Supernatural isn't a useful concept

[Alex K]

@theologian

So, everything that has a cause, has a manner of being. But God doesn't have a manner of being. Therefore God must be Uncaused

What on earth is a "manner of being" and why does everything that has a cause have it?

[Mudhammam]

I understand the statement "God doesn't have manners," or "God doesn't have being," but a manner of being??

[theologian]

@theologian

So, everything that has a cause, has a manner of being. But God doesn't have a manner of being. Therefore God must be Uncaused

What on earth is a "manner of being" and why does everything that has a cause have it?

Manner of being is the nature or essence of a being. Man can't be gold or paper when he dies. He always rot. All created things have nature. Plants behaves as plants and not by anything else. Animals behaves as animals and not by anything else. Thus, manner of being is the essence of being or its nature. It is the what-ness of something.

It is different from the act of being which is the perfection of a being, which is to be there instead of not being there. So, every created being is composed of: 1. Manner of Being and 2. Act of Being. So, God Whom is not created doesn't have a manner of being, but He is just Pure Act of Being (Ipsum Esse Subsistens or He that subsists by Itself).

Why is that every being that has manner of being must have a cause? Everything that doesn't have in itself its reason of existence must be caused, just as our projects don't have in itself the reason of its existence, (because our projects in itself doesn't include us whom made it), and thus it is caused. Now, every manner of being doesn't have in itself its reason of existence, because it is impossible that a being that has manner of being gives itself its manner of being, for to give something its manner of being is to be greater than its manner of being which is absurd (for example, a dog makes itself a dog while it is more than a dog at once and therefore not yet a dog). Therefore, everything that has manner of being is caused including, matter, energy and particles which has manner of being, for they are limited in being, that is, limited by its nature. Only God cannot have manner of being and only Him can be the Pure Act of Being. As the Scriptures said, He says that "I AM WHO AM".

So, if by principle of sufficient reason there must be a Pure Act of Being to explain the existence of beings which have manner of beings, then God Whom is Pure Act of Being must exist. Hence, atheist are gravely mistaken

[Mudhammam]

every created being is composed of: 1. Manner of Being and 2. Act of Being.

You just made that up.  But okay.  That's a problem, you say, because...

Why is that every being that has manner of being must have a cause? Everything that doesn't have in itself its reason of existence must be caused, just as our projects don't have in itself the reason of its existence, (because our projects in itself doesn't include us whom made it), and thus it is caused. Now, every manner of being doesn't have in itself its reason of existence, because it is impossible that a being that has manner of being gives itself its manner of being, for to give something its manner of being is to be greater than its manner of being which is absurd (for example, a dog makes itself a dog while it is more than a dog at once and therefore not yet a dog). Therefore, everything that has manner of being is caused including, matter, energy and particles which has manner of being, for they are limited in being, that is, limited by its nature. Only God cannot have manner of being and only Him can be the Pure Act of Being. As the Scriptures said, He says that "I AM WHO AM".

If God is Pure Act of Being then action by which he causes a so-called manner of being is never in potentiality, or else God's action is only a possibility, and God is not Pure Act.  But if a manner of being is eternal because God's Pure Act is eternal, then you need only say that manner of being is eternal in the part of being rather its part as manner.  Moreover, to reduce God's potential action into actuality would require a prior actuality which, at the time prior to God's act, was not a sufficient cause to bring about God's causation of the manner of being.  Thus, you require a further cause to explain the cause of God's action, or his change of state from potentiality to Pure Act with regards to the subsequent manner of being, and then a cause to explain that cause, and so on.  But all of this talk of God is unnecessary.  "From nothing, comes nothing." The substratum of matter, energy, and particles is the Pure Act of Being, and hence, all of time is eternal.  

So, if by principle of sufficient reason there must be a Pure Act of Being to explain the existence of beings which have manner of beings, then God Whom is Pure Act of Being must exist. Hence, atheist are gravely mistaken

But you require a cause to explain God's action failing to produce its effect across that infinite amount of distance that separates Pure Act from the Possible.

[Primordial Bisque]

So, everything that has a cause, has a manner of being. But God doesn't have a manner of being. Therefore God must be Uncaused. Isn't it funny that when atheist is asking "what caused God?", they are asking an absurd question which is "what caused the Uncaused?"? It's like asking: what have you done that you haven't?

Your god doesn't have a "manner of being" then? It sounds like you are classifying it as a non-existent entity.

[theologian]

So, everything that has a cause, has a manner of being. But God doesn't have a manner of being. Therefore God must be Uncaused. Isn't it funny that when atheist is asking "what caused God?", they are asking an absurd question which is "what caused the Uncaused?"? It's like asking: what have you done that you haven't?

Your god doesn't have a "manner of being" then? It sounds like you are classifying it as a non-existent entity.

What makes something exist is not the manner of being, but the act of being, for manner of being is that which limit the act of being; and the act of being is which that makes something exist. But, God Whom is Pure Act of Being shows that He is existing more than others and that nothing limits His existence, for He doesn't have any manner of being. So, it is not correct that God doesn't exist just because He doesn't have manner of being.

[Primordial Bisque]

Your god doesn't have a "manner of being" then? It sounds like you are classifying it as a non-existent entity.

What makes something exist is not the manner of being, but the act of being, for manner of being is that which limit the act of being; and the act of being is which that makes something exist. But, God Whom is Pure Act of Being shows that He is existing more than others and that nothing limits His existence, for He doesn't have any manner of being. So, it is not correct that God doesn't exist just because He doesn't have manner of being.

So, that would basically make god a perfect, changeless entity, with no beginning or end. Is it affected by temporal succession at all; or does it merely exist as a boundless, fixed instance?

[theologian]

every created being is composed of: 1. Manner of Being and 2. Act of Being.

You just made that up.  But okay.  That's a problem, you say, because...

Why is that every being that has manner of being must have a cause? Everything that doesn't have in itself its reason of existence must be caused, just as our projects don't have in itself the reason of its existence, (because our projects in itself doesn't include us whom made it), and thus it is caused. Now, every manner of being doesn't have in itself its reason of existence, because it is impossible that a being that has manner of being gives itself its manner of being, for to give something its manner of being is to be greater than its manner of being which is absurd (for example, a dog makes itself a dog while it is more than a dog at once and therefore not yet a dog). Therefore, everything that has manner of being is caused including, matter, energy and particles which has manner of being, for they are limited in being, that is, limited by its nature. Only God cannot have manner of being and only Him can be the Pure Act of Being. As the Scriptures said, He says that "I AM WHO AM".

If God is Pure Act of Being then action by which he causes a so-called manner of being is never in potentiality, or else God's action is only a possibility, and God is not Pure Act.  But if a manner of being is eternal because God's Pure Act is eternal, then you need only say that manner of being is eternal in the part of being rather its part as manner.  Moreover, to reduce God's potential action into actuality would require a prior actuality which, at the time prior to God's act, was not a sufficient cause to bring about God's causation of the manner of being.  Thus, you require a further cause to explain the cause of God's action, or his change of state from potentiality to Pure Act with regards to the subsequent manner of being, and then a cause to explain that cause, and so on.  But all of this talk of God is unnecessary.  "From nothing, comes nothing." The substratum of matter, energy, and particles is the Pure Act of Being, and hence, all of time is eternal.  

So, if by principle of sufficient reason there must be a Pure Act of Being to explain the existence of beings which have manner of beings, then God Whom is Pure Act of Being must exist. Hence, atheist are gravely mistaken

But you require a cause to explain God's action failing to produce its effect across that infinite amount of distance that separates Pure Act from the Possible.

Please see if I have understood your point. I'll present here what I've understood. And then I'll give my comment.

It seems to me that you are saying that God creating creation is impossible, because that will give God potentiality and therefore it will falsify that God is Pure Act of Being. Is that what you are showing here?

If so, then this is what I can answer. It was demonstrated that God Whom is Pure Act of Being must exist. Now, it follows that there must be no potentiality in Him and you are correct in that proposition. However, creation is not God's action reducing from potentiality into actuality in Him. Remember, God must be Pure Act of Being. What then is creation? What is that potentiality that is reduced to actuality in creation? Of course, it is all the created things which is reduced from potentiality to actuality and not God when we're talking about creation. After all, created things are not God. It's like the case where Socrates didn't really became shorter when his friend became taller. Therefore, God's creation doesn't make Him not Pure Act of Being. Actually, this is where we can know that God is free and He loves us, for He created us even though He need not us because He is Pure Act of Being, so we are created so that we can share in His happiness.

Now, your second point is that matter, energy and particles are the pure act of being. Am I correct with that understanding?

Nothing can be further from truth. Matter, energy and particles cannot be Pure Act of Being. For, whatever is bounded by space cannot be Pure Act of Being, (for Pure Act of Being is Boundless, and whatever is bounded by space is not boundless). But, it is obvious that energy, matter and particles are bounded by space. Therefore, matter, energy and particles are not Pure Act of Being.

Now, what I can understand from your post is that manner of being is a perfection. However, manner of perfection is not something. Manner of perfection is what limits the act of being. Manner of Being thus limits and makes lesser the act of being of a being. Now, the principle of causality implies that the effect can either be equal or less than the cause, but not greater, for as we both hold: "from nothing, only nothing comes". But, the creation is something lesser which is caused by God Whom is Infinitely Greater than the creation, for creation is limited by its manner of being. So, creation is not against the principle of causality.

[downbeatplumb]

I think this is a good time for Atheists to recognize that correct theistic argument for God's existence doesn't argue from the premise that everything has a cause and so be reluctant next time to commit straw man argument fallacy repeatedly. If you want to be free from that fallacy here, you may want to point out that what I really said is that only those which has manner of being has a cause. So, everything that has a cause, has a manner of being. But God doesn't have a manner of being. Therefore God must be Uncaused. Isn't it funny that when atheist is asking "what caused God?", they are asking an absurd question which is "what caused the Uncaused?"? It's like asking: what have you done that you haven't?

So, if the invocation of the atheist of the proposition that everything has a cause is a straw man, then pointing that "if God doesn't have cause, then nothing will have a cause" will be missing the point too.

So god does not have "a manner of being" which seems to mean way of existing or being. So god does not have a way to exist or be which ?seems a strange thing for a theist to say as it a tacit admission of gods non-existence.

[Edwardo Piet]

I understand the statement "God doesn't have manners," or "God doesn't have being," but a manner of being??

An essence. God doesn't have an essence because he doesn't even exist to have one.