Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Combining Aquinas, weak PSR and MOA

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 5:07:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I just had an interesting idea... I'm going to rant alot, and just through this out there. It's still in the infant stages, and I need to read more Scholasticism.

If we assume the weak PSR, then in some possible world, Aquinas' arguments would all work.

This means that changes require a simultaneous changer, until we regress to an unchanging changer. This means, in Scholastic terms, that any potential which is actualized is actualized by something which is actual. Thus, no potential can raise itself to actuality. We would then regress to that which is purely actual... or pure being, since actuality corresponds to the realness of a thing.

P1: Whatever is physical has potentials
P2: The unmoved mover has no potentials
C: The unmoved mover is not physical

Then we'd be left at an unmoved mover, which is pure being, which is the source of all change, and which is non-physical. It would also be unchangeable, since change assumes a potential.

Then we go to the second way.

Assuming that something which is contingent, that is, something which has a really different essence and existence (what they are is different than whether they exist), must require an explanation for it's existence, we would once again regress.

However, if an infinite regress is impossible, then we would be left at something which is non-contingent. That means, something which does NOT have a distinct essence an existence. In other words, the very *essence* of the thing is it's existence. But wait a minute.. this means once again it is pure being. *What* the thing we refer to, is the very act of its own existence. In other words, "I am who am".

Now let's jump to the fifth way.

Causal regularity requires an explanation. When things interact causally, one outcome happens instead of another. However, we couldn't regress infinitely again.

So maybe it stops at a being which is contingent, and also has potentials. Quite clearly not the same being of the first two ways.

But wait a minute.. if the being had potentials, then these potentials could be causally acted upon. They would then be "directed" towards their actualization. Potential ---> Actual.

This would require a further explanation. And another one. Until eventually we are left at a being which does not have any potentials. It's purely actual, because if it did have potentials there would have to be another being to explain it.

Now, if we get to a purely actual being, it's totally unchangeable. However, if it's unchangeable, and it's pure existence, we couldn't have more than one, by Leibniz's law.

In other words, the three arguments above all come to the same being. A purely actual being, the source of all change, the source of everything contingent's existence, and that which contains the causal ends of everything within itself.

If this being is purely actual, and can raise any potential to actuality, then it's omnipotent. Because to be able to do something is just the ability to make something happen.

The being is also perfect though, since to be imperfect means to be changeable. There's something I lack which I could gain.

However, something which is perfect could not will something imperfect, since this is an imperfection. Thus, the being would be perfect and will perfectly. This means it would will perfectly for us too.. in other words, "all loving." Or having perfect morality.

It would also be omniscient, since it contains within itself the causal explanation of everything. It essentially orders everything towards its end. However, there's two places an essence can exist. In a mind, or in a thing. The "squareness" either exists in something that is square, or exists as a concept in my mind. Since the purely actual being can't exhibit being a square and not a square at the same time, it must exist in the being as an idea. Which means the being is knowing.

So what does this prove so far? Well so far it proves that in *some possible world* there is a being which is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, timeless, unchangeable, the cause of everything's existence, and which is *pure subsistent being*.

However, nothing can be greater than something which is pure subsistent being. So this being is the greatest possible being.

Which, by S5, must exist in all worlds... including this one.

I understand this makes lots of assumptions most people here would disagree with, and I probably won't feel like defending this, because it was long enough writing this, but I thought I'd throw this out there.

I thought it was a cool idea, but whatever lol.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 5:21:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 5:07:52 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I just had an interesting idea... I'm going to rant alot, and just through this out there. It's still in the infant stages, and I need to read more Scholasticism.

If we assume the weak PSR, then in some possible world, Aquinas' arguments would all work.

This means that changes require a simultaneous changer, until we regress to an unchanging changer. This means, in Scholastic terms, that any potential which is actualized is actualized by something which is actual. Thus, no potential can raise itself to actuality. We would then regress to that which is purely actual... or pure being, since actuality corresponds to the realness of a thing.

P1: Whatever is physical has potentials
P2: The unmoved mover has no potentials
C: The unmoved mover is not physical

Then we'd be left at an unmoved mover, which is pure being, which is the source of all change, and which is non-physical. It would also be unchangeable, since change assumes a potential.

Then we go to the second way.

Assuming that something which is contingent, that is, something which has a really different essence and existence (what they are is different than whether they exist), must require an explanation for it's existence, we would once again regress.

However, if an infinite regress is impossible, then we would be left at something which is non-contingent. That means, something which does NOT have a distinct essence an existence. In other words, the very *essence* of the thing is it's existence. But wait a minute.. this means once again it is pure being. *What* the thing we refer to, is the very act of its own existence. In other words, "I am who am".

Now let's jump to the fifth way.

Causal regularity requires an explanation. When things interact causally, one outcome happens instead of another. However, we couldn't regress infinitely again.

So maybe it stops at a being which is contingent, and also has potentials. Quite clearly not the same being of the first two ways.

But wait a minute.. if the being had potentials, then these potentials could be causally acted upon. They would then be "directed" towards their actualization. Potential ---> Actual.

This would require a further explanation. And another one. Until eventually we are left at a being which does not have any potentials. It's purely actual, because if it did have potentials there would have to be another being to explain it.

Now, if we get to a purely actual being, it's totally unchangeable. However, if it's unchangeable, and it's pure existence, we couldn't have more than one, by Leibniz's law.

In other words, the three arguments above all come to the same being. A purely actual being, the source of all change, the source of everything contingent's existence, and that which contains the causal ends of everything within itself.

If this being is purely actual, and can raise any potential to actuality, then it's omnipotent. Because to be able to do something is just the ability to make something happen.

The being is also perfect though, since to be imperfect means to be changeable. There's something I lack which I could gain.

However, something which is perfect could not will something imperfect, since this is an imperfection. Thus, the being would be perfect and will perfectly. This means it would will perfectly for us too.. in other words, "all loving." Or having perfect morality.

It would also be omniscient, since it contains within itself the causal explanation of everything. It essentially orders everything towards its end. However, there's two places an essence can exist. In a mind, or in a thing. The "squareness" either exists in something that is square, or exists as a concept in my mind. Since the purely actual being can't exhibit being a square and not a square at the same time, it must exist in the being as an idea. Which means the being is knowing.

So what does this prove so far? Well so far it proves that in *some possible world* there is a being which is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, timeless, unchangeable, the cause of everything's existence, and which is *pure subsistent being*.

However, nothing can be greater than something which is pure subsistent being. So this being is the greatest possible being.

Which, by S5, must exist in all worlds... including this one.

I understand this makes lots of assumptions most people here would disagree with, and I probably won't feel like defending this, because it was long enough writing this, but I thought I'd throw this out there.

I thought it was a cool idea, but whatever lol.

*scratches head*

I am going to get back to my arguments for creation ex nihilo I think...