Invitation for Atheists to Debate a Christian via Skype

[Belacqua]

Then why would a first cause be necessary in the first place? Why would the cosmos require something in addition to itself in order to exist?

Well, again, I don't think existence is "in addition" to the cosmos. The cosmos exists -- and we can call this a "thing" or a "state" or some other word, but it's not separate. 

I would even say the word “exists” is redundant in the sentence. We could simply point to the animal and and say, “this cat”.

We can if the cat is sitting there! 

But I still think it's meaningful to talk about the cat's existence. It didn't exist for a long time, and then it existed for a while, and then it didn't any more. These are facts about most of the cats in history (my late cat Nadja, for instance). 

I keep coming back to the same problem in my mind. They seem, then, to be insinuating that existence is in some way separate, or beyond, or ontologically different from that which exists. I feel like that’s unnecessary. Existence is simply a state of being. The cosmos exist. Earth exists. This pencil exists. 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’m not arguing anything here. Just picking your brain. 😉

I'm fine with "state of being." Or maybe "fact of being." 

I'd say that "the cosmos" and "existence" are only separate insofar as we talk about them that way. The cosmos exists; the cat existed before and doesn't now. The cosmos's existence isn't separate from the cosmos, but it is a fact about the cosmos. 

So maybe it would be clearer, and in line with Aristotle still, to say that existence is a state of affairs, but that it is the state of affairs that must be the case for any contingent and changing object to have that state of affairs. 

Since the First Cause isn't a tangible object but the "thing" (in the sense of situation, state, etc.) required for all other things (in the sense of objects, situations, states) then we can say this is the end of the causal chain -- the final answer to the series of questions "what must be the case in order for all other things to be the case?"

I think that things exist necessarily, because there is no logical alternative to existence.  If existence exists necessarily, then a prior cause or condition would be superfluous.

I'm not sure about this. I can imagine a previously existent cat to not exist any longer. Is it then possible to imagine that every other thing doesn't exist either? Maybe not in my own range of imagination, but logically speaking. But again, I don't know about this.

If what you say is true, I think it argues FOR a First Cause as necessary, non-contingent, not-possible-to-not-exist. 

"Things exist necessarily" would be equal to "there must be existence." Again, not as a separate thing, but as a state of affairs. 

And if we are talking about a "prior cause" as something that causes existence itself, then yes, that is in agreement with the First Cause argument. Existence is the only thing that isn't caused by something else -- in the sense that no other thing must be the case if existence is to be the case. 

n. Absolute nothingness is incoherent. Even the word “nothingness” is an attempt to describe some thing. We try to hold a vague concept of “nothing” in our minds, but the second we attempt to use language to explain what nothing “is”, we’ve already defined it into existence. Anytime we use language like, “nothing instead of something” or “nothing is”, or, “if there was nothing”, we are talking, tacitly, about something. This is why I think that existence is necessary. I apologize in advance if none of that makes any sense, lol.

Yes, I'm not sure what to think about that. 

It may be a language issue, something for Wittgenstein people to take up -- the issue may be that the structure of our thinking, as defined by our language, can't handle "something" and "nothing" in a coherent manner. 

Or it may be that you have hit on why the existence of "something" is indeed necessary, and the absolute foundation of everything else. In which case it is the First Cause.