Proofs for the Existence of God

[JimL]

Thats what God is, the necessary being. Saying that there is a problem, does not demonstrate that there is one, when one does not exist.

Necessary existence does not have to be a being, aka a god. Thats the problem.

The contingent thing is not of one and the same substance as that of the necessary.

Prove it. If the contingent thing is not of the same substance as that of the necessary, then the contingent thing was created out of nothing. So, make a case for something simply being willed into existence out of nothing.

The contingent has a real distinction between the essence and be of a thing. The necessary has a real identity of essence and be.

Philosophical gibberish.

There are no problems with the above argument for the existence of God.

There certainly are, and I just presented them.

[JohnMartin]

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
Thats what God is, the necessary being. Saying that there is a problem, does not demonstrate that there is one, when one does not exist.

Necessary existence does not have to be a being, aka a god. Thats the problem.

No. That's only an assertion you have made without making an argument. The necessary being, is that which must be. That which must be, is that which has its nature identical to being. That thing which is necessary to be, then has a nature of being. Such a necessary being is God.

The contingent thing is not of one and the same substance as that of the necessary.

Prove it. If the contingent thing is not of the same substance as that of the necessary, then the contingent thing was created out of nothing. So, make a case for something simply being willed into existence out of nothing.

To demonstrate - The contingent thing is not of one and the same substance as that of the necessary.

Definitions given -

The contingentis that which has a real distinction between essence and being. For example a tree is contingent because it has a vegetative nature, and being as the cause of the trees act to be. The nature of tree is not the act to be, for the tree is at first in potency to be (can be a tree), then brought to be (does be a tree), then ceases to be (goes back to can be a tree). The tree then is not its own be, but only has be. Whereby the essence of the tree, is not the same as the be of the tree. Similarly, for all other contingent beings, the essence of the contingent thing is really distinct from the be of the tree.

The necessary being is that thing which has an identity of essence and be. Therefore the necessary thing is the thing which has an identity of essence and being.

A substance is that which exists from self. For example a tree exists from itself and not another substance, of say a brick, or accident of say a colour. An accident is that which exists in another. For example colour exists in the substance of a tree.

Argument

The contingent is a substance.
The necessary is a substance.
The contingent is diverse from the necessary.
Therefore contingent substance is diverse from the necessary substance.
But what is diverse, is not the same.
Therefore the contingent thing (substance) is not of one and the same substance as that of the necessary (substance).

The contingent has a real distinction between the essence and be of a thing. The necessary has a real identity of essence and be.

Philosophical gibberish.

No. What I have said, and explained above is true.

There are no problems with the above argument for the existence of God.

There certainly are, and I just presented them.

You have only made some assertions in error.

JM

[JimL]

No. That's only an assertion you have made without making an argument. The necessary being, is that which must be. That which must be, is that which has its nature identical to being. That thing which is necessary to be, then has a nature of being. Such a necessary being is God.

Yes, that which is necessary, must "be." But because it must be, doesn't mean it must be a "being!" Of course that which is necessary must be, a more obvious statement can't be made. But the mere fact that it is necessary, doesn't make it a being in the sense of a god/mind. Thats just an assertion on your part, not mine.

To demonstrate - The contingent thing is not of one and the same substance as that of the necessary.

Definitions given -

The contingentis that which has a real distinction between essence and being. For example a tree is contingent because it has a vegetative nature, and being as the cause of the trees act to be. The nature of tree is not the act to be, for the tree is at first in potency to be (can be a tree), then brought to be (does be a tree), then ceases to be (goes back to can be a tree). The tree then is not its own be, but only has be. Whereby the essence of the tree, is not the same as the be of the tree. Similarly, for all other contingent beings, the essence of the contingent thing is really distinct from the be of the tree.

You are simply making a distinction between the substance and the form the substance takes. They are still of one and the same substance, the contingent merely forms, temporal changes within their cause.

The necessary being is that thing which has an identity of essence and be. Therefore the necessary thing is the thing which has an identity of essence and being.

Yes, so what, that doesn't make it, i.e. the substance, a god/mind.

A substance is that which exists from self. For example a tree exists from itself and not another substance, of say a brick, or accident of say a colour. An accident is that which exists in another. For example colour exists in the substance of a tree.

At tree does exist in another, it exists in its cause, i.e. it exists in what you like to call necessary being, or what some would call necessary existence, or universe.

Argument

The contingent is a substance.
The necessary is a substance.
The contingent is diverse from the necessary.
Therefore contingent substance is diverse from the necessary substance.
But what is diverse, is not the same.
Therefore the contingent thing (substance) is not of one and the same substance as that of the necessary (substance).

The above is naught but a bunch of unfounded assertions, there is no argument there. The contingent is distinct from the necessary? Says who? Where is your actual argument upholding that assertion. In order for the contingent thing to be of a distinct nature than that of its cause, then the contingent thing would necessarily have to come from nothing. Asserting this to be the case, doesn't make it so. Where's the beef?

No. What I have said, and explained above is true.

But you haven't explained anything John, you've only made a bunch of biased assertions.

You have only made some assertions in error.

Not true my friend, the only one making blatent, unexplained assertions here, is you.

[JohnMartin]

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post

No. That's only an assertion you have made without making an argument. The necessary being, is that which must be. That which must be, is that which has its nature identical to being. That thing which is necessary to be, then has a nature of being. Such a necessary being is God.

Yes, that which is necessary, must "be." But because it must be, doesn't mean it must be a "being!" Of course that which is necessary must be, a more obvious statement can't be made. But the mere fact that it is necessary, doesn't make it a being in the sense of a god/mind. That's just an assertion on your part, not mine.

The necessary as a being does not need to be demonstrated as being is included in the definition of the necessary. Necessary - that which must be. The intelligence of the necessary being is proven through other arguments, such as the that of the unordered orderer. The proofs are presented in natural theology.

To demonstrate - The contingent thing is not of one and the same substance as that of the necessary.

Definitions given -

The contingent is that which has a real distinction between essence and being. For example a tree is contingent because it has a vegetative nature, and being as the cause of the trees act to be. The nature of tree is not the act to be, for the tree is at first in potency to be (can be a tree), then brought to be (does be a tree), then ceases to be (goes back to can be a tree). The tree then is not its own be, but only has be. Whereby the essence of the tree, is not the same as the be of the tree. Similarly, for all other contingent beings, the essence of the contingent thing is really distinct from the be of the tree.

You are simply making a distinction between the substance and the form the substance takes. They are still of one and the same substance, the contingent merely forms, temporal changes within their cause.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the form the substance takes". Do you mean the substance as 1) in potency, and 2) in act as two different manners of having substance, or something else?

The necessary being is that thing which has an identity of essence and be. Therefore the necessary thing is the thing which has an identity of essence and being.

Yes, so what, that doesn't make it, i.e. the substance, a god/mind.

Once we conclude to the the existence of the necessary being, we can then argue for that thing having an intellect and will. This is usually done through the St Thomas way concerning the unordered orderer.

A substance is that which exists from self. For example a tree exists from itself and not another substance, of say a brick, or accident of say a colour. An accident is that which exists in another. For example colour exists in the substance of a tree.

At tree does exist in another, it exists in its cause, i.e. it exists in what you like to call necessary being, or what some would call necessary existence, or universe.

To exist 'from self' is the definition of what a substance is. Your statement seems to miss this point.

Argument

The contingent is a substance.
The necessary is a substance.
The contingent is diverse from the necessary.
Therefore contingent substance is diverse from the necessary substance.
But what is diverse, is not the same.
Therefore the contingent thing (substance) is not of one and the same substance as that of the necessary (substance).

The above is naught but a bunch of unfounded assertions, there is no argument there. The contingent is distinct from the necessary? Says who? Where is your actual argument upholding that assertion.

To argue for - the contingent is a substance.

The contingent is that which does be, but not necessarily.
That which does be is either a substance or an accident.
If an accident, the accident is dependent upon the substance.
Then a contingent being is fundamentally a substance.
What is fundamental is common to all.
Therefore substance is common to all that is contingent.
Therefore the contingent is a substance.

To argue for - The necessary is a substance.

The necessary is that which must be.
That which must be is either a substance or an accident.
But an accident is not a necessary be for an accident is not required of substances that are not bodies (spirits).
Therefore that which is necessary is a substance.

To argue for - The contingent is diverse from the necessary.

The contingent is that which does be, but not necessarily.
The necessary is that which must be.
As the contingent is not necessary,
Therefore the contingent is diverse from the necessary

To argue for - Therefore contingent substance is diverse from the necessary substance.

The contingent is a substance (see above).
The necessary is a substance (see above).
The contingent is diverse from the necessary (see above).
Therefore contingent substance is diverse from the necessary substance.

To argue for - the contingent thing is not of one and the same substance as that of the necessary.

The contingent is a substance.
The necessary is a substance.
The contingent is diverse from the necessary.
Therefore contingent substance is diverse from the necessary substance.
But what is diverse, is not the same.
Therefore the contingent thing (substance) is not of one and the same substance as that of the necessary (substance).

In order for the contingent thing to be of a distinct nature than that of its cause [the necessary], then the contingent thing would necessarily have to come from nothing. Asserting this to be the case, doesn't make it so. Where's the beef?

The contingent can be caused by the necessary as the necessary (God) acting as a cause to create the contingent. God can also cause through existing contingent causes, such as creating a soul in the body of a newly conceived child. This has little bearing on what are discussing, as far as I can tell.

No. What I have said, and explained above is true.

But you haven't explained anything John, you've only made a bunch of biased assertions.

See above.

You have only made some assertions in error.

Not true my friend, the only one making blatent, unexplained assertions here, is you.

See above. I don't mean to offend, but it seems that you are unfamiliar with the Thomistic tradition. Is that correct? Once familiar with that line of thinking these arguments becomes quite a lot easier to understand.

JM

[shunyadragon]

That's what God is, the necessary being. Saying that there is a problem, does not demonstrate that there is one, when one does not exist.

The problem is it is a presupposition without evidence that leads to the same conclusion.

The contingent thing is not of one and the same substance as that of the necessary.

The contingent has a real distinction between the essence and be of a thing. The necessary has a real identity of essence and be.

There are no problems with the above argument for the existence of God.

JM

Needs explanation without 'Begging the Question.'

[JimL]

The necessary as a being does not need to be demonstrated as being is included in the definition of the necessary. Necessary - that which must be. The intelligence of the necessary being is proven through other arguments, such as the that of the unordered orderer. The proofs are presented in natural theology.

Okay, so i think we can all agree that there exists that which is necessary. I don't see anyone here disagreeing with that notion. Therfore, if that is all that you are attempting to convince people of, i.e. that there is a necessary existence which is responsible for the existence of temporal things, you have been basically wasting everyones time. The title of your thread is proofs for the existence of god, not proofs of a necessary existence.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the form the substance takes". Do you mean the substance as 1) in potency, and 2) in act as two different manners of having substance, or something else?

I'm saying that all things are forms of one and the same fundamental substance. In other words, nothing comes from nothing, the effect is in its cause.

Once we conclude to the the existence of the necessary being, we can then argue for that thing having an intellect and will. This is usually done through the St Thomas way concerning the unordered orderer.

Again, the title of your thread is "proofs for the existence of god," which means proofs for a necessary existence with intellect and will.

To exist 'from self' is the definition of what a substance is. Your statement seems to miss this point.

No, you are missing my point, the necessary substance and the substance of a tree, is the same substance. Maybe this will help you to grasp the point I'm making. "The effect is temporal with respect to itself, but it is eternal with respect to its cause." They are the same thing, the same substance. If not, then the temporal thing, the substance thereof, came from "nothing!" And from nothing, nothing comes.

To argue for - the contingent is a substance.

The contingent is that which does be, but not necessarily.
That which does be is either a substance or an accident.
If an accident, the accident is dependent upon the substance.
Then a contingent being is fundamentally a substance.
What is fundamental is common to all.
Therefore substance is common to all that is contingent.
Therefore the contingent is a substance.

To argue for - The necessary is a substance.

The necessary is that which must be.
That which must be is either a substance or an accident.
But an accident is not a necessary be for an accident is not required of substances that are not bodies (spirits).
Therefore that which is necessary is a substance.

To argue for - The contingent is diverse from the necessary.

The contingent is that which does be, but not necessarily.
The necessary is that which must be.
As the contingent is not necessary,
Therefore the contingent is diverse from the necessary

To argue for - Therefore contingent substance is diverse from the necessary substance.

The contingent is a substance (see above).
The necessary is a substance (see above).
The contingent is diverse from the necessary (see above).
Therefore contingent substance is diverse from the necessary substance.

To argue for - the contingent thing is not of one and the same substance as that of the necessary.

The contingent is a substance.
The necessary is a substance.
The contingent is diverse from the necessary.
Therefore contingent substance is diverse from the necessary substance.
But what is diverse, is not the same.
Therefore the contingent thing (substance) is not of one and the same substance as that of the necessary (substance).



The contingent can be caused by the necessary as the necessary (God) acting as a cause to create the contingent. God can also cause through existing contingent causes, such as creating a soul in the body of a newly conceived child. This has little bearing on what are discussing, as far as I can tell.

That argumment is full of holes. You are making the assumption that accidents are not in their cause. Accidents are in their cause, hence they are not diverse/distinct in substance.

See above. I don't mean to offend, but it seems that you are unfamiliar with the Thomistic tradition. Is that correct? Once familiar with that line of thinking these arguments becomes quite a lot easier to understand.

Its not a matter of understanding, its a matter of agreement or disagreement. But how about we get to the actual topic according to the thread title? Your proofs of god.

[JohnMartin]

The problem is it is a presupposition without evidence that leads to the same conclusion.



Needs explanation without 'Begging the Question.'

What do you want me to prove?

JM

[shunyadragon]

What do you want me to prove?

JM

What are you claiming to prove?

[Leonhard]

This thread is hillarious.

[JohnMartin]

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
The necessary as a being does not need to be demonstrated as being is included in the definition of the necessary. Necessary - that which must be. The intelligence of the necessary being is proven through other arguments, such as the that of the unordered orderer. The proofs are presented in natural theology.

Okay, so i think we can all agree that there exists that which is necessary. I don't see anyone here disagreeing with that notion. Therefore, if that is all that you are attempting to convince people of, i.e. that there is a necessary existence which is responsible for the existence of temporal things, you have been basically wasting everyones time. The title of your thread is proofs for the existence of god, not proofs of a necessary existence.

It’s the same thing. God is the necessary existence.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the form the substance takes". Do you mean the substance as 1) in potency, and 2) in act as two different manners of having substance, or something else?
I'm saying that all things are forms of one and the same fundamental substance. In other words, nothing comes from nothing, the effect is in its cause.

Once we conclude to the the existence of the necessary being, we can then argue for that thing having an intellect and will. This is usually done through the St Thomas way concerning the unordered orderer.

Again, the title of your thread is "proofs for the existence of god," which means proofs for a necessary existence with intellect and will.

Which is God.

To exist 'from self' is the definition of what a substance is. Your statement seems to miss this point.

No, you are missing my point, the necessary substance and the substance of a tree, is the same substance. Maybe this will help you to grasp the point I'm making. "The effect is temporal with respect to itself, but it is eternal with respect to its cause." They are the same thing, the same substance. If not, then the temporal thing, the substance thereof, came from "nothing!" And from nothing, nothing comes.

The tree is temporal and God is the necessary. The tree and God are not the same substance. The initial creation event of the universe is the act whereby God created from nothing. The trees that have come into existence since the creation even, have done so through a process of eduction from primary matter.

The contingent can be caused by the necessary as the necessary (God) acting as a cause to create the contingent. God can also cause through existing contingent causes, such as creating a soul in the body of a newly conceived child. This has little bearing on what are discussing, as far as I can tell.

That argument is full of holes. You are making the assumption that accidents are not in their cause. Accidents are in their cause, hence they are not diverse/distinct in substance.

Accidents have being in the substance. Substance has being from itself as substance, and not another, like an accident.

See above. I don't mean to offend, but it seems that you are unfamiliar with the Thomistic tradition. Is that correct? Once familiar with that line of thinking these arguments becomes quite a lot easier to understand.

Its not a matter of understanding, its a matter of agreement or disagreement. But how about we get to the actual topic according to the thread title? Your proofs of god.

If you want.

JM

[JohnMartin]

This thread is hillarious.

I haven't a clue what Shunyadragon is on about.

JM

[JimL]

It’s the same thing. God is the necessary existence.

You claim to have proof of this, its the title of your thread. When were you going to show us the proofs? Assertions are not proofs.

Which is God.

Again with the assertions? Where is your proofs?

The tree is temporal and God is the necessary. The tree and God are not the same substance. The initial creation event of the universe is the act whereby God created from nothing. The trees that have come into existence since the creation even, have done so through a process of eduction from primary matter.

Well first, before you can even make the above assertions, you have to present your proofs that god even exists. It seems the only proofs you have for gods existence is your word.

Accidents have being in the substance.

Thats what I said, accidents are in their cause.

Substance has being from itself as substance, and not another, like an accident.

Yeah, I think you can drop the term "being" in describing necessary existence, until you present your proofs for a being, by which you mean to say god.

If you want.

Well it is your thread, and the title is "proofs for the existence god" not "proofs of a necessary existence."

[JohnMartin]

It’s the same thing. God is the necessary existence.

You claim to have proof of this, its the title of your thread. When were you going to show us the proofs? Assertions are not proofs.

To demonstrate the necessary being is God.

Step 1 - show that a creature is composed.

A creature is a finite thing.
A finite thing has a limit.
The limited thing is a thing in act, limited by a contrary cause of act, which is potency.
A finite thing is then a composite of potency and act.
Therefore a creature is composed of potency and act.

Step 2 - show a creature composed of potency and act is contingent, and then not necessary.

What is composed of potency and act is composed of contrary causes.
Contrary causes are diverse.
What is diverse, is diverse from the diverse and then unified by other than the diverse.
What is other than the diverse is another.
Then what is composed is diverse, but unified by another.
What is unified by another is receptive from another.
What is receptive from another is dependent upon another.
What is dependent upon another is not from itself existing.
What is not from itself existing, is contingent.
Therefore a composite thing is contingent.
Yet a creature is composite thing.
Therefore a creature is composed, is contingent.
What is contingent is not necessary.
Therefore a creature is contingent and not necessary.

Step 3 - Show God is the necessary being.

A creature is dependent upon another.
What is dependent is dependent upon a prior.
Then dependence in being infers ontological priority of another cause which causes the be of the creature.
What is ontologically prior to all creatures is the prime.
What is prime is not composed, for the composed is dependent, and thereby not the prime.
What is not composed is act without potency.
Act without potency is pure act.
Pure act is God.
Pure act is not composed.
What is not composed is not contingent.
Pure act is not contingent.
What is not contingent is necessary.
Therefore God as pure act is the necessary being.

JM

[Roy]

You claim to have proof of this, its the title of your thread. When were you going to show us the proofs? Assertions are not proofs.

Again with the assertions? Where is your proofs?

It's the usual apologetics "This is God" shell game.

Start with some reasonable argument about causes, or events, or forces, or emotional states, or something similar.
Conclude there must have been some first cause or initial event etc.
Say "This is God".

More than half the so-called 'proofs' of God take this form. None of them include any attempt to link the first cause/initial event/etc to any of the other trappings associated with their god - scripture, prayer, angels, sin, omniscience, transubstantiation - or to explain why it's their god and not Rongo or Ptah or Eledumare.

Sir Humphrey Appleby would be quietly smug.

[JohnMartin]

It's the usual apologetics "This is God" shell game.

Start with some reasonable argument about causes, or events, or forces, or emotional states, or something similar.
Conclude there must have been some first cause or initial event etc.
Say "This is God".

More than half the so-called 'proofs' of God take this form. None of them include any attempt to link the first cause/initial event/etc to any of the other trappings associated with their god - scripture, prayer, angels, sin, omniscience, transubstantiation - or to explain why it's their god and not Rongo or Ptah or Eledumare.

Sir Humphrey Appleby would be quietly smug.

To prove God is pure act.

If God is a creature, then God is contingent.
But what is contingent, is dependent
But what is dependent is not supreme
But God is the supreme being
Therefore God is not a creature.

A creature is contingent
Therefore a creature is composed of potency and act.
God is not a creature
Therefore God is not composed of potency and act.
What is not composed is simple
Only pure act is simple, as a being in act
Therefore God is pure act.

JM