Metaphysical Proofs - Revision history

David Persyn: branding

2011-07-26T21:01:19Z

branding

David Persyn: Protected "Metaphysical Proofs" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

2011-07-16T17:28:40Z

Protected "Metaphysical Proofs" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

David Persyn: take out all caps line

2011-07-16T01:33:59Z

take out all caps line

David Persyn: /* Proof of the Existence of at Least One Unconditioned Reality */ pics

2011-07-13T22:01:57Z

‎Proof of the Existence of at Least One Unconditioned Reality: pics

David Persyn: /* Proof of the Existence of at Least One Unconditioned Reality */ going blind fixing links

2011-07-13T21:46:46Z

‎Proof of the Existence of at Least One Unconditioned Reality: going blind fixing links

David Persyn: /* Proof of the Existence of at Least One Unconditioned Reality */ fix link

2011-07-13T21:44:49Z

‎Proof of the Existence of at Least One Unconditioned Reality: fix link

David Persyn: /* Proof of the Existence of at Least One Unconditioned Reality */ pic

2011-07-13T21:43:07Z

‎Proof of the Existence of at Least One Unconditioned Reality: pic

David Persyn: /* Proof of the Existence of at Least One Unconditioned Reality */ broken link

2011-07-13T21:39:43Z

‎Proof of the Existence of at Least One Unconditioned Reality: broken link

David Persyn: pic

2011-07-13T21:38:56Z

pic

David Persyn: /* Metaphysical Proof for the Existence of God */ footnotes

2011-07-13T21:25:25Z

‎Metaphysical Proof for the Existence of God: footnotes

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:01, 26 July 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The Magis ~~Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith - MOERF~~	+	The Magis God Wiki: Metaphysical Proofs

	Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven?		Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 The Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith - MOERF
-CAN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD BE LOGICALLY PROVEN?
+Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven?
 © Robert J. Spitzer, S.J./Magis Institute July 2011 – All rights reserved

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 For any conditioned reality (CR), CR can depend either on a finite number of conditions or an infinite number of conditions, not neither, not both (complete disjunction).  Both options cannot be false because all possibilities are covered by these two options.  Both options cannot be true because that would violate the principle of non-contradiction.  Let us call option 1 “Hypothesis F” and option 2 “Hypothesis ∼F.”  Section II.B (below) will show that “Hypothesis F” must always be false for any conditioned reality.  Section II.C will show that “Hypothesis ∼F” must also be false for any conditioned reality.  Therefore, no conditioned reality can exist under “Hypothesis F” or “Hypothesis ∼F.”  If these two hypotheses cover the whole range of possibilities for any conditioned reality, then no conditioned reality could exist in all reality if there are only conditioned realities in all reality.  Therefore, at least one unconditioned reality must exist.
 II.B.  Proof that “Hypothesis F” Must be False for any Conditioned Reality (CR)
 . If any conditioned reality (CR) is dependent on only a finite number of conditions for its existence (“Hypothesis F”), then there would have to be a most fundamental condition (“last condition”) upon which the CR depends.  For example, a quark or some other more fundamental conditioned reality would have to be the most fundamental condition (“last condition”) upon which a CR – say, a cat – depends.  This temporarily ignores the possibility of a circular set of conditions which will be disproved in Section II.D below.
 . “Hypothesis ∼UR” (under which “Hypothesis F” is being considered) asserts that there are no unconditioned realities in all reality.  This is equivalent to asserting that there are only conditioned realities.  Therefore, the most fundamental condition for any conditioned reality (CR) would have to be a conditioned reality (since we have hypothesized in “Hypothesis ∼UR” that there are only conditioned realities in all reality).
@@ Line 105: / Line 109: @@
 Therefore, no conditioned reality can exist under both hypotheses “∼UR” and “F.”  Therefore, “Hypothesis F” under “Hypothesis ∼UR” must be false for any conditioned reality in all reality.
 II.C.  Proof that “Hypothesis ∼F” Must be False for any Conditioned Reality (CR)
@@ Line 115: / Line 121: @@
 . Therefore, no conditioned reality can exist under “Hypothesis ∼F.”  Therefore, “Hypothesis ∼F” is false for any conditioned reality.<ref>There is an obvious similarity here to the uncaused cause argument – the second way of St. Thomas Aquinas (Aquinas 1947, I., Question 2, Art. 3 i).  But I have refrained from using the word “cause” in the proof here because “cause” has been interpreted by various philosophers in very narrow ways.  It would not be useful, for example, to view “cause” simply as one billiard ball striking another, or an “aggregation of mass points.”  If it is useful to interpret the concepts in this unit in causal terms, I could define “proximate cause” as “a proximate fulfillment of a conditioned reality’s conditions.”  “First cause” could be defined as “the ultimate fulfillment of a conditioned reality’s conditions by an unconditioned reality.”  These definitions are not restricted to pre-twentieth century views of physics and philosophy.  By using the vocabulary of this unit, “proximate cause” could refer to “the collapse of a wave function to an eigen state,” “the orientation of motion arising out of irregular geometries of space-time,” “plasma interactions, and even the creation of the entire universe by a reality outside of space-time asymmetry.”</ref>
-−
 II.D.  Proof that a Circular Set of Conditions is False for Any CR
 It may at first seem that a circular set of conditions is an intermediate or alternative position to hypotheses F and ∼F.  As will be shown in a moment, it is not.  “Circular set of conditions” means reciprocal conditionality, where CRa depends upon CRb for its existence, while CRb depends on CRa for its existence.  It can be shown that “CRa’s dependence on CRb’s dependence on CRa’s dependence… etc.,” would not allow either to exist; but in order to show the fallacy of circular conditionality within the context of hypotheses F and ∼F, I have chosen the following argument.
 . Let us suppose there is a circular arrangement of conditioned realities, where CRa is dependent on CRb, which is, in turn, dependent on CRc, which is, in turn, dependent on CRa.
 One may postulate any number of CRs in the circle that one wishes (even an infinity).  The question is not how many conditioned realities are in the circle, but rather how many conditions each conditioned reality is dependent on in the circle.  There are, again, two disjunctive options to respond to this question: (a) each conditioned reality is dependent on a finite number of conditions (implying a last condition), or (b) each conditioned reality is dependent on an infinite number of conditions (implying no last or terminating condition).  This is completely disjunctive; therefore, if the circularity hypothesis is to be tenable, then one of these hypotheses must be true.  If neither of the hypotheses is true, then the circularity hypothesis cannot be tenable.
@@ Line 138: / Line 148: @@
 . Therefore, by disjunctive syllogism, there must be at least one unconditioned reality in all Reality.  To deny this would require affirming either hypothesis F or ∼F, or both; but such an affirmation is absurd, for nothing, not even this writer, would then be able to exist.
 II.F. Another Refutation of Hypothesis ∼UR

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 Note that if option #1 is false, then option #2 must be true, because one, and only one, of these two disjunctive options can be, and must be true.  The remainder of Section II will be concerned with showing that option #1 must be false for all reality.  This will prove, by disjunctive syllogism, that option #2 must be true, and therefore, there must exist at least one unconditioned reality in all reality.
-[{File:Metaphysics2.png |thumb|480px|left|A Diagram of Complete Disjunction]]
+[[File:Metaphysics2.png |thumb|480px|left|A Diagram of Complete Disjunction]]
 For any conditioned reality (CR), CR can depend either on a finite number of conditions or an infinite number of conditions, not neither, not both (complete disjunction).  Both options cannot be false because all possibilities are covered by these two options.  Both options cannot be true because that would violate the principle of non-contradiction.  Let us call option 1 “Hypothesis F” and option 2 “Hypothesis ∼F.”  Section II.B (below) will show that “Hypothesis F” must always be false for any conditioned reality.  Section II.C will show that “Hypothesis ∼F” must also be false for any conditioned reality.  Therefore, no conditioned reality can exist under “Hypothesis F” or “Hypothesis ∼F.”  If these two hypotheses cover the whole range of possibilities for any conditioned reality, then no conditioned reality could exist in all reality if there are only conditioned realities in all reality.  Therefore, at least one unconditioned reality must exist.

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 Note that if option #1 is false, then option #2 must be true, because one, and only one, of these two disjunctive options can be, and must be true.  The remainder of Section II will be concerned with showing that option #1 must be false for all reality.  This will prove, by disjunctive syllogism, that option #2 must be true, and therefore, there must exist at least one unconditioned reality in all reality.
-[File:Metaphysics2.png |thumb|480px|left|A Diagram of Complete Disjunction]]
+[{File:Metaphysics2.png |thumb|480px|left|A Diagram of Complete Disjunction]]
 For any conditioned reality (CR), CR can depend either on a finite number of conditions or an infinite number of conditions, not neither, not both (complete disjunction).  Both options cannot be false because all possibilities are covered by these two options.  Both options cannot be true because that would violate the principle of non-contradiction.  Let us call option 1 “Hypothesis F” and option 2 “Hypothesis ∼F.”  Section II.B (below) will show that “Hypothesis F” must always be false for any conditioned reality.  Section II.C will show that “Hypothesis ∼F” must also be false for any conditioned reality.  Therefore, no conditioned reality can exist under “Hypothesis F” or “Hypothesis ∼F.”  If these two hypotheses cover the whole range of possibilities for any conditioned reality, then no conditioned reality could exist in all reality if there are only conditioned realities in all reality.  Therefore, at least one unconditioned reality must exist.

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:28, 16 July 2011
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:43, 13 July 2011
Line 89:		Line 89:

	Note that if option #1 is false, then option #2 must be true, because one, and only one, of these two disjunctive options can be, and must be true. The remainder of Section II will be concerned with showing that option #1 must be false for all reality. This will prove, by disjunctive syllogism, that option #2 must be true, and therefore, there must exist at least one unconditioned reality in all reality.		Note that if option #1 is false, then option #2 must be true, because one, and only one, of these two disjunctive options can be, and must be true. The remainder of Section II will be concerned with showing that option #1 must be false for all reality. This will prove, by disjunctive syllogism, that option #2 must be true, and therefore, there must exist at least one unconditioned reality in all reality.
		+
		+	[File:Metaphysics2.png \|thumb\|480px\|left\|A Diagram of Complete Disjunction]]

	For any conditioned reality (CR), CR can depend either on a finite number of conditions or an infinite number of conditions, not neither, not both (complete disjunction). Both options cannot be false because all possibilities are covered by these two options. Both options cannot be true because that would violate the principle of non-contradiction. Let us call option 1 “Hypothesis F” and option 2 “Hypothesis ∼F.” Section II.B (below) will show that “Hypothesis F” must always be false for any conditioned reality. Section II.C will show that “Hypothesis ∼F” must also be false for any conditioned reality. Therefore, no conditioned reality can exist under “Hypothesis F” or “Hypothesis ∼F.” If these two hypotheses cover the whole range of possibilities for any conditioned reality, then no conditioned reality could exist in all reality if there are only conditioned realities in all reality. Therefore, at least one unconditioned reality must exist.		For any conditioned reality (CR), CR can depend either on a finite number of conditions or an infinite number of conditions, not neither, not both (complete disjunction). Both options cannot be false because all possibilities are covered by these two options. Both options cannot be true because that would violate the principle of non-contradiction. Let us call option 1 “Hypothesis F” and option 2 “Hypothesis ∼F.” Section II.B (below) will show that “Hypothesis F” must always be false for any conditioned reality. Section II.C will show that “Hypothesis ∼F” must also be false for any conditioned reality. Therefore, no conditioned reality can exist under “Hypothesis F” or “Hypothesis ∼F.” If these two hypotheses cover the whole range of possibilities for any conditioned reality, then no conditioned reality could exist in all reality if there are only conditioned realities in all reality. Therefore, at least one unconditioned reality must exist.

@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 I A. Definitions
-[[File:4_Metaphysics1.png |thumb|480px|left|A Diagram of the Hierarchy of Conditioned Reality]]
+[[File:Metaphysics1.png |thumb|480px|left|A Diagram of the Hierarchy of Conditioned Reality]]
 “Conditioned reality” means any reality (e.g., individual, particle, field, wave, structure, spatio-temporal continuum, spatio-temporal position, physical laws – e.g., E = MC2) which is dependent upon another reality for its existence or occurrence.  For example, a cat is a conditioned reality because it depends on cells and structures of cells for its existence.  Without such cells and their specific structure, the cat would simply not exist.  Similarly, cells are conditioned realities because they depend on molecules and specific structures of molecules for their existence.  Likewise, molecules are conditioned realities because they depend on atoms and structures of atoms.  Atoms are dependent on quarks and structures of quarks, and so forth.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:38, 13 July 2011
Line 77:		Line 77:
	I A. Definitions		I A. Definitions

		+	[[File:4_Metaphysics1.png \|thumb\|480px\|left\|A Diagram of the Hierarchy of Conditioned Reality]]
	“Conditioned reality” means any reality (e.g., individual, particle, field, wave, structure, spatio-temporal continuum, spatio-temporal position, physical laws – e.g., E = MC2) which is dependent upon another reality for its existence or occurrence. For example, a cat is a conditioned reality because it depends on cells and structures of cells for its existence. Without such cells and their specific structure, the cat would simply not exist. Similarly, cells are conditioned realities because they depend on molecules and specific structures of molecules for their existence. Likewise, molecules are conditioned realities because they depend on atoms and structures of atoms. Atoms are dependent on quarks and structures of quarks, and so forth.		“Conditioned reality” means any reality (e.g., individual, particle, field, wave, structure, spatio-temporal continuum, spatio-temporal position, physical laws – e.g., E = MC2) which is dependent upon another reality for its existence or occurrence. For example, a cat is a conditioned reality because it depends on cells and structures of cells for its existence. Without such cells and their specific structure, the cat would simply not exist. Similarly, cells are conditioned realities because they depend on molecules and specific structures of molecules for their existence. Likewise, molecules are conditioned realities because they depend on atoms and structures of atoms. Atoms are dependent on quarks and structures of quarks, and so forth.

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 === Metaphysical Proof for the Existence of God ===
-Many metaphysical arguments for God’s existence have been offered since the time of Plato and Aristotle.<ref>See the [[Introduction]].</ref> This one attempts to incorporate two insights from twentieth century thought into the seminal insights of Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and their interpreters.  The first insight comes from Bernard Lonergan, who uses the notion of ontological conditions to interpret causal schemes of recurrence.   This view of causation can be applied to the whole range of causal connections (from the simple extrinsic collision of billiard balls, to very subtle and indeterminate information transfers in quantum systems).  The second insight comes from quantum theory, which gives very lucid examples of the traditional notion of ontological simplicity.  These two insights strengthen and clarify not only the proof of an unconditioned reality, but also the proofs for the absolutely simple, infinite, and unique nature of this unconditioned reality.
+Many metaphysical arguments for God’s existence have been offered since the time of Plato and Aristotle.<ref>See the [[Introduction]].</ref> This one attempts to incorporate two insights from twentieth century thought into the seminal insights of Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and their interpreters.  The first insight comes from Bernard Lonergan, who uses the notion of ontological conditions to interpret causal schemes of recurrence.<ref>Lonergan 1992, pp. 141-143.</ref>  This view of causation can be applied to the whole range of causal connections (from the simple extrinsic collision of billiard balls, to very subtle and indeterminate information transfers in quantum systems).  The second insight comes from quantum theory, which gives very lucid examples of the traditional notion of ontological simplicity.  These two insights strengthen and clarify not only the proof of an unconditioned reality, but also the proofs for the absolutely simple, infinite, and unique nature of this unconditioned reality.
 This version of the metaphysical argument consists of five steps:
@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 “Conditioned reality” means any reality (e.g., individual, particle, field, wave, structure, spatio-temporal continuum, spatio-temporal position, physical laws – e.g., E = MC2) which is dependent upon another reality for its existence or occurrence.  For example, a cat is a conditioned reality because it depends on cells and structures of cells for its existence.  Without such cells and their specific structure, the cat would simply not exist.  Similarly, cells are conditioned realities because they depend on molecules and specific structures of molecules for their existence.  Likewise, molecules are conditioned realities because they depend on atoms and structures of atoms.  Atoms are dependent on quarks and structures of quarks, and so forth.
-“Conditions” means any reality (e.g., individual, particle, field, wave, structure, spatio-temporal continuum, spatio-temporal position, physical laws – e.g., E=MC2) upon which a conditioned reality  depends for its existence or occurrence.  For example, cells are the conditions of cats, molecules the conditions of cells, etc.
+“Conditions” means any reality (e.g., individual, particle, field, wave, structure, spatio-temporal continuum, spatio-temporal position, physical laws – e.g., E=MC2) upon which a conditioned reality<ref>The reader may be accustomed to seeing the word “conditioned” used in an epistemological sense (e.g., in the works of Kant, or with respect to scientific judgments).  I am using it in a definitively ontological sense here.  This usage reflects the contemporary scientific understanding of physical laws and other forms of ontological dependency.  A rather poignant example of this ontological use of “conditioned” with respect to physical schemes of recurrence may be found in Lonergan 1992, pp. 141-143.</ref> depends for its existence or occurrence.  For example, cells are the conditions of cats, molecules the conditions of cells, etc.
 “Unconditioned reality” means a reality which does not depend on any other reality of any kind for its existence or occurrence.
@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 . If CR depends on an unachievable number of conditions being fulfilled for its existence, it will never exist (a priori).  In other words if CR (say, a cat) is dependent upon a dependent upon a dependent upon a dependent, ad infinitum, in order to come into existence, it will never come into existence.  Its conditions will never be fulfilled.
-. Therefore, no conditioned reality can exist under “Hypothesis ∼F.”  Therefore, “Hypothesis ∼F” is false for any conditioned reality.
+. Therefore, no conditioned reality can exist under “Hypothesis ∼F.”  Therefore, “Hypothesis ∼F” is false for any conditioned reality.<ref>There is an obvious similarity here to the uncaused cause argument – the second way of St. Thomas Aquinas (Aquinas 1947, I., Question 2, Art. 3 i).  But I have refrained from using the word “cause” in the proof here because “cause” has been interpreted by various philosophers in very narrow ways.  It would not be useful, for example, to view “cause” simply as one billiard ball striking another, or an “aggregation of mass points.”  If it is useful to interpret the concepts in this unit in causal terms, I could define “proximate cause” as “a proximate fulfillment of a conditioned reality’s conditions.”  “First cause” could be defined as “the ultimate fulfillment of a conditioned reality’s conditions by an unconditioned reality.”  These definitions are not restricted to pre-twentieth century views of physics and philosophy.  By using the vocabulary of this unit, “proximate cause” could refer to “the collapse of a wave function to an eigen state,” “the orientation of motion arising out of irregular geometries of space-time,” “plasma interactions, and even the creation of the entire universe by a reality outside of space-time asymmetry.”</ref>
 II.D.  Proof that a Circular Set of Conditions is False for Any CR
@@ Line 182: / Line 182: @@
 b) This most fundamental (last) condition must be fulfilled by the one unconditioned Reality itself.  If it were not, this last condition would depend on a “conditioned reality whose conditions were not fulfilled” (i.e., a non-existent – nothing), meaning that all other conditions of contingent reality X would not be fulfilled, meaning, in turn, that conditioned reality X could not exist (see Hypothesis F in Step I.B, above).
-Substep (4)  Since there must be a last condition, and since this last condition must always be fulfilled by an unconditioned reality, and since there can only be one unconditioned Reality itself, and since everything in “all reality” besides the one, unconditioned Reality must be a conditioned reality, then the one, unconditioned Reality must be the Creator (the source of the ultimate fulfillment of conditions) of all else that is real.
+Substep (4)  Since there must be a last condition, and since this last condition must always be fulfilled by an unconditioned reality, and since there can only be one unconditioned Reality itself, and since everything in “all reality” besides the one, unconditioned Reality must be a conditioned reality, then the one, unconditioned Reality must be the Creator (the source of the ultimate fulfillment of conditions) of all else that is real.<ref>St. Thomas Aquinas argues this point in much the same way.  He first demonstrates the simplicity of self-subsisting Being Itself (ipsum suum esse subsistens – what has been termed in this proof “unconditioned Reality itself”), then argues the uniqueness of self-subsisting Being itself, which implies that the rest of reality must be non-self-subsisting beings (which have been termed “conditioned realities” in this proof).  This requires that the one, self-subsisting Being itself be the Creator of all else that is:  “…it must be said that every being in any way existing is from God.  For whatever is found in anything by participation, must be caused in it by that to which it belongs essentially, as iron becomes ignited by fire.  Now it has been shown above when treating of the divine simplicity that God is the essentially self-subsisting Being; and also it was shown that subsisting being must be one; as, if whiteness were self-subsisting, it would be one, since whiteness is multiplied by its recipients.  Therefore all beings apart from God are not their own being, but are beings by participation.  Therefore it must be that all things which are diversified by the diverse participation of being, so as to be more or less perfect, are caused by one First Being, Who possesses being most perfectly” (Aquinas 1947, pp. 229-30, Q.44, Art. 1).</ref>
 V.B. The Creator Must Continuously Create all Else that is Real
@@ Line 194: / Line 194: @@
 Substep (3) If the unconditioned Reality itself does not ultimately fulfill the conditions of every conditioned reality at every moment they are dependent on such fulfillment, they would cease to be real.  This is sometimes referred to as “radical contingency,” which reflects the radical and continuous dependence of all conditioned realities on the one unconditioned Reality itself.
-Substep (4) Therefore, the Creator (the unique, absolutely simple, unrestricted, unconditioned Reality itself) must be a continuous Creator (source of the ultimate fulfillment of conditions) of all else that is real at every moment it could cease to be real (i.e., at every moment of its reality).   Analogously speaking, if the Creator stopped “thinking” about us, we would literally lapse into nothingness.
+Substep (4) Therefore, the Creator (the unique, absolutely simple, unrestricted, unconditioned Reality itself) must be a continuous Creator (source of the ultimate fulfillment of conditions) of all else that is real at every moment it could cease to be real (i.e., at every moment of its reality).<ref>St. Thomas Aquinas gives an elaborate proof of the necessity for God to conserve all created things in being.  In the Summa Theologica, Question 104, Art. 1, he begins the proof by noting:  “…a thing is said to preserve another per se and directly, namely, when what is preserved depends on the preserver in such a way that it cannot exist without it.  In this manner all creatures need to be preserved by God.  For the being of every creature depends on God, so that not for a moment could it subsist, but would fall into nothingness were it not kept in being by the operation of the Divine power…” (Aquinas 1947, pp. 511-12).</ref>  Analogously speaking, if the Creator stopped “thinking” about us, we would literally lapse into nothingness.
 Conclusion
-In view of the above five steps, the “unique, absolutely simple, unrestricted, unconditioned Reality itself which is the continuous Creator of all else that is” must exist.  This Reality corresponds to what is generally thought to be “God.”   God, as defined, must exist.
+In view of the above five steps, the “unique, absolutely simple, unrestricted, unconditioned Reality itself which is the continuous Creator of all else that is” must exist.  This Reality corresponds to what is generally thought to be “God.”<ref>The God of faith generally includes these characteristics, but goes beyond them in the areas of divine self-revelation, grace, redemption of suffering, redemption of sin, relationship to human beings, providence, and prayer (to name but a few areas).</ref>  God, as defined, must exist.
 As noted in the conclusion to Section IV, the denial of the existence of God (as defined) would entail the denial of one’s own existence, or arguing a most fundamental ontological contradiction or an intrinsic contradiction (or all of the above).  If these alternatives are considered to be unreasonable or irresponsible (or both), the existence of God should be considered rationally affirmed.