“Who Am I?” Project 4 - The Philosophical Argument: Part II

The results of the first part of this argument have left us needing at least some conditioned realities and at least one unconditioned reality.  This little achievement of basic reason should not be underappreciated.  I have not once appealed to religious scriptures, nor to something called “faith.”  I have just tried to see where thinking takes us.  Thoughtful people who do not want to follow along with me should at least have the courtesy to explain why.

The next question to answer going forward is whether there is only one unconditioned reality or more than one.  The answer to this question will determine whether we should be theists (one God) or polytheists (many Gods).

Let us imagine two unconditioned realities, UR1 and UR2.  Each one gets its own universe and is the unconditioned condition for everything in their respective universes.  The condition trees in UR1’s universe all end with UR1 and so UR1 is a part of everything in UR1’s universe, and likewise with UR2 and the realities in UR2’s universe.  Seems straightforward.  If there are Unconditioned Realities, and we call those Unconditioned Realities God, then perhaps there are many Gods and not just one.

But maybe we have moved too quickly.  I have given UR1 and UR2 their own universes, but is there any way to speak of the reality that includes both universes?  If we somehow wanted to insist that the two universes are in all respects separate and in no way unified, we would be proposing that UR1’s universe is something about which those in UR2’s universe could know nothing, and I mean really nothing.  This would have the logical consequence of making each universe indistinguishable from nothing at all as far as the other universe was concerned.  This is because the only thing about which we can say nothing at all is nothing.  Thus, if we wanted to keep UR1 and UR2’s universes completely separated, we would be unable to explain what it might mean for each universe to exist in the first place.

If we want to be able refer to them as distinct realities, then UR1’s and UR2’s universes cannot be completely and in all respects separate from each other.  Yet, if they are each just one universe within a multiplicity of universes, then we need a word to describe what the universes have in common, a word to describe what unites them.  In trying to answer this question, we would find ourselves stumbling on to a philosophical problem as old as Plato: the so-called tertium quid, or third thing problem.

In his dialogue the Sophist, Plato considers the idea that everything is made up of either hot or cold (hot and cold could also be named UR1 and UR2).  He concludes that such a proposal leaves something out; namely, whatever it is that makes both hot and cold real.  If both hot and cold share a property in common – being real – then that property could not itself be merely a property of hot or cold because the incompatibility of the two realities is what makes them different.  If hot were really just a version of cold, then there would be only one reality, not two, and vice-versa.

Hot and Cold, UR1 and UR2, thus share a condition on which they both depend.  Thus, neither UR1 nor UR2 are really unconditioned.  It turns out that proposing the possibility of more than one unconditioned reality results in a contradiction.  If, as we have already shown, there must be at least one unconditioned reality, then there can only be one such reality.

Let’s do a quick review. 1) It cannot be the case that ALL realities are conditioned because nothing would ever exist and since we know something exists this position is impossible.  2) It cannot be the case that NO realities are conditioned because neither change nor freedom would be real.  The entirety of existence would be an illusion.  Thus, 3) there must be at least one unconditioned reality, and we have just seen that 4) there can only be ONE unconditioned reality.

Before continuing, let me state the obvious: this is a very condensed version of the argument.  Each of the moves I have made could be interrogated and challenged requiring further defense on my part.  Maybe some of that can take place in any comments people leave on these posts.  For now, however, I think I have provided enough of the argument for people who disagree with it to identify where they disagree with it.

The conclusion that there must be only one unconditioned reality is the foundation of the philosophical argument for Divine creation understood in the tradition of creation ex nihilo.  The unconditioned reality is understood as the unconditioned condition that makes all conditioned reality possible.  It is in making things possible that it creates, and it is in making everything else other than itself possible that it creates from nothing.  That is, there need not have been anything on which the unconditioned reality depended in order to create.  Conditioned realities can create things, but they always create from other conditioned realities that already exist.  The unconditioned condition creates only from itself.

I have called my position Divine creation in the tradition of creation ex nihilo.  I do this because the “from nothing” part of creation ex nihilo is rather confusing.  The most immediate reason it is confusing is that it seems absurd and counter intuitive.  Doesn’t creation require something from which to create?  However, the second reason it is confusing is the “nothing” in creation ex nihilo is not actually nothing; it is the unconditioned condition, or God.  Creation as I have been describing it comes from God, not nothing.

We really only have three options: 1) there has always been a world that needs nothing but itself to exist; 2) the world needs something that transcends the world in order to exist; or 3) the world just somehow happened.  The first option is really only possible if nothing is conditioned, and that option was shown to make freedom and change impossible.  The third option is just a desperate effort to avoid theism.  It’s like saying that a square circle could be possible.  It is a verbal option with no rational backing.  And so we are left with the second option.  I use one word – God – to describe the reality that transcends the world, the reality on which the world depends, and the reality to which all things in the world are always connected to because of their dependence on it.  In short, I think everyone should be theists.