Alright yes, that's true: When it isn't known that a topic is unknowable and indescribable, then it's a legitimate topic of philosophy, for discussion about that. — Michael Ossipoff

If there is a fundamental substance that is and always has been and is the source of all contingent things we can say three things about it-

1. It is
2. It has creative potential because it evolved into everything that is not fundamental
3. It has the power to become life and consciousness, because this is what happened.

I dont think you can have a universe of processes or properties only. I tend to think of it in terms of properties. Suppose you have a bronze coin with the property 'circular'. You cannot remove the substance of the coin from the property circular; the property 'circular' IS the substance of the coin, but we conceive of it abstractly.

Consider the following propositions;-

1. A property must be supported by substance. This substance is either relative or absolute.
A relative substance is such when it too can be shown to be a property, playing the part of absolute substance. Absolute substance is not a property.

2. Every property is perfectly identified with its supporting substance.

Keeping these two propositions in mind we can examine properties and see if they hold.

In the example of the bronze coin, the supporting substance of the property 'circular' is bronze. But bronze, being matter, is a property of energy because matter is a pattern in a field of energy. What then is energy? Is it an absolute substance or is it too a property of some deeper substance?

Any analysis of this property/substance relationship in physical reality will quickly lead to this question; what is energy? Is it a relative or absolute substance?

Proposition 2. says that matter is perfectly identified with energy; it is merely a pattern in a field of energy. It is the energy in the way 'circular' is the bronze of the coin. Matter is a property; it is nothing. Can we have a universe made of nothings/processes? or is there a fundamental substance keeping the hierarchy of properties in being?

I think the confusion is purely semantic. POTUS is a position in a hierarchy that can be occupied by many people. Trump is only one person. T = P, is meaningless if P = 'the top position in the hierarchy'.
T = P has meaning if P = 'the present occupier of the top position in the hierarchy'

I think, at best, IQ tests can only measure very basic mental abilities. Intelligence is many different things. A stand up comic can have amazing social intelligence and linguistic skills. Art is another kind of intuitive intelligence. The creation of a joke requires many highly developed abilities;

Linguistic sophistication.
Social intelligence.
The ability to understand other minds.
The intelligence to understand that the joke is funny.
The pathos with which the joke is delivered.

I think computers will only be intelligent when they can spontaneously create a joke.


Teacher: Let x equal the number of sheep.

Pupil: But teacher, what if x is not the number of sheep?

Why should a omniscient being's mind be able to evolve, however? — GreyScorpio

Maybe (mathematical) knowledge is an intrinsic part of God's existence.

But you can't talk about god having a designer without talking about how he came to exist. Because that is the whole point, no? How did this complex knowledge come about in the first place? — GreyScorpio

As outlined in my first post, mathematics rests on very primitive concepts (essentially number as a set). If primitive knowledge can exist in God's mind it can evolve into mathematics, which is non physical complexity. But in God 'evolve' does not require time; perhaps God spontaneously knows mathematical truth, yet there is a logical abstract evolution in mathematics; one thing leads to another, endlessly.

Very good point. How I would answer that (and I know my view is almost universally contested on the forum) is that the philosophical understanding of the relationship of God and creation was mainly derived from the Greek tradition, principally neoplatonism — Wayfarer

I think you are correct in this. Try to get hold of Simone Weil's Letter to a Priest.

I don't follow how this would warrent God to be able to pop into existence. Why is God exempt from logical rules if he can only do what is logically possible? — GreyScorpio

The question is not about God's existence it is about how God can be complex without a designer. If abstract knowledge can exist in God's mind you have complexity right there; mathematical complexity.

Most definitely the designer needs a designer. — GreyScorpio

Not if the designer can know abstract mathematical complexity. This complexity can then be the basis for physical complexity.

At death, we stop having these choices — Relativist

Not necessarily.

What good comes from this brief period of moral freedom? — Relativist

Great good. If we become good we will be closer to God in the next life.

Why wouldn't an omnibenevolent God just create beings like THAT - without a freedom to sin, but free in infinite possibilities of goodness? — Relativist

Because freedom is necessary if goodness is to be freely chosen. Created beings must choose for themselves, God cannot make the choice for them. In time and space all creation is involved with this choice.

Are you really choosing to give up free will, or is that an unexpected consequence? — Relativist

No, I don't think so. They would give up the freedom to sin but would still be free in infinite possibilities of goodness. Like an alcoholic coming to the realization that everything good can (if with difficulty) be found in sanity and sobriety.

Is it impossible to fail in heaven, or are the souls in heaven changed in some way? — Relativist

I don't know. But maybe they choose to surrender the freedom to fall. Origen of Alexandria says that they remained loyal to God by free choice.
If all are eventually saved then maybe, at the end of time, 6. in your post above, will be finally realised.

btw, there are two 6s in your post. I'm talking about the first one.

But if there are non-sinning free-willed souls in heaven, then such beings can exist without contradiction. — Relativist

They are in heaven because they freely chose not to fall with the rest of creation, not because God made it impossible for them to fall.

Please address the actual argument and tell me what premise(s) you disagree with. — Relativist

This does not seem to be logically airtight-

4. There exist contingent free-willed souls in heaven who do not sin
5. Therefore God's omnipotence entails the ability to directly create free-willed beings that do not sin.
6. Therefore God could have created a world of free-willed beings who do not sin


4. they freely chose not to sin but could have chosen otherwise. Their choice was not determined by God, it was a free choice.

5. Omnipotence allows them to be free, it does not force them to desist from sin. The lack of sin is by their own choice, not God's omnipotence

6. He did create a world of free-willed beings who do not sin and do sin


Your argument is that God can make us free but determine the outcome of that freedom. Your argument is mostly logical except for this point. The choices must be made by created beings themselves and not determined by God. But, ultimately, God's omnipotence may create a world of free beings who do not sin, if all fallen spirits return to heaven. In other words, God may be in the process of doing just what you are saying, but that process requires a temporal fall from grace. 'All will be well, and all manner of things will be well' Julian of Norwich.


Freedom is a necessary part of goodness.

What you are saying is that God can allow creation to be free and not free at the same time, which is not logical.

I think it comes down largely to how you view the world. Many people these days are polarized between materialism and spirituality. The materialist argues that we are, to a large extent, biological entities and that is what determines our sexuality. If we were as rigidly determined as the materialists believe I doubt that gender issues would arise.

If the spiritual component makes a difference then our biological disposition may only be secondary. The mind can chemically change the body and have all kinds of physical effects on it.

The real question here is whether sex is a biological or spiritual reality, or both. If it is both, as I believe it is, it is enormously difficult to analyse. With some people it may be just a mistaken way of thinking and with others there may be a real longing to escape our biological identity. You cannot put all of them under the same label because the may have very different reasons for feeling the way they do.

I read that the physicist Boltzmann introduced probability in physics and his explanation turned out to be the correct one. I think thermodynamics was born with Boltzmann's statistical interpretation of physics. — TheMadFool

The digits in the decimal expansion of pi are said to be random. Does this mean that we can choose these digits and act upon them to make random choices?;-

If a digit is 1, do x (eg treat yourself to a coffee)
if it is 2, do y (go to the cinema)
if it is 3, do z, etc.

One could also do the same with quadratic residues, which are apparently proved to be 'random'. If we can act upon purely mathematical entities does this mean we have escaped the determinism of matter as numbers are not material things. Thoughts?

btw did you read The Diceman by Luke Rhenehart? Great read.
https://www.bookdepository.com/Dice-Man-Luke-Rhinehart/9780879518646?redirected=true&utm_medium=Google&utm_campaign=Base1&utm_source=IE&utm_content=Dice-Man&selectCurrency=EUR&w=AFFPAU9SKBXBUNA80R8S&pdg=pla-308360991107:kwd-308360991107:cmp-711089934:adg-39921983227:crv-163908794634:pid-9780879518646:dev-c&gclid=Cj0KCQjwpvzZBRCbARIsACe8vyK93wFogPY-WzE2FZ-Esv87PRLPFYCXr9kZNJtAM9744ZwgIqVX0kMaAlEcEALw_wcB

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.