(December 19, 2021 at 6:36 am)Belacqua Wrote: Or at least theology in general does, in that it tries to show that since there is, self-evidently, something, then the existence of this something requires an absolutely simple actus purus in order to exist. I'm not sure in what way this "kicks the can" a step further.Because it never seems to ask about the reason for this absolutely simple thing to exist. By fiat, the claim is made that there has to a *single* basis for *all* existence. At most, what is actually accomplished is that there is *some* thing that has no explanation. It doesn't even show the uniqueness of such.
I find it interesting that the theologians *try* to show the existence of such a thing. But, of course, they use a metaphysics that is tortured and most assuredly outdated. Any use of 'contingent' or 'necessary' as modifiers of 'existence' seem, to me, to be poorly used adjectives that betray bad Aristotelian logic.
