M
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What property of the universe leads us to conclude that it required a cause to exist?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Here’s a new draft. I have corrected the contextual error i made. sorry. I will repeat this when Luke makes his new thread.
Out of nothing comes nothing. So long as nothing is truly nothing, we cannot rationally expect anything to come from it. It is impossible. All bachelors are unmarried. So long as you understand what a bachelor is you cannot rationally expect to find one that is married. It is impossible. This is a logical necessity which cannot be denied without resigning to a position that is fundamentally irrational. Thus also, if a thing begins to “exist” it must have an external cause for its existence. So long as we understand that before the thing existed it was absolutely nothing, we must accept that it received its existence from something else that already had existence and had the power to give actuality to the contingent being in question. We must accept this as being logically necessary. Once we understand the terms existence and nothing, one must realize that a thing cannot begin to exist from absolutely nothing, or bring itself in to existence from a point where it had no existence and thus no power to do so. You obviously don’t have a sufficient understanding of existence and nothing and how those words apply to objective facts. You have a poor grasp of logic. Either that, or you perhaps you don’t agree that logic applies to objective reality. But then if that’s the case, then the theist has no reason to take any of your objections seriously; since you seem to deny rationality but at the same time try to reason to us that our arguments are rationally flawed!! Disgraceful.
Out of nothing comes nothing. So long as nothing is truly nothing, we cannot rationally expect anything to come from it. It is impossible. All bachelors are unmarried. So long as you understand what a bachelor is you cannot rationally expect to find one that is married. It is impossible. This is a logical necessity which cannot be denied without resigning to a position that is fundamentally irrational. Thus also, if a thing begins to “exist” it must have an external cause for its existence. So long as we understand that before the thing existed it was absolutely nothing, we must accept that it received its existence from something else that already had existence and had the power to give actuality to the contingent being in question. We must accept this as being logically necessary. Once we understand the terms existence and nothing, one must realize that a thing cannot begin to exist from absolutely nothing, or bring itself in to existence from a point where it had no existence and thus no power to do so. You obviously don’t have a sufficient understanding of existence and nothing and how those words apply to objective facts. You have a poor grasp of logic. Either that, or you perhaps you don’t agree that logic applies to objective reality. But then if that’s the case, then the theist has no reason to take any of your objections seriously; since you seem to deny rationality but at the same time try to reason to us that our arguments are rationally flawed!! Disgraceful.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
You are making an assumption that physical reality is all that exists. Nothing means nothing. If you mean something you should say something. The idea that physical reality is everything is a belief that you hold to. Its not something that you have reasoned to.So, it is alright for you to make a contextual stretch when defining nothing, but not okay for me to do so when defining everything?
And how do you know the Universe began to exist? Since the Universe is Everything that exists, how could there be anything external to it? If by the Universe you mean the observable spacetime continuum, then no scientists or responsible thinkers of any kind really think that came from nothing, we just don’t know from whence it came.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
I’ve obviously upset you, but I’m afraid I have to press this further.You have a poor grasp of logic. Either that, or you perhaps you don’t agree that logic applies to objective reality. But then if that’s the case, then the theist has no reason to take any of your objections seriously; since you seem to deny rationality but at the same time try to reason to us that our arguments are rationally flawed!! Disgraceful.
- How can everything that exists have an external cause?
- How do you know the Universe had a beginning, or what the extent of the Universe is in space and time or the extent of space and time in the Universe?
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
No, I’m making a statement that everything that exists is all that exists.You are making an assumption that physical reality is all that exists. Nothing means nothing. If you mean something you should say something. The idea that physical reality is everything is a belief that you hold to. Its not something that you have reasoned to.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
That was not my argument. But it was my fault that you were confused i re-posted the argument with a correction which i have highlighted in bold.I’ve obviously upset you, but I’m afraid I have to press this further.
- How can everything that exists have an external cause?
The universe doesn’t just simple exist as a static timeless being. The universe evidently proceeds potentially into being, and something must account for that potentiality. The universe proceeds existentially and potentially into the future. A changing cause, cannot account for the existence of change.
- How do you know the Universe had a beginning, or what the extent of the Universe is in space and time?
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
So you keep saying. Whether it was your argument or not has no bearing on whether you can counter it? Are you admitting that you can’t answer my question?That was not my argument. But it was my fault that you were confused i re-posted the argument with a correction which i have highlighted in bold.
How do you know that the Universe proceeds potentially into being? How do you know it isn’t eternal?Because the universe proceeds potentially into being, and something must account for that potentiality. A changing cause, cannot account for the existence of change.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Because it evidently is not.How do you know that the Universe proceeds potentially into being? How do you know it isn’t eternal?
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
I see… Well, if you’d care to list your points of evidence in order of importance?Because it evidently is not.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I don’t have to answer since it is not relevant to my argument.So you keep saying. Whether it was your argument or not has no bearing on whether you can counter it? Are you admitting that you can’t answer my question?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Well you are typing on the computer, and posting fallacious posts; thus this should be evidence enough that you are changing, you have potentiality.I see… Well, if you’d care to list your points of evidence in order of importance?
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
The only evidence I can see in any of this is the irrefutable evidence that you need some anger management counselling.Well you are typing on the computer, and posting fallacious posts; thus this should be evidence enough that you are changing, you have potentiality.
Why don’t we leave this till you’ve calmed down, and then maybe you’ll post something that makes sense?
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
You don’t have to, that’s true… I find it rather strange that you won’t and seem to be getting very flustered about it…I don’t have to answer since it is not relevant to my argument.
Have I touched a nerve?
D
davidv
Guest
Does this make sense (I believe this is the essence of MOM2’s latest point)?The only evidence I can see in any of this is the irrefutable evidence that you need some anger management counselling.
Why don’t we leave this till you’ve calmed down, and then maybe you’ll post something that makes sense?
A exists.
Why does A exist?
~A>A (Proposed)
This is nonsensical.
Conclusion A cannot be its own cause.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Again, how can “everything that exists” have an external cause?Does this make sense (I believe this is the essence of MOM2’s latest point)?
A exists.
Why does A exist?
~A>A (Proposed)
This is nonsensical.
Conclusion A cannot be its own cause.
Care to have a shot at that one?
D
davidv
Guest
Depends on what you mean by everything. If everything means the physical universe, as demonstrated by the above failed sylogism, everything cannot cause it own existence. Since it exists and cannot cause its own existence, the cause of its existence must be external to itself.Again, how can “everything that exists” have an external cause?
Care to have a shot at that one?
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
I mean everything that exists. What makes you think that the existence of “everything that exists” has a cause?Depends on what you mean by everything. If everything means the physical universe, as demonstrated by the above failed sylogism, everything cannot cause it own existence. Since it exists and cannot cause its own existence, the cause of its existence must be external to itself.
Aren’t you going by the assumption that because a cause is needed for change to occur within the Universe it follows that a cause is needed to create the Universe?
Or is it that because you’ve started with the conclusion that a cause (God) was needed to create the Universe that you don’t want to let that conclusion go?
Even if there was a cause, it explains nothing. What caused the cause?
D
davidv
Guest
Yes. Why is that a bad assumption?I mean everything that exists. What makes you think that the existence of “everything that exists” has a cause
Aren’t you going by the assumption that because a cause is needed for change to occur within the Universe it follows that a cause is needed to create the Universe??
Maybe, but not necessarily. Do you also argue with same question begging with the contrary assumption that there is no God?Or is it that because you’ve started with the conclusion that a cause (God) was needed to create the Universe that you don’t want to let that conclusion go?
P
PJY86
Guest
Moonstruck,
Of course, it’s absurd to think that everything that exists has an external cause. I hope no one here is trying to argue that. What is true, however, is that everything which exists has a sufficient reason for its existence. The Aristotelian-Thomas position is that there must be some Being who is Being, Pure Act, in order for any potentiality to be actualized. Since the universe as a whole (the collection of all actualized possibilities) is not pure act, it must be actualized by an agent external to the universe. Without a Being who is Pure Act, nothing could be actual.
The materialist must prove the claim that some material agent is itself purely actual and thus the actualizer of all reality. But matter itself is, as some physicists have said, “the closest thing to nothing you can never imagine.” Pure matter is potentially everything, thus actually nothing. Matter is only ever actualized by inhering in a from, which it in turn individuates. If matter itself is pure potency, then there must be some immaterial Being that actualized it, since it is manifest that material beings (form and matter composites) exist. In fact, without a Being who is Pure Act, no existence would even be in potency, and thus even matter must be created by such a Being. This need not be a causal chain of chronological duration, but of ontological dependency. We may not need to posit a temporal cause or beginning of the universe, but we do need to posit a sufficient reason why anything at all exists, i.e., why things which are only potentialities are actualized or why there are potentialities at all.
Of course, it’s absurd to think that everything that exists has an external cause. I hope no one here is trying to argue that. What is true, however, is that everything which exists has a sufficient reason for its existence. The Aristotelian-Thomas position is that there must be some Being who is Being, Pure Act, in order for any potentiality to be actualized. Since the universe as a whole (the collection of all actualized possibilities) is not pure act, it must be actualized by an agent external to the universe. Without a Being who is Pure Act, nothing could be actual.
The materialist must prove the claim that some material agent is itself purely actual and thus the actualizer of all reality. But matter itself is, as some physicists have said, “the closest thing to nothing you can never imagine.” Pure matter is potentially everything, thus actually nothing. Matter is only ever actualized by inhering in a from, which it in turn individuates. If matter itself is pure potency, then there must be some immaterial Being that actualized it, since it is manifest that material beings (form and matter composites) exist. In fact, without a Being who is Pure Act, no existence would even be in potency, and thus even matter must be created by such a Being. This need not be a causal chain of chronological duration, but of ontological dependency. We may not need to posit a temporal cause or beginning of the universe, but we do need to posit a sufficient reason why anything at all exists, i.e., why things which are only potentialities are actualized or why there are potentialities at all.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Because it’s impossible to ratify it using either reason or investigation.Yes. Why is that a bad assumption?
I don’t presume to know how the Universe exists. So far, I don’t find any of the proposed ideas on the subject compelling in any way.Maybe, but not necessarily. Do you also argue with same question begging with the contrary assumption that there is no God?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.