Is the universe a contingent 'being'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolduude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

coolduude

Guest
Yes, no, maybe? An easy question, eh? What does everyone think?
 
Depends.

What is the universe?

All observed material beings are contigent based on available evidence.
 
davidv said:
Then the answer to the poll is no.

God is not a contigent being.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but that wasn’t the question.

Is the universe a contingent being? Forget about the ‘postulated’ part of the definition. Is the universe (as in, everything observable) contingent?
 
coolduude said:
I agree with you, but that wasn’t the question.

Is the universe a contingent being? Forget about the ‘postulated’ part of the definition. Is the universe (as in, everything observable) contingent?
Click to expand...
Why did you offer a definition you didn’t want used?:confused:

The created universe is contingent upon God who created it.
 
Matter is certainly contingent.
Energy is certainly contingent.
Time is arguably contingent . ( I believe it is, but there can be arguments against this )
Space is arguably contingent. ( I believe it is, but there can be arguments against this )
God is not contingent.

👍
 
JohnDamian said:
Energy is certainly contingent.
👍
Click to expand...
I think it would be valuable if you put forward an argument to support this, since a lot of people seem to think that energy is indestructible so therefore it is not contingent.
 
Once we accept the esse/essence distinction, then yes, the universe can be demonstrated as being contingent based on its potentiality and dynamism.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
I think it would be valuable if you put forward an argument to support this, since a lot of people seem to think that energy is indestructible so therefore it is not contingent.
Click to expand...
The capacity to be destroyed is absolutely accidental and irrelevant to the nature of it’s contingent emergence; or nessecary being.

Whilst it may be generally judged and held that most things contingent are destructible; it is by no means a nessecary predicate of contingent things.
 
JohnDamian said:
The capacity to be destroyed is absolutely accidental and irrelevant to the nature of it’s contingent emergence; or nessecary being.

Whilst it may be generally judged and held that most things contingent are destructible; it is by no means a nessecary predicate of contingent things.
Click to expand...
For example, my soul is contingent upon God as its creator, yet it is not destructible.
 
It cannot be determined whether or not the Universe is contingent.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Because to comprehend the Universe in it’s entirety is beyond human limitations.
Click to expand...
No it’s not.

See, we can both make unfounded and meaningless statements.

Now, silliness aside, we can determine that elements within the (material)universe are contingent; such as space – we can then determine that as this is united to the (material)universe, that as elemental aspects of the (material)universe are contingent; the totality of the (material)universe cannot be nessecary; as matter and energy are only posteriorily really distinct from the space of the (material)universe. So we can know that the (material)universe is essentially contingent; as space is a logically prior unitative predicate of the (material)universe, being predicated before mater, energy and time (general acts of the (material)universe) that the (material)universe can be taken to be contingent. As space is the (generally held) prior constituant of the (material)universe, and space is contingent then the (material)universe is contingent.

This, of course is (for the sake of easy speach, and to avoid distraction) holding that the (material)universe does not include God.
 
JohnDamian said:
No it’s not.

See, we can both make unfounded and meaningless statements.

Now, silliness aside, we can determine that elements within the (material)universe are contingent; such as space – we can then determine that as this is united to the (material)universe, that as elemental aspects of the (material)universe are contingent; the totality of the (material)universe cannot be nessecary; as matter and energy are only posteriorily really distinct from the space of the (material)universe. So we can know that the (material)universe is essentially contingent; as space is a logically prior unitative predicate of the (material)universe, being predicated before mater, energy and time (general acts of the (material)universe) that the (material)universe can be taken to be contingent. As space is the (generally held) prior constituant of the (material)universe, and space is contingent then the (material)universe is contingent.

This, of course is (for the sake of easy speach, and to avoid distraction) holding that the (material)universe does not include God.
Click to expand...
Or, silliness aside, we could just accept that the Universe is a construct that we cannot fully comprehend.

Or perhaps you contend that you do fully comprehend it?
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Or, silliness aside, we could just accept that the Universe is a construct that we cannot fully comprehend.

Or perhaps you contend that you do fully comprehend it?
Click to expand...
Since you are speaking for other people, I’ll play ball and say sure, I could fully comprehend the material universe, or at the very least, all discovered concepts in the material universe are known to be comprehensible to at least one human being, so the evidence is in my favor.

Tell me one concept in the material universe a human cannot comprehend.

👍
 
JohnDamian said:
Since you are speaking for other people, I’ll play ball and say sure, I could fully comprehend the material universe, or at the very least, all discovered concepts in the material universe are known to be comprehensible to at least one human being, so the evidence is in my favor.

Tell me one concept in the material universe a human cannot comprehend.

👍
Click to expand...
Okay, here’s something I’ve always wondered. Tell me, in your own words, why it takes an infinite amount of energy to seperate two Quarks.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Okay, here’s something I’ve always wondered. Tell me, in your own words, why it takes an infinite amount of energy to seperate two Quarks.
Click to expand...
Simple answer; it does not.

No material thing that we have ever encountered requires an infinite amount of anything to create, destroy or manipulate.

Either it is possible to seperate Quarks, or it is not possible to seperate Quarks; if a Quark is seperable, then it is seperable by some force that is less than infinite; for an infinite cannot exist in actuality, as it is a concept and not a reality; which cannot be constituted by finite elements or individuals.

I only vaguelly know what a Quark is, but I can tell immediatly that the idea that an infinite amount of energy is required to seperate them is a fallacy.

👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top