First Principles

[TravisT]

First Principles

From Norman Geisler’s “The Big Book on Apologetics”​

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 uses first principles in denial.
Principles of Reality. Without basic first principles of reality, nothing can be known. Everything we know about reality is known by them. When we put them together in logical order, they can be used to demonstrate the existence of God. The symbols involved in these principles are:
B means being;
Bn means Necessary Being;
Bc means contingent being;
-> means causes;
-/> cannot cause;
Act means actuality;
P means potentiality (or potency).

1. B is or exists (principle of existence)

1. B is B (principle of identity)
2. B is not non-B (principle of non-contradiction)
3. Either B or non-B (principle of excluded middle)
4. Non-B -/> B (principle of negative causality)
5. B-/Bc (principle of contingent causality)
6. Bn-/>Bn (principle of impossible causality)
7. Bn->Bc (principle of positive causality)
8. Bc is (exists) (principle of contingent existence)
9. Bn is (exists) principle of necessary existence)
10. Act is Act (with no potency) (principle of pure actuality)
11. Bc is act/potency (principle of potency)
12. Act ->act/potency (principle of analogy
13. Act is similar to act
14. Act is different from potency
15. Bn is not (principle of negative attributes)
16. finite (= is infinite)
17. changing (=is immutable)
18. temporal (=is eternal)
19. multiple (= is one)
20. divisible (=is simple)
21. Bn is (principle of positive attributes)
22. actual
23. intelligent
24. personal
25. good
26. truth
27. beautiful

From these principles of being it follows that God exists, that He is infinite, unchanging, eternal, indivisible, personal, moral, and intelligent Being.
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 or reducible to the undeniable. They are either self-evident or reducible to self-evident. And self-evident principles are either true by their nature or 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 reducing it. For example, the principle of noncontradiction cannot be denied without using it in the very denial. The statement “Opposites cannot both be true “ assumes that the opposite of that statement cannot be true. Not all skeptics or agnostics are willing to grant that the principle of causality, which is crucial in all cosmological arguments for God, is an undeniable first principle. Indeed, not every skeptic is willing to admit something exists (the principle of existence). Thus, it is necessary to comment on their undeniability.

1. The Principle of Existence. Something exists, For example, I exist. This is undeniable, for I would have to exist in order to deny my existence. In the very attempt to explicitly deny my existence, I implicitly affirm it. With these and other principles, it is important to note the difference between unsayable and undeniable. I can say or write the words,” I do not exist.” However, when I said them I implicitly affirmed that “I do not exist.” However, when I said them I implicitly affirmed that I do exist. The affirmation that I do not exist is actually unaffirmable. I must actually exist in order to grammatically say I do not exist.
2. The principle of Identity. A thing must be identical to itself. Being is being. If it were not, then it would not be itself.
3. The principle of Non-Contradiction. Being cannot be nonbeing, for they are direct opposites. And opposites cannot be the same. For the one who affirms that “opposites can both be true” does not hold that the opposite of this statement is true. This applies to the subatomic world too. As even Werner Heisenberg noted, these are “two complimentary descriptions of the same reality….. These descriptions can only be partially true: there must be limitations to the use of the particle concept as well as the wave concept, else one could not avoid contradictions.” Thus, if one takes into account those limitations which can be expressed by uncertainty relations, the contradictions disappear”. At best the principle of indeterminacy does not show that events have no cause but only that they are unpredictable as presently perceived with available technology.
4. Any attempt to deny that all meaningful statements must be non-contradictory, by its very nature as a meaningful statement, must be contradictory, by its very nature as a meaningful statement, must be contradictory. Likewise, any attempt to deny the law of noncontradiction applies to reality is itself a non-contradictory statement about reality— which is self defeating. So, like other first principles, the law of contradiction is undeniable.
5. The principle of negative causality. Nothing cannot cause something. Only being can cause being. Nothing does not exist, and only what exists can cause existence, since the very concept of “cause” implies an existing thing that has the power to effect another. From absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing.
   The statement “Nonbeing cannot produce being” is undeniable. The very concept of “produce” or “cause” implies that something exists. To cause or produce the being produced. To deny that relationship of cause to effect is to say, “Nothing is something” and “Nonbeing is being,” which is nonsense.
   This should be distinguished from David Hume’s point that it is not absurd for nothing to be followed by something. Hume himself accepts that something is always caused by something . And theists accept Hume’s point that, as a matter of sequence, there was no world and then there was a world, which is nothing followed by something. There is no inherent contradiction in saying nothing can be followed by something. That doesn’t change the fact that nothing can cause absolutely nothing.
   Another way to understand why nothing cannot cause being is by noting that everything that “comes to be” must have a cause. If it came to be it is not a Necessary Being, which by its nature must always be. So what comes to be is, by definition, a contingent being, a being that is capable of existing or not existing. For every contingent thing that comes to be there must be some efficient action that causes it to pass from a state of potentiality (potency) to a state of actuality (act). For, Aquinas noted, no potency for being can actualize itself. To actualize itself it must be in a state of actuality, and before it is actualized it must be in a state of potentiality. But it cannot be both at the same time (a violation of principle of noncontradiction). Hence, one cannot deny the principle of causality without violating the principle of noncontradiction.
   
6. The principle of contingent causality. If something cannot be caused by nothing (5), then neither can anything be caused by what could be nothing, namely, a contingent being. For what could be nothing does not account for its own existence. And what cannot account for even its own existence cannot account for the existence of another. Since it is contingent or dependent for its own being, it cannot be that on which something else depends for its being.
7. The principle of impossible causality. If absolutely nothing cannot cause something (5), then neither can one contingent kind (mode) of being cause another contingent being (6). For a contingent being can be reduced to nothing, since its nonexistence is possible. So if anything comes to be, it must be caused by a Necessary Being.
8. The principle of contingent existence. All contingent beings need a cause. (7). For a contingent being is something that is but could not be. But since it has the possibility not to exist, then it does not account for its own experience. That is, in itself there is no basis for explaining why it exists rather than does not exist. It literally has nothing (nonbeing) to ground it. But nonbeing cannot ground or cause something. Hence, only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being to exist.
9. The principle of contingent existence. A contingent being exists. This follows from something exists (1) and from the fact that I am not a Necessary Being. I cannot be a Necessary Being since: (a) I change in my being and (b) I can cease to be, that is, my nonexistence is possible. What changes cannot be a Necessary Being since it must necessarily be what it is and cannot be other. Further, my nonexistence is conceivable, but the nonexistence of a Necessary Being (if one exists) is not possible. Hence, I must be a contingent being. (c) Even those who claim to be a Necessary Being (i.e., God) came to believe this. Hence, they changed from not knowing they were not a Necessary Being to knowing they are a Necessary Being. But a Necessary Being (if there is one) cannot change from a contingent being into a Necessary Being. And if this Necessary Being knows anything (viz., is a knowing being), then he knew he was always a Necessary Being. So any being, like myself, that comes to know they are a Necessary Being is not a Necessary Being. God always knew he was a Necessary Being (if such a one exists).
10. The principle of necessary existence. A Necessary Being exists. This follows from two other principles: the principle of contingent existence (9) and the principle of contingent causality (6). For if a contingent exists and if a contingent being cannot cause another contingent being, then a Necessary Being must exist. Otherwise, nothing would be causing something, which is impossible.
11. The principle of actuality. A Necessary Being is pure actuality. For a Necessary Being has no potentiality (potency) not to exist. Hence, it is pure actuality. And pure actuality is pure actuality with no potency whatsoever in its being.
12. The principle of potency. Every contingent being has actuality and potentiality not to exist. Hence, a contingent being has both actuality and potentiality in its being.
13. The principle of analogy. Every contingent being (i.e., one composed of actuality and potentiality) is similar the Necessary Being that caused it to exist (viz., to pure actuality because both are actual. It is unlike pure actuality because it has potency that pure actuality does not have. But what is both like and unlike another is similar. Hence, every contingent being is similar to its Cause(which is a Necessary Being). As an act/potency being it is like pure actuality, which causes it.
14. The principle of negative attributes. Every contingent being is unlike its Cause (a Necessary Being) because it (a) has potency, (b) is contingent, (c) changes, and (d) is finite. But a Necessary Being has none of these. A necessary Being has no potency, is not contingent, cannot change (viz., it is unchangeable), and is not finite (= is infinite). For it is pure actuality, and everything that changes has potentiality—-the potential to change.
15. The principle of positive attributes. Every contingent being is like its Cause(a Necessary Being because being cannot produce (bring into being) nothing. Whatever causes something to exist communicates existence to it. Being produces being, and act produces act. So every contingent being is like its Cause in its actuality (and unlike it in its potentiality). In short, what every actuality I have, God is.

It follows from this that if I am intelligent (the contingent effect) , then my Cause must be Intelligence. If I am a person, then He (my Cause) must be personal. And if I have Goodness, Truth, and Beauty then He must be Goodness, Truth and Beauty —–absolutely. Therefore, it follows that there exists an intelligent, personal, immutable Necessary Being who is Pure Actuality and absolute Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. That is to say, God exists—-a theistic God.
Conclusion. First principles are indispensible to all knowledge. And first principles of being are a necessary prerequisite for all knowledge of being. These first principles are undeniable or reducible to the undeterminable. For the very attempt to deny them affirm them. By them not only is reality known but the existence of God can be demonstrated.

Blog from

Carlton Blaylock

 

[OzSpen]

Admin,

What is the point you are trying to make with such a lengthy quote?

What say you take one small piece and initiate a discussion about it?

Oz