The Argument from Necessary Existence

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

The Argument from Necessary Existence

Post #1

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

.

Basically, what I am saying is; existence is necessary.

To find out what is meant by necessary (in this context), along with the concept of contingency, please visit this thread...particularly the OP.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38217

This argument, in my opinion, bridges the gap between 3 theistic arguments..

1. Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. Modal Ontological Argument
3. Argument from Contingency

So here we go..

P1. It is impossible for literally nothing to exist

Conclusion: Therefore, existence is necessary

Based on the truth value of P1

P2: Only an uncaused cause can exist necessarily

P3. The universe is not an uncaused cause

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe does not exist necessarily

P4. Since the universe does not exist necessarily, the universe is dependent upon external factors for exist existence

P5. Only an uncaused cause can be the origins/source of a contingently existing universe (a universe which began to exist).

Conclusion: Therefore, God caused the universe to exist
--------------------

Justification for P1: Based upon..

1. The argument from the impossibility of infinite regression: I presented an argument against infinite regression in the following thread…and if there is any refutation of this argument, then I haven’t seen it yet.

For more on this, please see the following thread...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38228

2. The impossibility of things popping into being, uncaused, out of nothing: Things do not pop in to being, uncaused, out of nothing. There are no pre-deterministic factors of “nothing”, which will allow any X thing to spring into existence and nothing else (for those who appeal to quantum physics). Out of nothing, nothing comes.

We will call the above two statements “the main 2”.

----------------

Now, whether or not you are a theist or atheist, neither world view is rational if it is dependent upon either of the above two being true.

Since both possibilities are negated, then it follows that something (X) had to have existed eternally, while not violating either of the above 2 possibilities. X had to have always existed, due to the necessity of its own nature. Since X must have always existed, and is not dependent upon anything external from itself for its existence, we will call this X an uncaused cause (which is a term that will be used interchangeably with X) throughout this discourse.

Justification of P3: If X is uncaused, then X exists necessarily (which logically follows).

Conclusion: The universe is contingent, as it does not exist due to the necessity of its own nature. Why is that the case? Because the universe is all physical reality (space, time, energy, matter; STEM). STEM cannot exist without violating the main two.

Since it is impossible for the main two to be violated, it follows that the universe cannot exist necessarily (in all possible worlds), and cannot be an uncaused cause.

Justification of P4: Since the universe is contingent (based on P4), the universe owes its existence to that which is necessary, which is X (an uncaused cause). The universe cannot be used as an explanation given to explain the origins of its own domain, therefore, it owes its existence to external factors, which brings us back to X (an uncaused cause).

Justification of P5: The uncaused cause is, as proven, to exist necessarily without violation of the main 2. Since all STEM is contingent, then STEM owes its existence to that which is necessary (an uncaused cause). Since the uncaused cause is the source of all STEM, the uncaused cause can not itself be the product of STEM.

The uncaused cause had the power and will to create STEM ex nihilo…and any entity with a will to commit an act, must possess that of consciousness. The power that the uncaused cause possessed, is far beyond power within physical reality. The uncaused cause must have existed outside of time, and initiated time with the moment of creation.

The uncaused cause is what we call, God.

BTW, I made some changes to the way the argument is formatted. Hopefully, it came out smooth.
Last edited by We_Are_VENOM on Wed Feb 16, 2022 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #81

Post by Bust Nak »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 9:30 pm Well, if you went back to check all 70 odd posts, you wouldn't have gotten past the OP before you realized that a case was being made for X (God/MGB) of whose existence is necessary.
That's the conclusion of your argument, not a definition. You defined X as just a generic "something" in the OP. You seemed to have gotten the concept of definition and conclusion mixed up.
Is it clear enough for you now?
I understand what the words means. That isn't much of a clue about how you think.
Ok, so perhaps maybe this will help..I will refer you to post #32..in my second quote of your post...I said..

"So, the story must "begin" with something that was always here (X), and this X thing doesn't owe its existence to anything outside itself...which makes its existence necessary."

There is no "if" hypothetical there, is it?

No, it isn't.

And any "if X exists" statements that were made after that, are hypotheticals made AFTER it was established what was meant by X.
Not helping because that attempt at establishing X as necessary is the very thing being challenged in the first place. X might or might not have necessary existence. You cannot assume that it is necessary, in order to argue that it is necessary, that would be a circular argument.
Nonsense. You were stuck on the whole idea behind when I said "X does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself".

You were stuck like glue on that sentiment and it didn't appear as if you granted it...so then I gave the hypothetical of, "if X (a necessary being) exists, then how WOULD it owe its existence to anything outside of itself"?

I had already established what was meant by X prior to that, and you should have know this...but apparently not.
You've been corrected once on this already, I knew enough to have gave you answers having guessed that's what you really meant.
How about yes, it is a conclusion based off sound/valid premises.

If there are any defeaters of the premises, then I haven't seen them yet.
I've come to expect that from you, suffice to say that a) a counter-example is a defeater of the premise in question; b) soundness and validity applies to the argument, not individual premises. Using the conclusion to define something in a premise is a circular argument and is invalid; c) it's not my job to defeat your argument, it's yours to support it and you've proposed a premise without support.
See, just as I mentioned before...you are still hung up on the whole "owing/existence/outside/itself" thing, and I already addressed it.
By "address" you just repeated it with in an ever more assertive tone and asked me to clarify my objection, neither of which can prove your point. Not good enough in a debate setting. Still waiting for your argument. Also noteworthy is that you put in some effort into defending "exists vs exists necessarily" thing, revisiting your order posts to dig up quotes; and yet when I asked you to show me where you thought you've presented an argument for it, you couldn't conjure up the patience to go look it up.
Yeah, I question your reading comprehension for good reason. As for me, I just have a faulty memory, apparently.
Good thing there is a post history then, isn't it? Your faulty memory seemed to have lead you to believe that you've proven the "owing/existence/outside/itself" thing too.
Well, if that is the way you feel, then me and you have different views of reality.
Again, not a matter of feeling or opinion. I don't really understand why you keep bringing this up. Is your view of reality feeling based? Mine is objective, your post history serves as proof of my points.
Here is mines; you have failed to adequately refute the argument and as far as I'm concerned, the argument STANDS.
What happened to letting me have the last word? Nothing you said in this latest post is fresh, you have just tripled down on the same points again. Either present your argument re: "owing/existence/outside/itself" thing, or let me have the last word like you said you would.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #82

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:59 am That's the conclusion of your argument, not a definition. You defined X as just a generic "something" in the OP. You seemed to have gotten the concept of definition and conclusion mixed up.
Guess what; most arguments (that I'm aware of) for the existence of God are generic, aren't they?

Now, if we want to get into specifics, then that is when I call your attention to the Resurrection argument (for Christianity), and that is where you will get personality from.

Second, it is the conclusion of the argument, after sound/valid premises were offered first.

Sure, you can certainly disagree with the premises, but I haven't seen you offer anything as of yet to undercut ANYTHING.

So hey, you can keep dancing around all you want...the argument stands firm.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:59 am Not helping because that attempt at establishing X as necessary is the very thing being challenged in the first place.
X was already established as existing necessary, as justifications were given and everything.

It is all there in the OP.

Have a read and get back with me.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:59 am X might or might not have necessary existence. You cannot assume that it is necessary, in order to argue that it is necessary, that would be a circular argument.
Yeah, but that isn't what is going on here.

Again, take a look at the justifications, and tell me what isn't clear or what hasn't been established.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:59 am You've been corrected once on this already
No, YOU'VE been corrected on this already.

The OP speaks for itself; and the central theme of the entire thread is..

"Existence is necessary".

Seems pretty clear to me. Can't speak for others.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:59 am I knew enough to have gave you answers having guessed that's what you really meant.
Answers? Where?
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:59 am I've come to expect that from you, suffice to say that a) a counter-example is a defeater of the premise in question; b) soundness and validity applies to the argument, not individual premises. Using the conclude to define something in a premise is a circular argument and is invalid; c) it's not my job to defeat your argument, it's yours to support it and you've proposed a premise without support.
A. I do not recall ANY counter-example from you. Maybe I missed it.

B. If any of the premises of the argument is not sound/valid, then the entire argument falters from then on.

C. The conclusion of the argument is backed by sound premises, and I've yet to see you offer any defeater of ANYTHING.

D. I've supported and defeated each premises and a positive case was made for the position that I am arguing for.

Now, if you disagree with any point from A-D, then you and I don't view reality the same way.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:59 am By "address" you just repeated it with in an ever more assertive tone and asked me to clarify my objection, neither of which can prove your point. Not good enough in a debate setting. Still waiting for your argument.
Well first of all, I am of the strong opinion that the statement..

"something which does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself, exists necessarily"

^is one of those statements which simply goes without saying.^

It should be a given, non-debatable.

But like I said, just my opinion.

Apparently, you feel otherwise.

You feel as if that statement is objectionable...and for that reason I conclude; we just don't view reality the same way. :D
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:59 am Also noteworthy is that you put in some effort into defending "exists vs exists necessarily" thing
I do? Oh yeah, I do.

Probably because exists (contingently) vs exists (necessarily) is a key component of the Modal Ontological argument...which I sought to integrate together with the other two (see OP).
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:59 am , revisiting your order posts to dig up quotes; and yet when I asked you to show me where you thought you've presented an argument for it, you couldn't conjure up the patience to go look it up.
?
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:59 am Good thing there is a post history then, isn't it? Your faulty memory seemed to have lead you to believe that you've proven the "owing/existence/outside/itself" thing too.
:lol:

Orrrrr, it could be that I assumed my memory is faulty, because someone is trying to get me to remember something that didn't happen at all.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:59 am Again, not a matter of feeling or opinion. I don't really understand why you keep bringing this up. Is your view of reality feeling based? Mine is objective, your post history serves as proof of my points.
Yeah, it seems black/white, doesn't?

The problem is; I checked the post history and I simply do not see what you see. So, your reality and my reality are like water & electricity.

Doesn't mix well.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:59 am What happened to letting me have the last word? Nothing you said in this latest post is fresh, you have just tripled down on the same points again. Either present your argument re: "owing/existence/outside/itself" thing, or let me have the last word like you said you would.
You ever watch wrestling?

You remember/know how sometimes, no matter how much Wrestler A is being beaten to a pulp, when Wrestler B tries to pin him, wrestler A still manages to "kick out"...as faint as the kick-out is, Wrestler B just can't get the 1-2-3 count.

Although Wrestler A has been clearly catching a beat down the entire match...he still has a little fight left in him.

But no worries...a couple more slams here...elbow-drops there...suplexes there, and it will all be over soon and Wrestler B will have the dub.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #83

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am I keep repeating because you keep repeating the same nonsense.
I keep repeating it because, it works. :D
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am I already explained.
Its not my fault you don’t comprehend simple things. :chuckel:
All moments of time that encompass Venom existence are located in different part of the 4 block space-time then moments of time that do not encompass Venom existence.
All moments of time that encompass Venom existence are as real as moments of time that do not encompass Venom existence. They all exist.
Still not answering my question...so I will leave it at that.
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am He never said B theory is not possible. Only you sir.
He has written EXTENSIVELY on the philosophy of time as it pertains to A/B theory, and after over 12 years of research, he concluded that B theory is not an accurate depiction of how we should view time.
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am Off course he choose A theory. It's needed for Kalam.
But the Kalam is not the only argument for the existence of God, and not the only argument that Craig offers for the existence of God.

So one does not "need" to appeal to the Kalam.

In fact, Alvin Plantiga (my other apologetic hero), in 1986, gave a lecture "Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments".

Out of two dozen or so arguments that Plantiga offered, guess what; the kalam cosmological argument was not among the list. :lol:

Second, lets look at Craigs own words..

He stated that the B theorist would have to give solid reasons why B theory is true, and his work would be cut out for him, because...

"He’s(B-theorist) got to refute all of the evidence and arguments in favor of the A-theory and all of the objections that I lodge against the B-theory, and do the same sort of thorough work that I’ve done in defending his theory of time to show that the universe can begin to exist and yet not come into being at the first moment of its existence.

If he were to do that then I think what the theist would appeal to is not the kalam cosmological argument but what I call the Leibnizian cosmological argument – namely, Leibniz’s question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Why does this tenseless, spacetime manifold exist? That question still needs to be answered. So the Leibnizian version of the cosmological argument I think would still go through in spades."


So Craig and I agree, the A theory stands. :D

Here, have a read of the Q&A transcript..

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/r ... re-of-time
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am Your Apologetic hero does not say B theory is not possible. Like you.
Well, let me put it to you this way...I do not say it is impossible for you to beat a 1986 Mike Tyson in a boxing match...I just say that you won't.

Catch my drift?
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am You don’t even comprehend it sir. I suggest staying to kids books. They have pictures.
:lol:
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am I didn’t said it did not happened.
I said the illusion is the passage of time, temporal becoming.
And what did I say?
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am But if we don’t have free will we cannot but judge. It was predetermined so that we have the illusion of free will and judge.
More illusory, eh?

:D
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am
It irrelevant sir.
It does not follow that because you can imagine therefore it’s possible to exist in some possible world among all possible worlds.
So, no yes/no?

Gotcha. Moving along..
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am We are talking of concepts sir having existence and non-existence as predicates.
Sure we are...and my existence is a concept, is it not? Yes, it is. So the question is valid.
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am You are an example of the concept human that has been actualized with the following predicates:
eye color: your eye color, name: your name, height: your height, and so on.
It conceivable that if the circumstances were different the concept human that has been actualized with the following predicates: eye color: your eye color, name: your name, height: your height, and so on; to not have been actualized.
Your non-existence was possible to have happened.
You were non-existent at some point in time.
I agree with all of that, but the problem is simple; it doesn't negate anything I've been saying.
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am So it does not follow that I or any mind cannot imagine it because you said so.
Glad we accept the logical conclusion. 8-)
"We" do not accept that you can imagine philosophical nothingness...and I explained why at the tail end of my last response...and from the looks of things, you did not directly address what I said...therefore, the argument stands.
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am Also I did not just asserted. I told you what I imagined. I explained what I imagined.
Your explaining it doesn't mean that you imagined it. I can explain a squared circle as..

"A circle with four sides".

I explained it, but I can't imagine it (and neither can you).

So, what you did there was a "sleight of word" trick.

But, it failed. :D
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am You are asserting the philosophical nothingness is like the squared circle, logically impossible. Therefore it’s not possible to imagine it.
Or the philosophical nothingness cannot be imagined therefore it’s logically impossible.
Saying so does not make it so.
Q: See how that works?
I attempted to do more than just "say so".

I asked you before, can you imagine a squared circle?

You refused to answer the question, as there was a brewing point within the question.

But see, when you fail to answer questions, that lets me know where the pain is.
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am Q: Did I said the mind can conceive that which is logically impossible? Where did I said such a thing, huh? :blink:
Please provide evidence for this.
You done and you don’t even know it. :chuckel:
The problem is, I don't think you are honest about what is logically impossible, because if you were, you would admit that you cannot imagine philosophical nothingness.
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am
Sir we argue here that your MGB concept is irrational. Having existence as predicate in the concept leads to logical contradictions. Ergo irrational, illogical concept.
Wait a minute, are you saying that you cannot conceive/imagine a MGB?
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am But the question is: Q: Is it logically possible that nothingness exist?
No, because if nothing existed, then there isn't a potentiality for ANYTHING to exist or come to exist.

Otherwise, there would be a violation of one of the main 2, which is that something cannot come from nothing.

Neither one of the main 2 can be violated under any circumstances.

So, the fact that things DO exist, would mean that existence itself is necessary, and there had to be something that was always there (existing necessarily).
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am Q: Why is it logically impossible for our world to not exist
It isn't logically impossible for our world to not exist.
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:41 am , for nothingness to exist? :blink:
Already answered.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #84

Post by alexxcJRO »

House of mirrors!!

Image


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:26 pm Still not answering my question...so I will leave it at that.
Q: What question sir? I already answer. You don’t liking the answer or don’t comprehending its another matter. I even gave you analogies.
Projecting your failure of comprehension on me is not very good form.
It’s your own fault.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:26 pm He has written EXTENSIVELY on the philosophy of time as it pertains to A/B theory, and after over 12 years of research, he concluded that B theory is not an accurate depiction of how we should view time.
Yes he believes in “A theory is true” as opposed to “B theory is true”.
Off course he does. He needs it for Kalam. Kalam proponents believe A theory is true.
B theorists believe B theory is true. Scientists are more incline to go with B theory.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:26 pm "He’s(B-theorist) got to refute all of the evidence and arguments in favor of the A-theory and all of the objections that I lodge against the B-theory, and do the same sort of thorough work that I’ve done in defending his theory of time to show that the universe can begin to exist and yet not come into being at the first moment of its existence.

If he were to do that then I think what the theist would appeal to is not the kalam cosmological argument but what I call the Leibnizian cosmological argument – namely, Leibniz’s question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Why does this tenseless, spacetime manifold exist? That question still needs to be answered. So the Leibnizian version of the cosmological argument I think would still go through in spades."

So Craig and I agree, the A theory stands.

Here, have a read of the Q&A transcript..

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/r ... re-of-time
Irrelevant nonsense. We are talking of Kalam and the premise: Everything that begins to exist has a cause to its existence. You using Kalam and another two arguments here in this thread to support your imaginings. Assuming A theory is true.

Also Leibniz’s question is so weak for it only pushes the question further back.
“Why is there something(God) rather than nothing?” Why does this tenseless, spacetime God exist? That question still needs to be answered. So the Leibnizian atheist version I think would still go through in spades."
I do love arguments that defeat themselves.
So funny. Cracking with laughter inside. :chuckel:
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:26 pm

Well, let me put it to you this way...I do not say it is impossible for you to beat a 1986 Mike Tyson in a boxing match...I just say that you won't.

Catch my drift?


Q: Are you changing like the weather? Changing from impossible to not being true? Are we? :P

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:26 pm And what did I say?
You were trying to argue it does not make sense. Not possible.
Arguing from incredulity, intuition like most religious folk do.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:26 pm So, no yes/no?

Gotcha. Moving along..
Let’s not move along. The non-sequitur does not go away.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:26 pm Sure we are...and my existence is a concept, is it not? Yes, it is. So the question is valid.

You existing means a specific concept has already been actualized with specific predicates.
Existence is not a predicate sir. I cannot be. It leads to contradictions.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:26 pm I agree with all of that, but the problem is simple; it doesn't negate anything I've been saying.
But it kind of does. Your existing means only a specific concept has already been actualized with specific predicates.
But the problem is simple; you existing doesn't negate what I've been saying: existence can’t be a predicate.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:26 pm "We" do not accept that you can imagine philosophical nothingness...and I explained why at the tail end of my last response...and from the looks of things, you did not directly address what I said...therefore, the argument stands.
Your explaining it doesn't mean that you imagined it. I can explain a squared circle as..

"A circle with four sides".

I explained it, but I can't imagine it (and neither can you).

So, what you did there was a "sleight of word" trick.

But, it failed.
I attempted to do more than just "say so".

I asked you before, can you imagine a squared circle?

You refused to answer the question, as there was a brewing point within the question.

But see, when you fail to answer questions, that lets me know where the pain is.
The problem is, I don't think you are honest about what is logically impossible, because if you were, you would admit that you cannot imagine philosophical nothingness.


But you said that “Then you merely asserting that you can imagine it also doesn't make it so, does it?”.
Q: You merely asserting that I cannot imagine it also doesn't make it so, does it?
I love putting mirrors. :pelvic_thrust:
You merely asserted that I cannot imagine so conform your logic it does not follow that I or any mind cannot imagine it sir.
Saying it is so does not make it so.
But although I cannot conceive a circle with four sides in my mind I can with philosophical nothingness. Nothing stops me for it’s not logically impossible. I am not dishonest sir.
You admitted on another point that is not logically impossible for nothingness to exist. Therefore conform your logic I should be able to imagine, conceive it.
You are only asserting philosophical nothingness is equivalent with "A circle with four sides". That I only explained and not imagined/conceived it.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:26 pm Wait a minute, are you saying that you cannot conceive/imagine a MGB?

“Your explaining it doesn't mean that you imagined it. I can explain a squared circle as..”
According to your logic you might have explained an irrational concept like a squared circle but not really imagine/conceive it really.
You are defeating yourself.
So funny. :chuckel:
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:26 pm No, because if nothing existed, then there isn't a potentiality for ANYTHING to exist or come to exist.

Otherwise, there would be a violation of one of the main 2, which is that something cannot come from nothing.

Neither one of the main 2 can be violated under any circumstances.

So, the fact that things DO exist, would mean that existence itself is necessary, and there had to be something that was always there (existing necessarily).
The fact that “something” exists does not mean “nothingness” is logically impossible.
If that “something” would not exist it follow that nothing exists.
Therefore it does not follow logically that because “something” exists “nothingness” is logically impossible.
Q: Why is it logically impossible for “something” to not exist? :blink:


Prediction: What will follow will be either some circular reasoning(necessary existence therefore necessary existence) or personal incredulity “it does not make sense” or Moving along…
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:26 pm

It isn't logically impossible for our world to not exist.
Q: So why then is “nothingness” logically impossible?
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #85

Post by Bust Nak »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 6:11 pm Guess what; most arguments (that I'm aware of) for the existence of God are generic, aren't they?

Now, if we want to get into specifics...
Well, I don't. So hey, you can keep dancing around all you want... you were incorrect in stating that X was defined as having necessary existence.
Second, it is the conclusion of the argument, after sound/valid premises were offered first.

Sure, you can certainly disagree with the premises, but I haven't seen you offer anything as of yet to undercut ANYTHING.

So hey, you can keep dancing around all you want...the argument stands firm.
So you keep insisting. And for one last time, soundness and validity does not apply to premises, they apply to the argument as a whole.
X was already established as existing necessary, as justifications were given and everything.

It is all there in the OP.

Have a read and get back with me.
Still not helping because that attempt at establishing X as necessary is the very thing being challenged in the first place. You can't use your conclusion to support your argument.
Yeah, but that isn't what is going on here.

Again, take a look at the justifications, and tell me what isn't clear or what hasn't been established.
I told you many times already, this statement in particular hasn't been established: "something which does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself, exists necessarily." Which also means anything that depends on that premise hasn't been established.
The OP speaks for itself; and the central theme of the entire thread is..

"Existence is necessary".

Seems pretty clear to me. Can't speak for others.
You say the argument speaks for itself, you said I can have my last words if I don't have anything new to present. I don't have anything new because my point is still this, you don't an argument for "something which does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself, exists necessarily," a key premise in your argument. Either present an argument, or let your OP speak for itself, let me have my last word.
Answers? Where?
Right here. Repeated here to save you a click: Is there a typo here? Presumably you meant to ask me if I would agree with "if X exists necessarily, then X existence is a necessary truth?" I would agree with this.
Now, if you disagree with any point from A-D, then you and I don't view reality the same way.
We've already established that much, yes. I presented brute facts as a counter-example for your claim: they do not its existence to anything outside of itself, yet they exists continentally. You responded by saying they can be necessary depending on context. Even if we take what you said here for granted, the ones that are continent according to context still suffice as a counter-example.
Well first of all, I am of the strong opinion that the statement..

"something which does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself, exists necessarily"

^is one of those statements which simply goes without saying.^

It should be a given, non-debatable.

But like I said, just my opinion.

Apparently, you feel otherwise.

You feel as if that statement is objectionable...and for that reason I conclude; we just don't view reality the same way. :D
Goes without saying, a given, non-debatable you say? Sounds a lot like you are finally ready to accept that you don't have an argument for it. You are not even going to have a go at presenting an argument for it? Just gonna brush it off as a difference in opinion? Does that really qualify as supporting, defending it, presenting a positive case in your book?
Probably because exists (contingently) vs exists (necessarily) is a key component of the Modal Ontological argument...which I sought to integrate together with the other two (see OP).
You say it's key, yet failed to insert this key qualifier in places. Put in more effort please.
?
The point was, you went out of your way to present links to support a point non-essential to your main argument, yet cannot be bothered when an essential premise is challenged. Not an efficient use of your time.
Orrrrr, it could be that I assumed my memory is faulty, because someone is trying to get me to remember something that didn't happen at all.
Ah huh, your memory is faulty because I am trying to get you to remember where you've presented an argument for this "something which does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself, exists necessarily," and that didn't happen at all, you've never had an argument for it beyond assertions backed by bravado.
The problem is; I checked the post history and I simply do not see what you see.
You checked did ya? So you should have refreshed your memory as to where you've presented your argument for "something which does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself, exists necessarily." Is a post number too much to ask, a page number maybe?
You ever watch wrestling?
No, not not a full match, just clips here and there. I don't get your sporting references, I am not a sports fan, video and table top games are my thing. Either way, I repeat my previous challenge: Either present your argument re: "owing/existence/outside/itself" thing, or let me have the last word like you said you would.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #86

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 6:32 am
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 6:11 pm Guess what; most arguments (that I'm aware of) for the existence of God are generic, aren't they?

Now, if we want to get into specifics...
Well, I don't.
Then lets just stick to this generic argument for the existence of a necessary being, aka, GOD.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 6:32 am So hey, you can keep dancing around all you want... you were incorrect in stating that X was defined as having necessary existence.
Well again, we have different views of reality. Anyways, moving along.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 6:32 am So you keep insisting. And for one last time, soundness and validity does not apply to premises, they apply to the argument as a whole.
The argument as a whole has sound/valid premises. To say otherwise further lets me know that we don't live in the same world of reality.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 6:32 am Still not helping because that attempt at establishing X as necessary is the very thing being challenged in the first place. You can't use your conclusion to support your argument.
The challenge was answered in the argument. If you disagree, then we simply have to agree/disagree.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 6:32 am I told you many times already, this statement in particular hasn't been established: "something which does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself, exists necessarily." Which also means anything that depends on that premise hasn't been established.
Already addressed this.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 6:32 am You say the argument speaks for itself, you said I can have my last words if I don't have anything new to present. I don't have anything new because my point is still this, you don't an argument for "something which does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself, exists necessarily," a key premise in your argument. Either present an argument, or let your OP speak for itself, let me have my last word.
Ok, so we do agree on something; you don't have anything new to present. So, you can indeed have the last word.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 6:32 am No, not not a full match, just clips here and there. I don't get your sporting references, I am not a sports fan, video and table top games are my thing.
What kind of video games do you play? And also, do you know how to play chess?
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #87

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:30 am Q: What question sir? I already answer. You don’t liking the answer or don’t comprehending its another matter. I even gave you analogies.
Projecting your failure of comprehension on me is not very good form.
It’s your own fault.
:lol:
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:30 am Yes he believes in “A theory is true” as opposed to “B theory is true”.
Off course he does. He needs it for Kalam. Kalam proponents believe A theory is true.
B theorists believe B theory is true. Scientists are more incline to go with B theory.
Anyone can believe anything. The point is; Craig gives reasons as to why B theory is not an accurate depiction of time, and why A theory is.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:30 am Irrelevant nonsense. We are talking of Kalam and the premise: Everything that begins to exist has a cause to its existence. You using Kalam and another two arguments here in this thread to support your imaginings. Assuming A theory is true.
Well first of all, it is relevant...because he is saying that IF B theory is true then it would give the Kalam problems, however, since he has no reason to believe B theory is true, and solid reasons to believe A theory is true, then the Kalam argument stands.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:30 am Also Leibniz’s question is so weak for it only pushes the question further back.
“Why is there something(God) rather than nothing?” Why does this tenseless, spacetime God exist? That question still needs to be answered. So the Leibnizian atheist version I think would still go through in spades."
I do love arguments that defeat themselves.
So funny. Cracking with laughter inside. :chuckel:
"Why is there something(God) rather than nothing?".

Because God does not violate either of the main 2.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:30 am Q: Are you changing like the weather? Changing from impossible to not being true? Are we? :P
Changing? I am saying the B theory is false, which I've been maintaining all along, haven't I?
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:30 am You were trying to argue it does not make sense. Not possible.
Arguing from incredulity, intuition like most religious folk do.
It doesn't make sense because that is the nature of illogical concepts.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:30 am You existing means a specific concept has already been actualized with specific predicates.
Existence is not a predicate sir. I cannot be. It leads to contradictions.
Contradicting yourself yet again, eh?

1. Your existence has already been actualized with specific predicates.

2. Existence is not a predicate.

I cannot make this stuff up.

:lol:
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:30 am But it kind of does. Your existing means only a specific concept has already been actualized with specific predicates.
But the problem is simple; you existing doesn't negate what I've been saying: existence can’t be a predicate.
Same contradiction as before. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:30 am But you said that “Then you merely asserting that you can imagine it also doesn't make it so, does it?”.
Q: You merely asserting that I cannot imagine it also doesn't make it so, does it?
I love putting mirrors. :pelvic_thrust:
You merely asserted that I cannot imagine so conform your logic it does not follow that I or any mind cannot imagine it sir.
Saying it is so does not make it so.
But although I cannot conceive a circle with four sides in my mind I can with philosophical nothingness. Nothing stops me for it’s not logically impossible. I am not dishonest sir.
You admitted on another point that is not logically impossible for nothingness to exist. Therefore conform your logic I should be able to imagine, conceive it.
You are only asserting philosophical nothingness is equivalent with "A circle with four sides". That I only explained and not imagined/conceived it.
This is a red herring to cover up the fact that you refuse to answer my question.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:30 am “Your explaining it doesn't mean that you imagined it. I can explain a squared circle as..”
According to your logic you might have explained an irrational concept like a squared circle but not really imagine/conceive it really.
You are defeating yourself.
So funny. :chuckel:
Umm, I admitted that I cannot imagine a squared circle. Sooo, what is your point?
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:30 am The fact that “something” exists does not mean “nothingness” is logically impossible.
The point is; you cannot get something from a state of pure nothingness.

Therefore, the fact that some things exist, must mean that there was never a state of pure nothingness.

It is a simple concept to grasp, if you want to grasp it.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:30 am If that “something” would not exist it follow that nothing exists.
Therefore it does not follow logically that because “something” exists “nothingness” is logically impossible.
Q: Why is it logically impossible for “something” to not exist? :blink:

Prediction: What will follow will be either some circular reasoning(necessary existence therefore necessary existence) or personal incredulity “it does not make sense” or Moving along…
Wow, you are finally correct about something in this discourse...because guess what..moving along.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:30 am Q: So why then is “nothingness” logically impossible?
Already addressed this. Do you have anything new you'd like to present before the curtains are closed?

And I don't take it as me being facetious. You are a worthy debate opponent. The problem is; as it has been proven time and time again...it just isn't enough. :D
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #88

Post by Bust Nak »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 8:22 pm So, you can indeed have the last word.
My points can be summaries as follows:

1) My opponent has failed to support a critical premise in his argument, namely that "something which does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself, exists necessarily." Throughout this thread he has deflected, repeatedly claiming that it has been demonstrated to be true. As it turns out he merely have, in his own words, "a strong opinion" that it is a given, non-debatable truth. At around the same time, he soften his "demonstrated to be true" claim to a "it's been addressed" claim.

2) I have offered a counter-example for said critical premise in the form of brute facts. My opponent had first granted that brute facts do exist without owing their existence to anything outside themselves, and they exist contingently contradicting his premise; he then tried to claw some of that back by suggesting that brute facts could be necessary depending on the context, despite stating clearly that brute facts are contingent a in previous post. Even if we were to take his postulation for granted, that still leaves a subset of brute facts that are contingent according to a given context.

3) Further more, there were a number of minor errors: insisting on using terms like valid and sound for premises; stating that a generic something (X) was defined as necessary in the OP, confusing between definition and conclusion, then doubling down on that error with circular reasoning, using the conclusion as justification for retrospectively defining X as necessary; forgetting to include a hidden premise as well as qualifiers, then complaining that it should have been obvious when they were pointed out.

Over all, without that critical premise, the argument is dead in the water. The amount of boasting and bluster on display far outstrip the merit of the argument.
What kind of video games do you play? And also, do you know how to play chess?
PC strategy games mostly, bit of RPG. I know how the chess pieces move, I don't play it.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #89

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 8:54 pm Anyone can believe anything. The point is; Craig gives reasons as to why B theory is not an accurate depiction of time, and why A theory is.
Mirror”: Anyone can believe anything. The point is; B theorists and scientists gives reasons as to why A theory is not an accurate depiction of time, and why B theory is.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 8:54 pm Well first of all, it is relevant...because he is saying that IF B theory is true then it would give the Kalam problems, however, since he has no reason to believe B theory is true, and solid reasons to believe A theory is true, then the Kalam argument stands.

We were talking that if B theory is true Kalam goes out the window.
You were arguing that is not even possible as a theory.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 8:54 pm "Why is there something(God) rather than nothing?".

Because God does not violate either of the main 2.

But we still can ask: “Why is there something(God) rather than nothing?” Why does this tenseless, spacetime God exist? That question still needs to be answered. So the Leibnizian atheist version I think would still go through in spades."

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 8:54 pm Changing? I am saying the B theory is false, which I've been maintaining all along, haven't I?

LOL. Sir you were arguing that is not possible. It does not make sense. It does not make sense as a theory. Not that the theory is simple not true.

My argument was that B theory may be true. Not that it is true.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 8:54 pm It doesn't make sense because that is the nature of illogical concepts.
So B theorists and scientists they believe in an illogical concept.

It’s not illogical.
Saying it is does not make it so.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 8:54 pm Contradicting yourself yet again, eh?

1. Your existence has already been actualized with specific predicates.

2. Existence is not a predicate.

I cannot make this stuff up.
Same contradiction as before. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Don’t straw man sir.
Your debate form is really bad.
I did not said: “Your existence has already been actualized with specific predicates”.
I said:” You existing means a specific concept has already been actualized with specific predicates.”
Pretty different.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 8:54 pm This is a red herring to cover up the fact that you refuse to answer my question.

Umm, I admitted that I cannot imagine a squared circle. Sooo, what is your point?

"Your explaining(your god concept) it doesn't mean that you imagined it. I can explain a squared circle as.."
According to your logic you might have explained an irrational concept(your god concept) like a squared circle but not really imagine/conceive it really.
You are defeating yourself.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 8:54 pm
The point is; you cannot get something from a state of pure nothingness.

Therefore, the fact that some things exist, must mean that there was never a state of pure nothingness.

It is a simple concept to grasp, if you want to grasp it.
Sir we are arguing whether philosophical nothingness is logically possible. It is.
If that “something” would not exist it follow that nothing exists.
Therefore it does not follow logically that because “something” exists “nothingness” is logically impossible.
If it is logically possible I can imagine it, conceive it. Therefore you are done.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 8:54 pm Wow, you are finally correct about something in this discourse...because guess what..moving along.
Off course I am. People need to start worship me. I know the future.
I am better in this respect then Jesus.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 8:54 pm And I don't take it as me being facetious. You are a worthy debate opponent. The problem is; as it has been proven time and time again...it just isn't enough.
I am your Nemesis.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #90

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 2:51 am Mirror”: Anyone can believe anything. The point is; B theorists and scientists gives reasons as to why A theory is not an accurate depiction of time, and why B theory is.
They have? Oh, I must have missed it because I haven't seen any yet...certainly not from you.
We were talking that if B theory is true Kalam goes out the window.
Just like "if" my uncle was a woman he would he my aunt.

Sure, "if" anything is true than its negations are false.

The question is; is it true?...and based on your double-talking and your constant contradicting of yourself, I see no positive reasons to believe it.
You were arguing that is not even possible as a theory.
It isn't.
But we still can ask: “Why is there something(God) rather than nothing?” Why does this tenseless, spacetime God exist? That question still needs to be answered. So the Leibnizian atheist version I think would still go through in spades."
And the question you posed was answered. Restating the question wont make the original answer go away.
LOL. Sir you were arguing that is not possible. It does not make sense. It does not make sense as a theory. Not that the theory is simple not true.

My argument was that B theory may be true. Not that it is true.
So what reasons do you have to conclude that it may be true? You haven't offered anything.
So B theorists and scientists they believe in an illogical concept.

It’s not illogical.
Saying it is does not make it so.
Because "any hypothesis, no matter how absurd, is still a better hypothesis than the God hypothesis".

That is why they will believe in illogical concepts.
Don’t straw man sir.
Your debate form is really bad.
I did not said: “Your existence has already been actualized with specific predicates”.
I said:” You existing means a specific concept has already been actualized with specific predicates.”
Pretty different.
Specific predicates presupposes predicates, correct?

But you had just said that existence doesn't have predicates.

Like I said; contradiction.
"Your explaining(your god concept) it doesn't mean that you imagined it. I can explain a squared circle as.."
According to your logic you might have explained an irrational concept(your god concept) like a squared circle but not really imagine/conceive it really.
You are defeating yourself.
Um, not so fast. The difference is; the definition of the being in question is coherent, which makes it logical concept.

And Ive been maintaining throughout this entire discourse that logical concepts can be imagined and that which can be imagined is possible.

You CANNOT imagine a state of complete nothingness because it is an illogical concept.

Now of course you wont admit that you cant, which is why when I asked you those simple yes/no questions, you refused.

As I said before, when you refuse to answer questions; that lets me know EXACTLY where the pain is. :D
Sir we are arguing whether philosophical nothingness is logically possible. It is.
If that “something” would not exist it follow that nothing exists.
Therefore it does not follow logically that because “something” exists “nothingness” is logically impossible.
If it is logically possible I can imagine it, conceive it. Therefore you are done.
Ive already addressed this and you haven't responded to what I said...so what I said stands.
Off course I am. People need to start worship me. I know the future.
I am better in this respect then Jesus.
Ohhh. So, in your foreknowledge, you knew that you would lose this debate.

I guess that would make me omniscient, too.
I am your Nemesis.
Congratulations. You've just replaced Bust Nak as my favorite prey. :approve:

Now, that is great for me, but as for you...

"You are at the wrong place, at the right time (for me)." -Bushwick Bill

:D
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Post Reply