Necessary Being: Exists? - Mainly addressing atheists

[osgart]

The universe in its current form did not always exist. It may or may not be contingent upon an independent, eternal foundational reality. I believe it is. Otherwise we would have a universe of ever changing states and modalities. Entirely new things arise into existence and perhaps go out of existence, and yet the chain of existence never breaks.

Or perhaps our universe has another just right set of initial conditions in which it arrived at extremely low entropy by being cyclic and ever changing. How did ever the universe ever achieve low entropy in the first place?

To me it seems that the universe as a one way event that will never ever happen this way again is also extremely fortunate and rare for life.

 

[Polymath257]

You said "Almost certainly". So what does that mean? And what is the evidence? That is if you believe in science the way you portray yourself to be with a Phd in mathematics, you claim to be an empiricist. So what is the empirical evidence to be "Almost certain"?

Thanks.

The phrase 'almost certain' relates to my confidence level in the statement based on the evidence and theories current available. There is no 'absolute certainty' about the real world since all knowledge of it is based upon observations.

If the universe is all that there is, then it cannot be caused because there is nothing outside of it to cause it. So, in that sense, you might consider the universe as a whole to be non-contingent. But I also think that is an abuse of terminology since the universe is a collection, not a basic thing.

Basic things (fundamental particles) are defined in terms of their interaction with other basic things. But their existence is not 'contingent' in any meaningful sense.

And, as I pointed out, I don't consider 'necessary' to be the opposite of 'contingent', so even having a non-contingent thing doesn't imply there is a necessary thing.

 

[PureX]

Yes, things are defined by how they interact with other things. How does that make them contingent? It isn't their existence that depends on the interaction, but their identity.

Collections of items exist as aspects of our classification of things. Abstract ideas exist in our minds. But physical things simply exist (like electrons).

Physical "things" don't exist at all. The "this's" and "that's" of physicality are differences that exist only in our conceptualized experience of physicality. (They are metaphysical.) The physical realm itself is just a singular whole event. The big bang is still 'banging'.

 

[F1fan]

Not successfully. Doing this tries to replace the fact of existence with the mechanics of it.

No, the mechanics of existence (the laws of physics) is PART of the fact of existence (energy/matter). These are interdependent.

What "necessary being" or "prime mover" or "first cause" offers is, as you brought up, a mystery, and a mystery that has no evidence. Much of this list is derived from human imagination to fill in gaps of not knowing, the list offers no explanations.

How a house got built does not explain the house's existence.

Really? You don't think there is a set of rules behind construction that make the house what it is?

It's like telling someone that they didn't really see God because they were on an hallucinogenic drug at the time.

But the drugs would be a likely explanation for a person under the influence when claiming they saw a God, especially when objective witnesses saw no God. The God is most likely imagined given your description and facts.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay. Maybe you are referring to a different thread. Because this thread did not speak of a so called supreme being.

But the usual place where the phrase 'necessary being' occurs is in theology, and in relation to a supreme being. I would assume that you know this and are simply avoiding the phrase 'supreme being' to get around issues that atheists have with a supernatural being.

But no, I don't believe in a necessary being. That answers your OP.

 

[Polymath257]

Physical "things" don't exist at all. The "this's" and "that's" of physicality are differences that exist only in our conceptualized experience of physicality. (They are metaphysical.) The physical realm itself is just a singular whole event. The big bang is still 'banging'.

Of course physical things exist. In a strong sense, they are the only things that exist. Our consciousness depends on their existence and their properties. Conceptions only exist in minds, that are the result (in every case we have) of brains.

 

[PureX]

No, the mechanics of existence (the laws of physics) is PART of the fact of existence (energy/matter). These are interdependent.

But your avoiding my point. The mechanisms do not explain away the results. How doesn't answer why.

What "necessary being" or "prime mover" or "first cause" offers is, as you brought up, a mystery, and a mystery that has no evidence.

Everything that exists, and the fact that we don't know why it exists, is the "evidence" of the mystery.

Much of this list is derived from human imagination to fill in gaps of not knowing, the list offers no explanations.

Yeah, that's why it's a mystery. And because it hides within it the origin, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, that makes it a really BIG mystery. And a very important one to nearly everyone on Earth.

Also, keep in mind that we are a species that survives and thrives by being able to control and manipulate our circumstances to our own advantage. So we really don't like mysteries. We can't control and manipulate a mystery. So they tend to scare the crap out of us! So much so that we will even PRETEND that we have solved the mystery, just to stop our having to face it, and fear it.

But the drugs would be a likely explanation for a person under the influence when claiming they saw a God, especially when objective witnesses saw no God. The God is most likely imagined given your description and facts.

But the drugs actually explain nothing but the mechanics of the result. They offer nothing at all in terms of the validity of the result. Please don't just keep knee-jerking a response to this. Stop, and take some time to seriously think about it. Knowing how does not explain anything to us, but how.

 

[The Hammer]

You're optional.
One of life's cupholders.

True, but without me I am nothing.

Therefore I'm necessary. At least to me.

 

[RestlessSoul]

True, but without me I am nothing.

Therefore I'm necessary. At least to me.

Not necessarily.

 

[Revoltingest]

True, but without me I am nothing.

Therefore I'm necessary. At least to me.

Did you come with the optional cupholder?

 

[PureX]

Of course physical things exist.

Physicality exists. But physical "things" only exist metaphysically. The "things" are conceptualized experiences that we've had within the ocean of physicality in which we exist. These are two different realms of existence: the physical, and the metaphysical. "Things" are metaphysical differentiations resulting from our cognitive conceptualized experiences within the physical realm. The physical realm, itself, is undifferentiated. It's just one big complex, interconnected, 'happening'. The "parts of the whole" that we experience are all differences that we created in our own minds by the way our minds cognate and conceptualize information.

In a strong sense, they are the only things that exist. Our consciousness depends on their existence and their properties. Conceptions only exist in minds, that are the result (in every case we have) of brains.

There are no "greater and lesser" forms of existence. The physical realm and the metaphysical realm are just different aspects of the whole realm of being. And there may well be more reams of being that we are as yet unaware of.

 

[The Hammer]

Did you come with the optional cupholder?

I wouldn't call it a cup holder.

It holds all sorts of things. Cups, tools, boobs.

 

[firedragon]

- if there was a creator, who created the creator?

This thread is not about a creator. So its absolutely irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

I agree. But most humans choose to conceptualize this "necessary being" that way. And that includes most atheists. In fact, in many ways their atheism depends on an anthropomorphic concept of this "necessary being" to justify their rejection of it.

Then they have to do a little bit of research.

Before you get too arrogant, here, to "be" is to exist. So "being" is the act or state of existing. To conflate the act of being with whatever un-articulated "thing" is perpetrating the act of being is unnecessarily vague and confusing. So is coupling it with the criteria of 'necessity'. Unless you expect us to be mind-readers you're going to have to do a little better at clarifying what it is you want to ask us.

And leave off the pretense of your being some sort of mighty professor of philosophy. Even if you were, saying it does you no favors.

I gave you the meaning in philosophical terms. So its up to you to accept it or deny accepted and usually used terms.

All good. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

If you think you have an argument that's convincing let's hear it.

And please don't ask if I'm making an absolute claim when I started off my post with 'I suppose it's within the realm of possibility....' It makes me think that you don't even bother to read what I write.

But you said "No one has" which means you should know every single claim or argument ever made in the history of mankind. I am only asking for your explanation.

 

[firedragon]

The phrase 'almost certain' relates to my confidence level

So that's your personal opinion.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[firedragon]

But the usual place where the phrase 'necessary being' occurs is in theology

Not at all. Its in philosophy.

 

[icehorse]

This thread is not about a creator. So its absolutely irrelevant.

Ha ha, if you say so

 

[firedragon]

Ha ha, if you say so

Yes.

 

[F1fan]

But your avoiding my point. The mechanisms do not explain away the results. How doesn't answer why.

OK, to clarify, do you agree that the mechanisms are the laws of physics?

And what results are you referring to, and what do you mean "don't explain away the results"? Evidence usually explains results, so an odd phrasing on your part.

Everything that exists, and the fact that we don't know why it exists, is the "evidence" of the mystery.

And it's that assumption off "why" is the basis of the mystery. Who says there is a why? You seem to be assuming there is, yet there's no evidence of a why. So the mystery is imagined.

Yeah, that's why it's a mystery. And because it hides within it the origin, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, that makes it a really BIG mystery. And a very important one to nearly everyone on Earth.

No, it's assumed to be all this.

Also, keep in mind that we are a species that survives and thrives by being able to control and manipulate our circumstances to our own advantage. So we really don't like mysteries. We can't control and manipulate a mystery. So they tend to scare the crap out of us! So much so that we will even PRETEND that we have solved the mystery, just to stop our having to face it, and fear it.

Religions were created by humans for various reasons. They are still important for people today for social cohesion and personal identity. Religion isn't useful to describe how things are any more. Some want it to be, but science does a better job.

But the drugs actually explain nothing but the mechanics of the result. They offer nothing at all in terms of the validity of the result. Please don't just keep knee-jerking a response to this. Stop, and take some time to seriously think about it. Knowing how does not explain anything to us, but how.

Nonsense. A person on a mind altering drug claims he sees a God, or unicorns, or demons, or that he has met the Keebler Elves as they made cookies, etc. isn't making a plausible claim. You brought the guy doped on on drugs to this discussion, you deal with him and his absurd behavior and claims.