Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby James S Saint » Sun May 04, 2014 3:03 am

In this context, "God" refers to the cause of the existence of the universe, often referred to as the "First Cause".

Proposed proofs by Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle have been presumptuous in their premises and thus not incontrovertible proofs. A proof that is not logically incontrovertible, is not a proof.

The following is my version.
Abstract argument;
    1) Absolute infinity cannot exist
    2) Absolute zero cannot exist
    3) Absolute nothingness cannot exist
    4) Existence is the lack of absolute nothingness
    5) Therefore, existence must exist.
What has been called the "First Cause" (meaning the first logical step for the existence of causation) and Aristotle's definition of "God", is formed merely from the lack of logical alternatives.

Absolute infinity cannot exist simply because no matter how great a measure is, more can be added. No matter to what degree an infinite measure is, a greater degree can be formulated.

When it comes to substances with an infinite divisibility (such as energy), absolute zero cannot be achieved because absolute zero of such a quality is merely the inverse of absolute infinity. Since absolute infinity cannot exist, neither can its inverse, absolute zero.

If absolute zero of a qualitative substance cannot exist, then absolute nothingness cannot exist because absolute nothingness is the same as absolute zero qualitative substance.

If absolute nothingness cannot exist as a state, the only alternative is that a qualitative substance does exist as a state.

Therefore, the universe cannot not exist. - dictated by the presence of God (that "First Cause").
The universe shall exist and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent it.

================================================================

There are many other concepts of God that are usually merely a list of characteristics and often anthropomorphic. But such characteristics are presumed extensions of the existence, not definitions of what constitutes a "God".

A common modern day list of characteristics is the "Omni's";
    1) God must be omnipresent – The logic applies to literally all points throughout all space.
    2) God must be omniscient – The logic is inherent in all knowledge, regardless of belief.
    3) God must be omnipotent – The consequences of it cannot be removed or thwarted.
    4) God must be omni-benevolent – The logic supports the existence of all things (ie. everything that exists, exists for a reason" or "nothing is void of cause")).

There are a great many other characteristics used to argue either for or against the existence of a God (mostly against), but they all boil down to mere semantic preferences, misinterpretation of prior declaration, and efforts to persuade void of logical foundation.

On the other hand, Quantum Physics and Relativity are provably false.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby Dan~ » Sun May 04, 2014 11:59 pm

I believe in a non absolute infinite, or a near infinite.
It is so big it may as well be called an infinite compared to our self and planet.
There also is a realm made of something like anti-matter. It is the opposite of our universe, but we have some of that, and it has some of our stuff in it too, like regular energy and materials.

QM and relativity are stepping stones.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10117
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 05, 2014 12:19 am

I believe that if, then.
I believe that if, then.
I believe that if, then.

Yes, that's always a good place to start.

But just how far beyond Aquinas and the cosmological argument does that go? Or, rather, just how much closer to God does it get us?

The God, for instance.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 34259
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby Dan~ » Mon May 05, 2014 12:58 am

iambiguous wrote:I believe that if, then.
I believe that if, then.
I believe that if, then.

Yes, that's always a good place to start.

But just how far beyond Aquinas and the cosmological argument does that go? Or, rather, just how much closer to God does it get us?

The God, for instance.


The abrahamic god is a spirit god, made of invisible distant forces.

Physical gods on the other hand, were said to live in certain areas of the world and could be killed by other gods for example.

Trying to defend a god figure's existence is a lot easier when it is off the earth.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10117
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby James S Saint » Mon May 05, 2014 1:05 am

iambiguous wrote:I believe that if, then.
I believe that if, then.
I believe that if, then.

Yes, that's always a good place to start.

But just how far beyond Aquinas and the cosmological argument does that go? Or, rather, just how much closer to God does it get us?

The God, for instance.

I was waiting for you to show up... ranting without a coherent argument (as usual).

So which of those (explained) premises do you disbelieve in?
1) Absolute infinity cannot exist
2) Absolute zero cannot exist
3) Absolute nothingness cannot exist

??
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 05, 2014 9:05 pm

Ranting?

But you know me. With respect to things like God and religion, I am less interested in what folks tell me they believe and more interested in how they can actually go about demonstrating to others that what they claim to believe is true is true not only because they, well, claim to believe that it is.

And then I like to link that to the God, because if He does in fact exist then stuff like immortality and salvation may in fact exist too.

And that has always seemed better to me than, say, oblivion.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 34259
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby statiktech » Tue May 06, 2014 12:20 am

Is this supposed to be an argument for the existence of God?
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby Maia » Tue May 06, 2014 1:30 am

There would be no need to try and prove the existence of a monotheistic god by verbal sleights of hand if he actually existed, for if he did, it would be obvious.
User avatar
Maia
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby Uccisore » Tue May 06, 2014 2:09 am

Maia wrote:There would be no need to try and prove the existence of a monotheistic god by verbal sleights of hand if he actually existed, for if he did, it would be obvious.


For almost everybody, for almost all of human history, it has been.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby Uccisore » Tue May 06, 2014 2:15 am

I think there's a problem with your second premise. You defend it on the grounds that an infinitely divisible substance can't have a quantity of zero, because that's an inverse of an infinite. But isn't an infinitely divisible substance with a quantity of zero merely such a substance that doesn't exist? I can think of a lot of infinitely divisible substances that don't exist, like mana, or The Force, or ether or whatever. Maybe your argument shows that a substance, once confirmed to exist, can never be reduced to zero, but not only does that seem implausible (anything that can experience a linear decrease in quantity should be able to decrease to zero), but it also doesn't serve your argument which seems to be that something must always have existed. So you're left with no answer for why some substances like energy exist while other substances like ether don't, or why, if ether doesn't exist, it couldn't have been the case that energy and everything else didn't either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby James S Saint » Tue May 06, 2014 12:52 pm

Uccisore wrote:I think there's a problem with your second premise. You defend it on the grounds that an infinitely divisible substance can't have a quantity of zero, because that's an inverse of an infinite. But isn't an infinitely divisible substance with a quantity of zero merely such a substance that doesn't exist? I can think of a lot of infinitely divisible substances that don't exist, like mana, or The Force, or ether or whatever.

That's an interesting thought, but...

You are proposing that you can think of an imaginary substance ("Y") that doesn't exist but is divisible. How can it be divisible if it doesn't exist? You can imagine that it would be divisible if it did exist, but you have already specified it to be something that doesn't. Therefore your substance isn't divisible.

If Y doesn't exist, "Y/2" is an oxymoron. Reach into an empty bucket and pull out only half of the apples from within. You cannot divide zero. But if you want to say that "0/2 = 0" (as they use in math despite the irrationality of it), you have still merely said that you have the same amount as you had before, not half of it. So you still haven't actually divided it.

Uccisore wrote:Maybe your argument shows that a substance, once confirmed to exist, can never be reduced to zero, but not only does that seem implausible (anything that can experience a linear decrease in quantity should be able to decrease to zero),

That is what has been confusing Man for so long. It is not true that anything that can be infinitely divided can get to zero. One can have a quantity of something with defined limits on its size, such as a penny, and easily prove that he has zero quantity of them in his hand. And that thought leads to the idea that one could have zero of anything. But the problem is that there is a difference between something with limits to its size and something that doesn't, such as energy. Energy is a property and substance that has no limits pertaining to its size. Thus it can be divided forever without ever getting to zero. And then because of its particular property (the property of being able to have affect), if it ever became zero, you would merely have non-existence (non-affect). How can one have non-existence? What would it even mean "to have truly absolutely nothing"? So you cannot say that you have zero of it, else there would be no you to be saying it.

Uccisore wrote:but it also doesn't serve your argument which seems to be that something must always have existed. So you're left with no answer for why some substances like energy exist while other substances like ether don't, or why, if ether doesn't exist, it couldn't have been the case that energy and everything else didn't either.

Not exactly true.

If something has affect, it exists (that is what having affect means and vsvrsa). In science, the potential to have affect is called "energy" (specifically electric potential). By definition, anything that exists has energy.

If you propose a substance that has no affect whatsoever, you have already specified that it does not exist. And then because it does not exist, you cannot divide it infinitely (nor at all).

Existence is made of the infinitely divisible quality of potential to affect, "energy".
Last edited by James S Saint on Tue May 06, 2014 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby turtle » Tue May 06, 2014 12:59 pm

what are we trying to do here...
turtle
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:41 pm

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby James S Saint » Tue May 06, 2014 1:04 pm

turtle wrote:what are we trying to do here...

Just proposing an argument a little similar to Aristotle's or Aquinas' proof of God, but more stringent, less presumptuous.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby turtle » Tue May 06, 2014 1:11 pm

James S Saint wrote:
turtle wrote:what are we trying to do here...

Just proposing an argument a little similar to Aristotle's or Aquinas' proof of God, but more stringent, less presumptuous.

how good is your argument....your evaluation...where is the weakness..
turtle
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:41 pm

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby James S Saint » Tue May 06, 2014 1:13 pm

turtle wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
turtle wrote:what are we trying to do here...

Just proposing an argument a little similar to Aristotle's or Aquinas' proof of God, but more stringent, less presumptuous.

how good is your argument....your evaluation...where is the weakness..

That is what I am asking people to find. I don't believe there is one other than perhaps to use different words for the same ideas or perhaps add a step somewhere for clarification.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby phyllo » Tue May 06, 2014 1:35 pm

But the problem is that there is a difference between something with limits to its size and something that doesn't, such as energy. Energy is a property and substance that has no limits pertaining to its size.
You claim this without any evidence. There may be a quantum of energy which is not divisible.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11590
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby James S Saint » Tue May 06, 2014 2:21 pm

phyllo wrote:
But the problem is that there is a difference between something with limits to its size and something that doesn't, such as energy. Energy is a property and substance that has no limits pertaining to its size.
You claim this without any evidence. There may be a quantum of energy which is not divisible.

Well, that's a separate argument, but is easily resolved.

There is no geometric shape that can symmetrically fill space. You can image that perhaps energy comes in little bubbles, as is proposed by the Quantum Magi, but if that were true, space would have an interesting problem.

Trying to "fill space" has been an intellectual art for millenia. There are shapes, such as a cube, that can be used to completely fill space. But the problem is that if you measure from one cube to the surrounding cubes, you will not be able to get a equal number of cubes at all angles for any given distance (radius). And what that means is that light traveling at one angle would necessarily take longer than at a different angle. And then in addition, which direction would they be aligned?

Three dimensional symmetric space, cannot be filled by ANY shape whatsoever (mathematically proven long ago). Thus to propose that energy itself comes in the form of tiny indivisible bits is to propose that space is not symmetric and also that it has an inherent "up and down", "right and left", and "back and front". Experience tells us otherwise.

So those proposed tiny bits of energy could have no consistent shape. As that shape changed, the size of it changes as well. And there would have to be an infinite variety of such shapes in order to fill a symmetric space. And even then, that space would be grainy. And if you can have an infinite variety of shapes, why can't you just have an infinitely divisible substance?

The burden of proof is far greater for such a theory than for the theory of an infinitely divisible substance.

And there are other problems, such as "Where did those bits come from?" Somethingness from nothingness?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby Uccisore » Tue May 06, 2014 9:23 pm

James S Saint wrote:You are proposing that you can think of an imaginary substance ("Y") that doesn't exist but is divisible. How can it be divisible if it doesn't exist? You can imagine that it would be divisible if it did exist, but you have already specified it to be something that doesn't. Therefore your substance isn't divisible.


I'm taking it for granted that 'a substance that doesn't exist' and 'a substance that there is zero of' are the same thing. So if your argument is that a substance that doesn't exist can't be divisible, then fine, but now you no longer have an argument for why it couldn't have been the case that some substance or another would have never existed in the first place. In other words, there is some particular number of divisible substances that exist- 1 or 2 or 3 probably. It could have been some other number, like zero.


Uccisore wrote:That is what has been confusing Man for so long. It is not true that anything that can be infinitely divided can get to zero. One can have a quantity of something with defined limits on its size, such as a penny, and easily prove that he has zero quantity of them in his hand. And that thought leads to the idea that one could have zero of anything. But the problem is that there is a difference between something with limits to its size and something that doesn't, such as energy. Energy is a property and substance that has no limits pertaining to its size. Thus it can be divided forever without ever getting to zero. And then because of its particular property (the property of being able to have affect), if it ever became zero, you would merely have non-existence (non-affect). How can one have non-existence? What would it even mean "to have truly absolutely nothing"? So you cannot say that you have zero of it, else there would be no you to be saying it.


So either everything exists, including weird clearly fictional stuff from various religions, fantasy novels, and video games, or else you still need to explain why the quantity of some of these things are in fact zero.


Uccisore wrote:If something has affect, it exists (that is what having affect means and vsvrsa). In science, the potential to have affect is called "energy" (specifically electric potential). By definition, anything that exists has energy.


But you're trying to assert that it must have been the case that something exist! If nothing existed, then matter and energy would be as hypothetical as mana or ether, and none of the above would have affect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby AutSider » Tue May 06, 2014 10:47 pm

5) Therefore, existence must exist.


Good job, James S Saint! =D>

1) God must be omnipresent – The logic applies to literally all points throughout all space.
2) God must be omniscient – The logic is inherent in all knowledge, regardless of belief.
3) God must be omnipotent – The consequences of it cannot be removed or thwarted.
4) God must be omni-benevolent – The logic supports the existence of all things


The list of omnis is common, your definition are definitely not. Besides, there is a huge problem with your definition of omnibenevolent. One can't support the existence of all things because some things are contradictory and one will just end up supporting nothing. It's like not being able to decide for which of the 5 candidates to vote and then voting for all of them, ultimately you supported none of them as your votes canceled each other out. A god that supports the existence of evil as much as the existence of good ultimately supports none of those. However, for that to be a precise analogy one would have to quantify evil and good and find that they're equal in measure, which would be silly. Though I think we can agree that there is evil and there is good and god does nothing to prevent or induce more of any of them, he lets both of them be without doing anything.

How can God support Hitler as much as Gandhi? One must really not give a shit at all to support those 2 equally, given how different they are.

This is just another god of the gaps, trying to fill the gaps in human knowledge with god. The truth is that even the greatest scientists of today admit that we don't yet know exactly what happened and how everything came to be, but that that doesn't mean god is the default answer, you have no empirical or rational basis whatsoever for making that claim. When talking about the existence of something you don't give arguments, you give EVIDENCE.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby James S Saint » Wed May 07, 2014 12:24 am

Uccisore wrote:I'm taking it for granted that 'a substance that doesn't exist' and 'a substance that there is zero of' are the same thing. So if your argument is that a substance that doesn't exist can't be divisible, then fine, but now you no longer have an argument for why it couldn't have been the case that some substance or another would have never existed in the first place. In other words, there is some particular number of divisible substances that exist- 1 or 2 or 3 probably. It could have been some other number, like zero.

Well no. You can only have one fundamental substance in a universe.

For a universe to exist, anything and everything in that universe must have the property of affect, else it wouldn't exist in that universe. So we can call that property substance "A". If we propose that there "could possibly be" a substance "B" as well, substance B would also have to have the property of affect, which means that our substance B is actually substance A.

And if we propose that there is another parallel universe made of substance B, all substance B in that universe must affect substance B, else it wouldn't exist in that universe. But if it has affect, then it is substance A, the property of affect. And then because it has that same property, it is in reality, the same universe, not independent or parallel.

A non-existent thing cannot be divided at all. And an existent thing has affect and being a quality rather than a mere quantity, can be divided infinitely and thus can never be at zero.

Uccisore wrote:So either everything exists, including weird clearly fictional stuff from various religions, fantasy novels, and video games, or else you still need to explain why the quantity of some of these things are in fact zero.

Everything that exists is necessarily substance A, else it could not be said to exist.

Uccisore wrote:But you're trying to assert that it must have been the case that something exist! If nothing existed, then matter and energy would be as hypothetical as mana or ether, and none of the above would have affect.

For anything to be a hypothetical existence, it must have affect. And it cannot have a property that isn't affect, else that proposed property wouldn't exist. And then if it has affect, it is substance A, affect itself. You cannot propose that something "could exist" unless you propose that it has the property of affect because that is what is meant by something existing. Affect is the one property that cannot be left out of any proposed existent thing. And any other proposed property cannot be anything but affect, merely more or less of it in differing arrangements.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby James S Saint » Wed May 07, 2014 9:04 am

3Sum wrote:One can't support the existence of all things because some things are contradictory and one will just end up supporting nothing.

Nothing in the universe is contradictory.
Contradiction exists only in the imagination of the mind.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby felix dakat » Wed May 07, 2014 4:17 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Three dimensional symmetric space, cannot be filled by ANY shape whatsoever (mathematically proven long ago). Thus to propose that energy itself comes in the form of tiny indivisible bits is to propose that space is not symmetric and also that it has an inherent "up and down", "right and left", and "back and front". Experience tells us otherwise.


Enjoyed reading the thread. So you are a subjectivist? "Experience tells us..."? Experience is often informed by prejudice, false intuitions and the limitations of POV. Science has repeatedly shown that experience is wrong or relative as, for example, when it is based on perception at human scale whereas things work differently at other size scales.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8350
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby AutSider » Thu May 08, 2014 9:15 am

If you're supporting both, Hitler and Gandhi, you're supporting 2 contradictory viewpoints (which boils down to supporting none, unless you support one more than the other, in which case I'd argue you aren't supporting the other at all).

JSS according to your definition an omnibenevolent being would support the existence of smallpox and plague. That's ok with your idea of omnibenevolent?
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby James S Saint » Thu May 08, 2014 11:57 am

3Sum wrote:JSS according to your definition an omnibenevolent being would support the existence of smallpox and plague. That's ok with your idea of omnibenevolent?

That is the degree to which it fits. If you want to limit benevolence only to what you believe to be good and wholesome, that would be a different God.

The God of Aristotle and Aquinas supports all that exists, existence itself. That doesn't mean that such a God will continue to support anything in particular. That is the God that I am talking about.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

Postby Uccisore » Thu May 08, 2014 6:40 pm

James S Saint wrote:Well no. You can only have one fundamental substance in a universe.


So every even theoretical substance is the same? This seems pretty counter-intuitive to me. It seems at least possible that there could be such a stuff as ether, and that it is distinct from energy in some fundamental way. Sure, they might both have the properties of infinite divisibility and and affect, but why does that mean they are the same substance? I don't at all follow your reasoning that if two substances have 1 property in common, they are the same substance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Next

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users