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 #71

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:19 am Ah huh, when the qualifier is there, I say yes; and when it is not there, I say no. It's not complicated.
When it is not there, it is implied.

Either way, with some good ole reading comprehension skills, you should wind up at the same place.

You see, without those skills, I can see how things would indeed be complicated. :-D
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:19 am There is no strawman because I have the record to prove that you did in fact, ask me how I could disagree with "if X exists, then X existence is a necessary truth."

Busted. It's okay to admit mistakes you know. I even took the opportunity to ask if you meant "if X exists necessarily..." instead of a simple, "yes, that's what I meant," you choose to double down without acknowledging that the all important qualify was missing until I hammer the point home. Now you want people to believe that's what you meant all along?
Well first of all, three things..

1. When I said "if X exists, then X existence is a necessary truth", I said that AFTER I already laid the groundwork for X, which was identified as God/MGB/Necessary being.

So after the groundwork was laid, you should have already known what was meant in the context that it was stated in.

So perhaps the statement was made because I assumed that you followed along closely and enough to know what was going on there, but apparently not.

2. Again, either the qualifier was said or implied, which I cannot stress enough.

3. To piggyback off #1, I already provided at least two occasions where the qualifier was used (which is even separate from the original groundwork that was laid)...so therefore, that should have been even more of a reason as to why you should have known.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:19 am More to the point, asking questions about "if X exists necessarily..." doesn't go anywhere until you have an argument for why X exists necessarily in the first place. That's what you were asked to prove.
Well, I already did all that good stuff.

If you have any questions/concerns/gripes/beefs/refutations, by all means, have at it.

Until then...

Hold this L.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:19 am I have your post history that shows otherwise, you did nothing other than unsupported assertion and questions, all of which had been answered. You still have no argument from the premise "not owe existence to outside" to your conclusion "exist necessarily."
"you did nothing other than unsupported assertions and questions, all of which had been answered".

My response: I have my post history that shows otherwise.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:19 am That's no good, you were supposed to prove it, not just say it.
I say I did, you say I didn't.

It is just one of those things, ya know.

:-D
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:19 am You should already know how - it can exist contingently by not existing in a possible world.
Makes no sense. The fact that it exists would mean that, by default, it is existing in a possible world, namely, a possible world at which its existence is possible in the first place.

Cmon now.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:19 am While we are here, you were supposed to be the one proving it, it's not up to me to disprove it. I already did more than can be expected by presenting counter-examples re: brute facts. Stop shifting the burden.
Well first all, you are also making assertions...and I am simply asking you to elaborate/clarify/inform me as to what you are talking about...because it makes no sense whatsoever.

And when you clarify, I am able to determine whether you are making more sense, or less sense. :D
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:19 am Good enough for my purpose, the ones that are contingent according to the context, serves as counter-examples to your thesis.
Well, anything related to contingency is in violation of the main 2 in some fashion...so you might want to consider something else.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:19 am How about going beyond that and prove it for once? Or are you just gonna pull the old "let me have the last word" move?
Well, I've yet to see you offer any sound/valid refutation of ANYTHING related to the actual argument.

So, as far as I'm concerned, the argument remains proven and all I need to do is sit back and chill.

:lol:

Sure, you can have the last word if thats all you got. Tell ya what, here is what you can do..

Sit back and watch me continue to give Alex more BUCKETS.

Meanwhile, hold this L while you watch.
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 #72

Post by Bust Nak »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 11:33 pm When it is not there, it is implied.
When it is not there, it is not there.
Well first of all, three things..

1. When I said "if X exists, then X existence is a necessary truth", I said that AFTER I already laid the groundwork for X, which was identified as God/MGB/Necessary being.

So after the groundwork was laid, you should have already known what was meant in the context that it was stated in.
That's why I checked with you to see it that was what you really meant, but a simple "yes" was just too much to ask for.
So perhaps the statement was made because I assumed that you followed along closely and enough to know what was going on there, but apparently not.
Wrong again. Let the record show that I correctly presumed that you meant to ask me if I would agree with "if X exists necessarily, then X existence is a necessary truth," then giving you an answer stating that I would agree, based on that presumption.
2. Again, either the qualifier was said or implied, which I cannot stress enough.
Stressing it is not gonna change the fact that you failed to acknowledging that the qualifier was missing when I asked you if you meant "necessarily." Then carried on for a number of posts before you affirmed that it was implied.
3. To piggyback off #1, I already provided at least two occasions where the qualifier was used (which is even separate from the original groundwork that was laid)...so therefore, that should have been even more of a reason as to why you should have known.
Again, that's why I asked you if you really meant "X exists necessarily."
Well, I already did all that good stuff.

If you have any questions/concerns/gripes/beefs/refutations, by all means, have at it.
I did, I gave you a counter-example to your claim, your move.
"you did nothing other than unsupported assertions and questions, all of which had been answered".

My response: I have my post history that shows otherwise.
Then show me. Repeat it for my convenience, as I have done for you countless times: what is your argument form the premise "X does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself" to the conclusion "X exists necessarily?"
I say I did, you say I didn't.
That's why I appealed to your post history. This isn't just a matter of opinion. You just repeatedly "informed" me that "not owe existence to outside implies necessary existence" and asked how it could be otherwise.
Makes no sense. The fact that it exists would mean that, by default, it is existing in a possible world, namely, a possible world at which its existence is possible in the first place.
Okay, so what? What does existing in one possible world have to do with the fact that it doesn't exist in another possible world?
Well first all, you are also making assertions...and I am simply asking you to elaborate/clarify/inform me as to what you are talking about...because it makes no sense whatsoever.

And when you clarify, I am able to determine whether you are making more sense, or less sense. :D
So those weren't even meant as rhetorical questions to support your point? Then you put in even less effort than I gave you credit for. You've literally did nothing other than to assert "not owe existence to outside therefore exists necessarily."
Well, anything related to contingency is in violation of the main 2 in some fashion...so you might want to consider something else.
Or maybe you could abandon your thesis that "not owe existence to outside therefore exists necessarily" in the face of counter-examples?
Well, I've yet to see you offer any sound/valid refutation of ANYTHING related to the actual argument.
Counter-examples say "hi."
Sure, you can have the last word if thats all you got. Tell ya what, here is what you can do..

Sit back and watch me continue to give Alex more BUCKETS.
I'd rather you carry on.

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 #73

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 5:41 am That's why I checked with you to see it that was what you really meant, but a simple "yes" was just too much to ask for.
Why wouldn't I really mean it when the entire OP is predicated on the answer being "yes"?

Makes no sense.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 5:41 am Wrong again. Let the record show that I correctly presumed that you meant to ask me if I would agree with "if X exists necessarily, then X existence is a necessary truth," then giving you an answer stating that I would agree, based on that presumption.
Um, you really didn't need to presume, because in the posts that I provided to YOU (#42, and also in #45, that you provided), the qualifier was there.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 5:41 am Stressing it is not gonna change the fact that you failed to acknowledging that the qualifier was missing when I asked you if you meant "necessarily." Then carried on for a number of posts before you affirmed that it was implied.
That is nonsense. X had already been defined as having a necessary existence...so this definition (necessary existence) was to carry over throughout the rest of the entire discourse and did not need to be mentioned every...single...time X is mentioned.

Again, I assumed that this would be known, but apparently not....and the fact that the qualifier was there many other times, should have not allowed you to even ask the question...in light of..

1. The actual OP

2. The many other times it was mentioned

But then again, that is what you do; you have a tendency to make big deals about nothing, red herrings galore.

Which is, in my opinion, disingenuous and leads us astray from the BUCKETS.

:lol:
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 5:41 am Then show me. Repeat it for my convenience, as I have done for you countless times: what is your argument form the premise "X does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself" to the conclusion "X exists necessarily?"
You've asked that a couple of times, and I answered it. No, I do not have the patience to go back in time (through the pages) to seek out when/where it was answered.

You have a knack for that sort of thing, I don't.

I do know that I answered it already, so kindly go back and see what you can dig up.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 5:41 am That's why I appealed to your post history. This isn't just a matter of opinion. You just repeatedly "informed" me that "not owe existence to outside implies necessary existence" and asked how it could be otherwise.
Yeah, if X doesn't owe its existence to anything outside of itself, this implies necessary existence.

Yup, that sounds like me. Thats what I said. Do you have anything to say against this notion?
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 5:41 am Okay, so what? What does existing in one possible world have to do with the fact that it doesn't exist in another possible world?
If it didn't exist in another possible world, then its existence wouldn't be necessarily true..because necessary truths are true in all possible worlds.

Now sure, if the argument was for contingency, then yeah. But that isn't what we are talking about here when we talk about X, is it?
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 5:41 am So those weren't even meant as rhetorical questions to support your point? Then you put in even less effort than I gave you credit for. You've literally did nothing other than to assert "not owe existence to outside therefore exists necessarily."
Umm, what? The argument is that something (X) had to have always existed, as mere existence is necessary.

And whatever X is, it does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself.

In other words, X's existence is not dependent upon anything external to it in order to exist.

I don't know how it can get any more clearer than that.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 5:41 am Or maybe you could abandon your thesis that "not owe existence to outside therefore exists necessarily" in the face of counter-examples?
Well, when you give me sound/valid reasons why I should abandon ANYTHING as it relates to the argument, then I shall.

Until then...

Hold this L.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 5:41 am Counter-examples say "hi."
?
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 5:41 am I'd rather you carry on.
You bring this on yourself, amigo.

"This hurts me more than it is hurting you".

:lol:
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 #74

Post by Bust Nak »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 8:57 am Why wouldn't I really mean it when the entire OP is predicated on the answer being "yes"?
Who knows what is going on inside your mind. Suffice to say that the qualifier is objectively, factually missing from the statement "if X exists, then X existence is a necessary truth."
Um, you really didn't need to presume, because in the posts that I provided to YOU (#42, and also in #45, that you provided), the qualifier was there.
Again, it's missing from the question you asked me.
That is nonsense. X had already been defined as having a necessary existence...
It hasn't though. "If X exists necessarily..." is very different from "X exists necessarily."
But then again, that is what you do; you have a tendency to make big deals about nothing, red herrings galore.
You asked me a question I gave you a straight forward answer. That's what I do, don't blame me when you don't actually type what you had in mind.
I do know that I answered it already, so kindly go back and see what you can dig up.
I did, that's why I can say authoritatively that you have no argument from your premise to your conclusion.
Yeah, if X doesn't owe its existence to anything outside of itself, this implies necessary existence.
Prove it.
Yup, that sounds like me. Thats what I said. Do you have anything to say against this notion?
Yes, two things, 1) you have not even tried to prove it; 2) I gave you a counter-example for that notion.
If it didn't exist in another possible world, then its existence wouldn't be necessarily true..because necessary truths are true in all possible worlds.
That's that point, you asked me how X wouldn't be necessarily true (or rather you asked me how it could be contingent.) By not existing in another possible world is exactly how. So I still don't see what your point is, sounds like you are agreeing with me here.
But that isn't what we are talking about here when we talk about X, is it?
It is actually. You asked me how X could be contingent.
Umm, what? The argument is that something (X) had to have always existed, as mere existence is necessary.
That's just your conclusion. You were tasked with proving "if X doesn't owe its existence to anything outside of itself, this implies necessary existence."
Well, when you give me sound/valid reasons why I should abandon ANYTHING as it relates to the argument, then I shall.
I did, I gave you a counter-example.

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 #75

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:57 pm Makes no sense whatsoever.

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

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

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

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

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

Well again, If I wipe out your bank account, then you can't get mad or press charges, because after all; nothing happened, correct?
All moments of time are equally real as in all moments of time exist. Are actual.
Everything is. Nothing happens.
Temporal becoming is not feature of reality.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:57 pm Sorry, but that is just nonsense. The "now" of 1870 is distinct from the "now" of 2022, namely, Venom's existence is true in one now, and not true in the other now.

Which is exactly why it is irrational to maintain that everything is equal when they are clearly not.

Your add nauseum “make sense no sense”, your personal incredulity really starts to bore me greatly.
All moments of time are equally real as in all moments of time exist. Are actual.
All moments of time that encompass Venom existence are located in different part of the 4 block space-time then moments of time that do not encompass Venom existence.
Perfect sense.
Like Craig said: “On this view: Things don’t come into being or go out of being rather they just are all real”.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:57 pm Well yeah, again...let me wipe out your bank account, and we will both say "nothing caused it to happen".

I am fine with that, are you?

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

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

So, kindly give me all of the money in your account so that we be align with B theory of time, if you feel that confidently on its truth value.
No matter how many times your repeat the same irrelevant nonsense, it will not damage B theory in any way shape or form.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:57 pm More like you have to come up with a completely wacky theory of time just to negate the implications of a First Cause.

Anything but the "G" word, eh.
My response was in respect to Kalam and it’s first premise: “Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence”.
Craig himself says he assumes A theory for Kalam.
Craig says himself: “Things don’t come into existence. They have causes that produce them in existence and that presupposes this A theory. On a B theory of time nothing really ever comes into existence. The universe begins to exists on the B theory only in the sense that a yardstick begins to exist at the first inch, it just has an edge, but the yardstick does not come into existence at the first inch.”
Its not my theory sir. B theory has been present for a long time in philosophy circles.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:57 pm
I already responded to your claims of illusory and you've offered nothing in response to it...all you seem to want to do is to continue maintaining these assertions while failing to deal with the real life implications of what you are asserting.

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

I am curious to see you concede those points...just so I can see how far you are willing to ride with B theory.
Again, on B theory, if I wipe out your bank account...

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

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

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

(I already mentioned this, but it was worth repeating lol).

On B theory all the moments of you wiping my bank account are equally real. All moments of time that encompass Venom wiping my bank account are all equally real. They all exist.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:57 pm Well, self accountability goes out of the window. Gotcha.

Yep.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:57 pm Makes no sense. I asked for clarification below, so lets see..
You personal incredulity does not make my point to go away.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:57 pm I can know for sure, without being omniscient.
No you can’t.
Asserting something does not mean knowing something because it may be that a perfect gas(which is not logically impossible) cannot exist in any possible world among all possible worlds.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:57 pm And whether or not existence is to be taken as a predicate is irrelevant to whether or not X exists.
But it is relevant because your X has existence as predicate among other predicates.
Existence cannot be a predicate because it leads to contradictions.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:57 pm Well first of all, again, I simply disagree with you being able to imagine a state of nothingness.

It ain't happening.

Another assertion.
Claiming something does not make it so.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:57 pm Because logical impossibilities cannot be imagined (squared circles, married bachelors).
1. But maybe some mind can imagine it. Therefore logically possible.
Q: How do you know no mind cannot imagine it?
Or vice versa that its logically possible and therefore it can be imagined.
Asserting just that I or no mind cannot imagine it therefore it is illogical or it is illogical therefore it cannot be imagined seems rather silly.
I can make all day all kinds of assertions that lead me to preferred conclusions.
Q: But that is not very honest is it? :chuckel:

2. Q: How does it follow from that, that everything one imagines(=logically possible) is possible to exist in a possible world among all possible worlds?
Non-sequitur all day.
It may be that a perfect gas(which is not logically impossible) cannot exist in any possible world among all possible worlds.



We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:57 pm The concept of God isn't irrational...the concept is logical, and since we can only conceive of logical concepts, one should be able to conceive of God.
Assuming the concept is logical.
But many argue that omni-God is a logical impossibility. That concept of omni-God is irrational. Therefore it cannot really be imagined.

If I say as you: The concept of philosophical nothingness isn't irrational...the concept is logical, and since we can only conceive of logical concepts, one should be able to conceive of philosophical nothingness.
Q: How do you like the mirror again? :chuckel:
Last edited by alexxcJRO on Fri Mar 11, 2022 12:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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 #76

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 9:31 am Who knows what is going on inside your mind. Suffice to say that the qualifier is objectively, factually missing from the statement "if X exists, then X existence is a necessary truth."
Yeah and you would have a point, IF it weren't for the fact that X had already been defined as existing necessarily.

You ask the question as if you are some new guy on the scene, when you know full well what is going on, and what HAS been going on.

So this is ultimately a red herring, and also disingenuous.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 9:31 am Again, it's missing from the question you asked me.
Nope..it is right there...and it is also in the OP.

And what is remarkable is the fact that post #45 was a post that YOU referred me to, and guess what, it is in that post, too.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 9:31 am It hasn't though. "If X exists necessarily..." is very different from "X exists necessarily."
So, how about this..

"Since X exist necessarily, then X necessarily exists"

And for justification of this, I refer you back to the OP, which is a place where I am still waiting for a sound/valid refutation of..and I haven't gotten it yet.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 9:31 am You asked me a question I gave you a straight forward answer. That's what I do, don't blame me when you don't actually type what you had in mind.
?
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 9:31 am I did, that's why I can say authoritatively that you have no argument from your premise to your conclusion.
I'm sorry you feel that way. So in return, you can feel sorry that I feel the opposite way. :-D
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 9:31 am Prove it.
Didn't you agree with me there? No cat/mouse games. You aren't taking me down the rabbit hole again.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 9:31 am Yes, two things, 1) you have not even tried to prove it; 2) I gave you a counter-example for that notion.
Well, we just will have to agree/disagree. Not falling for it.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 9:31 am That's that point, you asked me how X wouldn't be necessarily true (or rather you asked me how it could be contingent.) By not existing in another possible world is exactly how. So I still don't see what your point is, sounds like you are agreeing with me here.
I'm lost here. Oh well. One thing I know for certain, the argument STANDS.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 9:31 am But that isn't what we are talking about here when we talk about X, is it?
It is actually. You asked me how X could be contingent.

That's just your conclusion. You were tasked with proving "if X doesn't owe its existence to anything outside of itself, this implies necessary existence."

I did, I gave you a counter-example.
Not falling for the rabbit hole games. If there is anything new you'd like to add, by all means. Until then, you can have the last word. :wave:

Oh, and by the way...be careful what you've (been) asking for. :D
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #77

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:12 am
All moments of time are equally real as in all moments of time exist. Are actual.
Everything is. Nothing happens.
Temporal becoming is not feature of reality.
Simply repeating your assertions without DIRECTLY addressing what I said about the bank account thing only lets me know that I am on the right path with it.

And by not addressing it, you are granting it.

So, moving along..
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:12 am Your add nauseum “make sense no sense”, your personal incredulity really starts to bore me greatly.
All moments of time are equally real as in all moments of time exist. Are actual.
All moments of time that encompass Venom existence are located in different part of the 4 block space-time then moments of time that do not encompass Venom existence.
Perfect sense.
I asked you to explain what does "all moments of time are equally real" in this context means, in light of Venom not existing in 1870, but existing in 2022.

Until you do that, then I said all I need to say about the matter.

And to be honest, I don't even think you know what it means.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:12 am Like Craig said: “On this view: Things don’t come into being or go out of being rather they just are all real”.
First off...

1. Dr. Craig is my apologetic hero, however, I will have to disagree with him on this, and I will ask him the same questions I am asking you.

2. Despite Dr. Craig saying that, guess what (and I repeat); Dr. Craig is not a supporter of the B theory of time...he advocates A theory.

So, him accurately describing B theory of time is a completely different story from him finding the theory viable, which he absolutely positively DOESN'T.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:12 am No matter how many times your repeat the same irrelevant nonsense, it will not damage B theory in any way shape or form.
You can dismiss it all you want, but it isn't going anywhere.

"When you pray for rain (B theory), you gotta deal with the mud (bank account analogy), too.".
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:12 am My response was in respect to Kalam and it’s first premise: “Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence”.
Craig himself says he assumes A theory for Kalam.
Craig says himself: “Things don’t come into existence. They have causes that produce them in existence and that presupposes this A theory. On a B theory of time nothing really ever comes into existence. The universe begins to exists on the B theory only in the sense that a yardstick begins to exist at the first inch, it just has an edge, but the yardstick does not come into existence at the first inch.”
Its not my theory sir. B theory has been present for a long time in philosophy circles.
Well again, you are giving excerpts of Craig explaining the B theory (which I disagree with), but you aren't giving excerpts of him expressing his advocation for B theory, are you?

No, you aren't.

Why not? Because Craig does not support B theory, and has written against the theory in support of his advocation of A theory....and he only "assumes" A theory precisely because of his arguments against B theory.

So appealing to Dr. Craig will not help you here, sir.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:12 am On B theory all the moments of you wiping my bank account are equally real. All moments of time that encompass Venom wiping my bank account are all equally real. They all exist.
You are still contradicting yourself.

You are saying that "it didn't happen, it is an illusion", while at the same time saying "the event (of wiping your bank account) is real".

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Can't be both.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:12 am
Yep.
Then no one should be in jail then, should they?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:12 am You personal incredulity does not make my point to go away.
It doesn't make your point valid, either. :lol:
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:12 am No you can’t.
Asserting something does not mean knowing something because it may be that a perfect gas(which is not logically impossible) cannot exist in any possible world among all possible worlds.
Then I wouldn't be able to imagine it. Can you imagine a squared circle? Yes or no? Please just answer yes/no, as I am making a bigger point that I don't need to be distracted from making.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:12 am But it is relevant because your X has existence as predicate among other predicates.
Such as?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:12 am Existence cannot be a predicate because it leads to contradictions.
Does my existence (predicate and all) lead to contradictions?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:12 am Another assertion.
Claiming something does not make it so.
Then you merely asserting that you can imagine it also doesn't make it so, does it?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:12 am 1. But maybe some mind can imagine it. Therefore logically possible.
Q: How do you know no mind cannot imagine it? Or vice versa that its logically possible and therefore it can be imagined.
Asserting just that I or no mind cannot imagine it therefore it is illogical or it is illogical therefore it cannot be imagined seems rather silly.
I can make all day all kinds of assertions that lead me to preferred conclusions.
Q: But that is not very honest is it? :chuckel:
To say that something is logically impossible would mean that not even GOD can accomplish it...and if God cannot accomplish it, nothing can.

Now, lets take for example a squared circle. The concept is logically incoherent. It cannot be imagined. God cannot even imagine it.

However, if God can imagine it, then God would be able to create it. But he cannot create it, if he cannot even imagine it. But it cannot be created, because it cannot even be imagined.

See how that works? :D
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:12 am 2. Q: How is it follow form that, that everything one imagines(=logically possible) is possible to exist in a possible world among all possible worlds?
Non-sequitur all day.
Your mind cannot conceive of that which is impossible, and that which can be conceived is possible.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:12 am Assuming the concept is logical.
But many argue that omni-God is a logical impossibility. That concept of omni-God is irrational. Therefore it cannot really be imagined.
Question; are you saying that it is logically impossible for God (omni-God) to exist? Yes/no?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:12 am If I say as you: The concept of philosophical nothingness isn't irrational...the concept is logical, and since we can only conceive of logical concepts, one should be able to conceive of philosophical nothingness.
Q: How do you like the mirror again? :chuckel:
But the problem is; your concept of philosophical nothingness fails in light of other things, namely, the existence of contingent objects...which goes BACK to the argument. You see, in order for philosophical nothingness to be true, other things would have to be true, as you are about to see..

The argument can be rephrased like this..

1. Philosophical nothingness would be possible, if and only if nothing existed.

2. Some "things" exist.

3. Therefore, philosophical nothingness is impossible.

In order for philosophical nothingness to be possible, only ONE condition needs to be met, and that condition is that NOTHING exists (that actually is all the sense that can be made there :lol:)

But the fact that things do exist, would therefore make nothingness impossible...which goes back to the conclusion of the argument, which is that existence is necessary, and something had to have always been there.
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 #78

Post by Bust Nak »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 7:02 pm Yeah and you would have a point, IF it weren't for the fact that X had already been defined as existing necessarily.
That's not a fact. X has not been defined as existing necessarily anywhere in this thread. I went back to check all 70 odd posts. "If X exists necessarily..." does not define X as existing necessarily.
You ask the question as if you are some new guy on the scene, when you know full well what is going on, and what HAS been going on.
No, I have no idea what is going on in your mind, for all I know you really thought "if X exists then X existence is a necessary truth."

I asked the question to find out what you meant, I do know enough to make an educated guess though. You did not to clarify your position after I explicitly asked you if that what was you meant, you don't then get to pretend that it was there all along when I have in fact double checked with a number of posts prior to that.
Nope..it is right there...and it is also in the OP.
incorrect. I have the record to prove otherwise. You asked me how I could not agree with "if X exists, then X existence is a necessary truth," given that "if X exists necessarily, then there is no possible world at which X does not exist." Notice the difference between the two "if..." clause.
So this is ultimately a red herring, and also disingenuous.
Time to face the music, you messed up.
So, how about this..

"Since X exist necessarily, then X necessarily exists"

And for justification of this, I refer you back to the OP, which is a place where I am still waiting for a sound/valid refutation of..and I haven't gotten it yet.
How about no, that's a circular argument, you cannot use the conclusion of your argument, to retroactively define something used in the premise.
I'm sorry you feel that way. So in return, you can feel sorry that I feel the opposite way. :-D
Yet again, this is why I keep appealing to your post history, this isn't a matter of feelings or opinion. None of your posts contained an argument for why not owing existence to outside implies necessary existence, if we go along with your claim that your questions where not meant as rhetorical questions to support your position.
Didn't you agree with me there?
No, where on Earth are you getting that impression from? And you have to nerve to question my reading comprehension.

I agreed with "if X exists necessarily, then there is no possible world at which X does not exist." I agreed with ""if X exists necessarily, then X existence is a necessary truth."

I do not agree with "if X doesn't owe its existence to anything outside of itself, this implies necessary existence." That's what I had been asking you to prove all along.
Well, we just will have to agree/disagree. Not falling for it.
Not falling for it because you have to be tricked into supported your assertions?
Not falling for the rabbit hole games. If there is anything new you'd like to add, by all means. Until then, you can have the last word. :wave:
Main points:

1) You have failed to even attempt at proving that "X doesn't owe its existence to outside therefore necessary existence."
2) You cannot do it even if you try because it's proven false by a counter-example.

Minor points:

1) You have presented an invalid argument, expecting your audience to figure out what hidden premises you are using. When missing premise is pointed out to you, you brushed it off as incompetence on my part for needing to be hand held.
2) You failed to note the difference between "if X exists..." and "if X exists necessarily..." When this distinction is pointed out to you, you again brushed it off as incompetence on my part for not treating it as if they are the same.
Oh, and by the way...be careful what you've (been) asking for. :D
Advice noted, seems to have worked out just fine for me.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: The Argument from Existence

Post #79

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:23 am That's not a fact. X has not been defined as existing necessarily anywhere in this thread. I went back to check all 70 odd posts. "If X exists necessarily..." does not define X as existing necessarily.
Well, if you went back to check all 70 odd posts, you wouldn't have gotten past the OP before you realized that a case was being made for X (God/MGB) of whose existence is necessary.

And about a day or so after the thread was created, I even added "necessary" to the subject (The Argument from Necessary Existence", just to drive the point home even further as to what I was arguing for.

So, there are no excuses for you here.

And all of these red herrings and you've still not managed to add one refutation to the actual argument.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:23 am No, I have no idea what is going on in your mind
You have no idea? Ok, I will share with you what is/was going on in my mind..

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=39074&sid=f9686062c ... 0b6b3ab986

The OP^.

That is "what is going on in my mind".

Is it clear enough for you now?
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:23 am , for all I know you really thought "if X exists then X existence is a necessary truth."
Ok, I see it wasn't clear enough for you..so I will repeat...

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=39074

So, the OP is what I really thought..

Are we good now?
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:23 am I asked the question to find out what you meant, I do know enough to make an educated guess though. You did not to clarify your position after I explicitly asked you if that what was you meant, you don't then get to pretend that it was there all along when I have in fact double checked with a number of posts prior to that.
Ohhh, still not clear enough.

Ok, so perhaps maybe this will help..I will refer you to post #32..in my second quote of your post...I said..

"So, the story must "begin" with something that was always here (X), and this X thing doesn't owe its existence to anything outside itself...which makes its existence necessary."

There is no "if" hypothetical there, is it?

No, it isn't.

And any "if X exists" statements that were made after that, are hypotheticals made AFTER it was established what was meant by X.

Now, if you can't understand that, then me and you don't see reality the same....and that difference is irreconcilable.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:23 am incorrect. I have the record to prove otherwise. You asked me how I could not agree with "if X exists, then X existence is a necessary truth," given that "if X exists necessarily, then there is no possible world at which X does not exist." Notice the difference between the two "if..." clause.
Nonsense. You were stuck on the whole idea behind when I said "X does not owe its existence to anything outside of itself".

You were stuck like glue on that sentiment and it didn't appear as if you granted it...so then I gave the hypothetical of, "if X (a necessary being) exists, then how WOULD it owe its existence to anything outside of itself"?

I had already established what was meant by X prior to that, and you should have know this...but apparently not.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:23 am Time to face the music, you messed up.
I will face the music once you refute the argument.

And I do not hear any music.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:23 am How about no, that's a circular argument, you cannot use the conclusion of your argument, to retroactively define something used in the premise.
How about yes, it is a conclusion based off sound/valid premises.

If there are any defeaters of the premises, then I haven't seen them yet.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:23 am Yet again, this is why I keep appealing to your post history, this isn't a matter of feelings or opinion. None of your posts contained an argument for why not owing existence to outside implies necessary existence, if we go along with your claim that your questions where not meant as rhetorical questions to support your position.
See, just as I mentioned before...you are still hung up on the whole "owing/existence/outside/itself" thing, and I already addressed it.

If you got something to say against what I said, then have at it...but my answer isn't changing until I get some new juice.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:23 am No, where on Earth are you getting that impression from? And you have to nerve to question my reading comprehension.
Yeah, I question your reading comprehension for good reason. As for me, I just have a faulty memory, apparently.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:23 am I agreed with "if X exists necessarily, then there is no possible world at which X does not exist." I agreed with ""if X exists necessarily, then X existence is a necessary truth."

I do not agree with "if X doesn't owe its existence to anything outside of itself, this implies necessary existence." That's what I had been asking you to prove all along.
I already addressed this.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:23 am Not falling for it because you have to be tricked into supported your assertions?
That is more further from the truth than 2+3=384.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:23 am Main points:

1) You have failed to even attempt at proving that "X doesn't owe its existence to outside therefore necessary existence."
2) You cannot do it even if you try because it's proven false by a counter-example.
Well, if that is the way you feel, then me and you have different views of reality.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:23 am Minor points:

1) You have presented an invalid argument, expecting your audience to figure out what hidden premises you are using. When missing premise is pointed out to you, you brushed it off as incompetence on my part for needing to be hand held.
2) You failed to note the difference between "if X exists..." and "if X exists necessarily..." When this distinction is pointed out to you, you again brushed it off as incompetence on my part for not treating it as if they are the same.
Cool. Your opinion is noted.

Here is mines; you have failed to adequately refute the argument and as far as I'm concerned, the argument STANDS.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:23 am Advice noted, seems to have worked out just fine for me.
Yeah, again....different views of reality. :D
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 #80

Post by alexxcJRO »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:24 pm Simply repeating your assertions without DIRECTLY addressing what I said about the bank account thing only lets me know that I am on the right path with it.

And by not addressing it, you are granting it.

So, moving along..
I keep repeating because you keep repeating the same nonsense.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:24 pm I asked you to explain what does "all moments of time are equally real" in this context means, in light of Venom not existing in 1870, but existing in 2022.

Until you do that, then I said all I need to say about the matter.

And to be honest, I don't even think you know what it means.

I already explained.
Its not my fault you don’t comprehend simple things. :chuckel:
All moments of time that encompass Venom existence are located in different part of the 4 block space-time then moments of time that do not encompass Venom existence.
All moments of time that encompass Venom existence are as real as moments of time that do not encompass Venom existence. They all exist.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:24 pm
First off...

1. Dr. Craig is my apologetic hero, however, I will have to disagree with him on this, and I will ask him the same questions I am asking you.

2. Despite Dr. Craig saying that, guess what (and I repeat); Dr. Craig is not a supporter of the B theory of time...he advocates A theory.

So, him accurately describing B theory of time is a completely different story from him finding the theory viable, which he absolutely positively DOESN'T.
He never said B theory is not possible. Only you sir.
Off course he choose A theory. It's needed for Kalam.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:24 pm Well again, you are giving excerpts of Craig explaining the B theory (which I disagree with), but you aren't giving excerpts of him expressing his advocation for B theory, are you?

No, you aren't.

Why not? Because Craig does not support B theory, and has written against the theory in support of his advocation of A theory....and he only "assumes" A theory precisely because of his arguments against B theory.

So appealing to Dr. Craig will not help you here, sir.
Your Apologetic hero does not say B theory is not possible. Like you.
You don’t even comprehend it sir. I suggest staying to kids books. They have pictures.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:24 pm
You are still contradicting yourself.

You are saying that "it didn't happen, it is an illusion", while at the same time saying "the event (of wiping your bank account) is real".

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Can't be both.

I didn’t said it did not happened.
I said the illusion is the passage of time, temporal becoming.


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:24 pm
Then no one should be in jail then, should they?
But if we don’t have free will we cannot but judge. It was predetermined so that we have the illusion of free will and judge.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:24 pm
Then I wouldn't be able to imagine it. Can you imagine a squared circle? Yes or no? Please just answer yes/no, as I am making a bigger point that I don't need to be distracted from making.
It irrelevant sir.
It does not follow that because you can imagine therefore it’s possible to exist in some possible world among all possible worlds.

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:24 pm Does my existence (predicate and all) lead to contradictions?
We are talking of concepts sir having existence and non-existence as predicates.
You are an example of the concept human that has been actualized with the following predicates:
eye color: your eye color, name: your name, height: your height, and so on.
It conceivable that if the circumstances were different the concept human that has been actualized with the following predicates: eye color: your eye color, name: your name, height: your height, and so on; to not have been actualized.
Your non-existence was possible to have happened.
You were non-existent at some point in time.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:24 pm Then you merely asserting that you can imagine it also doesn't make it so, does it?
So it does not follow that I or any mind cannot imagine it because you said so.
Glad we accept the logical conclusion. 8-)

Also I did not just asserted. I told you what I imagined. I explained what I imagined.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:24 pm To say that something is logically impossible would mean that not even GOD can accomplish it...and if God cannot accomplish it, nothing can.

Now, lets take for example a squared circle. The concept is logically incoherent. It cannot be imagined. God cannot even imagine it.

However, if God can imagine it, then God would be able to create it. But he cannot create it, if he cannot even imagine it. But it cannot be created, because it cannot even be imagined.

See how that works?

You are asserting the philosophical nothingness is like the squared circle, logically impossible. Therefore it’s not possible to imagine it.
Or the philosophical nothingness cannot be imagined therefore it’s logically impossible.
Saying so does not make it so.
Q: See how that works?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:24 pm Your mind cannot conceive of that which is impossible, and that which can be conceived is possible.

Q: Did I said the mind can conceive that which is logically impossible? Where did I said such a thing, huh? :blink:
Please provide evidence for this.
You done and you don’t even know it. :chuckel:


We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:24 pm Question; are you saying that it is logically impossible for God (omni-God) to exist? Yes/
Sir we argue here that your MGB concept is irrational. Having existence as predicate in the concept leads to logical contradictions. Ergo irrational, illogical concept.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:24 pm
The argument can be rephrased like this..

1. Philosophical nothingness would be possible, if and only if nothing existed.

2. Some "things" exist.

3. Therefore, philosophical nothingness is impossible.

In order for philosophical nothingness to be possible, only ONE condition needs to be met, and that condition is that NOTHING exists (that actually is all the sense that can be made there )

But the fact that things do exist, would therefore make nothingness impossible...which goes back to the conclusion of the argument, which is that existence is necessary, and something had to have always been there.
But the question is: Q: Is it logically possible that nothingness exist?
Q: Why is it logically impossible for our world to not exist, for nothingness to exist? :blink:
"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