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 #61

Post by Bust Nak »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2022 8:28 am Yeah, but the hypothetical you were given (even in your quote of me) was; "If X exists necessarily".

So that is a little more than X existing in a general sense, isn't it?
Sure, but that's not what you asked me. Instead you asked me about the hypothetical "if X exists" which is just X existing in a general sense.
Ok, so if X exists contingently, then X would depend on something outside itself for its existence, correct?
No, not necessarily, it might do, it might not. How quick are you to forget about brute facts which exist contingently and does not depend on anything outside itself for its existence.
If X exists necessarily and doesn't depend on anything outside itself for its existence, then what possible world would X not exist?
There wouldn't be any. On the other hand If X exists and doesn't depend on anything outside itself for its existence, then there is at least one possible world where X does not exist.

This is fun, isn't it?

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 #62

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:26 am Your just not understanding sir. Too complicated for you. :blink:
There is no point in time. All moments of times exist in parity.
The raisin did not begin to exist sir. There is no temporal becoming.
I said: “Venom exists in specific piece of block of time and does not exist in different piece of block of time.”
The raisin exists in a specific block of bread and does not exist in another block of bread.
Um, first of all..you are clearly contradicting yourself.

I had said, based on the framework you outlined for the B theory of time..

"...then Venom must exist/not exist at the same time"....and it is/was very obvious to me that this is the case.

Now, keywords are: "the same time".

You said that this is NOT the case.

Yet, here you are saying "all moments of time exist in parity".

And what does parity mean?

Parity: the quality or state of being equal or equivalent.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parity

Equal or equivalent = THE SAME, a.k.a "the same TIME", which goes to show that my original sentiments were correct.

You acknowledged that Venom did not exist in 1870, yet he exists in 2022...and to go from nonexistence to existence implies temporal becoming...there is just no other way around it.

You had somewhat acknowledged this temporal becoming, by saying that the temporal becoming of which we experience is "illusory", which is fallacious, because as I pointed out, it would then follow that there would be an infinite regression of caused illusions, which would violate one of the main 2...which you cannot do while also being in line with logical reasoning.

Your reasoning is fallacious, is what I am trying to say. :D
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:26 am Sir there is no infinite regression nothing.
All moments of time exist tenselessly in parity eternally.
If temporal becoming is illusory, then something is causing the illusory, thus causation, thus infinite regression.

There is no way out of it, sir.

The argument of infinite regression is not dependent upon A theory of time and rightfully applies in all imagined dimensions of reality...whether in heaven or on earth.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:26 am Your analogy with banking account does nothing to refute the possibility of B theory.
Its just ridiculous.
No, it isn't ridiculous. I will steal all of your money just so I can offer the "But your honor, Alex here believes in B theory of time...so me stealing his money was just an illusion in his mind, it didn't really happen" defense in court.

:lol:

I laugh, but I am serious.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:26 am Its like saying but if we don’t have free will nobody cannot judge nobody.
Q: So? That does not negate the possibility of full determinism.
It is actually true, though. Will you judge a tree for growing a branch? Well, same thing for human beings and free will, on atheism.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:26 am No sir. That is an assertion.
Q: How do you know anything one imagines is possible to exist among al possible worlds?
Sir, you are asking a question I addressed numerous times in various ways.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:26 am
Impossible to exist in any possible world but not logically impossible.
Umm, they mean the same thing, sir.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:26 am Your are equating logically possible with actual possibility.
It may be that a thing like perfect gas(which is not logically impossible) cannot exist in a possible world among all possible worlds.
Non-sequitur sir.
"cannot exist in a possible world among all possible worlds".

Makes no sense^.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:26 am Q: So you agree not all logically possible things one conceives/imagines are possible to exist in some possible world among all possible worlds?
First of all, I am trying to figure out why do you keep saying "among all possible worlds", when it is implied that "some possible world", by default, is included in "all possible worlds".

That only adds to the confusion of an already complex topic.

But anyways, what I am saying is; if you can imagine it, there is a possible world at which what you imagine is true.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:26 am But then why you say it in other times. Anything one conceives/imagines is possible to exist in some possible world among all possible worlds.
Q: Which one is it?
The latter.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:26 am But sir you did use existence as predicate.
Q: Did you not? : :chuckel:
Sure, yet I exist.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:26 am But sir I conceived it.
Therefore conform your logic it should be possible to exist in some possible world.
Q: What is the issue?
Q: Are you trying to argue that not everything one imagines is possible to exist in some possible world? :lol:
Q: Can’t you comprehend you are done either way?
Either
1. The concept is possible to exist conform your logic because I imagined it and therefore I can make an argument against the existence of such being using your definition.
or
2. Not everything one imagines is possible to exist and therefore your premise that everything one imagines is possible to exist goes out the window.
Well first of all,

1. I do not believe that you can imagine a philosophical state of nothingness. The closest you can imagine to "nothingness" is dark space, void of all physical matter (or otherwise)...but that is about the closest you can ever get to imagining complete nothingness.

So, that being said, this space that is void of all matter is still "something" (the space is something)...so there is something there...making it impossible to imagine complete "nothingness".

2. The fact that it is impossible to imagine literal nothingness only goes to PROVE MY POINT that something had to always have been there, even if it was just void space.

But there is no contingent reality which springs from empty space, which follows that there must exist a necessary, causal agent from which all contingent reality comes from.

You, sir, are in a no winning situation, my man.

Here..

Hold this L.

:lol:
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 #63

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 3:57 am Sure, but that's not what you asked me. Instead you asked me about the hypothetical "if X exists" which is just X existing in a general sense.
"Yeah, but the hypothetical you were given (even in your quote of me) was; "If X exists necessarily."
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 3:57 am No, not necessarily, it might do, it might not. How quick are you to forget about brute facts which exist contingently and does not depend on anything outside itself for its existence.
Such as?
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 3:57 am There wouldn't be any. On the other hand If X exists and doesn't depend on anything outside itself for its existence, then there is at least one possible world where X does not exist.
Makes no sense.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 3:57 am This is fun, isn't it?
It is always fun to give my defenders BUCKETS.
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 #64

Post by Bust Nak »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 3:39 pm "Yeah, but the hypothetical you were given (even in your quote of me) was; "If X exists necessarily."
Yeah, but that is still not the hypothetical you asked me about, the record will show that you asked me about the hypothetical "if X exists" without the "necessarily" qualifier which is just X existing in a general sense.
Such as?
You want an example of a brute fact? Something exists rather than nothing.
Makes no sense.
I wasn't expecting anything different. Suffice to say that a) personal incredulity is not an argument; and b) people with a background in modal logic would have no problem making sense of the fact that for any contingent being X, there is at least one possible world where X does not exist.
It is always fun to give my defenders BUCKETS.
I don't know what that means but it's fun for me to give you rope.

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 #65

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Bust Nak wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 6:49 pm Yeah, but that is still not the hypothetical you asked me about, the record will show that you asked me about the hypothetical "if X exists" without the "necessarily" qualifier which is just X existing in a general sense.
Well, lets check the record then, shall we?

Post #42 on page 5, I stated..

"If X's existence is necessary, then it follows that X's existence is a necessary truth."

And what I find glaring is, that you responded to this exact quote where the qualifier was there, only to turn around and say that it was not there and was stated in a general sense.

Now of course, there were times where I did NOT use the qualifier, but even if I didn't it was still implied...because it is usually something along the lines of..

"If X exists, and DOES NOT OWE ITS EXISTENCE TO ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF ITSELF....".

Does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself = necessary existence (implied).

So either way, hold this L.

:D
Bust Nak wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 6:49 pm You want an example of a brute fact? Something exists rather than nothing.
Ok, I agree...that is a brute fact. And?
Bust Nak wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 6:49 pm I wasn't expecting anything different. Suffice to say that a) personal incredulity is not an argument; and b) people with a background in modal logic would have no problem making sense of the fact that for any contingent being X, there is at least one possible world where X does not exist.
Well, when/if you ever catch me making any argument to the contrary, holla at me.

Until then, straw man.
Bust Nak wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 6:49 pm I don't know what that means but it's fun for me to give you rope.
"Giving you/someone buckets".

In the game of basketball..

When a defender is guarding you and you are constantly scoring on him, you are giving him buckets (by putting the ball in the basket/bucket).

Slang terminology.

Of course, now we can see how it rightfully applies here in this scenario.
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 #66

Post by Bust Nak »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 11:18 pm Well, lets check the record then, shall we?

Post #42 on page 5, I stated..

"If X's existence is necessary, then it follows that X's existence is a necessary truth."

And what I find glaring is, that you responded to this exact quote where the qualifier was there, only to turn around and say that it was not there and was stated in a general sense.
That's why I keep brining up the record, which shows that you asked me how I could not agree with "if X exists, then X existence is a necessary truth," note the absence of the "necessary" qualifier. My answer, repeated for your convenience, was that "X exists" is different from "X exists necessarily," I do not agree with that statement because there is at least one possible world where X does not exist.
Now of course, there were times where I did NOT use the qualifier...
Well, there you go. You know what they say, admitting a mistake is the first step towards fixing it.
but even if I didn't it was still implied...because it is usually something along the lines of..

"If X exists, and DOES NOT OWE ITS EXISTENCE TO ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF ITSELF....".

Does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself = necessary existence (implied).
Implied you say, but you can't use that as a premise when that's the very thing you were tasked with proving.
Ok, I agree...that is a brute fact. And?
And you have a counter example to your so called implication. This brute fact does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself, yet does not equal necessary existence, there is at least one possible world where this fact does not exist. You were informed of this same thing two weeks ago.
Well, when/if you ever catch me making any argument to the contrary, holla at me.
One the one hand, you granted the point that brute facts are both contingent and does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself; on the other you asserted that not owing existence to outside implies necessary existence. Not sure why you are not putting two and two together, but consider that a holla.
"Giving you/someone buckets".

In the game of basketball..

When a defender is guarding you and you are constantly scoring on him, you are giving him buckets (by putting the ball in the basket/bucket).
So the guy doing well, is the one giving buckets away? Well, have some buckets on me.

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 #67

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:45 am That's why I keep brining up the record, which shows that you asked me how I could not agree with "if X exists, then X existence is a necessary truth," note the absence of the "necessary" qualifier.
More buckets, eh?

So, lets see..

I had shared with you post #42 where the qualifier was there...but that wasn't enough for you as you now respond with a reference to post #45, where I also clearly stated..

"Ok, you agree.
So if you agree that "if X exists necessarily, then there is no possible world at which X does not exist".


You had already agreed with the sentiments of "if X exists necessarily..."

So not only was the qualify there, but you agreed with it...because I asked you if you agreed, and you said yes.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:45 am My answer, repeated for your convenience, was that "X exists" is different from "X exists necessarily," I do not agree with that statement because there is at least one possible world where X does not exist.
You already agreed with "If X exists necessarily". That much is on the record. All I see now are red herrings and straw mans.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:45 am Well, there you go. You know what they say, admitting a mistake is the first step towards fixing it.
Either the qualifier was said, or implied. It is just a matter of reading comprehension from that point on...on your end, not mines.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:45 am Implied you say, but you can't use that as a premise when that's the very thing you were tasked with proving.
The premises were demonstrated to be true...now, if there is anything you've offered as a defeater of the premises, then I haven't seen it yet.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:45 am And you have a counter example to your so called implication. This brute fact does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself, yet does not equal necessary existence, there is at least one possible world where this fact does not exist. You were informed of this same thing two weeks ago.
And...you were informed that something that does not owe its existence to anything outside itself, must exist necessarily.

Unless you can enlighten me on how something can NOT owe its existence to anything outside itself, but yet exist contingently.

I don't think you can do that...and if you can, not only will I be shocked, but I will be impressed.

:lol:
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:45 am One the one hand, you granted the point that brute facts are both contingent and does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself;
If I'm not mistaken, I stated that brute facts can be either contingent or necessary...it just depends on the context.

And, if I didn't say it then, then I am saying it now.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:45 am on the other you asserted that not owing existence to outside implies necessary existence. Not sure why you are not putting two and two together, but consider that a holla.
Yeah, I asserted that, and I stand by what I said.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:45 am So the guy doing well, is the one giving buckets away? Well, have some buckets on me.
Here, hold this L.
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 #68

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 3:04 pm Um, first of all..you are clearly contradicting yourself.

I had said, based on the framework you outlined for the B theory of time..

"...then Venom must exist/not exist at the same time"....and it is/was very obvious to me that this is the case.

Now, keywords are: "the same time".

You said that this is NOT the case.

Yet, here you are saying "all moments of time exist in parity".

And what does parity mean?

Parity: the quality or state of being equal or equivalent.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parity

Equal or equivalent = THE SAME, a.k.a "the same TIME", which goes to show that my original sentiments were correct.

You acknowledged that Venom did not exist in 1870, yet he exists in 2022...and to go from nonexistence to existence implies temporal becoming...there is just no other way around it.

You had somewhat acknowledged this temporal becoming, by saying that the temporal becoming of which we experience is "illusory", which is fallacious, because as I pointed out, it would then follow that there would be an infinite regression of caused illusions, which would violate one of the main 2...which you cannot do while also being in line with logical reasoning.

Your reasoning is fallacious, is what I am trying to say.
1. All moments of time exist in parity means all moments of time are equally real. Moments of time exist in tenseless relations instead of tensed ones.
2. Venom existence and nonexistence do not happen at the same time for there is no happening. Nothing becomes, nothing happens. Every moment of time just is.
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.
Perfect sense. No contradiction. No fallacious reasoning.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 3:04 pm
If temporal becoming is illusory, then something is causing the illusory, thus causation, thus infinite regression.

There is no way out of it, sir.

The argument of infinite regression is not dependent upon A theory of time and rightfully applies in all imagined dimensions of reality...whether in heaven or on earth.
Sir everything is “now”. There is no something causing the next thing.
Your assuming A theory language while trying to debunk possibility of B theory. It’s laughfable.
All your “future” thoughts already exist.
There is an arrow of time that follows entropy.

Its all just false perception.
“The passage of time is most likely an illusion. Consciousness may involve thermodynamic or quantum processes that lend the impression of living moment by moment.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -illusion/


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 3:04 pm
No, it isn't ridiculous. I will steal all of your money just so I can offer the "But your honor, Alex here believes in B theory of time...so me stealing his money was just an illusion in his mind, it didn't really happen" defense in court.



I laugh, but I am serious.
Irrelevant nonsense that does not damage B theory possibility in any way no matter if it is true or false.
Also I never said I believed B theory is true.
Don’t straw-man please. Its boring.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 3:04 pm
It is actually true, though. Will you judge a tree for growing a branch? Well, same thing for human beings and free will, on atheism.
Still it may be that free will does not exist. If I judge and I don’t have free will it does not matter because all is predetermined. I cannot but judge.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 3:04 pm Sir, you are asking a question I addressed numerous times in various ways.


"cannot exist in a possible world among all possible worlds".

Makes no sense^.
Argument from ignorance, argument from lack of imagination.

Proposition A: “perfect gas(which is not logically impossible) cannot exist in a possible world among all possible worlds.”
No matter how many times you nod in disbelief A may be true.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 3:04 pm Umm, they mean the same thing, sir.
First of all, I am trying to figure out why do you keep saying "among all possible worlds", when it is implied that "some possible world", by default, is included in "all possible worlds".

That only adds to the confusion of an already complex topic.

But anyways, what I am saying is; if you can imagine it, there is a possible world at which what you imagine is true.
It’s a non-sequitur to say it exists in my mind therefore can exist in a possible world among all possible words.
I am saying that it may be that a perfect gas(which is not logically impossible) cannot exist in any possible world among all possible worlds.
You cannot know for sure. Asserting that which one cannot know is illogical and laughfable.
Q: Are you omniscient, sir? :chuckel: :confused2:


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 3:04 pm Sure, yet I exist.
That does not negate that one cannot use existence as predicate.
It leads to contradictions.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 3:04 pm 1. I do not believe that you can imagine a philosophical state of nothingness. The closest you can imagine to "nothingness" is dark space, void of all physical matter (or otherwise)...but that is about the closest you can ever get to imagining complete nothingness.

So, that being said, this space that is void of all matter is still "something" (the space is something)...so there is something there...making it impossible to imagine complete "nothingness".
Common now sir.
I did imagined sir.
No space, no vacuum, no other myriad of things science will find as reductionism goes to even lower things. Nothing as opposed to something.
Your done sir.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 3:04 pm 2. The fact that it is impossible to imagine literal nothingness only goes to PROVE MY POINT that something had to always have been there, even if it was just void space.

But there is no contingent reality which springs from empty space, which follows that there must exist a necessary, causal agent from which all contingent reality comes from.

You, sir, are in a no winning situation, my man.

Here..

Hold this L.
Another assertion: it is impossible to imagine a concept that disproves my God using my definition.
Q: How do you know it is impossible to imagine? You know for sure that no mind can do it? How? Again are you omniscient? :confused2:
Q: What if I assert as you that you cannot imagine the God you think you can imagine? What now, therefore its not possible to exist using your logic?
Q: Do you like the mirror? Do you like yourself?
So funny. :chuckel:
"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 #69

Post by Bust Nak »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:17 am So, lets see..

I had shared with you post #42 where the qualifier was there...but that wasn't enough for you as you now respond with a reference to post #45, where I also clearly stated..

"Ok, you agree.
So if you agree that "if X exists necessarily, then there is no possible world at which X does not exist".


You had already agreed with the sentiments of "if X exists necessarily..."

So not only was the qualify there, but you agreed with it...because I asked you if you agreed, and you said yes.
Ah huh, when the qualifier is there, I say yes; and when it is not there, I say no. It's not complicated.
You already agreed with "If X exists necessarily". That much is on the record. All I see now are red herrings and straw mans.
There is no strawman because I have the record to prove that you did in fact, ask me how I could disagree with "if X exists, then X existence is a necessary truth."
Either the qualifier was said, or implied.
Busted. It's okay to admit mistakes you know. I even took the opportunity to ask if you meant "if X exists necessarily..." instead of a simple, "yes, that's what I meant," you choose to double down without acknowledging that the all important qualify was missing until I hammer the point home. Now you want people to believe that's what you meant all along?

More to the point, asking questions about "if X exists necessarily..." doesn't go anywhere until you have an argument for why X exists necessarily in the first place. That's what you were asked to prove.
The premises were demonstrated to be true...
I have your post history that shows otherwise, you did nothing other than unsupported assertion and questions, all of which had been answered. You still have no argument from the premise "not owe existence to outside" to your conclusion "exist necessarily."
And...you were informed that something that does not owe its existence to anything outside itself, must exist necessarily.
That's no good, you were supposed to prove it, not just say it.
Unless you can enlighten me on how something can NOT owe its existence to anything outside itself, but yet exist contingently.
You should already know how - it can exist contingently by not existing in a possible world. While we are here, you were supposed to be the one proving it, it's not up to me to disprove it. I already did more than can be expected by presenting counter-examples re: brute facts. Stop shifting the burden.
If I'm not mistaken, I stated that brute facts can be either contingent or necessary...it just depends on the context.
Good enough for my purpose, the ones that are contingent according to the context, serves as counter-examples to your thesis.
Yeah, I asserted that, and I stand by what I said.
How about going beyond that and prove it for once? Or are you just gonna pull the old "let me have the last word" move?

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 #70

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:50 am 1. All moments of time exist in parity means all moments of time are equally real. Moments of time exist in tenseless relations instead of tensed ones.
2. Venom existence and nonexistence do not happen at the same time for there is no happening. Nothing becomes, nothing happens. Every moment of time just is.
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.
Perfect sense. No contradiction. No fallacious reasoning.
Makes no sense whatsoever.

"All moments in time are equally real" <---what does this mean?

It seems as if you are using "equally real" as interchangeable with "equally the same".

I agree, the past and future are equally real, but they are not equally the same.

Otherwise, I need you to explain to me what does "equally real" mean in this context.

Second, you say "Nothing becomes, nothing happens" and that there is no "happenings".

Well again, If I wipe out your bank account, then you can't get mad or press charges, because after all; nothing happened, correct?
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:50 am Sir everything is “now”.
Sorry, but that is just nonsense. The "now" of 1870 is distinct from the "now" of 2022, namely, Venom's existence is true in one now, and not true in the other now.

Which is exactly why it is irrational to maintain that everything is equal when they are clearly not.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:50 am There is no something causing the next thing.
Well yeah, again...let me wipe out your bank account, and we will both say "nothing caused it to happen".

I am fine with that, are you?

Now, if you AREN'T fine with that, then you aren't fine with B theory of time after all, and this all hocus pocus madness and a red herring on steroids.

But if you are fine with it, I will give you an A for living out your truth :lol:

So, kindly give me all of the money in your account so that we be align with B theory of time, if you feel that confidently on its truth value.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:50 am Your assuming A theory language while trying to debunk possibility of B theory. It’s laughfable.
More like you have to come up with a completely wacky theory of time just to negate the implications of a First Cause.

Anything but the "G" word, eh.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:50 am All your “future” thoughts already exist.
I am sure they already exist, I just haven't thought of them yet
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:50 am
Its all just false perception.
“The passage of time is most likely an illusion. Consciousness may involve thermodynamic or quantum processes that lend the impression of living moment by moment.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -illusion/
I already responded to your claims of illusory and you've offered nothing in response to it...all you seem to want to do is to continue maintaining these assertions while failing to deal with the real life implications of what you are asserting.

And that is EXACTLY why I will continue to stick with the idea of me wiping out your bank account..and upon doing so, it really didn't happen (according to B theory)...it never happened, nothing caused it to happen and it was just an illusion.

I am curious to see you concede those points...just so I can see how far you are willing to ride with B theory.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:50 am
Irrelevant nonsense that does not damage B theory possibility in any way no matter if it is true or false.
Also I never said I believed B theory is true.
Don’t straw-man please. Its boring.
Um, not so fast. You are the one who offered it as a theory, and I am just pointing out how silly it is once you apply it to the real world...and I am using YOU in the analogy since YOU are the one who brought it up.

Instead of the generalizations, we are getting specific.

Again, on B theory, if I wipe out your bank account...

1. Nothing caused it.
2. Nothing happened.
3. It is/was all an illusion

If you aren't cool with that, then you aren't cool with B theory..

But if you are cool with, I tip my hat to you for standing by what you believe. :lol:

(I already mentioned this, but it was worth repeating lol).
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:50 am
Still it may be that free will does not exist. If I judge and I don’t have free will it does not matter because all is predetermined. I cannot but judge.
Well, self accountability goes out of the window. Gotcha.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:50 am

Argument from ignorance, argument from lack of imagination.

Proposition A: “perfect gas(which is not logically impossible) cannot exist in a possible world among all possible worlds.”
No matter how many times you nod in disbelief A may be true.
Makes no sense. I asked for clarification below, so lets see..
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:50 am
It’s a non-sequitur to say it exists in my mind therefore can exist in a possible world among all possible words.
Apparently not ^.

SMH.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:50 am
I am saying that it may be that a perfect gas(which is not logically impossible) cannot exist in any possible world among all possible worlds.
You cannot know for sure. Asserting that which one cannot know is illogical and laughfable.
Q: Are you omniscient, sir? :chuckel: :confused2:
I can know for sure, without being omniscient.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:50 am

That does not negate that one cannot use existence as predicate.
It leads to contradictions.
And whether or not existence is to be taken as a predicate is irrelevant to whether or not X exists.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:50 am
Common now sir.
I did imagined sir.
No space, no vacuum, no other myriad of things science will find as reductionism goes to even lower things. Nothing as opposed to something.
Your done sir.
Well first of all, again, I simply disagree with you being able to imagine a state of nothingness.

It ain't happening.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:50 am
Another assertion: it is impossible to imagine a concept that disproves my God using my definition.
Q: How do you know it is impossible to imagine? You know for sure that no mind can do it? How? Again are you omniscient? :confused2:
Because logical impossibilities cannot be imagined (squared circles, married bachelors).
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:50 am
Q: What if I assert as you that you cannot imagine the God you think you can imagine? What now, therefore its not possible to exist using your logic?
Q: Do you like the mirror? Do you like yourself?
So funny. :chuckel:
The concept of God isn't irrational...the concept is logical, and since we can only conceive of logical concepts, one should be able to conceive of God.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Post Reply