God Probably Doesn't Exist

Thank you for allowing me to debate you. I will use an argument based on the metaphysics of contingency. 1. DefinitionsSubstance- A substance is basically anything that exists. A substance is made up of two "parts" or components as it were: essence and act of existence.Essence- Essence here will be used in a broad sense to mean what something is. It can be thought of as the description of the thing. We need not rely on what is known as a strict "essentialism" (a philosophical position in which essences are real components of things and not merely in the mind) because the piont for this debate is that there is some sort of reality that can be described, in other words, there is something real to be descibed. Take for instance a dog. A dog is a type of thing. A dog is a dog, therefore, it is an essence. Now, we need not worry about philosophical issues about the exact nature of a dog, what makes it up, whether or not it is a collection of atoms only, etc. The point is that there is an entity such that it can be described as a "dog." Essence can be seen as a description. As such, it exists as "potential" because there is no reason why a description alone has to describe something real. It can exist as a mere abstractionAct of Existence- Existence is the quality by which an essence is made into a substance, in other words, that which makes a description describe a reality. Potential- Something is potential or possible if it is inherently logical and therefore could theoreticaly exist but in itself doesn't. Contingent Substance- A substance is contingent if it is a composition of essence and existence that are separate. Necessary Substance- A substance is necessary if its essence is identical with existence. 2. The Argument Premise 1- Every Contingent substance requires an external cause to existPremise 2- The sum of all contingent substances is itself a contingent substance (i.e. all contingent substances considered together)Conclusion 1- The sum of contingent substances requires an external cause to existPremise 3- Since that which exists outside of all contingent substances must be a necessary substance (logically) it follows that If any contingent substance exists, so does a necessary substance. Premise 4- A contingent substance existsConclusion- A necessary substance exists3. Defense of the Premises (Conclusions 1 and 2 follow from premises 1&2 and 3&4 respectively) 1) A contingent thing is that which is a combination of separate essence and act of existence. This means that what a thing is does not tell us whether or not it exists. The "what" and the "that" as it were are separate. A contingent substance therefore can be described, known, evaluated, and considered without knowing whether or not the thing exists. This is because the essence, which is what is described, known, evaluated, or considered, is itself merely potential or possible. It might exist but it might not. In order to make the potential (essence) into something real (substance) it must be joined to an act of existence. There are therefore two logical possibilities that follow from this: a) The act of existence is joined to the essence by something (cause)or b) The act of existence is not joined to the essence by anything (uncaused). Now as for a, there are two deeper possibilities: First, the essence could join an act of existence to itself (self caused) or it could be joined by a different substance (caused by something else). One is impossible becase it means an essence acts without an act of existence, in other words, a mere essence acts as a cause. For this to be the case, something that exists in a merely possible state would have to make something real. An abstraction (essence/description) would somehow have to generate an act of existence while at the same time not yet existing. The cause would be prior than itself which is a self-contradiction. That leaves us with option 2. As for b, this would by definition mean that the essence in question did not exist and therefore there would be no contingent substance to begin with. One might object saying "b does not state that the act of existence is not joined to the essence, only that it is not joined by something." The problem is that the essence contains no principle of existence and taken apart from a cause cannot exist. Take an anology: A room is lit by a bright light. We do not see the light bulb, the sourece of the illumination, however we see that the room is bright. We immediately reason to a light bulb of some sort or perhaps the sun is shining through the window because we know that the room itself does not contian the principle of the light. To say that the room is illuminated but simultaneously is not illuminated by anything is to say essentially a contradiction. Likewise, we cannot posit that a contingent substance exists while at the same time there is nothing to account for the essence and existence being joined. In conclusion, b is false and we must accept premise 1 as true. 2) Sum of contingent things is contingentConsider one contingent substance. If all that existed was one contingent substance, it would follow that the sum of contingent substances (SCS) is itself contingent. The question then is if we add more contingent substances. Consider two contingent substances, the sum would be both of these considered together. The essence of the SCS would be the essences of the two contingent substances each considered. Would the fact that there are two contingent substances mean that we now have a principle of existence within the essence and therefore a necessary substance? No. The reason is that with two contingent substances, there is still no reason in principle that their essences are identical with their existence and therefore do not need a cause. The essence of the SCS is simply the same essences that make up contingent things, in other words, are merely possible and alone cannot give anything reality. in short, since the sum of the two essences is simply the two essences, we have not added a reason why they must exist. Another way of seeing this is that two possibilities do not add up to a necessity. It is easy to see how from here no matter how many contingent things we have, they do not add up to a necessary thing and therefore the SCS can be described (essence) separate from existence 3) This simply follows by logical necessity from our definitions4) Obviously things exist, the only question is whether or not anything has an essence distinct from its existence. This seems obvious enough, but an example would be a dog. The dog had a beginning, the universe is possible without the dog, its essence is doginess rather, etc. 4. The ConclusionSo we can conclude that a being exists by the necessity of its own nature, that is, its essence simply is its act of existence. Essence=existence. Now, what traits must this being have? For the whole story go: http://dhspriory.org... For now:1) Independent- This being must be independent of all else for its existence. Its own nature is simply to exist. Therefore, its nature is not dependent on any other factors, conditions, or causes to exist. It exists in its own right2) Eternal- This being must exist without beginning and end. Otherwise, it is concievable that the being could fail to exist. Yet to fail to exist is to not be necessary which is a contradiction in terms (necessary being not necessary...). Further, the being must exist independent of time. Therefore, it is eternal3) Immutable- Something outside of time cannot change, therefore, the necessary being cannot4) Simple- Something that has parts exists through those parts, or insofar as those parts exist. My computer exists insofar as the screen, keyboard, etc. exist. I exist insofar as my body and soul exist (or for those who do not believe in a soul, insofar as my organs exist). However, a necessary being exists independently. Therefore, it does not exist through parts but by its own nature alone. Therefore, it is not composed of parts and is simple5) Infinite- Something is finite if it is limited by a specific essence. The essence limits existence in particular ways. For instance, humans do not fly because our essence excludes this capacity. Pure existence cannot be said to be limited however, otherwise we must ask "by what?" But this implies an external nature which is not true of the necessary being6) Space-less and immaterial- Suppose the necessary being exists in space, it must then be infinite in size (from 5 above). yet infinite sized matter and infinite space is divisible into parts, therefore is not simple which contradicts 4. Therefore, it cannot be both infinite and simple and in space or made of matter7-10 are all said by way of analogy (we cannot say their exact nature in the necessary being). But, we can say that they are infinite in this being because of #5 above. Thus they are all "omni"7) Powerful- That which can cause clearly has power in some sense. The necessary being is the cause of contingent things8) Perfect- something is perfect insofar as it lacks nothing proper to the type of thing it is. (e.g. a pitcher is perfect in baseball if he fullfills his role on the team by getting batters out. He is imperfect when he lacks this skill proper to him. ). However, God cannot be said to lack anything because God is infinite being. 9) Has intellect- Any cause must contain the effect within itself in some manner. Being simple, the necessary being cannot contain the effect within itself except by way of an idea. Hence it has intellect. Further, that which is immaterial can contain in itself the essences of things other than itself. Matter cannot do this because matter takes on one essence, that which it is, but the immaterial is not limited in this way, hence can contain many essences without being the thing. This is what ideas are and intellectual activity is. 10) Will- is the rational appetite. That which has intellect has will