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 #41

Post by Bust Nak »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 6:41 am It would be nice if you actually addressed what I said...if you dont agree with my explanation, then articulate why.
I did, repeated for your convenience, I don't agree with your explanation because the gap still remains. You can't get to your conclusion that something has to be there. But it seems like I have to take a more hands on approach...
I will say again; Gap filled: Based on this condition^ nothing could possibly ever come into existence. That condition won't allow for the existence of anything...no god(s), no universes, no NOTHING.

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.
What story? There is no mention of any story in the premise "Based on this condition nothing could possibly ever come into existence.... no NOTHING." You are clearly missing a premise. So here is me doing your homework for you:

1) If nothingness then no story.
2) Story.
3) Therefore not nothingness.
4) Therefore something (X) exists.
5) Either X own its existence to nothingness, or to infinite/circular regression, or it does not owe its existence to anything outside itself.
6) Not infinite/circular regression.
7) Therefore X does not own its existence to anything outside of itself.

We stop at this point because "X exists and does not own its existence to anything outside itself" is not the same thing as "X necessarily exists." That's where the next bit comes in.
Necessary existence: an existence that is true (exists) in all possible worlds.

Necessary truth: A proposition that is true in all possible worlds.

A necessary existence is a necessary truth. They share the same frequency.
That much is fine. What doesn't share the same frequency with those however, is "necessary: not owe its existence to anything outside itself." I already have you on record accepting that brute facts, while necessary in the sense of not owing their existence to anything outside, are distinguished from necessary truths.

Your argument "not owing existence to anything outside therefore necessary, necessary therefore true in all possible worlds" conflates these two meanings of "necessary," is hence an equivocation fallacy.

To remedy this, you just need an argument linking the premise "necessary" in the "not owe its existence to anything outside itself" sense, to "necessary" in the "true (exists) in all possible worlds" sense. In other words, fill in the gaps for me:

7) Therefore X does not own its existence to anything outside of itself.
...
n) X exists in all possible worlds.

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 #42

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:52 am I did, repeated for your convenience, I don't agree with your explanation because the gap still remains. You can't get to your conclusion that something has to be there.
Well, I don't agree that there ever was a gap, because everything was covered due to the fact that there isn't any wiggle room to play in.

Either something was always there, or it wasn't. Those are the only two options, and to negate one is to grant the other.

If you don't agree with my explanation, then perhaps you need to articulate why...and your failure to do so will only lead me to believe that I got the dub.

And me getting the dub is not necessarily (no pun intended) a good thing...at least not for you.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:52 am But it seems like I have to take a more hands on approach...
You can't rebuttal the truth, old friend.

*Mutombo finger wave*
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:52 am What story?
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". That story.

Great opening of the story, btw.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:52 am There is no mention of any story in the premise "Based on this condition nothing could possibly ever come into existence.... no NOTHING." You are clearly missing a premise. So here is me doing your homework for you:

1) If nothingness then no story.
2) Story.
3) Therefore not nothingness.
4) Therefore something (X) exists.
5) Either X own its existence to nothingness, or to infinite/circular regression, or it does not owe its existence to anything outside itself.
6) Not infinite/circular regression.
7) Therefore X does not own its existence to anything outside of itself.
That is pretty much the same thing I said, but said in a very much less than comprehensive way.

I like my version better.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:52 am We stop at this point because "X exists and does not own its existence to anything outside itself" is not the same thing as "X necessarily exists." That's where the next bit comes in.
See, and that is where you are clearly wrong.

If "X exists and does not owe its existence to anything outside itself", then there is no possible world at which there are any pre-conditions / pre-determinstic factors as to why X exists....which entails a necessary existence is all possible worlds.

In fact, the statement itself negates any contingent possibilities as it pertains to X and X's existence.

So your argument is self-refuting, is what I am trying to say. :D
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:52 am That much is fine. What doesn't share the same frequency with those however, is "necessary: not owe its existence to anything outside itself." I already have you on record accepting that brute facts, while necessary in the sense of not owing their existence to anything outside, are distinguished from necessary truths.
Well, again, you are not giving me enough juice as to how a necessary existence would not entail a necessary truth.

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

Just like my own existence; my existence is contingent (I didn't have to be here), so it follows that my existence is a contingent (I owe my existence to factors outside of myself) truth.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:52 am Your argument "not owing existence to anything outside therefore necessary, necessary therefore true in all possible worlds" conflates these two meanings of "necessary," is hence an equivocation fallacy.

To remedy this, you just need an argument linking the premise "necessary" in the "not owe its existence to anything outside itself" sense, to "necessary" in the "true (exists) in all possible worlds" sense. In other words, fill in the gaps for me:

7) Therefore X does not own its existence to anything outside of itself.
...
n) X exists in all possible worlds.
What??? Lets take this slow..I am going to make a statement, and I'd like you to tell me if you agree with this...

Hypothetically speaking, if X exists necessarily, then there is no possible would at which X does not exist.

Do you agree with that statement, yes or no?
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 #43

Post by Bust Nak »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:46 am Either something was always there, or it wasn't. Those are the only two options, and to negate one is to grant the other.
Missing the point again, granting one does not mean granting it as a necessary truth.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". That story.
Yeah, and you made no mention of it until I prompted you.
I like my version better.
Which happens to be the non sequitur version.
If "X exists and does not owe its existence to anything outside itself", then there is no possible world at which there are any pre-conditions / pre-determinstic factors as to why X exists....which entails a necessary existence is all possible worlds.
False by counter-example, a brute fact exists and does not owe its existence to anything outside itself, there is no possible world at which there are any pre-conditions / pre-deterministic factors as to why that brute fact exists, yet in some possible world that brute fact does not exist.
Well, again, you are not giving me enough juice as to how a necessary existence would not entail a necessary truth.
I am not giving you any juice because I accept that a necessary existence would not entail a necessary truth. The point was "not owe existence to anything outside" does not entail either necessary existence or necessary truth.
What??? Lets take this slow..I am going to make a statement, and I'd like you to tell me if you agree with this...

Hypothetically speaking, if X exists necessarily, then there is no possible would at which X does not exist.

Do you agree with that statement, yes or no?
Yes, I agree.

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 #44

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 2:42 am No sir. Is all about logic sir.
“Religious perspectives[edit]
The theological justification stems from God's aseity: the non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God.[citation needed] For if he was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence.[9] Hence, omnibenevolence is a requisite of perfect being theology.[10]
Theologians in the Wesleyan tradition (see Thomas Jay Oord) argue that omnibenevolence is God's primary attribute.[citation needed] Some Hyper-Calvinist interpretations reject omnibenevolence.[citation needed] For example, the Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for its expression of this stance.
Christian apologist William Lane Craig argues that Islam does not hold to the idea of omnibenevolence.[11]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence

William Lane Craig rejects Islam on grounds that it does not entail omnibenevolence, ergo cannot be MGB or compatible with perfect being theology.

Please answer:
Q: Are you saying God of the bible is not omnibenevolent-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)?
With all due respect, sir; you can keep your little fancy pancy quote excerpts.

I asked you a very simple question, a question that digs deep into the pits of your entire objection...and until I get an answer, then I'm not getting in to any discussions about omnibenivolence.

I will ask again for the third time; you claim that God (of the Bible) is not omnibenvolent, and my question is; how is your moral standard (by which you judge God's benevolence); how is your standard the golden standard, as opposed to anyone elses'??
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 2:42 am We are talking about MGB.
You doing this:
Venom:
“God, at least in the Christian tradition, has been defined as..
Omnipotent: All powerful
Ominicient: All knowing
Omnipresent: Active and in control everywhere at all times
Eternal: Having no beginning, or end, not depending on anything for its existence. An existence which is..necessary (which means under no circumstance can it cease existing).

For sake of the argument, we call this being a Maximally Great Being (MGB).
Now, the question is; does such a being exists or not?? Which brings forth the argument..”


Q: Sir you are using the concept MGB so the subjectiveness is plaguing your argument, no?
No it is not subjective, because those "great making properties" of the MGB have values (for lack of a better term).

If you and I are in a weight training competition, then it isn't subjective as who is stronger between us...all we would need to do is lift the weights, and whoever is able to lift the heavier weight is the strongest....and at that point all subjectivity goes out the window.

All of those great making properties of God aren't subjective...as there can be no being of a higher quality of existence than the MGB....as a being who can do anything that is logically possible is not subjectively powerful, but objectively powerful.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 2:42 am Because “great” is a qualitive adjective.
You are deeming what is a perfection. What is a great making attribute. Ergo subjectiveness.
I did not choose anything I went with both paths: simplicity and complexity.

Q: What other line of reasoning is there?
Please enlighten me.
Well, let me put it to you this way, sir; we can take the "great" adjective out of the equation, and the argument doesn't lose any ground.

The fact of the matter is, the being (as defined in the argument) is conceivable..and that is all that matters.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 2:42 am The law of non-contradiction is not broken.
Your usage of tense verbiage betrays your flawed reasoning.
Venom does not exist and not exist at the same time.
Venom exists in specific piece of block of time and does not exist in different piece of block of time.
So please answer this question; on a B-theory of time, in 1870, where was Venom?

Please spare me of any quote excerpts, just answer the question.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 2:42 am Nobody said anything about the size of the block.

Here you might listen to W.L. Craig.
He explain B theory clearly.
He says he assumes A theory for Kalam.
He assumes A theory of time due to the fact that he is has raised objections against B theory of time in work on the theory of time.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 2:42 am I already did. First reply to you on this thread.
"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]"
"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."

I thought so. Moving along..
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 2:42 am Sir you used necessary existence as predicate.
Which implies existence as a predicate.
Kant objection applies.

Q: Are you saying existence and non-existence can be predicates?
Again, it doesn't matter what you want to call it.

My existence is possible/true regardless of what you want to label it.

You can't use that objection to negate my existence, just as you can't use that objection to negate a MGB's necessary existence.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 7:05 am Philosophical nothingness is true nothingness then is exactly that, nothing, no time, no space, no energy, no intelligence, no thoughts just nothing, antonym of something as in somethingness.
I get it...but what does that mean? I cannot conceive of a world at which literally nothing exists...I don't even know what it looks like.

What does nothingness look like? If you can conceive of it, then share this conception with me.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 2:42 am You are defining God into existence.
No, I am defining something that exists.
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 2:42 am I can do the same. Defining God into non-existence.

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;

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.

C: Therefore God-MGB does not exists.
So basically, you are just regurgitating the same argument for the third time, and I already addressed it...and unless you have anything new to add, then I stand by what I said, and have been saying.
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 #45

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:09 pm
Missing the point again, granting one does not mean granting it as a necessary truth.
We will see about that. See below.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:09 pm Yeah, and you made no mention of it until I prompted you.
That was for your benefit, not mines.

But hey, if you feel like that is going to help your case in even the slightest bit, more power to ya

:approve:
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:09 pm Which happens to be the non sequitur version.
Never that.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:09 pm False by counter-example, a brute fact exists and does not owe its existence to anything outside itself, there is no possible world at which there are any pre-conditions / pre-deterministic factors as to why that brute fact exists, yet in some possible world that brute fact does not exist.
Welllll, it depends. It can be argued that a brute fact is also a necessary truth (depending on the context). But nevertheless, point granted.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:09 pm I am not giving you any juice because I accept that a necessary existence would not entail a necessary truth. The point was "not owe existence to anything outside" does not entail either necessary existence or necessary truth.
What??? Lets take this slow..I am going to make a statement, and I'd like you to tell me if you agree with this...

Hypothetically speaking, if X exists necessarily, then there is no possible world at which X does not exist.

Do you agree with that statement, yes or no?
Yes, I agree.
Ok, you agree.

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

How could you not agree with "if X exists, then X existence is a necessary truth".

Because on the flip side, if X existence is not necessarily true, then it follows that there is a possible world which X does not exist.

And if X does not owe its existence to anything outside itself, then X would transcend the entire universe (and all possible worlds), as everything within the universe (and the universe itself) is contingent.
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 #46

Post by Bust Nak »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:44 pm Welllll, it depends. It can be argued that a brute fact is also a necessary truth (depending on the context). But nevertheless, point granted.
Great.
So if you agree that "if X exists necessarily, then there is no possible world at which X does not exist".

How could you not agree with "if X exists, then X existence is a necessary truth".
I would not agree with that statement because there is at least one possible world at which X does not exist, a possible world where X existence is false.

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.
Because on the flip side, if X existence is not necessarily true, then it follows that there is a possible world which X does not exist.
That's right.
And if X does not owe its existence to anything outside itself, then X would transcend the entire universe (and all possible worlds), as everything within the universe (and the universe itself) is contingent.
Transend the entire universe, okay; but where are you pulling the "transcend all possible worlds" from, particularly in light of you granting my point right at the top of this post?

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 #47

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:18 pm With all due respect, sir; you can keep your little fancy pancy quote excerpts.

I asked you a very simple question, a question that digs deep into the pits of your entire objection...and until I get an answer, then I'm not getting in to any discussions about omnibenivolence.

I will ask again for the third time; you claim that God (of the Bible) is not omnibenvolent, and my question is; how is your moral standard (by which you judge God's benevolence); how is your standard the golden standard, as opposed to anyone elses'??

You really are boring me.
Q: What judging? :lol:
Q: Why is so hard to comprehend simple logic, huh? :chuckel:
If God is omnipotent, omniscient, perfect(perfect being theology) that entails omnibenevolence-equally all loving.
God being omniscient would know humans(genetically, behaviorally) nation wide are equal(Israelites are not genetically, behaviorally superior) and would be a contradiction for an omniscient being to be but omnibenevolent-equally all loving or equally indifferent.
So Yahweh having favorites, helping the Israelites at the expense of other(Amalek, Egyptians and so on) cannot be MGB.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:18 pm
No it is not subjective, because those "great making properties" of the MGB have values (for lack of a better term).

If you and I are in a weight training competition, then it isn't subjective as who is stronger between us...all we would need to do is lift the weights, and whoever is able to lift the heavier weight is the strongest....and at that point all subjectivity goes out the window.

All of those great making properties of God aren't subjective...as there can be no being of a higher quality of existence than the MGB....as a being who can do anything that is logically possible is not subjectively powerful, but objectively powerful.
Well, let me put it to you this way, sir; we can take the "great" adjective out of the equation, and the argument doesn't lose any ground.

The fact of the matter is, the being (as defined in the argument) is conceivable..and that is all that matters.

The subjectiveness is choosing those attributes, the list.
Omnipotent, omniscient or omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent or omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent.
Omnipresence including the universe or outside the universe.
God being one or many. God unitarian or hive mind omni or arbitrarily choosing triune.
God having the predicate of existence or the predicate of necessary existence.
Ignoring logically leading attributes that debunk Christianity: Omnipresence->Maximally Visible, Maximally proven.
That’s sort of subjectiveness.
Changing like the weather.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:18 pm So please answer this question; on a B-theory of time, in 1870, where was Venom?

Please spare me of any quote excerpts, just answer the question.

Venom exists in specific piece of block of time(2022) and does not exist in different piece of block of time(1870).
Q: Why did you ignore my analogy with the raisin, huh? :confused2:
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:18 pm

He assumes A theory of time due to the fact that he is has raised objections against B theory of time in work on the theory of time.
Craig does not say B theory of time its not possible.
He finds no issue with the 4 block universe in a B theory of time possibility of existence. Scientists don't find it an issue as well.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:18 pm "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."

I thought so. Moving along..

Yes sir not everything one imagines can exists in our actual world. We can imagine concepts as perfect gas, perfect fluid but they cannot exist in our actual world. They just exist in our minds as concepts. In reality we find only approximations.
So saying universally I imagine, conceive something therefore its possible to exist is fallacious.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:18 pm Again, it doesn't matter what you want to call it.

My existence is possible/true regardless of what you want to label it.

You can't use that objection to negate my existence, just as you can't use that objection to negate a MGB's necessary existence.

Existence and non-existence cannot be a predicate. You cannot use them as predicates.
Concepts either correspond or not correspond to the world.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:18 pm I get it...but what does that mean? I cannot conceive of a world at which literally nothing exists...I don't even know what it looks like.

What does nothingness look like? If you can conceive of it, then share this conception with me.

Sir I have told you.
I conceive as true nothingness : nothing, no time, no space, no energy, no vacuum, no quantum fluctuations, no intelligence, no thoughts, just nothing, antonym of something as in somethingness.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:18 pm No, I am defining something that exists.

No sir your are trying to prove MGB exists.
You are defining MBG in such a way that you can use clever wording to puffing it into existence.
In can do the same defining MBG in such a way that I can use clever wording to puffing it into non-existence.
"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 #48

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:45 am
You really are boring me.
Q: What judging? :lol:
Q: Why is so hard to comprehend simple logic, huh? :chuckel:
If God is omnipotent, omniscient, perfect(perfect being theology) that entails omnibenevolence-equally all loving.
God being omniscient would know humans(genetically, behaviorally) nation wide are equal(Israelites are not genetically, behaviorally superior) and would be a contradiction for an omniscient being to be but omnibenevolent-equally all loving or equally indifferent.
So Yahweh having favorites, helping the Israelites at the expense of other(Amalek, Egyptians and so on) cannot be MGB.
One last time..

You claimed that the God of the Bible is not omnibenevolent, which presupposes a standard of benevolence that God is not meeting, in your opinion.

My question is, how is your standard of benevolence the standard by which God should have used, or should be, as opposed to God's own standard.

Please answer the question, or drop these objections about God and his lack of benevolence (omni).
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:45 am The subjectiveness is choosing those attributes, the list.
Omnipotent, omniscient or omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent or omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent.
Omnipresence including the universe or outside the universe.
God being one or many. God unitarian or hive mind omni or arbitrarily choosing triune.
God having the predicate of existence or the predicate of necessary existence.
Red herring. You can call the mere choosing of the attributes on the list subjective, but that does nothing to negate either premise of the argument.

You need to offer objections that will defeat the argument, not sidelines shows.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:45 am Ignoring logically leading attributes that debunk Christianity: Omnipresence->Maximally Visible, Maximally proven.
That’s sort of subjectiveness.
Changing like the weather.
I fail to see how omnipresence entails maximally visibility. You keep trying to get this maximally visible stuff to stick, but it just won't stick.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:45 am Venom exists in specific piece of block of time(2022) and does not exist in different piece of block of time(1870).
Q: Why did you ignore my analogy with the raisin, huh? :confused2:
Because usually, when an analogy is given, the analogy is explained. You didn't explain it, and instead of wasting time asking you to explain it and how it relates to whatever point you are making, I merely asked a question of my own.

That being said, if Venom exists in a specific block of time (2022), and does not exist in a different piece of block of time (1870)...how does this NOT entail temporal becoming on A theory of time?

Venom began to exist, didn't he?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:45 am Craig does not say B theory of time its not possible.
He finds no issue with the 4 block universe in a B theory of time possibility of existence. Scientists don't find it an issue as well.
It isn't a matter of whether B theory of time is possible, it is whether it is plausible, and if Craig felt that B theory of time is where the evidence leads, he would be a B time theorist and wouldn't be defending A theory and arguing against B theory.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:45 am Yes sir not everything one imagines can exists in our actual world. We can imagine concepts as perfect gas, perfect fluid but they cannot exist in our actual world. They just exist in our minds as concepts. In reality we find only approximations.
So saying universally I imagine, conceive something therefore its possible to exist is fallacious.
Sir, our world may/may not be the only world which exists. If we can imagine "perfect gas" existing in our minds, then there is a possible world at which perfect gas exists.

For example, a MGB would be able to create "perfect gas", and that would be a "world" which perfect gas exists.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:45 am Existence and non-existence cannot be a predicate. You cannot use them as predicates.
Concepts either correspond or not correspond to the world.
My point is; however you decide to use it, it doesn't stop me from existing.

It isn't as if you can say "Aha, existence cannot be a predicate, so Venom doesn't exist".

No. And if you can't do that with me, you can't do it with a MGB.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:45 am
Sir I have told you.
I conceive as true nothingness : nothing, no time, no space, no energy, no vacuum, no quantum fluctuations, no intelligence, no thoughts, just nothing, antonym of something as in somethingness.
So, under those circumstances...is there potential for anything to exist? Yes or no?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:45 am No sir your are trying to prove MGB exists.
You are defining MBG in such a way that you can use clever wording to puffing it into existence.
No, because if there was a logical incoherency with the definition, then the MGB would not be puffed into existence, would it?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:45 am In can do the same defining MBG in such a way that I can use clever wording to puffing it into non-existence.
Be my guest :D
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 #49

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:00 pm I would not agree with that statement because there is at least one possible world at which X does not exist, a possible world where X existence is false.
But you already agreed that "if X exists necessarily, then there is no possible world at which X does not exist".

So I am still not sure what your beef is here.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:00 pm 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.
Then I am REALLY not sure what the beef is.
That's right.
Cool.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:00 pm Transend the entire universe, okay; but where are you pulling the "transcend all possible worlds" from, particularly in light of you granting my point right at the top of this post?
I don't know what conceding the point at the top of the post has to do with what I am responding to now...but ANYWAYS (not being facetious)...

If X doesn't depend on anything outside of itself for its existence, then is there a possible world from which X would be a product of?

No?

Then X would have to transcend all possible worlds, correct?
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 #50

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:39 pm One last time..

You claimed that the God of the Bible is not omnibenevolent, which presupposes a standard of benevolence that God is not meeting, in your opinion.

My question is, how is your standard of benevolence the standard by which God should have used, or should be, as opposed to God's own standard.

Please answer the question, or drop these objections about God and his lack of benevolence (omni).
Q: What is your problem, huh? :blink:
Q: What is up with apologists giving ultimatums?
Don’t bore me please.

I derived the meaning of omnibenevolence from perfect being theology and usage of the word.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, perfect in every way.
God is perfectly just, perfectly good, perfectly loving.
A god which does not love all cannot be perfect therefore cannot be MGB for I can imagine a being greater then that: a god that loves all.
Also a god which does not love all equally cannot be perfect therefore cannot be MGB for I can imagine a being greater then that: a god that not only loves all, but loves all equally.
Also a omniscient being cannot but love all equally or be ignorant to all equally because it does not have reasons to do otherwise and because it knows all, knows this too.
Its simple. Simple logic.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:39 pm Red herring. You can call the mere choosing of the attributes on the list subjective, but that does nothing to negate either premise of the argument.

You need to offer objections that will defeat the argument, not sidelines shows.
No need to imagine non-existent red-herrings.
From beginning this point was about the conjuring of specific gods by subjectively choosing of the attributes. Not about the premises. About the before the premises.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:39 pm I fail to see how omnipresence entails maximally visibility. You keep trying to get this maximally visible stuff to stick, but it just won't stick.
I can imagine a much greater being that permeates all existence including consciousness, being present even in my conscious though so that genuine disbelief is non-existent and God is therefore Maximally Visible and Maximally proven.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:39 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:39 pm Because usually, when an analogy is given, the analogy is explained. You didn't explain it, and instead of wasting time asking you to explain it and how it relates to whatever point you are making, I merely asked a question of my own.

That being said, if Venom exists in a specific block of time (2022), and does not exist in a different piece of block of time (1870)...how does this NOT entail temporal becoming on A theory of time?

Venom began to exist, didn't he?
Sir we are talking of B theory of time not A theory.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:39 pm It isn't a matter of whether B theory of time is possible, it is whether it is plausible, and if Craig felt that B theory of time is where the evidence leads, he would be a B time theorist and wouldn't be defending A theory and arguing against B theory.
Q: So then why are you arguing with me about impossibility of B theory when I am talking to you about it. I don’t understand.
Comical indeed.
Special and general relativity is compatible with B theory of time and it implies it.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:39 pm Sir, our world may/may not be the only world which exists. If we can imagine "perfect gas" existing in our minds, then there is a possible world at which perfect gas exists.

For example, a MGB would be able to create "perfect gas", and that would be a "world" which perfect gas exists.
But you are saying that everything one can imagine it’s possible to exist among all possible world in a possible world.
Q: How? :confused2:
That’s a non-sequitur.
Q: How can you know a perfect gas can actual exist in a possible world among all possible worlds?
It may be that such a thing as a perfect gas could not exist in any of all possible worlds.
Q: How can only know this unless omniscient, huh? :blink:
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:39 pm My point is; however you decide to use it, it doesn't stop me from existing.

It isn't as if you can say "Aha, existence cannot be a predicate, so Venom doesn't exist".

No. And if you can't do that with me, you can't do it with a MGB.
Sir you attributed the predicate necessary existence(which entails existence as a predicate) to a concept.
Off course I can use the Kant objection.
You cannot be analogous to a concept. You actually exist.
You are an actualization of such a concept->human with following predicates name, eyes color, height, weight and so one. There is something in the world that is picked out by the name "human" and fits certain descriptions: specific name, specific height, specific eye color, specific weight and so on.
Existence means a specific concept(human) with specific predicates(name: Venom, ...) is actualized in the world.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:39 pm So, under those circumstances...is there potential for anything to exist? Yes or no?

Sir I was using your logic.
According to your logic if one can imagine something, that something its possible to exist in a possible world.
Q: Are your saying not everything that is imagined is possible to exist in a possible world now? :giggle:
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:39 pm No, because if there was a logical incoherency with the definition, then the MGB would not be puffed into existence, would it?
Be my guest
I meant you subjectively conjuring list of attributes to show God exists.
I already did the same I subjectively conjuring some of attributes from the list to showed God does not exist.

P1. God is MGB. MGB contains all perfections, maximally great attributes. Therefore Maximally Visible, Maximally Proven are checked too as part of omnipresence.
P2. People who have a genuine disbelief in MGB existence, exist.

C: Therefore God-MGB does not exists.

Post Reply