Humility: Good or Bad?

[voxxpopulisuxx]

GUDC

As mentioned earlier, I have studied the five ways of Aquinas and I find them insufficient.  I find the contingency argument to be the weakest.  Just because a thing is contingent does not necessarily mean that something created it.  A contingent being could very well have come about by chance.

You dont really belive this? Lol
Chance? Wth dose chance mean? Is that a natural process? Is it a planet? Is it a temporal disorder in time and space?

[Probius]

I'll explain further.  A contingent thing didn't have to exist, it isn't necessary.  But to equate contingency with a need for a creator seems to be assuming that there is some purpose to existence and that existence is objectively better than non-existence.  I don't think that's the case.  Existence is subjectively better from our point of view only.

[GUDC]

Just because a thing is contingent does not necessarily mean that something created it.

This is somewhat like saying, "Just because something is a triangle doesn't mean that it has 3 sides."

The very definition of "contingent" is "something that does not exist of itself, but depends for its existence on something else."  That's just what the word means.  But if you are dependent in your existence, that means there are only 2 options:

1. You could depend on another thing for your existence, and this is the (philosophical) definition of "caused."  Or

2. You can depend on yourself for your existence, which is impossible, because nothing can be "self-caused."  To be the cause of yourself you would have to exist (to cause) and not exist (to be caused) at one and the same time, which violates the principle of non-contradiction.

Creation is defined as the "production of the entire substance of a thing ex nihilo."  A contingent thing by definition requires something to remove it from nothingness, towards which it naturally tends barring the causal agency which gives it being.  As Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange put it, a contingent being is "of itself non-existent," because if it were of itself existent, it would be self-existent and therefore necessary (i.e., not contingent). 

So to be contingent and to be created are two sides of the same coin.  These are a priori truths based on the principle of non-contradiction.  If this is not "sufficient," no philosophical argument is or could be, including those used to justify atheism.

A contingent being could very well have come about by chance.

The preceding proof shows why this is not possible.  First of all chance is defined as "the accidental cause of something that happens as though it were willed."  The classic example from Aristotle is to have a gravedigger go out to dig a grave and by chance dig up a buried treasure.  But all chance, which is an accidental cause, presupposes a deliberate and per se cause.  In the case noted, the chance event only happened because of two events which were not chance events, but which were deliberate: someone deliberately burying a treasure, and someone deliberately digging a grave.

Chance can never be an ultimate or independent cause, just as nothing accidental can exist without the essential on which it depends.

Although perhaps a contingent being might arise by "chance" relative to secondary causality (the activity of finite agents), this could not come about in the absolute sense, that of primary causality, because every contingent being by definition is dependent in its existence.

It is not possible, by chance or any other mechanism, that something be by nature dependent in its existence and yet have nothing at all on which to depend.

If this is the only or primary objection which you have to the contingency argument, it is not a good reason to dismiss it as "insufficient," particularly when the alternative entails a denial of the principle of non-contradiction.

[Probius]

I'll explain further.  A contingent thing didn't have to exist, it isn't necessary.  But to equate contingency with a need for a creator seems to be assuming that there is some purpose to existence and that existence is objectively better than non-existence.  I don't think that's the case.  Existence is subjectively better from our point of view only.

Yes, I can and do believe this.  It's no different really than rolling the dice.

[GUDC]

But to equate contingency with a need for a creator seems to be assuming that there is some purpose to existence and that existence is objectively better than non-existence.  Existence is subjectively better from our point of view only.

I don't necessarily see where and how purpose has entered this argument, although it is self-evidently true, even for the atheist, that activity must have a purpose behind it (this is the basis of St. Thomas's fifth proof from finality).  This is another self-evident principle which cannot be denied without self-refutation: you wouldn't argue against it unless you saw a purpose for doing so.  Whitehead spoke of those "who set out with the tenacious purpose of denying the existence of purpose."

But it is also wrong to say that existence is better than non-existence only "subjectively," because, as St. Thomas notes, what is good or "better" is actually a synonym for existence.

He says that goodness and existence are one and the same thing under different aspects.  Anything which is good is good because it is in some way desirable, it is desirable because it has some perfection which calls forth desire, and it has perfection because it really exists (ST I, q. 5).  None of this is dependent on subjectivity; even if some suicidal nihilist believed that by committing suicide he would annihilate himself, and believed hypothetical annihilation to be superior to continued existence, it would still be true that possessing real existence, and thus being the subject of desirable perfection, puts someone in an objectively superior condition to someone who loses all perfection by an act of annihilation. 

[Probius]

Just because a thing is contingent does not necessarily mean that something created it.

This is somewhat like saying, "Just because something is a triangle doesn't mean that it has 3 sides."

The very definition of "contingent" is "something that does not exist of itself, but depends for its existence on something else."  That's just what the word means.  But if you are dependent in your existence, that means there are only 2 options:

1. You could depend on another thing for your existence, and this is the (philosophical) definition of "caused."  Or

2. You can depend on yourself for your existence, which is impossible, because nothing can be "self-caused."  To be the cause of yourself you would have to exist (to cause) and not exist (to be caused) at one and the same time, which violates the principle of non-contradiction.

Creation is defined as the "production of the entire substance of a thing ex nihilo."  A contingent thing by definition requires something to remove it from nothingness, towards which it naturally tends barring the causal agency which gives it being.  As Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange put it, a contingent being is "of itself non-existent," because if it were of itself existent, it would be self-existent and therefore necessary (i.e., not contingent). 

So to be contingent and to be created are two sides of the same coin.  These are a priori truths based on the principle of non-contradiction.  If this is not "sufficient," no philosophical argument is or could be, including those used to justify atheism.

A contingent being could very well have come about by chance.

The preceding proof shows why this is not possible.  First of all chance is defined as "the accidental cause of something that happens as though it were willed."  The classic example from Aristotle is to have a gravedigger go out to dig a grave and by chance dig up a buried treasure.  But all chance, which is an accidental cause, presupposes a deliberate and per se cause.  In the case noted, the chance event only happened because of two events which were not chance events, but which were deliberate: someone deliberately burying a treasure, and someone deliberately digging a grave.

Chance can never be an ultimate or independent cause, just as nothing accidental can exist without the essential on which it depends.

Although perhaps a contingent being might arise by "chance" relative to secondary causality (the activity of finite agents), this could not come about in the absolute sense, that of primary causality, because every contingent being by definition is dependent in its existence.

It is not possible, by chance or any other mechanism, that something be by nature dependent in its existence and yet have nothing at all on which to depend.

If this is the only or primary objection which you have to the contingency argument, it is not a good reason to dismiss it as "insufficient," particularly when the alternative entails a denial of the principle of non-contradiction.

You are using different definitions are 'contingent.'

Contingent:
1
:  likely but not certain to happen :  possible
2
:  not logically necessary; especially :  empirical
3
a :  happening by chance or unforeseen causes
b :  subject to chance or unseen effects :  unpredictable
c :  intended for use in circumstances not completely foreseen
4
:  dependent on or conditioned by something else <payment is contingent on fulfillment of certain conditions>
5
:  not necessitated :  determined by free choice

You started by using definition 2, then switched to definition 4.  I was using definition 2.  You are also confusing the causes.  One cause would be to bring a thing into existence, this is an efficient cause.  Then there is the supposed cause which keeps a thing in existence.  I am kept in existence by consuming calories and using them as energy, nothing else.

[Probius]

But to equate contingency with a need for a creator seems to be assuming that there is some purpose to existence and that existence is objectively better than non-existence.  Existence is subjectively better from our point of view only.

I don't necessarily see where and how purpose has entered this argument, although it is self-evidently true, even for the atheist, that activity must have a purpose behind it (this is the basis of St. Thomas's fifth proof from finality).  This is another self-evident principle which cannot be denied without self-refutation: you wouldn't argue against it unless you saw a purpose for doing so.  Whitehead spoke of those "who set out with the tenacious purpose of denying the existence of purpose."

But it is also wrong to say that existence is better than non-existence only "subjectively," because, as St. Thomas notes, what is good or "better" is actually a synonym for existence.

He says that goodness and existence are one and the same thing under different aspects.  Anything which is good is good because it is in some way desirable, it is desirable because it has some perfection which calls forth desire, and it has perfection because it really exists (ST I, q. 5).  None of this is dependent on subjectivity; even if some suicidal nihilist believed that by committing suicide he would annihilate himself, and believed hypothetical annihilation to be superior to continued existence, it would still be true that possessing real existence, and thus being the subject of desirable perfection, puts someone in an objectively superior condition to someone who loses all perfection by an act of annihilation.

The universe is contingent in that it did not have to exist.  So, it could have existed or not existed.  There was some probability of each happening.  Existence happened, which is good for us.  If existence did not happen, there would be no people to complain about non-existence.  Things are either good or bad only from our point of view as humans.  Were the universe to be void of humans, nothing would be either good or bad, as for as value judgements go.  If two planets which are devoid of life slammed into each, it wouldn't matter.

P.S. There are currently scientists who claim that the universe is not contingent, and actually had to come into being.  That's very interesting.

[GUDC]

I defined contingent as something which is depedent in its existence on something else.  This is a metaphysical rather than a logical definition, which is the one I used throughout the proof. 

You are also confusing the causes.  One cause would be to bring a thing into existence, this is an efficient cause.

There are two types of efficient cause: the cause in fieri, which brings into existence but does not necessarily continue its causal agency after that, and the cause in esse, which sustains a thing in existence.  For example, someone who fires a gun is the cause in fieri of the bullet's being ejected from the chamber; the flame of a candle is the cause in esse of the light illuminating an otherwise pitch black room.  The shooter is needed to get the bullet's flight started, but the shooter himself could be killed immediately after firing while the bullet can continue its flight.  But extinguish the candle's flame for even a moment and the room instantly returns to total darkness.  The flame is needed to sustain the light at every moment of its existence, not only at its beginning. 

The proof from contingency deals with this second and more fundamental type of efficient cause.  It does not deal with what causes a contingent thing to start existing, but what keeps it existing, since a contingent being requires being sustained in existence at every moment just as surely as it needed something to bring it into existence.  A contingent being's relationship to existence is the same at all times: it has no necessary hold on being, and needs something to keep it in a state which is not "essentially natural" to it.  This is why, to repeat, chance isn't and couldn't be an adequate explanation.

[Probius]

I defined contingent as something which is depedent in its existence on something else.  This is a metaphysical rather than a logical definition, which is the one I used throughout the proof. 

You are also confusing the causes.  One cause would be to bring a thing into existence, this is an efficient cause.

There are two types of efficient cause: the cause in fieri, which brings into existence but does not necessarily continue its causal agency after that, and the cause in esse, which sustains a thing in existence.  For example, someone who fires a gun is the cause in fieri of the bullet's being ejected from the chamber; the flame of a candle is the cause in esse of the light illuminating an otherwise pitch black room.  The shooter is needed to get the bullet's flight started, but the shooter himself could be killed immediately after firing while the bullet can continue its flight.  But extinguish the candle's flame for even a moment and the room instantly returns to total darkness.  The flame is needed to sustain the light at every moment of its existence, not only at its beginning. 

The proof from contingency deals with this second and more fundamental type of efficient cause.  It does not deal with what causes a contingent thing to start existing, but what keeps it existing, since a contingent being requires being sustained in existence at every moment just as surely as it needed something to bring it into existence.  A contingent being's relationship to existence is the same at all times: it has no necessary hold on being, and needs something to keep it in a state which is not "essentially natural" to it.  This is why, to repeat, chance isn't and couldn't be an adequate explanation.

Okay, I see now.  In that case I don't see how beings are contingent.  My existence would end if my life functions stopped.  I am kept in existence by the energy my body uses.  So, I am not a contingent being.  How will this argument change if scientists prove that the universe had to come into being?

[GUDC]

The universe is contingent in that it did not have to exist.  So, it could have existed or not existed.  There was some probability of each happening.

Probability is based on some real potential existing in a situation which can arise given the right circumstances.  But since there aren't any circumstances in which an intrinsically non-existent being could start to exist all by itself, with nothing non-contingent to remove it from non-being, therefore there wasn't any "probability" of that happening.  Once you admit that a being is contingent, it follows of necessity that it received existence ultimately from something which is not a receiver of existence, i.e., from something which is not contingent.  The last stop on that train is theism.

Things are either good or bad only from our point of view as humans.  Were the universe to be void of humans, nothing would be either good or bad, as for as value judgements go.

You're begging the question with both of these statements.  You are redefining goodness broadly as goodness considered as a subjective value judgment, whereas I noted that goodness broadly defined simply means to be co-extensive with existent perfection.  Your statement simply makes a bald assertion that no goodness other than subjective value-judgment-goodness exists, but as already noted, objectively speaking something which has real perfection and existence is superior to what does not exist at all and is the subject of no perfection, even were the world exclusively populated by suicidal nihilists who hated their own existence and subjectively judged existence to be an evil.   

There are currently scientists who claim that the universe is not contingent, and actually had to come into being.  That's very interesting.

Scientists are not reliable guides on questions of philosophy and therefore have no authority at all related to their scientific credentials to make any statements about the universe's contingency or necessity.  Outside of their limited range of expertise, they have no special competence to hold forth on these topics.  A philosophically uneducated scientist holding forth on questions of God's existence or the contingency of the universe should have his opinions on these topics given the same respect as his opinions on 15th century Portuguese literature or interior decorating.  He may have some hobbyist's knowledge of these things, but it certainly isn't a function of his scientific training.

[Pheo]

The universe is contingent in that it did not have to exist.  So, it could have existed or not existed.  There was some probability of each happening.  Existence happened, which is good for us.

"Give us one big miracle and we'll explain the rest!"

I find atheistic arguments which presuppose the reliability of the senses to be interesting too.  It's much more of a dogmatic belief system than it makes itself out to be.  But I don't mean to derail things - this has been an interesting conversation so far.

[GUDC]

In that case I don't see how beings are contingent.  My existence would end if my life functions stopped.  I am kept in existence by the energy my body uses.  So, I am not a contingent being.

I don't follow this.  There was a time at which you didn't exist at all.  Now you do exist.  This means that you cannot be a necessary being, since a necessary being by definition is something which must exist.  Since at one point you didn't exist, therefore it can't be the case that you had to exist: otherwise you would have always existed, whereas we just noted that you didn't.  Since you're not necessary, the only other alternative is that you are contingent (contingent just means "not necessary").  Because you once did not exist and now do exist, something must have removed you from non-being and constituted you as a real entity.  Although there are certain immediate causes which account for your origin and continued existence (your parents, the physical energy which keeps you alive, etc.), none of these causes can be the ultimate sources of your existence, since all of them, like you, are also contingent, also receivers of existence, and therefore also fundamentally dependent on something from which they all received existence.  Since it is impossible for absolutely everything to be a receiver of existence, we must arrive at the end at something which does not receive existence and which is not contingent.  Your objections seem to be focused on secondary causes (chance, probabilitity, physical and finite agents, etc.), whereas I am pointing out that none of these things offers an ultimate explanation for a phenomenon which nevertheless requires one.

How will this argument change if scientists prove that the universe had to come into being?

This claim is not a scientific one, and so scientists will never be able to prove it using science (or anything else, for that matter, since it is a (philosophically) false claim as well).

[Probius]

.   

Scientists are not reliable guides on questions of philosophy and therefore have no authority at all related to their scientific credentials to make any statements about the universe's contingency or necessity.  Outside of their limited range of expertise, they have no special competence to hold forth on these topics.  A philosophically uneducated scientist holding forth on questions of God's existence or the contingency of the universe should have his opinions on these topics given the same respect as his opinions on 15th century Portuguese literature or interior decorating.  He may have some hobbyist's knowledge of these things, but it certainly isn't a function of his scientific training.

Philosophy must move aside to the proofs of science, as science can prove things and philosophy cannot.  I have always assumed that the universe did not have to exist, but I will readily change my opinion if it is proven wrong.

[Probius]

In that case I don't see how beings are contingent.  My existence would end if my life functions stopped.  I am kept in existence by the energy my body uses.  So, I am not a contingent being.

I don't follow this.  There was a time at which you didn't exist at all.  Now you do exist.  This means that you cannot be a necessary being, since a necessary being by definition is something which must exist.  Since at one point you didn't exist, therefore it can't be the case that you had to exist: otherwise you would have always existed, whereas we just noted that you didn't.  Since you're not necessary, the only other alternative is that you are contingent (contingent just means "not necessary").  Because you once did not exist and now do exist, something must have removed you from non-being and constituted you as a real entity.  Although there are certain immediate causes which account for your origin and continued existence (your parents, the physical energy which keeps you alive, etc.), none of these causes can be the ultimate sources of your existence, since all of them, like you, are also contingent, also receivers of existence, and therefore also fundamentally dependent on something from which they all received existence.  Since it is impossible for absolutely everything to be a receiver of existence, we must arrive at the end at something which does not receive existence and which is not contingent.  Your objections seem to be focused on secondary causes (chance, probabilitity, physical and finite agents, etc.), whereas I am pointing out that none of these things offers an ultimate explanation for a phenomenon which nevertheless requires one.

How will this argument change if scientists prove that the universe had to come into being?

This claim is not a scientific one, and so scientists will never be able to prove it using science (or anything else, for that matter, since it is a (philosophically) false claim as well).

I came into existence, but I will also go out of existence.  If I did not exist before my birth, and we know that to be true, then it would make sense that I would not exist forever.  If my existence does not stretch into eternity in one direction, how could it in the other direction?

[voxxpopulisuxx]

because you are sui generis individual human with a soul. The soul is who you are not what you are. There is no one else who is you...that identity is what is eternal. And you need to be like a cat playing with a toy mouse to pretend otherwise. You pretend you are just a mind and body with your left paw...but you batt around concepts of good and evil and dignity justice and truth with the right paw. Its all a pretense on your part. For some reason...some past hurt or atrocity that compels you to deny or obfuscate these ultimate issues. There is something you do not want to know ...so you dont.