Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

A universe is necessary.

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 2:05:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
One argument for god is that the universe is contingent because everything within the universe is contingent.

That argument is invalid because the parts do not necessarily represent the whole.
it is just like with H2O. Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature, Oxygen is a gas at room temperature, so does that mean that H2O is a gas at room temperature? No.

Because of this, I started to think if it could be possible to show if the universe was necessary or contingent.

Now, something that is necessary is something that exists in all possible worlds (world means universe in this sense).
Something that is contingent is something that exists in some, but not all, possible worlds.

This is when it dawned on me, what exists in all possible worlds? The world(universe)!

Now, the properties of the universe are contingent, but that doesn't mean that the existence of the universe itself is not necessary.

Does this work? Is it flawed?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 4:02:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 2:05:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One argument for god is that the universe is contingent because everything within the universe is contingent.

That argument is invalid because the parts do not necessarily represent the whole.
it is just like with H2O. Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature, Oxygen is a gas at room temperature, so does that mean that H2O is a gas at room temperature? No.

Because of this, I started to think if it could be possible to show if the universe was necessary or contingent.

Now, something that is necessary is something that exists in all possible worlds (world means universe in this sense).
Something that is contingent is something that exists in some, but not all, possible worlds.

This is when it dawned on me, what exists in all possible worlds? The world(universe)!

Now, the properties of the universe are contingent, but that doesn't mean that the existence of the universe itself is not necessary.

Does this work? Is it flawed?

Possible worlds are "consistent definitions of reality". However, there's nothing which says that "reality" has to exist in the first place. If you say that "non-reality cannot exist", that just assumes that something must exist, which is what you're trying to prove.

Ultimately, the question you're trying to answer is "why existence?" If your answer is "because non-existence cannot exist" then you're begging the question.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 4:28:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 4:02:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 2:05:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One argument for god is that the universe is contingent because everything within the universe is contingent.

That argument is invalid because the parts do not necessarily represent the whole.
it is just like with H2O. Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature, Oxygen is a gas at room temperature, so does that mean that H2O is a gas at room temperature? No.

Because of this, I started to think if it could be possible to show if the universe was necessary or contingent.

Now, something that is necessary is something that exists in all possible worlds (world means universe in this sense).
Something that is contingent is something that exists in some, but not all, possible worlds.

This is when it dawned on me, what exists in all possible worlds? The world(universe)!

Now, the properties of the universe are contingent, but that doesn't mean that the existence of the universe itself is not necessary.

Does this work? Is it flawed?

Possible worlds are "consistent definitions of reality". However, there's nothing which says that "reality" has to exist in the first place. If you say that "non-reality cannot exist", that just assumes that something must exist, which is what you're trying to prove.

Ultimately, the question you're trying to answer is "why existence?" If your answer is "because non-existence cannot exist" then you're begging the question.

"Non-reality is real" is a contradiction in terms...
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 5:13:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 4:28:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:02:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 2:05:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One argument for god is that the universe is contingent because everything within the universe is contingent.

That argument is invalid because the parts do not necessarily represent the whole.
it is just like with H2O. Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature, Oxygen is a gas at room temperature, so does that mean that H2O is a gas at room temperature? No.

Because of this, I started to think if it could be possible to show if the universe was necessary or contingent.

Now, something that is necessary is something that exists in all possible worlds (world means universe in this sense).
Something that is contingent is something that exists in some, but not all, possible worlds.

This is when it dawned on me, what exists in all possible worlds? The world(universe)!

Now, the properties of the universe are contingent, but that doesn't mean that the existence of the universe itself is not necessary.

Does this work? Is it flawed?

Possible worlds are "consistent definitions of reality". However, there's nothing which says that "reality" has to exist in the first place. If you say that "non-reality cannot exist", that just assumes that something must exist, which is what you're trying to prove.

Ultimately, the question you're trying to answer is "why existence?" If your answer is "because non-existence cannot exist" then you're begging the question.

"Non-reality is real" is a contradiction in terms...

I agree. But so what?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 5:18:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 5:13:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:28:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:02:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 2:05:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One argument for god is that the universe is contingent because everything within the universe is contingent.

That argument is invalid because the parts do not necessarily represent the whole.
it is just like with H2O. Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature, Oxygen is a gas at room temperature, so does that mean that H2O is a gas at room temperature? No.

Because of this, I started to think if it could be possible to show if the universe was necessary or contingent.

Now, something that is necessary is something that exists in all possible worlds (world means universe in this sense).
Something that is contingent is something that exists in some, but not all, possible worlds.

This is when it dawned on me, what exists in all possible worlds? The world(universe)!

Now, the properties of the universe are contingent, but that doesn't mean that the existence of the universe itself is not necessary.

Does this work? Is it flawed?

Possible worlds are "consistent definitions of reality". However, there's nothing which says that "reality" has to exist in the first place. If you say that "non-reality cannot exist", that just assumes that something must exist, which is what you're trying to prove.

Ultimately, the question you're trying to answer is "why existence?" If your answer is "because non-existence cannot exist" then you're begging the question.

"Non-reality is real" is a contradiction in terms...

I agree. But so what?

If it's inherently contradictory, I don't see how saying "non-existence is not real" begs the question.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 5:20:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 5:18:31 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:13:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:28:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:02:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 2:05:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One argument for god is that the universe is contingent because everything within the universe is contingent.

That argument is invalid because the parts do not necessarily represent the whole.
it is just like with H2O. Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature, Oxygen is a gas at room temperature, so does that mean that H2O is a gas at room temperature? No.

Because of this, I started to think if it could be possible to show if the universe was necessary or contingent.

Now, something that is necessary is something that exists in all possible worlds (world means universe in this sense).
Something that is contingent is something that exists in some, but not all, possible worlds.

This is when it dawned on me, what exists in all possible worlds? The world(universe)!

Now, the properties of the universe are contingent, but that doesn't mean that the existence of the universe itself is not necessary.

Does this work? Is it flawed?

Possible worlds are "consistent definitions of reality". However, there's nothing which says that "reality" has to exist in the first place. If you say that "non-reality cannot exist", that just assumes that something must exist, which is what you're trying to prove.

Ultimately, the question you're trying to answer is "why existence?" If your answer is "because non-existence cannot exist" then you're begging the question.

"Non-reality is real" is a contradiction in terms...

I agree. But so what?

If it's inherently contradictory, I don't see how saying "non-existence is not real" begs the question.

It begs the question if it's used to answer the question "why existence?"
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 5:25:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 5:20:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:18:31 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:13:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:28:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:02:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 2:05:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One argument for god is that the universe is contingent because everything within the universe is contingent.

That argument is invalid because the parts do not necessarily represent the whole.
it is just like with H2O. Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature, Oxygen is a gas at room temperature, so does that mean that H2O is a gas at room temperature? No.

Because of this, I started to think if it could be possible to show if the universe was necessary or contingent.

Now, something that is necessary is something that exists in all possible worlds (world means universe in this sense).
Something that is contingent is something that exists in some, but not all, possible worlds.

This is when it dawned on me, what exists in all possible worlds? The world(universe)!

Now, the properties of the universe are contingent, but that doesn't mean that the existence of the universe itself is not necessary.

Does this work? Is it flawed?

Possible worlds are "consistent definitions of reality". However, there's nothing which says that "reality" has to exist in the first place. If you say that "non-reality cannot exist", that just assumes that something must exist, which is what you're trying to prove.

Ultimately, the question you're trying to answer is "why existence?" If your answer is "because non-existence cannot exist" then you're begging the question.

"Non-reality is real" is a contradiction in terms...

I agree. But so what?

If it's inherently contradictory, I don't see how saying "non-existence is not real" begs the question.

It begs the question if it's used to answer the question "why existence?"

If it's a contradiction in terms for nonexistence to exist, then that directly means that something must exist. There's no question-begging there...
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 5:29:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 5:25:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:20:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:18:31 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:13:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:28:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:02:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 2:05:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One argument for god is that the universe is contingent because everything within the universe is contingent.

That argument is invalid because the parts do not necessarily represent the whole.
it is just like with H2O. Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature, Oxygen is a gas at room temperature, so does that mean that H2O is a gas at room temperature? No.

Because of this, I started to think if it could be possible to show if the universe was necessary or contingent.

Now, something that is necessary is something that exists in all possible worlds (world means universe in this sense).
Something that is contingent is something that exists in some, but not all, possible worlds.

This is when it dawned on me, what exists in all possible worlds? The world(universe)!

Now, the properties of the universe are contingent, but that doesn't mean that the existence of the universe itself is not necessary.

Does this work? Is it flawed?

Possible worlds are "consistent definitions of reality". However, there's nothing which says that "reality" has to exist in the first place. If you say that "non-reality cannot exist", that just assumes that something must exist, which is what you're trying to prove.

Ultimately, the question you're trying to answer is "why existence?" If your answer is "because non-existence cannot exist" then you're begging the question.

"Non-reality is real" is a contradiction in terms...

I agree. But so what?

If it's inherently contradictory, I don't see how saying "non-existence is not real" begs the question.

It begs the question if it's used to answer the question "why existence?"

If it's a contradiction in terms for nonexistence to exist, then that directly means that something must exist. There's no question-begging there...

It does not follow that because non-existence cannot exist, that existence must exist unless you take for granted the premise that something must exist.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 5:36:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 5:29:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:25:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:20:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:18:31 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:13:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:28:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:02:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 2:05:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One argument for god is that the universe is contingent because everything within the universe is contingent.

That argument is invalid because the parts do not necessarily represent the whole.
it is just like with H2O. Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature, Oxygen is a gas at room temperature, so does that mean that H2O is a gas at room temperature? No.

Because of this, I started to think if it could be possible to show if the universe was necessary or contingent.

Now, something that is necessary is something that exists in all possible worlds (world means universe in this sense).
Something that is contingent is something that exists in some, but not all, possible worlds.

This is when it dawned on me, what exists in all possible worlds? The world(universe)!

Now, the properties of the universe are contingent, but that doesn't mean that the existence of the universe itself is not necessary.

Does this work? Is it flawed?

Possible worlds are "consistent definitions of reality". However, there's nothing which says that "reality" has to exist in the first place. If you say that "non-reality cannot exist", that just assumes that something must exist, which is what you're trying to prove.

Ultimately, the question you're trying to answer is "why existence?" If your answer is "because non-existence cannot exist" then you're begging the question.

"Non-reality is real" is a contradiction in terms...

I agree. But so what?

If it's inherently contradictory, I don't see how saying "non-existence is not real" begs the question.

It begs the question if it's used to answer the question "why existence?"

If it's a contradiction in terms for nonexistence to exist, then that directly means that something must exist. There's no question-begging there...

It does not follow that because non-existence cannot exist, that existence must exist unless you take for granted the premise that something must exist.

Is it or is it not true that non-existence cannot exist?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 11:11:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 2:05:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One argument for god is that the universe is contingent because everything within the universe is contingent.

That argument is invalid because the parts do not necessarily represent the whole.
it is just like with H2O. Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature, Oxygen is a gas at room temperature, so does that mean that H2O is a gas at room temperature? No.

Because of this, I started to think if it could be possible to show if the universe was necessary or contingent.

Now, something that is necessary is something that exists in all possible worlds (world means universe in this sense).
Something that is contingent is something that exists in some, but not all, possible worlds.

This is when it dawned on me, what exists in all possible worlds? The world(universe)!

Now, the properties of the universe are contingent, but that doesn't mean that the existence of the universe itself is not necessary.

Does this work? Is it flawed?

The universe is necessary for us to exist and personally I am happy it's here.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 11:21:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 5:36:22 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:29:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:25:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:20:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:18:31 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:13:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:28:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:02:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2015 2:05:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One argument for god is that the universe is contingent because everything within the universe is contingent.

That argument is invalid because the parts do not necessarily represent the whole.
it is just like with H2O. Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature, Oxygen is a gas at room temperature, so does that mean that H2O is a gas at room temperature? No.

Because of this, I started to think if it could be possible to show if the universe was necessary or contingent.

Now, something that is necessary is something that exists in all possible worlds (world means universe in this sense).
Something that is contingent is something that exists in some, but not all, possible worlds.

This is when it dawned on me, what exists in all possible worlds? The world(universe)!

Now, the properties of the universe are contingent, but that doesn't mean that the existence of the universe itself is not necessary.

Does this work? Is it flawed?

Possible worlds are "consistent definitions of reality". However, there's nothing which says that "reality" has to exist in the first place. If you say that "non-reality cannot exist", that just assumes that something must exist, which is what you're trying to prove.

Ultimately, the question you're trying to answer is "why existence?" If your answer is "because non-existence cannot exist" then you're begging the question.

"Non-reality is real" is a contradiction in terms...

I agree. But so what?

If it's inherently contradictory, I don't see how saying "non-existence is not real" begs the question.

It begs the question if it's used to answer the question "why existence?"

If it's a contradiction in terms for nonexistence to exist, then that directly means that something must exist. There's no question-begging there...

It does not follow that because non-existence cannot exist, that existence must exist unless you take for granted the premise that something must exist.

Is it or is it not true that non-existence cannot exist?

Non-existence can only exist in one place, the mind of a man.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 12:40:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 5:25:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If it's a contradiction in terms for nonexistence to exist, then that directly means that something must exist. There's no question-begging there...

It's question begging because it assumes that something exists in the first place. It's like, either "Nothingness exists" or "Something exists", but it pushes back into the second part of both - the word "exists" - which has been assumed from before you began.

Saying that something exists is not an explanation; "Something must exist because something exists, and that something cannot be nothing."
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 12:44:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 12:40:46 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:25:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If it's a contradiction in terms for nonexistence to exist, then that directly means that something must exist. There's no question-begging there...

It's question begging because it assumes that something exists in the first place. It's like, either "Nothingness exists" or "Something exists", but it pushes back into the second part of both - the word "exists" - which has been assumed from before you began.

Saying that something exists is not an explanation; "Something must exist because something exists, and that something cannot be nothing."

The entire concept of "explanation" is predicated on the idea of existence. Existence required no justification or explanation - it, by definition, simply is .
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 12:50:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 12:44:11 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:40:46 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:25:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If it's a contradiction in terms for nonexistence to exist, then that directly means that something must exist. There's no question-begging there...

It's question begging because it assumes that something exists in the first place. It's like, either "Nothingness exists" or "Something exists", but it pushes back into the second part of both - the word "exists" - which has been assumed from before you began.

Saying that something exists is not an explanation; "Something must exist because something exists, and that something cannot be nothing."

The entire concept of "explanation" is predicated on the idea of existence.

Care to lay out how that would work? I don't think it does, unless you're using "existence" in a very broad sense to include like, the use of definitions.

Existence required no justification or explanation - it, by definition, simply is .

Why use a word if it explains nothing, and delineates nothing? If a word refers to everything equally then it refers to nothing in particular; it is a meaningless term.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 1:12:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Possible worlds are possible states of existence. Non-existence is therefore "impossible" in the sense that it cannot exist. However, that doesn't mean existence exists unless we take for granted that something or another has to exist (existence being the only alternative). If we don't make that assumption, then both existence and non-existence could lack existence. Possible worlds address the ways existence could be, not whether it exists in the first place.

The universe is only internally necessary, which means it must provide itself with a self-contained explanation for its existence, according to which its existence (including the existence of its explanation) is selected for and implicated and thus "necessary" in the sense that its non-existence is ruled out within its own context i.e., in a real way.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 2:23:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 12:50:03 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:11 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:40:46 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:25:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
If it's a contradiction in terms for nonexistence to exist, then that directly means that something must exist. There's no question-begging there...

It's question begging because it assumes that something exists in the first place. It's like, either "Nothingness exists" or "Something exists", but it pushes back into the second part of both - the word "exists" - which has been assumed from before you began.

Saying that something exists is not an explanation; "Something must exist because something exists, and that something cannot be nothing."

The entire concept of "explanation" is predicated on the idea of existence.

Care to lay out how that would work? I don't think it does, unless you're using "existence" in a very broad sense to include like, the use of definitions.
The "use of definitions" implies that definitions exist and that an entity which can use them exists, which implies that existence exists.
Existence required no justification or explanation - it, by definition, simply is .

Why use a word if it explains nothing, and delineates nothing? If a word refers to everything equally then it refers to nothing in particular; it is a meaningless term.

It explains everything and delineates everything. It means that everything that exists exists. You can't get any more descriptive than a tautology.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:50:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 2:05:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One argument for god is that the universe is contingent because everything within the universe is contingent.

That argument is invalid because the parts do not necessarily represent the whole.
it is just like with H2O. Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature, Oxygen is a gas at room temperature, so does that mean that H2O is a gas at room temperature? No.

Because of this, I started to think if it could be possible to show if the universe was necessary or contingent.

Now, something that is necessary is something that exists in all possible worlds (world means universe in this sense).
Something that is contingent is something that exists in some, but not all, possible worlds.

This is when it dawned on me, what exists in all possible worlds? The world(universe)!

Now, the properties of the universe are contingent, but that doesn't mean that the existence of the universe itself is not necessary.

Does this work? Is it flawed?

is it possible for all possible worlds not to exist? yes. so no world is necessary.

The universe is the object. And you are saying this object is necessary.

But the criteria for a possible world is that it be a world. So all you have shown is that a certain attribute of all possible worlds is necessary.

Which is linguistics not some radical knowledge. Does red have to be red?

possible world.. world is the word describing the possibility as a universe. as a composition of all things that exist in said possible world.

Clearly the content of the worlds can be different, the thing that allows us to talk about it as an entity we say the distinguishing factor that separates "possible world" from everything else is that it is a at least some kind of universe.

is it possible for a circle not to be round? no. OMGosh circles are necessary.

Is it possible for existence not to exist? no. existence is necessary.

Is it possible for real stuff not to be real? no. reality has to exist.

do you get any of this? can you refute any of this?

Why don't you right your argument out formally and see how you change tense halfway through it.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 8:03:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 2:05:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
One argument for god is that the universe is contingent because everything within the universe is contingent.

That argument is invalid because the parts do not necessarily represent the whole.
it is just like with H2O. Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature, Oxygen is a gas at room temperature, so does that mean that H2O is a gas at room temperature? No.

Because of this, I started to think if it could be possible to show if the universe was necessary or contingent.

Now, something that is necessary is something that exists in all possible worlds (world means universe in this sense).
Something that is contingent is something that exists in some, but not all, possible worlds.

This is when it dawned on me, what exists in all possible worlds? The world(universe)!

Now, the properties of the universe are contingent, but that doesn't mean that the existence of the universe itself is not necessary.

Does this work? Is it flawed?

Well, the whole concept of "possible worlds" is a flawed concept in the first place, so to use it to justify that the universe is necessary means failure is inevitable.
Nolite Timere
Pfalcon1318
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 8:22:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 1:12:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Possible worlds are possible states of existence. Non-existence is therefore "impossible" in the sense that it cannot exist. However, that doesn't mean existence exists unless we take for granted that something or another has to exist (existence being the only alternative). If we don't make that assumption, then both existence and non-existence could lack existence. Possible worlds address the ways existence could be, not whether it exists in the first place.

The universe is only internally necessary, which means it must provide itself with a self-contained explanation for its existence, according to which its existence (including the existence of its explanation) is selected for and implicated and thus "necessary" in the sense that its non-existence is ruled out within its own context i.e., in a real way.

Nope. Existence and Non-existence are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. There is no halfway point. Either something does exist or else it does not. Non-existence is the negation of existence, and vice versa. Where one is the case, the other cannot be the case, by definition. Existence and Non-existence cannot be attributed to the same thing at the same time.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 8:28:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 8:22:12 PM, Pfalcon1318 wrote:
At 4/13/2015 1:12:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Possible worlds are possible states of existence. Non-existence is therefore "impossible" in the sense that it cannot exist. However, that doesn't mean existence exists unless we take for granted that something or another has to exist (existence being the only alternative). If we don't make that assumption, then both existence and non-existence could lack existence. Possible worlds address the ways existence could be, not whether it exists in the first place.

The universe is only internally necessary, which means it must provide itself with a self-contained explanation for its existence, according to which its existence (including the existence of its explanation) is selected for and implicated and thus "necessary" in the sense that its non-existence is ruled out within its own context i.e., in a real way.

Nope. Existence and Non-existence are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. There is no halfway point. Either something does exist or else it does not. Non-existence is the negation of existence, and vice versa. Where one is the case, the other cannot be the case, by definition. Existence and Non-existence cannot be attributed to the same thing at the same time.

I agree, but all of this is irrelevant to what I said. I didn't say that it's possible for existence and non-existence to both exist at the same time, I said it's possible for them to both not exist at the same time unless we assume that something has to exist.
Pfalcon1318
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 8:31:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 8:28:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2015 8:22:12 PM, Pfalcon1318 wrote:
At 4/13/2015 1:12:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Possible worlds are possible states of existence. Non-existence is therefore "impossible" in the sense that it cannot exist. However, that doesn't mean existence exists unless we take for granted that something or another has to exist (existence being the only alternative). If we don't make that assumption, then both existence and non-existence could lack existence. Possible worlds address the ways existence could be, not whether it exists in the first place.

The universe is only internally necessary, which means it must provide itself with a self-contained explanation for its existence, according to which its existence (including the existence of its explanation) is selected for and implicated and thus "necessary" in the sense that its non-existence is ruled out within its own context i.e., in a real way.

Nope. Existence and Non-existence are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. There is no halfway point. Either something does exist or else it does not. Non-existence is the negation of existence, and vice versa. Where one is the case, the other cannot be the case, by definition. Existence and Non-existence cannot be attributed to the same thing at the same time.

I agree, but all of this is irrelevant to what I said. I didn't say that it's possible for existence and non-existence to both exist at the same time, I said it's possible for them to both not exist at the same time unless we assume that something has to exist.

Still wrong. Existences exists if and only if non-existence does not exist.

If existence exists, non-existence does not exist.
If non-existence exists, existence doe not exist.

One of them must be the case for any given object, by definition. At least one of either non-existence or existence is the case, but not both.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 8:47:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 8:31:59 PM, Pfalcon1318 wrote:
At 4/21/2015 8:28:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2015 8:22:12 PM, Pfalcon1318 wrote:
At 4/13/2015 1:12:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Possible worlds are possible states of existence. Non-existence is therefore "impossible" in the sense that it cannot exist. However, that doesn't mean existence exists unless we take for granted that something or another has to exist (existence being the only alternative). If we don't make that assumption, then both existence and non-existence could lack existence. Possible worlds address the ways existence could be, not whether it exists in the first place.

The universe is only internally necessary, which means it must provide itself with a self-contained explanation for its existence, according to which its existence (including the existence of its explanation) is selected for and implicated and thus "necessary" in the sense that its non-existence is ruled out within its own context i.e., in a real way.

Nope. Existence and Non-existence are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. There is no halfway point. Either something does exist or else it does not. Non-existence is the negation of existence, and vice versa. Where one is the case, the other cannot be the case, by definition. Existence and Non-existence cannot be attributed to the same thing at the same time.

I agree, but all of this is irrelevant to what I said. I didn't say that it's possible for existence and non-existence to both exist at the same time, I said it's possible for them to both not exist at the same time unless we assume that something has to exist.

Still wrong. Existences exists if and only if non-existence does not exist.

This still presupposes existence. Non-existence can not exist without something existing.


If existence exists, non-existence does not exist.
If non-existence exists, existence doe not exist.

One of them must be the case for any given object, by definition. At least one of either non-existence or existence is the case, but not both.
Pfalcon1318
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 9:00:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 8:47:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2015 8:31:59 PM, Pfalcon1318 wrote:
At 4/21/2015 8:28:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2015 8:22:12 PM, Pfalcon1318 wrote:
At 4/13/2015 1:12:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Possible worlds are possible states of existence. Non-existence is therefore "impossible" in the sense that it cannot exist. However, that doesn't mean existence exists unless we take for granted that something or another has to exist (existence being the only alternative). If we don't make that assumption, then both existence and non-existence could lack existence. Possible worlds address the ways existence could be, not whether it exists in the first place.

The universe is only internally necessary, which means it must provide itself with a self-contained explanation for its existence, according to which its existence (including the existence of its explanation) is selected for and implicated and thus "necessary" in the sense that its non-existence is ruled out within its own context i.e., in a real way.

Nope. Existence and Non-existence are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. There is no halfway point. Either something does exist or else it does not. Non-existence is the negation of existence, and vice versa. Where one is the case, the other cannot be the case, by definition. Existence and Non-existence cannot be attributed to the same thing at the same time.

I agree, but all of this is irrelevant to what I said. I didn't say that it's possible for existence and non-existence to both exist at the same time, I said it's possible for them to both not exist at the same time unless we assume that something has to exist.

Still wrong. Existences exists if and only if non-existence does not exist.

This still presupposes existence. Non-existence can not exist without something existing.


If existence exists, non-existence does not exist.
If non-existence exists, existence doe not exist.

One of them must be the case for any given object, by definition. At least one of either non-existence or existence is the case, but not both.

What is the alternative? There is existence, non-existence and.....? You keep claiming that non-existence is still existence (which is itself a contradiction), yet you've offered no alternative. Of two ("Non-existence" and "existence", in the noun form you've been using them), one must always exist, by definition. So, even in saying that something doesn't exist, you are saying that non-existence exists. So, in this sense, existence is necessary.

In other words, you're contradicting yourself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 11:20:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 9:00:00 PM, Pfalcon1318 wrote:
At 4/21/2015 8:47:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2015 8:31:59 PM, Pfalcon1318 wrote:
At 4/21/2015 8:28:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2015 8:22:12 PM, Pfalcon1318 wrote:
At 4/13/2015 1:12:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Possible worlds are possible states of existence. Non-existence is therefore "impossible" in the sense that it cannot exist. However, that doesn't mean existence exists unless we take for granted that something or another has to exist (existence being the only alternative). If we don't make that assumption, then both existence and non-existence could lack existence. Possible worlds address the ways existence could be, not whether it exists in the first place.

The universe is only internally necessary, which means it must provide itself with a self-contained explanation for its existence, according to which its existence (including the existence of its explanation) is selected for and implicated and thus "necessary" in the sense that its non-existence is ruled out within its own context i.e., in a real way.

Nope. Existence and Non-existence are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. There is no halfway point. Either something does exist or else it does not. Non-existence is the negation of existence, and vice versa. Where one is the case, the other cannot be the case, by definition. Existence and Non-existence cannot be attributed to the same thing at the same time.

I agree, but all of this is irrelevant to what I said. I didn't say that it's possible for existence and non-existence to both exist at the same time, I said it's possible for them to both not exist at the same time unless we assume that something has to exist.

Still wrong. Existences exists if and only if non-existence does not exist.

This still presupposes existence. Non-existence can not exist without something existing.


If existence exists, non-existence does not exist.
If non-existence exists, existence doe not exist.

One of them must be the case for any given object, by definition. At least one of either non-existence or existence is the case, but not both.

What is the alternative? There is existence, non-existence and.....? You keep claiming that non-existence is still existence (which is itself a contradiction), yet you've offered no alternative. Of two ("Non-existence" and "existence", in the noun form you've been using them), one must always exist, by definition. So, even in saying that something doesn't exist, you are saying that non-existence exists. So, in this sense, existence is necessary.


I don't see why in order for nothing to exist, there must "be" anything. When we say "there is nothing" that's just a figure of speech. Nothingness is not the presence of absence, it's the absence of information itself.

In other words, you're contradicting yourself.
Pfalcon1318
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 12:00:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 11:20:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2015 9:00:00 PM, Pfalcon1318 wrote:
At 4/21/2015 8:47:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


Still wrong. Existences exists if and only if non-existence does not exist.

This still presupposes existence. Non-existence can not exist without something existing.


If existence exists, non-existence does not exist.
If non-existence exists, existence doe not exist.

One of them must be the case for any given object, by definition. At least one of either non-existence or existence is the case, but not both.

What is the alternative? There is existence, non-existence and.....? You keep claiming that non-existence is still existence (which is itself a contradiction), yet you've offered no alternative. Of two ("Non-existence" and "existence", in the noun form you've been using them), one must always exist, by definition. So, even in saying that something doesn't exist, you are saying that non-existence exists. So, in this sense, existence is necessary.


I don't see why in order for nothing to exist, there must "be" anything. When we say "there is nothing" that's just a figure of speech. Nothingness is not the presence of absence, it's the absence of information itself.

In other words, you're contradicting yourself.

Distinction without a difference.