*Translator ON*
MR. ALIEN: “I left my planet in hopes to discover meaning. Back there, too many opinions swirl. Some say we’re an accident of the Universe. That everything is just random chance. Others say more powerful beings gifted our world with existence. I have entertained these and many more but without satisfaction.”
If you hope to find consensus on this planet, I’m afraid you will be disappointed. Here, too, there is a great diversity.
MR. ALIEN: “Oh. So the effort is futile here, too.”
Not so! A diversity does not mean there is no truth to be discerned.
MR. ALIEN: “A truth to be discerned…but with much difficulty?”
Not if we know where to begin.
MR. ALIEN: “I’m guessing we must begin at what is most foundational.”
I would say so.
MR. ALIEN: “But already there is too much to sort through. All of the views I listed above have to do with what is most foundational—the origin of everything!”
And right away we can eliminate some options. Like “Everything is random chance.” Existence itself cannot be due to chance alone, for then what would ground the possibility of existence?”
MR. ALIEN: “Nothing comes from nothing.”
Indeed!
MR. ALIEN: “On my planet, this was easily admitted. Something has always existed. Still, perhaps all else is due to mere chance.”
And by chance you mean to say…
MR. ALIEN: “That nothing has a deeper, ultimate purpose. That from which everything else comes is just as dumb and inert as stardust. On my planet, the popular view is that everything is just dust. That which is most fundamental is what all things are reducible to: dust.”
Ah, yes, here too there is the prevalent view that reduces all things to the smallest physical constituents—subatomic particles, or at least that which composes those. The basic idea is that whatever the smallest physical reality happens to be is also most ontologically basic.
MR. ALIEN: “Ontologically basic?”
Referring to being. So in this view, what we would at least superficially consider to be distinct, real beings—you and me, that tree over there, the water molecule—are really illusionary: They are just aggregates of the “dust” you refer to. You and I are just constructs of language; at most, we are a complex machine but without a true nature, kind of like the UFO—er, the craft—by which you arrived here. Just an apparent unity; really, it’s just a combination of parts.
MR. ALIEN: “Yes. This view seems to deprive everything of meaning.”
It would—if true. Fortunately, there are reasons to reject this materialistic reductionism. But let’s back up and again consider the foundational reality, that which—as you say—“has always existed.” The kind of thing that is ultimate must exist necessarily. If it were merely a possible thing that happened to exist, then it would demand explanation outside of itself. Instead, the explanation for the ultimate reality must be found from within it. In other words, it must exist through itself and not because of another.
MR. ALIEN: “Yes, that makes sense. If what we call “ultimate” only happens to be one way but could instead be another, it could hardly be called necessary.”
Exactly: That which is ultimate must be necessary through-and-through. If its existence were merely possible, then it could not, in fact, be ultimate. We would have to look deeper. This also means that there can be no aspect of it whatsoever that is changeable. For again, the ability to change implies possibility and not necessity.
MR. ALIEN: “But now this ultimate reality is starting to sound inert, bland, and mindless. How can a completely unchanging thing do anything—much less create an entire Universe?”
This is a problem of imagination but not of reality. Things of our experience that appear to be static and unchanging—say a boulder or a frozen ice cube (though even these are neither truly unchangeable or even unchanging)—are certainly less active than those things we witness as moving and self-directing, like living things and thinking creatures like ourselves.
MR. ALIEN: “But you said this ultimate reality is unchanging, not active. Something that cannot change cannot act.”
There is more to be said, though. Something that cannot change cannot move to act—that is, it cannot move from potentiality to a new activity. But what if this ultimate reality is already and completely active by its very nature? It would be unchangeably active.
MR. ALIEN: “So you are saying that this thing would be fully and always active.”
Yes.
MR. ALIEN: “But why think of it as active at all? Again, why not more like the frozen block of ice—perpetually inert?”
Unlike the things of our everyday experience, this ultimate reality is without all potentiality and therefore completely actual. It is not a static object precisely because it does not—and cannot—receive new existence from anything outside of itself. Its existence is not received, nor is its existence a brute fact about it. In other words, its existence is not merely descriptive, as we might say “you exist” as if to describe a state of affairs. Instead, the ultimate reality is its own existence.
MR. ALIEN: “I’m not sure I’m seeing the connection…”
Basically, to exist is the fundamental activity of the ultimate reality. It is one with its existence; its very activity is existence. Rather than being “inert” or “static,” it is the most active of all beings because it is the fullness of existence. In fact, because this reality is identical to its act of existence, its not proper to call it “a being” at all. It is not just a being among other beings. It is the act of to-be itself and the very source of the existence of all other things. All other things merely participate in existence but do not exhaust the fullness of existence.
MR. ALIEN: “Can you say more about the difference between the existence of the fundamental reality and the existence of all other things?”
Only the fundamental reality is its own existence whereas everything else is a limited mode of existence.
MR. ALIEN: “Doesn’t this presume that there is only one ultimate reality by which all other things receive their existence?”
There can be only one ultimate reality because there can be only one necessary being. If we posited more than one such being—let’s say A and B—then there would have to be some distinguishing feature between the two—or else they would be the selfsame. But if there were a distinguishing feature, then each such being would no longer be completely necessary after all: Instead, there would have to be a deeper reason for the existence of necessary being A with feature X and necessary being B with feature Y and so on. In other words, both beings A and B would be possible instantiations of “necessary being.” If possible, then something else much explain the possibility—something absolutely necessary.
MR. ALIEN: “So more than one necessary being would really mean two or more possibilities. And that is a contradiction.”
Exactly. Still another way to arrive at only one ultimate reality is to consider that any differentiating feature among such beings would thereby presuppose a limit of each being in some way. But any limit requires explanation: Why this limit and not another, or why this limit at all? A limited being depends on something else that so limits that being. Even more, a limited being is a mode or type of being but not the fullness of being. A limited mode of being presupposes the fullness of being, that is, a reality that contains the fullness of existence within itself.
MR. ALIEN: “I suppose this kind of reasoning also arrives at the dependency of all other beings on the ultimate reality.”
Because all other beings besides the ultimate reality must be limited in some way or another, each one cries out for explanation. As we have seen, only the fully self-existent necessary being accounts for existence. So even if it is hard to imagine or conceptualize, we must accept that all beings derive their existence from the Ultimate Reality. Far from being static or inert, it is effectual then—bringing about the existence of all other things from nothing!
MR. ALIEN: “Perhaps admitting the limits of imagination is important, then.”
Yes. We humans are very prideful and think the world is at our fingertips to be controlled and manipulated at will. But there are many things beyond our understanding. I mean, I would not have ever thought it possible to be sitting here talking to an extraterrestrial…
MR. ALIEN: “I take it humility will be important as we continue to talk about ultimate reality.”
And how could it be otherwise? We are talking about the most intensely existing being; we are talking about Being Itself. The Ultimate Reality is transcendent and beyond all immediate perceptual experience precisely because it is not just another being we encounter within the Universe.
MR. ALIEN: “There is a story back on home planet where a group of adventure-loving scientists took off to survey the galaxies for the gods. They then happily returned without any sign of such beings.”
When it comes to the Ultimate Reality, the folly of such an enterprise is apparent. One will never discover it as just another being to be discovered and analyzed. If we were talking about “gods”—like the earthly legends of beings who happen to be super versions of humans—then perhaps we could have something to say about their existence from scientific endeavors. But alas, the beings of this sort are very different from what we are talking about.
MR. ALIEN: “I take it many humans confuse this Ultimate Reality with these so-called “gods”?”
On Earth, speakers of my language refer to this ultimate ground of all being as “God.” Most everyone agrees that, by this term, we mean an ultimate cause that is in some sense personal. But we go wrong as soon as we try to identify this Ultimate Reality as any limited mode of existence. If “God” were regarded as just the most supreme being around, then He would not really differ from the “gods” just mentioned—maybe the most powerful and primary, but only by degree.
MR. ALIEN: “He?”
Didn’t mean to get ahead of myself. The pronoun “He” is often used in reference to God for two main reasons: (1) God is personal and (2) God has revealed Himself in this way. But there is more to say later on both these fronts.
MR. ALIEN: “I was about to say if the Ultimate Reality is a male, then it would obviously be restricted to one manner of being!”
Indeed. God is not literally a man, nor is He male. But we have to use language—which is always limited—if we are going to talk about God at all. Later we will see in what sense it is acceptable to call God a “He.”
MR. ALIEN: “Better than an “It” I suppose—if this Ultimate Reality can indeed be shown to be personal, as you say.”
You bring up a good point, though. God is not male because God is not even a body, in the first place. He is not a biological entity, nor is He a material object, nor is He in any way physical.
MR. ALIEN: “Because all of these would involve limits, which the Ultimate Reality cannot have?”
Exactly. Even more, physical things are made up of parts. But that which consists of parts is not self-explanatory. There must be a prior cause of the arrangement of such parts in such-and-such a way. Or, put still another way, that which is made up of parts ultimately depends on those parts for its existence. But the Ultimate Reality cannot depend on anything else for its existence: It must exist through itself, wholly and completely.
MR. ALIEN: “But you seem to be thinking of physical things of the kind we experience on a daily basis—like my spaceship, which is clearly made up of parts, or even a water molecule. But what if the lower and deeper you go in physical reality, the more exotic and less like the physical things of our everyday experience? For example, back home, we have discovered fundamental fields that hardly resemble the kind of everyday material objects of our experience.”
If anything physical ever happens to be completely without parts, then perhaps the issue is just a matter of language—and therefore we need to clarify the use of a term like “physical”. However, when I talk about parts, I am talking about any kind of distinction that indicates different realities that are not equal to each other. In other words, if something is not wholly and entirely identical to itself and in every way, then it has “parts”—whether it be physical or metaphysical parts.
MR. ALIEN: “I have no idea what you mean by “metaphysical parts”.”
Above we concluded that the Ultimate Reality is its own existence. It is identical to its own act of existence. This means every other being is not identical to its act of existence. Any limited being—which is every reality except the Ultimate Reality—receives existence. It is an instantiation of a kind of being. For instance, a cat—which is a cute furry little earthly creature—is distinct from its act of existence. Without it, the cat would not exist; nevertheless, the cat does not equate to its act of existence—
MR. ALIEN: “Wait. Why not? Why doesn’t this furry creature equate to its act of existence?”
Because the essence—the whatness of the cat—does not necessitate that it exists. A cat is not necessary being! There are cats, but there might as well not be or ever have been a cat. Remember: Only the Necessary, the Ultimate Reality, is identical to its existence. The Ultimate Reality is the only reality that does not receive its existence from something outside of itself.
MR. ALIEN: “Okay, so a cat—and every limited being—is not identical to its act of existence.”
Exactly—and in saying so, you have admitted a metaphysical distinction in every limited being, namely, that of its essence and its act of existence.
MR. ALIEN: “I see. So at the very least, every limited being is composed of the metaphysical “parts” of essence and existence.”
And because every composite requires a cause, it therefore once again follows that every limited being requires a cause for its existence! This is stressed all the more by the kind of composition we are talking about here: No limited being can account for its composition of essence and existence precisely because its existence must be received from without.
MR. ALIEN: “So the Ultimate Reality’s identification with its own existence seems to be very important.”
Yes—And it makes all the difference in how we understand all of reality. Only if the fundamental reality is in fact its own existence can the entirety of reality be truly intelligible. For again, if the Ultimate Reality were distinct from its existence, it would not be truly ultimate. It would either require outside explanation for its existence, or else one would have to posit brute fact.
MR. ALIEN: “So far, then, it seems this Ultimate Reality is entirely unique and beyond all other existing things. But how does it relate to everything else that exists? Is there any reason to think this Reality in any sense knows or wills?”
Those are good questions, and we will explore that next. For now, though, consider the following two things: (1) There is an infinitely self-sufficient Ultimate Reality and (2) there exists other beings, which are contingent, i.e., do not explain their own existence. If all other beings depend on the Ultimate Reality, then we have to ask: How is that all other things come from this Reality? If we can admit that it is not of absolute necessity that all other beings emanate from this Reality and that, indeed, all other beings are not “made up of” this Reality (since it has no potential to become anything else), then it seems like the only option left is for something like deliberate decision—free will. Only intellects have free will.
MR. ALIEN: “Wow. So a Personal Mind could be at the foundation of reality? Deep. I still have more questions. But it’s time for me to put some gas in the craft and explore some of Earth’s hotspots. I’ll be back later…”
Smelly Sheep 