Philosophy Discussion Forums

[yid=]PiBaIo7xAjE[/yid]

My argument has three stages. The first stage establishes the principles of reasoning behind the rest of the argument. The second stage simply defines God by necessary inference from the principles. The third stage summarizes the argument in eight statements, which make explicitly clear the logic behind the whole argument.

A) Being is. That is, something exists. This is the principle of existence. It is undeniable since the one who denies it must exist in order to deny it. Hence, while the source of first principles is a basic intuition about being, the test for their truth is undeniability. That is, they cannot be denied without affirming them (either directly or indirectly) in the very denial itself.

B) Being is being. This is the principle of identity. Being is identical to being. A thing is identical to itself. Again, this is literally undeniable since it cannot be denied unless it is implied, for one must assume things to be identical to themselves even to deny that they are.

C) Being is not non-being. This is the principle of non-contradiction. Opposites cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. This too is undeniable since the claim that opposites can both be true assumes that the opposite of this claim 'C' cannot be true.

D) Either being or non-being. This is the principle of excluded middle. There is nothing between being and non-being. Hence, something must either be or not be. It can't both be and not be. This too is undeniable since the denial of it is a contradiction.

E) Non-being cannot produce being. This is the principle of causality. Nothing cannot cause anything since nothing does not exist, and what does not exist cannot not cause anything. Only something can produce something. Deniable of this principle also entails a contradiction.

F) Being causes being similar to itself. This is the principle of analogy. An effect resembles it's efficient cause. Like produces like. Being shares being, for this is all that it has to share. Being cannot give what it has not got. But what it gives (i.e., being) it must have had to give.

From these six principles:

A) A being can be either necessary or contingent but not both. This is based on the principle of excluded middle.

B) A necessary being cannot produce another necessary being. The opposite of this is reducible to a contradiction because (a) a necessary being by it's nature cannot come or cease to be, and (b) the being that is caused by a necessary being comes to be.

C) A contingent being cannot cause another contingent being. This is because a contingent being is one that could possibly not be, and if it caused another being, then non-being would be producing being.

D) A necessary being is a being of pure actuality, with no potentiality. This is so since a necessary being has no potentiality to not exist. If a necessary being exists, then it must exist necessarily, with no possibility not to exist.

E) A being of pure actuality cannot produce another being with pure actuality. The being that is produced by a being of pure actuality must have both actuality and potentiality, for this created being has the potentiality not to be, which pure actuality does not have.

F) Every being caused by a being of pure actuality must be both like and unlike its cause. It must be like its cause in its actuality, and it must be unlike its cause in potentiality. And what is both like and unlike its cause is similar (or analogous) to it.

G) I am a contingent being. This is so because I undeniably exist, and I am neither a necessary being nor an impossible being. I am not an impossible being since I do exist. And I am not a necessary being because I change or come to be, which a necessary being cannot do. Hence, I am a contingent being. But only a necessary being can cause a contingent being.

H) Therefore, a necessary being exists that causes me to exist.

I) This necessary being is a being of pure actuality and has certain necessary attributes:

- It cannot change (i.e., immutable) since it has no potential for change.
- It cannot be temporal (i.e., eternal) since that involves change.
- It cannot be material (i.e., immaterial) since that involves change.
- It cannot be finite (i.e., infinite) since it has no potentiality to limit it.
- It cannot be divisible (i.e., simple) since it has no potential to be divided.
- It must be an uncaused being since it is a necessary being, and a necessary being cannot be caused to come to be. So, it can't be caused. Nor can it be self-caused, since that would entail a contradiction.
- It must only be one being since there can't be two or more infinite beings or two or more beings of pure actuality; there is no way they could differ in their being, for they are both the same kind of being. And beings cannot differ in the very respect in which they are the same.
- It must be infinitely knowing (i.e., omniscient) since I am a knowing being that it caused to exist, and a cause cannot give what it does not have to give.
- It must be all-powerful (i.e., omnipotent) since it is infinite, and it has the power to cause a finite being to exist.

Now, to summarize the whole argument in eight statements:

1. Some things undeniably exist.
2. But my nonexistence is possible, for I am not a necessary being but one that changes or comes to be.
3. Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.
4. There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.
5. Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists.
6. This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, and all-knowing.
7. This infinitely all-powerful, all-knowing being is what is meant by a theistic god.
8. Therefore, a theistic god exists.

It looks like you put a lot work in your post, but it doesn't really matter. Religion must ever be its own critic and judge; it can never be observed, much less understood, from the outside. Your only assurance of a personal God consists in your own insight as to your belief in, and experience with, things spiritual. To all of those who have had a similar experience, no argument about the personality or reality of God is necessary, while to all others who are not thus sure of God no possible argument could ever be truly convincing.

Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote: Now, to summarize the whole argument in eight statements:

1. Some things undeniably exist.
2. But my nonexistence is possible, for I am not a necessary being but one that changes or comes to be.
3. Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.
4. There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.
5. Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists.
6. This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, and all-knowing.
7. This infinitely all-powerful, all-knowing being is what is meant by a theistic god.
8. Therefore, a theistic god exists.

1. True
2. Not true. From the self's perspective, the self must exist. Otherwise there would be no sense of self; but there is a sense of self; therefore the self exists.
2 is necessarily not true.
3. Second part is not true. Nothing is caused to exist. Things that are caused are events, that happen to things that exist. But things are not caused to exist.

This "Caused to exist" is the basic tenet of theism. Therefore a belief in it is necessary for the proof to stand. This is a self-perpetuating dogma, not a fact, or an a priori truth.
4. Not true. Unfounded hypotheses.
5. Not true. An unfounded hypotheses.
6. Even if 5 were true, 6 would not necessarily follow from it.

Your so-called "proof" is a far cry from being what it claims to be. Sorry. No personal disrespect; it's just that your theory is not philosophically solid. Sorry. I don't mean to be nasty or anything. It's just that you are on a philosophy forum, and here we scrutinize things as to their validity of proposition / argument.

Renee, I do not believe "proofs" are necessary or even possible, but your rebuttal is a far cry from being what it claims to be.

1 is true. So, too, is 2 for the simple reason that the self is contingent on prior existents. With that out count, everything that follows is called into question.

Sorry. No personal disrespect; it's just that your rejoinder is not philosophically solid. I don't mean to be nasty or anything. It's just that you are on a philosophy forum, and here we scrutinize things as to their validity of proposition/argument.

Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote a faulty first premise:

A) Being is. That is, something exists. This is the principle of existence. It is undeniable since the one who denies it must exist in order to deny it. Hence, while the source of first principles is a basic intuition about being, the test for their truth is undeniability. That is, they cannot be denied without affirming them (either directly or indirectly) in the very denial itself.

"Being is" doesn't imply something exists. Being isimplies no more than the analytic is . On the other hand a being implies that something exists.

Belindi wrote:Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote a faulty first premise:

A) Being is. That is, something exists. This is the principle of existence. It is undeniable since the one who denies it must exist in order to deny it. Hence, while the source of first principles is a basic intuition about being, the test for their truth is undeniability. That is, they cannot be denied without affirming them (either directly or indirectly) in the very denial itself.

"Being is" doesn't imply something exists. Being isimplies no more than the analytic is . On the other hand a being implies that something exists.

This goes hand in hand with classical theism.

Dark matter wrote:

This goes hand in hand with classical theism.

Yes, I know. I do feel that the hard work which the original poster put into their thesis means that they are sincere. I am wondering if it's possible for an old fashioned theist, who actually is articulate, to understand how language can trick a thinker into an error in reasoning.

Belindi wrote:Dark matter wrote:

This goes hand in hand with classical theism.

Yes, I know. I do feel that the hard work which the original poster put into their thesis means that they are sincere. I am wondering if it's possible for an old fashioned theist, who actually is articulate, to understand how language can trick a thinker into an error in reasoning.

IMO, this is especially true of atheists. Is it possible for an articulate atheist to understand that the language of religion is mostly analogical? Since this understanding has been around for centuries, is there any excuse for atheists to understand with a univocal eye?

Dark Matter wrote:Renee, I do not believe "proofs" are necessary or even possible, but your rebuttal is a far cry from being what it claims to be.

1 is true. So, too, is 2 for the simple reason that the self is contingent on prior existents. With that out count, everything that follows is called into question.

Sorry. No personal disrespect; it's just that your rejoinder is not philosophically solid. I don't mean to be nasty or anything. It's just that you are on a philosophy forum, and here we scrutinize things as to their validity of proposition/argument.

No offence taken. I also say with utter respect for you that you are mistaken when you say that the self does not necessarily exist. This is the point I made, not whether it was an original existence.

The writer of the first post denied that the self exists. He pointed at something else which must necessarily exist. This is false in philosophical terms. Maybe in theist terms this makes sense, and I shan't deny that. This is, however, a philosophy forum, not a theological forum. That's all.

Ontologoical arguments are supposed to prove the existence of god in philosophical terms, not in theological terms. Inasmuch as that is true, the original poster made errors in logic in philosophy.

What I claim is that you misplaced your point of reference. You argue that I was wrong in a philosophical matter. I was not. I admit I may or may not have been wrong in a theological matter.

What you committed here (said in complete reverence to your faith and person, of neither of which I know anything) is a fallacy of misplaced reference.

Your argument relies entirely on the caveat, "from the self's perspective." That interjected into the argument something that was neither said or implied. That is not fair, nor is it intellectually honest.

-- Updated December 3rd, 2016, 5:35 pm to add the following --

I should clarify: it was not said in a univocal manner.

Dark Matter wrote:Your argument relies entirely on the caveat, "from the self's perspective." That interjected into the argument something that was neither said or implied. That is not fair, nor is it intellectually honest.

-- Updated December 3rd, 2016, 5:35 pm to add the following --

I should clarify: it was not said in a univocal manner.

I am sorry. But the ONLY empirical truth that has the strength of a priori truths is "cogito ergo sum".

The caveat, as you called it, is not a restriction; but the only possible perspective to have an empirical truth have the strength of an a priori truth. The original poster put "there necessarily is a being which is not the self". This is false, as the only necessarily existing being is the self. From the self's perspective. If you choose to go beyond the self, and outside of it, then there is no "necessarily existing person". There is nothing necessarily existing in the world, other than the self.

Assumption or premiss no. 2 is wrong in the attempt at the ontological proof.

Renee wrote:

Dark Matter wrote:Your argument relies entirely on the caveat, "from the self's perspective." That interjected into the argument something that was neither said or implied. That is not fair, nor is it intellectually honest.

-- Updated December 3rd, 2016, 5:35 pm to add the following --

I should clarify: it was not said in a univocal manner.

I am sorry. But the ONLY empirical truth that has the strength of a priori truths is "cogito ergo sum".

The caveat, as you called it, is not a restriction; but the only possible perspective to have an empirical truth have the strength of an a priori truth. The original poster put "there necessarily is a being which is not the self". This is false, as the only necessarily existing being is the self. From the self's perspective. If you choose to go beyond the self, and outside of it, then there is no "necessarily existing person". There is nothing necessarily existing in the world, other than the self.

Assumption or premiss no. 2 is wrong in the attempt at the ontological proof.

Descartes got it backwards.

-- Updated December 3rd, 2016, 10:12 pm to add the following --

If Descartes is so great, perhaps his 2nd argunment:should be considered:

1. I exist.
2. My existence must have a cause.
3. The only possible ultimate causes are
a) myself
b) my always having existed
c) my parents
d) something less perfect than God
e) God
4. Not a. If I had created myself, I would have made myself perfect.
5. Not b. This does not solve the problem. If I am a dependent being, I need to be continually sustained by another.
6. Not c. This leads to an infinite regress.
7. Not d. The idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated from a non-perfect being.
8. Therefore, e. God exists.

Dark Matter wrote: Descartes got it backwards.

I should hardly think so. NOT because it was Descartes who said it. But because what he discovered was true.

By the way, you make no argument. You just say "he was wrong" or "the idea is wrong". Nobody has to believe you until you prove that.

For instance, you can say, "god does not exist". Who would believe you? Only those who want to.

If you provide a proof, nobody has the right not to believe you. Those who don't understand the proof can continue not believing you; but they don't have the right to do so. Much like you have done with denying the validity of "cogito ergo sum".

"Descartes got it backwards" is a simplistic, childlike denial without any strength. Your argument there does not exist. You just name your own opinion, which is, by any standard, and with all due respect, wrong.

Dark Matter wrote:
If Descartes is so great, perhaps his 2nd argument should be considered:

1. I exist.
2. My existence must have a cause.
3. The only possible ultimate causes are
a) myself
b) my always having existed
c) my parents
d) something less perfect than God
e) God
4. Not a. If I had created myself, I would have made myself perfect.
5. Not b. This does not solve the problem. If I am a dependent being, I need to be continually sustained by another.
6. Not c. This leads to an infinite regress.
7. Not d. The idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated from a non-perfect being.
8. Therefore, e. God exists.

-----------

C. is valid. Descartes rejects the validity of infinite regress without any justification.

4. is quizzical. I can't see why he (I) would have created himself (myself) perfectly. That's A. B. is that who says he (I) is not perfect? Not being perfect is just as hard to prove as not being random.

He ought to have said, instead, that "in order to create myself, I had to preexist before I existed; that is absurd." That's all he had to say to deny he created himself.

7. is an invalid argument too. The idea of "440" can exist in me despite not being originated by 440 beings. The idea of "perfection" can exist in me despite not being originated by a perfect being. Or the idea of left-handedness in me does not mean I was created by a left-handed person. Furthermore, the idea of imperfection also exists in me; I can't have been created by a being which is both perfect and imperfect.

Dark Matter wrote:1. I exist.
2. My existence must have a cause.
3. The only possible ultimate causes are
d) something less perfect than God
...
7. Not d. The idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated from a non-perfect being.

We may have emanated from a non perfect entity, not necessarily a being. It seems to me that the universe is becoming more mature, a more sophisticated, varied and interesting thing than it was before. Is the additional sophistication newly emergent or is it the physical manifestation of what exists non materially? Who can say? Not me.

Another possibility: a hypothesis that posits time as a fractal dimension (with reportedly elegant math) so that the ultimate thing the universe becomes (eg. perhaps the Omega Point) is existent and always has existed. That would make us holographic projections of this four-dimensional "end point", and what we experience as time is movement towards this future, and as we go the "end point" becomes ever clearer. However, as when attempting to travel at light speed, as entities approach this future they slow down, eventually to a point where they have virtually stopped, never quite reaching the "end point". Eternal nirvana?

Greta wrote:

Dark Matter wrote:1. I exist.
2. My existence must have a cause.
3. The only possible ultimate causes are
d) something less perfect than God
...
7. Not d. The idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated from a non-perfect being.

We may have emanated from a non perfect entity, not necessarily a being. It seems to me that the universe is becoming more mature, a more sophisticated, varied and interesting thing than it was before. Is the additional sophistication newly emergent or is it the physical manifestation of what exists non materially? Who can say? Not me.

Another possibility: a hypothesis that posits time as a fractal dimension (with reportedly elegant math) so that the ultimate thing the universe becomes (eg. perhaps the Omega Point) is existent and always has existed. That would make us holographic projections of this four-dimensional "end point", and what we experience as time is movement towards this future, and as we go the "end point" becomes ever clearer. However, as when attempting to travel at light speed, as entities approach this future they slow down, eventually to a point where they have virtually stopped, never quite reaching the "end point". Eternal nirvana?

I would absolutely deny that we emanated from a being; it makes the Source sound like some kind of super being. On the other hand, I love fractals. It makes a great metaphor.

The reason that I posted Descartes' second argument is because people usually use it without realizing that "Cogito ergo sum" was intended to be a reminder to his readers that God is omnipresent as well as all-powerful, and that we must therefore govern ourselves and our lives with the knowledge that everyone will be called to a particular (i.e. Christian) kind of accounting for her or her actions at the end of each individual's life.