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
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #2

Post by POI »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 10:06 pm Conclusion: Therefore, God caused the universe to exist
Which one or ones?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #3

Post by TRANSPONDER »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 10:06 pm .

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

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

I'd be in doubt the claim of an uncaused cause, because 'Something cannot come from nothing' (in the Theist objection) because whatever exists must have a cause. Uncaused cause is either demanding that the impossible be possible, or that existence does not always have to have a cause. The universe/cosmos (and let us be clear that we are not talking of OUR universe, but the stuff from which our universe was made - and there may be many other universes, being made, dying and becoming the 'stuff' which causes other universes to form. that is, discussion of the Big Bang is not part of this discussion), must either have had some origin of existence, or not. No other options.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over to you, old greybeard.

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 #4

Post by Bust Nak »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 10:06 pm Justification for P1: Based upon..

1. The argument from the impossibility of infinite regression.

2. The impossibility of things popping into being, uncaused, out of nothing.

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

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

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

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #5

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 5:02 am
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 10:06 pm Justification for P1: Based upon..

1. The argument from the impossibility of infinite regression.

2. The impossibility of things popping into being, uncaused, out of nothing.

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

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

1) infinite regression is impossible.
2) things cannot pop into existence uncaused, out of nothing.
...
n) therefore something had to have existed eternally.
I think it follows. If an uncaused cause or infinite causes are not acceptable, an uncreated creative entity has to be the only other option - that I can think of.

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 #6

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #5]

Here is another option: nothing exists at all. This scenario does not involve infinite regression nor require anything to pop out of existence uncaused, out of nothing.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #7

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 5:39 am [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #5]

Here is another option: nothing exists at all. This scenario does not involve infinite regression nor require anything to pop out of existence uncaused, out of nothing.

Yes..I have to appeal to Topic though :D Existence is assumed before we get to Kalam. IF we are arguing there is no existence, we have a different argument. I suppose Solipsistic universe or brain in a vat. But those are quite distinct arguments from the reason or explanation for existence.

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 #8

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #7]

The topic started off with a "existence is necessary" where necessary is defined along the lines of modal necessary truth, a proposition that is true in every possible world. The OP's P1 was, it is impossible for literally nothing to exist. There is nothing wrong with assuming existence, but that's a much weaker claim than existence is necessary. Don't give him that one for free.

Online
benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2283
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1956 times
Been thanked: 735 times

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #9

Post by benchwarmer »

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #1]

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

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



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

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

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #10

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 6:17 am [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #7]

The topic started off with a "existence is necessary" where necessary is defined along the lines of modal necessary truth, a proposition that is true in every possible world. The OP's P1 was, it is impossible for literally nothing to exist. There is nothing wrong with assuming existence, but that's a much weaker claim than existence is necessary. Don't give him that one for free.
Well that would depend on why it's necessary. If (as I've suggested - based on some experiments, but it's my take, even though there has been talk of 'potential' or even 'numerical value' in 'Nothing' in Physics) the emergence of matter -energy would be inevitable rather than 'necessary'.

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

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

(1) I watched that video a while ago. Of course it was known some time ago that the galaxies aren't expanding like buckshot but the universe is expanding with galaxies in it like currants in a loaf of bread, unless one is as poor a baker as I am. The mechanism of the expansion had to be revised but the Big bang (or the great unfolding' as some cal it) is still in place as the theory.

Post Reply