Necessary Thing

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Ah, I see, and I concur with your point, earlier. 

Ignorant, it's probably best if you confess (hehe- see what I did there?) your reason for being here, and try to be more up-front about why you're trying to interview us. If you're here to proselytize, you will find some serious blowback, since many if not most of us are ex-Christians and most likely already know more about your religion and scriptures than you do. If you're, say, a student at a Christian college doing a paper on "What Atheists Think", for instance, you'll likely get a heaping helping from us, provided you are open-minded enough to honestly listen and be respectful to our ideas (agreement is not necessary, of course).

But I already did confess it. I am here to see what other people think about questions I think are important. What have I done so far that makes you think I am here to proselytize? To the contrary, I have made a conscious effort to avoid even mentioning god in any of my posts unless it somehow related to someone else's comments. I have been trying to be open-minded and honestly listen to your answers and respect your ideas. Can you point to comments of mine that show a failure in that regard? Seriously, what have I done to make you all so suspicious of my intentions?

It's nothing (I hope) that you have done deliberately; your tone and approach simply mirrors that of a number of irritating theists who have come here in the past. They "play coy" about what they're really getting at, seeking to trap people into "gotcha!" questions, etc., or will play the "say something vague then take umbrage when I claim to have meant something completely different from what offended everyone" game. 

If you are an honest questioner, or just want to know more about us, we have several theists we (most of us) welcome with open arms.

[ignoramus]

Could it be that the particles which seem to not exist briefly, are just as responsible for and important as those that do?
That may be how "things" have to work at a quantum level for anything to exist.

Maybe our whole universe can't exist without an opposite universe somewhere.
Together they are stable?

Stupid, probably? You're not the only ignoramus here! Hehe

[Ignorant]

It's nothing (I hope) that you have done deliberately; your tone and approach simply mirrors that of a number of irritating theists who have come here in the past. They "play coy" about what they're really getting at, seeking to trap people into "gotcha!" questions, etc., or will play the "say something vague then take umbrage when I claim to have meant something completely different from what offended everyone" game. 

If you are an honest questioner, or just want to know more about us, we have several theists we (most of us) welcome with open arms.

Well that is great to know. If the way I ask questions is irritating, that is unfortunate for me. I only ask that you judge me for the irritating questions I have actually asked rather than the irritating "traps"/stupid message board games other people have engaged in. It is no fun. I am not them. If I turn into one of them... unleash hell.

[Ignorant]

Let me save you some trouble before you try to apply this to godism.  Aquinas failed utterly to prove that God in necessary, or that the universe is contingent upon the existence of God.  Aquinas' failure lies in the fact that his 'proofs' for God are nothing of the sort (ontology is, and always has been, little more than clever word play).  Until you can demonstrate (not simply argue) that God exists in the everyday meaning of the word, trying to further demonstrate that God is necessary and that everything else is contingent upon God is really just so much smoke and mirrors.

Boru

And let me save you the heartache of suffering to hear a "god proof". I have no interest in "applying this to godism". You might be interested to know that I am a Thomist, AND I agree that none of the 5 ways proves that god is necessary or that the universe is contingent upon the existence of God. Why would any sane person try to "demonstrate" god's existence in a systematic philosophical proof when the people he is offering the demonstration hold radically different philosophical positions? Wouldn't it be better to explore those differences first? Now I'm rambling...

If quanta that did not exist previously *pop* into existence and then *pop* out again, they can be considered both necessary and contingent.  If it had not had an existence (however brief - 'necessity' doesn't require or imply durability), it would not be necessary.

That may be the case, but the word "necessity" is a word given to equivocation, and I think you are using it differently than me. The way in which you have used "necessary" is coherent and sound, but I don't think it ultimately answers my question (most likely my fault for lack of clarity). Let me explain:

I think when you say "necessary", you are meaning it in the deterministic sense. Consider these 4 hypothetical states of the universe:

1) Particle x exists 
2) Particle x exists and particle y begins to exist
3) Particle x ceases to exist and Particle y exists
4) Particle y exists

Now consider the following sequence of those states: 1 => 2 => 3 => 4.    According to your description, both particle x and y are contingent. I agree. They are contingent because  the existence particle x or particle y is NOT a condition for the existence of at least one state of the universe. For example, the existence of Particle x is a condition for at least states 1 and 2. It is not a condition for state 4. It's non-existence is a real possibility (as is shown by its non-existence in 4). Therefore, it is contingent.

However, you assert that it is also necessary. I think you mean, "it could not have occurred any other way". In other words, given what we know about the universe and its physical laws AND from any actual state of things the universe, the immediately following state of things could not NOT be that state of things. Back to the sequence. For you, given state 1, and observing state 2, state 2 must be the case. Because it occurred, because it happened... it happened necessarily. It could not have happened or occurred any other way. If we observe 1 => 2 => 3 => 4, then there is no other way the sequence could have occurred. The universe exists that way, necessarily.

That is fine if you hold that, but it is answering a different question than the one I posed in the OP. My question is, is there some thing "Z" which has no conditions for its existence, and is a condition for everything else that exists:

Conditions for particle x existing) Z and particle x
Conditions for particle y existing) Z and particle x and particle y
Conditions for Z) Z

However, to exist (in any meaningful sense of the word), the quanta must have something in which to exist.  We call that something 'spacetime'.  So quanta are contingent upon there being a spacetime matrix in which to exist.

Which on our hypothetical universe translates to:

Conditions for particle x existing) Spacetime and particle x
Conditions for particle y existing) Spacetime and state 1 and particle y
Conditions for spacetime existing) spacetime

Now, you probably don't think spacetime's existence is unconditioned, but I only write that to illustrate the question. Whether you think it is space time or not, does anything exist which has no conditions for existence besides itself? <= That would be necessary existence.

[Ignorant]

Could it be that the particles which seem to not exist briefly, are just as responsible for and important as those that do?
That may be how "things" have to work at a quantum level for anything to exist.

Maybe our whole universe can't exist without an opposite universe somewhere.
Together they are stable?

Stupid, probably? You're not the only ignoramus here!  Hehe

HA! It's not stupid at all, those are good questions, and they illustrate what the OP is all about. Especially "Maybe our whole universe can't exist without an opposite universe somewhere." <= That is the starting point for the inquiry. Is there anything in the universe/multiverse/whateververse which has no conditions for its existence besides itself. In other words, is there any thing that exists about which we can ask, "Can it exist without the need for anything else existing?" If the answer is yes, then it is necessary.

Good stuff.

[Angrboda]

We don't know whether anything is necessary in the sense that it would be an impossibility for it not to exist. I don't think we have any way of telling whether some thing's existence is necessary. Therefore postulating some thing's existence as necessary is pure assumption. This obviously has applications in the cosmological arguments. Any that conclude that there is a necessarily existing being called God are just assuming their conclusion. There is no convincing way to demonstrate that God is necessary. It's just circular reasoning.

[Ignorant]

We don't know whether anything is necessary in the sense that it would be an impossibility for it not to exist.  I don't think we have any way of telling whether some thing's existence is necessary.  Therefore postulating some thing's existence as necessary is pure assumption.

Fair enough. Do we have any way of telling whether or not some thing's existence is non-necessary (i.e. contingent or conditioned upon some other thing)?

[abaris]

Fair enough. Do we have any way of telling whether or not some thing's existence is non-necessary (i.e. contingent or conditioned upon some other thing)?

I say to you what I say to anyone else going there. We don't know how the universe works to it's last detail. We also don't know how life came to be, at this point. We know a lot more than we knew a century ago and, given another century, we will know even more.

What you're doing is filling the gap with your god. You're uncomfotable with not knowing anything and so there's a gap to fill. You do that with your god as the filler. It's called God of the gap fallacy, actually. It's on the same lines as some caveman staring up to the sun and the moon, not understanding them and calling them god. So, I'm used to call that caveman behavior.

[Angrboda]

We don't know whether anything is necessary in the sense that it would be an impossibility for it not to exist.  I don't think we have any way of telling whether some thing's existence is necessary.  Therefore postulating some thing's existence as necessary is pure assumption.

Fair enough. Do we have any way of telling whether or not some thing's existence is non-necessary (i.e. contingent or conditioned upon some other thing)?

If something stops or starts existing, that would by definition be contingent. I'm not familiar enough with QM to suggest we have any examples of such, but it is commonly claimed that we do have such examples. Stating whether ordinary matter ever stopped or started existing is above my paygrade.

[Ignorant]

Fair enough. Do we have any way of telling whether or not some thing's existence is non-necessary (i.e. contingent or conditioned upon some other thing)?

If something stops or starts existing, that would by definition be contingent.  I'm not familiar enough with QM to suggest we have any examples of such, but it is commonly claimed that we do have such examples.   Stating whether ordinary matter ever stopped or started existing is above my paygrade.

Also fair enough. I am not asking which thing is necessary or if ordinary matter is contingent. I am asking if you think that any thing is necessary. The question might be put: Does it make more sense to you that every thing is contingent, OR does it make more sense to you that at least one thing is non-contingent? If you simply don't have enough information to form a judgment, that is also fair.

If something starts or stops existing, that is the same as it being contingent or conditioned upon some other thing. However, "starting" or "stopping" places, for me, an undue temporal boundary on contingency. My immediate and present existence is still contingent on the existence of other things (like organs, cells, tissue, molecules, atoms, etc.) even though it started long ago and has yet to stop. Conditions must be met here in the present for my existence to be real, which means I am also contingent without respect to my beginning to exist or my stopping to exist. At least that's how I see it.

Read the previous few pages and you will see that I have no intention of evolving this into an argument, much less an argument for the existence of a god. I am honestly interested in how different people approach an answer to this question.