Thomas's third way

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Linusthe2nd said:
Yes
Click to expand...
Good.
Linusthe2nd said:
Yes
Click to expand...
Good.
Linusthe2nd said:
Yes
Click to expand...
Good.
Linusthe2nd said:
If you are defining the ’ whole ’ as the set of things which exist, that would be true. But this
set would not be a sum, it would simply be two separate classes of beings which happen to exist at the present moment. And God is the only necessary being in this set. And since he is uncaused and therefore necessary, he has always existed. But this is not true of the ’ possible things, ’ which happen to exist at the moment and are part of the set, which currently exists.
Click to expand...
That is what I meant.
Linusthe2nd said:
No boundary, no insurpassable wall.
What you are describing as a ’ boundary ’ is the ontological difference between caused beings and God, who is uncaused. As I pointed out the two are not part of one thing. The ’ possibles ’ exist in time, the ’ necessary ’ exists eternally. So it is clear that they are not part of one thing.
That would be a violation of the principle of contradiction.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? Do you accept that there exist a boundary which is neither? Otherwise they could not be distinguishable from each other.
Linusthe2nd said:
You are right but not because there is no single category which would include both. The possible and the necessary are both ’ things. ’ The difference is that they exist in different orders of existence, one subject to time and the other is not subject to time. In other words, the things of time are all ’ possible things, ’ some of which always exist, but none of which exists always. The ’ necessary, ’ God, has always existed even when nothing else existed.
Click to expand...
That I understand. The question is whether you accept the necessity of boundary? It has to be there otherwise we could not distinguish necessary from possible, timeless from time, God from creation.
Linusthe2nd said:
And I have just shown that this notion of yours is incorrect.
Click to expand...
So you disagree with the notion of boundary?
Linusthe2nd said:
The premise is wrong. God, the necessary, and the world, the possibles, are not part of a whole, they are a mere logical set, consisting of two analogous types of beings or things, one caused and the other uncaused, one time bound and dependent, the other uncaused and eternal. So they can both exist at the same time. Only God is causing the other to exist, he is creating it…
Click to expand...
Let me write this in more precise manner: Lets define whole as a logical set of creation (possible) or God (necessary). C5 means that if God exist then creation does not exist and vice versa. We however know that we do exist hence God cannot exist.
Linusthe2nd said:
Once again, you are mixing apples, pears, and oranges. The ’ possibles ’ include the set of all that is time bound, contingent, limited. The ’ necessary ’ is the set that is eternal, uncaused, and independent. And both can exist at the same moment and always have, as long as there have been ’ possibles. ’ But if there was a time when ’ possibles ’ never existed, then only the ’ necessary, ’ God, existed, because he is eternal and always exists. Pure existence cannot not exist. For if that were possible, nothing else would ever exist.
Linus2nd
Click to expand...
You need to understand what do I mean with necessary and possible in the new context.
 
Bahman said:
Good.

Good.

Good.

That is what I meant.

What do you mean? Do you accept that there exist a boundary which is neither? Otherwise they could not be distinguishable from each other.

That I understand. The question is whether you accept the necessity of boundary? It has to be there otherwise we could not distinguish necessary from possible, timeless from time, God from creation.

So you disagree with the notion of boundary?

Let me write this in more precise manner: Lets define whole as a logical set of creation (possible) or God (necessary). C5 means that if God exist then creation does not exist and vice versa. We however know that we do exist hence God cannot exist.

You need to understand what do I mean with necessary and possible in the new context.
Click to expand...
No, I will not agree that there is a " boundry " which makes it impossible for the ’ possibles ’ and the ’ necessary ’ to exist at the same time. This universe is composed entirely of ’ possibles, ’ everything it is composed of is time bound, contingent, and limited, everything in it once did not exist. And everything in it will cease to exist at some time in the future…

Yet God, the ’ necessary, ’ has always existed and will always exist because he created all the ’ possibles ’ that ever existed, which do now exist, or will exist in the future. The only barrier that exists is an ontological one. Neither one can be a part of the other. They are two, entirely different, ontological sets. Yet God can and does " work " in, and is present to the set of the ’ possibles, ’ upholding them in existence and guiding them to their end.

Lins2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
No, I will not agree that there is a " boundry " which makes it impossible for the ’ possibles ’ and the ’ necessary ’ to exist at the same time. This universe is composed entirely of ’ possibles, ’ everything it is composed of is time bound, contingent, and limited, everything in it once did not exist. And everything in it will cease to exist at some time in the future…

Yet God, the ’ necessary, ’ has always existed and will always exist because he created all the ’ possibles ’ that ever existed, which do now exist, or will exist in the future. The only barrier that exists is an ontological one. Neither one can be a part of the other. They are two, entirely different, ontological sets. Yet God can and does " work " in, and is present to the set of the ’ possibles, ’ upholding them in existence and guiding them to their end.

Lins2nd
Click to expand...
How we could not experience God if there is no boundary within?
 
Bahman said:
How we could not experience God if there is no boundary within?
Click to expand...
People who do God’s will often do experience his presence but not the same way we would experience the physical presence of a good friend. They experience an intellectual/psychological peace and consolation that wafts through their being, a " feeling " that all is well between us and him.

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
People who do God’s will often do experience his presence but not the same way we would experience the physical presence of a good friend. They experience an intellectual/psychological peace and consolation that wafts through their being, a " feeling " that all is well between us and him.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
So you are contradicting yourself again. Two mutually exclusive things (God and human) can only experience and affect each other if there exist a boundary between which is neither otherwise they could not interact.
 
Bahman said:
So you are contradicting yourself again. Two mutually exclusive things (God and human) can only experience and affect each other if there exist a boundary between which is neither otherwise they could not interact.
Click to expand...
No, you have infered a contradiction where none exists.
 
Bahman said:
So you are contradicting yourself again. Two mutually exclusive things (God and human) can only experience and affect each other if there exist a boundary between which is neither otherwise they could not interact.
Click to expand...
Hold on there. That is your unproven assumption. No one here agreed that a " boundary " is needed. So I am not contrdicting myself. And I never said that God and man are mutually exclusive. I said that God is Eternal, Uncaused, Perfect, Pure Existence, etc. And I said man, and the rest of the universe exist as time bound, contingent ( caused ), limited beings. That does not mean they are " mutually exclusive, " that is one of your false assumptions.

Linus2nd
 
Bahman said:
That I understand. But such God as a necessary concept does not exist. Please read the following argument.

It was possible but it is necessary.

Argument:

P1) A necessary being is a being that its existence does not depend on other existence
P2) A possible being is a being that its existence does depend on other existence
C1) From P1 and P2 we can conclude that a necessary and possible being are mutually exclusive
P3) Lets define the whole as sum of necessary and possible things
C2) This means that there exist a boundary which separate necessary being from possible being
C4) Such a boundary cannot possibly exist since we don’t have any other category which is nor necessary neither possible
C5) This means that we could either have necessary being or possible being but not both in the whole

C5 can have different meaning depending on how do you define whole. Lets define whole as the sum of creation (possible) or God (necessary). God by definition is pure existence which means that he cannot exist and exist not. C5 means that if God exist then creation does exist not and vice versa. We however know that we do exist hence God cannot exist.

C5 can also have another meaning. Lets consider the whole as what appears to consciousness as possible and the act of consciousness as necessary. The example of possibilities are, options when a decision is involved, thoughts, experience, etc. The example of necessaries are action, understanding, existence, etc. This means that what is experience in consciousness cannot coexist with the act of consciousness which is existence. This means that experience can only happen in absence of existence and existence can only happen in absence of experience.
Click to expand...
C1, that something cannot be both necessary and possible, is just self-evident so it is silly to call it a conclusion.

You need to provide a rule of reference for C2 because it strikes me as an obvious non sequitur.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Hold on there. That is your unproven assumption. No one here agreed that a " boundary " is needed. So I am not contrdicting myself. And I never said that God and man are mutually exclusive. I said that God is Eternal, Uncaused, Perfect, Pure Existence, etc. And I said man, and the rest of the universe exist as time bound, contingent ( caused ), limited beings. That does not mean they are " mutually exclusive, " that is one of your false assumptions.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
It is plain simple. God is perfect and we are imperfect. This means that we are mutually exclusive. This means that we cannot interact with each other unless there exists a boundary which is neither. This boundary however does not exist since there is no being which is neither imperfect and nor perfect. We however know that universe exist, hence God as it is defined, interacting and perfect, does not exist. So you have have to give up one attribute? Which one do you choose?
 
TheSecondMile said:
C1, that something cannot be both necessary and possible, is just self-evident so it is silly to call it a conclusion.

You need to provide a rule of reference for C2 because it strikes me as an obvious non sequitur.
Click to expand...
I open another thread as I realize the importance of it. I hope I can meet you there to open up the discussion.
 
Bahman said:
It is plain simple. God is perfect and we are imperfect. This means that we are mutually exclusive. This means that we cannot interact with each other unless there exists a boundary which is neither. This boundary however does not exist since there is no being which is neither imperfect and nor perfect. We however know that universe exist, hence God as it is defined, interacting and perfect, does not exist. So you have have to give up one attribute? Which one do you choose?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry Bahman, you have not proven your assumptions. This " bounday " idea you have is pure fiction, a red herring without any proof. God is prefect and he made us :D.

Linus2nd.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I’m sorry Bahman, you have not proven your assumptions. This " bounday " idea you have is pure fiction, a red herring without any proof. God is prefect and he made us :D.

Linus2nd.
Click to expand...
No. It is real and I am sure about it. :bounce:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top