Self-Subsistent Being

[pickyournose]

Hello All

I'm new here, but I'm not sure how much I'll be around - busy guy. Anyway, I would appreciate some input on the classical Thomist argument for God's existence.

Aquinas lists 5 "Ways" we can know God exists, but they can really be boiled down to a single, simple argument to the effect that "If anything exists, self-subsistent Being exists." Allow me to explain:

Beings can exist either necessarily (they are the source, and cause, of their own existence), or contingently (their existence depends on some other Being). It is a contradiction in terms, then, to say that everything that exists, exists contingently. (Unless, of course, someone can explain to me that it is coherent to say, for example: "A's existence depends on B, B depends on C, and C depends on A" - it seems to me that in this case there is nothing to provide a base for existence, and A, B, and C could never exist in the first place)

Now, if we can agree on that first part (and I'm not sure that we will), we need to define something that exists necessarily. Aquinas think that we have an intuitive ability to understand the ontological status of finite beings. When I consider my dog, for example, I understand that his existence is finite - he was born at one point in time, and at another point in time he will die. Surely my dog does not exist necessarily! Similarily, I understand myself to be a contingent being - my existence depends upon my parents, and on their parents, etc.

I would extend this to say that I, as a contingent being, am a part of the natural universe, and that the universe as a whole cannot be self-subsistent. Can a necessary Being be made up of contingent parts? If the universe is contingent, there must be
something external to the universe which exists necessarily.
Note that this gets us nowhere near the Christian conception of God; it only establishes two propositions:

a). there is something external to the natural universe (to which the universe owes its being), and

b.) This something causes its own existence.

If something exists, self-subsistent Being exists.

CHeers,
PICK

[Ellis14]

I would extend this to say that I, as a contingent being, am a part of the natural universe, and that the universe as a whole cannot be self-subsistent.
Is this not a non-sequitor? Why can't the universe be self-subsistent just because humans aren't.

You need some link to explain why the universe is self-subsistent from the premises above.

[graymouser]

Originally posted by pickyournose
I would extend this to say that I, as a contingent being, am a part of the natural universe, and that the universe as a whole cannot be self-subsistent. Can a necessary Being be made up of contingent parts? Fallacy of composition, pure and simple. What is true of the universe's parts is not necessarily true of the universe of the whole. The Logic FAQ (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#composition) here on II uses the example of a bicycle's components being lightweight not implying that the bicycle itself is lightweight.

The entire universe could very well be necessary while things within the universe are contingent, or the origin of the universe could be a necessary, self-subsistent event. No serious consideration is required for supernatural explanations.

-Wayne

[wiploc]

Originally posted by pickyournose
"If anything exists, self-subsistent Being exists." Allow me to explain:

Beings can exist either necessarily (they are the source, and cause, of their own existence)

I understand the cause language---it means stuff is either caused or uncaused; but I don't understand the source talk. Can you elaborate? Or maybe you were reiterating; is a source the same as a cause?

For something to be "self-subsistent," does it need to be both its own source and its own cause, or would just one suffice?

I believe that I can cause a peanut butter sandwich. Having so created, I can set it down and even turn my back on it, and even try to will it away, but it will continue to subsist. Is it self-subsisting during this time?



, or contingently (their existence depends on some other Being).

Is a "being" a person, or are you just saying something like, the peanut butter sandwich wouldn't have existed if the peanut butter hadn't existed first, and Wednesday wouldn't exist if Tuesday hadn't existed first?



It is a contradiction in terms, then, to say that everything that exists, exists contingently.

Maybe you mean illogical, or implausible, or unlikely, but you certainly can't mean that it is a contradiction in terms.



(Unless, of course, someone can explain to me that it is coherent to say, for example: "A's existence depends on B, B depends on C, and C depends on A"

See?



- it seems to me that in this case there is nothing to provide a base for existence, and A, B, and C could never exist in the first place)

Why is three uncaused things harder to swallow than one uncaused thing? You're here promoting the Trinity anyway aren't you?




Now, if we can agree on that first part (and I'm not sure that we will),

I'm with you: not sure that we will.



we need to define something that exists necessarily.

A few lines ago, it just meant that something caused itself, or sourced itself, or both. No, that was "self-subsistence," something entirely different. Do you mean to be changing the subject here, or is necessary existence the same as self-subsistent existence?



Aquinas think that we have an intuitive ability to understand the ontological status of finite beings.

?



When I consider my dog, for example, I understand that his existence is finite - he was born at one point in time, and at another point in time he will die. Surely my dog does not exist necessarily! Similarily, I understand myself to be a contingent being - my existence depends upon my parents, and on their parents, etc.

You keep introducing terms, but then you keep bringing the discussion back to cause. Is cause what we're talking about really? Because if it is, and if you believe things need causes, and if you believe causes precede effects, then it follows that the universe is infinitely old and unbegun.




I would extend this to say that I, as a contingent being, am a part of the natural universe, and that the universe as a whole cannot be self-subsistent.

Why not?



Can a necessary Being be made up of contingent parts?

I don't see that it's logically impossible. If an ocean were somehow "necessary" one could add caused water. (Am I correct that "caused" and "contingent" are the same thing in your jargon?) In fact, why wouldn't it be possible to replace all of the water in the uncaused ocean with caused water? It's logically possible.



If the universe is contingent, there must be
something external to the universe which exists necessarily.

If the universe is everything that exists, then there cannot---by definition---be anything outside of it. If you for some reason want the word "universe" to apply to some subset of everything that exists, then you want to do so in a way that doesn't look like an arbitrary attempt to avoid your own premise that things are caused.




Note that this gets us nowhere near the Christian conception of God; it only establishes two propositions:

a). there is something external to the natural universe (to which the universe owes its being), and

How so? Why can't the whole universe (everything that exists) be caused. From one view, it certainly looks caused: the present is always caused by the past, right? (This assumes a pre-quantum mechanics outlook, but first cause arguments require that, I believe.)




b.) This something causes its own existence.

How in the world could this follow from anything you've written above?




If something exists, self-subsistent Being exists.


This is just wrong, as you demonstrated with your A causes B causes C causes A illustration.

crc