Being, Ontology, Philosophical Theology

Mere Metaphysics Part Four: The Principle of Noncontradiction

by Dave Seng

Scholasticism … is only popular philosophy made systematic—William James.

The principle of existence relies on the three foundational principles of logic, epistemology, and metaphysics: the principle of identity, the principle of noncontradiction, and the principle of excluded middle. These principles are the most basic properties of reality and form the foundation of what we can know about the world and how to correctly think about it. Many of us use these principles day in and day out without ever really thinking about them. These principles, like the principle of existence, are undeniable because one must use these principles in any attempt to deny them.

Everyone uses the principle of noncontradiction one way or another. Whenever we change the oil in our automobiles, drive to work, or simply try to write or speak a conceptually coherent sentence, we are using the principle of noncontradiction.

In our last post, we explored the principle of existence and why it is such an important principle in cosmological reasoning. This time we will discover how the principle of noncontradiction relates to our cosmological argument from being.

The principle of noncontradiction is this: nothing can both be and not be at the same time and same relationship. Another way of putting the principle is this: A cannot be both B and non-B at the same time and in the same relationship. We understand this principle intuitively. I cannot both exist and not exist at the same time (this is a statement of being, or existence). Further, I can be both a father and son at the same time but not in the same relationship (this is a statement of the being, or existence, of relationships).

Aristotle was among the first to articulate the principle of noncontradiction. He reminds us,

There is a principle in things about which we cannot be deceived, but must always, on the contrary recognize the truth,—viz. that the same thing cannot at one and the same time be and not be, or admit any other similar pair of opposites.1

And,

By the starting-points of demonstration I mean the common beliefs, on which all men base their proofs; e.g. that everything must be either affirmed or denied, and that a thing cannot at the same time be and not be, and all other such premises.2

Why is the principle of noncontradiction important in cosmological reasoning for the existence of God? So far we have seen that the principles of existence and identity cannot be legitimately doubted. The same is true for the principle of noncontradiction. One must assume the principle when trying to deny it. As we shall see, the three main principles of epistemology, metaphysics, and logic are all based on the properties of being. Being is undeniable. Being itself provides the foundation of rational thought and discussion about it. In grounding our theistic argument in being, therefore, we are simply explaining why it is impossible to deny reality. We are faced with only two propositions: either being or non-being (nothing). In the realm of being, we will come to understand the realm of becoming or change—but the argument is based on being, not becoming.

I will explicate this a little more in our next post about the principle of excluded middle. For now, it is important to see how the argument itself reflects the metaphysical principles of reality or being. As Thomas Aquinas would remind us, being is the proper effect of God.

Here is the introduction to this series

Here is the first part.

Here is the second part.

Here is the third part.

1 Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans. W. D. Ross, vol. 7, Great Books of the Western World (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1996), 590.

2 Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans. W. D. Ross, vol. 7, Great Books of the Western World (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1996), 515.

Being, Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology

SPINOZA’S PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD AND AUGUSTINE’S NATURAL THEOLOGY: PART Three of three

by Dave Seng

Part one can be found here.

Part two can be found here.

It is true that natural theology reasons to a transcendent God based on the properties of being and the natural world, but the God that natural theology reasons to is far from an afterthought, or built on fictions. Many of the great Western philosophers such as Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas employ natural reasoning, appeal to being and becoming, logic, and the principle of causality to conclude that an eternal and necessary God exists. This is a very different approach than that of Spinoza’s and is worth investigating. From the standpoint of natural theology, it is illogical to presuppose that God exists in a sound deductive argument. Furthermore, according to natural theology, self-creation is a self-contradiction, and pantheism is impossible due to the laws of logic, contingency, and the principle of causation. Using this foundation, Augustine provides a helpful analysis from the perspective of natural theology.

Classical philosophers have found that natural theology is a powerful and thoughtful way to think about the existence of God. In fact, many thinkers of Western antiquity have used some form of argumentation based on the nature of Being, or reality, to reach their theological or cosmological conclusions. Natural theology is the approach many classical theologians and philosophers use to conclude the existence of a transcendent God. It is not a uniquely Christian way of argumentation either, because Plato, Aristotle, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers have used or adopted various versions of natural theology. Natural theologians and philosophers tend to focus on forms of the cosmological argument which reasons that God must exist as the ultimate cause of the contingent, physical universe.

There are many forms of the cosmological argument. In general, the argument follows from the contingency of the universe and usually adopts this line of thought: contingent, or caused, being depends for its existence on some uncaused being.1 The universe is a contingent being, therefore, the universe depends for its existence on some uncaused being. Another way of the putting the argument is this: Something exists (myself, Being, etc.). Nothing cannot produce something. Therefore, something exists eternally and necessarily. It must exist eternally because if there was absolutely nothing, nothing would exist now because nothing cannot produce something. Non-being cannot produce being. Further, it must exist necessarily because not everything can be contingent. All contingent beings require a cause due to the principle of causality—whatever comes to be (contingent being) has a cause. In general, most Western philosophical theologians argue from some aspect of Being whether it is contingency, motion, apparent design, or causality and conclude that because nothing cannot produce something, something transcendent must exist.2 The following analysis from Augustine provides additional insight into the nature and characteristics of Spinoza’s God and philosophical theology. In addition, Augustine appeals to logic and the natural order to make his case for the existence of God.

Interestingly, Augustine applies the law of noncontradiction when it comes to the nature and existence of the universe. The law of noncontradiction says that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. As a property of being, the law of noncontradiction is fundamental to all thought, science, language, and is necessary to avoid definitional equivocation in correct reasoning. In addition, as a property of being, the laws of logic cannot be denied.3 The law of noncontradiction cannot be rejected in correct reasoning because it is self-evident and based on the idea that being and non-being are opposites and points to the nature of what is (reality). For something to exist, it cannot both exist and not exist at the same time or same relationship.4 To exist means to stand out of non-being or nothing. Being and non-being are opposites. Further, it is impossible to deny the law of noncontradiction without using the law in the denial. To say that the law of noncontradiction is false, assumes that the opposite of the claim is true. Opposites cannot both be true, which is the reason that the law of noncontradiction is foundational to all correct reasoning. This is important to keep in mind as Augustine draws on the law of noncontradiction and appeals to reality when he argues for the existence of God.

Augustine believes that the universe did not create itself and provides this natural theological argument based on the law of noncontradiction,

Earth and the heavens also proclaim that they did not create themselves. “We exist,” they tell us, “because we were made. And this is proof that we did not make ourselves. For to make ourselves, we should have had to exist before existence began.” And the fact that they plainly do exist is the voice which proclaims this truth. (Augustine, Vol. 16, 114)

Augustine is simply making the point that something cannot exist before it exists. If something did exist before it existed, it would have to be, and not be at the same time and same way, which is impossible according to the law of noncontradiction. In order for the universe to create itself, it must be before it is. Something cannot exist before it exists. Augustine thinks that self-creation violates the law of noncontradiction. According to the law of noncontradiction, the concept of self-causation is a contradiction. It is like saying there is an “uncaused effect” which is logically incoherent. Therefore, philosophers who hold to the natural theology methodology reject Spinoza’s concept of self-causation.

A natural theological approach rejects Spinoza’s rational presuppositionalism. The reason why, is that Spinoza’s methodology is circular in its reasoning. The presuppositional approach asks one to assume or presuppose that God exists in order to prove that God exists. According to Spinoza, God “is in itself and is conceived through itself” and “cannot be conceived unless existing.” In other words, “God is” (presupposition, one cannot think of God unless existing), therefore “God exists” (because a Perfect Being must exist). This is the heart of Spinoza’s methodology and presents an error in logic because the conclusion is present in the premises.5 It is the informal fallacy of begging the question. When the conclusion is present in one of the premises, the argument fails because it is circular and begs the question. It does little practical good when investigating the question of whether or not God exists, to assume that God exists in the first place. Finally, according to Augustinian natural theology, Spinoza’s pantheism is not correct because a transcendent cause of the universe is necessary. If the universe is contingent there must be something that is uncaused to create anything that may or may not exist. Self-creation is a self-contradiction.

On the question of God’s existence, Spinoza tells the inquirer to study the divine nature first (611), but the very question is whether or not the divine nature exists at all. On the other hand, a good valid and sound deductive cosmological argument will not (or should not) be circular. The existence of God is not assumed in a valid cosmological argument.6 Of course, no conclusion in a deductive argument can be stronger than the premises, but that is exactly where the conversation should take place (and does take place between philosophers of religion). Throughout intellectual history, there have been many doubts, challenges, and questions applied to the premises of natural theology and the cosmological argument, and that is perfectly good and appropriate. The circular reasoning of Spinoza’s overall rational presuppositionalism, however, is not helpful.

1 A contingent being is that which may or may not be or exist, any being which can be or can be made to exist or not exist.

2This is the general line of reasoning found in Aquinas’s “Five Ways” on pgs. 12 – 13 in Aquinas I, Vol. 17.

3 The three primary laws of logic are noncontradiction, excluded middle, and identity. They were first explicated by Aristotle in his Physics and Metaphysics. Here we will only focus on the law of noncontradiction.

4Many things in the world exist in relationship to one another. I, however, cannot both be my father’s father and my son’s father. That is a different relationship. Similarly, I may be the biological father of my son, but if my son were to be adopted by someone else, that would entail a different legal relationship.

5Another example of circular reasoning is Descartes’s statement, “I think, therefore I am”. Descartes presupposes an “I” and then concludes that an “I” exists. The conclusion is the premise of the argument and therefore, circular and invalid. Thankfully, Descartes later changed his statement to be understood as a self-evident first principle.

6This is true for any sound and valid argument whatsoever. The conclusion should never be a premise.

Works cited

Augustine. The Confessions, The City of God, On Christian Doctrine. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 16. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Spinoza. Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 28. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Classical Apologetics, Intellectual History, Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology

Spinoza’s Philosophical Method and Augustine’s Natural Theology: Part One

by Dave Seng

[Note some of this is a further development of the post about Descartes’ rational presuppositionalism. You can find that post here. This series will move on to explore a similar version of presuppositionalism as it is found in the theoretical thought of Baruch Spinoza.]

One of the human race’s great metaphysical questions is whether or not God exists. This question divides many authors in the Western intellectual tradition. Some think that God does not exist. Nietzsche, Hobbes, and Hume, for example, fall into this category, while others such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Spinoza think that a god or the Christian God does exist. Among those who believe that God exists, there is a division between them about how to correctly reason or argue for the existence of God. On one side, Descartes and Spinoza think that God should rationally be assumed or presupposed in any argument for God’s existence. Others, such as Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas think that arguing from the nature of existence, or being itself, is the best way to make a case for God’s existence. The difference between these two groups is one of methodology. Descartes’s and Spinoza’s position can be called rational presuppositionalism, while thinkers such as Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas hold the position known as natural theology (or natural philosophical theology). The next couple of posts will critically explore the philosophical differences between the approach of Descartes and Spinoza (rational presuppositionalism) and the natural theology of Augustine and Aquinas.

The concept of natural theology will be developed further in the upcoming posts. However, in brief, natural theology is a philosophical and theological way of reasoning to the existence of God which starts with the reality of being and becoming, or the fact of reality as it is, and uses the natural laws of logic, which are properties of being, including the principle of causality to conclude that God exists necessarily, eternally, and transcendently. Both Augustine and Aquinas utilize this general form of natural theology. Presuppositional rationalism, on the other hand, is the position that God’s existence must be presupposed and reasons from that point. With presuppositional rationalism—primarily in regards to Descartes’s and Spinoza’s position—God is presupposed because God is conceived as a “Perfect Being” and existence necessarily applies to a Perfect Being. It is also a form of rationalism because it holds that all genuine knowledge comes from rational thought apart from sense experience, or any appeal to concrete reality or Being. In this context, Spinoza puts forward three ideas worthy of careful reflection. They are his philosophical presupposition that God exists (that is, God must be presupposed in any argument about God’s existence), pantheism (God and the universe are the same thing), and his conception that the universe is the cause of itself (self-creation or self-causation).

Spinoza’s description of God is helpful at this point. In rational geometric fashion, Spinoza presents definitions and axioms which he uses to explain his conception of God. He defines God as “Being”—not the transcendent cause of Being—but an imminent Being with infinite substance, “By God, I understand Being absolutely infinite, that is to say, substance consisting of infinite attributes, each one of which expresses eternal and infinite essence” (589). God, as a kind of substance, is “that which is in itself and conceived through itself,” (591), and is the “cause of itself” (590). For Spinoza, God and natural substance are one. God is a self-caused substance.

In many ways, Spinoza follows Descartes’s presuppositional rational methodology, so it is helpful to briefly understand Descartes’s line of reasoning. Both Descartes and Spinoza believe that God exists because God is a “Perfect Being.” Perfection must be a property of existence and because God is thought, or conceived to be, perfect, God necessarily exists. This is a form of thinking which argues that if God is the greatest being that can be conceived, God necessarily exists because existence is a property of Being (what is called the ontological argument for God’s existence). Both Spinoza and Descartes hold to this conceptual scheme of God’s existence. Descartes explicitly connects his presuppositional approach with God as a “Perfect Being.” When trying to overcome the question of how to prove external reality or whether or not one can trust their thoughts, Descartes offers this line of reasoning,

And though the wisest minds may study the matter as much as they will, I do not believe that they will be able to give any sufficient reason for removing this doubt, unless they presuppose the existence of God. For to begin with, that which I have just taken as a rule that is to say, that all the things that we very clearly and very distinctly conceive of are true, is certain only because God is or exists and that He is a Perfect Being, and that all that is in us issues from Him. (277, emphasis added)

Notice what Descartes says here—one must presuppose God exists because God is a Perfect Being which must include existence. God exists because existence is a property of Being, and in order to be the most Perfect Being, such a Being must have the property of existence. Descartes calls this a “metaphysical certainty” (277). When thinking of God, according to presuppositional rationalism, one is simply presupposing God’s existence. In other words, according to this Cartesian approach, God is the perfect Being which must be assumed when arguing for the existence of God. The presuppositional character of Descartes’s argument further reasons that if our thoughts and things we conceive of are true, they are true because God exists.

Next time, we will go into the presuppositional method of Spinoza as he follows much, though not all, of Descartes’ approach. Finally, it is worth noting that presuppositional rational reasoning is not new and does not begin with Van Til, Bahnsen, or Frame. In fact, presuppositional thinking does have significant similarities to the approach of Descartes’, Kant, and Spinoza and includes the usual errors.

Works Cited

Descartes. Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 28. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Classical Apologetics, Metaphysics, Philosophical Theology

The Presuppositionalism of René Descartes

by Dave Seng

Note: I discuss a few of these thoughts regarding the presuppositional method of apologetics here. In this post I will look at a 17th century version of presuppositionalism drawn from Rene Descartes, who is often considered the father of modern philosophy.

The more I read the great authors of the western intellectual tradition, the more I realize there really is nothing new. This occurred to me once again when I was reading through the works of René Descartes and discovered that he maintained a presuppositional bent in his argumentation for God’s existence. This experience took me back to the time when I first learned the basics of philosophical theology and apologetic method. Like most who begin exploring the field of Christian apologetics, I was introduced to the presuppositional school of apologetics. Mostly, I read Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, and John Frame. I read other authors related to the presuppositional school but I never found the method to be conceptually coherent or rationally compelling. Interestingly enough, when I went back to re-read Descartes for my doctoral work, I discovered that presuppositional apologetic thinking is not new, certainly not just a twentieth or twenty-first century phenomenon, and the same problems with the method still apply.1 (In many ways the presuppositional school of apologetics closely corresponds to Kantian transcendental idealism and German idealism in general such as Kant, Hegel, Schelling, etc., but that is a topic for another post.) By “presuppositional method” I am referring to any apologetic approach that presupposes the truth of Christianity or the Christian God and then reasons from that point.

I especially enjoy reading the earlier thinkers who contribute to philosophy and theology because they often shed light on today’s intellectual issues and thinking in ways that might be overlooked or missed. I’ve read Descartes many times in my academic career and the presuppositional character of his work went unnoticed. Only recently did it stand out to me. That’s the great thing about reading a truly classic author. One can always learn something new.

To begin, Descartes was a rationalist. In contrast to other philosophers, who take the reality of Being as a fact and use that fact (derived from sense experience) as a point of philosophical departure, rationalists such as Descartes think that the truth about reality can be acquired by reason alone. This is an important point which explains why he thinks God must be presupposed when it comes to explaining the nature of reality.

Descartes presents a presuppositional argument for the existence of God based on the idea of God as a Perfect Being. To be fair, Descartes presents several different arguments for God’s existence in his writings. Here, I am mostly concerned with his presuppositional approach found in his Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting Reason, and Meditations on First Philosophy. All his arguments, however, are rational in nature (appealing to reason alone) and based on the idea of God, and establishing the existence of God based on geometrical argumentation. Descartes’s Perfect Being argument is similar to the ontological argument, a kind of proof for God’s existence: God must exist inasmuch as the attribute of existence or, in some forms, necessary existence, is part of his nature. Descartes version of the argument simply contends that a Perfect Being must exist because existence is property of perfection. Descartes attempts to demonstrate that God can be proved the same way one can rationally solve a geometrical equation, simply by following the rules of reason. While contemplating the axioms of geometry, Descartes applies the same rational mathematical reasoning to the existence of God,

For to take an example, I saw very well that if we suppose a triangle to be given, the three angles must certainly be equal to two right angles; but for all that I saw no reason to be assured that there was any such triangle in existence, while on the contrary, on reverting to the examination of the idea which I had of a Perfect Being, I found that in this case existence was implied in it in the same manner in which the equality of its three angles to two right angles is implied in the triangle; or in the idea of a sphere, that all the points on its surface are equidistant from its centre, or even more evidently still. Consequently it is at least as certain that God who is a Being so perfect, is, or exists, as any demonstration of geometry can be. (277)

Descartes Perfect Being exists the way a triangle exists—it must exist the way a triangle has two right angles. In other words, God must be presupposed the same way one presupposes the principles and axioms of mathematical truths. Descartes is aware that such a rational attempt may not be very convincing for some. Following his method of extreme doubt, Descartes shifts his approach and asks about the reliability of our thoughts during a dream. Can we doubt our thoughts and imagination the same way that we doubt our senses? Descartes provides this answer,

And though the wisest minds may study the matter as much as they will, I do not believe that they will be able to give any sufficient reason for removing this doubt, unless they presuppose the existence of God. For to begin with, that which I have just taken as a rule that is to say, that all the things that we very clearly and very distinctly conceive of are true, is certain only because God is or exists and that He is a Perfect Being, and that all that is in us issues from Him. (277, emphasis added)

Notice what Descartes is saying here—one must presuppose God exists because God is a Perfect Being which must include existence. In other words, God is (presupposition), therefore God exists (because a Perfect Being must exist). This is the heart of the presuppositional approach. And it is entirely circular in reasoning. But before we get to the analysis of Descartes approach and the presuppositional method, it is best to look at his basic points of departure.

To summarize, Descartes reasoning is as follows: one can not trust the senses because the senses can be wrong. However, as Descartes famously observes “I think therefore I am”, and he concludes that he can in fact trust his reasoning, because he has to exist in order to think (275, 276). Further, Descartes thinks that because he can think of a Perfect Being, God must exist. God must exist because existence is a property of Being and in order to be the most Perfect Being, such a Being must have the property of existence. Descartes calls this a “metaphysical certainty” (277). If one doubts such a metaphysical certainty, they should presuppose God exists because he reasons that God’s existence will solve the doubts one can experience from thoughts, dreams, imagination, or the senses. In other words, one must presuppose that God exists in order to make sense out of the reality of the world. Descartes makes this even more clear in his Meditation on First Philosophy,

And we must not object that it is in truth necessary for me to assert that God exists after having presupposed that He possesses every sort of perfection, since existence is one of these (320).

For Descartes, God exists because it is presupposed that God has perfection. It is worth pointing out that not every theist that holds to the ontological argument, or Perfect Being theology, is a presuppositionalist or must be a presuppositionalist in order to defend it. Here, I am merely pointing out that Descartes does make his presupposition of God’s existence a central point in his argument for God’s existence. Descartes needs to make this philosophical assertion because he can not start with the trust worthiness of Being or reality itself (for him, those things must be doubted). His argument must be purely rational because that is the only starting point that will provide certainty for him. Descartes philosophical theology is unique in the sense that he does not take Being as his starting point but focuses on rational geometrical proofs and the need to presuppose the existence of God as the foundation of his method. For Descartes, God is a Perfect Being which must be presupposed.

Now a few concluding thoughts about Descartes and presuppositionalism can be said. First, there is nothing inherently wrong with a pure rational argument for God’s existence. Plato would have have agreed with some of Descartes ideas. Many mathematicians have come to theistic conclusions based on the symmetry and principles of math itself. Many, I think, are valid. The problem is that starting with the existence of God and then arguing from that point is bad logic. The thing that always prevented me from taking the presuppositional school of apologetics seriously is the the circularity of the method. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy which is formally called the petitio principii (begging of the question). This is an error that occurs when when the conclusion of an argument is already present, usually disguised or vague, in the premises. It is seen as circular because the conclusion is present in the premises, and no real progress is made. A more modern example of circular reasoning is this, “You can’t expect seventeen-year-olds to vote intelligently, because they are too young to have good judgment about the issues.” The conclusion of the argument is one of its premises. When the conclusion is one of the premises, the argument is circular and begs the question. Descartes reasoning that God must be presupposed to show that God exists is circular. Finally, it makes little practical sense to tell the non-theist that they must presuppose the existence of God when the existence of God is the central question.

There is another issue with rationalism more generally. Much of modern philosophy, beginning with Descartes begins with epistemology (how we know what we know). When one begins with how we know, and not the metaphysical givenness of reality, a pure rational epistemology can quickly go circular. Descartes gets things only half right here. Existence is a property of being. But there are different orders of being and different kinds of existence. My thought of a flying unicorn with laser beams shooting out its eyes has a very different kind of being than the tree in front of my house. Imagination presents a different mode of being than physical reality. Angels have a very different kind of being than I do. There are different orders to being and different kinds of existence. Descartes is making a rational or conceptual statement and applying it to concrete reality, when in fact, the question really is whether or not such a Perfect Being exists absolutely, not rationally or conceptually. The theist and non-theist can both have the same conception of a Perfect Being but the issue at stake is whether or not such a being actually exists. Starting with what-is and understanding the order of being (and order of knowing) is a far more fruitful project.

It is worth noting here that Benedict Spinoza assumes much of the Cartesian methodology and presuppositions. However, Spinoza was lead through his rational conception of Perfect Being theology that God and the world are one. For Spinoza, pantheism was the logical outcome based on his Cartesian rationalism and presuppositions. Presupposing the existence of God on strict rational grounds does not prevent one from becoming a pantheist. In other words, presupposing that God exists does not necessarily lead one to Christian theism.

As I will always try to explain, when one begins with epistemology, and make that one’s starting point, instead of metaphysical realism, or the givenness of Being, things go bad in philosophy and one’s approach to apologetics.

1Benedict Spinoza in his Ethics often assumes Descartes’s presuppositional outlook, but I hope to develop that later. Interestingly, the father of presuppositionalism, Van Til, developed his school of apologetics based on ethical concerns.

Works Cited

Descartes, Rene. Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 28. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.