The Necessary and the contingent.

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
evolution
Posts: 924
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by evolution » January 9th, 2021, 4:46 am

Papus79 wrote:
January 6th, 2021, 8:55 am
I think we're just looking at time here as an infinite canvas where it's more likely a closed geometry within each geometry where it shows up. For example the evidence seems quite strong that gravity is in part a distortion of time.
It could be said, and argued, this is only the case if one has a distorted perception of what 'time', itself, actually is.
Papus79 wrote:
January 6th, 2021, 8:55 am
There are a lot of things top flight physicists are doing with space-time which shows how seriously they take it and it seems to yield results which merit that approach.
Like, for example, ...?
Papus79 wrote:
January 6th, 2021, 8:55 am
What's probably more to the point then - the idea that infinities requiring permanent existence or nonexistence either shows that we don't know how to deal with infinities yet and that we more or less tap out with absolute values or that we're dealing with things - such as time - which actually aren't infinities.
If one has NOT YET been able to work out or deal infinity, itself, yet, then that in NO way infers that 'we' do not know how to deal with infinities yet.

Once 'infinities' are worked out, properly AND correctly, then dealing with them is EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY.

In fact, it is from Truly understanding 'infinities', "themselves", that is what helps in Truly understanding WHAT the Universe Truly IS and in HOW the Universe Truly works.
Papus79 wrote:
January 6th, 2021, 8:55 am
I'd tend toward the later myself because I worry that we're really trying to force things on all of existence which are probably not fundamental (actually the arguments now that spacetime isn't fundamental have been getting stronger) and we're tempted to so because we're trying to make sense of all of existence from the 'playing field' lets say that we evolved our faculties from.
As I have continually SUGGESTED when one STOPS LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' from an ALREADY ASSUMED and BELIEF perspective, then what thee ACTUAL Truth is becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR and almost immediately as well.

evolution
Posts: 924
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by evolution » January 9th, 2021, 4:52 am

LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 8th, 2021, 9:50 pm
Thank you all for the responses and I will direct answers to the most of the objections. First of all Logan, you wrote
matter is eternal and uncreated. The argument can be strengthened in light of the scientific evidence for the conservation laws,
. This is simply not true, I do not know what scientist you are listening to, but from Einstein to Hawkins (none by the way are theist) all conclude that matter is not eternal, that the universe had a beginning. In fact Einstein looked for the existence of static electricity in space so that he could prove that the universe is eternal and was not able to find it.
So, does this then PROVE, to 'you', that the Universe had "a beginning"?
Papus79 wrote:
January 6th, 2021, 8:55 am
As far as you statement
you didn't do that work
Terrapin that actually is what you wrote, so I would ask you to clarify if you will. To clarify my argument about life coming about by the process of abiogenesis, scientist work with already living material in the lab. They have never been able to create life in the lab, and we have never seen life spontaneously pop into existence in nature. Aquinas's argument is thus. That contingent beings (i.e. scientist) cannot create life out of nothing(ex-nihilio). Therefore if contingent beings cannot simply pop into existence, or create life out of nothing, there exists a being who exists by logical necessity, that has brought all possible worlds and beings (i.e. you and I) into existence.
What could this "Being supposedly bring ALL possible worlds and beings into existence" out of, EXACTLY?

You can NOT have it BOTH WAYS.

You can NOT logically say, "Scientists say that nothing can pop into existence out of nothing, therefore God exists. But then expect us to just accept that God popped everything into existence out of nothing."

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1078
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by Marvin_Edwards » January 9th, 2021, 7:59 am

evolution wrote:
January 9th, 2021, 3:37 am

Just out of curiosity how does this help in explaining HOW nothing/noone = everything (or everything from nothing came to exist)? Which was what was being asked for here. Or, have I missed something here?
There never was (nor ever will be) a state of the universe in which nothing at all existed.

Our intuition that first there was nothing and then there was something is incorrect. That intuition may simply be the result of each of us having a beginning and and end. But, for all we know, that does not apply to the universe of "stuff in motion".

evolution
Posts: 924
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by evolution » January 9th, 2021, 8:19 am

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
January 9th, 2021, 7:59 am
evolution wrote:
January 9th, 2021, 3:37 am

Just out of curiosity how does this help in explaining HOW nothing/noone = everything (or everything from nothing came to exist)? Which was what was being asked for here. Or, have I missed something here?
There never was (nor ever will be) a state of the universe in which nothing at all existed.
I KNOW. And, I have ALREADY STATED the EXACT SAME thing.
Marvin_Edwards wrote:
January 9th, 2021, 7:59 am
Our intuition that first there was nothing and then there was something is incorrect.
This NEVER was that intuition in 'me'.

And, that ASSUMPTION and BELIEF that first there was nothing and then there was something, which 'you', adult human beings, have is, AGAIN, because of those three VERY SIMPLE words, "In the beginning", and which is influenced more because each and EVERY one of 'you', human beings, has 'a beginning', "yourselves".
Marvin_Edwards wrote:
January 9th, 2021, 7:59 am
That intuition may simply be the result of each of us having a beginning and and end. But, for all we know, that does not apply to the universe of "stuff in motion".
You REALLY appear to have COMPLETELY MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what I was saying AND MEANING here. Which was: Although I AGREE with what you were saying here, the quoted response which you were replying to was actually asking for something different from what you said, and thus how you replied to them.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 5107
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by Terrapin Station » January 9th, 2021, 10:45 am

evolution wrote:
January 9th, 2021, 3:29 am
With EVERY action causes a reaction, and, EVERY reaction, itself, is just ANOTHER action.

It is NOT possible to PROVE that some 'thing' can come from NO 'thing', and it has NOT YET been logically explained how ANY 'thing' could even possibly come from NO 'thing'. But it has ALREADY been supported that EVERY 'thing' has come from at 'least' two prior 'things' coming together. So, if this can be PROVEN to be true, then Creation/Everything/the Universe from nothing is IMPOSSIBLE.

Could it be supported that ANY thing could even possibly come from just One 'thing' or from absolutely NO 'thing'?

Would there be ANY one who would even like to put forward how this could even be just A POSSIBILITY?
I know I've explained this to you before, but empirical claims are not provable period.

There's no way to know that something can't "come from" nothing, or in other words, that matter couldn't spontaneously appear where there was none prior to that point. If there's no way to know this, we can't rule it out as a possibility.

User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1240
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by Papus79 » January 9th, 2021, 10:54 am

evolution wrote:
January 9th, 2021, 4:46 am
It could be said, and argued, this is only the case if one has a distorted perception of what 'time', itself, actually is.
The way people who want to actually get responses generally go about this is by asking much more specific and narrow questions about the integrity of space-time, like proposing areas where the math is ambiguous or possibly suggests something else, rather than 'prove space-time isn't BS'.

Otherwise, as you do with most of your interrogations of other posters you're effectively saying 'write me a book of everything you've learned about x and I'll decide whether I find it interesting or not'. If you have no obligation to bring your own knowledge up to speed to try to jump in at the front of the conversation rather than having other members unpack the entire topic in its entirety then there's an asymmetry of rules - ie. rules you're asking other people to follow that you won't follow yourself.
People aren't fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, we're fundamentally trying to survive. It's the environment and culture which tells us what that's going to be.

evolution
Posts: 924
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by evolution » January 22nd, 2021, 5:09 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 9th, 2021, 10:45 am
evolution wrote:
January 9th, 2021, 3:29 am
With EVERY action causes a reaction, and, EVERY reaction, itself, is just ANOTHER action.

It is NOT possible to PROVE that some 'thing' can come from NO 'thing', and it has NOT YET been logically explained how ANY 'thing' could even possibly come from NO 'thing'. But it has ALREADY been supported that EVERY 'thing' has come from at 'least' two prior 'things' coming together. So, if this can be PROVEN to be true, then Creation/Everything/the Universe from nothing is IMPOSSIBLE.

Could it be supported that ANY thing could even possibly come from just One 'thing' or from absolutely NO 'thing'?

Would there be ANY one who would even like to put forward how this could even be just A POSSIBILITY?
I know I've explained this to you before, but empirical claims are not provable period.
And how exactly does that relate to what I said here?
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 9th, 2021, 10:45 am
There's no way to know that something can't "come from" nothing, or in other words, that matter couldn't spontaneously appear where there was none prior to that point.
You obviously did NOT read thee actual words I wrote here, MISSED what I actually meant here, or just completely misunderstood, misinterpreted, or just misconstrued what I actually said and meant.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 9th, 2021, 10:45 am
If there's no way to know this, we can't rule it out as a possibility.
But there is a way to know this.

You just ASSUME and/or BELIEVE there is NO way to know this.

evolution
Posts: 924
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by evolution » January 22nd, 2021, 5:56 pm

Papus79 wrote:
January 9th, 2021, 10:54 am
evolution wrote:
January 9th, 2021, 4:46 am
It could be said, and argued, this is only the case if one has a distorted perception of what 'time', itself, actually is.
The way people who want to actually get responses generally go about this is by asking much more specific and narrow questions about the integrity of space-time,
The way that 'you', people, for thousands of years, have generally been getting responses to your questions is NOT working all that well, correct?

If 'you', people, answered this specific and narrow question with integrity, and thus TRULY Honestly, then 'you' would SEE just how inconsistent 'your' views are in relation to the Universe, Itself.

So, to start to ACTUALLY get REAL responses about some 'thing', like for example; 'space', 'time', and/or 'space-time', then a clear and precise definition of these 'things' has to be agreed with and accepted PRIOR to any REAL discussion/responses about 'them' takes place.

I will START by asking 'you', "papus79", so what EXACTLY is 'space', 'time', AND 'space-time'? And, does YOUR definition fit PERFECTLY with 'quantum mechanics' and with 'relativity'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

As I said earlier, some of the views 'you', people things, have is only because of the distorted perceptions, and thus distorted and WRONG definitions, you give and have for 'things', like 'time', itself.

Now, if you REALLY WANT to have a discussion about 'things' like 'time' AND 'space', then I suggest that you either provide ACTUAL definitions, which fit PERFECTLY together, or you just become and remain OPEN to LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' from another 'way', another perspective.

'you', people, in the days of when this was written, could keep babbling on about 'space-time', as though 'you' KNOW what 'it' is, or you could just admit that REALLY 'you' are NOT that much closer to understanding thee ACTUAL Universe, Itself, and just become OPEN, AGAIN, and START AGAIN.
Papus79 wrote:
January 9th, 2021, 10:54 am
like proposing areas where the math is ambiguous or possibly suggests something else, rather than 'prove space-time isn't BS'.
Well OBVIOUSLY one would have to be, what is generally known as, a "mathematician", to be able to be accepted to speak about the "math". And, just as OBVIOUS is the fact that NOT every one is a, so called, "mathematician". Just like NOT every one is a "magician".

Also, for the NON "mathematicians" among 'you' the, so called, "math' could just be, in itself, a form of DELUSION to trick, fool, and/or deceive, correct? After all 'you' NON "magicians" get tricked, fooled, and/or deceived fairly easily. In fact even to some, so called, "magicians" they also get tricked, fooled, and/or deceived quite easily and simply, by other, so called, "magicians". So, this fact could relate to the, so called, "mathematicians" ALSO. Which, by the way, thee True, Right, and Correct Answer to this question is soon, relative to when this was written, to come to light.

I suggest here too that if you want to talk about 'space-time' is or is NOT "BS", then 'you' START by providing a definition of what 'space-time' IS, EXACTLY. THEN, we can start to LOOK AT the "math" if that so pleases 'you'.
Papus79 wrote:
January 9th, 2021, 10:54 am
Otherwise, as you do with most of your interrogations of other posters you're effectively saying 'write me a book of everything you've learned about x and I'll decide whether I find it interesting or not'.
Well this is a PRIME EXAMPLE of one having a completely DISTORTED PERCEPTION, which if you recall was what I was suggesting to NOT have, in the quote you got from me and which you are responding to here.

I will, ONCE AGAIN, suggest DO NOT ASSUME ANY 'thing'. That way 'you' will NOT end up with COMPLETELY WRONG and DISTORTED PERCEPTIONS, like 'you' OBVIOUSLY have here now.
Papus79 wrote:
January 9th, 2021, 10:54 am
If you have no obligation to bring your own knowledge up to speed to try to jump in at the front of the conversation rather than having other members unpack the entire topic in its entirety then there's an asymmetry of rules - ie. rules you're asking other people to follow that you won't follow yourself.
Could it even be just a POSSIBILITY that 'you', human being's, views of 'things' are NOT consistent with one another, and thus NOT consistent with thee Universe, Itself, or that I ACTUALLY KNOW what I am talking about here?

Or, to 'you', "papus79", could this just NOT be a POSSIBILITY, AT ALL?

Your Honest answer to this specific and narrow clarifying question here would be much appreciated?

Oh I nearly forgot if you really want to have a LOGICALLY REASONED discussion here about 'time', itself, then will you provide YOUR definition for the word 'time'?

Also, does YOUR definition for the word 'time' fit PERFECTLY with EVERY thing else?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then will you SHOW us HOW?

User avatar
psycho
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: January 23rd, 2021, 5:33 pm

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by psycho » January 23rd, 2021, 6:00 pm

I find it intriguing that something is supposed to come into being after we observe this universe.

Everything that we are capable of noticing in reality is only the transformation of existing entities.

We never witness the creation of anything.

On the other hand, it is also strange to me that an existing entity is equated to a non-existent entity. The latter has no entity or possibility of having it.


The entity that we consider existing cannot be considered contingent by itself. The trick is to make it contingent by equating it to something that has no entity. Thus, one would be considering that a case that is not given demonstrates something about
the case that if it occurs.

The existing entity is necessary because its causes force it to be.

A chair that exists shows the necessity of its existence with its presence and the chairs that are not, cannot say anything about it. Nothing never says anything.

But it's just my opinion!

Post Reply

Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021