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, Ontology, Philosophy

Mere Metaphysics Part Three: The Principle of Identity

by Dave Seng

For the introduction to this series click here.

For the first part of this series, click here.

For the second part of this series, click here.

Man is the only metaphysical animal.–William James, Principles of Psychology

One of the premises of this blog is that the laws of thought and logic are properties of being, or reality. Not all logicians hold to this view but it is the position, I think, which corresponds most closely to reality. This post is related to our previous post on the principle of existence (the undeniable principle that being is). As we have seen, a principle is that which something else in its order follows. For example, in order to perform calculations correctly, one must first understand the underlying principles and axioms of mathematics. Principles are the foundation of any science and every other human activity.

The principle we come to now, in our explication of the argument from being (click here if you want a condensed form of it), is the principle of identity.

The principle of identity is simply that being is identical to being, or a thing is identical to itself. A thing is what it is. In a syllogism, the middle term must always have the same meaning and not be equivocal (undergo a change of meaning) in order to be valid. When it comes to reality, the law of identity applies when we are talking about dogs with the understanding that we are discussing animals which belong to the class of canines and not fish, hamsters, or monkeys. My cat cannot be a cephalopod. By virtue of it being a cat, and having all the properties a cat has, it cannot be another species or something else. Anything that exists at all is identical to itself and not to another. A thing can be similar to another (analogically or perhaps metaphorically) but it cannot be univocally the same. The law of identity states that A is A. As we will discover later, the law of identity is related to the law of noncontradiction (A cannot be non-A in the same sense and same relationship.) At the very basic and fundamental level of reality, we all know that there is a difference between A and non-A. A must be A, a thing is what it is.

What might the principle of identity have to do with cosmological reasoning? The answer is that it is a basic property of reality. The principle of identity is true of the cosmos (it does exist, it is what it is) and of every thing within it. It is one of the principles and axioms of reality.

Furthermore, it is an undeniable principle of reality. To say that A is not identical to A assumes that each A is identical. It is self-refuting to deny the principle of identity.

The principle of existence and the principle of identity are important aspects of reality. The truth is, we use these concepts everyday. Being is the most fundamental and basic idea to our existence. Dr. Mortimer Adler, explains it this way,

… You and I and everybody else uses the word ‘exists’ or ‘is’—there’s no commoner word in any language than the ontological predicate ‘is’ or ‘is not’—you and I day in and day out say that is or that does not exist, and when we say something does not exist we are thinking of nothing in its place sometimes. So I think the concept of being and not being or existence and nothingness are, shall I say, part of the very heart of human thinking. (36)

Indeed, the principles of existence and identity are essential to human thinking about reality. It is absolutely impossible to deny that being is. This establishes our first premise in our cosmological argument.

In our next post we will apply the law of noncontradiction to cosmological reasoning.

Works cited

Dzugan, Ken, editor. How to Prove There Is a God: Mortimer J. Adler’s Writings and Thoughts about God. Open Court, 2012

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.

Great Books, Intellectual History, Natural Theology

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

by Dave Seng

Part one can be found here.

The presuppositional method of Spinoza’s philosophy is an important part of the structure of his metaphysical system and generally follows Descartes’s reasoning. Spinoza does not argue for the existence of God discursively, deductively, or dialectically in the way Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, or Aquinas frames a cosmological argument, reasoning from an effect (the universe) to a cause (God).1 Spinoza believes that God necessarily exists because the notion of perfection proves that he exists. Spinoza puts it this way,

Perfection consequently does not prevent the existence of a thing, but establishes it; imperfection, on the other hand, prevents existence, and so of no existence can we be more sure than the existence of the Being absolutely infinite or perfect, that is to say God. For since His essence shuts out all imperfection and involves absolute perfection, for this very reason all cause of doubt concerning His existence is taken away, and the highest certainty concerning it is given,—a truth which I trust will be evident to any one who bestows only moderate attention. (593)

Spinoza reasons that both perfection and existence are properties of being and since God is the Perfect Being, God’s existence follows because existence is a necessary part of being. For Spinoza, God is the Perfect Being and substance of the universe. In fact, Spinoza thinks that those who reason from the natural order (what is) to the conclusion of God, “have not observed the proper order of philosophic study” (610). He explains,

For although the divine nature ought to be studied first, because it is first in order of knowledge and in the order of things, they think it last; while, on the other hand, those things which are called objects of the senses are believed to stand before everything else. Hence it has come to pass that there was nothing of which men thought less than the divine nature while they afterwards applied themselves to think about God, there was nothing of which they could think less than those prior fictions upon which they had built their knowledge of natural things, for these could in no way help to the knowledge of the divine nature. (611)

As a rationalist, Spinoza believes it is wrong to start with the “objects of the senses” because he thinks all knowledge comes by reason alone. After all, as Descartes famously insists, the senses can be wrong. Natural things, according to Spinoza do not provide knowledge of the divine. Arguments from natural reasoning, are based upon “fictions.” Instead, Spinoza thinks it is best to start with the existence of God, assumed or presupposed, and rationally describe the divine nature from there. “The divine nature ought to be studied first” according to Spinoza and he reasons that any natural argument from existence to an eternal and necessary Being is philosophically backwards. He thinks natural theology makes God an afterthought. In addition, Spinoza believes that God must be presupposed, or assumed, when it comes to the existence of the natural order, “Every one must admit that without God nothing can be nor be conceived; for every one admits that God is the sole cause both of the essence and of the existence of all things” (610). In other words, according to Spinoza, when considering the question of whether or not God exists, it must be assumed there is a God because “nothing can be nor be conceived” without God. A genuine inquiry into the existence or non-existence of God is not a viable option for Spinoza because God must be assumed and all reasoning must start from there. Spinoza repeats this assertion on page 611 of his Ethics, “individual things cannot be nor be conceived without God.” One reason why Spinoza takes this position is that he believes that all things and people are really a part of God. If all things are a part of God, it is unreasonable to discount the existence of God.

Spinoza, goes further than Descartes, however, and equates God with the universe which is pantheism. This is an important difference between Descartes and Spinoza. Like Descartes, Spinoza is a rationalist in his epistemology, unlike Descartes, Spinoza, is a pantheist in his theological perspective. Pantheism is the philosophical and theological position that equates God with the universe. With pantheism, the universe and God are one entity. In other words, the natural world and God are the same thing. According to Spinoza, “whatever is, is in God” (594) and “…in nature … only one substance exists, namely God” (600). Spinoza further claims that, “Hence it follows with the greatest clearness, firstly that God is one, that is to say … in nature there is but one substance, and it is absolutely infinite” (594). Finally, Spinoza concludes “All things which are, are in God and must be conceived through Him.” (597). Spinoza thinks that God is in all and all is in God. Spinoza’s metaphysical commitments ultimately lead him to conclude that all reality can be reduced to one thing, natural substance, which is God. The individual, particular things of this world are simply modes or attributes of the universal substance of God.

Spinoza, assumes or presupposes the nature of God’s existence because he is a rationalist, meaning that he believes all philosophic knowledge can be acquired through reason alone, apart from sense experience, or any appeal to external reality. God must exist because God is the perfect Being. God is in all and all are in Him. Spinoza’s rationalism also leads him to conclude that there can only be one substance in the universe and that substance is God. Further, Spinoza thinks that God, or the universe, created itself. He believes that the universe is the cause of itself (590). One of his earliest axioms in the Ethics is “that which cannot be conceived through another must be conceived through itself” (589). Later, he concludes, “for the thing whose nature (considered, that is to say, in itself) involves existence, is the the cause of itself and exists from the necessity of its own nature alone” (emphasis added, 599). For Spinoza, the reason why the universe exists is because the universe, which is God, made itself. Spinoza’s philosophical method for arguing to the existence of God is very different from Augustine’s.

Next time, we will examine how Augustine’s natural theology is different from Spinoza’s and why self-creation is a logical contradiction.

1Plato argued for a Demiurge or God-like artisan of the universe based on the reality of Being. Aristotle argued for a “Prime Mover” reasoning that an actual uncreated being is necessary to actualize the potency of the universe. Augustine and Aquinas also argued from the reality of Being to the creator Christian God. All thinkers agree that non-being cannot create being.

Works Cited

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