The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence

[Belacqua]

How about if I just disagree with what they said? The notion of necessary versus conditional existence is, I believe, a very bad philosophical mistake that does not, again, represent a useful division.

Do you have a reason for your disagreement? 

I don't see how it's bad to say that parents-->children is different from space-time-->helium. Those are just different relationships. The children continue after the parents are gone, the helium couldn't go on after space-time left. Why is that not just a fact? 

But, again, it is only the case because of the physical laws.

Yes, I've already agreed with you about this. The physical laws of nature are in place, and things operate according to them. How does this work against Aristotle's argument? 

Science studies the laws of nature. We have some idea of how they operate. Because they operate as they do, we get atoms and molecules and the sun and etc. None of this is in disagreement with Aristotle. 

And this seems to me to be badly incoherent.

Why?

No, that is merely definitional, not being prior. And, again, I think Ari and Thom are simply incoherent (in some matters) and counter to reality (in others). Their whole metaphysics is deeply flawed.

---

The definition I'm using is that "prior," in this case, is not temporal. But if you don't want to say "prior" I'll use a different word. 

Space-time has to exist for hydrogen to exist. Hydrogen has to exist for the sun to exist. The sun has to exist for me to exist. It's easy enough to avoid the word "prior" if you want to reserve that only for temporal issues. 

To argue that Aristotle is wrong about this, you'd have to assert that hydrogen could continue to exist in the absence of space-time. This would break the laws of nature.

My parents 'caused' me, again, through physical laws.

That's very true. And even if your parents are gone, you may still exist.

So we're talking about something different. I'm talking about things that have to continue existing for you to continue existing. 

Again, I'm willing to change the terms if you want. Not "prior" or "cause," but maybe "necessary" and "allow the existence of." It would be the same.

[brewer]

Excellent point, Lil Rik.

But I am not making some "proclamation through fiat" when I say: "Things that exist, exist because they must exist." Ask yourself: why are things the way they are? Why does the planet earth take 24 hours to complete a rotation? Why is the sun the temperature that it is? Why is the planet Venus so hot? Why does the moon reflect light from the sun?

The answer?
....
Is there an answer?

Yes. 

***

Prior causes. The conditions of reality before this present moment dictate what must be the case now. The reality that exists before our very eyes is necessary.

When a star produces an accretion disk, the accretion disk forms because it is necessary for the molecules being scattered from the newly-formed star to go somewhere. Likewise, the newly-formed star's formation was necessitated by what its composite hydrogen molecules must do when they enter such a state.

Give me an example of something that exists because of something other than prior causes, Brew.

It sounded like you were going down the First Cause road. The word "must" kinda threw me, leave it out and I would have a different reaction. It's the same reaction I sometimes get when people use "always".

Something without a PC............... abstract ideas.   Or maybe words (noise?) of glossolalia.  A random number.

[brewer]

Was it something I said?

Nope. But please stop closing the curtains. Takes all the fun out of peeping.

[Pat Mustard]

My guess is that Nogba's a sock. Firstly he's abandoned his thread fairly quickly and secondly, and more importantly, he selectively reported to replies in the thread, replying immediately to some posters and ignoring others (I only noticed this because he's not replied to either of my above posts, which were directed to him specifically). A genuinely new poster would reply to everybody for a while until they get a feel for other posters on the forum, a person who is ignoring others from the get go is working off of previously gained knowledge or impressions.

[LadyForCamus]

@Belaqua

I’m still stuck on this notion of “existence” versus “that which exists”. I keep coming back to the same problem in my mind. Aristotelian thinking seems to insinuate that existence is in some way separate, or beyond, or ontologically different from that which exists; that existence can somehow be “prior” to things existing. I feel like that’s unnecessary. It’s a tautology. Existence is simply a state of being. The cosmos exist. Earth exists. This pencil exists. I’ve asked this before, but I’d like to address the question again: do you think that there is a good reason why we shouldn’t accept existence as a brute fact? Is there a good reason to believe that “the cosmos” and “existence” can’t be synonymous terms?

[polymath257]

How about if I just disagree with what they said? The notion of necessary versus conditional existence is, I believe, a very bad philosophical mistake that does not, again, represent a useful division.

Do you have a reason for your disagreement? 

I don't see how it's bad to say that parents-->children is different from space-time-->helium. Those are just different relationships. The children continue after the parents are gone, the helium couldn't go on after space-time left. Why is that not just a fact? 

It is a meaningless distinction. The parents initiated a process. Spacetime is the medium in which the process occurs.

But, again, it is only the case because of the physical laws.

Yes, I've already agreed with you about this. The physical laws of nature are in place, and things operate according to them. How does this work against Aristotle's argument? 

Science studies the laws of nature. We have some idea of how they operate. Because they operate as they do, we get atoms and molecules and the sun and etc. None of this is in disagreement with Aristotle. 

And this seems to me to be badly incoherent.

Why?

It is a faulty distinction which covers too many different, unrelated particulars.

No, that is merely definitional, not being prior. And, again, I think Ari and Thom are simply incoherent (in some matters) and counter to reality (in others). Their whole metaphysics is deeply flawed.

---

The definition I'm using is that "prior," in this case, is not temporal. But if you don't want to say "prior" I'll use a different word. 

Space-time has to exist for hydrogen to exist. Hydrogen has to exist for the sun to exist. The sun has to exist for me to exist. It's easy enough to avoid the word "prior" if you want to reserve that only for temporal issues.

Hydrogen has to exist for the sun to exist only because the sun is made of hydrogen. If stars were made of something else, that 'priority' would fail to be the case. In particular, if the laws of physics were different, that priority would fail.

Spacetime is the geometry in which events happen. If there are events, there is spacetime. Again, the 'priority' is a function of how the universe works, not something external to it.

To argue that Aristotle is wrong about this, you'd have to assert that hydrogen could continue to exist in the absence of space-time. This would break the laws of nature.

Since spacetime is, in essence, equivalent to 'the universe', you are saying that hydrogen can't exist without the universe. Well, duh. That simply isn't an informative statement. It isn't a type of causality.

My parents 'caused' me, again, through physical laws.

That's very true. And even if your parents are gone, you may still exist.

So we're talking about something different. I'm talking about things that have to continue existing for you to continue existing.

So, those things that, through the laws of physics, are required for me to maintain integrity. Air, food, etc. All because of the specifics of how my body works via the laws of physics. That isn't a type of causality, it is simply preconditions.

Again, I'm willing to change the terms if you want. Not "prior" or "cause," but maybe "necessary" and "allow the existence of." It would be the same.

Yes, some things are prerequisites for other things. Composition is one reason, causal laws are another.

Now, how does that apply in the Kalam argument? Everything has something that is required for it to exist? Outside of the universe itself, I'm not sure that is even true.

[Belacqua]

@Belaqua

I’m still stuck on this notion of “existence” versus “that which exists”. 

Yes, I think this is a reasonable argument. It's probably a side effect of English grammar that we can say something like, "Existence hung around for a while before there was any stuff." It's grammatical but it's nonsense. 

I keep coming back to the same problem in my mind. Aristotelian thinking seems to insinuate that existence is in some way separate, or beyond, or ontologically different from that which exists; that existence can somehow be “prior” to things existing. I feel like that’s unnecessary. It’s a tautology. Existence is simply a state of being. The cosmos exist. Earth exists. This pencil exists. I’ve asked this before, but I’d like to address the question again: do you think that there is a good reason why we shouldn’t accept existence as a brute fact?  Is there a good reason to believe that “the cosmos” and “existence” can’t be synonymous terms?

I don't think Aristotle makes that separation. (I wish I spoke Greek so I could look at his grammar.) 

In fact I think that, again, you are coming close to a common argument for a First Cause. It is a brute fact that stuff exists. It is logically incoherent to talk about a state of absolute nothingness. Therefore, the brute fact of stuff existing is the First Cause. It is the deepest foundation of talking about all the various stuff. 

So people may say that the First Cause is the Ground of Being, or existence, or -- in an attempt to be more careful -- the unavoidability of stuff being around. When we say that, for example, the continued existence of space-time depends for its continuation on the brute fact that there has to be stuff, we have come to the necessary end of the chain. Which makes it the First Cause. 

The word "prior" is misleading because we are so used to using it in a temporal sense. But in logic, it just means X has to be the case for Y to be the case. Or in the present discussion, there has to be stuff in order for there to be hydrogen. The fact that there is stuff isn't a "cause" in the modern English sense of an act or event which made something else come about. 

Whether all this is true -- that existence is inevitable and nothingness is nonsense -- I can't say. But in terms of a First Cause, it is part of the old argument.

---

Since spacetime is, in essence, equivalent to 'the universe', you are saying that hydrogen can't exist without the universe. Well, duh. That simply isn't an informative statement. It isn't a type of causality.

It is a "cause" in the sense that Aristotle used the term which we translate into English as "cause." But as I said, that's different from the way you want to use the word, and that's OK with me. 

Now, how does that apply in the Kalam argument? Everything has something that is required for it to exist? Outside of the universe itself, I'm not sure that is even true.

It doesn't apply to the Kalam argument. That's different. 

Both Aristotle and Thomas rejected the Kalam argument.

[sdelsolray]

...Second law of thermodynamics says that the energy is decreasing over time
and some day will be consumed.
...

It does not say that at all.

Study hard.

[Bucky Ball]

First of all please excuse my english, it's not my original language.

every thing that existes must have a reason that made him come to existence right ?
you can't create something from nothing.
nothing comes to existance by coincidence, but if you say so then what brings this law of coincidence in existance.
the coincidence law it self need something to bring him to existance

the probleme is that if every thing needs a first reason to existe,
nothing will existe in first place.

why is that ?
because we need that very first reason that doesn't need a reason to exist that will begin the chaine of causes.

this first causes is called god, that will catalyst the existance.

But you said over at Atheist Discussion that one cannot use language and logic to talk about anything outside this universe.
Your god(s) would have to be "apart" (outside) from this universe, if they made it.
And here you are, little ignoramus that you are, using BOTH language and (supposedly) logic doing the very thing, you said you can't do.

Are you seeing a physician for this problem you have ?
There are probably pills for this problem.

[LastPoet]

So, bottom line is that if you start a post excusing yourself with poor engrish, you might get some temporary relief on internet forums.

The sentence structure is fine apart the lack of caps and a couple of repeated errors. The meaning is the same as any other theist pulling the same old tired bullshit.

I believe lack of mastery in english isn't your worse fault.