**The Necessary Reality Argument**

[ratio1]

You are assuming what has to be proven.

fallacy of tautology?

 

[IWantGod]

By originate, i don’t mean in the sense of a temporal “beginning”. I mean logically speaking no dependent being is the source. Existence is not something that originates in their nature but rather it is something given to all of them regardless of how many there are. In an infinite regress every cause is an effect.Therefore an infinite regress cannot be the reason why there is something rather than nothing, even if an infinite regress is true.

An infinite regress can be an alternative to the big-bang but it is not a good metaphysical argument for why there is something rather than nothing at all.

There is no getting around it.

 

[RedFan]

existence does not originate with any dependent being

That much is not denied by the infinite regression denizens. They simply say “existence does not originate at all” (hence, their usage of infinite regression).

None of the effects in the regress are the cause of the regress.

That much is not denied by the infinite regression denizens either. They concede that every single one of the effects is not causal of the series, but maintain that every single one had a cause within the series.

 

[ratio1]

An infinite regress can be an alternative to the big-bang but it is not a good metaphysical argument for why there is something rather than nothing at all.

But why do we need a metaphysical argument at all?

And even if you somehow prove there is a God I’ll be interested to know your metaphysical answer to why there is a God and not nothing at all.

 

[IWantGod]

That much is not denied by the infinite regression denizens either. They concede that every single one of the effects is not causal of the series, but maintain that every single one had a cause within the series.

But that cannot be an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing at all.

None of them are the reason for why the physical nature of the series exists rather than being nothing at all because they are all effects. Exactly. Thus the series should not exist at all.

 

[IWantGod]

But why do we need a metaphysical argument at all?

Why do we need an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing? Are you really asking that qeustion?

Why avoid the qeustion, that is my qeustion. Perhaps it is because you know the answer is that something must necessarily exist, and an infinite regress of dependent beings does not necessarily exist.

 

[IWantGod]

And even if you somehow prove there is a God I’ll be interested to know your metaphysical answer to why there is a God and not nothing at all.

If i some how prove the existence of an intelligent non-physical necessary reality? Have you not been following the thread?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

AlNg: The equations I gave are indeed only true within their limitations, but this is hardly the place to examine all those equations which seem to describe the universe - there are many websites describing the importance of “the seven equations that rule the universe” or some such. And all of them have their refinements in extreme circumstances, some of which we understand better than others. However, as a basis for the understanding of the universe they work extremely well, and have broadly universal application. They lead me to believe that a perfect set of equations, whether or not we are ever able to enumerate them, would not only describe the current universe, but also its state throughout time as well.

And I don’t think IwantGod was entirely assuming what was to be proven (correct me if I’m wrong). He was not trying to prove that everything must have a beginning, but that if everything had a beginning, the existence of God is a necessary corollary to that.

As for all those questions of why do we need to do this or that, then of course the answer is we don’t need to do any such thing. Most people get along just fine. Some of us just like doing it, that’s all!

 

[AlNg]

They lead me to believe that a perfect set of equations, whether or not we are ever able to enumerate them, would not only describe the current universe, but also its state throughout time as well.

Including at the time of the BB when the observable universe was compressed into a Planck length? You said that

the laws of physics have not changed at all.

I am not sure that the laws of physics do not change inside a Black Hole. Certainly the Newtonian laws of gravity would not apply since you cannot escape a Black Hole.
So it is just an assumption on your part that the laws of physics have not changed at all and this assumption is not what many physicists believe when they consider the question of the BB and black holes.

 

[PickyPicky]

It’s unfortunate that logic, which is designed to provide clarity in a search for truth, should sometimes obfuscate and confuse.

We see the deployment of fuzzy, foggy abstract terms like “existence” or “reality”, without definition, as though they possessed singular, precise, bounded meanings. We see the deployment of assumptions, without justification, such as “nothing can come of nothing”, “everything has a cause”, or “everything that exists must have a reason for existing”, when these assumptions are at best unproven. We see firm, bold conclusions arrived at from cosmological grounds involving the “origin” of the universe or the nature of time, when we have only the sketchiest understanding of these matters.

The problem is, it seems to me, that the tools being employed are unsuited to the task. If you seek God, seek Him not through logic.

 

[IWantGod]

You say that i am making assumptions, but you are just asserting this claim. You cannot say that from absolutely nothing comes nothing is an assumption without revealing your lack of understanding about these concepts.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

AlNg, I’m not sure we’re using the word “unchanging” in the same way. Not all laws govern all situations, and at extremes they need careful modification. However, it is most certainly an axiom of standard physics that the laws as a whole are indeed universal and unchanging, and relate intimately with one another. The laws which govern particular situations, such as black holes, have governed them since before there were such things, and continue to do so.

 

[PickyPicky]

Well of course it’s an assumption: you presented it as an assumption. And there is nothing wrong with assumptions. Assumptions you do not bother to justify, and which are in any case dodgy, are another matter.

 

[IWantGod]

It justifies itself. It involves an incontrovertible logical contradiction to say that something can come from absolutely nothing by itself because there is nothing in absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing is a negation of all possible things. And its obvious. There is no assumption, and to say otherwise is absurd. There is no possibility here for reasonable doubt.

 

[PickyPicky]

It justifies itself.

I fear not. Assertions which appear to be so obvious that they justify themselves are dangerous.

 

[IWantGod]

I fear not. Assertions which appear to be so obvious that they justify themselves are dangerous.

It involves an incontrovertible logical contradiction to say that something can come from absolutely nothing by itself because there is nothing in absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing is a negation of all possible beings. And its obvious. There is no assumption, and to say otherwise is absurd. There is no possibility here for reasonable doubt.

 

[IWantGod]

As I see it, here’s your problem, my consciousness exists, in fact, it’s the only thing that I can be certain exists. So as far as I can possibly know, I’m the only “something” that there is. Nothing else qualifies as being something, because I can’t be certain of its objective existence outside of my own mind. Which means that there’s only one “something” of which I can be certain…and that’s me.

I disagree. While it is not deductively evident that what you perceive is objectively real. There is inductive reasons to think another being exists besides yourself. You are changing. You are growing in knowledge and understanding. You are realizing potential. So you are constantly moving from potential to actual. Which means that your mind cannot be necessarily actual because it is realizing potential. If your mind was necessarily actual then the potential of your nature would be necessarily actual also… There cannot be any part of you that isn’t necessarily actual. Therefore If your mind is not necessarily actual then it is dependent on the existence of another being in order to exist.

The thing is, if all the information you experience is identical to what you are, intrinsically a part of your consciousness, then why are you only experiencing it potentially?

Thus the idea that you are existence alone does not make rational sense.

 

[IWantGod]

However you’re going to have to show why it is that a necessary being must be pure actuality.

Because its nature is necessarily actual thus there cannot be a intrinsic part of it that is not necessarily actual,. If a necessary nature realizes potential then a part of its nature is not necessarily actual, which means it’s existence has unrealized potential and that involves a contradiction of the fact that it is necessarily actual. Everything that a necessary being could possibly be is eternally actual.

 

[IWantGod]

Again, you just made an assertion without evidence nor argument to back it up.

You are just making an assertion that i have made an assertion and that simply isn’t true… Logical contradictions cannot exist and the assertion that a necessarily actual nature can have an intrinsic part of itself that is not necessary is a logical and metaphysical contradiction. That’s all the evidence that one needs.

If what exists necessarily cannot change, then change is impossible.

A nature that is necessary cannot change, cannot realize potential in any way, That is the truth.

 

[IWantGod]

If potentiality isn’t an attribute of the necessary cause, then where does it come from?

If you are asking how a possibility becomes actual and does not share the nature of its cause, i would say that an intellect of some sort is required in that equation, an intellect that is pure actuality, something beyond what we currently understand,. But i humbly admit that simply saying an intellect is the efficient cause is not by itself enough to explain how an actualized potential happens in an ontological sense. That’s something i am trying to work out because it is certainly clear that possibilities are becoming actual.

What i know for certain is that if you want to explain the existence of actualized possibilities you have to begin with necessary reality… You cannot begin with absolutely nothing and you cannot begin with a dependency or a series of dependencies.