The Argument from Necessary Existence

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

Basically, what I am saying is; existence is necessary.

To find out what is meant by necessary (in this context), along with the concept of contingency, please visit this thread...particularly the OP.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38217

This argument, in my opinion, bridges the gap between 3 theistic arguments..

1. Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. Modal Ontological Argument
3. Argument from Contingency

So here we go..

P1. It is impossible for literally nothing to exist

Conclusion: Therefore, existence is necessary

Based on the truth value of P1

P2: Only an uncaused cause can exist necessarily

P3. The universe is not an uncaused cause

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe does not exist necessarily

P4. Since the universe does not exist necessarily, the universe is dependent upon external factors for exist existence

P5. Only an uncaused cause can be the origins/source of a contingently existing universe (a universe which began to exist).

Conclusion: Therefore, God caused the universe to exist
--------------------

Justification for P1: Based upon..

1. The argument from the impossibility of infinite regression: I presented an argument against infinite regression in the following thread…and if there is any refutation of this argument, then I haven’t seen it yet.

For more on this, please see the following thread...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38228

2. The impossibility of things popping into being, uncaused, out of nothing: Things do not pop in to being, uncaused, out of nothing. There are no pre-deterministic factors of “nothing”, which will allow any X thing to spring into existence and nothing else (for those who appeal to quantum physics). Out of nothing, nothing comes.

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

----------------

Now, whether or not you are a theist or atheist, neither world view is rational if it is dependent upon either of the above two being true.

Since both possibilities are negated, then it follows that something (X) had to have existed eternally, while not violating either of the above 2 possibilities. X had to have always existed, due to the necessity of its own nature. Since X must have always existed, and is not dependent upon anything external from itself for its existence, we will call this X an uncaused cause (which is a term that will be used interchangeably with X) throughout this discourse.

Justification of P3: If X is uncaused, then X exists necessarily (which logically follows).

Conclusion: The universe is contingent, as it does not exist due to the necessity of its own nature. Why is that the case? Because the universe is all physical reality (space, time, energy, matter; STEM). STEM cannot exist without violating the main two.

Since it is impossible for the main two to be violated, it follows that the universe cannot exist necessarily (in all possible worlds), and cannot be an uncaused cause.

Justification of P4: Since the universe is contingent (based on P4), the universe owes its existence to that which is necessary, which is X (an uncaused cause). The universe cannot be used as an explanation given to explain the origins of its own domain, therefore, it owes its existence to external factors, which brings us back to X (an uncaused cause).

Justification of P5: The uncaused cause is, as proven, to exist necessarily without violation of the main 2. Since all STEM is contingent, then STEM owes its existence to that which is necessary (an uncaused cause). Since the uncaused cause is the source of all STEM, the uncaused cause can not itself be the product of STEM.

The uncaused cause had the power and will to create STEM ex nihilo…and any entity with a will to commit an act, must possess that of consciousness. The power that the uncaused cause possessed, is far beyond power within physical reality. The uncaused cause must have existed outside of time, and initiated time with the moment of creation.

The uncaused cause is what we call, God.

BTW, I made some changes to the way the argument is formatted. Hopefully, it came out smooth.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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

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

To be honest, I am strongly considering omitting the omnibenvolence aspect of God in the MOA, for the very reason you mentioned.

Mainly because one can imagine an omni-evil God just as easy as an omnibenevolent one.

So, my response is simple; a necessary being is...necessary...with moral characteristics that are yet to be determined, at least as far as this argument is concerned.

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

"If one says simplicity is a maximally great making attribute.."

First of all, I am not aware of anyone who is saying that.

Second, I am not sure that it follows anyway, and your reasoning doesn't convince me that it does.

So, just another one of those non sequiturs that you are famous for

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

Non sequitur (no surprises here).

First of all, 4 is greater than 3, 5 greater than 6...sooo..

Would you rather have 0 stab wounds to the chest, or 1?

Well, 1 is greater than 0...so 1 stab to the chest, it is.

Orrrrr, would you rather have 8 women in your rotation, or 1?

Well, 8 if you are a playa.

However, 1 if you found the one woman of your dreams and no amount of women can match up to your boo .

So in that case, 1 is "greater" than 8.

So, your counter-argument fails.

That, followed by the fact that there is nothing that a million MGB's can do, that one MGB cannot do...so Occam's razor here; no need to multiply beyond what is necessary to explain the effect.

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

Oh, really?

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

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

Well, be sure to mention all of that when someone is making an argument for a perfect circle.

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

If it can be imagined, it is possible, in some possible world.

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

-Maximally Visible and Maximally Proven are perfections, maximally great attributes. (it's greater to be Maximally Visible then Partially Visible or Invisible; to be Maximally Proven then Partially Proven or Unproven;
Humans prefer Maximally Visible donuts then partially Visible or Invisible donuts. Humans prefer Maximally Proven things then Partially Proven or Unproven things). I refuse to respond to this until I have an attorney present.

My argument goes like this:

Logical deduction by reduction ad absurdum:

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


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

I refuse to respond to this until I have an attorney present.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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

Because the universe is all physical reality...

You can't have both of those premises in the same argument.

Care to explain why? Because based on your following statement...

There's nothing 'external' to the universe to be a factor.

I don't see a correlation, unless you are making two separate points.

If "there's nothing external to the universe to be a factor", then it follows that the universe is past-eternal..but I already gave reasons why the universe cannot be past-eternal, which you failed to address.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #22]

The universe is 'all there is' (from the second quote). Therefore, there is nothing 'external' to it (claimed in the first quote). Seems fairly self-explanatory.

If "there's nothing external to the universe to be a factor", then it follows that <...>

Well, you went and jumped a few steps ahead at that point. Which, by the way seems to be a repeated tendency on your part.

As others have already chimed in, I'll leave my contribution there, I think.

[alexxcJRO]

To be honest, I am strongly considering omitting the omnibenvolence aspect of God in the MOA, for the very reason you mentioned.

Mainly because one can imagine an omni-evil God just as easy as an omnibenevolent one.

So, my response is simple; a necessary being is...necessary...with moral characteristics that are yet to be determined, at least as far as this argument is concerned.

Sir the God of the Bible as concept already is imagined as having favorites(Israelites), helping some(Israelites) at the expense of others(Amalek).
I can imagine a being more greater the this anthropomorphic God of the Bible. For starters being really all loving( (=All humans are equal objects of God's unconditional love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and thus to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him).
“Equally All loving” is perfection, a maximally greater property.
Therefore God of the Bible cannot be MGB.

"If one says simplicity is a maximally great making attribute.."

First of all, I am not aware of anyone who is saying that.

Second, I am not sure that it follows anyway, and your reasoning doesn't convince me that it does.

So, just another one of those non sequiturs that you are famous for

Q: Why it’s a non-sequitur?
Asserting it is does not cut it.
Saying so does not make it so.
If one chooses simplicity as great making property it follows because one is simpler then 3.
So the Triune god of the Bible is a complication not needed. Therefore MGB is not God of the Bible.

Non sequitur (no surprises here).

First of all, 4 is greater than 3, 5 greater than 6...sooo..

Would you rather have 0 stab wounds to the chest, or 1?

Well, 1 is greater than 0...so 1 stab to the chest, it is.

Orrrrr, would you rather have 8 women in your rotation, or 1?

Well, 8 if you are a playa.

However, 1 if you found the one woman of your dreams and no amount of women can match up to your boo .

So in that case, 1 is "greater" than 8.

So, your counter-argument fails.

1. 5 greater then 6 was a typo. You did not suspected it so?
2. Some people prefer to have multiple lovers and wives.
For some polygamy is better.
So complexity might be the greater making attribute. Which leads to Christianity being false.
This outlines another defect of this argument.
The subjective mechanism of choice of what makes an MGB, what is a perfection.
Once you say: MGB you are in trouble because “great” involves a qualitive description.

That, followed by the fact that there is nothing that a million MGB's can do, that one MGB cannot do...so Occam's razor here; no need to multiply beyond what is necessary to explain the effect.

Positing a God outside the universe is a complication conform your logic not needed. Its much simpler to say( Occam's razor) the universe just is.
The universe(everything in totality that exists) thing can serve as its own explanation(Eternalism) in a B theory of time where there is no such thing as temporal becoming and temporal lapse of time.
Every moment of time, all there is just exists at once: tenselessly.
The absurdities discussed by al-Ghazali do not arise. No infinite regress time problem.
The passage of time is a subjective illusion of human consciousness. Temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality.

Well, be sure to mention all of that when someone is making an argument for a perfect circle.
If it can be imagined, it is possible, in some possible world.

It was an analogy sir.
We can have imaginary concepts, abstract notions of perfections and they could not exist in reality(universe) although they exist in the imaginary world of our minds. As the examples provided.
They(these perfection) could exist maybe in a another possible world.
You cannot just assert its possible to exist without knowing it is so just because one has imagined a concept.
Assertions do not make truth. One has to show this.
Also one would need maybe to be omniscient and maybe even MGB in order to know if MGB imagined is possible to exist in the first place in reality.

I refuse to respond to this until I have an attorney present.

Let’s not ignore it though:

I can too define God as MGB into non-existence using my own assertion:

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

My argument goes like this:

Logical deduction by reduction ad absurdum:

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

[TRANSPONDER]

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

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

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

Same answer as above.

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

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

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

^Parentheses sentence of epic proportions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over to you, old greybeard.

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

Firstly I agree with what you said previously about Christianity. The ontological arguments only are intended to establish that a painting was painted, not which painter it was.

For the rest, it is dimply misdirection and misunderstanding or failure to understand. I am sure that you are smart enough to understand and simply don't want to. Secondly many universes coming to be existing and becoming reabsorbed in the cosmos in NOT a theory of infinite regression and I'm sure you can see that as much as anyone else.

And 'Firstly' I do not credit infinite regression because it is counter -intuitive if not actually illogical, and only observe that out Intuition has been wrong before. It is not a hypothesis I discussed apart from that.

For the rest, I repeat that I do not believe that you can't understand the relatively simple points after the brain cracking formulaic philosophical theorems set out in the thread, so it can only be that you want to ignore them. That loses you point, Methuselah, not wins them.

[TRANSPONDER]

A p.s - given that the argument from necessity are flawed because there are alternatives, including the uncreated and the creator being hypothetically explainable in natural physics, so the philosophical premise fails, even aside from the talk about the nature of Biblegod which I agree is irrelevant here.

But since you claim to not understand what I was posting, and aside from irrelevant and rather cheap snipes at my extended parenthetical passages, I might clarify that a number of my explanations just countered possible counter- moves (for example the Biblegod red -herring) I could (if you really did fail to understand, which I doubt) point up the salient ideas that refute this Ontological argument. 'Thinking does not make it so' by the way is also a red herring. These are all hypotheticals as nobody really knows, but is Thinking to see which hypothesis makes the most (logical/intutive) sense.

Basically, that there are reasons to postulate that a cosmos (not just a universe) Can come from nothing, and that even if one doubted that, one should logically doubt the proposition of a more complex entity like a cosmic creative intelligence without origin or an origin from nothing.

It's pretty simple, really. As I'm sure you are aware.

[Bust Nak]

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

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

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

A complete absence of anything, philosophical nothingness (as opposed to an empty void), pure non-existence.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #22]

The universe is 'all there is' (from the second quote). Therefore, there is nothing 'external' to it (claimed in the first quote). Seems fairly self-explanatory.

?

Well, you went and jumped a few steps ahead at that point. Which, by the way seems to be a repeated tendency on your part.

I need specifics, not generalizations.

As others have already chimed in, I'll leave my contribution there, I think.

Yeah, you do that

[We_Are_VENOM]

A complete absence of anything, philosophical nothingness (as opposed to an empty void), pure non-existence.

Exactly, and there is no potentiality of ANYTHING coming in to existence under those circumstances...thus

1. Something had to have always existed

2. Which makes existences (generally speaking) necessary

[Bust Nak]

A complete absence of anything, philosophical nothingness (as opposed to an empty void), pure non-existence.

Exactly, and there is no potentiality of ANYTHING coming in to existence under those circumstances...thus

1. Something had to have always existed

2. Which makes existences (generally speaking) necessary

That's the same non sequitur as before. Fill in the gaps for me.

1) If nothingness then no potentiality of something.
...
n) therefore something (X) had to have existed eternally.
n+1) X exists in all possible worlds.