Is there objective Truth?

[Edwardo Piet]

You seem to be saying that existence and essences must be alienable to be distinct, but that is not necessarily true.

What does it mean for an existence or essence to be alienable?

For all particulars both their existence and essences must be present together or not at all.

I'm simply saying that existence itself whatever itself is is existent. I'm not sure what you're saying here. After all existences (that things are) are different to essences (what things are)... although, different in meaning. Essences don't exist in and of themselves they are merely part of existences/objects... they are the quality that makes those objects/existences distinct from other objects/existences. Essences describe existences, they certainly don't exist all by themselves.

Everything that exists has properties and everything that has properties exists.

Everything that has properties does exist if it is a thing.

I don't see how everything that exists has to necessarily have a property though. Something could be existent without having an essence or anything to describe it, I guess. At least I don't see how that that is logically impossible.

Existence itself must be existent though. For existence itself to be non-existent makes no sense.

Anything that has no properties doesn’t exist.

Not necessarily, no.

Anything that doesn’t exist has no properties.

Necessarily, yes. Because there is not any anything to exist to have properties if it doesn't exist.

At least one ontological argument (the 3rd Way of Aquinas) is based on the two very basic observations: 1) some things that could potentially exist don’t

2) some things that actual do exist could cease to exist.

Nah I think the only real 'things' are existent otherwise they're not things. Whether it's imaginary subjective things or 'ideas' residing in brains or real things such as objects separate from brains... if any thing is a thing at all it is existent.

And those things can change form and they can expand and contract. But ultimately it is actually logically true to say that nothing can come from nothing and that something cannot not be something and that existence exists by definition and every thing is ultimately eternal. Change is everything in the sense that all things change form but ultimately nothing can be created or destroyed it can only be changed.

Of course theists say "nothing can come from nothing" as some bullshit premise to god existing. I actually agree with those theists that yes, nothing can come from nothing. But the whole thing about God existing and a mind being behind it is a complete non-sequitur.

Right! That is true. Either the physical universe is part of a larger reality or it is the sum total of all reality.

There is no non-existence, in other words. Either the universe came from existence or the universe is existence.

I think that atheists and theists both agree that the reason there is something rather than nothing is because some thing or things must exist of necessity.

And this is why existence can't be nonexistent. And why it makes no sense to ask "Why is existence existent?" or "Why is existence not nonexistent?" or "why is existence existent rather than nonexistent?" or "Why is there[/i] existence rather than [u]there being nonexistence?" or "Why is there something being[/i] rather than [u]there being nothing being?" or "Why is there something rather than nothing?".

This is why these questions are nothing.

"Why did the big bang happen rather than not happen?"

Now THAT is a question that is NOT nonsensical. It's a valid question.

So the next question is this: what is the nature of something(s) that it (they) must exist by necessity?

This is a valid question.

For that the physical universe simply doesn’t qualify because it goes from prior states of potential to subsequent states of actuality (as per the 1st Way of Aquinas).

I wouldn't say that the physical universe doesn't qualify. I think it does qualify. We may have to get into semantics about what can or cannot be physical though. I don't see why any thing cannot be physical.

I would say that it's not a logical necessity for the universe to be entirely physical and it certainly is not logical impossible for non-physical things to exist... however, I see no reason for them to exist and I do intuit that all things are physical. And in all honesty the idea of a thing that is non-physical makes little sense to me. And why anything need not be physical?

Even physical things that cannot be understood ever by physicists in practice or even any alien race, even physical things that are completely unfalsifiable and beyond the comprehension of any mind in the universe.... that still doesn't imply that they're not physical things. They may be physical things incapable of being understood to be physical.

Some physics may be completely incomprehensible to any mind.

Imaginary things still physically exist in a sense.

I also hold that view.

Not ontologically speaking, but still.

I think it must be ontologically speaking. I just think it refers to the ontology of the phenomenological experience of subjective minds with those imaginary ideas or imaginary 'things' that exist at least in the sense that those ideas are present in their brains rather than absent.

Well it certainly isn't the default assumed state for me.

"nothing" being assumed a state is simply an assumption that is inaccurate.

Nothing is not a default state because nothing is not any state. Nothing is not a state of anything or any thing.

Guess what nothing is?

ETA:

It is for many including Lawrence Krauss.  I think it's absurdly illogical.

I agree. He's redefining "nothing" to mean something. Quantum 'empty space' teeming with quantum activity may be 'almost nothing' but it's certainly not nothing. Nothing is nothing. That's the whole point. Even "nothing" (in quotes) is something because it refers to the concept or word "nothing". But nothing itself? Nothing itself is nothing and there is not "it" to be itself or to "be" nothing. Nothing cannot be. Nothing isn't any thing. That is what it means to say that nothing is nothing. It doesn't exist. We use that word to refer to something 100% absent or non-existent.

ETA:

It is for many including Lawrence Krauss.  I think it's absurdly illogical.

The "nothing" to which Krauss refers to is not nothing at all. It is something.

[emoji106]

Correct.

ETA2:

The "nothing" to which Krauss refers to is not nothing at all. It is something.

Furthermore, I'll also say on this point:

I'm hardly surprised that what he found is something rather than nothing.

No scientist is ever going to find nothing... unless we're talking about them sometimes failing to find anything [emoji41]