Martin Caffrey

Using analytical philosophy to ask questions about philosophy, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and phenomenology. Creator of

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

Can you prove that nothing exists?

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

@Cloud_Journal For some reason I felt like Poland would be in there, as Poland has some of the best Software Engineers in the world.

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

That's a fair question.

I reply that, the New Testament establishes that Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Law as a covenant, e.g:

Acts 15;
Galatians 3:23–25

Its moral principles, however, are reaffirmed by Christ and the apostles, e.g:

Matthew 22:37–40;
Romans 13:8–10

So, the threefold classification is a theological framework, not an explicit biblical division.

Does this answer your query?

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

@Cloud_Journal I heard that most billionaires lead miserable lives anyway, which is why they surround themselves with mansions, fast cars and private jets as a way to comfort themselves.

Not that I'm jealous, of course.

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

@relicstories @SchopenhauerNow I know through reason that a double Glenn Scotia 15 whiskey will get me a little bit tipsy, but I lack the willpower to say no to it.

Hence I act on a will from emotion, i.e., I really love Glenn Scotia 15 whiskey.

(NB: Only a Friday evening, as that's my whiskey evening).

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

Whilst my life experience is subjective to myself, it has taught me that most people act on a will driven by emotion rather than reason.

That is, people make a decision based on how they feel, and react to something based on how they feel.

Rare is the person who stops, thinks, and responds from reason.

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

@Cloud_Journal This is something that has been keeping up late at night pondering over since I was a little boy.

I don't know if I can, I don't know if I can't.

What say you?

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

Can you prove that nothing exists?

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

@Cloud_Journal Thank you kindly, Liuba.

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

Asking the question who created God is like asking why is a square a circle. A square lacks the property of being a circle, God lacks the property of being created.

So the question is asking about a property of a thing that is absent from that thing.

The classical definition of God is that He is an uncaused causer of actus purus that actualises the potency in everything else.

If you take away the property of uncaused and replace it with the property of caused, then you have changed the definition of God to something other than God according to the classical definition.

The premise of the question then collapses into an infinite regress, e.g:

What created A?
A was created by B
What created B?
B was created by C
What created C?
C was created by D
What created D?
Ad infinitum.

If God does not exist as an uncaused causer, then there is no ontological grounding for reality due to the infinite regress where there is no grounding for existence.

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

@Cloud_Journal At least try.

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

@Cloud_Journal You must be a billionaire with a legion of professors at hand!

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

@Storm__Fox @NightSkyToday Right. So G is actus purus with no potency in itself, simply actual that actualises all other potencies.

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

@Aspirerfirm Thank you kindly for the explanation, I see the truth of your words.

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

Non-intelligent natural things behave regularly and act toward characteristic ends.

For example, natural processes exhibit consistent patterns even though the things involved do not consciously understand or choose those ends.

Aquinas argues that such directedness toward ends requires an intelligent source, just as an arrow is directed toward its target by an archer.

Therefore, there must be an intelligent ordering cause that directs natural things toward their ends.

Aquinas identifies this intelligence as God.

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

@Storm__Fox @NightSkyToday Outstanding explanation, this is now clear to me.

I am a little wiser now than I was when I woke up this morning, for which I thank you.

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

If God created time, was God temporal before creating it?

Classical theism answers that this question incorrectly presupposes a temporal before. If time itself began with creation, there was no earlier moment at which God existed.

However, God could still be described as the cause of time without being temporally prior to it. Causal priority does not necessarily entail temporal priority.

My conclusion is that, within classical Christian theology, God is atemporal rather than temporal.

Whether my position is philosophically coherent, or whether God must instead be everlasting and temporal, remains a substantive philosophical debate.

I am open to being educated on the subject.

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

@Aspirerfirm May I beg your good indulgence to ask what that purpose is, if you please?

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

But your position was epistemic, not doxastic, as demonstrated by you use of the word "knowledge" as the foundation of atheism (see screenshot).

Belief, whether withholding or affirming, is doxastic, so you are correct to state that it does not entail a burden of proof.

But your position being epistemic does entail a burden of proof, as you are making a positive claim about reality, i.e., an assertion that could be true or false. That is, if you claim to lack believe in God then you are affirming weak atheism:

Q = "God exists"

¬BaQ

That is, agent as does not believe Q. However, your definition is epistemic, using knowledge as the foundation:

Ka¬Q

That is, agent a knows that Q is false. Which is why an epistemic position entails the burden of proof. Therefore, the burden rests with you to prove your claim, e.g:

P -> ¬Q, P .: ¬Q

May I prevail upon your good indulgence to prove your claim, if you please?

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

If we grant your objection, then we would have to posit that God came from something, i.e., God is caused rather than uncaused.

Which would contradict the classical definition of God as an uncaused causer or actus purus, i.e., you are redefining God to be non-God.

It seems to me that this violates the law of identify, e.g., you are redefining God from:

G = G

to,

G = ¬G

But doesn't this violate the law of non-contradiction, e.g:

(G ^ ¬G)

Supposing we did grant your objection, to ask where God came from would collapse into an infinite regress, e.g., what created the thing that created the thing that created the thing that created the thing that created God ad infinitum.

Finally, to posit that God came from something is to place God in temporal existence rather than atemporal existence, e.g:

At time t1, God did not exist
At time t2, thing A caused God to come into existence

Therefore, God would be contingent on time, which redefines God as contingent rather than necessary, i.e., not-God.

No?

[Martin Caffrey @MartinCaffrey76]

I'm not familiar with vertical vs horizontal causation, but your cup/holder description helps me to understand it.

So would I be correct to that say a hand holding a stick is the ontological grounding for the stick being held, so that's vertical, e.g:

At time t1, hand A is holding stick B
At time t2, hand A is holding stick B
At time t3, hand A is holding stick B

So it's not a series of events across time tn, but rather a continuous ontological grounding across tn.

Whereas the events of picking up the stick and throwing the stick is horizontal, e.g:

At time t1, hand A picks up stick B
At time t2, hand A throws stick B

So this is two different events at time t1 and time t2. Am I understanding the terms correctly?