Arguments for God

[Sophus]

But matter itself is not existence, otherwise, the sentence "matter exists" would be tautological. Things that exist certainly are made of matter, but matter is no more existence than the things that are made out of matter are existence. Besides, I believe in another post somewhere you acknowledged that thoughts are not made up of matter, though you argued (correct, I think) that they are tied to the brain, which is matter. In any case, if matter is existence, and thoughts aren't made of matter--only the brain--then while the brain exists, then thoughts wouldn't. I think most of us would have a serious time with any position that says "thoughts and ideas don't exist."

Moreover, science has taught us that energy is not matter, though the two can be converted back and forth. If they were the same, then it would be meaningless to say that they could be converted. There does seem to be a difference in an atom and the energy it has in it. If, though, matter were existence, then you couldn't argue that energy existed, which would also be absurd. Now, full disclosure, I am not a scientist! This entire paragraph could be wrong, and if it is, I am completely open to correction. This is nothing more than my understanding of the issue as I have read in the popular literature explaining the science (you know--the "plain English" everybody is after
Seriously though, I think you're right here. The question may come down to can matter sustain itself without energy? In most cases is not energy simply how the particles behave? I don't know. Fun to think about.

No, I believe that existence precedes essence, but while I have not read Sartre, I am willing to be that you have misinterpreted him here. Essence is not added to the dog, because the essence of the thing is that it is a dog. Even if you say, "essence is added to the dog," you are still left with the question what is a dog? And when you answer that, that is what I will label its essence or form or nature or what have you.

A little background is helpful here. Aristotle taught that existence is rooted in form. For him, for something to have an essence ultimately meant that it existed (that which did not exist was form that was not combined with matter; in other words, matterless-form didn't exist, but form gave existence to matter). In this view, essence--that is, form--precedes existence. Averroes came along and corrected Aristotle on this. He correctly deduced that we cannot perceive any essence without first judging that it exists, and thus, existence precedes essence. Now, you will note I made this statement in the first premise of my argument. Allow me to quote it for you:

"1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents)."

The bolded part makes clear that existence precedes essence. It does not follow, however, that essence is added to dogs. That is meaningless. You may as well say "Dogs are added to dogs." So existence is added to the essence dog, and in doing so, the dog exists. You could argue for semantics that the essence "dog" is added to existence, but that would make existence the essential property, which I promise you, you don't want to do. You would immediately be forced to conclude that God exists via the Ontological Argument. We should be well past that.

So in reality, the first thing that we perceive is existence, because existence gives reality to an essence. The two concepts must be distinguished.

This may only be semantics. You have a different concept of essence from Sartre. If you get the chance, read this essay of his for a better understanding. You'll probably enjoy it even without agreeing with it.

A snippet from the essay (actually it was originally a speech I believe)

[E]xistence comes before essence â€" or, if you will, that we must begin from the subjective. What exactly do we mean by that?

If one considers an article of manufacture as, for example, a book or a paper-knife â€" one sees that it has been made by an artisan who had a conception of it; and he has paid attention, equally, to the conception of a paper-knife and to the pre-existent technique of production which is a part of that conception and is, at bottom, a formula. Thus the paper-knife is at the same time an article producible in a certain manner and one which, on the other hand, serves a definite purpose, for one cannot suppose that a man would produce a paper-knife without knowing what it was for. Let us say, then, of the paperknife that its essence â€" that is to say the sum of the formulae and the qualities which made its production and its definition possible â€" precedes its existence. The presence of such-and-such a paper-knife or book is thus determined before my eyes. Here, then, we are viewing the world from a technical standpoint, and we can say that production precedes existence...
What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world â€" and defines himself afterwards...
If, moreover, existence precedes essence and we will to exist at the same time as we fashion our image, that image is valid for all and for the entire epoch in which we find ourselves. Our responsibility is thus much greater than we had supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole. If I am a worker, for instance, I may choose to join a Christian rather than a Communist trade union. And if, by that membership, I choose to signify that resignation is, after all, the attitude that best becomes a man, that man’s kingdom is not upon this earth, I do not commit myself alone to that view. Resignation is my will for everyone, and my action is, in consequence, a commitment on behalf of all mankind. Or if, to take a more personal case, I decide to marry and to have children, even though this decision proceeds simply from my situation, from my passion or my desire, I am thereby committing not only myself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice of monogamy. I am thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be. In fashioning myself I fashion man.

This is where paper-knifeness and dogness come from. How they are different and alike. We define a knife before its made (as it is man-made) whereas we define a dog after observing it.

Interesting, my spell checker has a problem with dogness but not knifeness?

*For the record I don't agree with everything in Sartre's paper.

[humblesmurph]

I watched the video.  I have no proof of the outside physical world.  What I do have is the consistency and predictability of my perceptions.  I perceive that I am typing, I perceive words appearing  on a screen.  Every single time I perceive myself typing, I perceive words on a screen.  At some later time, I will perceive a response from you that is related to these words I perceive myself to be typing right now.  Every time I perceive myself typing to Chris, at some later point I perceive a related message on a screen (unless he foe'd me).

It's the consistency and predictability of my perceptions that allow me to get along in the world even though I can never really be sure what it is that I am perceiving.  I could be in the Matrix, but If I was, I would never know it until somebody pulled the plug.

You, sir, will very likely never be foe'd

Your statements here are the necessary conclusion of this type of philosophy. Frankly, I think it is silly, and it gets sillier the further you go. If you take this position further, you will soon discover that you are required to believe that you aren't even talking about reality, only your perception of reality; but then, not only of your perception of reality, but your interpretation of your perception of reality; but then, not only of your interpretation, but your words by which you describe your perception of reality. "In reality," then, you've never talked about anything except words.

Now, forgive me, but that's just downright silly. There are perfectly good ways around the problem. We can start a thread on it if you would like -- it would require getting all back into that form/matter distinction thing again.

What's so silly about it?  I could be in the Matrix, I could have an immaterial whatness, but I have no reason believe that either is the case.  When I get either a call from Morpheus, or some evidence of the immaterial affecting the material, I'll change my stance.

[Jac3510]

Fair enough, got it now.

So existence causes or brings about existence, is that what you're saying?

Yes, sir, that is what I am saying. I'll hold off on all the nuances I want to get into so as not to get technical, but yes. That is what I am saying. Existence in itself brings about existence in other things.


Sophus, you are probably right that I have a different view of essence than Sartre does. I am looking forward to reading the article as I don't know his position on the matter. Thanks for the link.

[i_am_i]

So existence causes or brings about existence, is that what you're saying?

Yes, sir, that is what I am saying. I'll hold off on all the nuances I want to get into so as not to get technical, but yes. That is what I am saying. Existence in itself brings about existence in other things.

How do you, we, human beings, know of existence?

[Jac3510]

How do you, we, human beings, know of existence?

It is what is called a brute fact. It just is, and we just know it. That's something Hack had right. Existence can't be denied. You perceive it in yourself, in your experiences, etc. If you don't exist, you can experience anything. The things you experience exist, even if they don't exist in the way you think they do (which is what HS was getting at--it's possible that nothing exists like you perceive it. See the video I linked to earlier). The bottom line is that existence is one of the very few things we can know with mathematical certainty.

[i_am_i]

How do you, we, human beings, know of existence?

It is what is called a brute fact. It just is, and we just know it.

I don't know it. I don't know it at all. Not that that matters one way or the other.

How do you "just know it?"

[Jac3510]

Because it can't be denied. It's like trying to deny the law of non-contradiction. You end up using it to reject it. It's irrational. if you say, "Nothing exists," then the very statement you just made disproves it, for at least that statement exists. It's an impossible-not-to-know truth.

[i_am_i]

Because it can't be denied. It's like trying to deny the law of non-contradiction. You end up using it to reject it. It's irrational. if you say, "Nothing exists," then the very statement you just made disproves it, for at least that statement exists. It's an impossible-not-to-know truth.

I certainly don't think that nothing exists, going by the definition of exists. I'm just wondering what, exactly, existence is and how we're to know what existence is based solely upon our perceptions.

[Jac3510]

I certainly don't think that nothing exists, going by the definition of exists. I'm just wondering what, exactly, existence is and how we're to know what existence is through our perceptions.

Asking what existence is, is a different question from asking how we know that it is. The latter is a brute fact. As far as what it is, we don't know. Allow me to quote what I said to Penfold in the Simplicity thread on the matter:

What is existence? You can't answer that. Even when you picture it, if you try to penetrate that concept, you find there is nothing in it. But is "existence" a meaningless word? Of course not! Existence is a brute fact, and thus, it is too primal to explain. All things are explained by it.

Now, just because we can't know what it is doesn't mean we can't know a thing or two about it. To take but one example, we know that existence is a part of us, but not the whole of us, because what I am is different from the fact that I am. We can learn quite a lot, actually, by studying existence. The field that studies it is called ontology.

[i_am_i]

I certainly don't think that nothing exists, going by the definition of exists. I'm just wondering what, exactly, existence is and how we're to know what existence is through our perceptions.

Asking what existence is, is a different question from asking how we know that it is. The latter is a brute fact. As far as what it is, we don't know. Allow me to quote what I said to Penfold in the Simplicity thread on the matter:

What is existence? You can't answer that. Even when you picture it, if you try to penetrate that concept, you find there is nothing in it. But is "existence" a meaningless word? Of course not! Existence is a brute fact, and thus, it is too primal to explain. All things are explained by it.

Now, just because we can't know what it is doesn't mean we can't know a thing or two about it. To take but one example, we know that existence is a part of us, but not the whole of us, because what I am is different from the fact that I am. We can learn quite a lot, actually, by studying existence. The field that studies it is called ontology.

You know what? I live in Atlanta. Want to get together at some point for a beer? It'll be on me.

Existence is, of course, a word, just a word. I'm sure that in your field of philosophy it has a particular meaning for the sake of argument but in the end it is only a word. And I really have no idea what that word means.

[Jac3510]

You know what? I live in Atlanta. Want to get together at some point for a beer? It'll be on me.

Existence is, of course, a word, just a word. I'm sure that in your field of philosophy it has a particular meaning for the sake of argument but in the end it is only a word. And I really have no idea what that word means.

It's not just a word, though. It is a word that points to something in reality. What is it that unicorns and fairies don't have that dogs and cats do? The latter exist. The former don't. We are talking about something real. Just because we can't conceptualize it doesn't mean it is "just a word."

And sure thing on the invite. I'm not a drinker (not for religious reasons), but shoot me a PM and we'll schedule something.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I hold existence to be axiomatic because that which doesn't exist cannot be around to ponder the nature of existence.  I know that Cogito ergo sum is hackneyed, but in the sense outlined above, it is pertinent.

[humblesmurph]

You know what? I live in Atlanta. Want to get together at some point for a beer? It'll be on me.

Existence is, of course, a word, just a word. I'm sure that in your field of philosophy it has a particular meaning for the sake of argument but in the end it is only a word. And I really have no idea what that word means.

It's not just a word, though. It is a word that points to something in reality. What is it that unicorns and fairies don't have that dogs and cats do? The latter exist. The former don't. We are talking about something real. Just because we can't conceptualize it doesn't mean it is "just a word."

And sure thing on the invite. I'm not a drinker (not for religious reasons), but shoot me a PM and we'll schedule something.

Jac,  The question "What is it that unicorns and fairies don't have that dogs and cats do? is silly.  Unicorns and fairies can't have or lack anything, because they don't exist.  You know it's sounds silly, that's why the next sentence is "The latter exists".  If you were to frame the answer the same way that the you  asked the question, the answer would be "The latter has existence".   Dogs don't have existence.  Dogs exist.  Unicorn is just a word.  Fairy is just a word. Existence is just a word.

When Sarte is talking about existence being prior to essence, he means that a man comes to be, and then he defines himself.  He's talking about a thing that exists, namely, man.  That makes sense.

When you say that existence is prior to essence, you aren't talking about the existence of a particular thing, you are talking about existence as a separate concept.  That doesn't make any sense.  You don't know what existence is, because you don't know what it isn't.  You can't study non-existence.  All you can know is that things exist.

[Jac3510]

Jac,  The question "What is it that unicorns and fairies don't have that dogs and cats do? is silly.  Unicorns and fairies can't have or lack anything, because they don't exist.  You know it's sounds silly, that's why the next sentence is "The latter exists".  If you were to frame the answer the same way that the you  asked the question, the answer would be "The latter has existence".   Dogs don't have existence.  Dogs exist.  Unicorn is just a word.  Fairy is just a word. Existence is just a word.

When Sarte is talking about existence being prior to essence, he means that a man comes to be, and then he defines himself.  He's talking about a thing that exists, namely, man.  That makes sense.

When you say that existence is prior to essence, you aren't talking about the existence of a particular thing, you are talking about existence as a separate concept.  That doesn't make any sense.  You don't know what existence is, because you don't know what it isn't.  You can't study non-existence.  All you can know is that things exist.

That's fine. I do know that Sartre was an existentialist. However, if a man comes into being and then defines himself as a dog, does that make him a dog?

No, he is still a man. What-He-Is is a man. I have said repeatedly that I am not capable of caring less what you call this what-it-is-ness about a thing. The scholastics called it essence, and it makes sense from an etymological perspective. But if that word has you hung up because you are thinking of Sartre's existentialism, then by all means, call it something else. When I, as a human, ask Sartre's question, "What am I?" I am not asking whether or not I am a human. I'm asking questions related to purpose, meaning, etc. (which I believe he proposed we give to our own selves, and in that sense, we define what we are).

You can theoretically be scholastic existentialist (the former being my position), at least in this area. The point I have been trying to get across for the entire time now is that things are what they are and they are not what they are not. Dogs are not cats. Trees are not birds. People are not clouds. The earth is not the universe. The universe is not an atom.

So, I have three questions for you, one which I have asked before that you never answered:

1. If a man defines himself as a dog, does that make him a dog? If not, why not?
2. Is there a difference between what a thing is and the stuff that makes up a thing?
3. Is there a difference between the stuff that makes up a thing and the fact that the thing exists?

[humblesmurph]

Jac,  The question "What is it that unicorns and fairies don't have that dogs and cats do? is silly.  Unicorns and fairies can't have or lack anything, because they don't exist.  You know it's sounds silly, that's why the next sentence is "The latter exists".  If you were to frame the answer the same way that the you  asked the question, the answer would be "The latter has existence".   Dogs don't have existence.  Dogs exist.  Unicorn is just a word.  Fairy is just a word. Existence is just a word.

When Sarte is talking about existence being prior to essence, he means that a man comes to be, and then he defines himself.  He's talking about a thing that exists, namely, man.  That makes sense.

When you say that existence is prior to essence, you aren't talking about the existence of a particular thing, you are talking about existence as a separate concept.  That doesn't make any sense.  You don't know what existence is, because you don't know what it isn't.  You can't study non-existence.  All you can know is that things exist.

That's fine. I do know that Sartre was an existentialist. However, if a man comes into being and then defines himself as a dog, does that make him a dog?

No, he is still a man. What-He-Is is a man. I have said repeatedly that I am not capable of caring less what you call this what-it-is-ness about a thing. The scholastics called it essence, and it makes sense from an etymological perspective. But if that word has you hung up because you are thinking of Sartre's existentialism, then by all means, call it something else. When I, as a human, ask Sartre's question, "What am I?" I am not asking whether or not I am a human. I'm asking questions related to purpose, meaning, etc. (which I believe he proposed we give to our own selves, and in that sense, we define what we are).

You can theoretically be scholastic existentialist (the former being my position), at least in this area. The point I have been trying to get across for the entire time now is that things are what they are and they are not what they are not. Dogs are not cats. Trees are not birds. People are not clouds. The earth is not the universe. The universe is not an atom.

So, I have three questions for you, one which I have asked before that you never answered:

1. If a man defines himself as a dog, does that make him a dog? If not, why not?
2. Is there a difference between what a thing is and the stuff that makes up a thing?
3. Is there a difference between the stuff that makes up a thing and the fact that the thing exists?

1. No. He can't mate with dogs.    

2. No

3. No

I'm not hung up on any words.  I know what "what a thing is" is.  It's a figment of the imagination.  Just because we observe that dogs aren't men doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "what a thing is".

I have 3 questions for you.

1. Is a horse a zebra?

2. Is a tiger a lion?

3. Is a a wolf a dog?

If not, explain why.