an argument for a presupposition
So I reread mr. gugg's post and thought, "okay, let's see if there is any life in this thing."
Presupposition: God exists.
(I don't know if anyone here actually thinks otherwise, and maybe I'm wasting my time, but hey, what is the chance anyone will read this anyways? If everyone agrees, tell me and I'll move on to another one.)
The shorter form of the argument:
(1) The universe is contingent.
(2) Contingent beings must have a first cause.
(3) That first cause is God.
The longer form of the argument:
If we consider the universe, we find that everything in it bears this mark, that it does exist but might very well not have existed. We ourselves exist, but might very well not have existed. We ourselves exist, but we would not have existed if a man and a woman had not met and mated. The same mark can be found upon everything. A particular valley exists because a stream of water took that way down, perhaps because the ice melted up there. If the melting ice had not been there, there would have been no valley. And so with all the things of our experience. They exist, but they would not have existed if some other thing had not been what it was or done what it did. None of these things, therefore, is the explanation of its own existence or the source of its own existence. In other words, their existence is contingent upon something else. Each thing possesses existence, and can pass on existence; but it did not originate its existence. It is essentially a receiver of existence.
Now it is impossible to conceive of a universe consisting exclusively of contingent beings, that is, of beings which are only receivers of existence and not originators. Such a thing is a contradiction in terms and therefore an impossibility. If nothing exists save beings that receive their existence, how does anything exist at all? Where do they receive their existence from? In such a system made up exclusively of receivers, one being may have got it from another, and that from still another, but how did existence get into the system at all? Even if you tell yourself that this system contains an infinite number of receivers of existence, you still have not accounted for existence. Even an infinite number of beings, if no one of these is the source of its own existence, will not account for existence.
Thus we are driven to see that the beings of our experience, the contingent beings, could not exist at all unless there is also a being which differs from them by possessing existence in its own right. It is not contingent: it simply is. This is the Being that we call God.
But what accounts for His existence? At least we shall not be guilty of the crudity of those who ask: Who made God? For to make anything is to confer existence upon it; and as we have seen, God does no have to receive existence. He is not made, He simply is. He does not come into existence, He is in existence. But the question remains as insistent for Him as for any contingent thing: why does He exist, what accounts for His existence?
God exists not because of any other being, for He is the source of all being. Therefore the reason for His existence, since it is not in anything else, must be in Himself. This means that there is something about what He is which requires that He must be. Now what a being is we call its nature; thus we can rephrase that and say that there is in His nature something that demands existence, better still something that commands existence. In other words His nature is such that He must exist. All contingent beings may exist or may not, but God must exist. He cannot not-exist. Their nature is to be able to exist; God's nature is to exist. They can have existence; God is existence.
For there are not two elements, namely God and His existence. And indeed if they were two, the question would arise, what accounts for their being found together? But they are not two, they are one. God is existence. Existence is. All the receivers of existence exist because there is one who does not have to receive existence. He does not have to receive existence because He is existence.
The end.
Presupposition: God exists.
(I don't know if anyone here actually thinks otherwise, and maybe I'm wasting my time, but hey, what is the chance anyone will read this anyways? If everyone agrees, tell me and I'll move on to another one.)
The shorter form of the argument:
(1) The universe is contingent.
(2) Contingent beings must have a first cause.
(3) That first cause is God.
The longer form of the argument:
If we consider the universe, we find that everything in it bears this mark, that it does exist but might very well not have existed. We ourselves exist, but might very well not have existed. We ourselves exist, but we would not have existed if a man and a woman had not met and mated. The same mark can be found upon everything. A particular valley exists because a stream of water took that way down, perhaps because the ice melted up there. If the melting ice had not been there, there would have been no valley. And so with all the things of our experience. They exist, but they would not have existed if some other thing had not been what it was or done what it did. None of these things, therefore, is the explanation of its own existence or the source of its own existence. In other words, their existence is contingent upon something else. Each thing possesses existence, and can pass on existence; but it did not originate its existence. It is essentially a receiver of existence.
Now it is impossible to conceive of a universe consisting exclusively of contingent beings, that is, of beings which are only receivers of existence and not originators. Such a thing is a contradiction in terms and therefore an impossibility. If nothing exists save beings that receive their existence, how does anything exist at all? Where do they receive their existence from? In such a system made up exclusively of receivers, one being may have got it from another, and that from still another, but how did existence get into the system at all? Even if you tell yourself that this system contains an infinite number of receivers of existence, you still have not accounted for existence. Even an infinite number of beings, if no one of these is the source of its own existence, will not account for existence.
Thus we are driven to see that the beings of our experience, the contingent beings, could not exist at all unless there is also a being which differs from them by possessing existence in its own right. It is not contingent: it simply is. This is the Being that we call God.
But what accounts for His existence? At least we shall not be guilty of the crudity of those who ask: Who made God? For to make anything is to confer existence upon it; and as we have seen, God does no have to receive existence. He is not made, He simply is. He does not come into existence, He is in existence. But the question remains as insistent for Him as for any contingent thing: why does He exist, what accounts for His existence?
God exists not because of any other being, for He is the source of all being. Therefore the reason for His existence, since it is not in anything else, must be in Himself. This means that there is something about what He is which requires that He must be. Now what a being is we call its nature; thus we can rephrase that and say that there is in His nature something that demands existence, better still something that commands existence. In other words His nature is such that He must exist. All contingent beings may exist or may not, but God must exist. He cannot not-exist. Their nature is to be able to exist; God's nature is to exist. They can have existence; God is existence.
For there are not two elements, namely God and His existence. And indeed if they were two, the question would arise, what accounts for their being found together? But they are not two, they are one. God is existence. Existence is. All the receivers of existence exist because there is one who does not have to receive existence. He does not have to receive existence because He is existence.
The end.
posted by three ravens at 11:38 AM
0 comments
