**The Necessary Reality Argument**

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IWantGod

Guest
The Necessary Reality Argument
  1. Out of absolutely nothing comes nothing
  2. Therefore there must be something that absolutely and necessarily exists and is necessarily actual.
  3. That something is the absolute antithesis of nothing and is the source of all reality.
  4. That which is necessarily actual is pure-actuality, meaning it does not lack any realization. It is not in a state of becoming. It does not begin to exist. It cannot become more than what it essentially is because what it is by nature is necessarily actual. It is the source of all reality. In other-words it is already everything it could possibly be. Thus it does not change. If it could change it would mean that its being lacked some potential realization, which would mean a part of its being is not necessary or fully realized, which would contradict the fact that its nature is necessarily actual.
  5. Physical reality, the space-time continuum, changes, it’s in a state of becoming, it has the potentiality for realization. Its nature evolves. Thus it is not necessary reality.
  6. Therefore necessary reality cannot be considered to be a part of physical reality because physical reality is not pure-actuality. Necessary reality is not physical.
  7. Necessary reality in virtue of being necessary must be the cause of any reality that is not necessary since out of absolutely nothing comes nothing.
  8. There are only two types of causes, natural and intelligent. Because necessary reality is not physical it cannot function as a physical or natural cause. It is not a natural process.
  9. Therefore necessary reality must be a non-physical intelligent cause. Otherwise physical reality would not exist.
Conclusion: A necessary non-physical intelligent cause of physical reality exists.. This is what we call God
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Therefore there must be something that absolutely and necessarily exists and is necessarily actual.
Click to expand...
If anything exists. It’s not necessary that there’s existence. Once at least one thing is established to have existed, then your point holds, I think.
 
Gorgias said:
If anything exists. It’s not necessary that there’s existence. Once at least one thing is established to have existed, then your point holds, I think.
Click to expand...
One could say that the fact that things exist is self evident, and therefore one does not need a qualifier. But i suppose that one could begin the argument by saying that things exist.
 
IWantGod said:
Physical reality, the space-time continuum, changes, it’s in a state of becoming, it has the potentiality for realization. Its nature evolves. Thus it is not necessary reality.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that space-time’s nature evolves?
Does it become something else?
 
Statement number 8, “There are only two types of causes, natural and intelligent. Because necessary reality is not physical it cannot function as a physical or natural cause. It is not a natural process” is deeply confusing, and not in itself, justified. All the intelligence of which we’re aware is a natural process, so to divide types of causes into the two does not make sense to me. Can this be explained further?
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Statement number 8, “There are only two types of causes, natural and intelligent. Because necessary reality is not physical it cannot function as a physical or natural cause. It is not a natural process” is deeply confusing, and not in itself, justified. All the intelligence of which we’re aware is a natural process, so to divide types of causes into the two does not make sense to me. Can this be explained further?
Click to expand...
There is a self evident real distinction between a cause that is not self directed and one that is. There is a qualitative experience we call an intelligent cause (we do it all the time) that is unlike the natural events that we experience through our senses. So its completely reasonable to make a distinction if by the word natural one only means that a thing is not self-directing, it is not directed by an intelligence. Could it be that the nature of our intellects is completely physical. For the sake of this discussion I’m willing to say that it’s possible. But it is ultimately irreverent.

There are only two types of causes, natural (blind and not directed by an intelligence) and intelligent (the self-directing principle we experience everyday that causes us to make a distinction in the first place)

If it cannot be a physical natural cause, then by process of elimination there is only one option left, the rejection of which would lead to absurdity; which means it has to be a non-physical intelligence since it cannot be a physical intelligence. I don’t have to justify calling it non-physical because it is the only possibility left. It is irrelevant that we have only ever experienced intelligence in a physical context. .
 
Last edited:
So cause is either “directed by intelligence” or “not directed by intelligence”. Fair enough. But you also say that “not directed by intelligence” causes must be “physical”. I don’t see how that is necessarily true. I should be grateful for further clarification.
 
IWantGod said:
That which is necessarily actual is pure-actuality, meaning it does not lack any realization. It is not in a state of becoming. It does not begin to exist. It cannot become more than what it essentially is because what it is by nature is necessarily actual. It is the source of all reality. In other-words it is already everything it could possibly be. Thus it does not change. If it could change it would mean that its being lacked some potential realization, which would mean a part of its being is not necessary or fully realized, which would contradict the fact that its nature is necessarily actual.
Click to expand...
That’s a good qeustion.

Remember, physical reality is not necessary reality and so it needn’t exist at all. And so why would physical reality be a natural consequence of necessary reality when it does not share the same necessary nature? Physical reality would have to be a natural consequence of necessary reality in-order to exist, but because it does not share any of its nature with the cause and does not necessarily exist there is no sufficient reason for physical reality to be an effect. in fact there is no reason for necessary reality to be a cause at all if it is not intelligent. Necessary reality is not a “process” by which potential beings or qualities can be a natural result. A necessarily actual being or nature cannot have emergent properties like physical reality does. So one is lacking a sufficient cause.

Premise number 4 also explains why this would not make sense…

4. That which is necessarily actual is pure-actuality, meaning it does not lack any realization. It is not in a state of becoming. It does not begin to exist. It cannot become more than what it essentially is because what it is by nature is necessarily actual. It is the source of all reality. In other-words it is already everything it could possibly be. Thus it does not change. If it could change it would mean that its being lacked some potential realization, which would mean a part of its being is not necessary or fully realized, which would contradict the fact that its nature is necessarily actual.

If we remove intelligence from the nature of the necessary reality, then there is no reason for anything to exist but necessary reality.
 
Last edited:
What if one says just as one can go infinitely into the future one can also go infinitely into the past?
 
Statement 1 is, of course, not necessarily true according to some quantum physicists. Don’t ask me to explain why, or understand how, but I think Statement 1, commonsensical as it is, is not necessarily unassailable.
 
A process that extends infinitely into the past is still not pure-actuality. It cannot be considered to be necessarily actual. This is explained in premise 4.
 
Last edited:
I understand this
But why then is there a need for pure actuality?
 
PickyPicky said:
Statement 1 is, of course, not necessarily true according to some quantum physicists. Don’t ask me to explain why, or understand how, but I think Statement 1, commonsensical as it is, is not necessarily unassailable.
Click to expand...
The problem is, what quantum physicists describe as nothing is not to be confused with the concept of absolutely nothing. Quantum physicists would be out of a job if they were really arguing what you seem to be implying.
 
Last edited:
Because out of absolutely nothing comes nothing. And therefore there must be a being that exists simply because of its nature, and nothing else. In other words it exists because its nature - everything that it could possibly be - is necessarily actual. Thus nothing in its nature or act can be considered to be unrealized, otherwise some part of its being would not be necessary which is contradictory. It is pure-actuality.

Anything that does not fit this description is not necessarily actual and therefore requires a cause in order to exist.

Read Premise 4.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I’m not smart enough but I still don’t understand.
Why does there need to be a being that exists simply of its nature?
Why can’t things have always existed and will continue to always exist without a beginning or end?

Ie why does there need to be cause to exist?
 
Last edited:
Because things that are caused don’t cause themselves. The universe doesn’t just go POP! out of absolutely nothing for no reason whatsoever. If something has potential, it must be actualized by an outside agent.

Philosophy 101
 
This argument is solid but I think that any difficulties come in around #4:
That which is necessarily actual is pure-actuality, meaning it does not lack any realization. It is not in a state of becoming. It does not begin to exist. It cannot become more than what it essentially is because what it is by nature is necessarily actual. It is the source of all reality. In other-words it is already everything it could possibly be. Thus it does not change. If it could change it would mean that its being lacked some potential realization, which would mean a part of its being is not necessary or fully realized, which would contradict the fact that its nature is necessarily actual.
Click to expand...
Could it be that necessary reality is fully actual in one or more respect, but not in others?
 
No I’m not suggesting nothing can cause something. I’m suggesting precisely the opposite. Read my first post.
I’m saying what if something has always existed and there was never a nothing.
 
ratio1 said:
Why does there need to be a being that exists simply of its nature?
Click to expand...
Because if a thing does not exist because its nature, it must exist because something caused its nature. Otherwise what you have is a brute fact, which is just another way of saying that a thing can exist for no reason at all which is just as incoherent as someone saying that something popped out of absolutely nothing by itself.
 
Yes, true… Within the framework of the universe your philosophy 101 comes from.
Try to apply that to a singularity and anyone studying those things will tell you that that philosophy may be meaningless.
That’s enough for the steps to not lead anywhere, conclusively.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top