The Thomistic Cosmological Argument

[wussup]

Why? We are not saying that He “bumps” everything else aside, or, that He “permeates” everything else in the sense of becoming one with it. (Perhaps “penetrates” is the better descriptive word.) What we are saying is that He “penetrates” everything in a way that leaves physical matter and spiritual matter separate from each other. Otherwise, He would not be infinite.
Yes, it was a poor analogy; my excuse is that there likely exists no good analogy known to us.

True enough! Looking at the alternative view, God as a Being [containing the attributes] of Light (plus others) would have the same effect you are describing. His ‘distance’ to everything would be close enough as to consider it ‘penetrating’, while still not ‘one’ pantheistic-ally. He would be at all time present so would know the past from the future and vice verse, an attribute of omniscience.

I see your point. But, if we allot His permeation to the mere level of potentiality, then the actuality of the relationship is absent. “Potentiality”, in our philosophical discussion, means “privation”. If his omnipresence is merely potential, then, it isn’t actual. If it isn’t actual, then he cannot be infinite. If he isn’t infinite, he cannot be God. If he isn’t God, then he is something else and we still need to find/understand what/who God is.

It is not my understanding that God is ‘potentially’ everywhere, but is actually everywhere (and every-when). I was using that term inadvisedly. I was referencing the term as relative to a Multiverse and confused the issue. He would ‘potentially’ be everywhere in terms of our theoretical understanding of a Multiverse that (shhhh, don’t tell Spock) may not exist. Hence, He would only be potential because He could not inhabit a place that does not exist.

 

[JDaniel]

Definition for “necessity” from The Catholic Encyclopedia:

"When we consider the divers beings, not from the point of view of existence, but in relation to their constitution and activity, necessity may be classified as metaphysical, physical, and moral.

(1) Metaphysical necessity implies that a thing is what it is, viz., it has the elements essential to its specific nature. It is a metaphysical necessity for God to be infinite, man rational, an animal a living being. Metaphysical necessity is absolute.

(2) Physical necessity exists in connection with the activity of the material beings which constitute the universe. While they are contingent as to their existence, contingent also as to their actual relations (for God could have created another order than the present one), they are, however, necessarily determined in their activity, both as to its exercises and its specific character. But this determination is dependent upon certain conditions, the presence of which is required, the absence of one or the other of them preventing altogether the exercise or normal exercise of this activity. The laws of nature should always be understood with that limitation: all conditions being realized. The laws of nature, therefore, being subject to physical necessity are neither absolutely necessary, as materialistic Mechanism asserts, nor merely contingent, as the partisans of the philosophy of contingency declare; but they are conditionally or hypothetically necessary. This hypothetical necessity is also called by some consequent necessity.

(3) Moral necessity is necessity as applied to the activity of free beings. We know that men under certain circumstances, although they are free, will act in such and such a way. It is morally necessary that such a man in such circumstances act honestly; it is morally necessary that several historians, relating certain facts, should tell the truth concerning them. This moral necessity is the basis of moral certitude in historical and moral sciences. The term is also used with reference to freedom of the will to denote any undue physical or moral influence that might prevent the will from freely choosing to act or not act, to choose one thing in preference to another. The derivatives, necessitation and necessarianism, in their philosophical signification express the doctrine that the will in all its activity is invariably determined by physical or psychical antecedent conditions (see DETERMINISM; FREE WILL)."

Analogously, then, “necessity” may be defined as either “essential” necessity or “accidental” necessity. Essential necessity is synonymous with metaphysical necessity, from the first definition above. “Accidental” necessity would be synonymous with “physical” necessity, and definition # 2 above.

If the universe is in fact essentially necessary, then it must have certain properties - none of which does it possess: first, it must be a non-finite, open system, forever expanding, in terms of the addition (creation) of matter/energy. However, we find it to be finite, closed, and expanding only in the sense of increasing the space (non-matter/energy) between its clumpings and particles. Second, it would have to be Eternal, which modern science is pretty sure it is not.

Third, matter and energy are maintained in an equilibrium according to Einstein’s theory. In that sense are matter and energy indestructible. However, matter and energy are undergoing entropy. All that will be left, at some time in the distant future, is immobile matter - matter sans energy. Fourth, both energy and matter came into existence a finite time ago. What was “before” the original Planck epoch is completely unknown to us, however many theories might come about concerning it.

Fifth, the universe should be all-knowing. But, our science of it indicates that it has no sentience and no ability to ratiocinate. Sixth, the universe should be all-good, in the same way that God has that attribute. But, if the universe is all good then it must also assume the same blame that some people ascribe to God for the bad things that happen. Seventh, the universe must be omnipotent. While it is certainly very powerful, if it does not self-contain omni-goodness, then, it would exhibit no gentleness. The universe is raw power, constantly undergoing the most devastating changes we can conceive. Macro-changes due to its raw power is the essence of the universe. Yet, the earth has existed - and improved as far as life-friendliness is concerned - for one-third of the universe’s duration.

Eighth, we should see a “solution” (in a chemistry sense) where raw power and goodness are mixed such that there is far more goodness, in the mixture, than raw power. The raw power should be overridden by the goodness that is extant. We do not see this. We rather see stars exploding and galaxies imploding and the remotest exigencies cooling off immensely, headlong toward entropy, and collisions, etc. Left to its own, I have no doubt that the universe would self-eradicate considerably faster than God is allowing it to.

In summary, all of those things that we expect to see and do see in our attributions of God, we either do not see, or see the opposite of, from our universe.

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I cannot refute an empty proposition. Let me turn the table and present one myself. The absolute, irrefutable proof that God does not exist is: “God does not exist, because skfdyuir iai uenfione!” Now can you refute this?

first, let me say it is not an empty proposition, you expressed an understanding of the non-STEM universe in another reply to wussup, defending me. i will address the issue further in your reply to him.

secondly, i can easily defeat your proposition here in that the only necessary predicate for all possible worlds is existence, therefore, G-d as that maximal state of existence is a necessary proposition in every possible world. in other words, every possible world is only possible in the sense that it exists, or could possibly exist. per lewis’ modal realism. (no, im not a fan of modal realism either. however there are few good refutations) so though you arent actually making an argument as opposed to stating nonsensical words, wherein my non-sensical words refered to actually possible non STEM matter, yours actually refer to nothing.

If it is true, then what are we talking about?

because your simply restating the meaning of basic possible world semantics. the conclusion you draw however is wrong.

Necessary existence is a clear concept. The STEM - in this world - fulfills it. If the STEM is necessary in this universe, then - from the definition of necessary existence - it follows that it is true in every possible universe.

youre still using circular reasoning.

1. STEM is necessary because of the conservation laws
2. the conservation laws are necessary because of STEM

as i have already demonstrated, the conservation laws, in fact all physical laws are dependent on the conditions of this universe. they are in fact dependent on the existence of this particular universe and may well be different in any alternate universe.

the STEM universe cannot draw necessity from the conservation laws that draw their own existence from the universe.

Sure. The concept of necessary existence is the evidence.

thats been shown false now, based on circular reasoning, do you have any other evidence?

Now that is interesting. What are they “composed of”? (And please do not repeat your list of meaningless gibberish, or invent some new ones).

some form of non-STEM substance.

No matter - no energy - no space - no time - no action - no events. Isn’t that what we call: nothing?

no. that just assumes that all possible worlds are STEM, something already disproven.

So you wish to stipulate that “nothing” actually exists?

of course not.

Just what are other possible worlds? They are mental constructs, thought experiments - which differ from this actual world to a certain degree. If you wish to “take away” STEM from this world - as a thought experiment - you will arrive at nothing. And no matter how much we disagree about, there is one thing we can agree upon: “nothing does not exist”. It is only a mental construct.

technically modal realism is difficult to defeat. i dont like it myself. though as above you are using circular reasoning to arrive at the idea that STEM is necessary.

thats the central problem here. circular reasoning.

1. STEM is necessary because of the conservation laws
2. the conservation laws are necessary because of STEM

 

[Spock]

WSP not withstanding, steps 1-3 your logic supports a necessary existence argument, then in 4 you state there is no such thing as ‘necessary existence in one particular world’, and then go to step 5 to conclude that STEM exists in all possible worlds.

This is a big misunderstanding.

1. says: “however, there is no such thing as “necessary existence” in one particular world.” and it means “however, there is no such thing as “necessary existence” - which would be necessary only in one particular world”. It does not deny the concept of necessary existence, it denies the idea that necessary existence could be restricted to one possible world. But I guess, if you stopped reading midway, it could be misunderstood.

Let me clarify again:

1. Necessary existence is which cannot non-exist.
2. Necessary existence **also **means (different terminology) existence in every possible world.
3. STEM cannot non-exist in our world, because of the conservation laws.
4. Therefore STEM necessarily exists in our world.
5. Therefore STEM exists in every possible world.
6. and 2) are interchangable, they expess the same concept using different wording.
   Is this clearer now?

Since you cannot speak to the laws of physics in the Multiverse, (a concept logically sound, which is why I asked if you read these exceedingly brief pages.

At best, logically valid, which should not be confused with logically sound.

As for ‘imaginary numbers’, yeah. I used imaginary numbers in everyday calculations as a Nuclear Tech whilst in the navy… Turns out their not so imaginary…

Bad terminology. There are tons of it.

 

[wussup]

At the risk of sounding pedantic…the equation to determine the length of a Universe of 1 light year, traveling at the speed of light would be given as: Length x square root of (1-(velocity squared/speed of light squared)). (I tried to right it in word and paste it here but the forum wouldn’t allow it…).

Clearly, a being traveling at the speed of light is theoretically impossible because the distance would be zero, or all the Universe would collapse into one geometrical point. For this universe traveling at 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of c, the universe 1 light year across would collapse to about 31 feet. Is it impossible for God to be able to ‘move’ at the speed of light? The Bible does say God is light. If one were to take it literally…

 

[Spock]

first, let me say it is not an empty proposition, you expressed an understanding of the non-STEM universe in another reply to wussup, defending me. i will address the issue further in your reply to him.

A proposition which is dependent upon senseless words is empty. Just like my example, which you chose to disregard.

secondly, i can easily defeat your proposition here in that the only necessary predicate for all possible worlds is existence, therefore, G-d as that maximal state of existence is a necessary proposition in every possible world.

Propositions only exist in a possible world with sufficiently advanced beings, who can **make **that proposition. Propositions do not exist “on their own”. Besides your definition of “maximal state of existence” is subjective and incoherent.

youre still using circular reasoning.

1. STEM is necessary because of the conservation laws
2. the conservation laws are necessary because of STEM

It would only be circular, if I used 2) as a **predicate **in the reasoning, and I did not. Getting pretty tiresome to restate it so many times, but what the heck. Copy and paste still works. So here comes, again:

1. Necessary existence is which cannot non-exist.
2. Necessary existence also means (different terminology) existence in every possible world.
3. STEM cannot non-exist in our world, because of the conservation laws.
4. Therefore STEM necessarily exists in our world.
5. Therefore STEM exists in every possible world.

The conservation laws are not assumed - a priori - to be present in every possible world, it is the **result **of the reasoning. So the reasoning is NOT circular. The only predicate I am using is the two different ways of defining “necessary existence” and the undeniable fact that this universe exists, and in this universe the conservation laws are in effect.

as i have already demonstrated, the conservation laws, in fact all physical laws are dependent on the conditions of this universe. they are in fact dependent on the existence of this particular universe and may well be different in any alternate universe.

You did not **demonstrate **anything. You merely expressed your view that “maybe” the conservation laws are missing from another universe. And since my reasoning did not depend on this “maybe”, your reasoning did not address what I actually said.

some form of non-STEM substance.

At least one example would be nice.

 

[wussup]

thats the central problem here. circular reasoning.

1. STEM is necessary because of the conservation laws
2. the conservation laws are necessary because of STEM

In fairness to Spock, he is only a mathematician… Ohhh, I crack myself up! Ok ok…, really though, you are correct, but not many non-science types understand that many of our laws are -]secular/-], oops, Freudian slip, circular in their creation. One of the examples the paper by Dr. Stenger says, “Ohm’s law which says that the voltage is proportional to the current in a resistor, where a resistor is defined as a device that obeys Ohm’s law”.

Definition for “necessity” from The Catholic Encyclopedia:
.

Gosh! That’s a mouthful…I will have to take some time to digest it…

1. says: “however, there is no such thing as “necessary existence” in one particular world.” and it means “however, there is no such thing as “necessary existence” - which would be necessary only in one particular world”. It does not deny the concept of necessary existence, it denies the idea that necessary existence could be restricted to one possible world. But I guess, if you stopped reading midway, it could be misunderstood. Yeah, I made all these comments, but stopped reading halfway through…that’s what I did…

Let me clarify again:

1. Necessary existence is which cannot non-exist.
2. Necessary existence **also **means (different terminology) existence in every possible world.
3. STEM cannot non-exist in our world, because of the conservation laws.
4. Therefore STEM necessarily exists in our world.
5. Therefore STEM exists in every possible world.
6. and 2) are interchangable, they expess the same concept using different wording.
   Is this clearer now?

Hmmmm, two points:

1. Generally speaking, I would agree with the premise that ‘necessary existence’ means those combined attributes making up the sein in the Multiverse.
2. That being granted, and in you language, your argument is faulty because it goes from the specific to the general. This is the logical error of composition; where the properties are such that, if a all the parts of an object has the property, then the whole will also have the property. Granted this is an arguable objection, but I think it is valid because there is ample support to suggest that not all the parts have STEM.

Again, on a simpler level, because one part of existence requires STEM, does not necessitate the whole. That would be 2) that is in error.

I reiterate, I am surprised at your reluctance to look at the Multiverse. Aside from this logical tete a tete we have here, is there any other reason you reject the Multiverse?

 

[Spock]

Yeah, I made all these comments, but stopped reading halfway through…that’s what I did…

Thanks for the clarification.

Hmmmm, two points:

1. Generally speaking, I would agree with the premise that ‘necessary existence’ means those combined attributes making up the sein in the Multiverse.
2. That being granted, and in you language, your argument is faulty because it goes from the specific to the general. This is the logical error of composition; where the properties are such that, if a all the parts of an object has the property, then the whole will also have the property. Granted this is an arguable objection, but I think it is valid because there is ample support to suggest that not all the parts have STEM.

If I would have committed the fallacy of composition, you would be right. But I did not. I am merely using the two different ways of stating the same principle.

1. Something that exists necessarily cannot non-exist.
2. Necessary existence means that the phenomenon in question exists in all possible worlds.

I did not make up these definitions. Philosophers and theologians did. Pesonally I think that the dichotomy beteween necessary and contingent existence is a bunch of baloney (or a vessel of fertilizer - if you prefer). But that is neither here nor there. I use the terminology because it is something that many philosophers and theologians do - and because it is widely used by apologists who attempt to prove God’s existence on the grounds that God is a necessary being. You should not blame me for using and **exploiting **these definitions - maybe from the twisted and sick desire to beat the “enemy” using their own weapons.

I reiterate, I am surprised at your reluctance to look at the Multiverse. Aside from this logical tete a tete we have here, is there any other reason you reject the Multiverse?

I am not really reluctant. I don’t have the time right now. But, right off the bat, something that rests on such outlandish assumptions (more than 3 physicial dimensions), which cannot be refuted nor verified - is hard to accept as a working hypothesis. That may change, if the computational results will show that these assumption can be used as a good predicting tool. After all the equations of QM allow us to make good predictions from the starting points to the end results, even though the intermediate steps cannot be “mapped” to reality.

It seems to me that you know much more about this than I do. Are there are any actual results which would show that the conservation laws only exist in our universe? You see, we cannot know what physical laws “might” be true in another universe, with different “building blocks”. But I would be hard pressed to imagine a universe where like-charged particles would attract and differently charged particles would repel each other. Or where the strength of gravity (the weakest force) would be stronger than the electromagnetic force. Such a possible universe could not be stable, even for a “second”. That tells me that the laws of physics cannot be arbitrary. There must be some laws, which are invariant, even across different physical worlds.

 

[wussup]

Thanks for the clarification.

If I would have committed the fallacy of composition, you would be right. But I did not. I am merely using the two different ways of stating the same principle.

1. Something that exists necessarily cannot non-exist.
2. Necessary existence means that the phenomenon in question exists in all possible worlds.

Sorry Buddy, while they sort of address the similarity having one common term ‘exists’, the linkage between the two is missing support. Specifically, your logic in determining that this world is the some total of all worlds, or in effect, our universe is the metaverse.

I did not make up these definitions. Philosophers and theologians did. Personally I think that the dichotomy between necessary and contingent existence is a bunch of baloney (or a vessel of fertilizer - if you prefer). But that is neither here nor there. I use the terminology because it is something that many philosophers and theologians do - and because it is widely used by apologists who attempt to prove God’s existence on the grounds that God is a necessary being. You should not blame me for using and **exploiting **these definitions - maybe from the twisted and sick desire to beat the “enemy” using their own weapons.

Using the correct terminology is great, however, the trick is to do it with aplomb… Really though, it is difficult to frame an argument as complex and ephemeral as ‘being’, ‘existence’, ‘God’, etc without catching flack from someone. While I understand what you are saying, I feel the logical fault lie in limiting the options (another informal logical error). Your position is in essence, there is either this world with STEM, or no world w/o STEM. Since STEM exists, that implies two conclusions (informally stated), this world exists with STEM as a necessary attribute; and second, only this world exists with STEM as a necessary attribute.

I am not really reluctant. I don’t have the time right now. But, right off the bat, something that rests on such outlandish assumptions (more than 3 physical dimensions), which cannot be refuted nor verified - is hard to accept as a working hypothesis. That may change, if the computational results will show that these assumption can be used as a good predicting tool. After all the equations of QM allow us to make good predictions from the starting points to the end results, even though the intermediate steps cannot be “mapped” to reality.

It seems to me that you know much more about this than I do. Are there are any actual results which would show that the conservation laws only exist in our universe? You see, we cannot know what physical laws “might” be true in another universe, with different “building blocks”. But I would be hard pressed to imagine a universe where like-charged particles would attract and differently charged particles would repel each other. Or where the strength of gravity (the weakest force) would be stronger than the electromagnetic force. Such a possible universe could not be stable, even for a “second”. That tells me that the laws of physics cannot be arbitrary. There must be some laws, which are invariant, even across different physical worlds.

I would suggest I do not know more than you, just different stuff than you. For sure your math would be beyond me… This different stuff we develop is formative in the paradigms we live in. That is why the RCC is very much into education, so they can form these paradigms.

I think you and I then would agree on far more than we disagree. I do not hold as a matter of faith the MUH, but do recognize it as a potential (in the common vernacular) logically valid argument. I think that in the organism we are in known as Human Beings, the limitations of our physical body will make it exceedingly difficult to imagine these alternative universes. This would require a correlative alternate state of consciousness. (Something that would send most Catholics and my Church into a state of apoplexy!) I think as far as the logical premise you are trying to put forth, we will always disagree because I do not agree with the premise as stated by Leibniz/Craig/Kalam etc… For much of the same reasons. The logical fallacies, though debatable, are sufficient for me to say, nay.

 

[Areopagite]

I cannot refute an empty proposition. Let me turn the table and present one myself. The absolute, irrefutable proof that God does not exist is: “God does not exist, because skfdyuir iai uenfione!” Now can you refute this?

THAT is hilarious! Very good.

1. Necessary existence is which cannot non-exist.
2. Necessary existence also means (different terminology) existence in every possible world.
3. STEM cannot non-exist in our world, because of the conservation laws.
4. Therefore STEM necessarily exists in our world.
5. Therefore STEM exists in every possible world.

You need to specify what kind of necessary existence you are talking about. There are at least two kinds. One is absolute necessary existence and the other is conditional necessary existence (also sometimes called hypothetical necessary existence). Now, something with absolute necessary existence cannot non-exist no matter what. Something that is conditionally necessary cannot non-exist if certain conditions are met … but if those conditions are not met, then its existence is not necessary. The only thing that has absolute necessity in the Thomistic view is God. He exists no matter what. All other things that necessarily exist, can only do so in a conditional way.

An example of conditional necessity is this: If someone is sitting down on a chair, that chair necessarily exists. However, the chair does not exist in absolute necessity. It is possible that no one ever had to make it. However, if we are given the fact that someone is sitting on that chair, then … obviously … it is necessary for that chair to exist in that case.

I think STEM holds the place of conditional necessary existence. One condition, I suppose, for it to necessarily exist is if the law of conservation is true. But if the law of conservation was not true, then STEM would not necessarily exist. Now, the question is, is the law of conservation necessarily true? Or is it contingent, or at least conditional necessary? Why would one assume that it is necessarily true … and particularly, necessarily true in an absolute sense?

The law of conservation has been arrived at by induction, not deduction. This is because we have come up with the law of conservation by merely observing repetitions in the universe. But these are just repetitions, not unchangeable mathematical axioms or metaphysical first principles. So, technically, it cannot be proven with metaphysical or deductive certitude that there will never be instances where the law of conservation is contradicted. That goes for all other laws of physics. It is thus a matter of faith to declare that the law of conservation must necessarily be followed all the time by everything (esp. in other worlds).

It can be said that the law of conservation is of a natural necessity (a kind of hypothetical necessity, contingent upon the idea that observed repetitions will continue) but not a metaphysical necessity (which is absolute necessity, for it concerns the unchangeableness of the nature of being itself, and thus of God Himself as well, for He is the fullness being).

Another reason why STEM does not exist absolutely is in the consideration of deep space (and I may be wrong about this). Once you look to the far reaches of the universe, you start to not find matter anymore … right? Matter thus does not exist in that circumstance. It is therefore not an absolutely necessary being. Also, you would not find energy either, right? Eventually? Thus, it seems space and time may be successfully separate in some cases from matter and energy (though it may be true that matter and energy require space and time … but not the other way around necessarily). Thus, I do not think you can squish together Space, Time, Energy, and Matter into one conceptual idea and say that it must necessarily exist in reality altogether like this absolutely.

I think this makes sense. Then again, maybe not. I am open to correction.

 

[wussup]

You need to specify what kind of necessary existence you are talking about. There are at least two kinds. One is absolute necessary existence and the other is conditional necessary existence (also sometimes called hypothetical necessary existence).

Areopagite,
I infer (Spock, correct me if I am wrong) but Spock does not actually believe in:

1-There is a difference between absolute and conditional necessary existence. I get this from his statement,

Pesonally I think that the dichotomy beteween necessary and contingent existence is a bunch of baloney [misspellings in original]

2-He does not believe in the logic of necessary existence as a proof of God. I get this from his statement,

You should not blame me for using and exploiting these definitions - maybe from the twisted and sick desire to beat the “enemy” using their own weapons.

3-Spock’s apparent only firm belief is that STEM is the one undeniable, interrelated series of ideas that have a universal set of truths. I believe he feels that any logical system that does not account for this is false, regardless of the correctness of the logic involved. I get this from the gist of his entire dialogue.

My point in this is to help ease the frustration involved by those trying to prove a logical construct to someone who is completely intransigent in their thinking based on his personal paradigm.

Frankly, my readings of Leibniz/Kalam/Craig Cosmological arguments leads me to believe they have serious faults. These have been explained ad nauseum here. My interest here is to see how the TCA is adjusted to by reasonably intelligent Catholics who still see the strengths of the TCA, while recognizing these weakness.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

A proposition which is dependent upon senseless words is empty. Just like my example, which you chose to disregard.

i did answer, as you qoute immediately below here. the proposition doesnt dpend on non-sensical words, because you qouted it and explained it to wussup.

Propositions only exist in a possible world with sufficiently advanced beings, who can **make **that proposition. Propositions do not exist “on their own”.

i am speaking of the predicate of existence.

Besides your definition of “maximal state of existence” is subjective and incoherent.

how so?

It would only be circular, if I used 2) as a **predicate **in the reasoning, and I did not. Getting pretty tiresome to restate it so many times, but what the heck. Copy and paste still works. So here comes, again:

1. Necessary existence is which cannot non-exist.
2. Necessary existence also means (different terminology) existence in every possible world.
   **3) STEM cannot non-exist in our world, because of the conservation laws. **
3. Therefore STEM necessarily exists in our world.
4. Therefore STEM exists in every possible world.

The conservation laws are not assumed - a priori - to be present in every possible world, it is the **result **of the reasoning. So the reasoning is NOT circular. The only predicate I am using is the two different ways of defining “necessary existence” and the undeniable fact that this universe exists, and in this universe the conservation laws are in effect.

i dont get how you are missing this, i bolded your circular reasoning above. just repeating it doesnt make it go away.

1. STEM is necessary because of the conservation laws.
2. the conservation laws are necesssary because of STEM

maybe i should clarify.

it isnt that you are saying the physical laws are present in every possible world, its that premise 3, in itself is circular reasoning. as the abstract i posted indicated.

You did not **demonstrate **anything. You merely expressed your view that “maybe” the conservation laws are missing from another universe. And since my reasoning did not depend on this “maybe”, your reasoning did not address what I actually said.

premise 3. circular. thats just the beginning of the problems. but thats the prima facie fatality.

At least one example would be nice.

we normally term non-material things spirit. but im at a loss on how to demonstrate the non-physical, to physical beings. after all our very senses are tuned to matter. how then could we sense non-material things? i agree it would be nice. but its not reasonable.

 

[wussup]

i did answer, as you qoute immediately below here. the proposition doesnt dpend on non-sensical words, because you qouted it and explained it to wussup.

Dude! Look at the spelling! Spock is making you lose it…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Dude! Look at the spelling! Spock is making you lose it…

its late, i get sleepy and confused goodnight

 

[Areopagite]

Thank you, Wassup, for drawing my attention to a couple things …

If I would have committed the fallacy of composition, you would be right. But I did not. I am merely using the two different ways of stating the same principle.

1. Something that exists necessarily cannot non-exist.
2. Necessary existence means that the phenomenon in question exists in all possible worlds.

Just a clarification about #1. Something that exists necessarily cannot non-exist in the same way and at the same time. Obviously, just because something exists doesn’t mean it will always continue to exist or exist in all possible ways.

And also a clarification on #2. Only absolute necessary existence means that the thing in question exists in all possible worlds. There are conditional necessary existences that do not exist in certain worlds when the appropriate conditions are not met.

I did not make up these definitions. Philosophers and theologians did. Pesonally I think that the dichotomy beteween necessary and contingent existence is a bunch of baloney (or a vessel of fertilizer - if you prefer). But that is neither here nor there. I use the terminology because it is something that many philosophers and theologians do - and because it is widely used by apologists who attempt to prove God’s existence on the grounds that God is a necessary being. You should not blame me for using and **exploiting **these definitions - maybe from the twisted and sick desire to beat the “enemy” using their own weapons.

Yeah … so … why are necessary and contingent existence a false dichotomy? Isn’t it undeniable common sense? Maybe it’s not. I’d like some explanation of why you think this. It seems pretty common knowledge. And I can’t think of a way around it. I mean, some things are necessary and some things are not necessary, right? Or is everything necessary? … or, rather, is everything not necessary? Or … perchance, are some things necessary and some things not necessary (i.e. contingent)? I don’t see what you’d think if you think this is garbage.

 

[wussup]

Just a clarification about #1. Something that exists necessarily cannot non-exist in the same way and at the same time. Obviously, just because something exists doesn’t mean it will always continue to exist or exist in all possible ways.

And also a clarification on #2. Only absolute necessary existence means that the thing in question exists in all possible worlds. There are conditional necessary existences that do not exist in certain worlds when the appropriate conditions are not met.

Yeah … so … why are necessary and contingent existence a false dichotomy? Isn’t it undeniable common sense? Maybe it’s not. I’d like some explanation of why you think this. It seems pretty common knowledge. And I can’t think of a way around it. I mean, some things are necessary and some things are not necessary, right? Or is everything necessary? … or, rather, is everything not necessary? Or … perchance, are some things necessary and some things not necessary (i.e. contingent)? I don’t see what you’d think if you think this is garbage.

RE #1) Nothing permanent but change eh? Generally, I believe that to be true. Maybe a slighy addendum to the last: doesn’t mean it will continue to exist in the form it is in now?

As far as dialogue with Spock, I thing the last is the most applicable. Very concise statements; so if not ‘necessary’ and/or 'contingent, then what?

I reiterate, I hate being spoken for, and extend the same courtesy to Spock. My apologies if my analysis of your arguments is in correct (it is certainly not complete…).

 

[wussup]

Here is another thought relative to the TCA. I have never heard this premise, so for now I take credit. What if our Universe was moving at the speed of light? Would we now it? If the whole Universe was moving at the speed of light through the Multiverse, time contraction (time slowing to zero, past, present, and future all at once to an outside observer) and length contraction (again, to an outside observer) would create a de facto center of the universe? Some help on science heavy folks here. If this were a theoretical case, it could conceivably suggest a geocentric or maybe Universe-centric existence a logical alternative.

 

[NowAgnostic]

I’ve started this thread in light of a discussion with Spock. However, all are welcome to comment.

1. Every dependent being relies on another for its existence.

True by definition.

2. The series of dependent beings either proceeds to infinity, or is grounded in a self-existent being.

A being* is said to be self-existent if it exists by a necessity of its own nature, and does not depend on anything external to it.

Not true. Counterexample: A relies on B, B relies on C, and C relies on A.

Moreover, just because a being does not depend on anything external to it does not imply that it exists by a necessity of its own nature (and please define clearly what you mean here: is this a logically necessary being?) It can be logically contingent and still not depend on anything external.

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi NowAgnostic,

The discussion on this thread has moved from a general TCA to a conversation about the first way.

Not true. Counterexample: A relies on B, B relies on C, and C relies on A.

With respect to motion, this would be like a train that circles around, each part pulled by the one in front of it, yet without any engine. The train would not be able to move.

Moreover, just because a being does not depend on anything external to it does not imply that it exists by a necessity of its own nature (and please define clearly what you mean here: is this a logically necessary being?) It can be logically contingent and still not depend on anything external.

Some, like Richard Swinburne, would agree that whatever is the First Cause (in our case, the First Mover) would have to be a brute fact. I won’t get into this, though, since I want to keep the discussion away from any presumption about the PSR. By “necessary”, I didn’t mean logically necessary, but metaphysically necessary.

 

[jake23]

Please be careful of the intent of some who are on here! please watch the DVD’s ‘the book of mormon vs. the Bible’ and ‘the book of mormon vs. DNA’ you can also pull them up on youtube!