Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Argument for the existence of God

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

bobgo, you seem to have a Kantian approach towards knowledge and I would suggest a read here for a brief understanding of this position and its relation with Objectivism.

Also, this thread might be useful

Thanks Xall,

I have read both.

Reading the article “Kant, Immanuel” it was sadly to me to observe how much Kant has been misunderstood.

The thread confirms that misunderstanding, and also it shows a widespread confusing use of logic.

Where can we go from there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Xall,

I have read both.

Reading the article “Kant, Immanuel” it was sadly to me to observe how much Kant has been misunderstood.

The thread confirms that misunderstanding, and also it shows a widespread confusing use of logic.

Where can we go from there?

Providing specific points of disagreement would be a start. Preferably in a different thread since such commentary would be off topic from this one.

Edited by Greebo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something is either rational, or it is not rational.

That sentence is made by rationality, isn’t?

What other alternative exists? Demonstrate something that is both rational and non-rational.

To demonstrate we have to use rationality. So it is not possible to demonstrate what is rationally not demonstrable.

But we can see the limits of rationality.

For example, is Good rational or not rational?

Is matter rational?

Is nothing not rational?

Is infinite rational or not rational?

You believe that "I AM" is neither rational nor irrational?

On what basis do you believe "I AM"?

That is neither rational nor irrational. It is not rational because does not follow any rational path. And it is not irrational because does not contradict any rational path.

There is no answer beyond the self-evident. If you believe you have a choice, you have a choice. If you do not believe you have a choice, you have no choice but to not believe it.

There is nothing of self-evident. In fact you believe... a very strange way to use rationality...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Every effect must have a Cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Therefore there must be an "Uncaused Cause" which in a sense has the power of existence within itself.

I have not read any further or either your post or the replies thereof. I stop anyone at this point since, if I prove it false, any logic built upon it thereafter must also be deemed unfounded whether coincidentally right or not.

You assume the premise that only a finite beginning is possible. Or, put another way, no infinite beginnings are possible.

You refuse to accept the possibility of PHYSICAL REALITY (Existence) as its own finite beginning. A cause and not an effect. You argue that is must be also an effect that has been caused. Logically following from your own argument, as long as the cause is PHYSICAL, it must be also an effect. This view would necessitate the acceptance of the infinite beginning (a contradiction to your premises) unless you ARBITRARILY choose to only recognize either:

ONE PHYSICAL ENTITY as bearing the unique identity of being a cause that is not simultaneously an effect - or-

The existence of a NON PHYSICAL ENTITY by which you can also arbitrarily ascribe super physical powers. Specifically the power to exist causelessly.

There does exist a cause for the existence of that non physical entity. And it is YOU. You cannot claim that it previously existed and only came to your attention through observation the observation of physical reality, the only thing available to your observation. You are left to guess because physical proof is impossible. Therefore until YOU (irrational man) mentioned it, it did not exist.

You may argue that science routinely insists upon the existence of forces and particles purely due to the physical effects that they sometimes cause though we do not directly observe these physical forces. Dark matter, electrons and quarks for e.g. But notice that we can uniquely identify these through predictable properties and measurements. We canot see, touch, hear, smell or taste gravity but, through observation of its predictable effects, we can measure it and use it in our manipulations of physical matter.

This is not the same as declaring the existence of a CREATOR merely because you have observed a physical effect that you cannot explain or even draw a behavioural relationship to.

The greater question is - what does the identification of the cause for the effect that we exist in have to do with what we require to exist? Should not the given facts in front of us be dealt with before we contemplate anything before those facts? Should we be unconcerned with life because we do not know how we were born?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read any further or either your post or the replies thereof. I stop anyone at this point since, if I prove it false, any logic built upon it thereafter must also be deemed unfounded whether coincidentally right or not.

Agreed. I'm glad that you seem to understand how the progression of an argument should unfold.

You assume the premise that only a finite beginning is possible. Or, put another way, no infinite beginnings are possible.

Yes. I assume the impossibility of an infinite regress. More below..

You refuse to accept the possibility of PHYSICAL REALITY (Existence) as its own finite beginning.

You equate "physical reality" with "existence" here and in so doing you assume that nothing but "physical reality" exists...which sort of begs the question....

A cause and not an effect. You argue that is must be also an effect that has been caused. Logically following from your own argument, as long as the cause is PHYSICAL, it must be also an effect. This view would necessitate the acceptance of the infinite beginning (a contradiction to your premises) unless you ARBITRARILY choose to only recognize either:

ONE PHYSICAL ENTITY as bearing the unique identity of being a cause that is not simultaneously an effect - or-

The existence of a NON PHYSICAL ENTITY by which you can also arbitrarily ascribe super physical powers. Specifically the power to exist causelessly.

There does exist a cause for the existence of that non physical entity. And it is YOU. You cannot claim that it previously existed and only came to your attention through observation the observation of physical reality, the only thing available to your observation. You are left to guess because physical proof is impossible. Therefore until YOU (irrational man) mentioned it, it did not exist.

You may argue that science routinely insists upon the existence of forces and particles purely due to the physical effects that they sometimes cause though we do not directly observe these physical forces. Dark matter, electrons and quarks for e.g. But notice that we can uniquely identify these through predictable properties and measurements. We canot see, touch, hear, smell or taste gravity but, through observation of its predictable effects, we can measure it and use it in our manipulations of physical matter.

This is not the same as declaring the existence of a CREATOR merely because you have observed a physical effect that you cannot explain or even draw a behavioural relationship to.

The greater question is - what does the identification of the cause for the effect that we exist in have to do with what we require to exist? Should not the given facts in front of us be dealt with before we contemplate anything before those facts? Should we be unconcerned with life because we do not know how we were born?

It's difficult for me to discern what exactly you are trying to get across here, so I will refrain from a specific reply for now.

I will, however, admit that my original post and formulation of my argument was somewhat weak (easily misunderstood and sloppy). I would like to refer you to my more recent formulation of it which I suppose is sort of a condensed and altered version of Aristotle's Prime Mover Argument:

1)Entities can only act in accordance with their nature

2)Entities by nature either act as a reaction to prior action or they act volitionally.

3)All reactions require prior action.

4)Therefore there must be volitional action which began the "reactionary chain" of action.

As mentioned above, this does assume the impossibility of an infinite regress.. for good reason. The postulation of an infinite regress is merely an evasive device which is seemingly complex enough to distract everyone in order to provide enough time to evade the issue. I have stated my argument against an infinite regress in the "Infinite Quantity" Thread and thus far no one has responded.

In summary it is as follows:

A "regress" is a series stretching back into the past. An "infinite regress" is supposed to denote a series stretching into the past forever (without beginning). But if a series does not begin, then it does not exist. Therefore to posit an infinite regress is to posit that a non-existent series exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "regress" is a series stretching back into the past. An "infinite regress" is supposed to denote a series stretching into the past forever (without beginning). But if a series does not begin, then it does not exist. Therefore to posit an infinite regress is to posit that a non-existent series exists.

One alternative to a 'series which does not begin' is a series which has always been.

You do not contest the need of an irreducible starting point, as long as it is a form of consciousness; what you find unsatisfactory is the idea of existence as the starting point. [paraphrased]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize for the Hiatus. I've been fairly busy lately, but I will continue to respond as I have time.

Axiom: Existence exists.

This again? Lol. You know that I agree that existence exists. I've also labored to show how this does not answer the question. You wouldn't say "existence exists" to a scientist asking questions about the cause of a particular existent acting the way that it does. So why do you say it in a philosophy discussion which talks about the causes of non-volitional entities acting in general. You know I am not asking for an explanation to existence as such but rather to the action for non-volitional existents. In respect to answering the question at hand, the axiom is irrelevant here. So please, choose one of those options or suggest a better alternative which actually addresses the issue.

I have, several times, but if you insist on going through it again, then Jacob - rather than wade back through the last 200 posts trying to find where you definitively spelled out your exact reasoning for the existence of God - why don't you restate it?

But this time, take some time to really spell it out clearly in a logical format. Present your givens, your statements, and your conclusions. Keep the unnecessary fluff. You do not need to keep repeating how John Galt presented Identity, nor that it was him that did it. Keep it to the absolute essentials.

We will then address each point in an orderly fashion and when we MUTUALLY agree on the validity or invalidity of a given point we will put that point to rest. I suggest labeling your Givens as G1, G2, etc., statements as S1, S2, etc. and we'll see if we can agree that all of the givens are valid, all of the statements are 1) supported by the givens and 2) logical, and if so, then we'll agree that the conclusion © is correct.

I apologize but I am not super familiar with the logical notation of arguments. I have, however, explained and re-explained my reasoning multiple times.

My position assumes the following:

1) The law of identity- entities only act according to their nature

2) The impossibility of an infinite regress

3) Entities either act as a reaction or volitionally

Do you dispute any of the above?

From these assumptions (which I think are more than warranted), my position observes that there is action in the universe.

This action is either reactionary or volitional. If it is reactionary, then the prior action which it rests upon is either reactionary or volitional. No matter how far you want to go back, there must be a beginning- meaning there must be a volitional action which gave rise to reactionary action.

All reactions necessitate prior action...

Gravity. Place two masses in a vacuum light years apart from any other masses. Place them at a distance from each other. the two bodies will begin to move towards each other.

Is it a reaction? Yes - they react to each other.

Is there prior action? Hmmmm.

You tell me? Were the masses "placed" there? If so, yes..prior action was involved (volitional action in this case). Were they caused to be there as a result of something else acting upon them? If so, yes.. prior reactionary action was involved. If no, did they spring into existence magically?

Objection: The concept of "entity" is not limited to the realm of the material. Energy is an entity.

That said, we know energy takes a multitude of forms. Thermal, kinetic, potential, electrical, magnetic, and so forth. We do not know if we have identified all forms of energy.

We have reason to believe that E=Mc2 - Einstein certainly seems to have gotten that right at least within the general context of Human existence.

Ok... and I don't disagree with any of this. But I don't see the relevance. Regardless of the many different types of energy and action, it is all either reactionary or volitional...or it violates the law of identity. Take your pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One alternative to a 'series which does not begin' is a series which has always been.

You do not contest the need of an irreducible starting point, as long as it is a form of consciousness; what you find unsatisfactory is the idea of existence as the starting point. [paraphrased]

AGAIN, you are using "existence" here as synonymous with "physical reality" which begs the question. I do accept existence as a starting point (in fact I insist that it MUST be the starting point). But "existence" requires an existent! lol. There is no existence apart from existents. I am arguing that there must be an irreducible starting point which IS an existent and which is also conscious since a non-conscious existent cannot START anything.

It's really fairly simple.

Was it Rand who said something to the effect of "the hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everyone has decided to ignore"...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AGAIN, you are using "existence" here as synonymous with "physical reality" which begs the question. I do accept existence as a starting point (in fact I insist that it MUST be the starting point). But "existence" requires an existent! lol. There is no existence apart from existents. I am arguing that there must be an irreducible starting point which IS an existent and which is also conscious since a non-conscious existent cannot START anything.

It's really fairly simple.

Was it Rand who said something to the effect of "the hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everyone has decided to ignore"...?

Yes, on page 500 of the Fountianhead. Is this a suggestion that you should just be blatently ignored?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This again? Lol. You know that I agree that existence exists. I've also labored to show how this does not answer the question.

But it is the only definitive answer we do have. The rest is pure speculation and is not a valid foundation upon which to found true epistemological knowledge.

We know existence exists. There is no rational explanation for why existence exists - but it does. That it exists on its own with no preceding cause is just as absurd as the idea of existence having come from some divine being who IN TURN has no preceding cause.

We cannot conclude EITHER. We can speculate - but we cannot defend, justify and thus conclude - and so we cannot rest further arguments upon any such speculation.

We cannot, therefore, say God exists. We cannot also definitively say God does not exist. We can, however, say that there is no evidence for God, therefore we must assume he does not exist until contrary evidence presents itself.

I apologize but I am not super familiar with the logical notation of arguments. I have, however, explained and re-explained my reasoning multiple times.

My position assumes the following:

1) The law of identity- entities only act according to their nature

Agreed, A is A.

2) The impossibility of an infinite regress

Infinite yes. Boundless? Not necessarily. Infinity is a paradoxical concept used in mathematics. Boundlessness is a wholly different concept which is not paradoxical at all.

This may be a crucial point of this discussion.

3) Entities either act as a reaction or volitionally

Agreed

Do you dispute any of the above?

No, but you cannot also draw any conclusion about original volitionality from the above.

From these assumptions (which I think are more than warranted), my position observes that there is action in the universe.

This action is either reactionary or volitional. If it is reactionary, then the prior action which it rests upon is either reactionary or volitional. No matter how far you want to go back, there must be a beginning- meaning there must be a volitional action which gave rise to reactionary action.

No - this is unsupported. Boundlessness is possible - infinity is not.

You tell me? Were the masses "placed" there? If so, yes..prior action was involved (volitional action in this case). Were they caused to be there as a result of something else acting upon them? If so, yes.. prior reactionary action was involved. If no, did they spring into existence magically?

Irrelevant. The point is that Gravity acts upon and between two objects REGARDLESS of how they came to be where they are. Gravity is a NON volitional RE-ACTION of one physical entity to another physical entity, which occurs without any need for prior action. If two particles of sub-atomic dust materialized spontaneously from coalescing energy, those two particles would still react to each other and move towards each other - without volition - without prior action (action meaning in this context movement which in physics terms means related movement which would trigger reactionary motion).

Magnetism is another example. A bar of magnetized iron will attract other metal to it. The magnetic field is generated by the magnetic metal. The iron generates the magnetic field of its own accord.

Ok... and I don't disagree with any of this. But I don't see the relevance. Regardless of the many different types of energy and action, it is all either reactionary or volitional...or it violates the law of identity. Take your pick.

My point is that energy and action can *react* without a prior action. There is Neutonian reactions - every action has an equal and opposite reaction - of course, which refers to force vectors of motion. Then there are reactions which occur that have no opposite reaction - such as the adding of hydraulic acid to baking soda. The two combine and form new compounds and release gasses. What is the opposite reaction there? Nothing - the two compounds simply react to each other naturally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

But it is the only definitive answer we do have. The rest is pure speculation and is not a valid foundation upon which to found true epistemological knowledge.

We know existence exists. There is no rational explanation for why existence exists - but it does. That it exists on its own with no preceding cause is just as absurd as the idea of existence having come from some divine being who IN TURN has no preceding cause.

We cannot conclude EITHER. We can speculate - but we cannot defend, justify and thus conclude - and so we cannot rest further arguments upon any such speculation.

We cannot, therefore, say God exists. We cannot also definitively say God does not exist. We can, however, say that there is no evidence for God, therefore we must assume he does not exist until contrary evidence presents itself.

Once again you twist the meaning of my argument. I am not searching for an explanation to "why existence exists"...and then concluding that God is that explanation. My argument has NOT been that sort of speculation and I would appreciate it if you paid enough respect not to treat it that way.

Infinite yes. Boundless? Not necessarily. Infinity is a paradoxical concept used in mathematics. Boundlessness is a wholly different concept which is not paradoxical at all.

This may be a crucial point of this discussion.

Boundlessness is possible - infinity is not.

What is this distinction you are making between "boundless" and "infinite"? I might need you to explain more before I can accurately respond to that.

When I say "infinite", I mean "non-finite".."without limit"..."without beginning (specifically in this case)"..."without boundaries"..."boundless"

The point here is a "beginning". Do you propose that there is a beginning to action or no? If "no", please explain how this is not a fallacious infinite regress.

Irrelevant. The point is that Gravity acts upon and between two objects REGARDLESS of how they came to be where they are. Gravity is a NON volitional RE-ACTION of one physical entity to another physical entity, which occurs without any need for prior action. If two particles of sub-atomic dust materialized spontaneously from coalescing energy, those two particles would still react to each other and move towards each other - without volition - without prior action (action meaning in this context movement which in physics terms means related movement which would trigger reactionary motion).

Yes, I understand that gravity is non-volitional reaction of one object to another...but it does not occur without prior action- it cannot. The effects of gravity occur when two objects have a proximity to each other, but this begs the question. If these two objects did not come into proximity be means of prior action, then they were eternally proximate to each other. But if they were eternally proximate to each other and if the effects of gravity are also eternal, then these two objects never would have been apart from each other in order for gravity to act upon them.

"If these two particles of sub-atomic dust materialized spontaneously from coalescing energy"- stop. Is this "materializing" and "coalescing" not action? Was this action caused by prior action or no?

You keep missing the point and just taking the problem one step back or one step down on the microscopic ladder.

Magnetism is another example. A bar of magnetized iron will attract other metal to it. The magnetic field is generated by the magnetic metal. The iron generates the magnetic field of its own accord.

This presents the same problem with proximity as gravity did above. This also brings up another issue, though; isn't magnetism caused by the action/motion of particles within the magnetized element??

I have tried to emphasize to you that no matter what science shows us, it will not show us something acting against its nature (i.e. acting apart from prior action unless the thing in question is volitional). We don't need to get into all the scientific details. They are irrelevant to this discussion in the same way that the details of micro-economic activity are irrelevant to the discussion of Capitalism vs Socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again you twist the meaning of my argument. I am not searching for an explanation to "why existence exists"...and then concluding that God is that explanation. My argument has NOT been that sort of speculation and I would appreciate it if you paid enough respect not to treat it that way.

Was this not your argument?

1)Entities can only act in accordance with their nature

2)Entities by nature either act as a reaction to prior action or they act volitionally.

3)All reactions require prior action.

4)Therefore there must be volitional action which began the "reactionary chain" of action.

If that is not an attempt to explain why existence exists, then what is it?

What is this distinction you are making between "boundless" and "infinite"? I might need you to explain more before I can accurately respond to that.

When I say "infinite", I mean "non-finite".."without limit"..."without beginning (specifically in this case)"..."without boundaries"..."boundless"

Then lets use the term boundless.

The point here is a "beginning". Do you propose that there is a beginning to action or no? If "no", please explain how this is not a fallacious infinite regress.

I do not know. I know action exists - this is self evident. If there is a beginning, we cannot prove it. If there is no beginning, we cannot prove it. Both would be conclusions, if taken as conclusions, lead to fallacy.

Yes, I understand that gravity is non-volitional reaction of one object to another...but it does not occur without prior action- it cannot. The effects of gravity occur when two objects have a proximity to each other, but this begs the question. If these two objects did not come into proximity be means of prior action, then they were eternally proximate to each other. But if they were eternally proximate to each other and if the effects of gravity are also eternal, then these two objects never would have been apart from each other in order for gravity to act upon them.

The question here in your argument is one of volition, not causality. You assert that there must OF NECESSITY have been VOLITION behind any "first action" if any first action existed. I merely demonstrate that this is not necessary - and ergo conclusion that there was primacy of volition is not supported.

"If these two particles of sub-atomic dust materialized spontaneously from coalescing energy"- stop. Is this "materializing" and "coalescing" not action? Was this action caused by prior action or no?

You keep missing the point and just taking the problem one step back or one step down on the microscopic ladder.

No, I merely eliminate your false necessity of volition.

This presents the same problem with proximity as gravity did above. This also brings up another issue, though; isn't magnetism caused by the action/motion of particles within the magnetized element??

Probably - I'm not sure but I think so. So? What causes the particles to move? A single particle in a vacuum with nothing around it with which to interact will still move. Do you suggest this motion is volitional?

I have tried to emphasize to you that no matter what science shows us, it will not show us something acting against its nature (i.e. acting apart from prior action unless the thing in question is volitional). We don't need to get into all the scientific details. They are irrelevant to this discussion in the same way that the details of micro-economic activity are irrelevant to the discussion of Capitalism vs Socialism.

You're right - nothing can act against it's nature. I haven't argued otherwise. I am simply refuting your baseless assertion that volition was necessary as some "first cause". No first cause you reach can be done without engaging in some fallacy. No lack of first cause can equally be concluded without fallacy.

And that leaves us with only one premise we can accept - the axiomatic one - existence exists. Thus no conclusion can be made about any existence of super beings, and lacking any solid evidence, any suggestion thereof must be rejected as fantasy. You have not made any sort of argument for the existence of God - you have made only arbitrary assertions that must, logically, be rejected as proof as neither true, nor false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... a purely factual error in the above quotes is the assumption that one must be "near" another object for gravity (or magnetism, for that matter) to begin operating. Strictly speaking this is not true. You are gravitationally attracted to things billions of light years away... just not very strongly, and no doubt the attraction is immeasurably small (and counteracted by the attraction from masses billions of light years away in the opposite direction). So gravity cannot suddenly _start_ operating due to a past action; it operates all the time, at increasing strength as objects become nearer to each other, decreasing as they grow further apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... a purely factual error in the above quotes is the assumption that one must be "near" another object for gravity (or magnetism, for that matter) to begin operating. Strictly speaking this is not true. You are gravitationally attracted to things billions of light years away... just not very strongly, and no doubt the attraction is immeasurably small (and counteracted by the attraction from masses billions of light years away in the opposite direction). So gravity cannot suddenly _start_ operating due to a past action; it operates all the time, at increasing strength as objects become nearer to each other, decreasing as they grow further apart.

I'm aware of this. I was using "proximity" very loosely to refer to ANY distance between two objects. If we are suggesting that this gravitational force was the beginning cause to action, it will not work since the objects in question would need to be eternal (along with gravity, itself) which would mean that the objects never would have had any distance between them in order for gravity to act upon them to begin with. All instances of gravitational motion must be reactions to prior motion (whether gravitational or otherwise).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware of this. I was using "proximity" very loosely to refer to ANY distance between two objects. If we are suggesting that this gravitational force was the beginning cause to action, it will not work since the objects in question would need to be eternal (along with gravity, itself) which would mean that the objects never would have had any distance between them in order for gravity to act upon them to begin with. All instances of gravitational motion must be reactions to prior motion (whether gravitational or otherwise).

(Can't resist.)

How do you define "gravitational motion"? How does this notion differ from the usual notion of motion?

- ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is basically the Cosmological Argument with a few "twists" or commonly missed observations:

Every effect must have a Cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Therefore there must be an "Uncaused Cause" which in a sense has the power of existence within itself.

If I understand your argument, it's (paraphrasing):

1. Every effect must have a cause.

2. An infinite regress of causes is impossible

3. Therefore there must have been a first cause. It must have been alone at the start of the universe, therefore must have had the ability to choose and must have acted deliberately.

I have 2 objections to this. First, the argument starts with a synthetic truth/truth by definition, as against a fact observed in the world. Therefore it can not prove anything about the world (such as the existence of God).

My second objection is that even on the grounds of a purely synthetic argument I think it needs an additional premise that "everything in the universe is either a cause or an effect."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Can't resist.)

How do you define "gravitational motion"? How does this notion differ from the usual notion of motion?

- ico

Greebo brought it up as a possibly first cause for reactionary action as opposed to volitional action being the first cause to reactionary action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand your argument, it's (paraphrasing):

1. Every effect must have a cause.

2. An infinite regress of causes is impossible

3. Therefore there must have been a first cause. It must have been alone at the start of the universe, therefore must have had the ability to choose and must have acted deliberately.

More or less, this was my original argument. I've sort of emphasized more of a "Prime Mover" argument toward the last part of this thread since the former argument began a lot of confusion.

I have 2 objections to this. First, the argument starts with a synthetic truth/truth by definition, as against a fact observed in the world. Therefore it can not prove anything about the world (such as the existence of God).

A) I THINK you mean "analytic" instead of "synthetic"..??

B ) Why can it not be used to prove anything about the real world? Is it true? True about the real world? Then why on earth can it not be used in a proof about the real world?

My second objection is that even on the grounds of a purely synthetic argument I think it needs an additional premise that "everything in the universe is either a cause or an effect."

No. Almost everything in the universe is both cause and effect (in different respects). This is why we moved the conversation to motion. Cause and effect refer to motion/interaction between entities. If anything exists in a state which is not an effect (not a result of prior causation), then that thing is eternal. I am arguing that such a thing must exist and that it must be volitional in order to have caused anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware of this. I was using "proximity" very loosely to refer to ANY distance between two objects. If we are suggesting that this gravitational force was the beginning cause to action, it will not work since the objects in question would need to be eternal (along with gravity, itself) which would mean that the objects never would have had any distance between them in order for gravity to act upon them to begin with. All instances of gravitational motion must be reactions to prior motion (whether gravitational or otherwise).

Philosophy would not be able to answer what may have began cause of action. Physics would be the only way to answer. One thing we know for sure though is that all actions require entities. More specifically for this context, physical actions require physical entities. A formless entity couldn't even DO anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was this not your argument?

Yes it was.

If that is not an attempt to explain why existence exists, then what is it?

If this is an attempt to explain "why existence exists" (which is a "no-no" philosophically), then ALL science and all thinking and all questions which ask "why is this particular existent acting this way?" are also attempts to explain "why existence exists" and are therefore also "no-no's" philosophically.

My argument does not ask "why does existence exist?" It asks "why is there non-volitional action in the universe since non-volitional existents cannot by nature act apart from prior action?"

Big Difference.

The only reason you THINK it is an assault against "existence exists" is probably because you have equated the physical universe with "existence" in that axiom.

Then lets use the term boundless.

Ok...but why? I just said that when I say "infinite", I mean "boundless" (and vice versa). Is there some other connotation which you wish to signify with this term? And how does this change the argument at all?

I do not know. I know action exists - this is self evident. If there is a beginning, we cannot prove it. If there is no beginning, we cannot prove it. Both would be conclusions, if taken as conclusions, lead to fallacy.

Except for the fact that I've already proven that an infinite/"boundless" regress is impossible and therefore it HAS been proven that there is a beginning.

No, I merely eliminate your false necessity of volition.

Haha. How? Go back up and re-read my argument which you quoted above. It's air-tight. You have tried to find cracks by suggesting theoretical possibilities for non-volitional actions to be the starting point of action, but at each turn, I have demonstrated that each of your theoretical candidates require prior action and therefore cannot be the starting point.

The reason for this is in the original argument: Entities either act as a reaction or volitionally. All reactions require prior action.

No matter how many REactions you propose as the starting point, it will not work since they by definition require prior action.

It is very simple. The only reason it has gotten so complex is because you keep trying to come up with some other answer.

Probably - I'm not sure but I think so. So? What causes the particles to move? A single particle in a vacuum with nothing around it with which to interact will still move. Do you suggest this motion is volitional?

If this particle acts and its action is not a reaction to any other action in any way, then it must be volitional. If it is not volitional, and we do not know what it was reacting to, that does not change the fact that we know it reacted to something-- that's where Science comes in to discover what it reacted to and why.

You're right - nothing can act against it's nature. I haven't argued otherwise. I am simply refuting your baseless assertion that volition was necessary as some "first cause". No first cause you reach can be done without engaging in some fallacy. No lack of first cause can equally be concluded without fallacy.

I am asking you to examine your premises- by speculating about various theoretical reactions which do not require prior action, you are implicitly holding out hope that Science will find something which acts against its nature- some non-volitional thing which is able to act apart from prior action.

Think philosophically about it. It will never be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason you THINK it is an assault against "existence exists" is probably because you have equated the physical universe with "existence" in that axiom.

As far as this is concerned, I think you never addressed my post, where I challenge that you are contradicting yourself in regards to asserting both a primacy of existence and one of consciousness.

As for the Primacy of Consciousness, you deny asserting it, however you attribute god both the identity of a consciousness (being volitional in nature) and claiming that it is "existence as such". So which one is it? If god were existence and also would possess a consciousness this would render the primacy issue moot since they would be interchangeable. Your postulation requires a metaphysics based on the Primacy of Consciousness (because god is both volitional and eternal, therefore consciousness is eternal...)
Edited by Xall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as this is concerned, I think you never addressed my post, where I challenge that you are contradicting yourself in regards to asserting both a primacy of existence and one of consciousness.

Yes- I apologize for the delay, and I appreciate you bringing this issue up.

I will ask you to recall what the essential problem is with the "Primacy of Consciousness" position- its problem is that it asserts a consciousness apart from existence, a consciousness which is not conscious of anything but its own consciousness... and this is a contradiction because consciousness by definition means conscious of something which exists.

That is why the primacy of consciousness is flawed.

My proposal of an existent which is also conscious does not commit this flaw in any way more than man being conscious is a flaw. The only reason it seems to be bothersome is because the existent I am proposing is the "primary existent" which is conscious. But, notice, this does not say that it is a consciousness which is conscious of nothing but its own consciousness. It is an existent, which is conscious of its own existence-- which is no more flawed than the idea that I am conscious of my own existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for the fact that I've already proven that an infinite/"boundless" regress is impossible and therefore it HAS been proven that there is a beginning.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all I remember in the way of you arguing this point was your comparing an infinite regress to a mathematical infinite series, which has a starting point by definition. I was not particularly convinced by this argument, and I certainly wouldn't call it a proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all I remember in the way of you arguing this point was your comparing an infinite regress to a mathematical infinite series, which has a starting point by definition. I was not particularly convinced by this argument, and I certainly wouldn't call it a proof.

I never talked about a "mathematical infinite series" - unless I implied it without realizing it???

My argument is this:

An infinite regress denotes a series stretching into the past forever with no beginning. But if a series does not begin, then it does not exist. To suppose that an infinite series into the past (regress) exists, is to suppose that a non-existent series exists. It's a contradiction.

Likewise, an infinite amount in the present is also impossible since the present denotes a definite period in time and "infinite" denotes an amount which cannot be contained in a definite moment in time. The only infinity in time which is possible is the potential infinity which stretches forever into the future but which cannot at any definite point in time be said to be infinite.

It is explained a little better in the "Infinite Quantity" Thread- my post is the last one on there... no one has yet replied to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...