The problem is you're positing something both unnecessary and I think incoherent. You seem to merely be saying that there is a substance whose only attribute is to be. But what does that even mean? To be, we effectively mean to be aware of something based on some property we can detect. I see things because they reflect loght, I feel other things because they rebuff my advancement into their physical space, and so on.
A substance whose only feature is existence makes no sense, for in what sense can one ever be aware of it? By your own admission, it must be through some other property it manifests that is observable (in the broad sense, meaning to be aware of in some manner). But if that is the case, your primal matter becomes an ad hoc ontological commitment for which we can only assume exists, for all we have are the the properties by which it makes its existence known. by which all things make it known.
Of course, I could just be misunderstanding your rebuttal, which I admit use terms I'm not really familiar with (they seem archaic and have the sound of old forays into metaphysics).
A substance whose only feature is existence makes no sense, for in what sense can one ever be aware of it? By your own admission, it must be through some other property it manifests that is observable (in the broad sense, meaning to be aware of in some manner). But if that is the case, your primal matter becomes an ad hoc ontological commitment for which we can only assume exists, for all we have are the the properties by which it makes its existence known. by which all things make it known.
Of course, I could just be misunderstanding your rebuttal, which I admit use terms I'm not really familiar with (they seem archaic and have the sound of old forays into metaphysics).
