Thomistica

Methods

 

Before we begin, we must identify the object under investigation. For our definition, we take God’s own word for Himself, “I AM,” or as the Cappadocian Fathers say, the “Self-Existent” (ipsum esse subsistens). What is meant by this is something that IS Being or Existence, not something that is given being or existence in a participatory way. Some things can have being but God has being necessarily. Since He does not receive being from some prior source or cause, there can be no way in which His being is confined. He possesses all things that pertain to being in a superior way to created beings infinitely. As St. Anselm says, God is “the greatest thing than which no greater thing can be conceived.” The greatest thing must exist lest it not be the greatest thing. Therefore, God, by definition, must exist. And if it is objected that the greatest thing cannot exist, it is easily countered that if it does not exist then it cannot be the greatest thing. Moreover, if it is limited in any respect then it cannot be the greatest thing. And if the senses perceive temporal things, things that are limited in dimension and in quality, then the greatest thing is not something that can be perceived by the senses. Of course these are based on the presumption that being itself is good or desirable. Things that are more full of being, whether qualitatively or temporally, are more desirable, depending on subjective inclination towards goodness, whether that inclination is aligned with truth or falsity. So, that which is best, is that which is completely unconfined in its being. This is proven by the fact that all life instinctively longs for the preservation of itself and its species and also that matter, energy, and physical law are continuous, not fluctuating or spontaneously ceasing. But whether God can be proven to exist by His own definition is no small question.

 

Good but not Perfect Demonstrations

 

There are two kinds of arguments that we must exclude when demonstrating certain truth. The first distinction we can make is between a priori and a posteriori demonstrations. The former moves from general principles to a conclusion and the latter moves from sensible experience to a conclusion. We cannot use a priori demonstrations when proofing the truth of an object’s actuality. If so, we will end up equivocating one of our terms, meaning that one of the premises will change in definition in a subsequent premise or the conclusion. If a principle itself is not derived or abstracted from observed things then it cannot be used to prove the existence of something. If you work from non-existent things to existent things then you expose the premises to critique. The fundamental premises then must be proven by their own derivation from existent, actual things. The thing being equivocated in the case of a priori demonstrations would be existence, since existence lacks in one of our premises and is assumed in a subsequent premise or the conclusion. The aforementioned example from Anselm, known as the Ontological Argument, fails because it moves from the definition of a thing not perceived to its existence rather than proving the existence of the object defined from something already observed. Here is a syllogistic example of the Ontological Argument:

 

P1. By definition, God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.

P2: It is greater to exist in reality than to exist merely in the mind.

P3 If God exists only in the mind, then we can conceive of a being greater than God (one that exists in reality).

C: Therefore, to maintain the definition of the greatest conceivable being, God must exist in reality.

 

The argument does not begin with observation but with principles presumed. If Anselm’s definition of God is taken for granted then the conclusion is only a logical implication of the premise. What needs to be proved are the premises themselves. By proving the existence of such an essence (whatness/definition) and that it is greater to exist in reality, we prove that God exists. Now, if this argument is used in conjunction with an a posteriori argument which proves the premises, then it can be granted. Secondly, this demonstrations greatest flaw is that it treats existence as an accident or predicate (something inherent in a subject). Now, existence differs from essence because we can imagine the essence (definition) of something without it actually existing. For example, we can know that a unicorn is a horse with a horn without it existing in actuality. So, existence does not add anything to the concept of a thing's goodness because existence does not pertain to essence. Essence informs a thing of its specific difference conceptually and existence (being) instantiates that form in reality. 

 

The second distinction is between the likelihood of the inferences made from observable objects. There are likely and certain inferences, ones that can either be true or not be true and ones that cannot not be true (must be true). Things that are likely must be excluded because they can be overturned if new scientific discovery affects the probability of their truth. This usually includes principles derived from theories. A common example of this would be the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

 

Syllogism 1

P1. Things that begin to exist have a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist.

C. The universe has a cause which is God.

 

Syllogism 2: Proving the Minor (P2)

P1. An actual infinite cannot exist in observable reality.

P2. A regression of past events to infinity is an actual infinite.

C. A regression of past events to infinity cannot exist in observable reality. 

 

This argument hinges on a theory: the Big Bang Theory, which, although incredibly probable, is not guaranteed. P1 in Syllogism 2 is also a highly debated topic. However, in C of syllogism 1, it is assumed that the cause is God. And the enthymeme, or missing and assumed premise is the definition of God. In this case, one can conjecture that God is defined as a being beyond observable reality. This is probable but not certain because we do not have any extra-cosmic data. And so, that the universe has a supernatural cause is only a theory. It is unlikely but not impossible that the existence of our universe is one in a series of universes, either infinite or finite. This depends on further discovery of the nature of dark matter. Or there could be a natural, finite agent powerful enough to cause our universe. However, if our universe is not caused by some primary agent, then it could not exist at all. We will prove this later.

 

Now, what is commonly called the Fine Tuning Argument, falls victim to the same objections as the Kalam Argument. The four fundamental forces of observable reality are so precise. The probability of the combination of their magnitudes falling within the range of possible realities that make life possible is 1 in 10^10^123. There are about 10^80 atoms in the entire universe. If, hypothetically, you assigned a 0 to every atom in the universe, you still wouldn’t have enough zeros to write out this number. The Anthropic Principle supposes that if the universe had constant magnitudes it would either have collapsed instantly or expanded so quickly that atoms couldn’t have even formed. Here is a syllogism:

 

P1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

P2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

C. Therefore, it is due to design.

 

However, add other universes to the scenario, and the argument fails. If there are an infinity of possible worlds, then, if the dice were rolled infinite times, no matter the odds, the universe would eventually land on our world precisely. In fact, every possible universe would exist. All of the sudden, who we call “God” becomes the multiverse Himself and Spinoza’s outlook on reality is less bleak. God merely is carnal infinity, producing not out of will but from necessity. This would destroy P2. However, many contradictions arise from a sort of multiverse. For example, the domains of alternate realities seem to contradict. In an infinite multiverse, something could not be and not be. Two realities could not possibly be on the same timeline or else they could interact materially. If this were to occur, it would entail that something was and was not. For example, the magnetic force would be both one magnitude and another which is absurd. But perhaps universes exist in distinct planes of existence. But that is absurd as well because existence is existence plainly. If it’s not the type of existence that we are referring to, being, then it cannot be existence lest we equivocate the word and break our chain of logic. Otherwise, we would be describing something that doesn't exist. Therefore, there can only be one existence. Or perhaps infinite time would allow for infinite universes? But if this were the case, it would not be an absolute infinity because things would be limited in time as aforementioned. There are so many uncertainties about such a theory. Even still, the universe's solitude is not verifiable via observation.

 

Rules for Demonstrations

 

So, some rules for finding irrefutable arguments are the following:

1. All premises need to be derived from verifiable observation. 

1. No premise can be a theory. 

2. The argument must be a posteriori so that nothing is assumed.

2. There cannot be alternative explanations for the verifiable observation.

3. The conclusion must be our definition of God.

1. God cannot be contained in the premises.

2. Our definition of God cannot be contained in the premises

 

Since God is not an observable object, hence the need for faith, we examine things that both have existence and arrive at something with the same, only, possessing  existence, in prime modes. 

 

Starting Points

 

There are several observable things that philosophers have postulated which we can use as starting points. 

 

Firstly, the distinction between essence and existence, as mentioned earlier. What a thing is and the fact that it is are separable by the fact that what a thing is can be conceived logically (in the mind) without it needing to exist. To deny this is to deny the cognitive aspect of reality. Even elementary particles such as quarks, leptons, or bosons have an essence because they act a certain way or carry a certain magnitude of force and are therefore not exempt from this rule. For an axiom, anything that can be called this or that thing, categorizable in any way, can be abstracted from its existence and is therefore distinct from it.

 

Secondly, motion. Motion in this sense refers to change. Change is the movement of something from one state of being to another state of being. Motion involves cause and effect, mover and moved respectively. No thing moves itself because that would imply that it existed before it existed, which entails existence and non-existence simultaneously, an absurdity. Every object is moved by some agent. This movement is either per se or per accidens. Per se is motion qua (as) the relationship between mover and moved. Per accidens is motion in the aspect of the moved only. Take for example a stove heating up a pot with water. The stove, in the immediacy of any moment, is causing the heat in the water. Take for another example a baseball hitting a window and shattering it. The baseball hits the window simultaneously with the window shattering. There is no interval of time between these occurrences. The mover’s action is conjoined with the movement of the moved. The physical energy within the baseball is distributed throughout the window. The observation of motion is not only unaffected by length of time but also by the magnitude of the object moved, even if time or magnitude are infinite. Let us take for example a stick, infinitely long. Let us think also of a person moving that stick. Say, for arguments sake, that the person moves the stick forever and that the stick is infinitely long. In every state of the stick’s motion, it is being moved by the man. Per se casual series are simultaneous while per accidens causal series are temporal. Now, if we apply this train of thought to a smaller scale, no difference is manifest. The interactions of all particles with the fundamental forces illicit movement. The question can be raised whether the system can be sustained by mutual agents acting on each other. Phrased differently, there need be no prior agent to mutual agency, forces and particles acting on each other. This must be denied because bosons, which are force carriers, determine the interactions between elementary particles, mover and moved respectively. Even if two agents were to act on each other in a coequal way, symmetrically, it would be necessary for some agent to determine the difference in their determinate forms. Even quantum fluctuations would require some determining agent prior to the instantiation of some determinate form. To conclude, we must establish a definition for motion. Act is a current state of being and potential is a possible state of being. Motion is the actualization of potential. The consequent axiom is thus, anything of a determinate form requires a prior agent to determine that form per se. 

 

Thirdly, contingency and necessity. All observable things undergo growth and corruption, they pass in and out of existence. This can even be supposed of the oscillating universe theory where universes expand and collapse repeatedly. Let us even postulate that the matter composing the universe is never depleted or increased but only altered at the quantum level. This alteration at the quantum level would also be classified as growth or corruption. As an axiom, anything that changes is subject to growth and corruption in some aspect of its form.

 

Demonstration from the Distinction Between Essence and Existence

 

We will jump straight into our syllogism, moving from the aforementioned axiom of the distinction between essence and existence, to our definition for God. You will notice how our axioms are observation based, a posteriori, rather than a priori. We will move from real things to virtual things (logical/mental principles with a real grounding in reality). Real things are real prior to intellection and virtual things are also real prior to intellection but can only be known through the formation of intelligible species (concepts and ideas). Here is the syllogism:

 

P1: We observe that essence and existence are distinct in some things.

P2. The existence in things in which essence and existence are distinct must be caused by some agent.

P3. If existence is always caused by something in which essence and existence are distinct then existence is not derived from any origin.

P4. If existence had no origin, there would be no cause of existence, and consequently, no existence.

C. Therefore, existence must be derived from something in which essence and existence are not distinct, i.e. something that simply is existence (ipsum esse subsistens).

 

Phrased verbally, things observed by the senses, or any theoretical thing at any scale of reality both is and is some thing. If it was not this or that thing, it would not be detectable through any sense or any causal trace. The essence, quiddity, or whatness of a thing differs from its existence, as explained earlier. If existence is prior to essence in a thing, then the existing thing would be incapable of forming itself because it would have nothing pertaining to essence and, devoid of essence, it would have no power to act as this or that thing. If its essence is made actual by some agent, since it cannot be self-actualized, then the existence of essence would be received from an agent which contradicts the priority of existence and proves the opposite. Concluding that existence is posterior to essence in a thing, we must posit an already existing agent. The existence in agents can be caused by other agents. There cannot be an infinite regress of causal agents. If there were, existence would have no origin. This is to be taken irrespective of time because essence is supplied with existence in any given moment. Therefore, there must be something superessential, in which essence and existence do not differ, ipsum esse subsistens.

​

Demonstration from Motion

 

Now, we move from our axiom of motion to our definition. Again, we will begin with the syllogism:

 

P1. We observe motion per se.

P2. Things in motion are set in motion by things already in motion.

P3. If all things were in motion, then motion would be derived from no origin.

P4. If motion had no origin, there would be no movers (things already in motion), and consequently no motion.

C. There must be some first mover, purely actual.

 

Now for the verbal phrasing. All motion, at any level of reality, is simultaneous with its cause. The mover acts at the same time that the moved is set in motion. The mover must already be in motion for it to have the capacity to move. Any mover can be set in motion by another mover. Not every mover can be moved. If that were the case, nothing would explain why there is motion. Therefore, there must be some first mover which itself is not moved. Without being moved, this mover would be pure act, that is infinite being, in potential to nothing. For potentiality is the negation of being in some way. It cannot be argued that matter and determinate form can have greater ontological being than something without matter and determinate form. If something is a determinate form, for example, its preceding potentiality to that form exhibits an essential limitation. Since God has no essential limitation, he is not in potentiality to form or matter. God is formless form or undetermined form and immaterial because the actualization of form and matter in a thing imply some limitation. Being purely actual and unmoved, He is rightly called Self-Existent.

 

Demonstration of the Contingency Argument

 

Finally, we will move from our axiom of contingency to our definition. The syllogism is as follows:

 

P1. We observe that things come in and out of existence.

P2. If things come in and out of existence then we can imagine a time in which there was nothing.

P3. If we were to imagine a time in which there was nothing, then still nothing would exist.

C. There must be something which is necessary, i.e. can’t not exist.

 

We start with our axiom, that things come in and out of existence, or more certainly, formal changes include the addition or subtraction of some mode of existence in things. This mutability implies dependency. If a thing changes, it is changed by something. Even among mutually changing things, there must be something governing the process of change. Change is proof that it is possible for the thing changing to be and not to be. If all things could possibly not be, then there would exist an instance when nothing was. Without anything that is necessary and immutable, there still would not be anything. Therefore, something necessary must exist. This thing which does not change simply is because all other forms of being entail some limitation and therefore dependency. Anything existing in a certain mode could possibly not have existed in that mode. 

 

Objections Dismantled

 

All 3 of the above arguments follow the same format. The arguments make an inference about existential dependency as its starting point then reductio ad absurdum is used to prove the existence of something self-existent. Reductio is postulating something based on outcomes dependent on an axiom (a fulcrum premise) that leads to a contradiction then affirming the opposite conclusively. These arguments can be dismantled in three ways:

 

1. Deny existence.

2. Deny the inference made about existence.

3. Deny causality (PSR).

 

The first is ridiculous. Denial of existence leads to denial of yourself. Denial of the inferences is denial of quiddity, motion, or contingency (causality; this is the same as the third). And denial of the third is self defeating. It is a conclusive truth to claim that there is no causality. Ironically, that claim is itself derived from premises which cause or force the conclusion. The law of intelligibility is called the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). This law mandates that things have an explanation, i.e. causality. Denial of PSR debunks science because science is itself the empirical investigation of cause and effect, the correlation between things. In a reality without PSR, anything real is impossible. This breaches a point of skepticism that ultimately forces reality to exist as a barren nothing. Simply, denial of PSR is the acceptance of the view that… nothing! Let us now provide the structure of the three arguments in logical notation:

 

Terms

E. Existence

C. Causality

S. Self-Existence

 

Syllogism

P1. E

P2. E → C

P3. C → S

C. ∴ S

 

In translation: Something exists. If something exists then it is caused. If something is caused then there is self-existence. Therefore, there is something self-existent.

Let us revisit the possibility of an infinite reality, to steel-man the opposing argument. This would still not explain why there is infinity and not nothing. If it is impossible for there to be nothing, then the atheist has conceded necessary self-existence. If nothingness is possible, then still nothing would exist, as demonstrated from the contingency argument. Therefore, the atheist must concede the former or deny PSR and postulate that something can come from nothing which we know is absurd because that would entail a false conclusion since it is built on premises. And then the conclusion that the conclusion is absurd is itself absurd ad infinitum (on to infinity). Say we postulate an infinity of ontological causes (per se causes). From our argument regarding motion, we can say that something must move this per se causal series. Say this chain is infinite and we only add another degree of per se causes. We can continue to add degrees of per se causes. Now add degrees of degrees of per se causes. We can continue to infinity but the chain must terminate at some first cause. If it does not, then no cause receives the power to cause from the first.

​

​

​

Written by Matthew Shuler