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!!

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 #51

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 2:53 am Q: What is your problem, huh? :blink:
Q: What is up with apologists giving ultimatums?
Don’t bore me please.
What it is, is; either you answer the question and I respond according and move along..or, you can refuse to answer the question and I take the dub by default and move along.

Either way, the dub is mines for the taking.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 2:53 am I derived the meaning of omnibenevolence from perfect being theology and usage of the word.
Well obviously what you mean by omnibenevolent is not the same as what God/the Bible's usage of the implied term.

So again, it goes right back to subjectivity...as you are saying God's benevolence isn't consistent with your definition of the term...and I asked who died and made your standard the golden standard...and it doesn't look as if I got an answer, after asking 4 times.

So, moving along.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 2:53 am 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.
Well first of all, the Bible is clear that God loves all...and we do not need to go beyond the famous John 3:16 scripture to see that.

And I also like how Jesus said in Matt 5:45..

"For he (the Father) makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust".

So, your assessment of the Biblical God is inaccurate, and your conclusions are drawn off of false premises, which is yet another non sequitur added to an ever-so growing list.

Second, again, you are still talking about benevolence, which is subjective.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 2:53 am 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.
Ok so again, if there is a weight lifting competition, and the victor will be declared based off of who can lift the heaviest weight...is this a subjective choosing of the standard by which the victor will be declared??

Yes or no?

There is no subjectivity within the argument, and that is all that matters.

In your counter-argument, there was subjectivity within the argument, which is why it ultimately failed.

Arguments are about the validity and soundness of the premises, and until you can demonstrate how the premises are invalid/unsound, then the conclusion derived from the premises STANDS, regardless of what happened behind-the-scenes before the argument began.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 2:53 am 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.
Sure, so can I...which means that it is a POSSIBLE condition, but not a necessary condition.

God can surely accomplish the task that you imagine, but what if he doesn't want to do it that way?

Then what?

Having the power to do so, does not entail the will to do so.

This is my third time saying this to you...I wonder how many more times I will have to say this before it is time to move along.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 2:53 am Sir we are talking of B theory of time not A theory.
I know what we are talking about, my point is; I am asking how does this seemingly temporal becoming concept (according to your response) not entail an A theory of time, as opposed to the B theory of time that you are were postulating.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 2:53 am 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.
Well first of all, I never said that it is impossible, I am saying that I have no reasons to believe that it is true, and I have reasons to believe that A theory is true.

Again, you stated prior that Venom did not exist in one block of time (1870) and exists in another block of time (2022). That itself implies temporal becoming, which is A theory.

You also stated that on B theory, the past, present, and future exists equally...and by that I thought you meant equally, at the same time...which is why I took it to mean that Venom would have to exist/not exist at the same time.

If that is not what you meant, then I would need clarification on equally, at the same time.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 2:53 am 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.
Please rephrase the question.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 2:53 am 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:
Well, here is the thing. I tend to base possibilities off whether or not God (an omnipotent being) can either create it, or accomplish it.

Now, this would be equivalent to an atheist basing possibilities off hypotheticals involving natural laws which were different, allowing for different physical realities.

So, in terms of perfect gas, it would seem to me that I can imagine a possible world at which God could, using his omnipotence, create perfect gas if he so desired.

I can also imagine a possible world at which natural law was different an perfect gas was created (all things equal, and I do emphasize on "all things equal" :lol: )

But here is the key point, which may answer your question above; if God cant do it, then it cant be done. If God cannot do it, then there is no possible world at which it can be done...because if there was a possible world that it could be done, then God would be able to do it in that possible world...and if he can do it in that possible world, he would be able to do in it every possible world...and if he can do it in every possible world, then he can do it in this world (the actual world), because this world is included in the "every possible world" bunch.

Before I shut up, one last point..God cannot do what is logically impossible to do...and that is precisely why I know that there is no possible world at which infinite regress is possible, because I cannot imagine God even being able to traverse infinity.

Which goes back to my original point, if an omnipotent being cant do it, then it cant be done...thus, there is no possible world at which it can be done.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 2:53 am 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.
Well again, I fail to see how this objection stops/halts, or negates my argument from necessary existence.

Everything is a concept, regardless of whether the concept is actualized or not.

The argument is that there is this concept of necessary existence, and that this necessary existence explains why anything and everything exists...and this seems to hold true regardless of whether existence (necessary) is predicated or not.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 2:53 am
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:
Sir, ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Under those circumstances of "nothingness" that you described, is there any potential of ANYTHING existing at all?

Yes or no?
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 2:53 am 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.
I already addressed this and you are going right back to the whole maximally visible/proven stuff.

Moving along.
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 #52

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 9:09 am Well first of all, the Bible is clear that God loves all...and we do not need to go beyond the famous John 3:16 scripture to see that.

And I also like how Jesus said in Matt 5:45..

"For he (the Father) makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust".

So, your assessment of the Biblical God is inaccurate, and your conclusions are drawn off of false premises, which is yet another non sequitur added to an ever-so growing list.

Second, again, you are still talking about benevolence, which is subjective.

1. Sir we are moving in circle, you ignoring the obvious. Its laughfable.
According to the Bible Yahweh had favorites the Israelites.
Yahweh helped the Israelites at the expense of others(Amalek, Egyptians and so on).
Therefore Yahweh cannot be equally all loving.

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.

Do not ignore my point please.

“Thus says the LORD of hosts: "I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." “(I Samuel 15:2-3)

2. Romans 9:13
“Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.””
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 9:09 am Ok so again, if there is a weight lifting competition, and the victor will be declared based off of who can lift the heaviest weight...is this a subjective choosing of the standard by which the victor will be declared??

Yes or no?

There is no subjectivity within the argument, and that is all that matters.

In your counter-argument, there was subjectivity within the argument, which is why it ultimately failed.

Arguments are about the validity and soundness of the premises, and until you can demonstrate how the premises are invalid/unsound, then the conclusion derived from the premises STANDS, regardless of what happened behind-the-scenes before the argument began.
1. Q: What has omnipotence to do with choosing the list which includes omnipotence?
2. Sir here on this point we talked of the before we get to the premises so don’t bore me with irrelevant nonsense.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 9:09 am Sure, so can I...which means that it is a POSSIBLE condition, but not a necessary condition.

God can surely accomplish the task that you imagine, but what if he doesn't want to do it that way?

Then what?

Having the power to do so, does not entail the will to do so.

This is my third time saying this to you...I wonder how many more times I will have to say this before it is time to move along.
Sir we are talking about you limiting omnipresence not omnipotence.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 9:09 am I know what we are talking about, my point is; I am asking how does this seemingly temporal becoming concept (according to your response) not entail an A theory of time, as opposed to the B theory of time that you are were postulating.
There is no temporal becoming concept on B theory.
It’s all an illusion sir.
Temporal becoming is not a feature of this B reality.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 9:09 am But here is the key point, which may answer your question above; if God cant do it, then it cant be done. If God cannot do it, then there is no possible world at which it can be done...because if there was a possible world that it could be done, then God would be able to do it in that possible world...and if he can do it in that possible world, he would be able to do in it every possible world...and if he can do it in every possible world, then he can do it in this world (the actual world), because this world is included in the "every possible world" bunch.

We are debating whether your imagining(God) is possible to exist.
So circle reasoning.
You cannot assume God is possible to exist in order to prove God is possible to exist.
Laughable. :lol:

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 9:09 am The argument is that there is this concept of necessary existence, and that this necessary existence explains why anything and everything exists...and this seems to hold true regardless of whether existence (necessary) is predicated or not.
Let's assume existence and non-existence as descriptions, predicates.

Example: The car is “existent”. The car is not existent. Which are analogous to the car is red.

We have the subject "car" and the descriptions "is existent" and "is not existent".

a)The statement "The car is existent" is true if and only if there is something in the world that is picked out by the name "car", and that thing satisfies the description “is existent”.
The second clause is not necessary. There is something in the world that is picked out by the name "car" and that thing satisfies the description "is existent” says nothing more than there is something in the world that is picked out by the name "car".

Q: Do we need the addition?
A: No.

b)In order for the statement "The car is not existent" to be true, then, the "car would have to both exist (in order to be picked out by the name "car") and not exist (in order to satisfy the description is not extent). Clearly this is nonsense, impossible; nothing can both exist and not exist. If existence is a property that can be attributed to subjects like any other, then the car is not existent can never be true. (Replace car with God and it's the same thing. )

C: Therefore we have an ontological argument for everything. Therefore if we accept existence and non-existence as a predicates everything becomes necessary to exist and non-existence goes out the window.

Therefore we cannot accept existence and non-existence as a predicates but as concepts corresponding or not corresponding to the world.
"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 #53

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

.

I'm not addressing any more concerns as it pertains to morality and/or benevolence, until you get around to articulating why your standard of morality, fairness, benevolence, etc, has more virtue than that of God's.

So, anyways..
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 9:52 am 1. Q: What has omnipotence to do with choosing the list which includes omnipotence?
2. Sir here on this point we talked of the before we get to the premises so don’t bore me with irrelevant nonsense.
Well first of all, again; the choosing of the list may be subjective, but the argument itself isn't subjective.

Just like, an event organizer subjectively plans what he thinks is the best entertainment for an event, and he ultimately selects a weight lifting competition...his selection may be subjective, but it isn't subjective as to who the winner of the competition will be, if the competition is based off of who can lift the heaviest weight.

And that is what I am trying to get you to understand, and all of this "see, I can do the same thing you are doing" by formulating a counter-syllogism to compete with mines just isn't working for you, and that much is evident.

The irrelevant nonsense comes from you wasting time on things that has nothing to do with the argument itself.

Your continual failure of providing an adequate refutation of the argument is glaring.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 9:52 am
Sir we are talking about you limiting omnipresence not omnipotence.
What?
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 9:52 am There is no temporal becoming concept on B theory.
It’s all an illusion sir.
Temporal becoming is not a feature of this B reality.
Yeah, but something would have to cause the illusion, and what you would end up having is an infinite chain of caused illusions, which goes right back to the main 2, the problem of infinite regression.

Second, if temporal becoming is a an illusion, then if I wipe your bank account out and now your bank account has "become" 0, then the temporal becoming of your 0 balance was just an illusion...so, no harm, no foul, I guess. :lol:
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 9:52 am We are debating whether your imagining(God) is possible to exist.
So circle reasoning.
You cannot assume God is possible to exist in order to prove God is possible to exist.
Laughable. :lol:
You really wouldn't be laughing if you were aware of the fact that all possible necessary truths, must be actually true.

In other words, if God's existence is even possible (which it is), then it logically follows that therefore, God existence.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 9:52 am Let's assume existence and non-existence as descriptions, predicates.

Example: The car is “existent”. The car is not existent. Which are analogous to the car is red.

We have the subject "car" and the descriptions "is existent" and "is not existent".

a)The statement "The car is existent" is true if and only if there is something in the world that is picked out by the name "car", and that thing satisfies the description “is existent”.
The second clause is not necessary. There is something in the world that is picked out by the name "car" and that thing satisfies the description "is existent” says nothing more than there is something in the world that is picked out by the name "car".

Q: Do we need the addition?
A: No.

b)In order for the statement "The car is not existent" to be true, then, the "car would have to both exist (in order to be picked out by the name "car") and not exist (in order to satisfy the description is not extent). Clearly this is nonsense, impossible; nothing can both exist and not exist. If existence is a property that can be attributed to subjects like any other, then the car is not existent can never be true. (Replace car with God and it's the same thing.

C: Therefore we have an ontological argument for everything. Therefore if we accept existence and non-existence as a predicates everything becomes necessary to exist and non-existence goes out the window.

Therefore we cannot accept existence and non-existence as a predicates but as concepts corresponding or not corresponding to the world.
All of that really isn't necessary (no pun intended). Let me simplify it for you...

Either the car..

A. Exists necessarily
B. Exists contingently

Point blank, PERIOD. No need for the philosophical googly moogly.

And again, I exist REGARDLESS of whether or not you call my existence predicate or not...and if I can, then so can a MGB.
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 #54

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 10:00 pm I'm not addressing any more concerns as it pertains to morality and/or benevolence, until you get around to articulating why your standard of morality, fairness, benevolence, etc, has more virtue than that of God's.

So, anyways..

Let’s not make a straw-man and ignore:
1.Sir we are moving in circle, you ignoring the obvious. Its laughfable.
According to the Bible Yahweh had favorites the Israelites.
Yahweh helped the Israelites at the expense of others(Amalek, Egyptians and so on).
Therefore Yahweh cannot be equally all loving.

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.

Do not ignore my point please.

“Thus says the LORD of hosts: "I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." “(I Samuel 15:2-3)

2. Romans 9:13
“Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.””
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 10:00 pm Well first of all, again; the choosing of the list may be subjective, but the argument itself isn't subjective.
My point was that the choosing of the list is subjective.
Glad we agree.
You want us to ignore the subjective choosing for some reason.
I will not sir.
By choosing the list in a specific way you are conjuring gods using subjectiveness.
That's not a rational way of getting to truth.
That's bending things to fit your precious conclusion.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 10:00 pm What?
We are not talking that if good is omnipotent not revealing himself would make him less omnipotent. Nobody is making that argument.
We are talking of limiting omnipresence.
Like one can imagine a being greater then let’s say Nigh Omnipotent being. An omnipotent being.
I can imagine a much greater being that permeates all existence(real omnipresence) 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.
What your suggesting as omnipresence is not really omnipresence but Nigh Omnipresence.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 10:00 pm Yeah, but something would have to cause the illusion, and what you would end up having is an infinite chain of caused illusions, which goes right back to the main 2, the problem of infinite regression.

Second, if temporal becoming is a an illusion, then if I wipe your bank account out and now your bank account has "become" 0, then the temporal becoming of your 0 balance was just an illusion...so, no harm, no foul, I guess
Sir if there is not temporal becoming no one needs to wait for anything to happen for all moments of times exist tenselessly all at once. Nothing happens. Nothing begins to exist. There is no infinite regress problem. That’s only on A theory.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 10:00 pm You really wouldn't be laughing if you were aware of the fact that all possible necessary truths, must be actually true.

In other words, if God's existence is even possible (which it is), then it logically follows that therefore, God existence.
I did not break any S5 modal logic.
I did not grant you that your MGB is possible to exist.
Please don’t bore me.
I am arguing with your that not everything one imagines is possible to exist.
One needs to show its possible.
Assertions don’t make truth.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 10:00 pm All of that really isn't necessary (no pun intended). Let me simplify it for you...

Either the car..

A. Exists necessarily
B. Exists contingently

Point blank, PERIOD. No need for the philosophical googly moogly.

And again, I exist REGARDLESS of whether or not you call my existence predicate or not...and if I can, then so can a MGB.
Let's not ignore this though:

Let's assume existence and non-existence as descriptions, predicates.

Example: The car is “existent”. The car is not existent. Which are analogous to the car is red.

We have the subject "car" and the descriptions "is existent" and "is not existent".

a)The statement "The car is existent" is true if and only if there is something in the world that is picked out by the name "car", and that thing satisfies the description “is existent”.
The second clause is not necessary. There is something in the world that is picked out by the name "car" and that thing satisfies the description "is existent” says nothing more than there is something in the world that is picked out by the name "car".

Q: Do we need the addition?
A: No.

b)In order for the statement "The car is not existent" to be true, then, the "car would have to both exist (in order to be picked out by the name "car") and not exist (in order to satisfy the description is not extent). Clearly this is nonsense, impossible; nothing can both exist and not exist. If existence is a property that can be attributed to subjects like any other, then the car is not existent can never be true. (Replace car with God and it's the same thing. )

C: Therefore we have an ontological argument for everything. Therefore if we accept existence and non-existence as a predicates everything becomes necessary to exist and non-existence goes out the window.

Therefore we cannot accept existence and non-existence as a predicates but as concepts corresponding or not corresponding to the world.

For some reason I missed this previously:
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 10:00 pm Sir, ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Under those circumstances of "nothingness" that you described, is there any potential of ANYTHING existing at all?

Yes or no?
I don’t need to answer.
According to your logic if I can imagine anything is therefore possible to exist.
If its possible to exist I can make an argument against the existence of such being using your definition.
"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 #55

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 12:41 am We are not talking that if good is omnipotent not revealing himself would make him less omnipotent. Nobody is making that argument.
Um, omnipotence is important in this discussion, because omnipresence is a byproduct of omnipotence...because to be omnipresent implies the power (omnipotence) to be omnipresent.

The terms aren't mutually exclusive.
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 12:41 am We are talking of limiting omnipresence.
Like one can imagine a being greater then let’s say Nigh Omnipotent being. An omnipotent being.
I can imagine a much greater being that permeates all existence(real omnipresence) 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.
What your suggesting as omnipresence is not really omnipresence but Nigh Omnipresence.
This has to be the 5th time you made this point, and I already addressed this by saying that, sure, God can do precisely what you imagine him doing (in this context), but the question is whether or not God would want to "be present even in your conscious".

And I could argue that just by you thinking of God, that God is therefore in your conscious, whether or not you choose to accept him or not.

So you would have to demonstrate why God would have a perfect will to be perfectly visible to all, and you are in no place to know the mind of God and what God would do/wouldn't do if he existed..and to do so would be to argue from ignorance, which is fallacious.

And I am not addressing this again unless you have anything new to offer...

That being said, look, I know that you are long-winded and we can be here for the next two years while you make the same points over and over again...but if you do so, you will be doing it by yourself.
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 12:41 am Sir if there is not temporal becoming no one needs to wait for anything to happen for all moments of times exist tenselessly all at once. Nothing happens. Nothing begins to exist. There is no infinite regress problem. That’s only on A theory.
You are contradicting yourself, sir...

You said "all moments of times exist tenselessly all at once"

So that would mean that I exist and not exist at the same time...that is what "all at once means".

Now, this is where will say "but that isn't what it means"..well, then explain to me what "all at once" means (in this context).

You can't logically say all moments of time exist all at once, then in the next breath claim that something is true about one block of time (1870), that isn't true about another block of time (2022).

Both blocks of time should be equally true, and what is true about one block of time should be true about the other blocks of time.

If there is something about my existence (or lack thereof), which changes from one block of time, to the next, then that is temporal becoming.

If you say that temporal becoming is all an illusion, then again; something is CAUSING the illusion, and you still wind up with an infinite chain of caused illusions, which all goes back to infinite regression....thus, the infinity paradox.

This is inescapable, and you glossed over it the last time...when it needs to be addressed.

And lastly, again, if I wipe out your bank account and your stance is there is no temporal becoming on B theory of time and that temporal becoming is just an illusion...then the temporal becoming of you having money in your account in the first place, to me wiping it out to a 0 balance...it was all just one big illusion, wasn't it?

So hey, I will gladly take your money.

And I noticed you ignored that analogy the first time, because you probably know how silly it is once you apply it to real life occurrences, and you know that is not how the real world operates when it comes to time.
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 12:41 am I did not break any S5 modal logic.
I did not grant you that your MGB is possible to exist.
Please don’t bore me.
And neither did you adequately refute the premise that it is possible for a MGB to exist. So as far as I'm concerned, the premise stands.
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 12:41 am I am arguing with your that not everything one imagines is possible to exist.
One needs to show its possible.
Assertions don’t make truth.
And what I am trying to get you to understand is; the thought alone is what makes it possible.

Can you think of a guy who is 5'8 and 7'7 at the same time? No, because it isn't possible, and your mind cannot conceive that which is impossible.

However, your mind can think of a guy who is 5'8 and drives a BMW car. Why? Because it is possible, and the conception corresponds to the possibility.

Since you don't seem to be able to grasp that, then I don't know what to tell ya, but the argument stands, regardless.
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 12:41 am Let's not ignore this though:

Let's assume existence and non-existence as descriptions, predicates.

Example: The car is “existent”. The car is not existent. Which are analogous to the car is red.

We have the subject "car" and the descriptions "is existent" and "is not existent".

a)The statement "The car is existent" is true if and only if there is something in the world that is picked out by the name "car", and that thing satisfies the description “is existent”.
The second clause is not necessary. There is something in the world that is picked out by the name "car" and that thing satisfies the description "is existent” says nothing more than there is something in the world that is picked out by the name "car".

Q: Do we need the addition?
A: No.

b)In order for the statement "The car is not existent" to be true, then, the "car would have to both exist (in order to be picked out by the name "car") and not exist (in order to satisfy the description is not extent). Clearly this is nonsense, impossible; nothing can both exist and not exist. If existence is a property that can be attributed to subjects like any other, then the car is not existent can never be true. (Replace car with God and it's the same thing. )


C: Therefore we have an ontological argument for everything. Therefore if we accept existence and non-existence as a predicates everything becomes necessary to exist and non-existence goes out the window.

Therefore we cannot accept existence and non-existence as a predicates but as concepts corresponding or not corresponding to the world.
Well, I already addressed this and in your typical fashion, you are regurgitating the same thing...so anyways, moving along.
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 12:41 am I don’t need to answer.
According to your logic if I can imagine anything is therefore possible to exist.
If its possible to exist I can make an argument against the existence of such being using your definition.
"I don't need to answer".

Cool. I'll take the W.
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 #56

Post by alexxcJRO »

Let’s not ignore:
1.Sir we are moving in circle, you ignoring the obvious. Its laughfable.
According to the Bible Yahweh had favorites the Israelites.
Yahweh helped the Israelites at the expense of others(Amalek, Egyptians and so on).
Therefore Yahweh cannot be equally all loving.

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.

Do not ignore my point please.

“Thus says the LORD of hosts: "I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." “(I Samuel 15:2-3)

2. Romans 9:13
“Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.””
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 8:55 am Um, omnipotence is important in this discussion, because omnipresence is a byproduct of omnipotence...because to be omnipresent implies the power (omnipotence) to be omnipresent.

The terms aren't mutually exclusive.

This has to be the 5th time you made this point, and I already addressed this by saying that, sure, God can do precisely what you imagine him doing (in this context), but the question is whether or not God would want to "be present even in your conscious".

And I could argue that just by you thinking of God, that God is therefore in your conscious, whether or not you choose to accept him or not.

So you would have to demonstrate why God would have a perfect will to be perfectly visible to all, and you are in no place to know the mind of God and what God would do/wouldn't do if he existed..and to do so would be to argue from ignorance, which is fallacious.

And I am not addressing this again unless you have anything new to offer...

That being said, look, I know that you are long-winded and we can be here for the next two years while you make the same points over and over again...but if you do so, you will be doing it by yourself.

But my point is that your choosing of Nigh Omnipresence is subjective in your list of attributes.
If I choose Full Omnipresence(Maximally Visible and Maximally Proven) I can make an argument against MGB existence.
You cleverly choosing attributes in a list to help your conclusion: Yahweh-Jesus exists.
But for some reason I cannot do it to disproves MGB.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 8:55 am You said "all moments of times exist tenselessly all at once"

So that would mean that I exist and not exist at the same time...that is what "all at once means".
When I said at once I did not mean all moments of time exist in one slice of bread. But that all the slices of bread are present.
You(the raisin) exist(tenselessly located at all the times encompassing your existence) in specific part of the block(bread) and not exist in a different part of the block(bread).
Not a contradiction.
All moments of times exist in parity.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 8:55 am
If you say that temporal becoming is all an illusion, then again; something is CAUSING the illusion, and you still wind up with an infinite chain of caused illusions, which all goes back to infinite regression....thus, the infinity paradox.

This is inescapable, and you glossed over it the last time...when it needs to be addressed.

And lastly, again, if I wipe out your bank account and your stance is there is no temporal becoming on B theory of time and that temporal becoming is just an illusion...then the temporal becoming of you having money in your account in the first place, to me wiping it out to a 0 balance...it was all just one big illusion, wasn't it?

“The passage of time is an illusion. Consciousness may involve thermodynamic or quantum processes that lend the impression of living moment by moment.”
“physicists insist that time doesn't flow at all; it merely is”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -illusion/

All our talks exist, even the future conversations. You only perceive as the time passes.
It all may be an illusion like we may have the illusion that we freely chose to do something.
B-theorists argue that this notion ‘becoming' and 'progressing' is purely psychological.
Many philosophers and scientists believe not only believe that B theory is possible but that is most likely it is the case.
"In 'Presentism and the Space-Time Manifold', Dean Zimmerman notes that A-theory is 'almost certainly a minority view among philosophers', while B-theory has 'achieved broad acceptance'; despite this there are still a number of philosophers who oppose B-theory.[6][1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

B-theory in theoretical physics[edit]
“The B-theory of time has received support from physicists.[17][18] This is likely due to its compatibility with physics and the fact that many theories such as special relativity, the ADD model, and brane cosmology, point to a theory of time similar to B-theory.
In special relativity, the relativity of simultaneity shows that there is no unique present, and that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment.
Many of special relativity's now-proven counterintuitive predictions, such as length contraction and time dilation, are a result of this. Relativity of simultaneity is often taken to imply eternalism (and hence a B-theory of time), where the present for different observers is a time slice of the four-dimensional universe. This is demonstrated in the Rietdijk–Putnam argument and in Roger Penrose's advanced form of this argument, the Andromeda paradox.[19]
It is therefore common (though not universal) for B-theorists to be four-dimensionalists, that is, to believe that objects are extended in time as well as in space and therefore have temporal as well as spatial parts. This is sometimes called a time-slice ontology.[20]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 8:55 am
And neither did you adequately refute the premise that it is possible for a MGB to exist. So as far as I'm concerned, the premise stands.
I said you can't know that premise to be true.
I said you cannot assert something is possible to exist without showing it is so, without having the knowledge.
I said its impossible to know that something imagined is possible to exist in some possible world among all possible worlds unless omniscient.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 8:55 am And what I am trying to get you to understand is; the thought alone is what makes it possible.

Can you think of a guy who is 5'8 and 7'7 at the same time? No, because it isn't possible, and your mind cannot conceive that which is impossible.

However, your mind can think of a guy who is 5'8 and drives a BMW car. Why? Because it is possible, and the conception corresponds to the possibility.

Since you don't seem to be able to grasp that, then I don't know what to tell ya, but the argument stands, regardless.
I can think of a logically possible thing like perfect gas that cannot exist in our world.
It may be that a thing like perfect gas(which is not logically impossible) cannot exist in a possible world among all possible worlds.
Asserting something one cannot know is laughable: all logically possible things one conceives are possible to exist in some possible world among all possible worlds.

Look sir I imagined something. :lol: :chuckel:
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 8:55 am Well, I already addressed this and in your typical fashion, you are regurgitating the same thing...so anyways, moving along.
Don’t lie sir you ignore it.
You used existence as predicate.
That is not possible for it leads to logical contradictions.
Pretty simple.
Your existence does not disprove that.

Also stop making false analogies between you who actually exist and a concept that exist in your mind.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 8:55 am "I don't need to answer".

Cool. I'll take the W.
Sir I don’t need to answer because of your logic.
According to your logic if I can imagine anything is therefore possible to exist in some possible world.
If its possible to exist I can make an argument against the existence of such being using your definition.
"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 #57

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:12 am When I said at once I did not mean all moments of time exist in one slice of bread. But that all the slices of bread are present.
You(the raisin) exist(tenselessly located at all the times encompassing your existence) in specific part of the block(bread) and not exist in a different part of the block(bread).
Not a contradiction.
All moments of times exist in parity.
Sir, you said that there was a point in time when the raisin (me) did not exist (in 1870). If the raisin began to exist at another slice on the bread, then how is that NOT temporal becoming??

If I didn't exist, and then came to exist, then how is that not temporal becoming?

Makes no sense.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:12 am “The passage of time is an illusion. Consciousness may involve thermodynamic or quantum processes that lend the impression of living moment by moment.”
“physicists insist that time doesn't flow at all; it merely is”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -illusion/

All our talks exist, even the future conversations. You only perceive as the time passes.
It all may be an illusion like we may have the illusion that we freely chose to do something.
B-theorists argue that this notion ‘becoming' and 'progressing' is purely psychological.
Many philosophers and scientists believe not only believe that B theory is possible but that is most likely it is the case.
"In 'Presentism and the Space-Time Manifold', Dean Zimmerman notes that A-theory is 'almost certainly a minority view among philosophers', while B-theory has 'achieved broad acceptance'; despite this there are still a number of philosophers who oppose B-theory.[6][1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

B-theory in theoretical physics[edit]
“The B-theory of time has received support from physicists.[17][18] This is likely due to its compatibility with physics and the fact that many theories such as special relativity, the ADD model, and brane cosmology, point to a theory of time similar to B-theory.
In special relativity, the relativity of simultaneity shows that there is no unique present, and that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment.
Many of special relativity's now-proven counterintuitive predictions, such as length contraction and time dilation, are a result of this. Relativity of simultaneity is often taken to imply eternalism (and hence a B-theory of time), where the present for different observers is a time slice of the four-dimensional universe. This is demonstrated in the Rietdijk–Putnam argument and in Roger Penrose's advanced form of this argument, the Andromeda paradox.[19]
It is therefore common (though not universal) for B-theorists to be four-dimensionalists, that is, to believe that objects are extended in time as well as in space and therefore have temporal as well as spatial parts. This is sometimes called a time-slice ontology.[20]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time
I'm not reading fancy pancy quote excerpts. I need you to directly answer my questions and analogy.

Now, you claim that temporal becoming is illusory and psychological, which is why I mentioned the the chain of infinite regression which cannot be possible, and also the example of me wiping out your bank account, which, as silly as it may be, helps drives home the point once you apply it to the real world.

If you wouldn't accept the "your perception of temporal becoming as it relates to your bank account which is now at 0, was just an illusion"....if you wouldn't accept that explanation if it happened in real life, then you need not accept it while having this discussions on the philosophy of time.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:12 am I said you can't know that premise to be true.
I said you cannot assert something is possible to exist without showing it is so, without having the knowledge.
I know what you "said", but what you "said" isn't true.

Again, there is a reason why you cannot imagine a person who is 5'8 and 7'8 at the same time. Because it is impossible, thats why.

Your mind cannot conceive of the logical impossibilities, because logically impossibilities cannot exist in reality.

However, things that can exist in reality, you are able to imagine it, making it therefore possible (in some possible world)..and you've offered no refutation against any of this, besides the fact that you don't like its implications.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:12 am I said its impossible to know that something imagined is possible to exist in some possible world among all possible worlds unless omniscient.
Again, the imagined possibility in itself is the possible world, and that is what you don't seem to understand.

I can't understand it for you.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:12 am
I can think of a logically possible thing like perfect gas that cannot exist in our world.
It may be that a thing like perfect gas(which is not logically impossible) cannot exist in a possible world among all possible worlds.
If a thing like perfect gas cannot exist in ANY possible world, then that would mean that it is impossible...but you already admitted its possibility...so too late for that.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:12 am Asserting something one cannot know is laughable: all logically possible things one conceives are possible to exist in some possible world among all possible worlds.
I agree.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:12 am Don’t lie sir you ignore it.
You used existence as predicate.
That is not possible for it leads to logical contradictions.
Pretty simple.
Your existence does not disprove that.
Whether or not existence is a predicate doesn't stop me from existing, nor does it stop the possibility of me existing.

And that is what the argument is about, the possibility of X existing. So why you continue to bring it up, I don't know.

It is starting to become a red herring, actually.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:12 am Also stop making false analogies between you who actually exist and a concept that exist in your mind.
Again, the argument is based on what is/isn't possible, which corresponds to every tangible thing or concept...either it is possible for something to exist, or it isn't...so all bases are covered, including things that actually exists, and in this case, myself.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:12 am Sir I don’t need to answer because of your logic.
According to your logic if I can imagine anything is therefore possible to exist in some possible world.
If its possible to exist I can make an argument against the existence of such being using your definition.
Yeah, but the problem is; there are certain implications that comes with what you imagine...you are the one who stated that you can imagine that literally nothing existed...and I simply asked you a question based on what YOU imagined, so that we can unpack and see just how ridiculous the concept is (in light of reality).

However, you failed to answer the question which only leads me to conclude that you saw impeding doom, and simply got out of the way.

Good idea. But I will still take the dub. :approve:
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 #58

Post by Bust Nak »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:52 pm 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.
Check you preconditions again, "X exists" is not the same thing as "X exists necessarily."
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)...
Because you don't have an argument form the premise "X does not depend on outside of itself for its existence" to "X exist necessarily."
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?
Yes? More importantly there is at least one possible where X does not exist.

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 #59

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Bust Nak wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2022 5:53 am Check you preconditions again, "X exists" is not the same thing as "X exists necessarily."
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?
Bust Nak wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2022 5:53 am Because you don't have an argument form the premise "X does not depend on outside of itself for its existence" to "X exist necessarily."
Ok, so if X exists contingently, then X would depend on something outside itself for its existence, correct?

And in all honestly, you know full well that the argument is full-proof and you can't do anything against it...so at this point we are just having fun with it.
Bust Nak wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2022 5:53 am Yes? More importantly there is at least one possible where X does not exist.
If X exists necessarily and doesn't depend on anything outside itself for its existence, then what possible world would X not exist?
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 #60

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 11:40 am Sir, you said that there was a point in time when the raisin (me) did not exist (in 1870). If the raisin began to exist at another slice on the bread, then how is that NOT temporal becoming??

If I didn't exist, and then came to exist, then how is that not temporal becoming?

Makes no sense.
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.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 11:40 am I'm not reading fancy pancy quote excerpts. I need you to directly answer my questions and analogy.

Now, you claim that temporal becoming is illusory and psychological, which is why I mentioned the the chain of infinite regression which cannot be possible, and also the example of me wiping out your bank account, which, as silly as it may be, helps drives home the point once you apply it to the real world.

If you wouldn't accept the "your perception of temporal becoming as it relates to your bank account which is now at 0, was just an illusion"....if you wouldn't accept that explanation if it happened in real life, then you need not accept it while having this discussions on the philosophy of time.
So hey, I will gladly take your money.

And I noticed you ignored that analogy the first time, because you probably know how silly it is once you apply it to real life occurrences, and you know that is not how the real world operates when it comes to time.

Sir there is no infinite regression nothing.
All moments of time exist tenselessly in parity eternally.
Your analogy with banking account does nothing to refute the possibility of B theory.
Its just ridiculous.
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.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 11:40 am Again, the imagined possibility in itself is the possible world, and that is what you don't seem to understand.

I can't understand it for you.
No sir. That is an assertion.
Q: How do you know anything one imagines is possible to exist among al possible worlds?

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 11:40 am If a thing like perfect gas cannot exist in ANY possible world, then that would mean that it is impossible...but you already admitted its possibility...so too late for that.

Again, the argument is based on what is/isn't possible, which corresponds to every tangible thing or concept...either it is possible for something to exist, or it isn't...so all bases are covered, including things that actually exists, and in this case, myself.
Impossible to exist in any possible world but not logically impossible.
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.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 11:40 am
I agree.
Q: So you agree not all logically possible things one conceives/imagines are possible to exist in some possible world among all possible worlds?
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?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 11:40 am Whether or not existence is a predicate doesn't stop me from existing, nor does it stop the possibility of me existing.

And that is what the argument is about, the possibility of X existing. So why you continue to bring it up, I don't know.

It is starting to become a red herring, actually.

But sir you did use existence as predicate.
Q: Did you not? : :chuckel:

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 11:40 am Yeah, but the problem is; there are certain implications that comes with what you imagine...you are the one who stated that you can imagine that literally nothing existed...and I simply asked you a question based on what YOU imagined, so that we can unpack and see just how ridiculous the concept is (in light of reality).

However, you failed to answer the question which only leads me to conclude that you saw impeding doom, and simply got out of the way.

Good idea. But I will still take the dub.
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.
"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."

Post Reply