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.
User avatar
LoverofWisdom
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: January 2nd, 2021, 11:54 pm

The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by LoverofWisdom » January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am

It is possible for you and I not to exist. At death we discover, that the world continues without the physical presence of the deceased. Therefore the possibility for us to have never existed in the first place, is a very real discussion to be had. Yet we do exist. Those who doubt their own existence are far and very few. Even people who doubt their own existence do not consistently live out this belief. David Hume doubted his own existence, yet admittedly stated that he did not do so consistently. That he went home, enjoyed a glass of cognac and played backgammon with his friends.
The late, great philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz asked the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" Contingency literally means true by the way things are and NOT by logical necessity. So the possibility exists that we could have never existed in the first place, thus rendering our existence contingent. Therefore the must exist a logically necessary Being, for if all that exists were simply contingent, we could have never come into being, since we are simply not logically necessary.
Now if one were to satirically say I come from my mother, and continue this pattern, he would be guilty of committing the logical fallacy of an infinite regress. Thomas Aquinas (another great philosopher) wrote concerning the issue of contingency, "The Argument from Necessity:
Since objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time.
Since objects are countable, the objects in the universe are finite in number.If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence. (Nothing can come from nothing—there is no creation ex nihilo) for individual existent objects.But, in fact, many objects exist in the universe.Therefore, a Necessary Being (i.e., a Being of which it is impossible that it should not exist) exists.

Because the possibility exists that nothing can exist, nevertheless objects do exist, that contingent objects cannot cause the casual chain of existence, there demands a Being who cannot not exist, who exists necessarily, who by the very act of His will has brought all things into existence. To deny such a necessary being exists, one would have to explain how contingent beings came from contingent beings, or to say it another way. One would have to explain that how nothing (x) noone= everything. Good luck with that.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 5105
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 5th, 2021, 3:12 pm

LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
The late, great philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz asked the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" Contingency literally means true by the way things are and NOT by logical necessity. So the possibility exists that we could have never existed in the first place, thus rendering our existence contingent. Therefore the must exist a logically necessary Being, for if all that exists were simply contingent, we could have never come into being, since we are simply not logically necessary.
Oops. No. To argue this you need to do the work required to support that "Nothing can exist if everything is contingent. There must be something that exists out of logical necessity." You didn't do that work. You're just assuming it to be the case.
If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence.
That doesn't follow from anything either. You're assuming something like "given infinite time, any conceivable state would be the case," but there's no reason to assume that.
(Nothing can come from nothing—there is no creation ex nihilo)
Again, this is just an assertion without support. How would you support it?

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 5th, 2021, 7:18 pm

"Because the possibility exists that nothing can exist, nevertheless objects do exist, that contingent objects cannot cause the casual chain of existence, there demands a Being who cannot not exist, who exists necessarily, who by the very act of His will has brought all things into existence. To deny such a necessary being exists, one would have to explain how contingent beings came from contingent beings, or to say it another way. One would have to explain that how nothing (x) noone= everything. Good luck with that."
Because something cannot come out of nothing, we must assume that something is eternal. I like to call it "stuff in motion". By "stuff" I mean physical material in one form or another, and by "motion" I mean to include transformation of material from one form into another.

The biggest transformation is from a universe into a black hole and from a black hole back again into a universe. Science theorizes that the current universe was once a super-dense ball of matter, which is similar to a black hole (a lump of matter so dense that its gravity prevents photons from escaping, giving it its blackness).

According to astronomers, there is at least one black hole in most galaxies. And these consume matter from anything that gets too close. Because they are gravitational sinkholes, that increase their pull as they accumulate more and more material, they will exert a pull upon even the most distant objects and eventually eat up everything in the neighborhood.

The Big Bounce theory suggests that matter accumulates in these gravity wells until some tipping point is reached (or perhaps two black holes collide) resulting in a Big Bang. Then, over time, the matter is accumulated back into another super-dense ball during a Big Crunch phase.

The alternation between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch would continue eternally.

User avatar
LoverofWisdom
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: January 2nd, 2021, 11:54 pm

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by LoverofWisdom » January 5th, 2021, 8:15 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 3:12 pm
Oops. No. To argue this you need to do the work required to support that "Nothing can exist if everything is contingent. There must be something that exists out of logical necessity." You didn't do that work. You're just assuming it to be the case. [/quote]

First of all I would ask you to clarify you did not do that work for me because I’m confused about the meaning of that sentence. Secondly if it is possible for everything not to exist hence contingent I’m not assuming that Contingency derives from contingency, this is a logical conclusion. For if we go back in time eternal and all we find is contingent beings then the burden of proof lies upon how did these contingent beings come into existence? Again this is the argument which you have yet to this point answer, you can say the big bang but I can contest that as well where didThe matter that comprise the big bang come from because it in itself is also contingent.

That doesn't follow from anything either. You're assuming something like "given infinite time, any conceivable state would be the case," but there's no reason to assume that.
This is exactly when I’m arguing against, if one continues to go back in time even infinitely they are committing the logical fallacy of an infinite regress. Even secular scientist believe that the universe had a beginning so no I am not assuming that given time eternity things can just pop into existence. This is actually what I’m arguing against.
(Nothing can come from nothing—there is no creation ex nihilo)
Again, this is just an assertion without support. How would you support it?
[/quote]

Again to “secular scientist there has never been in nature or in the lab and example of life from abiogenesis. Scientist have created all kinds of theories how life evolved, one question they simply cannot answer is how life started. They have claimed that life Road through our atmosphere on the back of crystals. I thought this was science not science fiction, would not logically our ozone layer have burned up those crystals and killed that life some have resorted to that primordial pool again this is an assumption that what you’re accusing me of and you hold to such a view? And I am being the one who is claiming to have no logical evidence for my stance? I am arguing that life exists contingently and since it does not simply pop into existence as we have never experienced in nature or The lab then logically there exist a necessary being we exists necessarily, who brought all into existence. This is where the logic leads. Whether you like it or not this is the most plausible conclusion to explain our existence. I’m sorry that you don’t like the person of God I’m sorry that you wish that God did not exist,But never the less until you come up with a better solution than O life just popped into existence as intelligent thinkers were going to have to do better than that I’m sorry

User avatar
Hugh_Jidiette
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: January 6th, 2021, 12:25 am

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by Hugh_Jidiette » January 6th, 2021, 2:13 am

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing (in the sense that everything with an originating or sustaining efficient cause needs an originating or sustaining material cause, respectively), matter is eternal and uncreated. The argument can be strengthened in light of the scientific evidence for the conservation laws, according to which it’s at least physically impossible that matter-energy is created or destroyed. And if there are no supernatural beings that can annihilate matter-energy, the latter is at least de facto indestructible. Therefore, given the uncreated, eternal, and de facto indestructibility of matter-energy, it follows that matter-energy (or if matter-energy isn’t fundamental, whatever matter-energy is ultimately made of) is at least a factually necessary being. 

A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning is that if being uncreated is a property of matter-energy in the actual world, then it is an essential property of matter-energy, in which case matter-energy in the actual world is essentially uncreated.

Yet stronger versions of the argument can go on from what is said above by appealing to a strong version of the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal, essentially uncreated, and indestructible does not vary from possible world to possible world. But if not, then matter is a metaphysically necessary being. On any version of the argument, however, we seem to get the conclusion that the universe requires no external sustaining cause, in which case, a fortiori, God is not required to play such a role.

The broadly Epicurean line of reasoning above can be seen as a cosmological argument of sorts, but one that concludes that matter-energy (or its ultimate constituents), and not an immaterial creator, is the uncaused cause of contingent, dependent, concrete reality. Let us therefore call any argument that deploys a material cause version of the principle ex nihilo nihil fit to infer the factual or metaphysical necessity of matter (or matter's ultimate constituents) an Epicurean cosmological argument

If successful, Epicurean cosmological arguments can be used to provide evidence in support of atheism over theism. For such arguments provide prima facie evidence that matter-energy (or its ultimate constituents) are factually or metaphysically necessary. But if so, then since it’s constitutive of classical theism that God is the creator of any material universe that happens to exist, then since an essentially uncreated universe exists in the actual world, and since essentially uncreated universes cannot, by definition, be created, it follows that the God of classical theism does not exist. Indeed, if, as many classical theists assert, God exists necessarily if he exists at all, then given that he doesn’t exist in the actual world, God exists in no possible world. In other words, God’s existence is metaphysically impossible.

User avatar
logan4509
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: January 6th, 2021, 4:42 am

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by logan4509 » January 6th, 2021, 4:58 am

Respectively, and thank you.

I would like to ask a clarifying question. is this a question of individual sense of existence, or collective sense. I guess truly in my opinion, the answer lies in the same place. We are observed. Most closely by ourselves, but without a doubt with everyone we interact with, throughout our lives. The fact that our choices, consequences, actions, etc.... all of that information exists and is observable. Is being observed, however much we may never know. The fact that we are being observed, and affecting outside our own known perception.....that makes our existence pretty much unquestionable to me.

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

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by Papus79 » 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. 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.

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. 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.
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.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 5105
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 6th, 2021, 4:22 pm

LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 8:15 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 3:12 pm
Oops. No. To argue this you need to do the work required to support that "Nothing can exist if everything is contingent. There must be something that exists out of logical necessity." You didn't do that work. You're just assuming it to be the case.
First of all I would ask you to clarify you did not do that work for me because I’m confused about the meaning of that sentence. Secondly if it is possible for everything not to exist hence contingent I’m not assuming that Contingency derives from contingency, this is a logical conclusion. For if we go back in time eternal and all we find is contingent beings then the burden of proof lies upon how did these contingent beings come into existence? Again this is the argument which you have yet to this point answer, you can say the big bang but I can contest that as well where didThe matter that comprise the big bang come from because it in itself is also contingent.

That doesn't follow from anything either. You're assuming something like "given infinite time, any conceivable state would be the case," but there's no reason to assume that.
This is exactly when I’m arguing against, if one continues to go back in time even infinitely they are committing the logical fallacy of an infinite regress. Even secular scientist believe that the universe had a beginning so no I am not assuming that given time eternity things can just pop into existence. This is actually what I’m arguing against.
(Nothing can come from nothing—there is no creation ex nihilo)
Again, this is just an assertion without support. How would you support it?
[/quote]

Again to “secular scientist there has never been in nature or in the lab and example of life from abiogenesis. Scientist have created all kinds of theories how life evolved, one question they simply cannot answer is how life started. They have claimed that life Road through our atmosphere on the back of crystals. I thought this was science not science fiction, would not logically our ozone layer have burned up those crystals and killed that life some have resorted to that primordial pool again this is an assumption that what you’re accusing me of and you hold to such a view? And I am being the one who is claiming to have no logical evidence for my stance? I am arguing that life exists contingently and since it does not simply pop into existence as we have never experienced in nature or The lab then logically there exist a necessary being we exists necessarily, who brought all into existence. This is where the logic leads. Whether you like it or not this is the most plausible conclusion to explain our existence. I’m sorry that you don’t like the person of God I’m sorry that you wish that God did not exist,But never the less until you come up with a better solution than O life just popped into existence as intelligent thinkers were going to have to do better than that I’m sorry
[/quote]

None of your responses to me above directly address the issues I brought up.

User avatar
LoverofWisdom
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: January 2nd, 2021, 11:54 pm

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by LoverofWisdom » 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.
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.

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

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by evolution » January 9th, 2021, 3:20 am

LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
It is possible for you and I not to exist.
It is not just possible for 'you' to not to exist but 'you' once did NOT even exist. However, it is NOT possible for 'I' to not exist.

Now, if you take this to subjectively and want to LOOK AT 'this' objectively, then the 'you' once did NOT exist but thee 'I' ALWAYS exists.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
At death we discover, that the world continues without the physical presence of the deceased.
Agreed.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Therefore the possibility for us to have never existed in the first place, is a very real discussion to be had.
Is there ANY discussion that is NOT 'very real'? And, WHY does, or what makes, this discussion 'very real' 'to be had'?
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Yet we do exist.
Yep, here 'we' are.

By the way, how are 'you' defining the word 'we' here?

To make a discussion 'very real', to me, then it is best that ALL involved in the discussion are made FULLY AWARE of what is ACTUALLY MEANT by the words that are used, and SAID.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Those who doubt their own existence are far and very few.
So, WHY even bring this up?
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Even people who doubt their own existence do not consistently live out this belief. David Hume doubted his own existence, yet admittedly stated that he did not do so consistently. That he went home, enjoyed a glass of cognac and played backgammon with his friends.
All of this may well be exciting, to some, but has this REALLY got ANY thing to do with what it is that 'you' are SEEKING OUT or CLAIMING here?
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
The late, great philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz asked the question "why is there something rather than nothing?"
Because it could NOT be ANY other way.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Contingency literally means true by the way things are and NOT by logical necessity.
So, I seem to have RESOLVED this "issue" here with my last comment, which, by the way, can be VERY EASILY PROVEN True, and VERY EASILY UNDERSTOOD WHY.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
So the possibility exists that we could have never existed in the first place, thus rendering our existence contingent.
Again, this ALL DEPENDS on who and/or what 'you' are referring to when 'you' use the 'we' word and the 'our' word here.

If 'your' parents did NOT meet, then 'you' would NEVER have existed. So, the possibility does exist that 'you' could have NEVER existed in the first place.

What is called "father" HAS TO put the semen from its body into the body of what is called "mother", IN THE FIRST PLACE, for ALL of 'you' to come into Existence, Itself, and thus come to be to exist, "yourselves".

But this has absolutely NO bearing AT ALL with whether Existence, Itself, is contingent or not. But, 'you' are correct that 'your' existence is contingent. But who and what 'you' are, EXACTLY, and 'your', or even 'our', human, existence, is so tiny, puny, and minute that it REALLY does have absolutely NO bearing AT ALL on and with Existence, Itself.

See, when and if you LEARN who and what the 'we' word ACTUALLY refers to, then 'you', hopefully, will FULLY understand WHY Existence, Itself, is NOT contingent on 'you', personally, nor on human beings ONLY.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Therefore the must exist a logically necessary Being, for if all that exists were simply contingent, we could have never come into being, since we are simply not logically necessary.
Thee Being JUST EXISTS, just like thee Universe exists, and HAS TO EXIST, because there could be NO other way.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Now if one were to satirically say I come from my mother, and continue this pattern, he would be guilty of committing the logical fallacy of an infinite regress.
WHY do some of 'you', human beings, LOOK AT and SEE that an 'infinite regress' is somehow negative, illogical, or unreachable?
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Thomas Aquinas (another great philosopher) wrote concerning the issue of contingency, "The Argument from Necessity:
Since objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time.
Since objects are countable, the objects in the universe are finite in number.
Talk about a 'logical fallacy', and CORRECT 'me' if I am WRONG here. But, is what is being said and/or inferred here is that;
That just because we could count say three apples on the table, THEN THEREFORE this MUST MEAN that the objects IN the Universe MUST BE 'finite'?

If this is CORRECT, then I can see at least two issues with this.

However, if this is NOT CORRECT, then what is.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence. (Nothing can come from nothing—there is no creation ex nihilo) for individual existent objects.But, in fact, many objects exist in the universe.Therefore, a Necessary Being (i.e., a Being of which it is impossible that it should not exist) exists.
To me, this does NOT 'logically follow' at all.

And, it just appears to me, once again, just ANOTHER human being expressing their OWN BELIEF of some 'thing' and then TRYING ANY thing, with the hope that 'it' will back up and support one's ALREADY GAINED and HELD ONTO BELIEF.

The fact that A Being ACTUALLY EXISTS and ALWAYS EXISTS is one 'thing'. But to be able to SHOW and REVEAL this FACT, with ACTUAL PROOF, then 'we' have to LOOK AT at this step-by-step through LOGICALLY REASONED OUT words and views.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Because the possibility exists that nothing can exist,
Does it?

If yes, then HOW EXACTLY?

SEE, once you LEARN and UNDERSTAND what thee Universe ACTUALLY IS and how It ACTUALLY WORKS, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN is a bit DIFFERENT to this.

But, AGAIN, it all depends on what you are SEEING, SAYING, and MEANING here EXACTLY.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
nevertheless objects do exist, that contingent objects cannot cause the casual chain of existence, there demands a Being who cannot not exist, who exists necessarily, who by the very act of His will has brought all things into existence.
HOW and WHY did this Being JUMP to being a "he", out of ALL the things in the Universe?

Could this have absolutely ANY thing to do with the fact that A Story, about such a Being, was written by the MEN of a species?
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
To deny such a necessary being exists,
To make and state an irrefutable CLAIM, does NOT make the OTHER CLAIM, WITHIN this CLAIM, true AT ALL.

For example, to state and CLAIM that; "To deny such a necessary sink exists ..." would be "foolish", does NOT mean that an ACTUAL 'sink' exists.

It just means that there is some 'necessary' sink IN or UNDER some VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
one would have to explain how contingent beings came from contingent beings, or to say it another way. One would have to explain that how nothing (x) noone= everything. Good luck with that.
Well it sounds like you are CLAIMING that there is One Being which has ALWAYS EXISTED, and which made/created every OTHER thing.

Are you ABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW this One Being 'Thing' created EVERY 'thing' else?

And, HOW that 'Thing' created Everything FROM Nothing?

Because IF some Being created Everything, then either there was something there PRIOR to which It created Everything from, or, there was nothing there from which It created Everything from. But, OBVIOUSLY, if there was something there ALREADY, then that Being did NOT create Everything. And, this is besides the FACT that if that Being was ALREADY EXISTING, then It did NOT create Itself. Or, did It?

Now, CAN 'you' and WILL 'you' EXPLAIN HOW this could have POSSIBLY OCCURRED? Or, EXPLAIN what ACTUALLY OCCURRED. And, by the way, some are saying; 'Good luck with that'.

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

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by evolution » January 9th, 2021, 3:29 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 3:12 pm
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
The late, great philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz asked the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" Contingency literally means true by the way things are and NOT by logical necessity. So the possibility exists that we could have never existed in the first place, thus rendering our existence contingent. Therefore the must exist a logically necessary Being, for if all that exists were simply contingent, we could have never come into being, since we are simply not logically necessary.
Oops. No. To argue this you need to do the work required to support that "Nothing can exist if everything is contingent. There must be something that exists out of logical necessity." You didn't do that work. You're just assuming it to be the case.
If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence.
That doesn't follow from anything either. You're assuming something like "given infinite time, any conceivable state would be the case," but there's no reason to assume that.
(Nothing can come from nothing—there is no creation ex nihilo)
Again, this is just an assertion without support. How would you support it?
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?

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

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by evolution » January 9th, 2021, 3:37 am

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 7:18 pm
"Because the possibility exists that nothing can exist, nevertheless objects do exist, that contingent objects cannot cause the casual chain of existence, there demands a Being who cannot not exist, who exists necessarily, who by the very act of His will has brought all things into existence. To deny such a necessary being exists, one would have to explain how contingent beings came from contingent beings, or to say it another way. One would have to explain that how nothing (x) noone= everything. Good luck with that."
Because something cannot come out of nothing, we must assume that something is eternal.
But you do NOT have to ASSUME this. However, you are FREE to do so if you so choose to.
Marvin_Edwards wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 7:18 pm
I like to call it "stuff in motion". By "stuff" I mean physical material in one form or another, and by "motion" I mean to include transformation of material from one form into another.

The biggest transformation is from a universe into a black hole and from a black hole back again into a universe. Science theorizes that the current universe was once a super-dense ball of matter, which is similar to a black hole (a lump of matter so dense that its gravity prevents photons from escaping, giving it its blackness).

According to astronomers, there is at least one black hole in most galaxies. And these consume matter from anything that gets too close. Because they are gravitational sinkholes, that increase their pull as they accumulate more and more material, they will exert a pull upon even the most distant objects and eventually eat up everything in the neighborhood.

The Big Bounce theory suggests that matter accumulates in these gravity wells until some tipping point is reached (or perhaps two black holes collide) resulting in a Big Bang. Then, over time, the matter is accumulated back into another super-dense ball during a Big Crunch phase.

The alternation between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch would continue eternally.
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?

By the way, What you did here was just explain VERY LOGICALLY, VERY SENSIBLY, and VERY REASONABLY what could JUST BE what is continually occurring, ALWAYS, and which is what IS ACTUALLY VERY POSSIBLE.

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

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by evolution » January 9th, 2021, 4:06 am

LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 8:15 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 3:12 pm

Oops. No. To argue this you need to do the work required to support that "Nothing can exist if everything is contingent. There must be something that exists out of logical necessity." You didn't do that work. You're just assuming it to be the case.
First of all I would ask you to clarify you did not do that work for me because I’m confused about the meaning of that sentence. Secondly if it is possible for everything not to exist hence contingent I’m not assuming that Contingency derives from contingency, this is a logical conclusion.
By even by your OWN conclusion it is NOT even possible for EVERY 'thing' not to exist.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 8:15 pm
For if we go back in time eternal and all we find is contingent beings then the burden of proof lies upon how did these contingent beings come into existence?
Can 'you' go back in time eternal?

If NOT, then WHY ASSUME what would be found.

But if you can, then what did you ACTUALLY FIND?
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 8:15 pm
Again this is the argument which you have yet to this point answer, you can say the big bang but I can contest that as well where didThe matter that comprise the big bang come from because it in itself is also contingent.
That there was even "a beginning", in the past tense, is as ABSURD and as RIDICULOUS an idea whether 'IT IS WRITTEN' in a religious book OR in a scientific book.

People who BELIEVE "in the beginning", especially because, "IT IS WRITTEN", in their book of choosing and of following SHOWS and REVEALS just how VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY human beings from "all walks of Life", as they say, can be "brainwashed", which, by the way, is just ANOTHER COMPLETE MISNOMER.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 8:15 pm
That doesn't follow from anything either. You're assuming something like "given infinite time, any conceivable state would be the case," but there's no reason to assume that.
This is exactly when I’m arguing against, if one continues to go back in time even infinitely they are committing the logical fallacy of an infinite regress.
But to call an "infinite regress" a logical fallacy is only because is ALREADY ASSUMING that they KNOW what the truth is, which is usually either the Universe began or that God created the Universe.

Some times religious and scientific people are far more alike than they are not alike.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 8:15 pm
Even secular scientist believe that the universe had a beginning so no I am not assuming that given time eternity things can just pop into existence. This is actually what I’m arguing against.
Well you would have to admit that you are NOT doing a very good job at it, correct?
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 8:15 pm
(Nothing can come from nothing—there is no creation ex nihilo)
Again, this is just an assertion without support. How would you support it?
Again to “secular scientist there has never been in nature or in the lab and example of life from abiogenesis. Scientist have created all kinds of theories how life evolved, one question they simply cannot answer is how life started. [/quote]

The reason they can NOT answer this is because Life, Itself, NEVER started.

Also, NOTICE just how quickly people of one FAITH with USE people of the other FAITH, when they think that this will help in backing up and supporting there OWN already held BELIEFS.

Also, and by the way, religious and scientific people BOTH still BELIEVE, in the days of when this is being written, that there was "a beginning" because of just three very simple words, which have been passed on down through generation after generation for thousands of years, which are sill BELIEVED to be true by some people, and those three words, which I am pretty sure most of you have heard of KNOW of by NOW, and they are:

'In the beginning'.

That is ALL it took for ALL of those ABSURD and RIDICULOUS CLAIMS, ASSERTIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, and THEORIES which even to this day, when this was being written, still ACTUALLY EXISTED, and worse STILL BELIEVED to be true.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 8:15 pm
They have claimed that life Road through our atmosphere on the back of crystals. I thought this was science not science fiction, would not logically our ozone layer have burned up those crystals and killed that life some have resorted to that primordial pool again this is an assumption that what you’re accusing me of and you hold to such a view? And I am being the one who is claiming to have no logical evidence for my stance? I am arguing that life exists contingently and since it does not simply pop into existence as we have never experienced in nature or The lab then logically there exist a necessary being we exists necessarily, who brought all into existence.
This is ONE CLAIM that you can have and EXPRESS. Now ALL 'you' have to do is just EXPLAIN how this could even be logically a POSSIBILITY and empirically even POSSIBLE.

Once you get that out of the way, then you will have to move onto HOW are 'you' going to PROVE that this ACTUALLY did occur.

You could, however, just LOOK AT what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, instead.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 8:15 pm
This is where the logic leads. Whether you like it or not this is the most plausible conclusion to explain our existence.
LOL You are JOKING here, right?

Are you REALLY 'trying to' suggest that; God created this ALL, is the "most plausible conclusion" here?

If yes, then here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of just HOW MUCH BELIEFS BLIND human beings to what thee ACTUAL Truth REALLY IS.
LoverofWisdom wrote:
January 5th, 2021, 8:15 pm
I’m sorry that you don’t like the person of God I’m sorry that you wish that God did not exist,But never the less until you come up with a better solution than O life just popped into existence as intelligent thinkers were going to have to do better than that I’m sorry

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

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by evolution » January 9th, 2021, 4:34 am

Hugh_Jidiette wrote:
January 6th, 2021, 2:13 am
One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing (in the sense that everything with an originating or sustaining efficient cause needs an originating or sustaining material cause, respectively), matter is eternal and uncreated. The argument can be strengthened in light of the scientific evidence for the conservation laws, according to which it’s at least physically impossible that matter-energy is created or destroyed. And if there are no supernatural beings that can annihilate matter-energy, the latter is at least de facto indestructible. Therefore, given the uncreated, eternal, and de facto indestructibility of matter-energy, it follows that matter-energy (or if matter-energy isn’t fundamental, whatever matter-energy is ultimately made of) is at least a factually necessary being. 

A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning is that if being uncreated is a property of matter-energy in the actual world, then it is an essential property of matter-energy, in which case matter-energy in the actual world is essentially uncreated.

Yet stronger versions of the argument can go on from what is said above by appealing to a strong version of the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal, essentially uncreated, and indestructible does not vary from possible world to possible world. But if not, then matter is a metaphysically necessary being. On any version of the argument, however, we seem to get the conclusion that the universe requires no external sustaining cause, in which case, a fortiori, God is not required to play such a role.
Although what you have said here is right AND correct, to 'me', and that God is NOT required to play such a role AT ALL, thee ACTUAL Truth IS that the word 'God' just refers to this uncreated, indestructible WHOLE of matter-energy.

And EVERY possible definition of God, in the visibly seen physical sense, fits PERFECTLY with this One WHOLE ALWAYS EXISTING and ALWAYS CREATING 'Thing', which is sometimes also just known as thee Universe, Itself.
Hugh_Jidiette wrote:
January 6th, 2021, 2:13 am
The broadly Epicurean line of reasoning above can be seen as a cosmological argument of sorts, but one that concludes that matter-energy (or its ultimate constituents), and not an immaterial creator, is the uncaused cause of contingent, dependent, concrete reality. Let us therefore call any argument that deploys a material cause version of the principle ex nihilo nihil fit to infer the factual or metaphysical necessity of matter (or matter's ultimate constituents) an Epicurean cosmological argument
Thee immaterial Creator can and does ALWAYS fit in here PERFECTLY, as well. But this Creator is NOT some "outside" force/creator at all. This Creator is just as much as part of Creation, Itself, as is the visibly seen physical Creator IS.

The two just need to be understood together as One for this to ALL make PERFECT SENSE.
Hugh_Jidiette wrote:
January 6th, 2021, 2:13 am
If successful, Epicurean cosmological arguments can be used to provide evidence in support of atheism over theism.
What I actually FOUND was some scientific views actually backed up and supported some views of the religious crowd, and vice-versa, some views of the religious actually backed up and support some views of the scientific ones.
Hugh_Jidiette wrote:
January 6th, 2021, 2:13 am
For such arguments provide prima facie evidence that matter-energy (or its ultimate constituents) are factually or metaphysically necessary. But if so, then since it’s constitutive of classical theism that God is the creator of any material universe that happens to exist, then since an essentially uncreated universe exists in the actual world, and since essentially uncreated universes cannot, by definition, be created, it follows that the God of classical theism does not exist.
This type of God has NEVER existed. But this is ONLY because COMPLETELY WRONG interpretations have been made, for example, here is just ONE, and a VERY NOTICEABLY one that God is a "he".

Of course some entity or being, which just happens to be a "he", which coincidentally fitted in PERFECTLY with the male-centric period of time when a book was written about God, could NOT POSSIBLY EVER EXIST.
Hugh_Jidiette wrote:
January 6th, 2021, 2:13 am
Indeed, if, as many classical theists assert, God exists necessarily if he exists at all, then given that he doesn’t exist in the actual world, God exists in no possible world. In other words, God’s existence is metaphysically impossible.
NOT if God is the Creator of Everything, and that ALWAYS EXISTING Creator just happens to be the physical, and non physical, Universe, Itself.

SEE, what thee One and ONLY Universe ACTUAL and ULTIMATE constituents ARE, EXACTLY, is just 'matter' AND 'space' [a distance between and around matter, itself.]

'Space' just ALLOWS ALL 'matter' to move about FREELY, and it is the actual interaction/bumping into of 'matter' with itself, which is what causes, or creates, energy, and ALL-OF-THIS can NOT be created nor destroyed, as THIS is ALWAYS the way It IS.

With EVERY action of 'matter' bumping into, and reacting, then this interacting is Creating ALWAYS. The interaction between at least two things prior creates some 'thing' anew, which then evolves through ALWAYS changing, and with EVERY inter-action/re-action it has with some 'thing' else, then that is Creation, Itself, in motion and IN ACTION.

The word 'God' is just a VERY SIMPLE to refer to this ALWAYS 'reacting' Creating process, that can NEVER be created NOR destroyed.

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

Re: The Necessary and the contingent.

Post by evolution » January 9th, 2021, 4:39 am

logan4509 wrote:
January 6th, 2021, 4:58 am
Respectively, and thank you.

I would like to ask a clarifying question. is this a question of individual sense of existence, or collective sense.
A GREAT EXAMPLE of a GREAT CLARIFYING QUESTION here.
logan4509 wrote:
January 6th, 2021, 4:58 am
I guess truly in my opinion, the answer lies in the same place. We are observed. Most closely by ourselves, but without a doubt with everyone we interact with, throughout our lives. The fact that our choices, consequences, actions, etc.... all of that information exists and is observable. Is being observed, however much we may never know. The fact that we are being observed, and affecting outside our own known perception.....that makes our existence pretty much unquestionable to me.

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