Beyond Aquinas and the Cosmological Argument

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?

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.

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.

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.

Good job, James S Saint! =D>

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.

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.

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

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.

Nothing in the universe is contradictory.
Contradiction exists only in the imagination of the mind.

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.

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?

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.

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.

The issue is that what you are calling a “substance” (such as Aether) is no more than the property of affect.

It is an delusion that anything exists independent of affect. And yes, that is counter-intuitive, but necessarily true. Affect is the only thing that exists. What you imagine as different substances are actually merely rearrangements or concentrations of affect (or what I refer to as “Affectance” - similar to Lorentz’ Aether).

I wanted to leave this part out of the proof, but obviously it is too easy to get into it.

Errm, yes, I obviously do, why is that a weird thing?

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benevolent

How then, is a property divisible?

By its degree or amount of affect upon an adjacent affect.

Imagine a matrix of points in space (just to give the mind orientation). Each point in space has the ability (property) of altering the next point by increasing or decreasing that point’s ability to affect the next point. Point A perhaps raises point B’s ability to raise point C and so on. That creates what physics calls “EMR propagation”.

And it might be interesting to note that distance is formed by how many points must be affecting each other such that an affect can get from point A to another point. Since affect (or “level of affect”) is the only existence, there can be no distance between any two points that directly affect each other, because within such a distance there would be no affecting and thus there could be no existence of that distance. So even if we can imagine one point affecting another point at a distance, we would see only the two points and no distance between them (else that distance would be having an affect). And that is what eventually leads to the notion of “warped space” and “relative time”.

The homogeneity of these affects cannot ever be absolute zero simply because absolute zero amount of affect can’t exist. No two “things” or properties can be truly 100% identical. And since the property is one of affecting, as each point of affect alters the next, space becomes an ocean of affectance motion.

Lorentz defined Aether as a substance within which light and matter traveled. What they didn’t see is that light, matter, and that Aether are all the same thing (Affectance) merely in varied concentrations. What we call sub-atomic particles are no more than the aggregation or concentration of affect into a small bit of distance. We call it “matter” because it is far more significant to our existence because it is a concentrated affect, unlike the far less affects surrounding such points. The “motion of particles” is no more than the center of concentration shifting as random affecting is taking place throughout (somewhat like a crowd of people in a park mulling around but seen as a single entity migrating). All of the properties of physics arise from that fundamental fact.

The property is actually existence itself, but we can understand what that means more easily as “affect”. The only thing that can exist is affect upon degree of affect, “Affectance”. The point is that the property of existence can never be absolute zero. And that is the immutable “God” that causes the universe to exist; always has, always will.

I guess that I have to restate the argument;

Abstract argument;
0) Physical existence is the property of affect.
1) Absolute infinity cannot even conceptually exist
2) Absolute zero is merely the inverse of absolute infinity
2) Thus, absolute zero cannot conceptually exist
3) Thus, absolute zero affect cannot exist
4) Thus, affect must always exist

  5) Therefore, existence must always exist.

So Uccisore, did you give in, or give up?

It is nice to see that this forum has cleaned up its act and has returned to civil discussion (sharing of ideas).

I think there are a few flaws in this argument:
Firstly zero is not merely the inverse of absolute infinity. For example: if I have zero sheep I don’t conceptually create infinite sheep and then inverse this and determine there is zero sheep. Zero sheep is merely the conceptual thought of a lack of sheep and by definition it does not exist. So, zero does not exist but it functions “conceptually” to express “an absence of” which is very different to being the inverse of infinity.

Zero, by definition, is a “conceptual” expression of “lack of” existence.

I would say that the following is more true:
0) Physical existence is the property of affect (Humans can only observe existence which is in a state of change)

1. Absolute infinity cannot even conceptually exist (Absolute infinity, if it exists, is unchanging and hence cannot be observed)
2. Absolute zero is merely the inverse of absolute infinity (Absolute zero is merely the lack of existence)
3. Thus, absolute zero cannot conceptually exist (Thus, absolute zero does not exist by definition)
4. Thus, absolute zero affect cannot exist (Thus, absolute zero and absolute infinitely cannot be observed)
5. Thus, affect must always exist (Thus, Humans can only observe existence which is in a state of change)
6. Therefore, existence must always exist (Therefore, observable existence is always in a state of change)

I think you are confusing the notions of conceptual existence, potential existence and substantial existence.

For example (ignoring cloning and ivf):
a) The future child of an infertile couple is a conceptual existence.
b) The future child of a fertile couple is a potential existence.
c) The child of a couple is a substantial existence.

a) can never be the cause of c)

Well thank you Simms, these are the kind of arguments I was expecting.

The issue with that argument is one of understanding the distinction between an infinitely divisible property vs a quantitative property. What is the highest decimal number? What is the lowest decimal number?

If an entity is required to have a size or shape in order to be its essence (such as a penny, apple, or atom), one can have zero of that entity. But if an entity has no size or shape restrictions and thus can be infinitely small then one cannot have zero of that entity, such as energy, affect, or motion.

It is more than an issue of what humans can observe. It is an issue of what anything could ever observe. If an entity had absolutely no affect whatsoever in any way at all, it could never be observed by anything. Anything at all could pass right through it. One could never know anything about it; size, shape, or anything. Why even bother to say that it exists if it truly has absolutely zero affect? Try to name something that you believe exists and yet has absolutely no affect upon anything whatsoever. Why would you say it exists?

That is why existence itself is defined by the property of affect. It is irrational to say that something exists and also say that it has absolutely zero affect. What would “exist” mean?

“Absolute zero” in this case is referring to a mathematical amount, not a presence of a substance or entity. But obviously if there is absolute zero amount of a substance, there is no presence of that substance (revealed in later steps).

As pointed out, I think that you are the one confusing them. “Conceptual existence” refers to anything logically possible as opposed to a square circle. Absolute infinity is not logically possible. It is an oxymoron. The term “infinity” and the term “absolute” are mutually exclusive.

“Potential existence” merely refers to something that might exist in the future or might exist at the moment but is unknown (depending on how you are using the word “potential”). Neither concept applies to this syllogism.

“Substantial existence” typically refers to a high enough degree of existence or affect as opposed to an “insignificant existence”, but in this case, I suspect that you mean it as “physical existence” or perhaps, “actual existence”.

A potential existence is not the same as an existent potential.

The rest of your comments relate to these issues and are resolved by them.

Can one “have” zero of an entity?
Zero of a penny exists in exactly the same way as zero of an apple which exists in exactly the same way as zero of an atom.
That is each one has no substantial (actual) existence but exists conceptually.
In other words their actual existence is identical (i.e. they do not exist) but their conceptual existence is different.
Hence, zero penny has a different conceptual existence to zero energy - but both of these have identical actual existence (i.e. zero equates to non-existent). There is little point in discussing the existence of non-existent entities (if it is existent then it cannot be non-existent).

“To have” in this case is merely referring to “the state of existence”, not “holding in one’s hand” (or even “existing”). The question is concerning the state of existence possibly being none or “zero”.

…not in question.

I’ll have to disagree there.
To say that “a penny exists” is merely stating the “what we call a penny” is the state of existence at hand. If we observe a penny in front of us, we are observing a different state of existence than if we had observed an apple. And both are categories of existence; “something that fits into our category called “penny” or “apple””.

The distinction between an object type of entity and a substance type of entity is that an object, the penny or apple, requires form whereas the substance does not. Because the substance does not require any particular form, it can be divided infinitely without changing its essence.

If you cut an apple in half, you don’t have “an apple” any more, only a piece of an apple.
But if you cut energy in half, you still have energy, merely less of it.

zero penny = zero apple = zero atoms = non-existence (is what I was stating)
But zero penny has a different conceptual existence to zero apples (they exist conceptually even if not actually).

There can never be zero of an existent thing.

When a person cuts a apple in half one has not disintegrated half of the matter of an apple.
Half of an apple is a conceptual existence (the other half exists even if it exists as an eaten half of an apple).
For there to be half an apple there must exist the other half of the apple other wise we could not call it half an apple.
Half an apple does not exist independently from the whole apple (there are two halves and not one).

When one does not have a penny in ones hand the penny has not ceased to exist it is merely in the hand of another person.
It we tracked the motion of pennies around the world we would find a concentration around NY and LA and then the density of pennies would disperse across the US (with sub-densities in cities) and the density would further disperse around the globe (I have pennies but do not live in the US). In this manner pennies do not have a specific form but have a density.

We can speak of holding zero of non-existent things in our hands but this is meaningless.
e.g. I have zero unicorns in my hand (conceptual existence) but this does not infer the actual existence of unicorns.

So, you are conceptually cutting an apple in half and hiding one half of the apple and then conceptually imagining half as being whole.