The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence

[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.