Being, first principles, Metaphysics

Mere Metaphysics Part Two: Being Is

by Dave Seng

We may have three main objects in the study of truth: first, to find it when we are seeking it; second, to demonstrate it after we have found it; third, to distinguish it from error by examining it. — Blaise Pascal

The introduction to this series can be found here.

Part one of this series can be found here.

In my recent post on first principles, we learned that a foundational metaphysical principle is that from which everything else in its order follows, a self-evident axiom of thought or being that is actually undeniable. We briefly looked at the principle of noncontradiction and the principle of existence as axioms which correspond to this definition. Regarding the principle of noncontradiction and the importance of first principles, Aristotle reminds us,

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.1

Now we will examine the first premise in the cosmological argument from Being, or reality itself. The argument follows this line of reasoning:

1. Something exists (e.g., I do)

2. Nothing cannot produce something.

3. Therefore, something exists eternally and necessarily.

A. It exists eternally because if ever there was absolutely nothing, then there would always be absolutely nothing because nothing cannot produce something.

B. It exists necessarily because everything cannot be a contingent being because all contingent beings need a cause of their existence.

4. I am not a necessary and eternal being (since I change).

5. Therefore, both God (a Necessary Being) and I (a contingent being) exist. (= theism)

We will explore all of the principles for this demonstration as we move through this series. For now, we will look more carefully into premise one: Something exists (or, more technically, being is). This premise is simply the principle of existence. The principle of existence is a statement of reality. Reality exists. Something does in fact exist. This principle cannot be denied because one must exist in order to deny existence. This is not the same point that Descartes was making with his circular statement, “I think, therefore, I am” (his famous Cogito dictum). Descartes had to be, or to exist, in order to think, doubt, or do anything else. He had to exist first. The principle of existence is primary.

The principle of existence is so clear, fundamental, and directly knowable in itself that it requires no proof or further demonstration. It is self-evident and simply foolish to deny.

The principle of existence is an affirmation of being – the totality of the universe and reality.

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

Being, first principles, Metaphysics

Mere Metaphysics Part One: What is a First Principle?

by Dave Seng

In all our knowledge of general principles, what actually happens is that first of all we realize some particular application of the principle, and then we realize that the particularity is irrelevant, and that there is a generality which may equally truly be affirmed. – Bertrand Russell

We are continuing our series called Mere Metaphysics and this post will focus on what a principle is and some of the defining characteristics of what philosophers call “first principles.” I think, however, that before we get to the first principles of metaphysics, it is important to step back and get a general understanding and broad panoramic picture of what we mean by the term “principle”. This will be helpful, because the concept of principle really is not that different in metaphysics than in other fields of study, contexts, and applications. This approach will also help us understand why it is that no one who wishes to think correctly about reality, science, and human behavior can do so without an understanding of basic first principles.

A principle may be one among many temporally (as in a series of phenomena), or logically (as in the axioms of mathematics). Since, in many cases, there could be a hierarchy of principles, we are primarily interested in what philosophers call “first principles,” the most basic and foundational principles which underlie all human knowledge and action.

What is a principle? A principle is that from which something else follows. According to its Latin derivation and the equivalent root in Greek, “principle” means a beginning or foundation.1 In other words, a principle is the basic source of origin or the foundation from which something proceeds. The Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy gives another helpful definition—“that from which something in some way proceeds; the starting point of being, or change, or knowledge, or discussion.”2 This definition is important because it illustrates that every field of study and human action has basic foundational principles.

In economics, for example, the principle of scarcity is one of the foundational concepts upon which the entire study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services depends. Both goods and money are considered scarce because they are not infinite and therefore economists study consumer exchange and behavior in light of such scarcity. Mathematics, also, has basic first principles. The entire reason Euclid, in his Elements, provides his definitions, postulates, and axioms (his mathematical principles) is that they are logically prior to all his theorems and demonstrations which he comes to by means of them.

In the realm of ethics, a principle is the rule or ground for determining the rightness or wrongness of a person’s action. If I respond unkindly to someone, I am forgetting the principle that kindness as such is always a virtue. The statement that it “is wrong to torture babies for fun” is based on the prior principle that it is wrong to harm another human being. A principle in human conduct can also serve as a guide for correct behavior or policy. In the area of public administration, someone might say that a particular government is acting “without principles” or in an unprincipled manner. That statement is not about the rightness or wrongness of the government’s action (that is a separate concern), but points to the claim that the government may not be acting with a uniform policy in place that will serve as a foundation for its actions. Regarding human conduct, principles are the most basic and foundational rules that guide correct action in the realm of ethical behavior and public policy. Principles are that from which all policy follows.

Science itself is based upon first principles. In order for science to be successful, it not only must assume the foundational laws of logic—noncontradiction, excluded middle, and identity, but also necessarily accept the following principles: The principle of existence (something is in fact the case, it exists), the principle of causality (every event has a cause and in identical situations the same cause always produces the same effect), the principle of predictive uniformity (a group of events will show the same degree of interconnection or relationship in the future as they showed in the past or show in the future), the principle of objectivity (requires the scientist to be impartial with regard to the data and treat it, carefully, openly, and honestly. The facts must be such that they can be experienced in exactly the same way by all normal people, the ethic of reproducibility, and an essential principle to the scientific method itself), the principle of empiricism (scientific knowledge is the result of observation, experience, as opposed to authority, intuition, or reason alone.)3 Although there are other first principles of science that should be mentioned, the above are enough to demonstrate that science itself relies on first principles. Every field has basic foundational concepts in place before anything else can be determined, discussed, or understood.

We can now see how the concept of principle works in many other contexts. This also explains why it is impossible to reject or deny the existence of primary foundational truths from which all correct thinking, scientific inquiry, and ethics derives. It is an interesting quality of first principles that they are not provable in the scientific or strict empirical sense and yet they can not be denied, unless one wants to fall into absurdity and chaos. Aristotle, Pascal, and John Stuart Mill (among others) believed it was neither possible nor necessary to prove basic foundational principles. Mill, for example, states, “to be incapable of proof by reasoning is common to all first principles; to the first premises of our Knowledge, as well as to those of our conduct.”4 The reason, as we shall see below, is that it is ultimately foolish to deny self-evident truths.

Aristotle was among the first of the great metaphysicians to point this out. Not only did Aristotle express the basic need for first principles, he believed they should be clear, simple, self-evident, and univocal. Aristotle, and many other thinkers after him, believe that one cannot prove a first principle positively because it is so self-evident that it would be ludicrous to deny. Take for example, the principle of existence, that something exists. One has to exist in order to deny that something exists. To deny existence is absurd. Or take another example, the principle of noncontradiction—nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. To say that the principle of noncontradiction is false assumes that the opposite is true. Since opposites cannot both be true it is irrational to reject the principle of noncontradiction. As C. S. Lewis once put it, you cannot have a proof that no proofs matter. An attempt to do so is self-contradictory. It is possible to reject these basic principles but the result is chaos and conceptual incoherence.

In his Metaphysics, Aristotle provides two other reasons why first principles are needed for clear communication and correct reasoning. The first is that not every principle or starting point needs to be argued for or there would never be an end to argument and demonstration. Regarding the principle of noncontradiction, Aristotle puts it this way,

But we have now posited that it is impossible for anything at the same time to be and not to be, and by this means have shown that this is the most indisputable of all principles—Some indeed demand that even this shall be demonstrated, but this they do through want of education, for not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education. For it is impossible that there should be demonstration of absolutely everything (there would be an infinite regress, so that there would still be no demonstration); but if there are things of which one should not demand demonstration, these persons could not say what principle they maintain to be more self-evident than the present one.5

It is genuinely hard to conceive of what principle can be more self-evident than the principle of noncontradiction.

The second reason Aristotle gives in defense of first principles is that correct reasoning comes from fixed principles and their definitions. At the most foundational level of existence, definitions are reduced to their principle. If the principles are equivocal, ambiguous, or have several definitions, no communication or reasoning can take place. Aristotle, taking on the poststructuralists of his day explains,

If, however, … one were to say that the word has an infinite number of meanings, obviously reasoning would be impossible; for not to have one meaning is to have no meaning, and if words have no meaning our reasoning with one another, and indeed with ourselves, has been annihilated.6

And Aristotle further explains,

Those, then, who are to join in argument with one another must to some extent understand one another; for if this does not happen how are they to join in argument with one another?7

Why are metaphysical principles important? Metaphysical first principles are the basis of all clear and correct reasoning. Argument about axioms and principles cannot go on forever or no real progress will be made. Without first principles, no communication or genuine argumentation can be accomplished. In addition, metaphysical first principles provide certainty. Without basic principles in place, we run the risk of conceptual incoherence on one hand and mere opinion on the other. If we have no axioms or principles to start from, all postulates become a matter of opinion, probability, and uncertainty. We will never achieve genuine knowledge. As Dr. Mortimer Adler once said, “axioms express the very essence of knowledge.”8

In our next post, we will examine the mere metaphysical principle of existence and seek to understand its role in the argument from being.

1 Mortimer Adler, ed., The Syntopicon: An Index to The Great Ideas, vol. 2, Great Books of The Western World (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1996), s.v. Principle.

2 Bernard Wuellner S.J., Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy (1956; repr., Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, 2012), s.v. Principle.

3Herold Titus, Marilyn Smith, and Richard Nolan, Living Issues in Philosophy, 9th ed. (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995), 218–19.

4 J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism, ed. Mortimer Adler, vol. 40, Great Books of The Western World (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1993), 461.

5 Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans. W. D. Ross, vol. 7, Great Books of the Western World (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1996), 525.

6 Ibid., 525.

7 Ibid., 590.

8 Mortimer Adler, ed., The Syntopicon: An Index to The Great Ideas, vol. 2, Great Books of The Western World (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1996), s.v. principle.

Being, Metaphysics, Philosophy

Mere Metaphysics: An Introduction

by Dave Seng

‘Being’ and ‘Unity’ are among the number of attributes that follow everything.—Aristotle.

This post is simply presented as an introduction or prolegomenon to a series of posts I will call “Mere Metaphysics” which will explicate the most fundamental concepts in metaphysics.

What I would like to call “mere metaphysics” is along the lines of C. S. Lewis’s work entitled Mere Christianity. Lewis, of course, wanted to explain the basic themes and ideas that were common to all of the Christian family, regardless of denomination. He was eager to show the truth of Christianity itself. Once one has entered the house of faith, one is then free to explore the particular rooms and denominations. The next series of posts will explicate and define the most basic and foundational metaphysical principles—concepts which everyone takes for granted and, upon reflection, are impossible to deny. These basic and foundational principles are called “first principles” by classical philosophers and are still accepted and used by philosophers today. They are the first principles needed for making sense out of the world.

Dr. Mortimer Adler defined philosophy as the rational discussion of basic ideas. Metaphysics, then, is simply the branch of philosophy which rationally discusses the most basic ideas and fundamental nature of being or reality. Some of the mere metaphysical principles we will explore in future posts are the laws of logic—noncontradiction, excluded middle, and identity, along with other principles like being and nonbeing, act and potency, the principle of existence, principle of causality, principle of analogy, and principle of predictive uniformity among others. These, and others, are properties of being. Metaphysicians understand being to be the totality of the universe or reality. It includes everything within temporal reality, including the past, present, and future. (As we will discover, all things composed of form and matter have an immaterial aspect to them along with a material component. And because of the form or essential element to being, there may well be a timeless element to reality as well.) Put a little more simply, for now, all we need to know is that which has being is the individual and the external world.

A few other prefatory remarks need to be made. The opposite of being is nonbeing or that which does not exist, nothing. Being and nonbeing are essential components to classical metaphysics. In addition, classical philosophy uses the term “becoming” for that which is in a state of change. That which is becoming is an admixture of being and nonbeing. The artist who carves a block of marble takes away part of the stone in order to form it into a beautiful sculpture. Some of the block’s being is removed. There is an element of nothingness, or certainly absence, involved in the removal of the stone. In one way or another, we live in a world of change, becoming, and mutable being.

The hope is that by examining these mere metaphysical principles, we will be reminded of the basic structure of the universe that ultimately finds its foundation in God. However, in order to approach the question of God, one must first understand the basic metaphysical structure of reality. One can only engage in a project of natural theology when a proper metaphysics is in place.

One of the oldest and most perennial questions of human existence is, why is there something rather than nothing? Or, put a bit more philosophically, how did being come to be? This is not a strictly scientific question or one that can be analyzed by repeated observation (how does one apply the scientific method to past events?) In order for science to succeed, it must assume prior metaphysical principles such as the ones mentioned above. The question of being, then, is a more fundamental and philosophical question concerning reality. Science can be a helpful tool, to be sure, but the question of reality evades a strictly scientific approach. Part of the question of being, or reality, is the exploration of what makes science possible in the first place. Being and its properties are prior to everything else.

For centuries philosophers have puzzled over one of the most all-embracing metaphysical questions of human existence—what is the cause of being? From the time of the Pre-Socratics (those philosophers who lived before Socrates) to the current day, important thinkers have rationally and carefully thought about the nature of existence and how it might have come about. In different ways, Plato, Aristotle, Epictetus, Cicero, Augustine, Plotinus, Anselm, Aquinas, Spinoza, Locke, Descartes, Leibniz, and those in the modern and contemporary scene such as Joseph Owens, Mortimer Adler, John Knasas, Brian Davies, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Stephen Davis, and Edward Feser (among others) have engaged in a rich dialogue about the cause of reality. Much of the discussion centers around what is known as cosmological reasoning, or reasoning from the fact of existence (being) to a creator God.

Sometimes this form of reasoning is called the cosmological argument. However, over the centuries many different versions of the cosmological argument have been put forward. Aquinas, himself, gave several different ways to argue for God’s existence based on the cosmos or world. I made a distinction between two different and popular forms the cosmological argument in a recent post.

The general line of thought for cosmological reasoning goes like this (premises that are common to most forms of the cosmological argument):

1. The world exists. Space and time exist. I exist. Something exists. Being is.

2. Being can not be the cause of itself.

3. Being can not come from nonbeing (nothing).

4. Being could not be an effect in an infinite series of causes and effects.

5. Therefore, it must be caused by something outside space and time, something uncaused and ultimate.1

Or put more concisely in the form of a categorical syllagism:

1. All contingent (or caused) being depends for its existence on some uncaused being.

2. The cosmos is a contingent being.

3. Therefore, the cosmos depends for its existence on some uncaused being. (Aquinas would say, “to which everyone gives the name of God”.)

This form of the cosmological argument is called the argument from contingency because it focuses on the caused and contingent (dependent) nature of existence.

Another form of the argument goes like this:

1. Every part of the universe is dependent.

2. If every part is dependent, then the whole universe must also be dependent.

4. Therefore, the whole universe is dependent right now on some independent Being beyond it for its present existence.2

This argument is focused on what philosophers call ontological dependence. It is less concerned with arguing that the universe has a beginning in time, and more focused on the ontological dependence that things demonstrate here and now in reality. An interesting part of this argument is that even if reality is somehow infinite, it is no less ontologically dependent here and now than a finite one.

These are just a few examples of philosophical cosmological reasoning. In future posts we will explore a little more carefully how these premises can be presented and defended. Because there are many different versions of the cosmological argument, the one we will be using moving forward will be the one used by Norman Geisler in his book, God: A Philosophical Argument From Being. Here is the shortened version of what Geisler calls an argument from being:

1. Something exists (e.g., I do)

2. Nothing cannot produce something.

3. Therefore, something exists eternally and necessarily.

A. It exists eternally because if ever there was absolutely nothing, then there would always be absolutely nothing because nothing cannot produce something.

B. It exists necessarily because everything cannot be a contingent being because all contingent beings need a cause of their existence.

4. I am not a necessary and eternal being (since I change).

5. Therefore, both God (a Necessary Being) and I (a contingent being) exist. (= theism)

Of course, no conclusion in a deductive argument can be stronger than its premises. Many have posed doubts, critiques, challenges, and questions regarding this argument and its premises. Indeed, many have asked, why cannot something be the cause of itself? Why cannot something come from nothing? And why cannot something be the product of an infinite series? These are questions that have been discussed and debated throughout the centuries of human civilization. The answers have profound and far reaching effects. In our next series of posts, we will consider the mere metaphysical concepts that show the validity of the argument from being.

1Ed L. Miller and Jon Jensen, Questions That Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy, 5th ed (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004), 272.

2 Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 1999), S.V. Cosmological Argument.

Being, Metaphysics, Ontology

A Philosophical Reflection on Sir Roger Penrose and Jordan Peterson

by Dave Seng

[Note: For the conversation between Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Jordan Peterson, click here. What follows is my reflection on the conversation.]

The deepest of all philosophic problems: Is the Kosmos an expression of intelligence rational in its inward nature, or a brute external fact pure and simple? – William James, Principles of Psychology

I recently viewed this discussion between Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Jordan Peterson on the nature of consciousness which ultimately expands to philosophical reflections on some interesting qualities and characteristics of time and the origin of the cosmos. I am not a trained physicist and I understand that Penrose may not reflect the consensus of his field. Nonetheless, Peterson and Penrose present a rational discussion of the most perennial and foundational ideas surrounding the nature of the consciousness and the universe. I also think that Penrose presents some thought provoking ideas about the world we inhabit and should be given rational and careful consideration.

Penrose and Peterson are an interesting pairing and it reflects some foundational issues regarding the relationship between science and philosophy. One thing I noticed in the discussion is that Peterson is a very much a global thinker or a speculative philosopher in the manner of Whitehead or many earlier classical philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, among others). These philosophers seek a unifying whole to all of reality and want to connect all the sciences and human experience into a consistent world view. This kind of philosopher, according to Plato “is the spectator of all time and all existence” … and will intellectually “move spontaneously towards the true being of everything.”1 As C. D. Broad explains about the nature of speculative philosophy, “The hope is that, by this means, we may be able to reach some general conclusions as to the nature of the universe, and as to our position and prospects in it.”2 In this conversation, however, we see Peterson pursuing deeper unifying metaphysical themes that focus on the nature of reality, while Penrose simply stops at the theoretical physical level. I think the reason for this is that Penrose understands that physical inductive science can only go so far. He stops at the end of his field and what it can do. On the other hand, philosophical inquiry resists empirical solutions because philosophers are seeking the meaning, truth, and logical connections of reality as a whole. Philosophers want to know what the foundation of empirical truth is and what makes it possible in the first place. These are not empirical questions. I believe this is the source of the slight frustration that Peterson demonstrates. (For what it’s worth, I thought the conversation turned much more friendly after it moved to art, which both have a love for.)

Regarding induction and observational science, Alfred North Whitehead put it this way,

Induction presupposes metaphysics. In other words, it rests upon an antecedent rationalism. You cannot have a rational justification for your appeal to history till your metaphysics has assured you that there is a history to appeal to; and likewise your conjectures as to the future presuppose some basis of knowledge that there is a future already subjected to some determinations.3

Science itself is based on metaphysical and theological principles. (I’ve written about this in the context of Lucretius, here. And professor Ken Samples has made important insights here.) Peterson was simply asking questions that physics can not answer.

A really interesting point made in the discussion, is the fact that consciousness is not computational. If consciousness is not computational, hard AI (computational self-consciousness) will ultimately fail. Researchers are still not sure how to define consciousness, or really understand what it is at all. Nonetheless, Peterson and Penrose seem think that Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorems support the non-computational nature of consciousness. Briefly, Gödel’s first theorem states that there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but are unprovable within the system. Gödel’s second theorem states that the system itself cannot show its own consistency. What this means is that there must be an axiom outside the system that makes sense of the system in the first place. For a more practical illustration, Gödel uses the “liars paradox” to support his theorems. The paradox in its simplest form arises from considering the sentence “This sentence is false.” If the sentence is true, then it is false, and if it is false, then it is true. A computer can be programmed to write the sentence but it has no resources within its own system to make sense out of it. It takes a human outside the system to understand the sentence is logically self-contradictory. The earliest pioneers of programmable logic—Alfred Tarski, Alonzo Church, and Turing’s Halting Problem—all deal with aspects of this important problem. The human will never be replaced. Further, there must be something outside the system which makes sense out of the system itself. In other words, the system is ontologically dependent on an axiom outside itself that gives it meaning and significance. It appears that Peterson is acutely aware of this situation.

So what does this have to do with the discussion of cosmology at the end of the dialogue? First, I’m not really sure about Sir Roger Penrose’s conception of time and his cosmological model. I need to look into it a bit more. If he is right, however, it might pose a problem for the Kalam cosmological model. The Kalām cosmological argument runs this way:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.

Proponents of the Kalām cosmological argument (Craig, Koontz, Pruss and others) rely on space and time as having a definite starting point and draw heavily on scientific evidence (such as the Big Bang). If Penrose is correct, however, then the universe is an infinite, which might undermine the Kalām argument. Of course, Craig and others will point to the impossibility of traversing an infinite and perhaps the second law of thermodynamics to make their case for the beginning of the universe. These are fine points points, indeed, and along with the principle of causality, do hold some significance. In the end, however, the Kalām cosmological depends on a very specific model of the universe for its validity.

There are other ways to formulate a cosmological argument that does not rely so much on one particular interpretation of the science. The Thomistic way of arguing is valid whether or not the universe is finite. This cosmological argument is sometimes called the argument from Being. It looks like this (taken from Norman Geisler’s book, God: A Philosophical Argument from Being):

1. Something exists (e.g., I do)

2. Nothing cannot produce something.

3. Therefore, something exists eternally necessarily.

A. It exists eternally because if ever there was absolutely nothing, then there would always be absolutely nothing because nothing cannot produce something.

B. It exists necessarily because everything cannot be a contingent being because all contingent beings need a cause of their existence.

4. I am not a necessary and eternal being (since I change).

5. Therefore, both God (a Necessary Being) and I (a contingent being) exist. (= theism)

It is not necessary to go into the principle of existence, or the principle of identity and the rest of the first laws of metaphysics here. What is important to note are two things—the ontological dependence of reality on God as Necessary Being and the absence of temporality as a starting point.4 The ontological dependence is necessary regardless whether or not time is infinite. On the substance of Thomistic argumentation, one philosopher puts it this way,

We know from experience that the world is contingent, that is, it depends on something outside itself for its existence. And this would be true even if the world has always been here, for an infinite collection of contingent things is no less contingent than a finite one. But there must be some unconditional, ultimate being upon which the world depends, otherwise it would have no final basis for existence.5

Aquinas argues against an infinite series, but the series he thinks is impossible is a per se series, or one that extends infinitely upwards in being. The argument from being focuses on contingency and ontological dependence and does not rely on one particular model of the universe. So if the science changes, an explanation for being is still necessary. This might be one advantage that this argument has over the Kalām cosmological argument. If Penrose is correct, time may not be the most fundamental element of reality and it seems to do some pretty strange things both at the quantum level and the macro or cosmic levels. But no one can deny that being is and it stands in front of us as a mystery which is truly one of the most enduring questions of human existence.

In the final analysis, Penrose may or may not be right in his arithmetic regarding the infinity of the universe, but he still misses the ontological weight of the issue.

I’d like to thank my friend Dr. Derek Gardner for pointing me to this video and providing inspiration for this post.

1 The Dialogues of Plato. Translated by J. Harward. Vol. 6. Great Books of the Western World. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1990. 374 – 375.

2Scientific Thought. New Yourk: Harcourt, Brace, 1923. 20.

3 Science and the Modern World, vol. 55, Great Books of The Western World Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1993. 156.

4 I am always reminded of Exodus 3:14 – one translation of the Hebrew reads of God’s self-description “I am who causes to be” or “He who causes to be”.

5 Miller, Ed L., and Jon Jensen. Questions That Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy. 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004. 276.