Arguments for God

[Tank]

You read my posts you will have noticed I also took Hack to task for his behaviour. Now are you going to engage with a 'new improved polite Hack' and get on with the discussion or not? That's the point isn't it? Are you going to un-foe Hack and engage in a meaningful discussion if he will?

I've already stated that I am willing to have a meaningful conversation with anyone. It must be noted, though, that just because you or anyone on this board tells him to "play nice" doesn't mean he will. That is a decision he has to come to himself.

So, put it this way: until he tells me that he wants to "play nice," there won't be any discussion between the two of us. It is, again, a simple matter of respect. It isn't personal. I will un-foe him and allow him to make that statement publicly, if he likes, as he has not taken the opportunity to do so privately. It's completely his choice. If he wants to engage my positions in a mutually respectful manner, I am game. If not, the foe button still works.

edit: took out the "master" comment as, in this context, it could be taken negatively.

Edit: It has been requested of me that I tone it down a bit, so that people can see how this progresses, and I have agreed. I would like it made absolutely clear that I have in no way attacked the poster, I have only attacked his ideas. That some have difficulty separating their ideas from themselves is an issue, but it isn't really mine. Bad ideas exist only to be destroyed.

Good. Problem solved! You can un-foe Hack and get on with it.  

Seconds out, round two and lets have a good clean fight Ding! Ding!

[McQ]

You read my posts you will have noticed I also took Hack to task for his behaviour. Now are you going to engage with a 'new improved polite Hack' and get on with the discussion or not? That's the point isn't it? Are you going to un-foe Hack and engage in a meaningful discussion if he will?

I've already stated that I am willing to have a meaningful conversation with anyone. It must be noted, though, that just because you or anyone on this board tells him to "play nice" doesn't mean he will. That is a decision he has to come to himself.

So, put it this way: until he tells me that he wants to "play nice," there won't be any discussion between the two of us. It is, again, a simple matter of respect. It isn't personal. I will un-foe him and allow him to make that statement publicly, if he likes, as he has not taken the opportunity to do so privately. It's completely his choice. If he wants to engage my positions in a mutually respectful manner, I am game. If not, the foe button still works.

edit: took out the "master" comment as, in this context, it could be taken negatively.

Just to put a note of assurance into this for jac. Tank has set out a very good reasoned request to hack, and although it's up to hack to ignore that request or not, I can tell you that the thread won't last long if he doesn't. But not just hack. The thread won't last long unless everyone acknowledges that this is a forum for serious discussion of the topic at hand, and no sarcasm, snide comments, or any other form of baiting will be tolerated.

So jac please be assured that everyone will play by the rules, or will be shown the exit. I don't think it has gotten out of hand, but it is a good time to remind everyone that I won't put up with people wasting everyones' time with anything but thoughtful discourse. This thread is extremely complicated and hard to follow, and doesn't need any sidetracking to make it more difficult.

Thanks everyone, for your cooperation.

[hackenslash]

OK, I'm going to take some time and begin at the beginning, in order to ensure that I don't miss anything. This may take some time, and probably quite a few posts, but I'm going to crack on.

[i_am_i]

I'll tell you what, Chris. How about you and I start all over again. Let's wipe the slate clean and start over, what do you say?

I'll list your Argument from Subsistent Existence, and then I'll ask two questions and then you answer them. Surely that's okay, right? Surely that's allowed.

That's all that's expected.

What is "God," and why do you spell it with a capital G?

A "being" (in the popular sense of the word - in the technical sense, see the simplicity thread) in which dwells all perfections. In other words, that which is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, etc.

I see. Well, who discovered this being, who figured all this out? The idea has to have come from somewhere.

And why is this being that someone discovered or figured out called "God" with a capital G?

[Jac3510]

You read my posts you will have noticed I also took Hack to task for his behaviour. Now are you going to engage with a 'new improved polite Hack' and get on with the discussion or not? That's the point isn't it? Are you going to un-foe Hack and engage in a meaningful discussion if he will?

I've already stated that I am willing to have a meaningful conversation with anyone. It must be noted, though, that just because you or anyone on this board tells him to "play nice" doesn't mean he will. That is a decision he has to come to himself.

So, put it this way: until he tells me that he wants to "play nice," there won't be any discussion between the two of us. It is, again, a simple matter of respect. It isn't personal. I will un-foe him and allow him to make that statement publicly, if he likes, as he has not taken the opportunity to do so privately. It's completely his choice. If he wants to engage my positions in a mutually respectful manner, I am game. If not, the foe button still works.

edit: took out the "master" comment as, in this context, it could be taken negatively.

Just to put a note of assurance into this for jac. Tank has set out a very good reasoned request to hack, and although it's up to hack to ignore that request or not, I can tell you that the thread won't last long if he doesn't. But not just hack. The thread won't last long unless everyone acknowledges that this is a forum for serious discussion of the topic at hand, and no sarcasm, snide comments, or any other form of baiting will be tolerated.

So jac please be assured that everyone will play by the rules, or will be shown the exit. I don't think it has gotten out of hand, but it is a good time to remind everyone that I won't put up with people wasting everyones' time with anything but thoughtful discourse. This thread is extremely complicated and hard to follow, and doesn't need any sidetracking to make it more difficult.

Thanks everyone, for your cooperation.

Fair enough on all counts.

As it stands, Hack challenged my opening statement with special pleading, which I acknowledged and modified. The mistake was strictly with my presentation, as my argument is based on Aquinas' own, and I offered Aquinas' own words to demonstrate where I had mis-stepped. Again, the issue is that I pointed to the necessity of a FC because an infinite regress is impossible, whereas the converse is true. An infinite regress is impossible because it would deny a FC. We know the FC exists because an essentially ordered causal chain requires a non-contingent cause to account for its existence. Let me explain by way of two illustrations, one Aquinas' own, and one modern.

Suppose you see a rock moving. What is causing the movement? You notice it is being pushed by a stick. The movement of the stick is causing the movement of the rock. What is causing the movement of the stick? A hand is pushing the stick. The movement of the hand is causing the movement of the stick. What is causing the movement of the hand? The person to whom the hand belongs. He is the first cause in this sense. He is not first in time, for his movement is temporally simultaneous with the rock's movement. He is the first in priority, which our language recognizes, as we may well say, "He moved the rock." That would be true, even though his movement of the rock was through two intermediate causes. Now, there could theoretically be an infinite set of intermediate causes, but unless there is a first cause, there will never be any movement.

This can be illustrated by a boxcar train. You can have an infinite boxcar chain very simply by hooking them up in a circle. They will, however, never move unless there is an engine--a first cause--to pull them.

Accidentally ordered causal chains can regress infinitely because each efficient cause is capable of causing the effect in and of itself. If I hit a ball and the ball hits the window and the window breaks, I can remove myself as soon as the ball is hit and the window will still break. My grandfather can die and my child will still live. For all philosophy knows (science may know otherwise), humans have existed eternally. Not so with an essentially ordered causal chain. If you remove the engine, the boxcars stop moving. If you remove the person, the rock stops moving. Essentially ordered causal chains, because they are essentially ordered, require a first cause to account for efficient causality.

There is, then, no special pleading, as per Hack's original charge. Since being is an accidental property of all things (though prior to all things; HS is right that existence precedes essence), and since all essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality, then all being is received through efficient causality; since all essentially ordered efficient causes require a prime mover, and since all being comes through efficient causality,then all being comes from the prime mover; therefore, the prime mover is not efficiently caused but has its being within itself, which we technically call subsistent existence. Since all effects are virtually present in their causes and since the prime mover is the cause of all things, then all effects are virtually present in the prime mover. Since all perfections are effects and since all effects are virtually in the prime mover, all perfections are virtually present in the prime mover. Since perfections are obtained in being, and since the prime mover has its being in itself, then all perfections are obtained in the prime mover. That which obtains all perfections is commonly referred to as God. Therefore, God exists.

Hack - looking forward to the discussion.

edit:

I see. Well, who discovered this being, who figured all this out? The idea has to have come from somewhere.

Who knows who discovered it historically? Who discovered fire? I don't know, but I use it every day. The origin of an argument isn't important. The question is whether or not it is true. To judge something as true or not based on its origin is illogical. If you found out your elementary school teacher was a rapist, you wouldn't conclude your times tables were false.

Ideas are to be judged on their merits, not on where they came from.

[hackenslash]

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).
2.   All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3.   Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.
4.   Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.
5.   Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent.
6.   There cannot be an infinite regress of essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.

Here's my first objection, and it's along the lines of the fallacy of equivocation. Here we have two very different usages of the word 'being'. This may seem like a minor objection, but it's actually a whopper, because the second usage is one I'm going to be voicing a very strong objection to shortly as we move through the argument.

The second issue also arises here, in the form of the premise itself, which rests on a) something that can't be demonstrated and b) a misunderstanding of what the word 'infinite' means. This word has a very specific meaning. It isn't a quantity. This objection must be addressed, as this usage is central to the entire argument. This premise (P6) is a commission of the bare assertion fallacy.

There are other issues as well, though none quite as big as that one. From here on in, I'll be referencing the objections from the point where the fallacy becomes clear.

7.   Therefore, for any series of essentially ordered efficiently caused beings, there must be a first causal being.

And here is the major objection with regard to the equivocation above. You will need to select another word for this sense of being to avoid the fallacy. I can see a problem on the horizon for you in this regard, namely that the only word available for this sense of 'being' is 'entity', which is not actually equivalent to 'being'. A being is an entity, but an entity is not necessarily a being. I would have no objection to the word 'entity', but I will certainly object if this entity is actually to have any intent, unless that intent is justified. The universe is an entity, but it is not a being.

8.   A first causal being cannot receive its being from outside itself.

Setting aside the equivocation and the objectionable use of the word 'being' for a moment, there is something that is being overlooked in this premise, namely the concept of a 'brute fact'. I understand that you have objections to the way I presented this earlier, but the objections still stand.

9.   Therefore, there must be a being which does not receive its being through efficient causality, but for which being is its essence. Being which exists in itself is called subsistent existence.
10.   A first causal being is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
11.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
12.   All non-subsistent being is part of an essentially ordered efficiently causal chain of being.
13.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all things.

Well done. Apart (again) from the use of the word 'being', you've just described the universe.

14.   All perfections must have an efficient cause.
15.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all perfections.

I'm going to leave this for now, but I will come back to it when I get to your definition of 'perfection'

16.   The effect of any efficient cause pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause.

What is meant here by 'virtually'. I know of several rigorous definitions, none of which make any sense in this context.

17.   Therefore, perfections exist virtually in subsistent existence.

Well, apart from objections to 'perfections', which I will come to, the term 'subsistent existence', in the sense you are employing it, is tautological. In the context of this definition, subsistence is existence. This is unnecessarily clouding the issue.

18.   A perfection is obtained in being.

This, I have to object to, for all kinds of reasons. Firstly, this is a sudden entry into the ontological argument. You might just have said 'maximal greatness' and had done with it. The objections to this line of argumentation are many, not least that there are many things that would not be considered 'perfect' by existence. I can raise all the standard objections here without breaking a sweat. The obvious one is that an entity that could create a universe without existing would be far more impressive than an extant one, thus attaining a level of perfection, even given your definition, that is not attanable by an extant entity, thus refuting the extant entity's perfection. Frankly, all I really need say about this is that it's a bare assertion, and therefore fallacious.

19.   Therefore, all perfections obtain in subsistent existence.

Again, tautology aside, this is bare assertion.

20.   A being which obtains all perfections is, by definition, God.

This is again an assertion that must be justified, not least by actually defining god.

21.   Therefore, God exists.

This 'therefore' is unattached. The argument is invalid. You haven't demonstrated that there is any such thing as 'an entity which obtains all perfections', you have only asserted that, should such an entity exist, it would be god by definition (again, setting aside my objection to that). There is no logic chain between one assertion and the other. The argument is simply incomplete, and riddled with fallacies.

Moving on to your definitions, I'll only deal with the ones I object to.

Subsistent being - Being that has its own nature essentially rather than accidentally.

I have to object to this, because this constitutes a contradiction. You described 'accident' as:

Accident - an aspect of a thing that can change without changing what the thing fundamentally is; i.e., hair color, height, weight, number of limbs, etc.

Since what the thing fundamentally is is its essence, and an accident is something that cannot change its essence, then ALL things have their own natures essentially rather than accidentally.

Perfection - For our purposes, a non-limiting predicate corresponding to potency in its subject; i.e., sight (in eyes), knowledge (in minds), power (in beings), etc.

So what you're talking about here is the three omnis, or at least it looks very much like you're attempting to sneak the omnis in under the radar. Of course, that isn't going to work, since one of the omnis is logically absurd and self-refuting, one of the other two is refuted by the aforementioned self-refuting one, and the third would provide a means to evidence that this entity exists.

Predicates like "tall" are not perfections as they are actually expressions of limitations (we are "tall" only in that our being is limited to a certain dimensional extension).

This is wrong. 'tall' is not an expression of a limitation. It certainly describes a single dimensional extansion, but not to the exclusion of any others.

I shall await your response to this post before I respond to later posts, just in case you still feel you don't want to talk to me. The olive branch has been proffered. The ball is in your court.

[Jac3510]

Just what I was looking for, Hack. Thank you very much for the sensible response.

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).
2.   All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3.   Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.
4.   Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.
5.   Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent.
6.   There cannot be an infinite regress of essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.

Here's my first objection, and it's along the lines of the fallacy of equivocation. Here we have two very different usages of the word 'being'. This may seem like a minor objection, but it's actually a whopper, because the second usage is one I'm going to be voicing a very strong objection to shortly as we move through the argument.

The second issue also arises here, in the form of the premise itself, which rests on a) something that can't be demonstrated and b) a misunderstanding of what the word 'infinite' means. This word has a very specific meaning. It isn't a quantity. This objection must be addressed, as this usage is central to the entire argument. This premise (P6) is a commission of the bare assertion fallacy.

There are other issues as well, though none quite as big as that one. From here on in, I'll be referencing the objections from the point where the fallacy becomes clear.

I made reference to this difficulty earlier, I think to Sophus, but I'm not sure to whom. However, I am going to leave it to you to be more specific. In which of these premises is the word "being" used differently? You assert that it is. You need to demonstrate that to be the case.

Your second issue only mentions "the premise." You don't specify which one, so I can't demonstrate which one you want.

Third, we've already covered the fact that 6 is stated improperly. We can ignore the infinite regress all the way around. We can rephrase this section as follows:

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).
2.   All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3.   Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.
4.   Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.
5.   Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent (which is to say, all essences are contingent)
6.   That which is contingent must rely on that which is not contingent for its existence.
7.     Therefore, essentially ordered efficient causes rely on a non-contingent (that is, necessary) cause for their being, which is called a first cause

I'll hold off on the rest, including discussions on definitions, until they come up in the argument. No reason to get ahead of ourselves. The only definition we need to deal with is "accident" since you objected to it. You said:

Since what the thing fundamentally is is its essence, and an accident is something that cannot change its essence, then ALL things have their own natures essentially rather than accidentally.

This is just trivially true. I never argued that things have their essences accidentally. I said certain properties are received accidentally, i.e., whiteness, baldness, and being. These things do not change what a thing is. Your objection is unclear. Perhaps you just misread me?

[Sophus]

Hack and Jac - 2010

Sounds epic.

[i_am_i]

I see. Well, who discovered this being, who figured all this out? The idea has to have come from somewhere.

Who knows who discovered it historically? Who discovered fire? I don't know, but I use it every day.

Do you use capital G "God" every day? If so, how?

[hackenslash]

I made reference to this difficulty earlier, I think to Sophus, but I'm not sure to whom. However, I am going to leave it to you to be more specific. In which of these premises is the word "being" used differently? You assert that it is. You need to demonstrate that to be the case.

In (P1), you employ being as a property, in the sense of 'having existence'. In (P6) you employ it as an entity or 'a being'. You must pick one or the other before we can proceed.

Your second issue only mentions "the premise." You don't specify which one, so I can't demonstrate which one you want.

Err, I did specify which premise, namely (P6).

Third, we've already covered the fact that 6 is stated improperly.

Well, I'm working from the beginning onward, with no reference to the objections of others, so I ask that you humour me in this regard. I apologise if it means rehashing what others have already said, but I'm concentrating only on your posts in this thread for now, so that I don't become sidetracked. In any event, I don't think it's just improperly stated, it's a bare assertion.

We can ignore the infinite regress all the way around.

I'm sorry, but we can't. You have yet to demonstrate that you are working from anything like a rigorous definition of 'infinite'. You have also to demonstrate that infinite regress is not possible. As it happens, even were you to demonstrate this in a robust fashion, it wouldn't put a dent in my argument, because I already have the entity that halts the regress, as detailed in an earlier post. If you would like me to edit out the invective so that you can deal with the very solid objections in that post, say the word. There are some pretty damning points in that post, and they won't be going away anytime soon.

1

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).

There is a glaring problem here. Can essence exist without being? Is it possible for something to be without essence? If these things are possible, then your definitions are in deep trouble.

2.   All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3.   Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.

This overlooks the conept of the brute fact once more. Existence itself is a brute fact.

4.   Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.

Can something that has no being have 'essence'?

5.   Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent (which is to say, all essences are contingent)

Again, what of brute facts? Surely a brute fact requires no cause, efficient or otherwise. Since existence is a brute fact, whether you posit an agent or not (big clue: the external agent also requires existence), it requires no external agent. Moreover, since the universe is 'that which exists', and existence is a brute fact, we can state quite simply that the universe is a brute fact, and requires no cause. I'd be happy to justify my definition of 'universe', if you wish, and I know for a fact it will stand any test you throw at it.

6.   That which is contingent must rely on that which is not contingent for its existence.

Sorry, but this is just absurd. The concept of a chain applies to contingency in precisely the same way it applies to causality. This is trivial to demonstrate with a simple example. Life (as we know it) is contingent upon the existence of carbon, which is contingent upon the triple-alpha process, which is contingent upon stellar death, which is...

Need I go on?

7.     Therefore, essentially ordered efficient causes rely on a non-contingent (that is, necessary) cause for their being, which is called a first cause

And once again, with the premises leading to this conclusion being thoroughly dubious (and in some cases flat out wrong), the conclusion is unsound.

I'll hold off on the rest, including discussions on definitions, until they come up in the argument. No reason to get ahead of ourselves. The only definition we need to deal with is "accident" since you objected to it. You said:

Since what the thing fundamentally is is its essence, and an accident is something that cannot change its essence, then ALL things have their own natures essentially rather than accidentally.

This is just trivially true. I never argued that things have their essences accidentally. I said certain properties are received accidentally, i.e., whiteness, baldness, and being. These things do not change what a thing is. Your objection is unclear. Perhaps you just misread me?

My objection was actually to the definition of 'subsistent being' (which still includes the equivocatory usage, BTW). You are either contradicting yourself or unnecessarily obfuscating with a tautology. If that is the case, then your definition of 'subsistent beings' is without utility, because it includes ALL beings (and indeed all entities.

Now, I ask that, in your next post, you deal with the real objections I have raised to your entire line of argumentation, which are as follows:

1. Choose a sense of the word 'being' and adhere to that sense and only that sense, and choose a different word for the other sense.
2. Demonstrate that your use of 'infinity' is rigorous, and that you actually understand what it means. This is critical, because your assertion that infinite regress is not possible is the core of your argument and hasn't, IMO, been remotely addressed.
3. Demonstrate that you have grasped the concept of a 'brute fact', and demonstrate that this concept, which is a defeater for your entire argument, does not apply in this case.

[Tank]

Hack and Jac - 2010

Sounds epic. :pop:  while we watch?

[Jac3510]

1. Choose a sense of the word 'being' and adhere to that sense and only that sense, and choose a different word for the other sense.
2. Demonstrate that your use of 'infinity' is rigorous, and that you actually understand what it means. This is critical, because your assertion that infinite regress is not possible is the core of your argument and hasn't, IMO, been remotely addressed.
3. Demonstrate that you have grasped the concept of a 'brute fact', and demonstrate that this concept, which is a defeater for your entire argument, does not apply in this case.

I'll cover these first, since this is at the top of your list, then line by line the rest.

1. The restatement already provided solves the issue. In either case, it turns out there was no equivocation since a "being" in P6 is "that which has being [as a property]," and the property of being is that which is referred to in P1. As I said, however, the restatement is what you need to deal with, as that is the intended argument.

2. The argument does not rely on infinity at all, much less is it at the core of my argument. I have already said as much. You can ignore it if you like, but the restatement makes clear that we don't believe in the FC because an infinity is impossible. As I have said repeatedly now to you, my original presentation was mis-stated. Aquinas himself did not argue for the FC from an impossible infinite, and nor am I. My inclusion of that was a mistake on my part which has now been corrected.

3. You did not bring up brute facts until P8. I stopped at P7, because P1-7 was rephrased to account for the infinity problem in relation to the FC, which also accounts for the supposed problem of equivocation. I no more ignored that than I ignored your question on perfections. We'll get to it when the time comes. Now that you have decided to bring the brute fact argument against the first part of the argument, I will deal with it as you raise it in the discussion below.

With that out of the way . . .

In (P1), you employ being as a property, in the sense of 'having existence'. In (P6) you employ it as an entity or 'a being'. You must pick one or the other before we can proceed.

See the rephrase.

Err, I did specify which premise, namely (P6).

See the rephrase.

Well, I'm working from the beginning onward, with no reference to the objections of others, so I ask that you humour me in this regard. I apologise if it means rehashing what others have already said, but I'm concentrating only on your posts in this thread for now, so that I don't become sidetracked. In any event, I don't think it's just improperly stated, it's a bare assertion.

I said "we've already covered," not "I've already covered." You and I have already had this discussion. In any case, it was covered again in the rephrase. So . . .

See the rephrase.

I'm sorry, but we can't. You have yet to demonstrate that you are working from anything like a rigorous definition of 'infinite'. You have also to demonstrate that infinite regress is not possible. As it happens, even were you to demonstrate this in a robust fashion, it wouldn't put a dent in my argument, because I already have the entity that halts the regress, as detailed in an earlier post. If you would like me to edit out the invective so that you can deal with the very solid objections in that post, say the word. There are some pretty damning points in that post, and they won't be going away anytime soon.

The rephrase never mentions an infinite. It has no part of the argument. So . . .

See the rephrase.

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).

There is a glaring problem here. Can essence exist without being? Is it possible for something to be without essence? If these things are possible, then your definitions are in deep trouble.

Essences cannot exist without being. You are just asking "Can something be without being?" We are capable of talking about these things in abstraction, however, to help us identify what is going on. "Essence"--which is to say, what-a-thing-is--is a meaningful concept apart from existence. Unicorns have an essence, even though they don't actually exist. They only exist in our minds.

Let me give two pieces of background information to make this clearer to our readers.

1. Individual words point to essences. "Dog," "Cat," "Tree," and "Man" are all words. They point to concepts, which are in some sense reflective of realty (although the way in which that reflection works is a matter of very, very deep dispute). Each of these concepts can be analyzed and broken down into component parts. Thus common to "dog," "cat," and "man," is the concept "animality," etc. These words, by themselves, however, do not tell us that any of these things actually are, that is, that they exist. For that, you have to add a predicate. "Men are" is not a complete sentence in English and is thus bad grammar, although in a language like Greek, that isn't the case: anthropos estin is perfectly meaningful and would probably be translated into English as, "Mankind exists."

In the sentence "Mankind exists" we have a distinction between the essence of man and the existence of man. The first word "mankind" calls to mind a concept. The second word "exists" predicates something to that concept, namely, existence.

2. None of the singular words above contain within themselves the concept of existence. They point to natures or essences--what-a-thing-is--but not to whether or not they exist. Anselm's ontological argument fails precisely because it does not recognize this. A "maximally great being"--the words point to an essence, what-the-thing-is--is not changed by adding the concept "existence." This is actually because existence is conceptually empty. This requires a bit of explaining but is extremely important to explain in detail P1.

a. When we encounter something, say a man, our mind apprehends the thing's nature---that is, what it is. For our argument it doesn't matter if it does this by means of the immaterial form being pressed on our mind as in Aristotle or if our mind constructs an image of sensory data as in Descarte. What is important is that when we encounter a thing, we identify what it is. I am walking down the street, and I meet a man. "Man" is the thing I meet. This apprehension of nature or essence is called simple apprehension. The mind apprehends natures or essences. Such natures are conceptually meaningful, as discussed above. The concept "man" has quite a bit of meaning.

b. We do not, however, perceive the existence of a thing through simple apprehension. The reason is evident enough when you try to conceptualize existence. You can have a meaningful concept of man, or dog, or cat, or anything else sensible. You can have no meaningful concept of existence. As stated above, it is empty. Existence just is. It cannot be broken down any further, which is why, again, doesn't add anything to a concept. Since apprehension only deals with concepts, and there is no concept being apprehended in existence, then we are dealing with something else. The perceive that a thing is is called judgment in scholastic philosophy. That is,we judge a thing to exist. Now, we cannot apprehend anything without first judging it exists, nor can we judge anything exists without apprehending its nature. This is because, in reality, all things, if they are real, exist. It is absurd to try to apprehend a non-existent thing, and we cannot judge that a thing exists if the thing isn't anything.

Thus, while existence and essence are found in the same things in reality, they can be, and must be, distinguished in a logical and philosophical sense. In other words, and this is the important point, existence and essence are not the same thing. And of course, things that are not the same must be different, which is to say, they are distinguished. Both our language and our thoughts force this distinction. "Man exists" makes the distinction evident.

A final note, this is even true of things that have only cognitive existence, such as unicorns (and Hack would argue, God ). Thus, we can endow "nothing" with existence--and we must do so--to talk about it. "Nothing" becomes a concept that is given existence in our mind, although, like existence itself, as a concept, it is meaningless.

So the first premise is a fairly obvious point. Being is an accidental property of all essences.

2.   All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3.   Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.

This overlooks the conept of the brute fact once more. Existence itself is a brute fact.

Yes, existence is a brute fact. It's relationship to essence is not. The equality of essence with existence is not only not a brute fact, it is false.

4.   Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.

Can something that has no being have 'essence'?

Logically, yes. A further distinction may be helpful here.

I mentioned above the possibility of cognitive existence. This would be opposed to what we might call real existence. The former refers to things that exist only in the mind and the latter to things that exist outside the mind. Another way to talk about real existence--those things that exist outside the mind--is to say the thing has its existence within itself.

Everyone agrees that unicorns exist differently from horses. The first does not have its existence in itself. It has its existence in the mind. The latter has its existence in itself (and very often, in our minds as well). Essences in reality have their being in themselves. When discussing the concept, they can, and must, as shown above, be distinguished.

5.   Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent (which is to say, all essences are contingent)

Again, what of brute facts? Surely a brute fact requires no cause, efficient or otherwise. Since existence is a brute fact, whether you posit an agent or not (big clue: the external agent also requires existence), it requires no external agent. Moreover, since the universe is 'that which exists', and existence is a brute fact, we can state quite simply that the universe is a brute fact, and requires no cause. I'd be happy to justify my definition of 'universe', if you wish, and I know for a fact it will stand any test you throw at it.

This is proof that your "brute fact" argument fails. Let's say that my existence is a brute fact. If "a brute fact requires no cause," then my existence requires no cause. But surely that is absurd, for my existence most certainly needs a cause. I have my parents to thank for that.

This is one of the places I am finding your argument a bit silly so far. You are so worried about proving me wrong, that you don't stop to look at the statement you are disagreeing with. Do you really think that I gave myself existence? That's absurd. Do you really think that you are not a contingent being? That is absurd. Things don't give themselves existence. They don't bring themselves into existence. They don't take themselves out of existence. Yesterday, the house I am in was not here. It had no existence. It then received its existence in the mind of an architect, and soon, it came into existence. Today, it has its existence in itself. But tomorrow, it will be gone again. It will be torn down and paved over, and it will have no existence anywhere except in the minds of people who remember it. This proves two things:

1. That we can, must, and do talk about things all the time that don't exist, and therefore, the two terms are distinguished; and
2. Things don't bring themselves into existence. They are brought into existence by other things.

This principle is so obviously true it is just utterly silly to try to deny it.

6.   That which is contingent must rely on that which is not contingent for its existence.

Sorry, but this is just absurd. The concept of a chain applies to contingency in precisely the same way it applies to causality. This is trivial to demonstrate with a simple example. Life (as we know it) is contingent upon the existence of carbon, which is contingent upon the triple-alpha process, which is contingent upon stellar death, which is...

Need I go on?

It's not absurd. It's obvious. Your statement doesn't disagree with mine at all. You are just further explaining the meaning of contingency.

7.     Therefore, essentially ordered efficient causes rely on a non-contingent (that is, necessary) cause for their being, which is called a first cause

And once again, with the premises leading to this conclusion being thoroughly dubious (and in some cases flat out wrong), the conclusion is unsound.

Considering the fact that your entire argument rests upon a false equation between essence and existence, which is obviously false on any level and simply absurd, there's nothing unsound about the conclusion. You are free, of course, to try again, or to demonstrate that, in fact, essence and existence are one in the same thing.

We'll deal with subsistent existence when we get there.

[hackenslash]

1. The restatement already provided solves the issue. In either case, it turns out there was no equivocation since a "being" in P6 is "that which has being [as a property]," and the property of being is that which is referred to in P1. As I said, however, the restatement is what you need to deal with, as that is the intended argument.

I already dealt with that restatement, which doesn't solve your problem but introduces the further problem of being circular. You quoted Aquinas thus:

Since there must be a first mover, therefore there cannot be an infinite regress.

This is a clear case of circular reasoning. Your first statement was, in essence, 'there cannot be infinite regress so there must be a PM', now you are saying, 'there must be a PM, so there cannot be an infinite regress'. You're simply switching the statements around, while both statements are blind assertions. Either formulation is clearly begging the question. This formulation does not help your argument.

2. The argument does not rely on infinity at all, much less is it at the core of my argument. I have already said as much. You can ignore it if you like, but the restatement makes clear that we don't believe in the FC because an infinity is impossible. As I have said repeatedly now to you, my original presentation was mis-stated. Aquinas himself did not argue for the FC from an impossible infinite, and nor am I. My inclusion of that was a mistake on my part which has now been corrected.

No, the restatement simply swaps the statements, and in no way addresses the objection that both statements are mere blind assertions, with no evidential support. In any event, are you now retracting the statement that an infinite regress is impossible? Your entire argument from contingency and causality rests upon this, since any assertion of a prime mover requires this. Without the impossibility of infinite regress, no prime mover is necessary, however you slice it. This requires of you that you address my objection to your use of infinity.

3. Existence certainly is a brute facts. The relationship between essence and existence is not. More importantly, you did not bring up brute facts until P8. I stopped at P7, because P1-7 was rephrased to account for the infinity problem in relation to the FC, which also accounts for the supposed problem of equivocation.

Firstly, I brought up brute facts a good deal before that, although without explicitly using the term. Indeed, it was in my very first post, thus:

Mostly, I object to this entire line of argumentation for stipulative, definitional reasons. The universe is literally 'that which exists'. That's what the word means. Most damningly for your argument, it also includes that which you are trying to assert as a first, uncaused cause. Since the universe is everything in existence, it isn't remotely stretching the point to state that the universe is  existence, and that anything that exists, therefore, is a subset thereof, including any creator entity. This is very basic. If it exists, it's part of the universe.

This has a corrollary implication, which is also inescapable, namely that there cannot be a first cause of all being, because that which exists is, and any cause, in the form of a causal agent or otherwise, is necessarily existent infinitely, or was caused by something that is. In other words, you may say god, while I say universe. Your conception of an uncaused cause is predicated on the existence of mine, and contingent thereupon. What does this do for the idea of a creator of the universe? It renders it absurd, which is precisely what all conceptions of a creator are.

This post cites existence, and the universe, as a brute fact.

As for the problem of equivocation, you haven't remotely addressed it. The word being, in both of the sense you have used, has a very precise definition. In the first sense, a verb, it is simply existence. In the second, a noun, it is an entity, and one that, moreover, has will and intent implicit. This is the source of my objection. You are using two very distinct senses, and your hand-waving doesn't remotely address my objection. If you mean the second sense as merely an entity, then I have no objection, but you cannot use the two senses without committing the fallacy of equivocation, not least because it leaves the door open to the later bait and switch when you imply that this entity must have will.

See the rephrase.

See my objection to the rephrase, which only introduces more problems.

See the rephrase.

Already addressed. This is not discourse, not least because your rephrase was addressed quite some time ago. Is this to be the way we proceed?

I said "we've already covered," not "I've already covered." You and I have already had this discussion. In any case, it was covered again in the rephrase. So . . .

And I'd already addressed your rephrase, and have done so again above. So...

See the rephrase.

Tedious.

Essences cannot exist without being. You are just asking "Can something be without being?" We are capable of talking about these things in abstraction, however, to help us identify what is going on. "Essence"--which is to say, what-a-thing-is--is a meaningful concept apart from existence. Unicorns have an essence, even though they don't actually exist. They only exist in our minds.

Conceptual existence is still existence, is it not? That's what the navel-gazers are always telling me.

Snip...
So the first premise is a fairly obvious point. Being is an accidental property of all essences.

This is interesting. I'll have to give this some thought.

Yes, existence is a brute fact. It's relationship to essence is not. The equality of essence with existence is not only not a brute fact, it is false.

I suggest that depends on what you're talking about, The essence of the universe is, in fact, existence. That's at least one thing that defies this definition. Having said that, this is irrelevant to the point I was making, namely that your entire argument from causality and contingency overlooks the concept of brute fact. Bringing essence into this particular portion of the discussion is a bait and switch. Please deal with the objection, rather than wandering off at a tangent.

Logically, yes. A further distinction may be helpful here.

I mentioned above the possibility of cognitive existence. This would be opposed to what we might call real existence. The former refers to things that exist only in the mind and the latter to things that exist outside the mind. Another way to talk about real existence--those things that exist outside the mind--is to say the thing has its existence within itself.

Actually, I have to object here. That which exists only conceptually still has essence, under your definition. It may not be the same or equivalent to the essence of the real, but it must still have essence. All things that exist, regardless of the nature of their existence, have essence. Even Yahweh, who most certainly does not exist, has essence.

Everyone agrees that unicorns exist differently from horses. The first does not have its existence in itself. It has its existence in the mind. The latter has its existence in itself (and very often, in our minds as well). Essences in reality have their being in themselves. When discussing the concept, they can, and must, as shown above, be distinguished.

No, this isn't correct. Just because the essence is different doesn't remotely suggest that it has no essence. For something to exist, it must be. To be it has something which is intrinsically it, therefore, under your very own definition, essence.

This is proof that your "brute fact" argument fails. Let's say that my existence is a brute fact. If "a brute fact requires no cause," then my existence requires no cause. But surely that is absurd, for my existence most certainly needs a cause. I have my parents to thank for that.

And here we have a clear case of utterly missing the point. I didn't say that your existence was a brute fact, but that existence itself was. The universe is everything which exists, including whatever, if anything, preceded the big bang, and also any creator entity. Your existence (with due regard to the simple fact that that which makes you existed long before you did, and actually requiring a cause would violate the first... ah but that's the Kalam fallacy refutation, so I'll not erect it here) does require a cause, at least within the confines of how we are currently defining you

This is one of the places I am finding your argument a bit silly so far.

It seems silly because you have clearly misunderstood it. Read up.

You are so worried about proving me wrong,

Actually, truth be known, I don't really care about proving you wrong. I only care about addressing what is wrong.

 

that you don't stop to look at the statement you are disagreeing with. Do you really think that I gave myself existence? That's absurd. Do you really think that you are not a contingent being? That is absurd. Things don't give themselves existence. They don't bring themselves into existence. They don't take themselves out of existence. Yesterday, the house I am in was not here. It had no existence. It then received its existence in the mind of an architect, and soon, it came into existence. Today, it has its existence in itself. But tomorrow, it will be gone again. It will be torn down and paved over, and it will have no existence anywhere except in the minds of people who remember it.

Again, still missing the point. It would have been better if you had attempted to glean the meaning of the statement rather than wandering off about what you thought it meant. What you think it meant is indeed absurd, but in no way relates to what I actually meant. I didn't say that your existence was a brute fact. I said that existence itself was.

This proves two things:

1. That we can, must, and do talk about things all the time that don't exist, and therefore, the two terms are distinguished; and
2. Things don't bring themselves into existence. They are brought into existence by other things.

This principle is so obviously true it is just utterly silly to try to deny it.

Well, since I actually have real problem with the idea that anything, ever, began to exist, then I have no trouble denying the second part, not least because no such occurrence has ever been demonstrated. Indeed, the entire idea is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics which, unlike the second law of thermodynamics, the darling of creationists (not that I'm suggesting you are one, of course. I've seen no evidence of that), is not merely an experimental law, but a fundamental property of spacetime, and quite probably the universe. Secondly, I haven't suggested that the universe brought itself into existence, but that it's exstence, being existence itself, is a brute fact.

It's not absurd. It's obvious. Your statement doesn't disagree with mine at all.

Excuse me? Are you serious? It flat out contradicts your statement. You are asserting that a contingent entity can only be contingent upon a non-contingent entity, which is ludicrous.

Considering the fact that your entire argument rests upon a false equation between essence and existence, which is obviously false on any level and simply absurd, there's nothing unsound about the conclusion.

No, my entire argument rests upon the falsity of youor claims, which has little to do with any equation between essence and existence. Indeed, the lines I drew concerning those were mere sideshow trinkets to the main event, namely your failure to address any of the three points I raised above.

You are free, of course, to try again, or to demonstrate that, in fact, essence and existence are one in the same thing.

I never suggested that they were the same thing. I do, however, assert that whatever exists, in whatever form, be it conceptual, platonic or real, has essence. This is not remotely the same as saying that they're the same thing, nor could they be read as such.

We'll deal with subsistent existence when we get there.

OK, when are we going to deal with tautological tautologies?

[Tank]

Just to get a handle on time zones Hack is in the UK, Jac where are you relative to GMT?

[humblesmurph]

Just to get a handle on time zones Hack is in the UK, Jac where are you relative to GMT?

If he actually is in Atlanta right now, he's 5 hours behind GMT