Proofs for the Existence of God

[JohnMartin]

You are making an assertion here that the essence or substance of the universe, ergo its forms, is not one substance, but many. Please explain. Please explain as well why you equate "pure act' with intellect?

Substance is that which exists from self such as a tree. Accident is that which exists in substance, such as colour of the tree. The tree is a real substance, distinct from another substance, such as a rock, for the tree has a nature of treeness and the rock has a nature of rockness. Both the tree and the rock are also limited by potency. The universe is composed of many substances, each having a distinct nature and limited by potency.

Pure act is act without limit. Pure act then includes all perfections. Intelligence is a perfection. Hence pure act containing all perfections infers pure act is intellective, and thereby is pure intellect without potency.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Aristotle is a norm for ancient philosophy.

Meaning what?

You cannot dismiss the principle of finality when a great philosopher has used the principle within his own philosophy. If Aristotle held to a principle, then the contrary opinion about the principle must be defended over that held by one of the great philosophical minds in human history. The burden is on those who do not hold to the principle to defend their position contrary to a great philosopher.

JM

[Doug Shaver]

You cannot dismiss the principle of finality when a great philosopher has used the principle within his own philosophy. If Aristotle held to a principle, then the contrary opinion about the principle must be defended over that held by one of the great philosophical minds in human history. The burden is on those who do not hold to the principle to defend their position contrary to a great philosopher.

JM

That is a blatant appeal to authority, which is logically invalid, pure and simple. When any principle is advocated, regardless of who originally proposed it or how long ago they lived, the burden is on its advocate to defend it. If you cannot give me a reason to believe the principle of finality, then I don't need a reason to reject it. You might think "Aristotle said so" is reason enough to believe it. I do not. He was not infallible, and I will not treat him as if he were.

[JimL]

Substance is that which exists from self such as a tree. Accident is that which exists in substance, such as colour of the tree.

Nothing, including trees and rocks, exist from self, they exist in the universe of space and time which itself exists in the greater Cosmos the substance of which is energy. Matter in all its forms was born of one substance, and so is of that same substance. Nihil ex nihilo!

The tree is a real substance, distinct from another substance, such as a rock, for the tree has a nature of treeness and the rock has a nature of rockness.

See above.

Both the tree and the rock are also limited by potency. The universe is composed of many substances, each having a distinct nature and limited by potency.

Everything reduces to one substance, and that substance is energy, which is pure act.

Pure act is act without limit. Pure act then includes all perfections. Intelligence is a perfection. Hence pure act containing all perfections infers pure act is intellective, and thereby is pure intellect without potency.

Thats just pure philosophical mumbo jumbo. Pure act has no need of intelligence, hence the definition, its pure act. Information is perfection, not intelligence, and information exists without knowledge, ergo the eternal has no need of intelligence.

[JohnMartin]

Nothing, including trees and rocks, exist from self, they exist in the universe of space and time which itself exists in the greater Cosmos the substance of which is energy. Matter in all its forms was born of one substance, and so is of that same substance. Nihil ex nihilo!


See above.



Everything reduces to one substance, and that substance is energy, which is pure act.

Thats just pure philosophical mumbo jumbo. Pure act has no need of intelligence, hence the definition, its pure act. Information is perfection, not intelligence, and information exists without knowledge, ergo the eternal has no need of intelligence.

You are mixing up philosophical terms (potency and act) and physics terms (energy). It would be good to read a good ontology and philosophical cosmology text by a Thomist to better understand what I am saying in this thread.

JM

[Roy]

It certainly is. Rocks do not act so as to obtain the best result. If you want to claim otherwise, provide an example, not just an assertion. I don't think you can.

(I have plenty of examples of rocks not acting at all).

False premise. Rocks do not. Argument fails.

You have to demonstrate that natures do not achieve their end...

No. You have to demonstrate that natures such as rocks even have ends, let alone act to achieve them.

You have failed to do so. You haven't even tried.

It is not an observed fact that rocks act to achieve an end. It is an observed fact that rocks don't act at all.

Your premises are faulty, your entire argument is undermined, and you are just spouting gibberish.

You have provided no example,

Hypocrite. Where is your example of a rock acting to achieve an end? Here is a trivial example of a rock that has not been observed to act to achieve an end.

and no argument to overcome this well established principle and observed fact within nature

It doesn't matter how often you claim that to be an observed fact, it will not become one.

Where is your example of a rock acting to achieve an end?

[JimL]

You are mixing up philosophical terms (potency and act) and physics terms (energy). It would be good to read a good ontology and philosophical cosmology text by a Thomist to better understand what I am saying in this thread.

JM

No, not mixing them up, what I'm saying is that the same terms you use to define the nature of a creator can just as easily define the inherent nature of the cosmic substance out of which spacetimes are formed.

[JohnMartin]

No. You have to demonstrate that natures such as rocks even have ends, let alone act to achieve them.

You have failed to do so. You haven't even tried.

It is not an observed fact that rocks act to achieve an end. It is an observed fact that rocks don't act at all.

So if rocks don't act, then they don't act for ends.

Your premises are faulty, your entire argument is undermined, and you are just spouting gibberish.
You have provided no example,

Hypocrite. Where is your example of a rock acting to achieve an end? Here is a trivial example of a rock that has not been observed to act to achieve an end.
and no argument to overcome this well established principle and observed fact within nature
It doesn't matter how often you claim that to be an observed fact, it will not become one.

Where is your example of a rock acting to achieve an end?

Place a rock in your hand and it will sit there in accord with the law of gravity. The rock acts naturally in accord with the laws of the universe for the common good of the universe. Roll a rock and it will act according to heteromotive action. The action of the rock rolling is in accord with the laws of motion which are in accord with the common good of the universe.

JM

[JohnMartin]

No, not mixing them up, what I'm saying is that the same terms you use to define the nature of a creator can just as easily define the inherent nature of the cosmic substance out of which spacetimes are formed.

You are mixing up philosophical terms (potency and act) and physics terms (energy). The cosmic substance is composed of potency and act, which is not God, who is pure act.

JM

[JohnMartin]

That is a blatant appeal to authority, which is logically invalid, pure and simple. When any principle is advocated, regardless of who originally proposed it or how long ago they lived, the burden is on its advocate to defend it. If you cannot give me a reason to believe the principle of finality, then I don't need a reason to reject it. You might think "Aristotle said so" is reason enough to believe it. I do not. He was not infallible, and I will not treat him as if he were.

Infallibility is not required to acknowledge the greatness of the philosopher. Aristotle used the principle, so we should at least acknowledge that the principle is worth considering.

JM

[Roy]

Where is your example of a rock acting to achieve an end?

Place a rock in your hand and it will sit there in accord with the law of gravity. The rock acts naturally in accord with the laws of the universe for the common good of the universe. Roll a rock and it will act according to heteromotive action. The action of the rock rolling is in accord with the laws of motion which are in accord with the common good of the universe.

So you can't produce an example of a rock acting to achieve an end. You can only spout meaningless Panglossian assertions.

Give it up John. You aren't even fun any more.

[JohnMartin]

So you can't produce an example of a rock acting to achieve an end. You can only spout meaningless Panglossian assertions.

Give it up John. You aren't even fun any more.

The rock acts to sit and roll. The end is the common good of the universe. Very easy to understand.

JM

[JimL]

You are mixing up philosophical terms (potency and act) and physics terms (energy). The cosmic substance is composed of potency and act, which is not God, who is pure act.

JM

Present an argument please, rather than an assertion. Explain how you've come to make this distinction between god as "pure act" and the Cosmic substance as "potency and act".

[JohnMartin]

Present an argument please, rather than an assertion. Explain how you've come to make this distinction between god as "pure act" and the Cosmic substance as "potency and act".

Potency is the cause of limit. The cosmic substance is an act as limited, hence limited by potency. God is not limited, hence is without potency and hence pure act.

JM

[JimL]

Potency is the cause of limit. The cosmic substance is an act as limited, hence limited by potency. God is not limited, hence is without potency and hence pure act.

JM

You've said this already. I asked you to explain how you are making that distinction between an eternal god and an eternal universe. Anyone can make assertions that the one is thus, and the other is thus.