God is so quiet

[GrandizerII]

Fine, I will grant that the concept of existence must be present in every possible world and that concept is something (much like numbers, logic, and other abstract objects). However, this whole discussion started when I made the statement that the universe does not necessary exist. That is still the case.

Are you saying all things abstract (such as mathematical truths) are situated beyond the universe/cosmos? That space-time is situated somewhere beyond the universe/cosmos?

[The Grand Nudger]

Cutting to the chase, the universe -does- necessarily exist, though it may not, or some specific thing within it may not necesarily exist -as it is-.

Any person who's hinged the need for their god on some issue of necessity as regards the universe itself has signed onto a false faith by simple virtue of insensible ambiguity.

[Amarok]

1. Abstracts are descriptions they don't have their own existence 

2. Their is no world in which nothing is even a concept . Let alone one that exists in a world 

3. There is fuck all evidence that there could be any universe where nothing ever existed and were the universe does not . Or any conceivable univesere were existence does not exist . So steve is talking out his ass . Existence is more then necessary.

[LadyForCamus]

Steve, do you realize that just by saying, ‘nothing is’, as in: ‘nothing is an alternative to something’, or that ‘nothing could have been’, you’re already talking about nothing as though it were, in fact, something?  I think you’re the one overthinking it.  As soon as you attempt to conceptualize nothing as an alternative, you’ve already screwed the pooch, because ‘nothing’ cannot be an alternative.  It can’t be anything.   I would say with reasonable certainty that existence did NOT happen. That’s my entire argument: existence has always existed, because that’s what existence is, and what it does.  There is no such possible thing as nothing.  Not even in concept.

---

Dean Rickles says it more perfectly than I:

‘What kind of possible world could instantiate there being nothing?’

Okay, I finally had time to listen to the video. I understand your point now. My confusion came in from you and Grandizer moving from the Universe being a necessary entity to the concept of 'existence' and I did not understand the pivot.

I don’t think we’re quite on the same page yet.  I’m not talking just about existence in concept; I’m talking about actual existence itself.  I mean, that’s an irrelevant distinction anyhow. Surely we can agree (as Grand pointed out) that concepts, while not concrete objects, still exist in space-time, yes?

Alright, that makes sense. But as Dean Rickles clearly said (7:00) this reasoning does not apply to concrete objects.

I believe Rickles is simply making that distinction between concrete objects that exist, versus existence as a whole.

the universe does not necessarily exist.

I agree with you that our local universe, exactly as it is today, does not necessarily exist. If the multiverse hypothesis is true, then there are universes popping in and out of existence endlessly.  But, existence itself exists necessarily.

Let’s try thinking of it another way.  If you negate, or subtract all things that exist; if you negate or subtract existence, what are you left with? That answer: ‘‘I’m left with nothing’ is a logical impossibility.   If you’re left with something; with anything, then by definition, it could not be nothing.  I maintain there is no logical alternative to existence, therefore existence is not contingent, and exists necessarily.

[SteveII]

Fine, I will grant that the concept of existence must be present in every possible world and that concept is something (much like numbers, logic, and other abstract objects). However, this whole discussion started when I made the statement that the universe does not necessary exist. That is still the case.

Are you saying all things abstract (such as mathematical truths) are situated beyond the universe/cosmos? That space-time is situated somewhere beyond the universe/cosmos?

Not at all. You are missing what "possible world" semantics means. A "possible world" is the way reality could have been. While the actual world is a possible world, all the rest of them are just conceptions used to iron out logical questions. If you are going to discuss philosophy and metaphysics, you MUST become acquainted and know how to use the terms. Read this if you need to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world

To be clear, there is only one actual world--the one we see.

[LadyForCamus]

And there is no possible world where reality could have been nothing, because that doesn’t make any sense. You’re complicating this unnecessarily, Steve.

[GrandizerII]

Are you saying all things abstract (such as mathematical truths) are situated beyond the universe/cosmos? That space-time is situated somewhere beyond the universe/cosmos?

Not at all. You are missing what "possible world" semantics means. A "possible world" is the way reality could have been. While the actual world is a possible world, all the rest of them are just conceptions used to iron out logical questions. If you are going to discuss philosophy and metaphysics, you MUST become acquainted and know how to use the terms. Read this if you need to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world

To be clear, there is only one actual world--the one we see.

Why do you always do this thing where you think you know it all, and people disagreeing with you are dumb? You're not even addressing what I'm asking you here.

If the abstract cannot exist without concrete worlds/realities, actual or not, then how can there be a possibly actual world (reality) where only the abstract exist?

[GrandizerII]

By the way, with regards to necessity vs. contingency of parts of the universe, this is where I probably part ways with most atheists and theists. I think the whole necessity vs. contingency is somewhat unnecessary at the end of the day, and that all things in existence exist necessarily, even when some things do not consistently exist at all times in all worlds (here, I am not referring to modal worlds, but to parallel universes or something similar to that).

My reasoning is that, if the wider cosmos exists in the form of an eternal block of reality (like the one posited by eternalism), then everything that has happened, or will ever happen, in one universe or another, is a necessary existence. I may not exist at all time moments in all universes, but all instances of "me" nevertheless exist eternally and necessarily. And so in such a case, the chances are good that it would have been impossible for my non-existence to replace all instances of my existence.

However, if we still want to differentiate between such things as the whole universe and its parts in terms of modality, then I guess necessity vs. contingency can still be a meaningful thing to talk about, so long as the discussion is contextualized in one universe or something and we are analyzing it from our temporal perspective. In this context, and from such a perspective, I would be a contingent being because I do not exist in all time points in this universe, and in other similar universes, I do not exist at all the corresponding time moments.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're a contingent being because your existence has dependencies.  If you are a contingent being you cannot be a necessary being...however, that you are not a necessary being does not imply that you are a contingent being.  In your case you happen to be so..but not because you don't exist at all points in time.

Consider this, if a being came into existence tomorrow with no existential dependencies, it would not have existed at all points in time, and it wouldn't be a contingent or necessary being.  Another example..consider a being that has existed at all points in time but did have an existential dependency.  A pan pyschic whatsit that was born at the very instant of the big bang.  This would be a contingent being despite it's temporal or spacial distribution.

The difference between necessity and contingency in beings is simple. One depends on some x to exist whereas the other does not. I'll drop a mention here..that I don't intend his to be a counterargument to your thoughts on the wider cosmos or eternal blocks of reality or relaionships between multiple universes..only as a suggestion that whatever you're talking about isn't what other people are talking about when they use the terms in contraposition.

Personally, I'm not certain that the concept of a necessary being is valid in and of itself...and if it isn't..that would explain why discussions of such beings fall to inanity almost as soon as they're proposed. I think it's just an anthropomorphization of causality, and an explicit one, at that. Putting everything I said above about the concepts aside, it seems as if all beings are contingent, even non-factual beings, if only in that they need some place to -be-.

[GrandizerII]

You're a contingent being because your existence has dependencies.  If you are a contingent being you cannot be a necessary being...however, that you are not a necessary being does not imply that you are a contingent being.  In your case you happen to be so..but not because you don't exist at all points in time.

Consider this, if a being came into existence tomorrow with no existential dependencies, it would not have existed at all points in time, and it wouldn't be a contingent or necessary being.  Another example..consider a being that has existed at all points in time but did have an existential dependency.  A pan pyschic whatsit that was born at the very instant of the big bang.  This would be a contingent being despite it's temporal or spacial distribution.

The difference between necessity and contingency in beings is simple.  One depends on some x to exist whereas the other does not.  I'll drop a mention here..that I don't intend his to be a counterargument to your thoughts on the wider cosmos or eternal blocks of reality or relaionships between multiple universes..only as a suggestion that whatever you're talking about isn't what other people are talking about when they use the terms in contraposition.

I guess it depends then on what is meant by contingency. I am going along with how Steve defined it earlier, and to be fair, this is one of the definitions that I've seen in some of the articles on necessity vs. contingency. Anyhow, if contingency is not simply about having the possibility of both existence and non-existence, and more about dependencies, then my argument doesn't apply.