There are 3 choices, 3 votes for Carpool's debate

the philosophy of God

Just something I found interesting:

A Brain in a Vat

Let’s start by taking a position of radical doubt. Suppose for a moment that you are not really a human being with an actual body. In reality, you are nothing more than a brain floating in a vat of fluids, with electrodes attached to various parts of your exterior that allow evil scientists to manipulate you into thinking that what you perceive is actually there, when in fact it is nothing more than an imaginary world constructed by the scientists. Right now, they are making you think that you are reading this article when in fact you are not.

From this point of extreme skepticism, we will prove beyond all possible doubt that God exists.


1. One cannot deny one’s own existence.


Cogito, ergo sum. Even if you’re just a brain in a vat, your own existence can be verified simply by the fact that you perceive—that is, you see, hear, smell, taste and touch things. Whether or not your perceptions are accurate is another question, but even if you doubt your own existence, you must exist, for it is impossible for a non-existent thing to doubt. In fact, the very act of doubting proves that you exist. Therefore, denying your own existence is a contradiction in terms. I can deny yours and you can deny mine, but I can’t doubt mine, nor can you doubt yours.


2. There is at least one thing that exists.


It is possible for you to be deceived in your perception. In fact, it’s conceivable that every one of your perceptions is a delusion. But even if that is the case—even if nothing you think exists actually exists—you still must exist.

Entity is the word we have for anything that exists. You exist, so you are an entity.


3. There is such a thing as existence.


You can know with certainty that there is at least one entity, at least one thing of which the term existence can be predicated. If there were no such thing as existence, nothing would exist, not even you. But, as we have seen already, that is impossible.

As Aquinas would say, there must be an "act of being" in which all entities participate. This act of being must itself exist; it must be an entity. Thomas calls this entity esse, which is Latin for "to be" or "to exist."


4. The nature of esse is actuality.


Now that we have established that esse is an entity, we must ask: What is the nature of this entity? What is its definition?

To answer these questions, we must consider existence by itself, apart from everything else.

What do we mean when we say that something exists? We mean that it is actual. For example, an acorn is actually an acorn and potentially a tree. A tree is actually a tree and potentially lumber. Lumber is actually lumber and potentially a desk. A desk is actually a desk and potentially firewood. Firewood is actually firewood and potentially ashes.

In other words, a thing is actually what it is right now; it is potentially what it might be in the future.

Now when we say that something exists, we normally refer to actuality rather than potentiality. For instance, if I held up an egg and said, "This egg exists," you would understand me, because what I am saying is "This egg is actual" or "This is actually an egg." But if I held up the egg and said, "This chicken exists," that would not make sense to you, because even though the egg is potentially a chicken (that is, the chicken exists potentially), the concept of existence applies primarily to the egg’s actual state and only secondarily to its potential state.

Now potentiality is still a form of existence, but we realize that it is, in some sense, inferior to actuality. In other words, potentiality is a "shade" of existence the same way that pink is a shade of red. Just as we would say that pink lemonade is red but not in the same way that Hawaiian punch is red, so we say that potentiality exists but not as much as actuality does. Actuality is the fullness of existence.

So, again, taking the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis, you know that you are actual, even if nothing else you perceive exists.


5. Esse is nothing but pure actuality.


Potentiality is a privation of actuality. That is, it is not a thing in itself but the absence of something. In the same way, darkness is not a substance itself but the absence (or privation) of light.

Now a thing considered in itself contains nothing but its fullness. The nature (or essence) of light consists of nothing but light itself; it does not contain darkness. Therefore, the essence of esse contains nothing but its fullness, actuality. There is no potentiality in the nature of esse. Thus, the essence of esse is pure actuality, just as the essence of light is pure light.

Thomas argues that all entities participate in esse insofar as they are actual. Therefore, that in which they participate—esse—must be actual. In fact, it cannot admit of any potentiality.


6. Esse not only does exist but must exist.


Existence itself is pure actuality, with no potentiality in it. This means that the essence of existence is nothing other than existence. Existence is its own essence.

From this it follows that esse itself must exist, for if it did not, it would violate its own essence, which is impossible.


7. Esse is distinct from everything else that exists.


You can know from step 1 that you exist, and we know from step 3 that esse exists. But we also know that the two are not identical.

Let’s say you’re just a brain in a vat, that everything you perceive is an illusion. You can still recognize that, while you are actual in some ways, you are potential in other ways. You actually perceive that you’re reading this article right now; you’re potentially perceiving something else. You are actually existing right now; you potentially exist five minutes from now. Moreover, anything else that may exist has the same attribute: Its essence is composed of both actuality and potentiality.

But, as we saw in step 5, esse is nothing but pure actuality. Thus, it must be distinct from any other entity.


8. Esse must be one.


If there were more than one esse, then there would be distinctions among them. But distinctions imply limitations, and limitations imply potentiality. But since esse is pure actuality, it has no limitations, which means there is no distinction in esse. Therefore, there is only one esse.


9. Esse must be immutable.


Change involves potentiality. In order for something to change, it must first have the potential to change; it must have a potentiality that is to be actualized. But since esse is purely actual, it has no potential to change. Therefore, esse is unchanging.


10. Esse must be eternal.


Time is nothing but the passing of the future into the present into the past. It is the changing of the not-yet into the now into the no-longer. But because esse does not change, it does not change from the future to the present to the past. It must be outside the realm of time, which means that there is no future, present, or past with esse. In other words, esse is non-temporal, or eternal.


11. Esse must be infinite.


Space is nothing but the changing of the over-here to the over-there. Anything that is actually here is potentially there. But because esse is immutable, it must be outside the realm of space. It has no spatial constraints—that is, esse is infinite.


12. Esse must be omniscient.


Even if you’re a brain in a vat, you can perceive that you have the capacity to know. Because you are only partly actual, and esse is purely actual, esse must know all there is to know. That is, esse is all-knowing, or omniscient.


13. Esse must be omnipotent.


You can perceive that you have the capacity to do some things that are logically possible. Since you are only partly actual, and esse is purely actual, esse must be able to do all things that are logically possible. That is, esse is all-powerful, or omnipotent.

We have thus proven the existence of a being (esse) that not only does exist but must exist and is one, unchanging, eternal, infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent. This matches our definition of God that we stated at the beginning.

We can conclude, then, that even if all of your sense perceptions are false, even if you are nothing but a brain in a vat being manipulated by scientists into believing that you are reading this article right now when in fact you are not, there are two things you can know with absolute, 100 percent certainty: (1) You exist, and (2) God exists.
  • doesn't work
    who is thomas? I assume this is someone elses argument so do you have a link to such pages?

    your whole argument is based on people believing in an entity, which is why you believe in this but is the exact reason i do not. a brain in vat with artifical sensory stimulation may in itself know that it exists but it will not know that a god exists unless this brain has had exposure to such ideology. since we are sensory beings, it is hard to convince us of something we do not believe in. Put it this way: atheists say "prove existance" and theists say: "prove non-existance." we each want sensory logic to prove us wrong because we understand sensory input. without it, what are we? brains in vats?
    66%  Voted for by Kazrith, Molzahn.
    View 9 comments
  • :

  • Illogical
    There is a pretty big contradiction between 9 (esse is immutable) and 13 (esse is omnipotent). If esse is omnipotent, that means he has the power to do anything, at any given moment. This suggests, however, that esse is not immutable. If at any given moment, esse could be doing something, but is doing something else, that means there is potential for esse to be in a different state than it is. Which means that esse is no longer immutable, since your immutability relies on esse being fully actual.

    So either esse is in a constant state of doing all things at exactly the same, infinite moment, or esse is mutable, or esse is not omnipotent. And since it seems illogical that esse be doing all things in one infinite moment (for example, creating and destroying the universe, loving and hating a person) this means that esse cannot be both immutable and omnipotent. Esse could be immutable and not omnipotent (only allowed to do one side of the opposites, like only create and love) or esse is omnipotent and mutable (able to do any and all things, at whichever moment it chooses).

    I also don't see why it is neccessary for esse to exist. I think this fault lies most on your premise of a brain in a vat. That infers some sort of reality beyond which you see. If you take the skepticism even further, and say there is absolutely nothing except You, then all things that "are" are a part of you. They are your thoughts and imaginations. No reason for this existence to be separate from yourself, because there is nothing except yourself in existence.

    However, one can choose any set of premises they want, so I'll ignore that for now.

    But I hope you will take this moment to review a proof of mine that the Christian God is an impossibility.

    (I assume you mean the Christian God because you failed to intoduce a definition of God, and have quoted Thomas Aquinas. If I am wrong in this assumption, feel free to disregard the following)

    I start with some basic assumptions based on the Christian ideal of God.

    1. God exists
    2. God is omnipotent
    3. God is omniscient
    4. God is all loving
    5. Man has free will

    I also assume the basic premise of the Bible (the creation, the fall, Jesus, etc.).

    Now if God is omniscient, he knows, before he creates the universe, every single event that will happen from the beggining to the end of the universe.

    So God creates the universe. Out of desire of a relationship, God creates a being in His own image, and gifts it with free will. This is man. Now out of consequence of free will, man can choose to have or not to have a relationship with God. As a consequence of this, certain people will go to Hell, basically because denying a relationship with God involves sin, and the nature of God cannot permit sin to be in its presence (or sin is incapable of being in God's presence, whichever way you want it).

    So regardless of reason, God creates a place devoid of all comforts and happiness, and beings that he knows will end up there. Now if God is all loving, he would provide a way for man to escape from hell and get to heaven. This way was provided in the sacrifice of Jesus.

    But my question is why choose Jesus? Why choose what God knows is a radical, often unapealing option that a large group of people will refuse as the only escape from hell?

    There are two possible reasons. The first is God is not all loving, and only desires relationships with certain people, and cares not for the others. However, the Bible says that God is all loving and desires a relationship with every man woman and child. That leads us to the second option.

    God is not omnipotent, and is bound by certain rules or laws that dictate his nature. Assuming God wants a relationship with every person, but cannot obtain it without first over coming the obstacle of sin, it would then make sense for Christ's blood sacrifice to cover our sins. But why not simply forgive sin? If God is omnipotent (able to do all things), then simple sin forgiveness should be easy. Why is a blood sacrifice neccesarry? God must not be omnipotent. This must be the best (and other those circumstances, I'll admit, its a damn good effort) He can do. God seems to be playing according to a set of rules He cannot (or will not) break. But if God is not able to do certain things, He cannot be omnipotent. If God will not do certain things to ensure that all these people He supposedly loves do not suffer eternally, then He is not all loving.
    Voted for by Johnny Horrorshow.
    View 11 comments
  • :

  • blueprint
    ayin (absolute nothingness)
    en sof (boundless light)
    en sof aur (boundless light of will); the spriraling out of creation
    ehyeh (i am); the point of coming into being/existance

    this combines with everything that naturally strikes me as 'right'.
    i do not know the exact orgin of my spiritual knowledge, but nor do i care to know....
    when something feels right, i trust in it. occurs to me that if i were to question it, it would suggest that i am infact not to be trusted.... by myself....
    i know what i am, and i know the difference between the brain and the spirit. they communicate differently. i have become bilingual in the aspect that i can understand and decipher the motives of each. i have come to police my mindful self from translating for the spiritual self. niether can interpret the other with any degree of accuracy, so why confound the wisdom of both by allowing debate between the two?
    off topic, huh? rant rave and rock and roll.

    drop curtain.
    Add a comment
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →