Modal argument from contingency

Last revised: 03/04/25

These are in progress and subject to revision. Feedback welcomed.
The subpoints provide further clarifying thoughts or definitions.

Simplified argument

At least one modally necessary being (MNB) with ontological influence or causal power instantiates in a metaphysically possible world. (Steps #1-21)

If true, then at least one MNB instantiates in all possible worlds. (Steps #22-23)

If true, then at least one ontologically necessary being with ontological influence or causal power (ONB) instantiates in all possible worlds. (Steps #24-28)

An ONB necessarily has attributes such as being unchanging, immaterial, spaceless, atemporal, unlimited in ability, ultimately perfect, singularly unique and possessing intellect and will. (Steps #29-88)

The attributes of an ONB are those used to describe God. (Step #89)

Therefore, such a being, which can be identified as God, instantiates in all metaphysically possible worlds. (Step #90)

Full argument

Presuppositions

1. Self-contradictions cannot take place or be true.

2. The argument adopts the principle that not everything has an explanation in principle or a sufficient reason for existence, although I have posted arguments in favor of the PSR.

3. Not all change is caused, but causation is possible.

4. The argument uses the S5 axiom of modal logic. In S5, all possible worlds are accessible from each other. If something is possible, then it is possible in all possible worlds. If something is necessary, then it is necessary in all possible worlds.

   S5 also includes the principle that if something is possibly necessary, then it is necessary. This follows from the idea that possibility and necessity apply across all possible worlds without restriction.

   The modality used is metaphysical possibility. A proposition is metaphysically possible if it is not logically contradictory and follows from necessary truths and nature of things. For example, “a triangle has three sides” is necessarily true in all possible worlds, while “a triangle has four sides” is not possible in any.

Premises

Stage 1

1. A modally contingent being (MCB) is something with actuality or actual being that could have been otherwise: it can fail or cease to be in some, but not all, states of affairs within any possible world, including for specific durations of time. It doesn’t necessarily have causal powers, and it may or may not be brute (or exists without any sufficient cause or reason). (Definition)

   1. The phrase “with actuality or actual being” means it is real, not merely hypothetical or imaginary. Intentional objects like the fictional character Harry Potter is not a being, for example.

   2. “Actuality” refers to the hear-and-now present state of being.

   3. Metaphysically possible refers to something that: (1) is not logically self-contradictory and (2) adheres to persistent or necessary truths (e.g., a triangle must have three sides and cannot have four).

2. A modally necessary being (MNB) is something with actuality or actual being that could not have been otherwise: it cannot fail or cease to be under any state of affairs, including for any specific duration of time, in any metaphysically possible world. It doesn’t necessarily have causal powers. (Definition)

3. An ontologically dependent being requires an external condition, factor, cause or circumstance outside itself to actually exist or have reality in the world, either when coming into existence, sustaining or preventing destruction of its existence. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive. (Definition)

   1. “Condition” refers to a specific state or situation external to the entity that must be met for the entity to exist or persist. The condition is a prerequisite or enabling state without which the entity cannot exist or continue.

   2. “Factor” refers to a distinct element or variable external to the entity that influences or supports its existence. The factor is a specific component or contributor that the entity relies on as one of many possible influences.

   3. “Cause” refers to an agent, event or process that brings the entity into existence or sustains it. The cause is the active reason or mechanism responsible for the entity’s creation or continued existence.

   4. “Circumstance” refers to the broader set of situational or contextual elements external to the entity that enable its existence or persistence. The circumstance is the surrounding context or environment that makes the entity’s existence possible.

   5. Consider a bubble as a dependent entity:

      • Condition: The presence of a liquid solution with the right viscosity.

      • Factor: The air pressure or surface tension maintaining its shape.

      • Cause: The act of blowing air through a wand to form the bubble.

      • Circumstance: A calm environment without strong winds that could pop it.

4. A brute being is a being with no explanation for it to actually exist or have reality in the world. (Definition)

5. Assume for reductio that every possible world has at least one brute being, including our actual world (even if the specific brute being differ across worlds). (Assumed for reductio)

6. If true, then there is a necessary modal principle that every possible world has at least one brute being.

7. If true, then this modal principle or relation is either descriptive or prescriptive.

8. If the modal principle that "every possible world has at least one brute being" is descriptive, then it does not impose any restrictions or limits on the modal space of what is possible.

   1. Let P denote “the modal principle that ‘every possible world has at least one brute being.’"

9. If true, then P cannot eliminate the possibility of a world without brute being.

10. If true, then there is a possible world without brute being, which contradicts the assumption that every possible world has at least one brute being.

11. Therefore, assuming P is descriptive, then it contradicts itself. (Hypothetical Syllogism on #8-10)

12. If P is prescriptive, then that modal fact is an antecedent cause or reason that every possible world has at least one brute being (even if every possible world consists of different brute beings).

13. If true, then P is a sufficient condition for the presence of each brute being in every possible world.

14. If true, then there is a sufficient explanation for each brute being in every possible world.

15. Therefore, assuming P is prescriptive, there is a sufficient explanation for each being with no explanation, which is a contradiction. (Hypothetical Syllogism on #12-14)

16. Therefore, P is neither descriptive or prescriptive. (Conjunction on #11 and #16)

17. Therefore, not every possible world has at least one brute being. (Modus Tollens on #7 and #16)

    1. As a consequent, then no MNB could be brute.

18. If true, then World W is a possible world, where the only MCB that has ever existed is ontologically dependent and not brute.

    1. In W, the quantity of MNBs is indeterminate, if any exist at all, so the total number of all beings that have ever existed in W is indeterminate.

    2. A possible rejoinder that proposes a possible world without a non-brute MCB would not be relevant since a world that lacks a non-brute MCB doesn’t provide an inference to whether a MNB is present.

19. If all beings are either modally contingent or modally necessary, then W is a world where at least one MNE with ontological influence (or causal power) instantiates.

    1. This world just proposes that the possible world has only ever contained a lone non-brute MCB that is dependent, which means it requires something modally necessary with causal power. In W the only contingent thing is not brute, which entails it is dependent. The means that a non-contingent (i.e., modally necessary) being has that ontological influence or causal powers must be responsible for the lone MCB.

    2. Ontological influence or causal power means having ability to affect or cause changes depending on conditions, even if indeterminately.

    3. I would consider this a persistent or necessary truth, which would mean that a world without concrete entity is impossible. By concrete, I mean it has influence or power.

20. All beings are either modally contingent or modally necessary.

    1. Modal contingency and modal necessity are mutually exclusive, whether it's with an explanation or not (brute). Bruteness is not a third modal category of a being. Rather, bruteness is something a contingent thing could be.

21. Therefore, W is a possible world where at least one MNB with ontological influence or causal power instantiates. (Hypothetical Syllogism on #18-20)

22. A MNB instantiates in all metaphysically possible worlds if it instantiates in any metaphysically possible world.

23. Therefore, at least one MNB instantiates in all metaphysically possible world. (Modus Ponens on #21-22)

24. If a MNB is ontologically dependent in any manner, then it would fail or cease to exist in a metaphysically possible world wherein conditional or causal relations failed or ceased to exist.

25. A MNB cannot fail or cease to exist in any metaphysically possible world.

26. Therefore, a MNB isn’t ontological dependent in any manner. (Modus Tollens on #24-25)

27. A being is ontologically necessary if it isn’t ontologically dependent in any manner, regardless of any conditions or metaphysically possible worlds.

    1. A being is contingent if it is dependent in any manner.

28. Therefore, at least one ontologically necessary being with ontological influence or causal power (i.e., an uncaused cause) instantiates in all metaphysically possible worlds. (Definitional Substitution and Modus Ponens on #23, 26-27)

    1. Let ONB denote “ontologically necessary being with ontological influence or causal power.”

    2. An ONB would be an uncaused cause because it isn’t ontologically dependent in any manner (per #26), yet it has ontological influence or causal power (per #21).

Stage 2

29. If a being is ontologically dependent or caused in any respect, then it could fail or cease to exist.

30. Therefore, an ONB is not ontologically dependent or caused in any respect. (Modus Tollens on #28-29)

31. If something has passive potency, then it’s ontologically dependent or has a cause.

    1. “Passive potency” refers to the capacity for something to develop, come into existence or achieve a certain state. For example, a seed has the passive potency to become a tree.

    2. Passive potency is contrasted with active potency, where passive potency represents what could be, and active potency represents the ability to act to bring about an effect, change or bring something into being.

32. Therefore, an ONB has no passive potency in any respect. (Modus Tollens on #30-31)

33. If true, then it cannot change in any respect.

34. Therefore, an ONB cannot change in any respect. (Modus Ponens on #32-33)

35. If a being possesses passive potency or is incomplete (remains unfinished or underdeveloped), then it can change.

36. Therefore, an ONB lacks passive potency and is complete. (Modus Tollens on #34-35)

37. If a being with ontological influence or causal power lacks any passive potency, that entails it is fully actual.

    1. Fully actual means complete and perfected in its final state, with no potential left for further change or development. It is fully realized and lacks any unfinished or incomplete aspect.

38. Therefore, an ONB is fully actual. (Modus Ponens on #36-37)

39. If a being were composed of parts (either physical or metaphysical) or distinct essences, then it would presuppose and depend upon those parts or distinct essences for its existence.

    1. Parts are the components or pieces that combine to form a whole, which could be physical or tangible or metaphysical in terms of forms/matter or essence/existence.

    2. An essence is a thing’s “whatness” or set of qualities that defines its identity that makes something distinct from other things.

    3. The essence of humans is rational animality (a being that is both animal and rational). Nature refers to a thing’s inherent disposition or natural inclination based on its essence, like its tendencies, capacities and proper functions.

40. An ONB is not ontologically dependent or caused in any respect (per #30).

41. Therefore, an ONB is not composed of parts or distinct essences of any kind. (Modus Tollens on #39-40)

42. If true, then it lacks composition and is absolutely simple.

43. Therefore, an ONB lacks composition and is absolutely simple. (Modus Ponens on #41-42)

44. If a thing has no parts or distinct essences, the thing is identical to its essence.

    1. This means there is no distinction between what the thing is and how it exists.

45. Therefore, an ONB is identical to its essence. (Modus Ponens on #43-44)

46. If a being is distinct from its own existence, that would imply the possibility of either: (a.) non-existence or (b.) change to some further potential to be actualized.

47. An ONB cannot fail to exist and is fully actual (per #38).

48. For an ONB, there is no distinction between what it is (its essence) and that it is (its existence) (per #45).

49. Therefore, an ONB is identical to its existence. (Modus Tollens on #46-48)

50. A being is identical to its essence if and only if its essence is its existence.

51. Therefore, an ONB’s essence is its existence. (Modus Ponens on #49-50)

52. If a being is a material substance, then it has passive potency.

    1. A substance is something that exists in itself and not in another, while maintaining its identity even if it has changing accidental properties. A substance is the core or essential reality that underlies all of a being’s attributes and accidental properties. For example, a tree is a material substance, while its color, size and shape are properties or features of that substance.

53. An ONB lacks passive potency (per #36).

54. Therefore, an ONB isn’t a material substance (meaning, it’s immaterial, so it lacks a material form and is not a physical or tangible thing). (Modus Tollens on #52-53)

55. If a thing is immaterial (per #54) and without parts (per #41), then it is not spatially extended.

56. Therefore, an ONB cannot be spatially extended (meaning, it’s spaceless). (Modus Ponens on #54-55)

57. If time is the measure of change between before and after in the same relevant respect, then a being that cannot change does not undergo a measure of time, meaning it’s not temporal (or atemporal).

58. Therefore, an ONB is atemporal. (Modus Ponens on #56-57)

59. If existence itself (the act of being) had an inherent limit or could be limited, then that would imply it is possible for something to exist beyond or outside of existence itself.

60. It is not possible for something to exist beyond or outside of existence itself.

61. Therefore, existence itself has no inherent limit nor could be limited. (Modus Tollens on #59-60)

62. If a being is identical to its existence, then it is inherently unlimited.

    1. This means not to be constrained by external limitations, boundaries, or conditions and to be true to itself in every aspect, without external or internal inconsistency. It’s inherent in the sense of not being accidental or contingent but foundational and logically necessary.

63. Therefore, an ONB is inherently unlimited. (Modus Ponens on #61-62)

64. If a thing is inherently unlimited, then it does not possess self-limiting attributes (attributes that imply imperfection, dependence or limitation).

    1. For example, to possess self-limiting attributes like being physical (having a specific shape, size or location in space) would be constraining by spatial dimensions, which contradicts the idea of unlimited existence.

65. Therefore, an ONB does not possess self-limiting attributes. (Modus Ponens on #63-64)

66. If a thing that is complete in itself, simple and and does not possess any self-limiting attributes, then it is ultimately perfect.

    1. Change or potentiality for change implies imperfection, as it suggests something incomplete or awaiting fulfillment.

    2. Absolute simplicity signifies the absence of any division or imperfection.

    3. An unlimited thing lacks any deficiency or restriction.

67. Therefore, an ONB is ultimately perfect. (Modus Ponens on #65-66)

68. If multiple ONBs instantiate, the distinguishing aspect between or among them would either be ontologically contingent (implying dependence on an external condition) or indication of an inherent incompleteness in each (implying a limitation in each that prevents any one from possessing all aspects of necessary existence).

69. Both circumstances contradict the necessary or complete essence of an NEC.

70. Therefore, only a single ONB instantiates. (Modus Tollens on #68-69)

71. Intellect is the ability to hold or to possess a form without having to become that form.

    1. A form is the principle that gives the substance its specific identity (e.g., humanity for a human being).

    2. A form represents the essence or reality of a thing as it truly is.

72. If an ONB is complete and ultimately perfect, it holds all forms inherently.

73. Therefore, since an unchanging ONB is complete and does not need to take hold of forms from outside itself, it possesses intellect in the sense of fully holding all forms without becoming them. (Modus Ponens on #71-72)

74. A being that inherently holds all forms does so not by external acquisition but by intrinsic knowledge, which is an immediate and comprehensive awareness of the reality of everything that exists or could exist.

    1. E.g., Omniscience isn’t merely knowing the proposition “The sun exists”; rather, an omniscient entity understands the nature, reality and causal relationships of the sun as it is.)

75. If a being holds all forms inherently and without external acquisition, then its knowledge is self-contained and direct, a reflection of its own essence.

76. Set-based thinking, by definition, involves discrete, contingent elements and therefore implies external acquisition or composition.

77. Therefore, the knowledge of a self-contained and uncomposed ONB, which holds all forms inherently and without external acquisition, is not set-based but self-knowledge. (Modus Ponens on #74-76)

78. If a being is fully actualized, absolutely simple and unified, then it cannot contain any elements that could truly be in contradiction with each other, since it is fully actualized and lacks any passive potency.

79. If an ONB's intellect is perfectly unified and logically coherent, then it must be perfectly ordered and consistent with itself.

80. Therefore, an ONB’s intellect is perfectly ordered and logically coherent because an NEC. (Modus Ponens on #78-79)

81. Active potency (the capacity to act upon or bring potential things into effect beyond oneself) is a genus of act that serves as the initiating power responsible for producing an effect external to itself, whereas act is the end state of a potential being actualized.

82. If a thing with ontological influence or causal power lacks any passive potency and is fully actual, then it has unlimited active potency to bring about any logically coherent things.

83. Therefore, an ONB has unlimited active potency to bring about any logically coherent things. (Modus Ponens on #81-82)

84. If a being with ontological influence or causal power has intellect and active potency, then it has a will (the inherent power of a thing with intellect to act as a cause in the relevant respect).

85. Therefore, an ONB has a will. (Modus Ponens on #83-84)

86. The concept of freedom means having the ability to act according to one’s will or essence without being coerced by external forces or limitations.

87. If something has a nature (for instance, a perfect nature), then acting in accordance with that nature reflects the inherent and uncoerced expression of the being’s essence and is not a limitation on its freedom.

88. Therefore, acting in accordance with one’s nature is not a limitation on freedom but an affirmation of the thing’s essence. (Modus Ponens on #86-87)

89. If thing that must exist and cannot not exist, is necessary, uncaused, unchanging, immaterial, spaceless, atemporal, unlimited in ability, ultimately perfect, singularly unique, possesses intellect and will is what people mean by God, then God exists.

90. God exists. Amen!