The Evangelical Universalist Forum

First Reality Argument

**First Reality Argument; an accompaniment to the First Causal Argument. **

Existence;

Has the capacity to Be, Do, Experience. Has capacity.

Non-Existence;

Lacks the capacity to Be, Do, Experience. Lacks capacity.

I

I propose an argument, that Reality has always existed, in that Existence has always existed. There has never been a moment or timeless, or spaceless experience where there was no Existence (synonymously termed, Reality).

Non-Existence does not have the capacity to Be, therefore it does not have the capacity to Do, or to Experience; experiences such as stimuli, or cause/effect relationships. It has neither the ability to cause, nor to put in motion, it has neither the capacity to actively or passively bring forth the building blocks of universes, neither can it bring forth particles or energies - it, being Non-Existence, does not have the capacity to be the foundation of Existence; it does not have the capacity to bring forth Existence, and certainly not complex existent entities such as universes, or realities. Non-existence lacks capacity entirely, and altogether.

Existence alone has this capacity, because Existence alone has the capacity innate and intrinsic to it; to Be, and thus to Do, and Experience. In its established capacity to Be, the ability to Do is established as possible. Existence alone has the capacity to give birth to existent entities, like universes or atoms.

II

Non-existence cannot bring forth Existence, Existence alone can bring forth existent entities; Existence alone having the capacity, where as Non-existence has no capacities at all. Existence therefore, must be the foundation upon which existent entities are established, and come to be. Since Non-existence is not, and cannot, be responsible for the “existence of Existence”, then Existence alone can be responsible for its own existence (self-evidency); Existence is self-evident.

Existence having no beginning in or from Non-existence, must be responsible for its own beginning, or ultimately and more logically; its own eternal self-evidency.

Existence must be understood to be eternal, self-evident, and immutably established. Having no beginning bound to time or space, and so having no end bound to time or space, or any existent entity (such as time and space) whose existence is founded in Existence, not the other way around. Likewise, being self-evident, Existence is self-perpetuating, and self-maintaining, Existence is effectively immune to Non-existence - Existence cannot cease to exist, due to its self-evident, self-perpetuating, self-maintaining nature, which is intrinsic to it, and upon which all existent entities are dependent to exist.

Reality, The Reality, is Existence.

Reality is self-evident, self-perpetuating, self-maintaining, eternal, immutably established; having the capacity to Be, by which existent entities within it “be”.


Anything that “arises into existence” be they quantum particles, seeming to “come out of nothing” or universes which seem to spontaneously “bang” into existence, must arise out of Reality, they must arise out of that fundamental Existence, even if it is not a physical existence in the material, or quantum sense. Existence cannot arise out of Non-existence, and to claim it so is to claim a violent impossibility. It would be to claim that Non-existence has capacity to Be, and Do; to bring forth, and in bringing forth must be existent, having that capacity. To claim that Existence arises out of Non-existence, is self-defeating; because capacity is observed either with the senses, or hypothetically - and thus the “Non-existence” is rendered and retermed “Existence” by that sheer fact of expressing capacity, capacity of which is required to bring forth existent entities no matter the size, state, or quality.

Non-existence, or Non-capacity, cannot by any means be responsible for Existence, neither for the existence of existent entities. Existence alone; that which has capacity and therefore exists (being mutually necessary) - can bring forth existent entities.

[size=85][/size]

This is the foundational argument, which I intend to build upon; such as elaborating on the capacity to “do”, and hoping to engage on Reality/Existence being “Sentient” - in other words, a philosophical argument for the existence of God, or at least its very viable possibility. For now though, please discuss, and suggestions (especially for the elaborations which I have just now expressed in this post) are welcome and encouraged. :smiley:

Possible arguments against First Reality Argument;

Non-existence can give rise to, produce, Existence: refutation: For Non-existence to give rise to, or produce Existence necessitates that Non-existence has capacity, rendering it no longer Non-existence, but Existence. This argument that Non-existence is responsible for the existence of Existence is self defeating. It only moves the argument back to square one, and hence back to the First Reality Argument.

Existence can arise out of Non-existence: query; How? In the thorough lack of capacity, and in the thorough lack of any activity, capacity for activity, or any entity - even hypothetically “existentish entities” (which would still require Existence, as those things would have capacity and therefore be existent; hence Existence) could Existence arise out of Non-existence? This argument still necessitates that Existence is responsible for its own existence, and still lends to the validity of the First Reality Argument - I would yet state that it is impossible, and illogical. It is more reasonable to believe in an Eternal Self-evident Existence, (syn) Reality, than such that arises out of Non-existence. It is especially difficult to believe, if the proposal is stating that Existence manifested out of a “non-existent state” within Non-existence. Existence arising out of a state of “lack of capacity” (non-existent state) within “Lack of Capacity” (Non-capacity, Non-existence) is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence.

Appendix note; For Existence to arise out of Non-existence from a “non-existent state” is the same argument as the first, that Non-existence gives rise to Existence. As Existence, being supposedly in a “non-existent state” would be “Non-existence”, and therefore the argument renders itself to be the same argument as the first; that of Non-existence giving rise to Existence. The only difference between argument one, and argument two, is that argument two places the emphasis on an as of yet non-existent Existence giving rise to Existence, rather than Non-existence giving rise to an as of yet non-existent Existence. Either way you present it, it still boils down to “Non-existence giving rise to Existence”, which I believe with convicted reasoning and confidence, to be impossible, and to be refuted.


Arguments concerning the nature of The Reality, Existence - to ponder and consider;

Is it alive? Or is it an “automaton”? (My heart and reasoning tends toward the former)

[size=85][/size]

God bless you Lefein.
I wish you well in your studies and meditations. I’d love to be able to contribute but they are beyond me so all I can do is thank you for the thoughts that have already blessed me and pray that you continue to help us along the way. I will be an avid reader of this thread.

There never was a time at which there was no existence. But that fact does not preclude the probability that time itself had a beginning. Nothing existed before the beginning of time. God did not exist before the beginning of time. Why? BECAUSE THERE WAS NO “BEFORE”!!! Anyone speaking of “before the beginning of time” is speaking of a self-contradiction. For, if there was a “before” (itself a temporal word) then “the beginning of time” was not the beginning of time. If there was a beginning of time, it must have been BEFORE that.

Perhaps this seems incomprehensible to you. But what is even more incomprehensible to me is postulating an infinite regression of time into the past. If that were the case, what was God doing during the infinite past time (which some call “eternity past”)? Did He do absolutely nothing?

I think God’s begetting of His Son was His first act, and that act marked the beginning of time.

huh? Time exists! To say that anything exists before existence, well… :open_mouth: :wink:

Time, and Space, but in this case Time, are Existence dependent. Existence, which I argue to be God, therefore did indeed exist before Time which depends upon him to exist. God either preceded Time in existence, by being Existence itself upon which Time’s existence depends, or else (or inclusively) God has such primacy over it in such a way that the statement “God did not exist before the beginning of Time” is, from my point of observation; irrelevant, or moot.

That is not quite the concern of the presented argument. But I would contend that God may well not have existed in a state of infinite regression of time, but being eternal existed outside of time (which may not have been expressed into existence yet with the simultaneous expression of “space” into existence), and then existed also within it as Time came to exist (along with space; Space/Time more or less come and go together), in the same way that God is not “infinite space” but is omnipresent transcending our expanding universe, as well as being omnipresent within that universe. As for what he was doing, God is creative, and I believe there is quite possibly - or quite truthfully, realities that pertain to the ideal (Idealism) which God dealt with. I’m sure God was quite active either way.