Existence isn't a property; that would imply there are objects in the world that lack it - which is absurd. All objects in the world exist. — Relativist

What about the mathematical and analytical tools that are used to determine what in the world exists, especially on the scales of the atomic or cosmological. Are they themselves also things that exist? (I seem to recall that atomic physics relies heavily on the imaginary number the square root of minus one in normalisation procedures, which would suggest not. ) For that matter, there's Terrence Deacon's absentials which are also defined as not materially existent but often amongst the definining properties of entential activities. From the glossary entry:

• a state of things not yet realized
• a specific separate object of a representation,
• a general type of property that may or may not exist,
• an abstract quality,
• an experience, and so forth-just not that which is actually present.
• something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent
• irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things, but a defining property of life and mind
• what is absent matters.
• a purpose not yet actualized,
• a quality of feeling, a functional value just discovered
• not just superimposed probable physical relationships
• each an intrinsically absent aspect of something present

Absentials do not exist, but play a defining role in the existence of what he calls ententional agents.

Rather than the problem of an infinite regress, the problem is one of the limits of human reason. — Fooloso4

While I can see your point, natural theology will suggest that the regularities and rationally-intelligible principles that constitute what we describe as natural laws suggest a prior cause. And indeed that the whole idea of apriori truths implicitly suggests it. The fact that science itself can't explain scientific laws is no fault of science, but it does legitimately imply a deeper level of explanation than the scientific. One could argue among the aims of philosophy is to discern the boundary of what can be explained in terms of natural laws, and to intuit what may lie beyond it, even if it can't be stated in scientific terms.

It's not in dispute that a necessarily existing thing exists and can't not. But if the PSR is true, then there will be an explanation of that. You haven't provided one, I think. — Clearbury

As the OP is on Christmas break (which strictly speaking I also am, but never mind), I'll volunteer a response. The point about necessary being is that it needs no explanation. It is the terminus of explanation for all question about 'why is that the case?' A trivial example is the case of a simple arithmetical equation, what is the sum of two plus two? The answer of course is 'four' and there is no point in asking why it is. Asking "why is 2 + 2 = 4?" misconstrues the nature of necessity. The explanation for such truths lies in their self-evidence within the system within which they're true, and no further "why" can be meaningfully posed.

Similarly, in metaphysics, the idea of a necessary being functions as the ultimate 'terminus of explanation' under the principle of sufficient reason. The PSR asserts that everything must have an explanation, either in terms of an external cause or in terms of its own nature. For contingent beings, the PSR demands a cause or reason external to themselves. But for a necessary being, its necessity is its explanation.

There are several branches of logic but the science of logic as a whole is one coherent system. E.g. fuzzy logic is a branch that may be more suitable than other branches in some cases, but the different branches of logic do not contradict each other. — A Christian Philosophy

A logic system is built on axioms.

From The Foundations of Logical Reasoning: Axioms of Logic

Logic is the backbone of mathematical reasoning, providing the structure and rules that govern the validity of arguments and proofs. At the heart of logic are axioms—fundamental truths accepted without proof. These axioms serve as the foundational building blocks from which all logical reasoning is derived.

Axioms are assumptions taken to be true

From Wikipedia - Axiom

An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

As any logic system is built on axioms, which are assumptions taken to be true, no one logic system exists necessarily.

You are circling the drain. Repeating the same claims as if they are truths.

While I can see your point, natural theology will suggest that the regularities and rationally-intelligible principles that constitute what we describe as natural laws suggest a prior cause. — Wayfarer

Perhaps the pursuit of natural theology is to forsake wisdom as it is understood in the wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible. Perhaps the attempt to understand God in terms of rational principles is a misguided attempt to understand a God who is understood, to the extent he is understood, as willful.

One could argue among the aims of philosophy is to discern the boundary of what can be explained in terms of natural laws, and to intuit what may lie beyond it, even if it can't be stated in scientific terms. — Wayfarer

One could also argue that an appeal to intuition is in this case to mistake the imagination for intellection in the sense it is used in Plato's divided line.

What about the mathematical and analytical tools that are used to determine what in the world exists, especially on the scales of the atomic or cosmological. Are they themselves also things that exist? — Wayfarer

Abstractions do not exist independently in the world. They reflect relations between things that do exist; so they exist immanently.

But the PSR says that everything has an explanation. If one stipulates that there are things that do not need an explanation, then one is rejecting the PSR.

Here's my example: 'A thing that exists and needs no explanation'. I am going to call that a ticketyboo.

Have I just proved that at least one ticketyboo exists? No.

Can I explain the existence of a ticketyboo by pointing out that, by definition, it exists and has no explanation? No.

The PSR says everything has an explanation. If there are exceptions, then it is false.

That's the main problem.

A second problem is that necessary things confer necessity on anything they explain. The things they explain would also exist of necessity. Yet they'd be explicable (so it is false that if something exists of necessity it lacks an explanation). Plus, not everything that exists seems to exist of necessity.

It seems to me, then, that it is illogical - a contradiction - to think that the PSR implies the existence of necessary objects. It doesn't - can't do. And it is false that necessary things lack explanations (for anything a necessary object explains will also exist of necessity, yet will have an explanation). And it is false that labelling something a necessary thing constitutes an explanation of its existence. That's how things seem to me at present. Not that I'm endorsing the PSR or denying that there may be necessary existences. I'm just pointing out inconsistencies in the original poster's position.

But the PSR says that everything has an explanation. — Clearbury

I don't know if it does. It says that everything that exists has a reason for its existence. But everything that exists is the domain of phenomena, 'what appears'. The 'first cause', whether conceived of as a personalistic God or not, is not something that exists, but the condition of the possibility of the existence of everything that exists. It's on a different ontological level to what exists - that's what 'transcendence' means. (See God Does Not Exist.)

I am going to call that a ticketyboo. — Clearbury

Hardly does justice to the topic.

Perhaps the attempt to understand God in terms of rational principles is a misguided attempt to understand a God who is understood, to the extent he is understood, as willful. — Fooloso4

By 'theological voluntarism', associated with Protestant conceptions of Divinity, and very different from the philosophical rationalism of scholastic theology.

We are talking about very different things.

I don't know if it does. It says that everything that exists has a reason for its existence. — Wayfarer

I don't see a difference. By 'everything' I am referring to everything that exists. So everything that exists has an explanation (according to the PSR). I'm not endorsing the PSR, but just noting what it says and arguing that the defender of it in this thread is substituting it for a different principle, one that says that 'everything except necessarily existing things' have explanations (though this too would not get him the right result either, as this principle would render all existing things necessarily existing, which would then amount to saying that nothing has an explanation).

The 'first cause', whether conceived of as a personalistic God or not, is not something that exists, but the condition of the possibility of the existence of everything that exists. — Wayfarer

That does not make sense to me. Something cannot come from nothing. One cannot explain the existent by citing that which does not and has not existed.

Those who try and use the PSR to show that God exists do not deny this, for if something can come from nothing then there is no need to posit God.

Something cannot come from nothing. — Clearbury

That is precisely what 'creation ex nihilo' means.

if something can come from nothing then there is no need to posit God. — Clearbury

On the contrary, according to Christian doctrine, only God can create something from nothing.


I don't think you're interpreting what the OP means correctly, but I won't speak for him/her so I'll leave the thread to the OP.

The point about necessary being is that it needs no explanation. It is the terminus of explanation for all question about 'why is that the case?' A trivial example is the case of a simple arithmetical equation, what is the sum of two plus two? The answer of course is 'four' and there is no point in asking why it is. Asking "why is 2 + 2 = 4?" misconstrues the nature of necessity. — Wayfarer

At the risk of picking on a minor point, I think you need a better example of something that needs no explanation. There is nothing "necessary" about 2 + 2 = 4. In fact this depends on a number of more basic assumptions (axioms).

Those who try and use the PSR to show that God exists do not deny this, for if something can come from nothing then there is no need to posit God. — Clearbury

On the contrary, according to Christian doctrine, only God can create something from nothing. — Wayfarer

Divine creation is not "something from nothing". It assumes God pre-exists matter, but God is something. If there is no God, then there was no state of affairs prior to the existence of matter.

There is nothing "necessary" about 2 + 2 = 4. In fact this depends on a number of more basic assumptions (axioms). — EricH

All due respect, that is a red herring. It is not necessary to understand set theory to understand such basic facts as 2+2=4, they are logically necessary within arithmetic. Also consider the context in which i said it, as a simple analogy for the redundancy of the question 'why does God exist?' or 'who made God'? Necessary truths—whether mathematical or metaphysical—are not contingent on external causes or axioms but are self-existent by nature. Which is not to say that this proves anything about the reality of God, it is simply a logical point.

It assumes God pre-exists matter, but God is something. — Relativist

But that is not so. God is not some thing, or for that matter any thing. Quite why is very hard to explain to those without any grounding in philosophical theology, and I myself only have a sketchy understanding of the subject. That is why I linked to the article, God does not Exist by Bishop Pierre Whalon. He points out that to say that God exists reduces God to another existent, merely something else in the Universe.

In broad philosophical terms, whatever exists has a beginning and an end in time, and is composed of parts. This applies to every phenomenal existent. However, God has no beginning and end in time, and is not composed of parts, and so does not exist, but is the reality which grounds existence.

This is also associated with Paul Tillich who was often accused of sailing close to atheism by many believers (link. But there are precedents back to the origin of the Christian religion, in apophatic theology, in which nothing whatever can be said about God, as God is beyond affirmation or denial. Likewise in various existentialist theologies, such as Gabriel Marcel (ref.)

This is why so many internet debates about God's existence are pointless and uncomprehending. They're what I would call 'straw God arguments'.

That is precisely what 'creation ex nihilo' means. — Wayfarer

No. It means the act of creating something out of materials that did not previously exist. The creator already exists.

On the contrary, according to Christian doctrine, only God can create something from nothing. — Wayfarer

That's absurd. I am not a Christian, but I am quite sure that Christians do not believe that God is nothing.

Plus we are talking about the PSR, not Christianity. And the PSR says that EVERYTHING has an explanation. Not some things and not others. Everything.

Those who try (in my view, quite misguidedly) to use PSR to make a case for God, or a divine creator of some sort, do not suppose that something can come from nothing. Again, that contradicts the PSR.

It is another basic principle of reason - one that those who appeal to the PSR to make a case for a divine creator also endorse (if they're thinking straight, anyway) - that 'from nothing, nothing comes' (Parmenides).

They - the makers of the cosmological argument, or this version of it anyway - reason that as everything has an explanation, and 'nothing' explains nothing, then there must be at least one thing that explains itself. And that thing, they then argue, is God.

I do not think that argument is sound, but we should at least be clear about what it is.

I do not think that argument is sound, but we should at least be clear about what it is. — Clearbury

You're not.

For Heraclitus the tension of opposites is essential. We may think of it is the function of reason to disambiguate, but logos holds opposites together in their tension. Logos does not resolve all things to 'is' or 'is not'. — Fooloso4

Exactly. ... This is what Peirce was trying to explain to Dewey when Dewey was attending Peirce's lectures. Peirce confronted Dewey about his not understanding negation. What is negated maintains a relationship to that which negates it. How can we distinguish anything without holding what we are trying to distinguish it from? Attributes and qualities are more distinguishable in the 'reflection' of absence of them, and the recognition of that reflection needs to be maintained.

Peirce's critique of Dewey's understanding of negation points out the problems with improper negation. Nominalism functions as a binary 'not'—a simplistic rejection that isolates itself from what it negates. Proper negation, however, is a relational act: it doesn't merely deny but holds in consideration the reality and coherence of what it negates, preserving the mutual dependency that sustains the distinction. As I often say and have written much about, "there is no 'I' without the 'not I'"; negation becomes a dynamic interplay that enriches meaning rather than impoverishing it through isolation.

Excellent point. Look, rather than playing Judy to my Punch try and engage with something

But that is not so. God is not some thing, or for that matter any thing. — Wayfarer

If there is a God, then it exists. I believe the claim is that God is the foundation of reality - everything else is ontologically dependent on God, so clearly God isn't an object within his own creation. But "God" is a referent to something, even if it encompasses everything that exists

More to the point, God-sans-universe is a coherent concept, and it is certainly not equivalent to a state of nothingness. A state of nothingness is incoherent.

, whatever exists has a beginning and an end in time, and is composed of parts. This applies to every phenomenal existent. However, God has no beginning and end in time, and is not composed of parts, and so does not exist, but is the reality which grounds existence. — Wayfarer

A materialist ontological foundation would also exist at all times- it being the basis for everything else that exists.

The claim that God doesn't have parts has always seemed to me a special pleading. An omniscient God possesses an infinitely complex mind. That is at odds with being simple, and the notion of omniscience is prima facie implausible -I'm not aware of anyone arguing for it to be plausible.

Here's the problems. We know that knowledge is acquired, but apologists claim God just happens to possess it (magically:without having been developed). Further, knowledge entails data, and data is encoded (entailing parts). But God manages to possess knowledge with no such encoding- it just exists magically.

It means the act of creating something out of materials that did not previously exist. The creator already exists. — Clearbury

See the post above as to why God does not exist. I am 'engaging with something', namely, what I think is an erroneous conception of God. Consideration of the question of the divine nature takes something more than common assumptions as to 'what exists.' Note that I'm not defending belief in God, but simply outlining what 'creation ex nihilo' means, as I understand it. For a more formal, Catholic explanation, you will need to read some materials, for example Aquinas vs Intelligent Design:

The Greek natural philosophers were quite correct in saying that from nothing, nothing comes. But by “comes” they meant a change from one state to another, which requires some underlying material reality. It also requires some pre-existing possibility for that change, a possibility that resides in something.

Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To be the complete cause of something’s existence is not the same as producing a change in something. It is not a matter of taking something and making it into something else, as if there were some primordial matter which God had to use to create the universe. Rather, Creation is the result of the divine agency being totally responsible for the production, all at once and completely, of the whole of the universe, with all it entities and all its operations, from absolutely nothing pre-existing.

Strictly speaking, points out Aquinas, the Creator does not create something out of nothing in the sense of taking some nothing and making something out of it. This is a conceptual mistake, for it treats nothing as a something. On the contrary, the Christian doctrine of Creation ex nihilo claims that God made the universe without making it out of anything. In other words, anything left entirely to itself, completely separated from the cause of its existence, would not exist—it would be absolutely nothing. The ultimate cause of the existence of anything and everything is God who creates—not out of some nothing, but from nothing at all.

If there is a God, then it exists. — Relativist

This is a very limited conception of existence. That's why I referred before to Terrence Deacon's 'absentials' from the book Incomplete Nature. He shows in great detail why things that don't actually exist - 'absentials' - are actually foundational in the doings of life and mind.

A materialist ontological foundation would also exist at all times- it being the basis for everything else that exists. — Relativist

That's because, as I explained in a previous conversation, materialist ontologies such as D M Armstrong's, are essentially derived from the theistic ontology which preceded them, with science assigned the role previously assigned to religion and scientific laws mapped against what was previously divine commandments. Karen Armstrong's book A Case for God spells out the historical precedents for that.

God manages to possess knowledge with no such encoding- it just exists magically. — Relativist

Foolishness to the Greeks!

namely, what I think is an erroneous conception of God. — Wayfarer

'God' is not the concept of nothing. There's no point arguing with someone who thinks otherwise. It is akin to insisting that 'God' means 'turnip' and then insisting that God exists because there's a turnip in your vegetable rack.

No Christian who deserves the title believes God is 'nothing'. That's obvious. For there is now no difference apart from in the sounds they use to refer to themselves between an atheist and a theist.

Anyway, I can't be bothered with you anymore. Bye.

'God' is not the concept of nothing. — Clearbury

Being 'beyond conception' is not 'a concept of nothing'. You proclaim that you speak for Christians, when you yourself say that you're not one, and then declare what you consider to be conceivable the criteria for what they ought to believe.

But I have read works by Christian philosophers and I have met Christians and talked to them, and i also know that the word 'God' is not used by 99.99% of people who use it to mean 'nothing'.

There are no doubt people in mental asylums who use the word 'God' to refer to Tuesday, or to a sack of plums, but that is not sufficient to show that the word 'God' is used that way typically. It is not. And if you use the word 'God' to refer to 'nothing' then you're not using the word properly.

And you're not even using it consistently. As 'beyond conception' doesn't mean 'nothing'. There is really little to be gained from our discussing things further.

Notice that ‘not a thing’ and ‘no thing’ is not the same as ‘nothing’. Thinking of God as an existent flattens out the ontological question. Read some of the refs I gave.

This is a very limited conception of existence. — Wayfarer

The relevance is that God sans universe is not equivalent to nothingness. My point is that there's an implicit false dichotomy between a universe from nothingness and divine creation.

A materialist ontological foundation would also exist at all times- it being the basis for everything else that exists.
— Relativist

That's because, as I explained in a previous conversation, materialist ontologies such as D M Armstrong's, are essentially derived from the theistic ontology which preceded them..., — Wayfarer

Irrelevant to my point, which is that the reasoning you put forth does not ENTAIL a God. It's consistent with materialism.

I'm not endeavoring to prove materialism is true. I'm just showing that the arguments and reasoning that purport to prove a God actually do nothing of the sort.

I’ve not been arguing for God. At issue was your remark that at least one thing existed before Creation. I objected that God is not a thing - for that matter, nor are you - and does not exist in the sense that things exist.

All due respect, that is a red herring. It is not necessary to understand set theory to understand such basic facts as 2+2=4, they are logically necessary within arithmetic.. — Wayfarer

To the best of my knowledge that's simply not the case - at least with regards to arithmetic. If you have two apples in one hand and two apples in the other you have 4 apples. If you have two apples in one hand and two oranges in the other you have four pieces of fruit. Etc. But to say 2 + 2 = 4 is logically necessary within arithmetic is simply not the case - it relies on the rules of arithmetic - which are not logically necessary.

Is anything within math is logically necessary? People much smarter than anyone here on TPF have been studying and analyzing & theorizing about this for thousands of years - and as far as I'm aware there is still no definitive answer to these deep mysteries.

BTW - just to be clear, I am not taking a stand on whether there are such things as necessary truths - I'm simply saying that 2 + 2 = 4 is not one. That's why I suggest you need a different example - is all.

Good luck with your endeavors.

I’ve not been arguing for God. At issue was your remark that at least one thing existed before Creation. I objected that God is not a thing - for that matter, nor are you - and does not exist in the sense that things exist. — Wayfarer

"Thing" = an existent. A God would be a very different sort of thing, but it would still be an existent (a "thing"). It would have some characteristics in common with a hypothetical material ontological foundation (e.g. uncaused, autonomous, not composed of other things).

What part of this do you disagree with?

Subjects of experience are not things, which is why treating subjects as things is generally considered inappropriate. And why personal pronouns are used for subjects and not for objects (‘it’, ‘that’).

Your hypothetical material ontological foundation is also something that science had not been able to show exists albeit on different grounds. What would be an example of a thing which has no beginning and end in time and is not composed of parts?

Subjects of experience are not things — Wayfarer

They are "things" as I defined, and used, the term ("existent").

Your hypothetical material ontological foundation is also something that science had not been able to show exists albeit on different grounds. What would be an example of a thing which has no beginning and end in time and is not composed of parts? — Wayfarer

I don't think it's possible for science to establish anything as an ontological foundation. By its nature, science would be compelled to always seek something deeper, even if they reached a foundation. My view is entirely based on conceptual analysis (the tolof metaphysicians): either there is a foundation, or there's a vicious infinite regress of ever-deeper layers of reality - which I reject.

I never claimed a foundation necessarily was not composed of parts, but I believe the past is finite - because it is logically impossible for an infinite past to be completed - but the past IS complete.

I don't claim to disprove deism/theism. My views on metaphysical foundationalism and a finite past are consistent with deism. I personally reject deism because it depends on an infinitely complex intelligence, with magical knowledge, just happening to exist by brute fact.