 3 follows necessarily.

 

[IWantGod]

Also I’d be curious to hear more about how the OP defines a physical law. It’s my understanding that scientific laws do not govern, but describe. That might throw a wrench into a few of the premises. I’ll have to think more about it.

Hello Rhubard.

Premise 6: Potential/potency cannot be actualised from nothing according to premise 1 and as such neither can physical laws since physical laws are intrinsic to the nature of potential physical beings.

Science describes how nature behaves. It is also true from an ontological perspective that physical things generally behave according to their natures. This is just obvious. In general, ontologically speaking, they have a “law” of behaviour that is intrinsic to what they are.

Science and metaphysics both support this observation. Do you have any reason to think not?

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t think “nothing” is a thing really. It is an absence of something. So, (just thinking out loud here) if “nothing” is an absence of something, how can it behave at all? How can “nothing” behave?

Anyway, either the original poster meant absolute nothing or he meant something. There can’t be a kind of nothing. Or a nothing that has something.

This is correct. Absolutely Nothing isn’t a thing. It cannot behave or cause anything because it is an absence of things, natures, being, and therefore an absence of causes.

Both Science and metaphysics presuppose and rely upon this fact, otherwise there is no rational basis for their respective epistemology. Asking someone to justify the first premise is the same thing is asking someone to justify reason.

If one has to remove reason from the picture in order to produce a rebuttal, then I would say my argument has succeeded.

 

[IWantGod]

I didn’t say that our knowledge of the universe was exhaustive, only that all know evidence points to the conclusion that something cannot come from nothing. There’s no evidence to suggest that the laws of physics have ever been different, so it would not be smart to base an argument on the presumption that they were at some point in the past. Doing so would make your arguments literally baseless. Thought games are all well and good, but if you’re going to make an actual argument on a subject, you should base that argument on the collected data. Feel free to seek out alternate data, that’s half the point of the sciences, but until evidence is found that contradicts the observed reality there is no rational reason to reject that reality.

I misread that premise, and internally combined it with number 2.

That said, If premise 1 is true, (and you’ve given no reason based on evidence to assume otherwise), and if premise 2 is true (which it obviously is), then it is absolutly necessary that something exists which has no cause of an external creator (i.e., it is something that necessarily exists as a result of it’s own nature. In other words, it is that things nature to exist.)

The terms are fairly basic ones, and not really in need of definition. As for the justification for the claim, it has been given. All known evidence supports the fact that something cannot come from nothing. You cannot circumvent this without ignoring the facts, or without instigating a “science of the gaps” type argument, claiming that there may be some evidence for it that we just don’t know yet, so we should therefore treat it as a valid alternative. Either option is intellectually dishonest.

 

[IWantGod]

Premises 1-12 seem very good and defensible to me. There are some “hidden premises” that would need to be uncovered for this to be a strict demonstration on logical grounds, but they appear minor to me. I like your proof, good job.

Thanks.

 

[Tomdstone]

Premise 1,* on which the entire argument rests*, states that nothing comes from nothing. If the first premise is true (And must be unless we are willing to throw out reason entirely) then something must necessarily exist eternally without potential.

I don’t see why it throws out reason entirely to suppose that something exists with potential? After all, E = T + V.

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t see why it throws out reason entirely to suppose that something exists with potential? After all, E = T + V.

If something is actualised potential, then it is not a necessary being. An absolute antithesis of nothing has the fullness of being in it, and as such it does not change, it does not become more than what it is essentially because what it is is necessary reality. It is already everything that it is.

If something is necessarily a triangle, it cannot become a square.

If something cannot come from nothing, then something perfectly exists. It does not change, it is not a sequence of actualised potential. A perfect act of existence is already everything that consists of a perfect act of existence. Thus it is not potentially more existence, or more natures, or more forms.

 

[Tomdstone]

If something is actualised potential, then it is not a necessary being. An absolute antithesis of nothing has the fullness of being in it, and as such it does not change, it does not become more than what it is essentially because what it is is necessary reality. It is already everything that it is.

If something is necessarily a triangle, it cannot become a square.

If something cannot come from nothing, then something perfectly exists. It does not change, it is not a sequence of actualised potential. A perfect act of existence is already everything that consists of a perfect act of existence. Thus it is not potentially more existence, or more natures, or more forms.

It could be or have partially actualised potental. Also although it is not possible in Euclidean planar geormetry, by using an extra dimension a square can be morphed into a circle, How do you know that reality does not contain estra hidden dimensions?