The best i could do for Metaphysical Naturalism

[IWantGod]

I am pretending to be a Naturalist. This is the best metaphysical theory i can come up with. Please don’t be worried because i am very much a theist. But while i like to think of my self as a religious philosopher or student of theistic philosophy, i see it as part of my responsibility to think of counter arguments to my own beliefs. That’s the only way you can become stronger.

The theory goes like this.

1. There is an ultimate reality that has no dimensions. A real singularity that has existed for all eternity. In this respect it does not change.
2. This being or entity has no intelligence but contains within it all possibilities
3. This entities nature is existence. It is pure actuality.
4. Because this entity is pure-actuality there is nothing in it that is not actual.
5. Because this entity contains all possibilities, and because there is nothing in it’s nature that is not actual, it must follow that all possibilities must simultaneously become actual in it’s existence.

Hence physical reality as we know it is just the natural out come of possibilities that have become actualised by the nature of existence and does not require an intelligent cause.

 

[DMSP]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you are describing a metaphysical object as the origin of the universe. Not sure if I understood all of the premises correctly but I think that there are a few problems with it

1. Premise 2 and 4 are contradictory. If this being contain all possibilities then that would mean that it would contain two possibilities that cannot both be actual. For example if this being contains all possibilities it would mean that it contains the possibility that John would be married and where John would be a bachelor, but if premise 4 is true where all are actual then John would be a married bachelor, which is nonsensical.
2. It would still fail to explain the beginning of the universe
   If the universe begins to exist it would mean that a cause would be needed. Even if we grant that the possibilities within this being would serve as the material cause, without intelligent there would be no efficient cause to explain the beginning of a finite universe contained within a space-time axis from a being that is eternal and outside the time-space axis. The only recourse would be then to say that the universe exist eternally within this being, but the idea of an eternal universe is incompatible with the fact that the universe is contained within time, for if the universe is eternal there would be an infinite number of past events and therefore there would be an infinite regress of events and the present day wouldn’t come
3. It would still fail to explain the existence of objective moral standard
   Going with my first problem that premises 2 and 4 are contradictory, then there would be no objective standard for morality due to that both the possibility of a world where good are the moral standard and evil are the moral standard would both be actual. Even if there is a set of objective moral that exist as a metaphysical in this being without intelligent there would still be no law giver and thus this metaphysical codes of law would not be binding.

 

[IWantGod]

Premise 2 and 4 are contradictory. If this being contain all possibilities then that would mean that it would contain two possibilities that cannot both be actual. For example if this being contains all possibilities it would mean that it contains the possibility that John would be married and where John would be a bachelor, but if premise 4 is true where all are actual then John would be a married bachelor, which is nonsensical.

This would be a good counter argument. But we can resolve this problem by merely asserting that there is a possible world where john was married and that if this possibility were to be come actual simultaneously with the possibility that john is a bachelor, then what you would in fact have is two parallel worlds.

 

[IWantGod]

It would still fail to explain the beginning of the universe
If the universe begins to exist it would mean that a cause would be needed. Even if we grant that the possibilities within this being would serve as the material cause, without intelligent there would be no efficient cause to explain the beginning of a finite universe contained within a space-time axis from a being that is eternal and outside the time-space axis.

A cause is still needed, this is true. I am proposing that the cause is the fact that nothing true of the nature of existence can fail to be actual because it is the nature of existence to be actual in everything that it is. Because things are possible in existence, and because the nature of existence is to be actual, it follows necessarily that all possibilities would be actual simultaneously.

 

[IWantGod]

The only recourse would be then to say that the universe exist eternally within this being, but the idea of an eternal universe is incompatible with the fact that the universe is contained within time, for if the universe is eternal there would be an infinite number of past events and therefore there would be an infinite regress of events and the present day wouldn’t come

I agree that an actually infinite past is contradictory with respect to the present, but i don’t see why one would have to argue for an infinite regress in the first place.

 

[niceatheist]

Let’s take M-theory, which I’m not overly fond of. At least as I understand it, there’s a multiverse, which may be an infinite spacial and temporal landscape. And infinite is a pretty hard concept to swallow, because it suggests no starting point, no point of origin, no original kick-off. It’s what I keep coming back to, while our universe as we know it may be finite, that’s only a statement that applies to the observable universe.

But it’s a deep question, and one for which there may never be an answer. Science may ultimately be forced to say “we don’t know and can’t know”. At that point I suppose you can insert God if you like, though I have yet to figure out how that solves any particular problem.

 

[IWantGod]

It would still fail to explain the existence of objective moral standard

Yes. This is a good point. But what is to stop a naturalist from dismissing the idea as just a biological illusion?

In other-words moral possibilities are not possibilities at all.

 

[IWantGod]

At that point I suppose you can insert God if you like, though I have yet to figure out how that solves any particular problem.

Well, a necessary non-physical intelligent cause, resolves the question of why an unnecessary physical act of existence would exist. I have given a counter argument in the OP.

 

[niceatheist]

But even if I agree that something needed to kick it off (though how in an infinite system there’s even a place for a kick-off eludes me), I could just take the deist route, and say there’s no personal god, or the pantheist route, and reject the notion of a god at all, just some initial unmoving state. But I don’t really buy into either of those solutions either.

 

[DMSP]

It seems to me that your metaphysical model boils down to the multiverse theory. If so then it is true there would be no contradiction between premises 2 and 4. But then the question would be whether the multiverse exist within a time axis or timeless and therefore exist eternally.

Since your first premise describe a changeless non-dimensional being it would seem that you are arguing for an eternal multiverse. If that is the case, then does the multitudes of parallel universes exist within or outside the eternal bubble of multiverse? Because I think both scenario would run into problems if we’re taking into account the fact that the physical universe is not eternal.

We know the universe is not eternal because an eternal universe would have an infinite past, but if the universe has a beginning then it cannot be a part of the multiverse itself which is timeless and unchanged. So it must have bubbled out from the eternal bubble of the multiverse but such event would be categorized as a causal event and therefore an efficient cause would be needed, an unintelligible multiverse cannot serve as the efficient cause.

The only recourse would be to say that within the eternal multiverse there exist eternally multitudes of intelligence that created bubble of possible universes. This is where I would plug in Anselm’s ontological argument.

Yes. This is a good point. But what is to stop a naturalist from dismissing the idea as just a biological illusion?

That’s true, though practically I would argue that the existence of an objective moral standard need to be a priori position assumed for there to be any discussion at all in regards to morality, otherwise the naturalist need to own up to their position and default to nihilism which they rarely do.

 

[Caleb732]

Maybe the married bachelor thing works depending on what hour made up “reality” is, but it obviously can’t happen here which is of course the only reality. I kind of have to specify the “reality” because some religions seem to “make-up” stuffand act like it is fine. But the “moral” thing some people could just argue is amde up like a code for an organization, similar to a guideline of what is expected.

 

[IWantGod]

Since your first premise describe a changeless non-dimensional being it would seem that you are arguing for an eternal multiverse.

You was almost there. One way we can defeat the argument in the OP is to say that if the ultimate cause naturally and necessarily actualizes all possibilities, and if all possibilities exist simultaneously with it’s cause as a consequence, then it follows necessarily that all possibilities would exist without change because there wouldn’t be any reason for any possibility to not exist instantaneously with it’s cause and no possibility could cease to exist.

But there is change (which means there are possible states etc that are not yet actual), and therefore we know that this idea is not a possible state of affairs. In other-words a changing universe would be an impossibility.

I did not fully understand your argument, so i wasn’t able to challenge it, but you made some good points i hadn’t thought of.

 

[IWantGod]

It’s only when we attempt to interact with that quantum system that it appears to collapse into only one of those states.

How does one physically interact with or collapse a system that does not change?

We have discussed this before, and i have to say i do not agree with your definition of quantum physics. It seems meaningless to me. You are arguing for an illusion of change and i am not convinced since physical reality is self-evidently changing around me.

 

[John_Martin]

Actuality and potentiality are relative.

Plus, (usually?) contingent and temporal (sequentially the end of potentiality is actuality - the final cause).
Reality is the starting point of philosophy, not a[n apparently] clever logic.
For example, what reality advertises itself as a real singularity, dimensionless, that is eternal? With no reality, the theory’s first statement is a fantasy.
Reality which we experience appears to have dimension and complexity and is changing, although “now” could be dimensionless, though not unchanging, or it would not be temporally noticed.
Second, since reality has not been consulted, there is no foundation for saying that an ultimate reality is unintelligent (or intelligent, for that matter), or contains things (or is simple - singular and containing nothing but being all it is), etc.
This is all fantasy, pulling philosophical terms together from actual philosophy, to play at “being a philosopher” like a child pretending to be a fireman.
@IWantGod, Look, what do you see, really, and describe how it is (and how you are, and how you know what you see).
In the 5 steps, there was no looking at the self, nor looking at what is “not the self”.

John Martin

 

[IWantGod]

Something can be both, depending upon the observer’s perspective.

No it cannot be. To me that is no difference from saying that a thing can exist and not exist at the same time. Either physical reality is changing or it isn’t at all. Relativity is not and never has been the idea that a thing is changing and not changing at the same time.

In your mind real contradictions don’t exist, and you’re using quantum physics as an excuse to argue that you have found a genuine Square-Circle in reality. But it comes as no surprise to me that you have to literally distort quantum physics as it is taught by scientists to arrive at your conclusion. Surly you must see that at worst your position is a pseudo science and at best a philosophical position that i am not rationally compelled to agree with, since you have thrown out the very substance of reason altogether while at the same time reporting that you have arrived at this position through reason.

Your argument fails before it even starts because you cannot reason or rationally inference a square-triangle - because it is the very antithesis of reason itself. In which case you cannot rely on the very reason you use to arrive at the conclusion.

If we took your position seriously, it would spell the end of all rational inferences, which would mean the end of science and philosophy.

 

[IWantGod]

Reality which we experience appears to have dimension and complexity and is changing, although “now” could be dimensionless, though not unchanging, or it would not be temporally noticed.
Second, since reality has not been consulted, there is no foundation for saying that an ultimate reality is unintelligent (or intelligent, for that matter), or contains things (or is simple - singular and containing nothing but being all it is), etc.

True. But it’s simply a philosophical theory that may be wrong or right. In my mind it’s wrong. But it’s the best Argument that i think a naturalist can present.

Also, it is not true that one cannot say whether or not ultimate reality contains anything.
I said that ultimate reality contains all possibilities, but i mean this in the sense that it is the ground of all possibility, which is true. And i argued that because it is the ground of all possibility and because it’s nature is existence itself, that therefore all possibilities are naturally actualised in it’s presence. They come into being because a possibility is either nothing at all, and thus not even a meaningful possibility, or that which makes it a possibility is also making it real. Thus there is no need for an intelligent cause.

In other words, to put it simply, one could argue that by being the very act of reality one is also causing reality necessarily. That which causes possibilities to exist as a necessity of it’s nature, needn’t be intelligent.

There is obviously a fallacy in the argument. But i thought it would be fun to address it. However i can see from how i presented the OP that you absolutely correct to argue that it is a baseless assumption that ultimate reality contains all possibilities in an actual sense.

 

[Fatima-Crusader]

“Because this entity contains all possibilities, and because there is nothing in it’s nature that is not actual, it must follow that all possibilities must simultaneously become actual in it’s existence.”
Wouldnt that mean the possibilities would be eternal like the acutalizer?

 

[IWantGod]

“Because this entity contains all possibilities, and because there is nothing in it’s nature that is not actual, it must follow that all possibilities must simultaneously become actual in it’s existence.”
Wouldnt that mean the possibilities would be eternal like the acutalizer?

Yes! That’s the flaw in the argument.

You could go deeper and argue that there cannot be real possibilities in any meaningful sense unless the ultimate-reality has an intellect and self knowledge - as such that possibility is a function of God’s intellect; but i have to work on that one.

One could also argue that the only thing that can meaningfully exist as a non-physical cause, is a non-physical mind.

 

[IWantGod]

In this particular discussion you’ve made the assumption that what’s true for one observer must be true for all observers

Where have i made this assumption? I am not questioning relativity, but rather i am pointing out the obvious contradictions in your philosophical beliefs. The idea that a thing is changing and not changing at the same time is not relativity; it’s a contradiction.

Why? Because you are essentially arguing that some part of it is potentially actual but also actual at the same time. This is meaningless.

 

[evevanna]

Hi Iwant God, what are you looking for? Do you need an existence proof?