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

[IWantGod]

I think you’re invoking of the word “proof” might be an example of unintentional irony.

If you have a genuine argument that supports your position then present it, instead of hijacking scientific theories and claiming that they provide a metaphysical explanation of reality. It makes you look as if you don’t understand what you are talking about.

 

[niceatheist]

I explicitly stated that the “primordial quantum” notion is not science, that even the physicists who invoke it are not presuming to call it a theory.

 

[IWantGod]

I explicitly stated that the “primordial quantum” notion is not science, that even the physicists who invoke it are not presuming to call it a theory.

And i am saying that it fails as a metaphysical explanation of physical reality, regardless of whether it is science or not.

As a physical explanation It is a scientific hypothesis that may or may not be acceptable. But it is not a metaphysical explanation

 

[niceatheist]

Declaring there must be a metaphysical explanation is assuming the conclusion

 

[IWantGod]

Prove? The concept of “proof” is restricted to axiomatic systems. And your expression “substantially exist” has no informational value. Of course there is this concept called “essence”. There is “rum-essence” you can purchase in the grocery store.

So i guess you would prefer to be a master of assertions and jokes. You have no argument, you have not addressed my argument, and there is no-longer any reason for us to continue this discussion. Thanks for the conversation.

 

[IWantGod]

metaphysical explanation

Do you understand what a metaphysical explanation is? I think you have shown us good reasons to think that you do not.

 

[niceatheist]

I take Hume’s view on metaphysics

 

[John_Martin]

Anything changeable (by some cause) cannot be eternal. Why? because in order to “be”, first its “principle” or its “cause” must be before it can itself become.
All atoms and particles and energy, etc., are mutable, changeable, by some other “force” or “cause”, therefore, they (as they are) cannot be eternal, because the “principle of their change” is prior.

For those who are up to it, meaning Catholic, you might try contemplating the last three books of The Confessions of St. Augustine to bolster your stance on Time, Matter, Creation, etc., to combine with what you know from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica and the knowing of God and his Angels and Man…

John Martin

 

[IWantGod]

you might try contemplating the last three books of The Confessions of St. Augustine

You know, I’ve spent so long studying Aquinas that i haven’t given a lot of time to Augustine. I may start spending some time on his work.

 

[John_Martin]

You know, I’ve spent so long studying Aquinas that i haven’t given a lot of time to Augustine. I may start spending some time on his work.

The whole of The Confessions is great, but those last 3 chapters/books were amazing.

 

[mythbuster1]

There is nothing self-evidently absurd about the claim that the Universe is eternal. The problem is that claiming the Universe to be eternal contradicts observations: entropy is ever increasing, the Universe is expanding, and there is no process which restores the hydrogen that stars consume in nuclear fusion. The conclusion is inescapable: the Universe not only had a beginning, it also has a finite lifespan. Given enough time, even black holes will evaporate.

 

[IWantGod]

Why can’t “matter” like an atom or some fundamental particle be self-existent?

Because it’s changing. It’s moving from potentiality to actuality. It is in a continuous state of becoming; it is something being realized as opposed to being necessarily actual.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing at all. So if a thing begins to be real it must be caused to be real.
2. Because premise 1 is true, it cannot be the case that there was absolutely nothing.
3. Because premise 1 and 2 is true, we cannot have a state of affairs where beings only begin to exist, since their being cannot come from nothing, and so their existence must come from a source that does not begin to exist.
4. Because premise 1, 2, and 3, is true, it follows necessarily that some being must have always existed because it is in it’s nature to exist. In other-words it is self-existent.
5. That which exists because it is it’s nature to exist is necessarily actual since there is no part of it’s nature that does not exist because it is in the nature of everything that it is to exist. Thus there is no unrealized properties or states or potential or anything in it’s nature that is not necessarily real.
6. Because premise 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 is true, an atom cannot be considered a self existent being. An atom moves from potential to actuality; it has unrealised properties, states, and potential.
7. This is true for physical reality as a whole because existentially speaking it’s parts define the nature of the whole (the space-time-continuum and any other thing that it is). In other-words, one cannot say that it is in the nature of physical reality to exist and at the same time say that some part of it only potentially exists, as this would contradict the necessity of it’s nature.

Conclusion: There is no thing in physical reality that can be rationally described as self-existent. It’s existence requires a cause because of premise 1. Therefore it follows necessarily that the cause of physical reality is not physical in nature.

 

[IWantGod]

It is moving from one actuality to another actuality.

…an actuality that was only potentially real; otherwise what you said makes no sense. And i never said that potentiality was a being.

Lets get that right first before we discuss anything, since you seem to be having a difficult time understanding a simple uncontroversial concept like potential.

 

[IWantGod]

That is correct, because the word “nothing” does not describe an ontologically existing “substance”, it is only an abstraction, or a concept.

If you agree that nothing is just a concept, then you must agree that there must be a being that is necessarily-actual.

 

[IWantGod]

Your whole argument rests on the Thomistic concept of “potential” vs. “actual” existence . Since there is no such thing as “potential existence”, the conclusion is false.

The conclusion isn’t false; your understanding of potential is false. Not only is it false, it is self-evident that things are changing and therefore it follows necessarily that potential states, properties or natures, are being actualised, and this has been happening since the big-bang or however long physical reality has existed.

 

[IWantGod]

And that is the universe.

And that conclusion is false because it leads to a contradiction as explained in the argument.

 

[Wesrock]

Aquinas11:

RealisticCatholic:

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)

And yet somehow the logic is suspended when talking about the Prime Mover.

No, this logic is precisely why God must be simple, immutable, eternal, non-material, etc… It’s not suspended, it’s the reason for Divine Simplicity.

 

[niceatheist]

And I say 0 is just as simple.

 

[Wesrock]

IWantGod:

It’s moving from potentiality to actuality.

It is moving from one actuality to another actuality. “Potentionality” is another abstraction, it does not exist ontologically.

Out of nothing comes nothing at all.

That is correct, because the word “nothing” does not describe an ontologically existing “substance”, it is only an abstraction, or a concept.

Your whole argument rests on the Thomistic concept of “potential” vs. “actual” existence. Since there is no such thing as “potential existence”, the conclusion is false.

Potency doesn’t exist in itself, it’s a principle that belongs to actual things insofar as how they may change. Nothing that is “pure potential” could exist. An ice cube has the potential to liquify. It doesn’t have the potential to become a bouquet of flowers. Or, at the very least, the potential to do so is negligently small.

 

[Wesrock]

And I say 0 is just as simple.

This is a non-sequitur.