First principles and the existance of God.

[Tawn]

This is something ive pulled up from a forum can be found here:
http://churchvoices.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=449

Just wanted to post this here and get some alternative viewpoints on the post. Especially from the non-theists. It is essentially a logical argument for the existance of God..

I’ve been doing some study on this and have posted about it elsewhere, but am just now getting around to posting an in-depth look at the First Principles and their importance. These principles are essential for rational discussion and foundational arguments. They demonstrate correct logic far better than any mathematical or abstract reason could, for without them the latter couldn’t exist. Realize that these principles are accepted and applied universally in all fields of study.

First principles are the foundation of knowledge. Without them nothing could be known. Even coherentism uses the first principle of noncontradiction to test the coherence of its system. Realism affirms that first principles apply to the real world. First principles undeniably apply to reality. The very denial that first principles apply to reality use first principles in the denial.

Without basic principles of reality, again, nothing could be know. Everything we know about reality is known by them. There are twelve basic first principles (if you want to challenge one or have questions about one, please just ask and I’ll further explain the principle and its application):


First Principles

1. Principle of Existence = Being is (B is).

2. Principle of Identity = Being is Being (B is B).

3. Principle of Noncontradiction = Being is not NonBeing (B is not Non-B).

4. Principle of the Excluded Middle = Either Being or NonBeing (Either B or Non-B)

5. Principle of Causality = NonBeing cannot cause Being (Non-B>B).

6. Principle of Contingency = (or Dependency): Contingent Being cannot cause Contingent Being (B^c>B^c).

7. Positive Principle of Modality = Only Necessary Being can cause a Contingent Being (B^n—>B^c).

8. Negative Principle of Modality = Necessary Being cannot cause a Necessary Being (B^n>B^n).

9. Principle of Existential Causality = Every Contingent Being is caused by a Necessary Being (B^n—>B^c).

10. Principle of Existential Necessity = Necessary Being exists (B^n exists).

11. Principle of Existential Contingency = Contingent Being exists (B^c exists).

12. Principle of Analogy = Necessary Being is similar to similar Contingent Being(s) it causes (B^n—similar—>B^c)


For a realist, being is the basis of knowing. The rationalist Rene Descartes said, "I think, therefore, I am." But for a realist such as Thomas Aquinas, “I am, therefore, I think.” For one could not think unless he existed. Existence is fundamental to everything. Being is the basis for everything. Everything is (or, has) being. Hence, there is no disjunction between the rational and the real. Thought cannot be separated from things or knowing from being.

Undeniability. First principles are undeniable of reducible to the undeniable. They are either self-evident or reducible to the self-evident. And self-evident principles are either true by their nature of undeniable because the predicate is reducible to the subject. That the predicate is reducible to the subject means that one cannot deny the principle without using it for their denial.

Using First Principles to demonstrating God’s existence. Given these principles of being, one can know many things about reality; they relate thought and thing. Knowing is based in being. By these principles, one can even prove the existence of God as follows:

The Existence of God

1. Something exists (e.g., I do) (no. 1).
2. I am a contingent being (no. 11.).
3. Nothing cannot cause something (no. 5).
4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being (no. 7).
5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being (follows from nos. 1-4).
6. But I am a personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities).
7. Therefore, this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to it by principle of analogy (no. 12).
8. But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e. not-necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction (no. 3).
9. Therefore, this necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way.
10. This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be (no. 10), be caused by another (no. Eight), undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings).
11. Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (= infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists.
12. Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God.
13. Therefore, the theistic God exists.


The first principles are indispensable to all knowledge. And first principles of being are a necessary prerequisite for all knowledge of being. For these first principles are undeniable (not necessary the syllogism for the existence of God, which can be challenged). For the very attempt to deny them affirms them. By them not only is reality known, but also the existence of God can be demonstrated as above.

 

[Pah]

5. Principle of Causality = NonBeing cannot cause Being (Non-B>B).

3. Nothing cannot cause something (no. 5).

This would seem to preclude the notion of God as a first principle.

 

[Yerda]

6. Principle of Contingency = (or Dependency): Contingent Being cannot cause Contingent Being (B^c>B^c).

Contingent upon what?

7. Positive Principle of Modality = Only Necessary Being can cause a Contingent Being (B^n—>B^c).

Eh?

10. Principle of Existential Necessity = Necessary Being exists (B^n exists).

I suspect that this Nesessity is a god. What's the rest of the argument for?

I'm not much of a logician, can someone explain how any of this is a relevent, logical, argument for the existence of god(s)?

 

[Tawn]

Feel free to visit the link and ask him yourself.. I just wondered if anyone had heard of these so called first principles.. or whether the guy was making them up to support his case.

 

[justa_gurl]

Let me see if I’ve got this straight… he only defines ‘being’ by it’s negative, rules out the possibility that a non-being (say a force or metaphysical constant like time) can exist, shows that a non-being (or force) is incapable of bringing things into ‘being’, then uses this to assert a non-thing force (with intelligence) necessarily bought about his being. hmm.


well, call the press the guys solved the problem of existence...

 

[Dayv]

most of these 'principles' seem to be assumed 'facts.' It's the same circular logic so many people use to prove the existance, or infalability, of one god or another. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but what proof is there for #6, 8, 9, or 12? They all seem assumed.

 

[St0ne]

now he just has to prove being...

It also suggests god must have come to being by a necissary being, resulting in infinty, infinity means no real answer and so the reasoning is pointless.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

I have heard of the "first principles" before. It is a bunch of assumptions that attempt to prove the existence of God through logic, and it fails, miserably, even if you assume the "facts" that it presents to be true.

Look at number 8. Necessary being cannot create necessary being. Well, then who created the necessary being?

These folks like to say that the universe had to come from somewhere because there isn't anything that can come from nothing. OK, if you accept this logic, then where did God come from? See the problem? The universe must have been created, because everything has to have been created, nothing can just "be". OK, then who or what created God? Again, this spurious logic fails even using its own assumptions as the construct.

Trying to logically prove an entity with no known physical properties is an exercise in logical futility. Thing is, if there was a God, or many Gods, and they had any of the powers that humans ascribe to them, then that God, or those Gods could choose to make themselves known, but never in the entire history of the world, have. If you apply logic to the God problem, and really truly apply the logic, then you ultimately end up with Carl Sagan's Invisible Dragon.

If you want to beleive in God, or Zeuss, or whomever, and you don't harm anyone else by so beleiving, then by all means, if it makes you happy, do it. But please realize you are doing so merely by blind faith, and not because of any logical reason to do so.

B.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

The trouble is (one trouble at least) that when he/she gets to 6, "But I am a personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities)" they do not establish a logical reason why they are solely personal, rational and moral. The rest of their argument is invalid as a result.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

To all you skeptics: if that's the best you can do in countering the argument, you fail miserably.

 

[Tiberius]

Philosophical mumbo jumbo.

it means nothing in the real world.

 

[Willamena]

This is something ive pulled up from a forum can be found here:
http://churchvoices.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=449

Just wanted to post this here and get some alternative viewpoints on the post. Especially from the non-theists. It is essentially a logical argument for the existance of God..

Well, I didn't understand that, and most of the terms went unexplained, but this I liked and agree with: Everything is (or, has) being. Hence, there is no disjunction between the rational and the real. Thought cannot be separated from things or knowing from being.

 

[Popeyesays]

I have heard of the "first principles" before. It is a bunch of assumptions that attempt to prove the existence of God through logic, and it fails, miserably, even if you assume the "facts" that it presents to be true.

Look at number 8. Necessary being cannot create necessary being. Well, then who created the necessary being?

These folks like to say that the universe had to come from somewhere because there isn't anything that can come from nothing. OK, if you accept this logic, then where did God come from? See the problem? The universe must have been created, because everything has to have been created, nothing can just "be". OK, then who or what created God? Again, this spurious logic fails even using its own assumptions as the construct.

Trying to logically prove an entity with no known physical properties is an exercise in logical futility. Thing is, if there was a God, or many Gods, and they had any of the powers that humans ascribe to them, then that God, or those Gods could choose to make themselves known, but never in the entire history of the world, have. If you apply logic to the God problem, and really truly apply the logic, then you ultimately end up with Carl Sagan's Invisible Dragon.

If you want to beleive in God, or Zeuss, or whomever, and you don't harm anyone else by so beleiving, then by all means, if it makes you happy, do it. But please realize you are doing so merely by blind faith, and not because of any logical reason to do so.

B.

Baha`i's refer to the will of God sometimes as "The First Cause". That means God willed Creation out of nothing. That means that the universe is a separate thing from its Creator. We, being part of creation are apart from God. When God wishes to reveal Himself He chooses one voice, one person and reveals Himself through that person--Adam, Abraham, Moses, Krshna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammed, The Bab, Baha`u'llah.

"Indeed, if any living creature were to pause to meditate he would undoubtedly realize that these verses are not the work of man, but are solely to be ascribed unto God, the One, the Peerless, Who causeth them to flow forth from the tongue of whomsoever He willeth, and hath not revealed nor will He reveal them save through the Focal Point of God's Primal Will. He it is, through Whose dispensations divine Messengers are raised up and heavenly Books are sent down. Had human beings been able to accomplish this deed surely someone would have brought forth at least one verse during the period of twelve hundred and seventy years which hath elapsed since the revelation of the Qur'án until that of the Bayan. However, all men have proved themselves impotent and have utterly failed to do so, although they endeavoured, with their vehement might, to quench the flame of the Word of God.

(The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 104)

Regards,
Scott