The Argument from Necessary Existence

[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.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #1]

Not sure why one would want to link numerous bad arguments together. Do three bads make a good?

I saw this video recently that shows one of the foundations of these types of arguments may not be as some would hope:



At the end of the day, all of these types of arguments just slip in their preferred conclusion after 1 or more (or all) bad premises. They generally hinge largely on a big fat special pleading fallacy.

I truly wonder if any of these arguments actually cause people to convert to theism or if they are more often used to make theists continue to think they've got it right. My guess is the latter, but I have no data.

I think they can look pretty convincing - either because they are understood and look sound - so long as they aren't refuted. Or they can just baffle the reader but look very erudite and thus the reader would tend to accept them. I can imagine that those who come up with such apologetics may really think they are good, but they'd have to have that these arguments often require a godfaith so ingrained that it would not occur to them that such apologetics require a god (if not God (1) as the starting -point of the apologetic. If we don't assume a god as a given - that is by assuming a planned outcome before the apologetic can work, e.g astronomical odds are against mere chance - yes, if one is trying to reach an intended outcome by throwing dice. But if you assume that whatever result came about, is the outcome, then it coming about by chance is odds 1/1.
As I say, Godfaith makes Theists unable to think this stuff through, or that's the only explanation I can think of.

(1) e.g with I/C I don't know whether this was realised but this was a theory of evolution - but it needed a god to make it work. But the thing I mean is that even if there was evidence that I/C would prove that evolution needed a god to work, that doesn't do a thing to prove which god it is.

[Bust Nak]

Well that would depend on why it's necessary. If (as I've suggested - based on some experiments, but it's my take, even though there has been talk of 'potential' or even 'numerical value' in 'Nothing' in Physics) the emergence of matter -energy would be inevitable rather than 'necessary'.

'Necessary' isn't I'd think inherent in the argument any more than saying that evolution was necessary for us to evolve...yes, and no problem with seeing why evolution played a part in us coming to be - so Long as we don't get sold the idea that we were planned and so Something hit on evolution as the way to do it.

Just as the Big Bang (1) was (it is theorised) was the inevitable outcome of a cosmos of matter-energy and thus the existence of the cosmos (and how it came to be there) was necessary for the universe to be, and that's fine so long as we avoid being led into supposing a plan that necessitated matter to make the plan happen. Matter is of course necessary but God is not. So long as we don't get suckered into supposing a a prori godplan, we are ok.

Inevitable given the circumstances is not the same thing as necessary in this context. It's very narrowly defined as true in in all possible worlds. You'd have a hard time arguing that the laws of nature are necessary truths, even if the universe is the inevitable outcome of the laws of nature.

[TRANSPONDER]

Maybe I'm missing something but they sound the same thing to me- inevitable outcome of the laws of physics (e.g nothingness has inherent potentiality of energy) seems the necessary outcome of how the physics will work. Though possibly it could have turned out a bit different so a similar outcome (emergence of a universe, perhaps just one of many) is the necessary or at least expected outcome. But so long as we understand what's involved here the exact semantics isn't a problem.

[alexxcJRO]

.

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.

1.
1.a. The ontological argument in fact in a way refutes the anthropomorphic God of the Bible. A being who hates sinners with a passion, is jealous, regretful, quick to anger, clearly not omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good, omnibelevolent(has favorites).

Surely I can imagine a being more greater the this anthropomorphic God of the Bible. For starters being really all loving( (=All humans are equal objects of God's unconditional love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and thus to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him) and not having favorites, helping some at the expense of others. Therefore God of the Bible is not MGB.

1.b
1.b.1 If one says simplicity is a maximally great making attribute then it follows because it is simpler to be a oneness of self, one rational faculty instead of a multi-personal self, multiple rational faculties; God would have to be one person, one rational faculty: Unitarian God.(God would also would not have to share the other maximally great properties). Therefore God of the Bible is not MGB.

1.b.2 On the other hand if one says that complexity is a great making attribute then it follows because it is more complex, greater to be a multi-personal self, multiple rational faculties instead of a oneness of self, God would have to be multi-person. But 4 is greater the 3, 5 greater then 6, 1000 greater then 999, ...; therefore God would have to be of infinite persons(Hive mind- Swarm Intelligence). Therefore God of the Bible is not MGB .

It is really comical seeing Christians using the Ontological Argument.
They think it helps their case, when in fact they are shooting them self in the foot.

2. The whole argument is build on the false premise that the MGB imagined can really exists in reality.
It's one thing to imagine something and another for it to be possible to exist in reality.
We humans always think of abstract notions of perfection like perfect being: God, perfect circle, perfect square, perfectly plastic body, perfectly black body, perfect fluid, perfect gas.

But the reality is that for example a perfect circle does not exist in reality. Even if we draw a circle on a paper as "perfect" as we can with most calibrated, super sensitive, automatic process when we zoom on the paper on the line of the circle at some point we would see irregularities.

"The physicist designates as a perfectly rigid body, one that "is not deformed by forces applied to it." He uses the concept in the full awareness that this is a fictitious body, that no such body exists in nature. The concept is an ideal construct.[10]

A perfectly plastic body is one that is deformed infinitely at a constant load corresponding to the body's limit of plasticity: this is a physical model, not a body observed in nature.[10]

A perfectly black body would be one that absorbed completely, radiation falling upon it — that is, a body with a coefficient of absorption equal to unity.[10]

A crystal is perfect when its physically equivalent walls are equally developed; it has a perfect structure when it answers the requirements of spatial symmetry and is free of structural defects, dislocation, lacunae and other flaws.[10]

A perfect fluid is one that is incompressible and non-viscous — this, again, is an ideal fluid that does not exist in nature.[10]

A perfect gas is one whose molecules do not interact with each other and which have no volume of their own. Such a gas is fictitious, just as are perfectly solid, perfectly rigid, perfectly plastic and perfectly black bodies. They are termed "perfect" in the strict (non-metaphorical) sense of the word.

These are all concepts that are necessary in physics, insofar as they are limiting, ideal, fictitious — insofar as they set the extreme which nature may at the most approach.[10]"

We can define all day abstract notions, ideals, and concepts of perfection like Gods but when it comes to reality such perfections may well not be possible to exists in reality as the examples provided.

One would need maybe to be omniscient and maybe even MGB in order to know if MGB imagined is possible to exist in the first place in reality.


3. I can to define God as MGB into non-existence using my own assertion:

-Maximally Visible and Maximally Proven are perfections, maximally great attributes. (it's greater to be Maximally Visible then Partially Visible or Invisible; to be Maximally Proven then Partially Proven or Unproven;
Humans prefer Maximally Visible donuts then partially Visible or Invisible donuts. Humans prefer Maximally Proven things then Partially Proven or Unproven things).


My argument goes like this:

Logical deduction by reduction ad absurdum:

P1. God is MGB. MGB contains all perfections, maximally great attributes. Therefore Maximally Visible, Maximally Proven are checked too.
P2. People who have a genuine disbelief in MGB existence, exist.(Logical contradiction)
C1: Therefore God-MGB does not exists.


C: It's all just clever gibberish and biased nonsense masqueraded and presented, served to us as logical, rational thinking.

[Bust Nak]

Maybe I'm missing something but they sound the same thing to me- inevitable outcome of the laws of physics (e.g nothingness has inherent potentiality of energy) seems the necessary outcome of how the physics will work. Though possibly it could have turned out a bit different so a similar outcome (emergence of a universe, perhaps just one of many) is the necessary or at least expected outcome. But so long as we understand what's involved here the exact semantics isn't a problem.

The point is, the laws of physics could have been different, you say nothingness has inherent potentiality of energy, but what if it doesn't?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #14]

It's all just clever gibberish and biased nonsense masqueraded and presented, served to us as logical, rational thinking.

▲THIS ▲

Seriously, though, this is the basis of christianity: using things like science to prove their 'point' then, when it argues against them, denoting the very thing they previously praised; expecting people to believe long dead men who wrote the bible got it exactly right then, when errors/inconsistencies/problems are pointed out, it's 'what they MEANT was...' or 'well, the original text says...'; looking down their noses at those that don't believe their chosen, lifestyle belief system, then masquerading as humble servants of the most high; and on and on*.

Yes yes, this can be said of many 'non-christian' people, but if the christian god is true, and these people are following it (and this IS a christian-based forum), are we not to expect better things - better experiences - from these believers? I'd say so. And I think most would agree.


*Not all christians are as 'bad' as this may seem

[We_Are_VENOM]

Looks like a non sequitur. Fill in the gaps for me:

1) infinite regression is impossible.
2) things cannot pop into existence uncaused, out of nothing.
...
n) therefore something had to have existed eternally.

If the main 2 are negated, then what do you have left over but eternal (necessary) existence?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Conclusion: Therefore, God caused the universe to exist

Which one or ones?

The argument doesn't identify the painter, it only reasons that there is must be a painter.

As a Christian, it is the Christian God in my opinion, but that will have to be concluded on the basis of a different argument.

[Diagoras]

...the universe is dependent upon external factors...

Because the universe is all physical reality...

You can't have both of those premises in the same argument. There's nothing 'external' to the universe to be a factor.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I see those as flawed arguments. Flawed because they rely too much on human counter -intuitive thinking. If it is counter to what we are used to, it must be 'impossible'. You will know that was the sort of thinking that bedevilled thinking about the round earth even when it was proven. I believe that it was Aquinas who accepted the evidence for a round(ish) earth but still thinking in terms of up and down, concluded that it was impossible for anyone to live on the 'underneath'. It required a different understanding of how things work once we knew that people, do in fact, live 'down under'.

Sorry charlie, but this isn't just a matter of what we think. The impossibility of infinite regression can be demonstrated in so many different ways, that the total amount may actually be infinite.

Thus, infinite regression does seem impossible, but who knows whether or not infinite loops of existence might make 'by the bootstraps' possible? However i concede that it's counter- intuitive and I dismiss it as an unlikely Undisproven' which I remind you does not mean it is probable (let alone believable) just because one cannot disprove it (reminder - dismissal is not disproof).

Same answer as above.

I'd be in doubt the claim of an uncaused cause, because 'Something cannot come from nothing' (in the Theist objection) because whatever exists must have a cause. Uncaused cause is either demanding that the impossible be possible, or that existence does not always have to have a cause.

"Existence does not always have to have a cause". Yeah, that is pretty much the basis for the entire argument.

The universe/cosmos (and let us be clear that we are not talking of OUR universe, but the stuff from which our universe was made - and there may be many other universes, being made, dying and becoming the 'stuff' which causes other universes to form. that is, discussion of the Big Bang is not part of this discussion)

^Parentheses sentence of epic proportions.

"There may be many other universes, being made, dying, and becoming the "stuff"...

So basically, you are appealing to infinite regression...which is kinda...

We are either talking about something eternal, uncreated, but which has the power to create 'stuff' (matter - energy) or something coming from nothing. Now, let us grasp the Aurox by the horns; whether we are positing a creative 'Cause' that popped out of nothing or a creative cause that has always existed, there are a couple of red herrings or logical or rhetorical missteps that we have to navigate;

We are talking of a physical reality that exists. Thus we can talk of physics or even 'nature' rather than 'God', which is a term used waggishly to refer to natural physical laws and should not be used in a logical debate on cosmic origins as it is so open to misuse (inadvertently of course ).

It would not be legitimate (should the idea occur to anyone) to say 'It's impossible, and so only a miracle can explain it'. Once you wave a magic wand, logic and evidence become irrelevant. I'm sure you weren't going to use that one, but just getting it out of the way.

The cause should be intelligent. It should have will, intent and forward planning. It should not be a random chance process without intent. This is flawed logic (should that be part of the argument). The explanation of the origins of the 'stuff' (or cosmos) should, to be logically sound and conform to the rules of logic and that means that 'the simplest explanation is the one to be preferred' or 'one should not (to be logically sound) multiply logical entities unnecessarily'. Clearly, to add to a demand that the Cosmic cause be uncreated (whether eternal or causes without a causer) and also have intelligence, is making an already counter - intuitive logical entity burdened with even more to explain (unless the intelligence evolved, which I'll get to later). It is making the explanation more complex, where the explanation of mater/energy (without intellect) is logically simpler.

So we are left with an eternal or uncreated creative entity that is (to be the preferred logical option) non intelligent. While this seems counter -intuitive because it is not what we are used to it is one of those 'facts' that requires us to think differently, just as in abandoning the flat earth or indeed (and most relevantly) the idea that things are 'solid'; they are actually made of nothing.

So there we are. We can certainly imagine an eternal nothing as it doesn't need to be created. We can certainly imagine 'stuff' (matter- energy) coming from 'nothing' because (I suggest) it actually is made of nothing.

Now, I know there will be protests that there must be some kind of Something' even in nothing. and there must still be an intent, a cause, a Will to start our universe off, even given the existence of uncreated eternal 'Cosmic Stuff'.

The latter is easy; given a Cosmos of matter/energy, universe coming to evolve and die all the time means no need for a will or intent; it just happens all the time. I know there is no evidence for this, but the possibility means that a will or intent is not logically necessary. Thus an intelligent cause is not logically necessary.

With a non -intelligent (natural physics) cause as the cause and nothing and something being so much the same as to make the 'uncaused cause' not so necessary after all, we have all we need to propose a half -hypothesis to answer Kalam, Ontology, argument from contingency, with a Cause (of Our universe) that is both existent and uncaused in a way that is more logical than an uncaused intelligent entity.

To keep a firm grip on those horns (and save the protests of 'nobody mentioned God!' (though in fact old timer, you did) Kalam, ontology (other than the truly counter -intuitive 'whatever we can imagine must be true') and contingency are, in a way, valid, but can be more logically resolved with non -forward -planning (or random Chance) natural laws of physics than by an intelligent creator.

One could of course propose an uncreated Cosmic stuff out of which a creative intelligence might have evolved. That is not logically impossible and one could certainly logically posit a 'God' that came to be and even created our universe, or at least, some things in it (e.g life). But that is a different argument; it is not logically necessary because evolution (chemical and biological) accounts for that. There would have to be evidence presented for such a claim, and Kalam is not actually an ID argument, because ID is not about the need for an intelligent creator of the Cosmos, but the need for a creator of things in our universe (which 'evolution cannot account for'). I am sure Creationists will use both arguments, but one is logical and the other is evidence based.

To round off the conclusion that an intelligent creator is NOT the logically sound conclusion of Kalam and the like, even if an intelligent creator (Aka God) was conceded, that does not tell us which god. That is another argument altogether, whether one starts with a Creator and leaps to the Bible telling us which god it is, or begins with the Bible and leaps to the uncreated Creator to support the God - claim , neither of those leaps of Faith are sound.

Over to you, old greybeard.

Forgive me, but I have no clue what you are talking about here.