Talk:Aseity

Original Research

I put the original research banner over the Aseity page because of the last claims regarding aseity of the universe. I am not aware of decay and corruption being widespread throughout the universe, nor am I aware that it is self-evident, nor am I aware how this poses a problem to atheistic aseity of the universe. Since there is no citation or source for this claim, I decided that it falls under the guidelines for original research and put up the banner. 70.243.116.156 20:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Adam Pierce

Someone seems to have removed the original-research type comments, so I removed the original research banner.69.137.181.88 09:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Adam Pierce

Capitalisation

The capitalisation of "One" and use of, in fact the general choice of words was non-neutral, especially "He is His own existence, ::and nothing can exist without Him."

I have changed the wording to be neutral.

I also forward that it should be included that aseity of a deity can be argued to be logically incoherent:

An entity is defined by its own attributes. In the statement "x determines the properties of x", for the first "x" to successfully ::refer to something, it has to refer to an entity, which already has to have a definite set of properties. Therefore, the notion of ::something being the origin of its own nature (properties) is logically incoherent.

Furthermore, for something to have the property of being necessary, this already requires the existence of laws (at least those of ::logic).

The statement "(P->Q)->((not-P->Q)->Q)" is necessarily true only because of the laws of logic. Without underlying laws, the notion ::of "necessity" is meaningless.

Saying that a deity is the source of logic or that the laws of logic follow from the deity's nature is thus logically circular.

91.65.148.226 (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC) MPhil (in ::support of the above passages, I have studied logic, philosophy of science and philosophy)

This page is about the article and not the concept. Second your having studied x or y doesn't matter; there are people who have studied these things who don't agree with you. Third there is no contradiction; x or y doesn't need to already exist if the Creator is the one that creates x or y. 2001:BB6:7A77:1058:7983:DDA2:A584:20D4 (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Grammar Concern...

There appears to be a fragment / incomplete sentence in the introductory paragraph: "Though many Jewish and Muslim theologians have also believed God to be independent in this way." The phrase appears to be orphaned from any of the phrases around it -- making it difficult to immediately correct it... Sir Ian (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparent contradictory statements

Under the section heading "Meaning", there is a sentence "As a part of this belief God is said to be incapable of changing ..." and yet the following sentence states "Since God was, and is, and is to be the Absolute Perfection, there is no further need to change ...". I suggest that by removing the word "further" from the latter sentence, the apparent contradiction would be removed. Mr D Gill (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The "further" gives the impression that there already was some change, which shouldn't be possible. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The (self-causation/self-causality) title is biased

The correct title is: Aseity (religion)

A different approach is (self-causation/self-causality) Aseity (physics) = quantum foundations (nowadays we don't have the official theory) and NOT Big Bang. Big Bang is an important cosmogonic even but the deepest logical framework is the (today unknown) quantum foundations.

It is common on YouTube and Facebook for theists to claim that only supernaturalists believe in self-causation/self-causality/aseity and atheists don't.

On YouTube Muslims prevail on the topic of self-causation/self-causality/aseity not because they're superior; but simply because most atheists are not quality philosophers. Many atheists are bad philosophers and they don't care about the self-causation/self-causality/aseity of the physical foundations but it's a lie to claim that all atheists have no views on logically procedural physical foundations with the distinction between physics and mathematics (relationship between mathematics and physics). Thus some atheists have theories on logical physical self-causation/self-causality/aseity.

A-theism means non-Godism which is fundamentally a negation. Even positive atheists are affirmativist negationists mainly focusing on debunking God. A minority of atheists are primarily affirmativist neorationalists/ physicalists/ metaphysical naturalists and in affirmativist neorationalism the antisupernaturalists work more on ideas like the self-causation/self-causality/aseity as in quantum foundations. The self-causation of the logical universes produces an infinite number of universes (some interpretations of string theory produce a finite number of universes, but string theory isn't the only physioaxiomatization: way to describe physical foundations; also some string theory interpretations predict infinite universes). Modern physics only describes parallel universes with related mathematical foundations and not "mutually exclusive non-parallelizable universes" but some people work on this also (unpopular in 2025).

It is unethical to use biased titles which erroneously suggest that only one cohort has a particular idea.

Not all people who work on quantum foundations work on the physical self-causation, but some do. If the self-causation of quantum foundations isn't answered then we don't have the full quantum foundations theory because we don't understand logical and physical frameworking criteria (some but not all theist physicists claim that we should give up the scientific method if it rejects God; see: Sαudi Αrabia).

Improve the page: axiomatization of physics

Create the page: axiomatization criteria of physics

2A02:587:4F0C:9300:6415:39D4:6FD8:F77F (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The seemingly overlooked subject herein is self-causation/self-causality. The proper way to approach self-causation is the category of reality which comes into being by it being spoken. A greeting doesn't exist until it is spoken. An idea doesn't exist until it is spoken AND understood. Speaking is an action and it exists as an idea. Can an idea exist? What is the cause of the existence of an idea? What precedes an idea? Ideas are caused by being discussed/described--until that moment, ideas are unlocatable. Other ways of approaching this subject are known as "Speech Acts". J.L.Austin and Wittgenstein were interested in how we use language rather than speculating about its abstract nature. Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, was published posthumously in 1953. It seems clear that with words we do not only describe the world and refer to things, but we transform reality. This was the intuition that J. L. Austin, a British philosopher of language, explored during his Harvard lectures in 1995. His philosophy became greatly influential and constituted the beginning of Speech Act Theory. 2600:100E:A023:5398:D98E:7533:99CE:C2C3 (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)