If we can generate a truly random number we can prove non determinism.

but what is evil? — Aleksander Kvam

St. Agustin says that evil is not a positive entity in itself. It is a deprivation of the good. An analogy is a perfect Rolls Royce and a battered one. The battered Rolls Royce has been damaged but nothing of substance has been added to it. And you cannot have a battered Rolls Royce unless you start with a good one.

Evil is a corruption of life, of goodness. It cannot exist without the good first existing.

"[One must] reject the common sop that somehow the indeterminism of quantum physics helps us out here. First, there is no evidence that the neurons of the brain are subject to indeterminancy in the way, say, firing of elections is (and in fact there is much evidence against it); even if that were the case, however ... the indeterminancy of some outcomes in the brain would not help with establishing personal causal origination of actions. For randomness in fact would make us more rather than less subject to unexpected turns of fact. ... — StreetlightX

It seems that if one can perform one non deterministic act in the world that would settle the issue. Here is how it could be done IF quantum events, in this case radioactive decay, are really random:-

Set up a Geiger counter alongside some radioactive material.
Count the hits on the counter.
Stop the experiment after a set period of time.
If the number of hits is odd have a coffee at home.
If the number of hits is even have a coffee at your local restaurant.
Your decision has been determined randomly and is therefore a non deterministic decision.


The determinism/non determinism of the world seems to be closely linked to whether we can create a truly random number.

There's another situation which is similar to trying to understand the unanameable -that of a baboon trying to understand calculus. Are you saying we're like the baboon? — TheMadFool

Not at all. I'm trying to argue that we can infer a substance that is the underpinning of all properties.

If you work on the principle that all properties must be supported by substance and work your way back you must, logically, come to something that is not a property. Properties are states and you cannot have a state unless something is in that state. It doesn't seem coherent to posit the existence of a universe that is made of properties only.

How do we discuss this unnameable substance? — TheMadFool

Plotinus talks about unknowable 'first things' in God/the void.

How do you discuss empty space with no-thing in it?

Remarkably there are some things we can say about this primordial existence or void.

1. It is. It is a necessary existence.
2. It has vast creative potential because it evolved by acquiring properties and became a universe.
3. It has the potential for life and consciousness because it has evolved into these too.

I do think you have a point but to talk of your ''substance'' without properties is extremely difficult if not impossible. — TheMadFool

Yes, some call it 'the void'. But from what I can see it must exist because otherwise there would be properties without substance. Try to think of a property without some substance to hold it in being.

I think I have an analogy. Your friend is in New York and you're in Washington. His existence can only be known to you through a phone for example. The phone is your senses and detects the properties, the only evidence of existence, of your friend's ''substance''.

Yes, I agree entirely. But my point is that what can be known is not enough. I think we must infer an ultimate substance.

Your ''substance'' would be incomprehensible without properties. It's the way the world is.I don't like it but that's how it is. — TheMadFool

Yes, it is incomprehensible. It is the 'no-thing' (no nameable thing but not absolute nothingness.)

The closest I can get to it is space; there is 'no-thing' in space but space is something; an actual substance.

But without the property ''hot'' or ''cold'' or whatever we couldn't say that metal or any other thing exists. — TheMadFool

Yes, but that is only the world of appearances. As far as the physical universe is concerned you will find that the substance of a property is only a 'relative substance' because it too is a property. Matter is a property of energy. So it comes down to this question; Is energy a property? If it is what is its supporting substance? But you cannot work back indefinitely, you must come to something that is not a property.

Perfection is life made free of evil. Maybe that is the purpose.

I guess one's motivation has a lot to do with it. One can be narcissistic about mathematics, science, art etc and vain about their accomplishments. But this does not mean people do not have a real love of science, art etc. It really depends on the individual.

Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty — a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. — G.H.Hardy

I guess the love of philosophical truth can be similar.

Do you understand the neurological difference between attentional processes and habitual or automatic ones? — apokrisis

I think I do. Those expressions seem self explanatory. But there seems to be a third category; emotional motivations that are not understood by the conscious mind. Sometimes people act without understanding their motivations. That seems to be a kind of unconscious mind.

That's not 'existence' - it is 'being', 'esse' is the Latin term. 'Existence' is a compound word derived from 'ex-' apart from and 'ist', to stand. So I would argue that something that 'exists' is by definition compound and temporal, whereas if you are speaking of 'being as such', nearer in meaning to 'esse' or 'ouisia' (which is the Greek term from which 'substance' was derived), then this is something that transcends existence (as per the references in my post above.) — Wayfarer

Well that is very semantic. 'Being' is usually concerned with life and consciousness. It usually refers to a very evolved existence concerning soul, self or psyche. But we say a rock exists. Existence is more primitive. There is no clear distinction between the two, so I am obliged to use 'existence' in the primitive sense and use 'being' in the evolved sense. My argument is that existence is a primordial substance and being is evolved existence.


When you work back through the chain of properties you must come to a substance that is not a property, otherwise there is an infinite regression of properties. When we get to this ultimate substance we ask 'Does it exist?' It is incoherent to say it doesn't. So it does exist. But since it is not a property of anything it must be existence itself. Existence is a fecund substance that has the power to evolve properties. Otherwise, how do properties come to be?

You can say 'Existence is evolved being' or 'Being is evolved existence' but my essential argument holds; there is a primordial substance that is a necessary existence and is not a property. This substance evolves by acquiring properties and the highest point of this evolution is, apparently, conscious life.

I don't see how there can be a set of properties unless they are held together by an inner substance. This substance is ultimately the primordial substance that is.

The history of science suggests this. It was once thought that the classical universe was a set of properties that held within itself the explanation of its own existence. But quantum physicists discovered that to explain the physical universe it is necessary to go outside the classical domain and they discovered that energy is the substance of which the classical universe is an emergent set of physical properties.

The question now is; is energy the primordial substance or is it too a property of some deeper substance?

Your ''substance'' is real insofar as it is perceptible to our senses or through instruments. We can't talk of ''substance'' without properties, right? Your ''substance'' would be incomprehensible without properties. — TheMadFool

Yes, but properties cannot be without substance. By 'actualized' properties I mean real properties. A circle cannot be a real property of a coin unless it has a substance that supports it or actualizes it. The silver of the coin is the substance of the property 'circular'. You can do a simple thought experiment with this; think of any real, actualized property like 'hot' etc. You will always find that it cannot be real unless it is supported by some kind of substance; 'hot cheese' or 'hot metal'. Now, of you examine the supporting substance you will probably find that it too is a property and requires a deeper substance to keep it in being. Clearly, this process cannot go on for ever. You must ultimately come to some substance that is not a property and is therefore a substance. This ultimate substance must exist if properties are to exist. To say that properties can create existence is like saying 'hot' can create the metal that actualizes (makes real) the property 'hot'.

Substance holds properties in being, not vise versa. Can you think of a property that is not supported by a substance that keeps it in being?

...to make properties actual? What does "actual" mean? — Michael Ossipoff

Properties are ephemeral. They cannot be real unless there is some underlying substance that keeps them in being, or actualizes them. 'Circle' is only imaginary unless it is actualized by a substance, a coin, for example.

That just has arbitrarily-made-up sound. An unnecessary multiplication of entities, making for a crowded, assumption-heavy metaphysics.

No, it is necessary to prevent an infinite regression. It cannot be properties all way down; properties supporting properties supporting properties forever. Properties require substance. If that substance is also a property it too requires a deeper substance, etc, until we meet something that is not a property.

1. Identify a real property.
2. Identify its supporting substance.
3. Is this substance also a property? Yes/No
4. Yes: identify its supporting substance. No: You have reached a substance that is not a property. This is why existence is not a property.

There is an element in the human psyche that loves to luxuriate in horror, which seems to be the obverse of eroticism. This is why horror and eroticism are combined in those old vampire movies such as Nosferatu the Vampyre etc. See also Hieronymus Bosch.

Many mental states are knowledge, in the mind. If someone says "the house is on fire" that is knowledge in your mind and will surely put you in a mental (and physical) state, regardless of whether the house is really on fire. In this respect we can define some mental states as knowledge in consciousness. Now all you have to do is define consciousness and you will know what a mental state is!

And what amounts to proof?

Properties of objects right? An elf has to be seen, heard, touched, photographed, etc. Existence2 is dependent on properties exhibited by an object (an elf). — TheMadFool

If you examine any physical property you will see that it needs some supporting substance. In the example of the silver coin the silver is the supporting substance of its property 'circular'.

You can therefore work in the simple principle: substance supports and actualises properties.

If you examine the silver of the coin you will see that it is also a property because it is a piece of matter and matter is a property of energy. It is made out of energy because matter is a pattern of energy. From this we see that the silver is only a relative, rather than absolute, substance.

The question now is; Is energy the ultimate substance of all material properties?
Maybe it is or maybe energy is also a pattern that is supported by a deeper substance, in which case energy is only a relative supporting substance.

But we cannot work back through the chain of properties endlessly. It cannot be 'turtles all the way down'. We must come to some entity that is not a property of anything. In which case it is a substance. This substance is existence. It is the true supporting substance of all properties and there can be no properties without it.

We cannot say, of such a thing, that 'It exists' because there seems to be two things there; 'It' and 'exists'. We should simply say 'Existence is'.

We say dragons have scales, wings, claws and breathes fire. In other words, in an imaginary world existence is prior to properties. — TheMadFool

If you examine any physical property you will see that it needs some supporting substance. In the example of the silver coin the silver is the supporting substance of its property 'circular'.

You can therefore work in the simple principle: substance supports and actualises properties.

If you examine the silver of the coin you will see that it is also a property because it is a piece of matter and matter is a property of energy. It is made out of energy because matter is a pattern of energy. From this we see that the silver is only a relative, rather than absolute, substance.

The question now is; Is energy the ultimate substance of all material properties?
Maybe it is or maybe energy is also a pattern that is supported by a deeper substance, in which case energy is only a relative supporting substance.

But we cannot work back through the chain of properties endlessly. It cannot be 'turtles all the way down'. We must come to some entity that is not a property of anything. In which case it is a substance. This substance is existence. It is the true supporting substance of all properties and there can be no properties without it.

We cannot say, of such a thing, that 'It exists' because there seems to be two things there; 'It' and 'exists'. We should simply say 'Existence is'. It is existence that actualises properties and without it, there would be nothing.

So for existence2 properties (except existence itself) are prior to the claim of existence. — TheMadFool

Yes, but that does not tell us what existence actually is. It cannot be simply a collection of properties. If you examine any property you will see that it requires some substance to actualise it. (see the example of the coin, below).

I find the word 'property' easier to understand and probably more apt. than the word predicate.

The essential argument I am making is that properties are not substantial and need a supporting substance to actualise them. Suppose you have a silver coin with the property 'circular'. Silver is the substance of the property, circular.

But properties are not true existences. They can vanish. If you melt down the silver coin in the hope of separating it from its property 'circular' it won't work; the property 'circular' will vanish. But something that can seem to be and then vanish, is not a real existence (existence is eternal or not at all).

It is the same with all properties. If you examine any property you can see that it needs some underlying substance to actualise it. Properties themselves are ephemeral 'nothings'.

But you can't have a universe made of 'nothings'. That is absurd.

The confusion in the philosophy of being results from a failure to distinguish existence from being. Existence, as I am using the word, is the uncreated void, the 'no-thing' that is not absolute nothingness.

The void evolves by acquiring properties and becomes being and life. Being is evolved existence.

We know deep things because the non physical mind is conscious. The brain is only a means for the mind to engage with the physical world.

Part of the problem with existence, in philosophy, is that existence is seen as a verb or a process. Existence, in itself, is a noun, a substance. If X has properties X is not brought into existence by its properties. If that was the case reality would be just a set of properties with no supporting substance, which is absurd. It is worth showing why existence cannot be a property, or a result of properties, to see the thing more clearly.

Existence cannot be a property:

Assume X has the property 'existence'. In this respect we consider X and existence to be distinct entities (otherwise X is equivalent to existence and there is nothing to prove). We now ask the question; Does X exist (as a distinct entity)? There are two answers;

1. X exists.
If this is the case existence, as a property of X, is superfluous since X exists anyhow. Therefore X is equivalent to existence.

2. X does not exist.

It is incoherent to say a non existent X has properties, let alone the property existence.

Clearly, if X is to have properties, it must exist 'first' in which case its existence cannot be conferred upon it by its properties.

'X exists' is incoherent if by that it is meant that X is in some kind of process.
'Existence has property X' is correct.

For all X, X is existence or a property of existence. Existence is the substance of all properties.

Consider an amorphous lump of bronze (existence). The bronze can be shaped into a horse. The horse is a property of the bronze. Likewise with existence and its properties.

Existence, as a noun, evolves by way of aquiring properties (star, dolphin, city etc) and becomes active. One only needs to understand that existence is a substance. It is what is, before anything else.

I see it as a state of being, but of being commensurable. If nothing truly exists, it is incommensurable and therefore meaningless. — gloaming

Being is active. The properties of existence enable it to become active. Existence in itself, 'before' its properties is a noun, a substance. It is the only substance.

Existence’ requires existing among other existents, a fundamental dependency of relation. If God also exists, then God would be just another fact of the universe, relative to other existents and included in that fundamental dependency of relation. — Bishop Whalon

The bishop is confusing existence in action (being) with existence as the substance that is. Existence is a substance that is God.

Existence refers to what is finite and fallen and cut of from its true being. — Tillich

Existence is that which eternally is. Being is existence in action.

In traditional cultures - including Anselm’s - this was understood through an implicit understanding of the ‘uncreated’. It was understood that everything ‘here below’ - that is, created being - existed in a relation of dependency on ‘the uncreated’ — Wayfarer

This is exactly correct. The 'uncreated' is the substance that is existence. 'Created being' is existence in action.

In short, first the objects must have properties and only then can we say that a given object exists. Look at the way we define objects in the real world. Isn't it through properties? — TheMadFool

I think it is the other way around; Properties are the 'face' of existence. Existence is the essential 'thereness' of a thing. Properties make it tangible. Existence cannot be produced by its properties because, it order to have properties, it must first exist!

Einstein only completed the theory of relativity because so many had done good work before him. Maybe now philosophy needs someone to pull all the threads together (not a Hawking though)

There are plenty of scientists postulating that timespace was a thing before big bang, but plenty of others postulating that timespace itself was nonexistent. The reason is simple. Because no one knows and Big Bang theory does not rely on unobservables such as the "universe" outside the unborn universe. Since I am no theoretical cosmologist, I cannot defend either position. — FLUX23

I don't think the question 'What came before time?' is important. As Keith Ward mentioned, God is behind ALL points in time. The essential argument here is that, because the universe is contingent (meaning, in this context, a collection of properties) it must be dependent on some necessary substance because you cannot have properties without some sustaining substance to keep them in existence.

Perhaps the closest we can come to this substance is the ontology of space itself; space is a real existence. That space, at least from a geometric point of view, did not always exist hardly matters because space can be a temporal instance of whatever substance it is that ultimately supports the properties of the universe.

So, the answer to your question comes down to the nature of this substance; is it Mind? Is this substance unaware that it is becoming a universe or is it doing this deliberately?

There has been tremendous bias against the mind, and this has led to the false rejection of dualism and an unwarranted acceptance of materialism. Some have claimed that brain and mind are really identical, but this is an ad hoc explanation unsupported by any real evidence. — George Cobau

I tend to agree.

Scientific knowledge is primitive. It is concerned with how atoms are joined together, how energy flows through physical systems, how spacetime is shaped, how biological creatures function, etc. Consequently, the rationale that arises from science is primitive.

The world of the person is concerned with consciousness, being, life, creativity, art, beauty and value. These higher things cannot be encompassed by the primitivism of science. To argue that they can is like arguing that literature should be understood in terms of the primitive logic of chess.

I think everyone is forgiven if they want forgiveness. I don't believe God punishes anyone. Suffering is a natural consequence of sin, not something inflicted by God.

But did that, by itself, remove free will...? Seems more like rendering degrees of doubt/conviction, than removing free will. — jorndoe

Yes, I think you are agreeing with me here. The truth has been written down throughout religious texts. What is needed is not rigid dogma that is indisputably from God - that would impinge on free will. What is needed is a receptive reading of texts and God will show people what He wants them to understand. If we have a sincere desire for truth it will be given to us, either by religious texts, or by some other means. Texts are only an invitation to listen to God.

Why doesn't God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of his text? Why doesn't He tell us what he actually meant by these verses, and how to live by them? — chatterbears

Partly to allow free will. God will tell each individual through their conscience what He wants. They will not be forced to listen nor forced by unassailable texts.

The real question is why there is the existence of anything at all. — Justin Truth

Or why existence is. See last post.

The very existence of being is the "answer" but it is not like being was there and created beings. Rather being is an awareness of the facticity, the emerging and enduring in the eternal sense of all contingent beings. — Justin Truth

If we consider existence as the 'thereness' of the eternal void and being as life, creativity, consciousness we can see that existence (which is a substance, the substance) emerged into being.

Time is not changing. Time is the way change happens. That is, it is the geometry according to which change happens.

Here is part of an essay I am writing on this subject-

One of the most intractable questions in philosophy is Why is there something rather than nothing? Very little progress has been made in answering this question. But we know there is something; 'I think therefore I am'. So, at least Descartes exists, or at the very least, 'there is thought' (Bertrand Russell). At any rate, we can begin with the assumption that there is something rather than nothing.
The something that is, is existence. Existence is not a verb, it is a noun. It is the substance that is and always has been. Existence is God and is not contingent upon any previous state. Existence is not a property of anything, rather, existence has properties. To show that existence is not a property assume X has the property 'existence'. In this respect we consider X and existence to be distinct entities (otherwise X is equivalent to existence and there is nothing to prove). We now ask the question; Does X exist (as a distinct entity)? There are two answers;

1. X exists.
If this is the case existence, as a property of X, is superfluous since X exists anyhow. Therefore X is equivalent to existence.

2. X does not exist.

It is incoherent to say a non existent X has properties, let alone the property existence.

This means that if existence is not a property, it is not contingent. That is, not dependent on any previous state. All other realities are properties of existence. The universe is a set of properties of existence. Properties of existence 'inherit' their existence. We can say 'This milk bottle exists'. By this we mean that the milk bottle is a property of existence and the substance of it is existence, because existence is the only substance that is.

In principle we can deconstruct the bottle into glass crystals and we can deconstruct the crystals into molecules, atoms and so on until even the atoms are deconstructed into energy because energy is the substance of matter. It may even be possible to deconstruct energy into a deeper form of energy but this deconstruction cannot go on indefinitely; it cannot be 'turtles all the way down'. We must come to some ultimate substance that supports the properties 'atom', 'molecule', 'crystal' 'bottle'. This substance is that which is from the beginning, existence.
Even though philosophy cannot say why existence is or what it is, there are a number of things we can say about it;

1. Existence is.
2. Existence has vast creative potential because it has emerged into a universe and everything in that universe.
3. It has the potential to become life, because life is found in the universe.