Necessary Thing

[Ignorant]

...So it would appear that energy could exist without conditions, because you can't create or destroy it. This is based on my primitive understanding of science, and is mere speculation when applied to anything other than observable reality. I don't have any firm beliefs about whether this rule would hold elsewhere.

But then again, maybe something is keeping the energy from disappearing? I couldn't possibly know. Things would look the same either way. So in conclusion, I have no firm beliefs at all, just an intuitive idea that energy will probably always exist in our reality...

I think the questions you voice here strike at the very point of the OP. So that me ask a conditional question for you to consider:

IF energy's existence was conditional on some other thing (X) "keeping it from disappearing", we could then immediately ask if some DIFFERENT thing (Y) is keeping that other thing (X) from disappearing, which are together (X+Y) keeping energy from disappearing. Then we can ask if some other thing (Z) is keeping Y from disappearing which (together) are keeping X from disappearing, which are all (X+Y+Z) keeping energy from disappearing. And so on. There is the context, here is the question:

Is it logically possible that there is an infinite chain of "other things" simultaneously keeping energy from disappearing?

In other words, I am not asking which thing you think is without conditions (it could be energy, it could be something else). I am asking if it is logically possible for ALL things to exist with conditions. If not, then at least one thing exists without conditions for existence. Otherwise, right now, an infinity of conditions are currently being satisfied for everything that exists. What do you think?

[Ignorant]

I believe existence is eternal. I believe existence is necessary. I believe existence cannot not exist by definition...

...As for "existence itself must exist and cannot not exist" that part at least I believe I know, it's just like I know that "all bachelors are unmarried"...

It seems that for you, there are no conditions whose satisfaction are required for "existence" to be real. It just IS, unconditionally.

In other words, existence is self-conditional, you might say it "subsists", and therefore its existence is like nothing else in the universe. What do you think?

[Whateverist]

Does anything exist necessarily? In other words, is there anything that simply cannot NOT exist?

I think you have a bee stuck in a bottle.  Just let it out.

[Ignorant]

Ah well, yes. By definition, "a thing that exists" cannot not exist.

But that doesn't tell us anything, because we're simply assuming our conclusion by definition. (That's not a criticism of Evie, it's a problem with how this whole question is posed.)...

I think this might be a misunderstanding. By "a thing that exists which cannot not exist", we do not mean a restatement of non-contradiction. We do not mean, "If something exists, then it cannot also simultaneously not exist". Instead, it means, "existence itself has no conditions upon which it is dependent for its existence".

[Ignorant]

Does anything exist necessarily? In other words, is there anything that simply cannot NOT exist?

I think you have a bee stuck in a bottle.  Just let it out.

How do you mean?

[Whateverist]

Words don't contain any real magic. Exist is a slippery word .. exist as an idea, exist as an object, exist if no one can perceive or conceive of it? Add on necessarily and you have what?

Who is in any position to say what exists necessarily? By that do you mean that it isn't possible for us to conceive of it not existing? But is it possible for anything to exist without our being able to conceive of it? How can any of us answer that?

These are just words and categories with dissonant associations, nothing to be alarmed about .. and nothing to figure out. You've got the "exist" bee and the "necessarily" bee stuck in the same bottle and the resulting buzz is disturbing. So let them out, let them go.

[Whateverist]

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.

No, you are very welcome here but it would be nice if you were more disclosive about your own ideas regarding your questions.  Little wonder that everyone is so guarded with you.

[Obviously I am working my way through the thread now.]

[Whateverist]

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?

Again, a simple "all I've been able to come up with myself is .." would probably put people at ease.  

Myself, I'm not sure why you are concerned with what is necessary in general when necessary would seem to be a relational word.

[Ignorant]

Words don't contain any real magic.  Exist is a slippery word .. exist as an idea, exist as an object, exist if no one can perceive or conceive of it?  Add on necessarily and you have what?

Who is in any position to say what exists necessarily?  By that do you mean that it isn't possible for us to conceive of it not existing?  But is it possible for anything to exist without our being able to conceive of it?  How can any of us answer that?

These are just words and categories with dissonant associations, nothing to be alarmed about .. and nothing to figure out.  You've got the "exist" bee and the "necessarily" bee stuck in the same bottle and the resulting buzz is disturbing.  So let them out, let them go.

I agree that words don't contain any real magic, but they are the best we've got when it comes to expressing ideas. Some ideas even correspond to real things. At least that's how I see it.

Existence, at least for me, isn't a thing, but it is the most fundamental aspect which a thing does. Existence is a verb. If a thing is actually a thing, then (whatever it is) that must mean it is existing. Existence, therefore, is the nominal way by which we can describe the most fundamental "act" of any real thing. It is existing. If it isn't existing, then it can only be an idea of a thing rather than a thing actually existing.

I am not really interested in trying to conceive of what this necessary thing might be, at least not in this thread. I start with the dichotomy: either a thing is existing on the condition that another thing is also existing, or it is not. 

(1) Most things I observe and experience exist on the condition that some other thing is also existing => If that is true (and I am pretty sure it is), then EITHER (2) ALL things are existing on the condition that some other thing is existing OR (2) Some things are existing without the condition that some other thing exists. This thread is aimed at examining those 3 propositions.

True, proposition (1) is a bunch of words, but it more or less adequately expresses an idea which I think corresponds to reality. Either (2) or (3) follow from (1) when combined with some other observation or proposition.

[Whateverist]

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

Point, game and match to Boru.