The Impossibility Of Absolutely-Nothing And the Necessity Of A Fundamental Unchanging Act Of Reality

[itsjustme]

Because God is not a temporal being, God isn’t physical and is the ontological context in which physical things happen, and so it is meaningless to think that God’s being is limited to the temporal order.

I can accept that there exists a perspective that’s not temporal, and from that perspective the universe looks like a block universe, with past, present, and future all existing simultaneously.

But I still have to reconcile my perspective in which things actively change, with God’s perspective in which they don’t. As you’re wont to point out, these two things can’t contradict each other. So one of these two perspectives must be essentially incorrect, and my conclusion is that the limited perspective is most likely the incorrect perspective. And the limited perspective is mine

So the conclusion is that God’s perspective is the correct one. And God’s perspective is of a block universe.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

If we define the universe as the totality of existence, then doesn’t that mean that God…if He exists, is part of the universe?

There’s a difference, in Catholic theology, between essence and existence. Essence is what a being is in itself, and existence is what a being is for itself. Existence is about how much a being is actualized in the potentiality of his essence. Essence is related to existence as potency is related to act. God is a particular case, because He is pure act, so His existence is the full actualization of the potentiality of His essence, and this condition is called Being. So, when we talk about the universe as the totality of existence, we are talking only about created beings, because God is Being.

 

[itsjustme]

There’s a difference, in Catholic theology, between essence and existence. Essence is what a being is in itself , and existence is what a being is for itself

…So, when we talk about the universe as the totality of existence, we are talking only about created beings, because God is Being.

Great, so now you get an idea of what I meant when I said that premise #2 was problematic. Because stated as it was "The universe is defined as the totality of existence.," it could be misconstrued. So we needed to clarify what it was referring to.

Now that you’ve done that, it raises another problem as highlighted by the statement below.

Existence is about how much a being is actualized in the potentiality of his essence. Essence is related to existence as potency is related to act. God is a particular case, because He is pure act, so His existence is the full actualization of the potentiality of His essence, and this condition is called Being.

If, as I mentioned to @IWantGod, God sees the universe in its entirety, from beginning to end, then essentially God sees a block universe with, past, present, and future all existing simultaneously. But that would mean that the universe that God sees has no potentiality in it at all. It simply is. It’s not in the act of becoming, or potentially becoming. It’s pure act.

Everything…everywhere…and every when, is pure actuality. So if I see potentiality in things then it must be an illusion, because there can’t be two different universes, one that’s pure act, and one that isn’t.

It would seem therefore that we’re living in a block universe, and potentiality is an illusion.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

If, as I mentioned to @IWantGod, God sees the universe in its entirety, from beginning to end, then essentially God sees a block universe with, past, present, and future all existing simultaneously. But that would mean that the universe that God sees has no potentiality in it at all. It simply is. It’s not in the act of becoming, or potentially becoming. It’s pure act.

Everything…everywhere…and every when, is pure actuality. So if I see potentiality in things then it must be an illusion, because there can’t be two different universes, one that’s pure act, and one that isn’t.

It would seem therefore that we’re living in a block universe, and potentiality is an illusion.

Time is relative, as physics has demonstrated. God sees past, present and future simultaneously because He lives outside of time. Time is the measurement of change. God lives outside of time because, being pure act and infinite, He is not subject to change. Instead, the universe, being finite and in existence, is subject to change, so we are in a temporal dimension.

 

[itsjustme]

Time is relative, as physics has demonstrated. God sees past, present and future simultaneously because He lives outside of time. Time is the measurement of change. God lives outside of time because, being pure act and infinite, He is not subject to change. Instead, the universe, being finite and in existence, is subject to change, so we are in a temporal dimension.

I’m basically in agreement with everything that you wrote. But there is one thing that might be worth contemplating. You said that time is relative, and of course we can add space to that, but what else can we say is relative?

For example, is potentiality relative? After all, from my perspective you have the potential to be a thirty year old bald guy. And from your perspective I have the potential to be a beautiful twenty year old supermodel. (Or maybe not) And from God’s perspective everything about us is fixed…past, present, and future…so we have no potentiality at all.

So which of us is right, or is potentiality relative?

 

[itsjustme]

@IWantGod, I have a question. you argue in the OP that absolutely nothing…can’t exist. But is the inverse true, that absolutely everything must exist?

On the one hand you seem to argue that the necessary act is the fullness of reality, and doesn’t lack anything. Which would seem to imply that the necessary act encompasses everything that could possibly exist. Thus if the necessary act must exist, then everything else must exist as well.

But on the other hand I’ve seen you imply that God has a choice. He chooses what to create and what not to create. But how is that possible if the necessary act MUST exist, and the necessary act MUST include the fullness of being, and not lack anything?

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

For example, is potentiality relative? After all, from my perspective you have the potential to be a thirty year old bald guy. And from your perspective I have the potential to be a beautiful twenty year old supermodel. (Or maybe not) And from God’s perspective everything about us is fixed…past, present, and future…so we have no potentiality at all.

So which of us is right, or is potentiality relative?

I think you are confusing epistemology with ontology.

 

[IWantGod]

I have a question. you argue in the OP that absolutely nothing…can’t exist. But is the inverse true, that absolutely everything must exist?

Everything that is necessary or essential to the nature of existence must exist. After proving that a necessary reality must exist, one must ask if the object of our experience - physical reality - is essential or necessary to the act of existence.

I would argue that physical reality is not an essential being, and i have given my reasons for why i think this to be true. I don’t think it is possible to refute the argument without rejecting the principles of reason and the very notion of truth.

 

[Neithan]

So, to simplify: all logically possible worlds cannot (ontologically) be necessary because possible space (extension) and time (change) are always metaphysically contingent?

 

[Neithan]

Thus if the necessary act must exist, then everything else must exist as well.

That’s kind of a reverse ontological argument, and can be critiqued in a similar way. If the necessary act is the essence of existence, then anything else that exists does not add anything necessarily.

 

[itsjustme]

If the necessary act is the essence of existence, then anything else that exists does not add anything necessarily.

I think that distinguishing what’s necessary from what’s not, may not be as easy as it seems.

For example, in the Trinity, which one of them is necessary, and which two aren’t?

 

[Neithan]

For example, in the Trinity, which one of them is necessary, and which two aren’t?

All three Divine Persons are the same Divine Nature. We cannot divide their ontological predicates.

 

[itsjustme]

All three Divine Persons are the same Divine Nature. We cannot divide their ontological predicates.

Boy, that sure sounds like special pleading to me. If they’re different enough that you can distinguish between them, then it seems to me that some of those distinguishing attributes must not be necessary.

Was Christ’s physical manifestation necessary?

 

[Neithan]

Boy, that sure sounds like special pleading to me. If they’re different enough that you can distinguish between them, then it seems to me that some of those distinguishing attributes must not be necessary.

If the Divine Persons share the Divine Nature, then they are the necessary act. That’s a revelation for faith, though. We’re not pantheists, so I don’t see the special pleading: feel free to elaborate your reasoning.

I don’t think the Incarnation was metaphysically necessary; someone else can interject if they disagree. We’re going deep into theology here.

 

[IWantGod]

Was Christ’s physical manifestation necessary?

Christ is the word of God made flesh. Jesus is both the eternal word of God and fully human at the same time… He is eternally begotten. It’s an eternal progression, not in the same sense as something changing, but rather the persons of the trinity are a logical and teleological order proceeding one another as an expression of the divine identity, and that identity or nature is Love. The son proceeds from the father, and the son has a personal nature. (If you are Catholic, please correct me if i am in error, i am a bit rusty).

“Scripture reveals that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

What the Early Church Believed: Filioque | Catholic Answers Tract

In other-words the activity of God is distinct persons, which is simply how the nature of love eternally expresses itself, and the father and the son and the holy spirit are necessarily all one God. To some extent this makes comprehensible sense since nothing in the activity of love is impersonal. Thus that we should find a personal relationship within the divine nature itself, a community in the activity of God, is not too surprising but mysterious all the same. Jesus is not the father and the father is not the Son, but there is no distinction in their divine nature, only in their personal relationship toward one another. They are distinct in their station, but not in their nature.

This is a mystery in the very nature of God itself and remember we are giving human language to something that is mostly beyond our comprehension.

 

[itsjustme]

If the Divine Persons share the Divine Nature, then they are the necessary act.

I don’t think the Incarnation was metaphysically necessary

But if Christ’s physical manifestation isn’t metaphysically necessary, then in what sense is Christ metaphysically necessary?

Christ is the word of God made flesh. Jesus is both the eternal word of God and fully human at the same time…

I’m not exactly clear about what you’re saying here. Do you agree with Neithan that Christ’s physical manifestation wasn’t metaphysically necessary?

 

[IWantGod]

I’m not exactly clear about what you’re saying here. Do you agree with Neithan that Christ’s physical manifestation wasn’t metaphysically necessary?

The Christ is not dependent on the incarnation in-order to exist as one of the three persons of the trinity. The word of God was made flesh, but the word of God was always with the father. On the other-hand, I would not agree that his incarnation was something that wasn’t always going to happen. God was always going to walk among his creation. I think the incarnation was always going to happen. But i could be wrong. I am a layman in theology, not an expert or even well-read on the matter.

 

[itsjustme]

The Christ is not dependent on the incarnation to exist as one of the three persons of the trinity, but i would not agree that his incarnation was something that wasn’t always going to happen.

Isn’t it a bit problematic to say that Christ’s physical manifestation was necessary, because if Christ’s physical manifestation was necessary, then mustn’t it also be true that physical reality was necessary as well? Because you can’t have one without the other.

So it would seem that Neithan is right, the physical manifestation of Christ wasn’t metaphysically necessary. But if Christ’s physical manifestation wasn’t metaphysically necessary, then in what sense is Christ metaphysically necessary?

 

[IWantGod]

it also be true that physical reality was necessary as well? Because you can’t have one without the other.

God was always going to create the universe, but it doesn’t follow that God has to create the universe. The universe is not essential to the act of existence.

The incarnation was always going to happen, but it doesn’t follow that the word of God has to become flesh in-order to be an essential member of the trinity.

 

[IWantGod]

So, to simplify: all logically possible worlds cannot (ontologically) be necessary because possible space (extension) and time (change) are always metaphysically contingent?

Yes, that is the essential meat of the argument.