The existence of an Absolute Intelligent First Cause has been proven to exist with absolute metaphysical certainty. So why are people still atheists?

[rossum]

Why do you reject the idea of a nature that is necessarily actual?

Because it has no real support. The concepts “necessary” and “actual” are mental constructs inside our brains. They do not have any real external existence. As long as we keep them as internal mental constructs there is not a problem. As soon as we project: reify those internal mental constructs onto the real world we make an error.

Can you disassemble a car and put the “necessity” of the car on a shelf next to the crankshaft?

When the car is melted down for scrap, what happens to the “necessity” of the car?

So you are saying the multiverse is a collection of physical universes that are necessarily actual and and are therefore collectively the first cause of our particular universe?

No. I am using “multiverse” as a placeholder for “the cause of the material STEM universe” because it is easier to write and people generally follow the concept…

rossum

 

[rossum]

I asked you if you see a word “part” in the step of your argument

The first step of my argument was the excluded middle: the same thing unitary cannot be both Necessary and non-Necessary.

Considering the case of non-Necessary actions, then those non-Necessary actions are not the same unitary entity as any Necessary entity. This establishes two entities.

If God is both unitary and Necessary, then in this case, God’s actions are not God; they are separate from God. The alternatives are a non-unitary God or a non-Necessary God.

And even I can separate a proposition from its expression conceptually - that is, to think about proposition in abstract. Which is what is important here.

Here is a non-conceptual abstract proposition: “**********************”. (I wanted to use blank spaces, but the software only shows one of them.)

How do you propose to discuss that non-conceptual abstract proposition?

rossum

 

[thistle]

I don’t know why you are being so rude but if you are going to keep repeating this you should at least spell the word correctly.

 

[MPat]

MPat:

I asked you if you see a word “part” in the step of your argument

The first step of my argument was the excluded middle: the same thing unitary cannot be both Necessary and non-Necessary.

Considering the case of non-Necessary actions, then those non-Necessary actions are not the same unitary entity as any Necessary entity. This establishes two entities.

If God is both unitary and Necessary, then in this case, God’s actions are not God; they are separate from God. The alternatives are a non-unitary God or a non-Necessary God.

That does not look like an answer to my question.

Sorry, but if you can’t bring yourself to admit even the mere obvious fact that yes, you did use the word “part” in your argument, I do not see much of a point in further arguing with you here…

 

[rossum]

Sorry, but if you can’t bring yourself to admit even the mere obvious fact that yes, you did use the word “part” in your argument, I do not see much of a point in further arguing with you here…

You seemed unhappy with that particular word so I rephrased my argument in different words.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

Because it has no real support. The concepts “necessary” and “actual” are mental constructs inside our brains. They do not have any real external existence

So you don’t see that things have actuality, are real, they have existence as opposed to non-existence? Denial of these “concepts” or saying that they are nothing more than mental constructs leads to “absurdity” which is a concept you seem to be very good friends with.

A thing either exists because of the causal activity of some other being or it it exists because of its own nature. There are no other rational options. If it exists because of its own nature it means that its actuality is necessary because of its nature. Its not simply a mental construct, it is what follows necessarily as true if a things nature is to exist. This simply means there is nothing in its nature that is potentially real. Its does not have potential states of being, it does not have emergent properties. It does not take on new natures or forms. The nature of physical reality does have emergent properties, it does take on new forms, it changes; and therefore it cannot be considered to be that which exists because of its nature. Its actuality does not ultimately come from its nature. A being or nature that is not physical reality is giving physical reality its actuality.

 

[HarryStotle]

God is Necessary. If God’s actions are non-Necessary, then those actions are separate from God and are not God. God is Necessary. Anything that is non-Necessary is not God but something else.

rossum

There is something odd in this claim. If all of God’s actions flow of necessity from God, then that seems to reduce God to some kind of elaborate mechanical contrivance that simply does what it does of necessity – something like the multiverse.

This seems to reduce God’s omnipotence to complete dependence upon some necessary aspect of being, not even rising to the level of human autonomy of will.

That is to say, being itself is a mere brute and necessary fact of being itself.

The entire point being argued is that God isn’t that kind of thing at all, but that omnipotence and omniscience require no constraint on his will, not that every constraint operates on his being to make him impotent by necessity. The nature of God, according to classic theism, requires creative freedom, I.e., that he is free from every encumbrance to do as he wills.

This may seem paradoxical and contradictory, but that would reflect something of the deep mystery of God.

Analogically, as individuals with free will, human beings cannot be reduced to being mere biological machines or wetware. We can originate novel causal activity in the world with full awareness that we are not caused to do so. If I wait here for some cause to propel me to do something, nothing will take place. At the same time, I can choose to do a multiplicity of actions here and now.

It seems to me that if we can’t even explain our own freedom of will, which is so obvious as to be certain to someone with free will, the freedom to act of the omniscient and omnipotent God would be something far less comprehensible to us who cannot even explain the way we ourselves function.

Ergo, any claims about the necessity of God’s actions would seem to be matters we cannot properly address. Nor can we make absolute proclamations about whether God’s actions are “necessary” in the way that you seem so confident that you fully understand.

If you or I have no such confidence regarding our own actions, how can either of us claim to know anything about God’s?

 

[rossum]

So you don’t see that things have actuality, are real, they have existence as opposed to non-existence?

Take a piece of wood. It is actual and real - those are adjectives, not nouns. What I do not accept are the reified Actual and Real, capitalised and treated as nouns, not adjectives.

As a description of a thing they are fine. When you try to separate them from the thing they are describing then there is a problem.

Take the block of wood and dissolve it in acid. Does the Actuality of the block also dissolve, or is it still floating around unattached? How could you tell which?

Is the Actuality Real? Does the Reality of the block have its own Actuality. Does the Actuality of the Reality have another level of Actuality? Reifying things brings on a great many problems.

Things exist as they are; trying to add deeper levels of Reality/Actuality is an error. What you see is what you get.

Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield

rossum

 

[rossum]

This seems to reduce God’s omnipotence to complete dependence upon some necessary aspect of being, not even rising to the level of human autonomy of will.

You are the one who is calling God “Necessary”, not me.

The entire point being argued is that God isn’t that kind of thing at all, but that omnipotence and omniscience require no constraint on his will

If God is omniscient, then He knows precisely what He will do at any point in the future. If He knows everything, the future included, then He knows all His future actions. He can never do anything He does not already know He is going to do.

Nor can He learn anything new – He already knows it. Omniscience carries some restrictions with it.

This may seem paradoxical and contradictory, but that would reflect something of the deep mystery of God.

I am sorry, but when I see the word “mystery” I read it as “I do not have a logical argument here so I will once again make God an exception to the usual rules.” Since I am not a Christian I do not accept that argument.

Analogically, as individuals with free will, human beings cannot be reduced to being mere biological machines or wetware.

I agree. The ‘biological machine’ is only one of the five components in the Buddhist analysis of a human being. The other four are non-material.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

Take a piece of wood. It is actual and real

The wood clearly and objectively has being, it is actual. The Universe is actual and moves from potency to act. You cannot deny this fact. All you can do is try to understand it. In other words what does it mean for you and i or the universe to have being? We cannot pretend that things don’t have actuality. It isn’t just a concept in my head…

Take the block of wood and dissolve it in acid. Does the Actuality of the block also dissolve, or is it still floating around unattached? How could you tell which?

Clearly the wood having actuality is not the same thing as saying that the nature we call wood is identical to its actuality. Its “woodness” is not identical with “isness”. But what do i mean by this? Being is something given to the wood, it is not something intrinsic to its nature and thus its nature can change. It is not really existence that is changing but rather it is a nature that is changing as it moves from potency to act and that simply means that more actuality is being given to its potential (its nature is continuously being actualised) and that is how the nature of that act is sustained in being by the first cause. If existence was intrinsic to the woods identity it would always and forever exist for eternity and would never change. Thus rather than saying that the nature of the universe is existence, we say that the universe participates in the existence of the first cause which is what we call God and the universe is sustained in God. So when we say that a thing has being we mean it in a very different sense to what we mean when we say God is a being. God is existence, and that is to say his essence or nature is identical to his act of existence. Being can only be applied analogously to contingent things since it is not a property or the identity of their nature to exist.

This is precisely what Aquinas is talking about. i cannot say that i am existence but i can say that i have existence in the sense that it is something given to me rather than something my nature is identical to.

There is no other option since i cannot rationally say there is no existence and neither can i say that existence is identical to my nature.

 

[HarryStotle]

I am sorry, but when I see the word “mystery” I read it as “I do not have a logical argument here so I will once again make God an exception to the usual rules.” Since I am not a Christian I do not accept that argument.

So “mystery” has no place in Buddhism or in your epistemological framework?

Funny, I thought there were Buddhist mystics.

Are we to conclude nothing is a “mystery” or “mysterious” to you and that your knowledge is complete with regard to everything?

Okay, then.

 

[HarryStotle]

If God is omniscient, then He knows precisely what He will do at any point in the future. If He knows everything, the future included, then He knows all His future actions. He can never do anything He does not already know He is going to do.

Again, I would chalk this misrepresentation up to our incapacity to understand the inner being of God. God is not static and inert but Life Itself and the Fullness of Being. We may try to reduce or simplify what that means in order to comprehend or make sense of it, but the point would be that God cannot be reduced to a caricature merely to satisfy our incapacities.

 

[giuseppe96]

Strange, I’m actually writing a paper about this for my philosophy class right now.

 

[rossum]

The Universe is actual and moves from potency to act. You cannot deny this fact.

It is not a fact. Your “potency” in articular I deny. King David has many descendants, some living today. Was the “potency” of those current descendants present in King David when he was alive? What about all his future descendants? Did he also contain the “potency” of people not yet born?

Can we examine the potency in a descendant of the King, and hence determine how many more generations there will be until the end of the world? Won’t that contravene us not knowing the date of the end of the world?

On the other hand, if we cannot detect these multiple potencies then how can you be sure that they exist. See Carl Sagan’s invisible intangible dragon.

But what do i mean by this?

I don’t know. You go into a lot of very obscure philosophical waffle. I asked two things:

• Does the Actuality of the block also dissolve, or is it still floating around unattached?
• How could you tell which?

I cannot see an answer to either question in your post.

There is no other option since i cannot rationally say there is no existence and neither can i say that existence is identical to my nature.

We have two different things: you and your existence. Does your existence have its own existence? Is the existence of your existence identical to itself or not? If not, then we have the existence of the existence of yourself. That leads to an infinite regress.

Existence is an adjective, not a noun. If you treat it as a noun, then you will cause problems. Instead of one entity described by an adjective, you have two separate entities. Given two entities, one reified, I can apply the reification to the reified entity and easily get an infinite regress: the existence of the existence of the existence of … of the existence of IWantGod.

This approach goes a long way back in Buddhist philosophy; many Hindu philosophers used similar arguments to those we see from Christians today, so the counter-arguments are well-rehearsed.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So “mystery” has no place in Buddhism or in your epistemological framework?

Not in the sense you seem to be using it. As “something we do not know”, certainly Buddhism has that. It does not have “mystery” in the sense of “this is a locked door which we cannot pass and which signifies that my side has won this argument”. It is that second sense that I do not accept.

rossum

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

So “mystery” has no place in Buddhism or in your epistemological framework?

Not in the sense you seem to be using it. As “something we do not know”, certainly Buddhism has that. It does not have “mystery” in the sense of “this is a locked door which we cannot pass and which signifies that my side has won this argument”. It is that second sense that I do not accept.

rossum

Oh, I don’t know, I would suspect that if we prod just a little your belief framework would reveal a number of places where you would have to admit some things, by their very nature, are locked out of our capacity to access them. It isn’t a question of winning or losing an argument. It is simply a recognition of the limitations of our capacities in those areas.

I will freely admit that, as a person with awareness of my own inner life of emotions, ideas, motivations, etc., that I am “locked out” of ever accessing the inner lives of other persons around me simply as a matter of fact and reality. I am, roughly speaking, making the same claim with regard to God. We don’t have access to God’s inner life in much the same way and for roughly the same reasons as we don’t have access to the inner life of other, even human, persons in general.

If you wish to make the claim that I am proposing that simply to win the argument, go ahead. It would seem, however, that you are dismissing the claim for roughly that reason.

 

[IWantGod]

It is not a fact. Your “potency” in articular

It is not evident to you that there are emergent properties in things. Its not evident to you that new forms or essences become real whereas before they were only potentially realized?

I’m sorry pal, the facts are not consistent with your point of view. Denial of these facts leads to contradiction and absurdity.

Can we… determine how many more generations there will be until the end of the world? Won’t that contravene us not knowing the date of the end of the world?

Its irrelevant whether or not we can determine the particular potency or potentialities of any particular being. In general it is evident that things/states/qualities/properties/forms/essences that were once potentially actual are now actual and potential continues to be realized. The history of the universe is testimony to that fact.

I don’t know.

Then how can you debate what you don’t understand? Won’t you just end up arguing against a strawman?

Does the Actuality of the block also dissolve

I cannot see an answer to either question in your post.

I gave you the answer here…

If existence was intrinsic to the woods identity it would always and forever exist for eternity and would never change. Thus rather than saying that the nature of the universe is existence, we say that the universe participates in the existence of the first cause which is what we call God and the universe is sustained in God. So when we say that a thing has being we mean it in a very different sense to what we mean when we say God is a being. God is existence, and that is to say his essence or nature is identical to his act of existence; God exists because of his nature. Being can only be applied analogously to contingent things since it is not the identity of their nature to exist.

All i am really saying here is that a contingent form or essence or nature is not the source of its actuality, it does not exist because of its nature; it is not actual because of its essence or form. It is being made actual by that which exists because of its own nature. Thus your criticism of the word actual does not apply to my argument because i never said that there is some “inert” passive “actuality” that is not a nature and just hovers around when a nature is no-longer actual. But i am saying that contingent essences or natures are caused to be actual and as such their nature is not the reason why they are actual beings.

Hindu philosophers used similar arguments

I have never heard nor seen a Hindu make the same kind of arguments that Saint Thomas Aquinas makes.

 

[rossum]

It is not evident to you that there are emergent properties in things. Its not evident to you that new forms or essences become real whereas before they were only potentially realized?

It is evident to me that there are emergent properties. It is not evident to me that any “essences” exist. Tell me, does the “essence of X” have its own essence? Is there “essence of essence of X”? Either we have an infinite regress of essences, or “essence of X” does not actually exist because it does not have its own essence, and hence does not have actual existence.

If something can exist without having an essence of its own, then essences are not required for existence.

Its irrelevant whether or not we can determine the particular potency or potentialities of any particular being.

Not to me it isn’t. If you cannot show me that something exists, then I am going to be sceptical about it.

All i am really saying here is that a contingent form or essence or nature is not the source of its actuality, it does not exist because of its nature; it is not actual because of its essence or form.

In my philosophy all things are contingent. Even your creator is contingent; contingent on creation. There are no permanent essences anywhere. People like to imagine that there are, but they do not really exist. They are just imagination.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

In my philosophy all things are contingent. Even your creator is contingent; contingent on creation. There are no permanent essences anywhere. People like to imagine that there are, but they do not really exist. They are just imagination.

rossum

All you are really telling me here is that you believe in brute facts. You think that a being that does not exist because of its nature can in principle still exist for no logical reason. Am i wrong?

 

[IWantGod]

It is evident to me that there are emergent properties. It is not evident to me that any “essences” exist. Tell me, does the “essence of X” have its own essence?

It is it’s essence. To speak of an essence is to say what it is. Its whatness. Do you not have an essence? I suppose you would consider your form as being identical to steel? Are you superman?

Your argument does not work. Sorry mate