Debate: Neccessary existence is not the Universe

[IWantGod]

1. Something necessarily exists, otherwise no being necessarily exists.
**
2. If the essence or nature of a being necessarily exists, then everything that it is and ever will be is necessarily actual eternally and therefore does not become actual. Otherwise there is something not necessary and by this very fact is not identical to the nature of a necessary being.
**
3. A necessary being is not in a state of becoming real or ceasing to be real according to premise 2. Therefore it cannot be something which changes its nature. New qualities do not emerge. New natures do not become actual.

4. The universe changes, and new qualities emerge. New natures become actual.

Conclusion: Therefore the Universe and everything of which it is comprised is not a necessary being. In fact a necessary being is not anything that changes.

 

[Ironclad]

I’m genuinely confused what you’re trying to debate…

 

[1neophyte]

Is this some sort of satire making fun of philosophy?

 

[e_c]

1. Something necessarily exists, otherwise no being necessarily exists.
**
2. If the essence or nature of a being necessarily exists, then everything that it is and ever will be is necessarily actual eternally and therefore does not become actual. Otherwise there is something not necessary and by this very fact is not identical to the nature of a necessary being.
**
3. A necessary being is not in a state of becoming real or ceasing to be real according to premise 2. Therefore it cannot be something which changes its nature. New qualities do not emerge. New natures do not become actual.

4. The universe changes, and new qualities emerge. New natures become actual.

Conclusion: Therefore the Universe and everything of which it is comprised is not a necessary being. In fact a necessary being is not anything that changes.

You need an additional step between #1 and #2 that demonstrates there is such a being - I would recommend arguing that composition implies non-necessity, since it has to have been put together, which would include also any mixture of act and potency (since that which is not fully in act must be determined toward some definite potential, even if that potential is annihilation, this means it has been put together by something else).

 

[IWantGod]

I’m genuinely confused what you’re trying to debate…

The universe is not necessary reality and neither is anything that is changing. The implication is that necessary reality is not physical.

 

[IWantGod]

Is this some sort of satire making fun of philosophy?

No it is a serious argument that you cannot defeat in your wildest dreams.

 

[IWantGod]

You need an additional step between #1 and #2 that demonstrates there is such a being - I would recommend arguing that composition implies non-necessity, since it has to have been put together, which would include also any mixture of act and potency (since that which is not fully in act must be determined toward some definite potential, even if that potential is annihilation, this means it has been put together by something else).

Why does composition imply act and potency. Why would it have to be put together?

A necessary being exists because it is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. Also nothing cannot exist.

 

[Neofight]

1. Something necessarily exists, otherwise no being necessarily exists.
**
2. If the essence or nature of a being necessarily exists, then everything that it is and ever will be is necessarily actual eternally and therefore does not become actual. Otherwise there is something not necessary and by this very fact is not identical to the nature of a necessary being.
**
3. A necessary being is not in a state of becoming real or ceasing to be real according to premise 2. Therefore it cannot be something which changes its nature. New qualities do not emerge. New natures do not become actual.

4. The universe changes, and new qualities emerge. New natures become actual.

Conclusion: Therefore the Universe and everything of which it is comprised is not a necessary being. In fact a necessary being is not anything that changes.

Of course its not. You are Catholic, aren’t you? What’s to debate? Hardly earth shattering thought.

 

[IWantGod]

Of course its not. You are Catholic, aren’t you? What’s to debate? Hardly earth shattering thought.

I’m the best. Thats whats earth shattering.

Atheists on the other-hand think that the universe or multiverse is necessarily all there is.

 

[e_c]

**1. **Why does composition imply act and potency. Why would it have to be put together?

**2. **A necessary being exists because it is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. Also nothing cannot exist.

1. If you are asking why something with act and potency is necessarily a composition, it is because act and potency are not the same. So anything possessing both is an admixture of the two… Which means it was put together/caused by something else.

If you really are asking why composition implies act and potency, it is because anything that is composed is made of parts, even if those parts are merely act and potency. Anything with parts can be changed and ultimately can be destroyed/annihilated. If the thing is not eternal and necessary (which only God is, Pure Act), then it is in potential to non-being… since it is certainly not necessary, since it has not always been existing. Make sense?

1. There are several problems with the second part of this post. One of them I am going to dedicate a - gasp - new thread to, because it has been something I’ve seen over and over again recently and it just annoys the heck out of me… it’s this appeal to “nothing can’t exist,” which is used by atheists and believers to support their own position.

Forthcoming…

 

[IWantGod]

You mean parts can potentially be taken apart.

1. There are several problems with the second part of this post. One of them I am going to dedicate a - gasp - new thread to, because it has been something I’ve seen over and over again recently and it just annoys the heck out of me… it’s this appeal to “nothing can’t exist,” which is used by atheists and believers to support their own position.

Forthcoming…

Something is always objectively true. It is meaningless to speak of anything being true or false in nothing precisely because it is nothing at all. There is no truth or possibility in nothing. There is only truth and possibility in existence. If there were absolutely nothing then Nothing would be objectively true which is a contradiction because there is no truth or possibility in nothing.

This is to say that existence is the basis or ground of something being actually true. Things are true or false because of existence. Existence cannot be taken out of the equation. At least one thing must be necessarily real and therefore necessarily true.

Nothing cannot be objectively true.

God is truth

 

[IWantGod]

Forthcoming…

Eventually you will accept that i am a genius.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

1. Something necessarily exists, otherwise no being necessarily exists.
**
2. If the essence or nature of a being necessarily exists, then everything that it is and ever will be is necessarily actual eternally and therefore does not become actual. Otherwise there is something not necessary and by this very fact is not identical to the nature of a necessary being.
**
3. A necessary being is not in a state of becoming real or ceasing to be real according to premise 2. Therefore it cannot be something which changes its nature. New qualities do not emerge. New natures do not become actual.

4. The universe changes, and new qualities emerge. New natures become actual.

Conclusion: Therefore the Universe and everything of which it is comprised is not a necessary being. In fact a necessary being is not anything that changes.

If you are only attempting to argue that the universe does not exist necessarily, then step 1 is entirely unnecessary.

It seems to me that there is a subtle problem with #1. You have to be very careful not to read it this way:

Something necessarily exists, otherwise it is necessary that nothing exists.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I’m the best. Thats whats earth shattering.

Atheists on the other-hand think that the universe or multiverse is necessarily all there is.

Bold text - is a useless statement without UOM!!! (units of measure)

 

[fisherman_carl]

1. Something necessarily exists, otherwise no being necessarily exists.
**
2. If the essence or nature of a being necessarily exists, then everything that it is and ever will be is necessarily actual eternally and therefore does not become actual. Otherwise there is something not necessary and by this very fact is not identical to the nature of a necessary being.
**
3. A necessary being is not in a state of becoming real or ceasing to be real according to premise 2. Therefore it cannot be something which changes its nature. New qualities do not emerge. New natures do not become actual.

4. The universe changes, and new qualities emerge. New natures become actual.

Conclusion: Therefore the Universe and everything of which it is comprised is not a necessary being. In fact a necessary being is not anything that changes.

1. Something must exist eternally, unchanging and uncaused or nothing else would exist.
2. The universe exists.
3. The universe changes and could have been different.
4. The universe has a beginning.
5. Therefore, the universe can not be that which exists eternally, unchanging and uncaused.

 

[IWantGod]

1. Something must exist eternally, unchanging and uncaused or nothing else would exist.
2. The universe exists.
3. The universe changes and could have been different.
4. The universe has a beginning.
5. Therefore, the universe can not be that which exists eternally, unchanging and uncaused.

Essentially correct. But Premise 1 doesn’t work. Why must a thing be unchanging (Some people don’t understand the difference between an infinite regress of changing things and a necessary being). This is what i try to address in the OP.

 

[inocente]

**1. **Something necessarily exists, otherwise no being necessarily exists.

1. Something must exist eternally, unchanging and uncaused or nothing else would exist.

Sorry but nope to both.

You can argue that if and only if God exists, God’s existence can’t be contingent on another deity, or else that deity would be God. Therefore if and only if God exists, His existence must be necessary, and the existence of all things must logically be contingent on God.

But God isn’t a thing, and whether or not God exists, no things necessarily exist.

 

[IWantGod]

Sorry but nope to both.

You can argue that if and only if God exists, God’s existence can’t be contingent on another deity, or else that deity would be God. Therefore if and only if God exists, His existence must be necessary, and the existence of all things must logically be contingent on God.

But God isn’t a thing, and whether or not God exists, no things necessarily exist.

Wrong. What you have presented is a straw-man

1. There has to be a necessary act of existence in order to explain why there is something rather than nothing. When i say “something” i mean an act of existence as opposed to non-existence.

However, it is not my intention as such to prove that a necessary nature exists, but rather it is to show what necessity entails ontologically and what it is not.

 

[inocente]

Wrong. What you have presented is a straw-man

A straw man would refute something you never said. I’m refuting the first premise in your OP. You said it, I’m refuting it. That’s not a straw man.

1. There has to be a necessary act of existence in order to explain why there is something rather than nothing.

No there doesn’t. Who told you that?

However, it is not my intention as such to prove that a necessary nature exists, but rather it is to show what necessity entails ontologically and what it is not.

Well, you did gave this thread the title “Debate”. If you’ve since changed your mind and no longer want to debate your OP then apologies for intruding on your monologue .

 

[IWantGod]

No there doesn’t. Who told you that?

If a nature’s existence or act is not necessary then it follows necessarily that the reason for its existence is not in its own nature or act and therefore does not exist by its own power. This means it is a dependent being - dependent on another being for its existence. If there is no necessary being then there is no ontological basis for its existence.