Necessary Thing

[abaris]

This pattern of Igno's is similar to his/her Secular Humanist thread. He/her is right, I choose not to play.

As I said, looks like a True Christian sleeper cell. To be activated after being banned.

[Ignorant]

What the hell is this, the "Interviewing Atheists Hour"?!?

Edited To Add: Look, I'm not trying to be snippy, but this open-ended questions and vague engagement tactic is a really, really irritating habit we see from a lot of self-righteous assholes, when they first come on the site.

I thought it was funny, not snippy. Open ended questions on a philosophy forum is irritating? I thought that is what philosophy was.

Look, if you all would prefer that I stop engaging on atheistforums, just tell me, and I won't bother you anymore.

[Ignorant]

I already read it before replying. The quoted part still seemed the most important to me.

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?

[Ignorant]

I'm not sure I share your meaning of self-evidence. What does that mean when you write it?

If everything necessarily exists and cannot not exist, how does this view account for quantum fluctuation (i.e. some particles begin and then cease to exist within a fraction of a second)? If a particle ceases to exist, it wasn't existing necessarily/of necessity, but rather it happened to exist. Necessity is not the same as determinism. Determinism uses the word "necessary" in the sense that, given a certain set of causes and conditions, certain and determined effects occur necessarily. Necessity in the sense I am proposing means that for a given necessary thing, its non-existence is not possible.

The non-existence of existence is not possible, by definition. And what does it matter if those particles pop into existence for only a small amount of time? The duration of their existence doesn't mean anything.

If the particle pops-OUT of existence, then it no longer exists. Its non-existence was a real possibility (demonstrated by its ceasing to exist). If its non-existence was a real possibility, then it couldn't have been a "necessary" thing (a necessary thing's non-existence is not possible). What do you think?

[ApeNotKillApe]

There's no need for necessity, crap just pops in and out of existence.

[abaris]

There's no need for necessity, crap just pops in and out of existence.

But it's a product of the digestive system, which this thread ultimately amounts to.

[Ignorant]

There's no need for necessity, crap just pops in and out of existence.

So then, nothing is necessary?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There's no need for necessity, crap just pops in and out of existence.

So then, nothing is necessary?

This is the whole 'necessary vs contingent' thing, innit?

Boru

[Ignorant]

So then, nothing is necessary?

This is the whole 'necessary vs contingent' thing, innit?

Boru

Yes it is.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Thought as much. Try it this way:

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. It has been convincingly argued that only necessary things exist, and I'm okay with that. 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.

But 'exist' and 'necessary' are both slippery terms, 'contingent' somewhat less so. It may be necessary for a particular quantum packet to exist for a trillionth of a second, and the be necessary that it not exist, so there's not a lot of difficulty there.

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