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

[niceatheist]

Not really. If all the matter and energy in the universe; negative and positive, anti and opposite, is 0, how is that not simplicity. Can anything be simpler than nothing?

 

[Wesrock]

Not really. If all the matter and energy in the universe; negative and positive, anti and opposite, is 0, how is that not simplicity. Can anything be simpler than nothing?

Divine Simplicity just means that what we refer to as the originating principle of reality must be non-composite precisely because of the logic you said we ignored.

An equal amount of matter and anti-matter making the net energy 0 at the time of the big bang still requires a cause due to there being a change, parts, contingency, and so on.

 

[niceatheist]

If one accepts Aristotlean metaphys/ical premises. And if one, look Hume, views such thinking as pretty darned pointless…

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

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.

Very well said! What one calls “potential” comes from the physical characteristics of the object. Existence is always “actual”.

I did not say it was physical, just that it was a principle that belong to actual things. Existence, indeed, is always actual, but if there was no principle to actual things that let them undergo change there would be no change.

 

[Wesrock]

If one accepts Aristotlean metaphys/ical premises. And if one, look Hume, views such thinking as pretty darned pointless…

Accepting Hume’s flawed notions of causality requires accepting that reality at all levels is ultimately unintelligible and that deciding what happens for reasons and what happens without reasons is arbitrary and unfalsifiable. If you wish to undermine the entire pursuit of science… go ahead.

 

[niceatheist]

Hume didn’t believe reality was unintelligible, he just thought metaphysics was gibberish.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

I did not say it was physical, just that it was a principle that belong to actual things.

All object are physical. If you disagree, bring up an example of a “non-physical” object. And while you are at it, let me know what kind of epistemological process can show that such a “non-physical” object “exists”… and explain what does “existence” mean in this context.

To exist must be to have some type of effect on other things, to be “known” insofar as there is some type of observable effect on another. We can learn about some things by direct observation of it. Other things are not directly observable or sensible, but the effects of them may be sensible. And applying the principles we’ve abstracted from reality, we can come to at least some knowledge of things by working backwards from the effect. It’s in this latter method that we deduce that the originating principle, the Ultimate Reality, at the least, must exist and must be non-physical (as well as non-composite, non-contingent, and personal). And certainly it effects other, being their fundamental cause, so it’s not inert (which would be tantamount to non-existence).

 

[Wesrock]

Hume didn’t believe reality was unintelligible, he just thought metaphysics was gibberish.

It’s the consequences of his opinions on the matter.

 

[niceatheist]

It’s my opinion as well. The whole topic is completely uninformative and designed to assume its own conclusion.

 

[Wesrock]

It’s my opinion as well. The whole topic is completely uninformative and designed to assume its own conclusion.

You misunderstand. “Reality is unintelligible at all levels” is a conclusion that necessarily follows from Hume’s opinions.

Metaphysics is any discussion about why you believe physical principles are correct, why any epistemological method is correct, and so on . . . Do you also just assume your own conclusions, too, then?

 

[IWantGod]

Existence is always “actual”.

You misunderstand. An actual thing, state, or property, is actual once it is actual. But clearly physical reality has things or parts or states or properties or events that were at one point only potentially actual. They were not actual at some point.

This means that the nature of physical existence is not necessarily actual, this is to say it is not a nature or being that exists because it is in it’s nature to exist. If it was necessarily actual there would be no part of it that was not actual, because it is what it necessarily is and not something else or something more.

Necessary existence is not something that is in a state of becoming.

If physical reality has parts, whether that be a state, property, or being, that was only potentially actual, then this would contradict the existential necessity of it’s physical nature.

Therefore physical existence is not necessarily real, is not self-existent, and therefore requires a cause for it’s existence. It therefore follows necessarily that the cause is not physical.

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’s my opinion as well. The whole topic is completely uninformative and designed to assume its own conclusion.

I would say that’s exactly what Hume is guilty of. Your agreement with him, without showing why he is correct, is the very definition of uninformative.

 

[IWantGod]

The expression “Ultimate Reality” has no informational value. Especially not “capitalized”.

And your assertion that it has no informational value, has no information value.

 

[IWantGod]

What is “necessary” existence? Stasis? Frozen existence? An existence without “time”?

Existentially necessary, simply means something that cannot not exist. It’s impossible for it to not exist. Or it is in it’s nature to exist. Thus it’s existence or nature is not something that is being realized or becoming real. It cannot be spoken of as something that lacks actuality or as something that is potentially more, because it is already everything that it necessarily is and cannot be what it necessarily is not.

It’s nature is not in a state of becoming, because if it were, that would fundamentally contradict fact that it’s nature is existentially necessary.

Clearly anything that has actualised potential in it’s nature is not something that is existentially necessary. This rules out physical reality as a candidate for necessary existence.

 

[IWantGod]

The universe fulfills this requirement.

How? It has parts that change, it has realized potential. The entire universe is changing. It is part of the nature of physical reality that it changes.

Even if there were a part of it that did not change, physical reality still does not fulfil the requirement of a nature that is necessarily actual.

It’s nature is not in a state of becoming, because if it were, that would fundamentally contradict fact that it’s nature is existentially necessary.

And if you are going to charge someone with a fallacy, you have to explain why it applies to this particular argument. The fallacy of composition does not always apply to part-to-whole arguments. Which i’m sure you understand, or at least i hope you are not blindly throwing out accusations without understanding.

 

[IWantGod]

but it is incorrect to extrapolate that “since every tile is square, therefore the whole floor is square”.

Correct. Good thing i am not making that argument.

The problem for you is that it is YOU who has to prove that in this case the extrapolation is valid.

The argument i made is clearly not the same.

The universe is physical, it’s parts are physical. Physical reality is changing, therefore physical reality has unrealized potential that is being realized.

In the first place, besides the fact that you have failed to show that the fallacy of composition applies to my particular argument, my argument does not hinge on a part-to-whole demonstration.

My argument hinges on the idea that an existentially necessary act of reality does not in anyway shape or form change. It is not comprised either in part or whole of actualised potential. It is not in a state of becoming.

Physical reality, either in part or whole, is comprised of actualized potential. Therefore it does not posses the nature of something that is necessarily actual. Therefore physical reality still requires a cause in-order for it to exist at all.

It will not work to say the whole universe is not the sum of it’s parts, because it is the sum of it’s parts. The universe by definition is the space-time continuum and everything of which it is comprised, and it is unscientific to define it as being anything else. The universe is expanding, the whole universe is changing; the whole universe has unrealised potential.

There are several principles which are extremely well established, the preservation laws . (

Scientific statements and inferences are not the same thing as metaphysical statements and inferences.

When a scientist says something like “energy cannot be created or destroyed”, this is not the same thing as saying that energy necessarily exists or cannot cease to exist.

It is this failure to see the difference that will make having a discussion with you very difficult, because you lack the contextual understanding of both science and metaphysics which has lead you to conflate the two.

This will be my last post to you. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Sundiver]

I’m really taking a chance stepping into noman’s land here.
Has anyone, in this forum, considered the double slit experiment and consciousness?
This idea of ,matter as self-existent, is vague. We still don’t know what consciousness is and scientists are beginning to say that matter is conscious. It might be accurate if they said information is communicated through matter. What we see, in the universe, is less than 1% of what is actually in existence. Stars and galaxies are like the foam on the sea. In my opinion, based on what I have read, it appears that matter is energy slowed down, more dense, and visible to us because it is vibrating in frequencies we can comprehend. This changes our perception of the universe and our existence. Beings perceived as matter make more sense if we view their existence as energy patterns.