Why can't matter be Self-Existent (the "First Cause")?

[RealisticCatholic]

Why can’t “matter” like an atom or some fundamental particle be self-existent? And therefore be the ultimate explanation for existence?

I would say because its essence is distinct from its existence, and in fact I said this to an Agnostic friend of mine. But when I said this, he just said I was assuming that matter does not exist exist by its very nature.

Then I said, well then you’d just have a “brute fact” with no explanation, either outside of matter or within itself. But he was content with this. And I didn’t know how to proceed…

 

[Aquinas11]

Why can’t “matter” like an atom or some fundamental particle be self-existent? And therefore be the ultimate explanation for existence?

Because even an atom has specific characteristics X (e.g. size of 62-520 pm, charge neutral, mass 1.67×10−27 to 4.52×10−25 kg, etc) and we know from logic that anything with characteristics X had a prior cause which caused it to have characteristics X, instead of characteristics Y. Just look at color of our hair, our skin, etc = all characteristics X caused by prior cause (our parents)

 

[Genesis315]

Clearly no particular atom or other particle sustains the being of other equal particles. So we’d have to look broader than that.

This is why atheists are really pantheists–they ultimately say the universe is its own self-sustaining principle.

But the universe, unlike God, is a composite of finite substances with potentiality and actuality, even at the basic levels of matter and energy. They can’t be that principle of all being. They are not completely self-actualized and simple. That is why the scientific consensus is the universe had a beginning (if I recall, at the end of his life Hawking was trying to get around this by essentially trying to deny time).

 

[STT]

Something which has essence simply exists. Existence is a state of affair which we assign it to something which exists.

 

[STT]

Matter simple exist and doesn’t change so it doesn’t move from being potential to being actual. Matter however move from a state of affair to another state of affair.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

But what if he were to say “it’s just a brute fact,” that is, the atom (or whatever kind of matter or energy) just happens to exist by its very nature, along with its other attributes?

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Why can’t the First Cause have any potentials whatsoever?

For example, why can’t we say the First Cause’s EXISTENCE is actual, but it has some other attributes that are potential? (Even if these potential attributes are never actually actualized).

I know an atom has potentials. But my friend’s claim is rather that the atom’s existence may in fact just be actual.

 

[Aquinas11]

Then I’d reply: “That’s fine if you believe that. However, that contradicts all logic and facts that we know of, i.e. that all things that exist have particular characteristics and that those particular characteristics are determined by a prior cause. Why would the atom be an exception? To say ‘its just a brute fact’ requires blind faith that contradicts logic and hence requires even more faith than to believe in God, which is rooted in logic and reasoning”

 

[Wesrock]

But what if he were to say “it’s just a brute fact,” that is, the atom (or whatever kind of matter or energy) just happens to exist by its very nature, along with its other attributes?

So a state of affairs in which that atom never existed or could possibly go out of existence is impossible? Even Immanuel Kant recognized you couldn’t predicate existence on an essence, hence his objection to the ontological argument made by rationalist philosophers.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I tried explaining that the principle of sufficient reason, that we expect everything to have an explanation, is an assumption even in science.

But he said science was not about explanation but about observation. So if an atom (or whatever physical particle or state) is the bottom-most level of reality, you just leave it at that, without asking any other questions.

I was confused with what he was saying. I thought everyone operated by the PSR, and I thought even science itself as an enterprise assumed everything had explanation. Or at least, acts like it does…

 

[MPat]

Why can’t “matter” like an atom or some fundamental particle be self-existent? And therefore be the ultimate explanation for existence?

I would say because its essence is distinct from its existence, and in fact I said this to an Agnostic friend of mine. But when I said this, he just said I was assuming that matter does not exist exist by its very nature.

Atoms and fundamental particles (for example, electrons) cannot exist by their very nature, because in that case they would not be able to start or stop existing. And we know that is not the case: nuclei of atoms are “constructed” in stars from protons, electrons can be annihilated by positrons etc.

 

[Aquinas11]

But he said science was not about explanation but about observation.

Except observation of how everything other than an atom has characteristics determined by a prior cause…that observation he refuses to engage in and engages in willful blindness.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Well he would say the atom (or whatever) just is — never created or destroyed.

I responded by saying, if there were only 50 atoms, why are there 50 and not 51 or 49?

Of course there is WAY more than that. But he didn’t seem to get my point. He said the number of atoms was infinite. But I thought that was incorrect…

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Please note that when I say atoms, I’m just meaning whatever happens to be the bottom-most level of physical reality or matter/energy. That’s what we meant when we were talking about atoms.

Sorry for the confusion there.

 

[Wesrock]

I tried explaining that the principle of sufficient reason, that we expect everything to have an explanation, is an assumption even in science.

But he said science was not about explanation but about observation. So if an atom (or whatever physical particle or state) is the bottom-most level of reality, you just leave it at that, without asking any other questions.

I was confused with what he was saying. I thought everyone operated by the PSR, and I thought even science itself as an enterprise assumed everything had explanation. Or at least, acts like it does…

Empirical observation is pretty much dependent upon the PSR, but there are plenty of PSR deniers who’ll try to argue otherwise. Though where they then draw the lines without falling into solipsism is rather adhoc/arbotrary. It gets more complicated talking with idealists, too… but I’m rambling.

 

[Wesrock]

Well he would say the atom (or whatever) just is — never created or destroyed.

I responded by saying, if there were only 50 atoms, why are there 50 and not 51 or 49?

Of course there is WAY more than that. But he didn’t seem to get my point. He said the number of atoms was infinite. But I thought that was incorrect…

Can he conceive as possible a world in which that atom didn’t exist but another one did instead?

 

[edwest211]

The atom is little understood. Scientists have managed to image one. However, where do protons and neutrons come from? What about electrons? It gets more complicated when sub-atomic particles get added in.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Yes, the quantum field is mystical to most of us.

 

[Wesrock]

The principle of PSR is not universal. It would lead to an infinite descent. You know: “it is turtles all the way down”. There needs to be a starting point to all the explanations. For Christian believers it is God, who is the ontological foundation of all existence. In other words, for the Christian believers God is a “brute fact”, someone who has no explanation, and requires no explanation. Which means that the concept of PSR is NOT universal, God is the exception.

False. There are weak and strong forms of the PSR, but God does not even violate the strong form of it. A distinction must made between a reason, which can either be an intrinsic principle or an extrinsic principle, and a cause, which is a subset of reasons, in which the reason is extrinsic (a dependency of one thing on another). A strong form of the PSR might be stated as “every thing has a reason for its existence, either in itself or from another.” God, upon analysis, is that which has its reason from itself, and this would be based on his simplicity and him as Subsistent Being, on the principle that what we mean by God is him whose essence is identical to his existence. I’d reject the notion that God’s existence is an ontological brute fact or that there is a fallacy of special pleading, though you’re right that a series of extrinsic reasons would necessitate an infinite regress.

For further reading, I’d recommend Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Principle of Sufficient Reason by Scott M. Sullivan.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

God, upon analysis, is that which has its reason from itself, and this would be based on his simplicity and him as Subsistent Being, on the principle that what we mean by God is him whose essence is identical to his existence.

Sorry, meaningless words, like “essence” do not make an argument.

You not knowing terminology and lacking background knowledge does not make a counter-argument.

Besides, the rest of it up to the end should have been intelligible to you. I was not making a demonstration at the end, merely alluding to routes used to argue it that you and others may or may not have familiarity with already.