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

[IWantGod]

I would say because its essence is distinct from its existence

That’s correct, but it’s difficult for people to understand.

 

[IWantGod]

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…

To reason one must first know what reason is. Only then will somebody understand why they ought to think that some conclusion is true. You are speaking to people who do not really understand what metaphysics is and neither do they respect the epistemological principles that drives it’s method.

Don’t get into a never ending argument. Your goal is to show that your conclusion is necessary because the other options lead to a metaphysical-absurdity and the complete abandoning of reason itself. If they cannot see why an absurdity of this measure makes their position impossible, then that is a fault that you might not be able to fix. Metaphysics essentially relies on the principle of a reductio-ad-absurdum to win the argument. This is the method, or rather the principle of non-contradiction is the method by which we show something to be metaphysically absurd.

If a person is willing to either…

1. Abandon the principle of non-contradiction

Or…

1. Accept the existence of a brute fact (A being that neither exists because of it’s own nature or because of another nature. It simply exists for no reason at all)

Or…

1. Is willing to entertain the idea that possibilities exist in absolutely nothing or that a thing can become actual in Absolutely Nothing.

…in order to avoid the conclusion of an argument, then the theist has won the argument regardless of whether an atheist or agnostic realises it or not.

There have been many atheists that have come to realise the error in their thinking and they have begun to see. But you can never truly know why a person does not see. So present the argument and let God deal with the rest.

Let those with eyes to see, see.

 

[IWantGod]

I am aware of the terminology just fine. The Thomistic concept of “essence” is a meaningless concoction.

That simply is not true, and if it were true then everything in existence would be identical, which is absurd because that is clearly not what we see. It is self evident that not only do things exists, but also different kinds of things exist. This is not a controversial idea.

The Thomist describes this as the whatness of a thing, what it is. These distinctions are categorised in to essences and accidents. People may or may not get the particulars right when pointing to what they think is an essence or an accident, but that does not mean that real substantial differences in being do not exist holistically in reality.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

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

I am aware of the terminology just fine. The Thomistic concept of “essence” is a meaningless concoction. However, I am willing to listen to you. Let’s start with something that we all know. Tell me what is the “essence” of a “dog”. Start with this: “dog is an entity” or “a dog is a thing”.

The way to do that would be an enumeration of ALL the attributes of a “dog”, and then separate them into two sub-categories, the “essential” ones - which must be present for categorizing the “thing” to be a “dog”, and the accidents, which can be different or even nonexistent, but the “thing” is still “essentially” a dog. I suggest that you don’t try to refer to the “DNA”, because it cannot be defined in a suitably precise manner. Besides, the DNA is a biological term, not a philosophical one.

Oh, and existence is not an attribute!

Existence is NOT attributed to what a thing is! Hurrah! You got that one!

The essence-existence distinction doesn’t require an enumeration of any single essence to be argued for. That there must be such a distinction is one thing. What any specific essence is is a matter of empirical observation, and any such observation by us is never 100%, and is always open to possible revision.

Essence also isn’t just a concept used by Aristotleans and Thomists, it’s also used by many Idealist schools.

All that needs to be said is that – for all the things of our experience – what a thing is (what is essential to what a thing is) is really distinct from that thing actually being. The principle of what it is and the principle that it actually is are not reducible to one another. If you had never been to Earth, I could fully enumerate everything there is to know about what a lion is, what a tyrannosaurus rex is, and what a unicorn is, and I could tell you that of these three things one currently exists, one once existed but exists no longer, and one has never existed. You would have no way of knowing, simply knowing the what of each, which one is which. You can do this with universals as just shown or particulars if you must. I can demonstrate what a million sided polygon is, tell you everything there is to know mathematically about what such a thing is, and still you or I would have no means to know whether it actually exists or not. We have concepts in our mind about things that have been and are and might be, and these are independent of whether any such thing actually exists.

Essence is certainly not a meaningless term. That’s an absurd charge. And the argument is not dependent at all on whether any specific essence can be 100% explained, that’s a false bar. If anything, dispute realist or conceptualist views with certain types of anti-realist schools of thought, that would be the way to go, disputable, yes, but arguable. Your objection here though is specious and a strawman.

 

[BlueMaxx]

Nothing from nothing leaves nothing…

Ex Nihilo

 

[IWantGod]

For the materialists the ontological foundation is the “ universe ”. The word means everything that exists. So the question: “what exists outside the universe?” or “what existed before the universe?” or “why does the universe exist?” are all nonsensical questions

I think you will find that when doing physics, all you can really mean by the universe is that it is everything that physically exists or is known to exist within the context of the empirical method (which itself can only measure physical effects or physical objects). Otherwise, philosophically, or should i say epistemological speaking, your conclusion is circular and can be safely ignored because it doesn’t present real objective knowledge.

Philosophically, we have no a-prior knowledge of what “everything that exist” is actually comprised of. From a scientific perspective alone we can never really know what the ultimate nature of reality is because the scientific method is limited to physical things and cannot tell us any more beyond that standard. As i said, your position is circular and you should abandon it because it is a very weak argument for materialism.

 

[edwest211]

Matter cannot be self-existent. Or the “first cause.” However it is looked at, the Big Bang never had to happen. The Bang means actual material/energy streamed into an unknown vastness that contained zero energy is untenable. And the idea that it expanded into an unknown space, also with zero energy, is also untenable.

 

[Aquinas11]

Now, it may be possible that the universe is not restricted to the “physical universe”. It may be that there is a “spiritual universe”. Moreover, that this “spiritual universe” is primary, and it is the ontological foundation of the “physical universe”. This concept cannot be excluded based purely on logical ground, but it leads nowhere.

Well of course it leads nowhere - you just defined it outside the physical universe

 

[IWantGod]

The existence of the physical universe cannot be denied

Our experience of what we call the universe cannot be denied, but that is not a good argument for the objective existence of the universe (that is to say it has a concrete extension beyond our sensory perception of it). After all it could just be information being fed to our minds as such that it appears to have a real concrete and independent existence.

In general, there are only 3 things that are self-evidently true…

1. The fact of your existence (although we cannot prove the existence of our individual intellects to each-other, only to ourselves)
2. That you are experiencing something.
3. And that experience is changing

Beyond that there is no evidence or proof that the universe actually exists as something
that is concrete and exists independently from our senses.

 

[edwest211]

The universe is just as concrete as concrete. Landers have been sent to Mars. Astronomers have plenty of evidence, using cameras, that the universe exists and can be perceived on film or digital media.

 

[IWantGod]

The universe is just as concrete as concrete. Landers have been sent to Mars. Astronomers have plenty of evidence, using cameras, that the universe exists and can be perceived on film or digital media.

You misunderstand. I am not denying that the universe is concrete (i am not a proponent of idealism, which is any of the various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind: Wikipedia.).

I am saying that you cannot ontologically prove that it is concrete and or that it is not just information being fed to your mind. It doesn’t matter how concrete a thing may seem to be to your mind, this is not in itself evidence that it is concrete.

 

[IWantGod]

Epistemological solipsism is considered to be “ soft solipsism ”, it holds the more logically consistent position that nothing can be known to exist outside of one’s own mind.

Then i guess i am kind of a soft solipsist

 

[Aquinas11]

After all it could just be information being fed to our minds as such that it appears to have a real concrete and independent existence.

Except according to this theory you have no null hypothesis, no data of a “real concrete and independent existence” to compare with the “information being fed to our minds”, hence no basis to conclude the latter must be true

 

[IWantGod]

Except according to this theory you have no null hypothesis, no data of a “real concrete and independent existence” to compare with the “information being fed to our minds”, hence no basis to conclude the latter must be true

I’m a realist, which means i simply assume that the universe is objectively real because i have no reason to think otherwise. Thus unless i am feeling especially suicidal, i won’t be jumping off any buildings to test the theory.

Having said that, it’s still true that you cannot prove that the objects of our experiences have a real concrete and independent existence.

 

[Aquinas11]

Having said that, it’s still true that you cannot prove that the objects of our experiences have a real concrete and independent existence.

You can’t prove that I can’t prove the objects are real since you have no null hypothesis to compare the data against. Unless you’re suggesting you do have data X that would prove objects are real that you can compare with data Y humans would offer that would “not prove objects are real” since wouldn’t match X? How did you acquire this comparison data X that would prove objects are real?

 

[Aquinas11]

This of course is a question that’s open for debate…do people behave rationally, and if not, why not?

Not up for debate because “behave rationally” is up for debate , so question isn’t even coherent

 

[IWantGod]

You can’t prove that I can’t prove the objects are real since you have no null hypothesis to compare the data against. Unless you’re suggesting you do have data X that would prove objects are real that you can compare with data Y humans would offer that would “not prove objects are real” since wouldn’t match X?

It merely has to be a possibility, and it follows that it is not necessarily true the objects of our experiences have a real concrete and independent existence.

The only thing that is self evident is that we are having an experience. The nature of that experience is not self evident. Thus a realist position is either taken on faith or taken on principle. The fact that i am a realist because i have no reason to think otherwise does not prevent me from acknowledging the possibility that my experience does not extend beyond my mind as anything more than information. It is true that i have no good reason to take the latter seriously from an epistemological standpoint.

But ontologically speaking, both positions are equally plausible and there is no proof for either of them.

 

[Aquinas11]

it follows that it is not necessarily true the objects of our experiences have a real concrete and independent existence.

So you’ve backed away from your definitive claim
of it cannot be proven to its not necessarily true.

it’s still true that you cannot prove that the objects of our experiences have a real concrete and independent existence.

 

[IWantGod]

So you’ve backed away from your definitive claim
of it cannot be proven

By proven i mean certain metaphysical knowledge.

You cannot prove that it isn’t just information because there is no way of knowing the difference, just like you said. You can however take the epistemological position that one has no reason to think that it is not as it seems.

 

[Aquinas11]

By proven i mean certain metaphysical knowledge.

If that’s what proven means nobody can prove anything. So that’s obviously false.