Necessity, Contingency and the Universe

[Randolpin]

This topic talks about the difference between necessity and contingency and it's relation to our universe. This words are common on metaphysics. It talks about existence.When we say a thing necessarily exist if it should exist in all possible worlds. Examples are shapes, numbers etc. Contingency on the other hand can not exist. It is not necessary to our reality. Examples are certain animals like monkey, it exist in the actual world but it is possible also to not exist in other possible worlds. Other is unicorn. It doesn't exist in the actual world but possible to exist in other possible worlds. So base on this I concluded thru my past philosophical studies, that our universe exist contingently. The question now is why? Here I formulated my Property argument for the contingency of the universe. The property argument states that, everything has a property or identity obviously and this property must have a source.Like for example the property of air. You can ask,why that is the property of air in our reality? Or in broader sense why this is the property of our universe. This question can't be answered if the universe exist eternally or without an outside explanation so in result, inescapably universe contingently exist.

If you have some questions please ask me to clarify my point. Your arguments against my arguments are very much appreciated. 

 

[Bender]

Couldn't there be universes with a different dimensionality or a spacetime that is warped to the point that (some) shapes cannot exist there?

Otherwise, you seem to be stating the obvious, and I don't know what to discuss. I can't think of a well defined physical entity or concept that has to exist in every possible universe, except perhaps the existance of a relation between forces, or the existance of (local) curvature and dimentionality. Perhaps "energy" in general?

Edited May 16, 2018 by Bender

[Strange]

On 12/05/2018 at 7:43 AM, Randolpin said:

The property argument states that, everything has a property or identity obviously and this property must have a source.

You have had multiple threads using this same argument - "I think there must be a cause; therefore God". This is the classic fallacy of begging the question. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question

[Eise]

On 5/12/2018 at 7:43 AM, Randolpin said:

So base on this I concluded thru my past philosophical studies, that our universe exist contingently.

Some arguments are missing here...

On 5/12/2018 at 7:43 AM, Randolpin said:

The property argument states that, everything has a property or identity obviously and this property must have a source.

Nicely stated. But can you inform us about the proof of this 'property argument'?

[YaDinghus]

On 5/12/2018 at 7:43 AM, Randolpin said:

This topic talks about the difference between necessity and contingency and it's relation to our universe. This words are common on metaphysics. It talks about existence.When we say a thing necessarily exist if it should exist in all possible worlds. Examples are shapes, numbers etc. Contingency on the other hand can not exist. It is not necessary to our reality. Examples are certain animals like monkey, it exist in the actual world but it is possible also to not exist in other possible worlds. Other is unicorn. It doesn't exist in the actual world but possible to exist in other possible worlds. So base on this I concluded thru my past philosophical studies, that our universe exist contingently. The question now is why? Here I formulated my Property argument for the contingency of the universe. The property argument states that, everything has a property or identity obviously and this property must have a source.Like for example the property of air. You can ask,why that is the property of air in our reality? Or in broader sense why this is the property of our universe. This question can't be answered if the universe exist eternally or without an outside explanation so in result, inescapably universe contingently exist.

If you have some questions please ask me to clarify my point. Your arguments against my arguments are very much appreciated. 

 

I have a feeling you don't exactly know where you want to go from here, yourself. That makes it kinda hard to strike a discussion, and a good one is also pretty hard to imagine from this point on. You could say, for this reason, that an 'agenda of the creator' is a necessity for a good discussion. Or ist it? I can't be sure, because a good discussion arising at this point would be proof against the necessity of the creators agency, whereas this good discussion NOT arising isn't automatic proof of the necessity. On the turn, a universe in which there are beings to question the nature of the universe is not evidence of the necessity of the agency of a creator. Just because an active creator would most certainly (assumingly) want to create a universe containing intelligent observers, doesn't mean it couldn't happen without a creators agency.

[Randolpin]

On 5/16/2018 at 3:22 PM, Strange said:

You have had multiple threads using this same argument - "I think there must be a cause; therefore God". This is the classic fallacy of begging the question. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question

No it's not what the argument say. If a thing has a property then the property of that thing can't be explain by itself. For example you see an ant. Why that is the property of an ant? Having long antenna and bites. You can't explain the property in the ant itself. The universe can't escape from this analogy. Our universe has a property. Why the universe has this property? You can't answer it in the universe itself.

On 5/17/2018 at 3:27 PM, Eise said:

 

Nicely stated. But can you inform us about the proof of this 'property argument'?

What proof do you want? Philosophical or empirical?

On 5/17/2018 at 3:27 PM, Eise said:

Some arguments are missing here...

 

Why you said there are missing arguments?

[studiot]

The description 'Properties' hides a multitude of different situations.

I

2 hours ago, Randolpin said:

You can't explain the property in the ant itself

 

I am guessing that by this statement you are distinguishing between properties that are inherent in something and those which are bestowed upon it by external agency.

Please confirm this or explain further what you actually mean.

 

For instance

So far as we know you it is impossible to remove the property of mass from something.

But we can remove or bestow certain types of energy at will.

 

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Randolpin said:

If a thing has a property then the property of that thing can't be explain by itself.

I see no reason why that should be true.

But if it is, then it creates a problem. If A has a property, then maybe we can find B that explains it. But what about B, surely we need to find C that explains that. And then D to explain C and so on ad infinitum. You have invented the necessity for this infinite regress so you invent the concept of god(s) to provide an end point: "X is explained by the gods choosing to do it that way". Of course, I can ask where the gods came from or why they chose to do it that way so you haven't really provided an explanation at all. You have just provided an excuse to stop asking questions. 

3 hours ago, Randolpin said:

Why you said there are missing arguments?

Because you just made an assertion with no evidence or logical support.

[koti]

On 12.05.2018 at 7:43 AM, Randolpin said:

This topic talks about the difference between necessity and contingency and it's relation to our universe. This words are common on metaphysics. It talks about existence.When we say a thing necessarily exist if it should exist in all possible worlds. Examples are shapes, numbers etc. Contingency on the other hand can not exist. It is not necessary to our reality. Examples are certain animals like monkey, it exist in the actual world but it is possible also to not exist in other possible worlds. Other is unicorn. It doesn't exist in the actual world but possible to exist in other possible worlds. So base on this I concluded thru my past philosophical studies, that our universe exist contingently. The question now is why? Here I formulated my Property argument for the contingency of the universe. The property argument states that, everything has a property or identity obviously and this property must have a source.Like for example the property of air. You can ask,why that is the property of air in our reality? Or in broader sense why this is the property of our universe. This question can't be answered if the universe exist eternally or without an outside explanation so in result, inescapably universe contingently exist.

If you have some questions please ask me to clarify my point. Your arguments against my arguments are very much appreciated. 

 

Evidence based explanations for god didn’t work out very well for you last time you tried (you got banned till Christmas) so now you’re trying to use philosophy to convince yourself of the necessity of a creator. Philosophy is o lot more flexible than evidence based science so you might actually last a little longer this time with your inevitable god rants but make no mistake, you will fail as long as you will not provide viable, comfirmed evidence for your religious stance, good luck though. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by koti

[Strange]

19 minutes ago, koti said:

you will fail as long as you will not provide viable, comfirmed evidence for your religious stance, good luck though. 

Or just accept it is a purely matter of faith and both evidence and reason are irrelevant to it. (I always worry about people whose faith is so weak they feel the need to try and bolster it with false arguments.)

[koti]

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

...(I always worry about people whose faith is so weak they feel the need to try and bolster it with false arguments.)

Someone who is conditioned to a degree where he/she refuses any explanations and deals only in absolutes worries me more. At least Randolphin is still here instead of submerging himself in preaching alongside people like that. The fact that he openned this thread leaves a small pathway for him to potencial reasoning through knowledge that he will find here and which he won’t find in religious forums.

[DrP]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Or just accept it is a purely matter of faith and both evidence and reason are irrelevant to it.

... I've never been a fan of this   -  I get that faith is a leap of acceptance of something without proof...   but when I was a believer I always tried to justify my 'belief' (I won't say faith) based upon evidences and reasoning.  There are explanations for everything in the bible and all of gods actions if you 'accept' certain things to be true that you have no evidence for. When you believe it you sort of believe that you have the evidence...  but it takes a step back again to analyse it properly and see that you are taking things to be true that are actually huge leaps of faith.   I don't know - maybe I was an idiot or just plain crazy... I did have an extremely close imaginary friend for several decades. I forgive myself for it though...  and understand how easy it is to believe something that isn't true based on what people say and the kindness/love they offer.

Long story short - there is no evidence outside of personal testimonies of any being fitting the description of the god of the bible or any of the other religions that have books here on earth.  The reason I don't believe it any more is not due to any conflict in morals or evil influence....  it is just clearly absolute bollocks and if you do believe it then I reckon you are either brainwashed/hypnotised, as I must have been, or you are just totally fucking dumb, because it is so obviously nonsense and trivially proven false that it just isn't really that funny anymore. Children see through it straight away and have to be conditioned through much brainwashing (prayer sessions) before they come round to believing it.

Drop it - Drop the fear of the non existent hell for non belief - stop making excuses for a barbaric fictional being - see it for what it is, a way to control the masses - the truth will set you free.

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by DrP

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, DrP said:

I get that faith is a leap of acceptance of something without proof...   but when I was a believer I always tried to justify my 'belief' (I won't say faith) based upon evidences and reasoning.  There are explanations for everything in the bible and all of gods actions if you 'accept' certain things to be true that you have no evidence for. When you believe it you sort of believe that you have the evidence... 

I think that is sort of what I was trying to say. I suppose trying to get someone else to accept the "evidence" is exactly the same as getting them to accept the faith in the first place. The two go hand in hand. Two sides of the same coin.

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, DrP said:

see it for what it is, a way to control the masses

Don't get distracted by this argument (it's clearly spurious), unless you think all religions are just politics by the back door; how many, successful, political manifestos suggest tolerance, love, and forgiveness?

[koti]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

... I've never been a fan of this   -  I get that faith is a leap of acceptance of something without proof...   but when I was a believer I always tried to justify my 'belief' (I won't say faith) based upon evidences and reasoning.  There are explanations for everything in the bible and all of gods actions if you 'accept' certain things to be true that you have no evidence for. When you believe it you sort of believe that you have the evidence...  but it takes a step back again to analyse it properly and see that you are taking things to be true that are actually huge leaps of faith.   I don't know - maybe I was an idiot or just plain crazy... I did have an extremely close imaginary friend for several decades. I forgive myself for it though...  and understand how easy it is to believe something that isn't true based on what people say and the kindness/love they offer.

Long story short - there is no evidence outside of personal testimonies of any being fitting the description of the god of the bible or any of the other religions that have books here on earth.  The reason I don't believe it any more is not due to any conflict in morals or evil influence....  it is just clearly absolute bollocks and if you do believe it then I reckon you are either brainwashed/hypnotised, as I must have been, or you are just totally fucking dumb, because it is so obviously nonsense and trivially proven false that it just isn't really that funny anymore. Children see through it straight away and have to be conditioned through much brainwashing (prayer sessions) before they come round to believing it.

Drop it - Drop the fear of the non existent hell for non belief - stop making excuses for a barbaric fictional being - see it for what it is, a way to control the masses - the truth will set you free.

 

The truth is no fun, at least to my type of character. I think the imaginary friend thing  in your case might have been a safe space for not letting in the lonelyness and the fear of insignificance. I think most people are not built to be comfortable by being alone and we find different ways of finding an asylum. Some people have hobbies, some sink into work/family/studying/drugs etc. Most religions are no cos-play though because they involve money, power, control, feeding off the weak minded and most of all - indoctrination. If religion was missing those things and stuck to pretending you are batman for the fun of it I’d probably join in myself. @dimreepr has mentioned self contentment in a lot of his posts in religious threads in the last year or so and frankly it drove me nuts but... I see that there might be common ground between my stance above about the fear of insignificance and his stance of being content with oneself. One thing for sure, being sceptical and rational is no walk in a park, it takes a toll at least on me in all aspects of life work/family/personal issues - everything. 

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by koti

[DrP]

54 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Don't get distracted by this argument (it's clearly spurious), unless you think all religions are just politics by the back door; how many, successful, political manifestos suggest tolerance, love, and forgiveness?

I get the love, forgiveness, restraint, mercy, peace and kindness....  I am not distracted by it at all. The use of religion to control people and politics is very real and I hate it. So much shit and death and intolerance and ignorance. Yuk!  

I wish all kids had a few years at sunday school to learn about Jesus and love and mercy and sacrifice etc...  I think it would make the world a better place....  just no need for the lies and outrageous false claims imo.

28 minutes ago, koti said:

I think the imaginary friend thing  in your case might have been a safe space for not letting in the lonelyness and the fear of insignificance.

Nope - it was me talking to the holy ghost / god / Jesus.  I spoke to him for many years..   all delusion.    It was very positive for the most part - don't get me wrong - I loved/worshiped god - I was a Christian....   but mistaken - it is total nonsense.  

 

 

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, DrP said:

The use of religion to control people and politics is very real

But very different...

 

[Bender]

8 hours ago, Randolpin said:

If a thing has a property then the property of that thing can't be explain by itself. For example you see an ant. Why that is the property of an ant? Having long antenna and bites. You can't explain the property in the ant itself. The universe can't escape from this analogy. Our universe has a property. Why the universe has this property? You can't answer it in the universe itself.

I can name hundreds of properties of an ant which are independent of anything outside the ant: mass, number of atoms, water content, ratio of antenna length to body length...

If you look at a larger scale, eg the solar system, I cannot think of a single property it could only have from outside the solar system. By definition, in fact, because when any human thinks about such a property, it would be from inside the solar system.

[Randolpin]

On 5/22/2018 at 8:15 PM, Strange said:

I see no reason why that should be true.

But if it is, then it creates a problem. If A has a property, then maybe we can find B that explains it. But what about B, surely we need to find C that explains that. And then D to explain C and so on ad infinitum. You have invented the necessity for this infinite regress so you invent the concept of god(s) to provide an end point: "X is explained by the gods choosing to do it that way". Of course, I can ask where the gods came from or why they chose to do it that way so you haven't really provided an explanation at all. You have just provided an excuse to stop asking questions. 

It's due to logic, there is really infinite regression so to avoid infinite regression there must be an entity so to speak, necessary entity that has a property that can cater all possibilities. Imagine,  what entity that can cater all possibilities and choose one of this possibilities to exist. We can't imagine anything other than mind. We know obviously that an intelligent being can think of anything inside his mind. That's the power of intelligence. There is no other thing other than mind that can do what the mind does. But note, I don't intended to introduce an argument for the existence of God here. What I want to show is the possibility of a necessary being, which is what metaphysics suggest.

On 5/23/2018 at 1:14 AM, Bender said:

I can name hundreds of properties of an ant which are independent of anything outside the ant: mass, number of atoms, water content, ratio of antenna length to body length...

 

These are properties inherited by the ant from it's parents so still these properties came  from outside the ant. You can ask, why that is the ration of antenna length to body length? Answer: It is inherited by the ant combined by environmental and developmental factors. So still outside the ant. You really can't explain why that is the property of the ant if we search the answer only on the ant itself.

On 5/22/2018 at 8:41 PM, koti said:

Evidence based explanations for god didn’t work out very well for you last time you tried (you got banned till Christmas) so now you’re trying to use philosophy to convince yourself of the necessity of a creator. Philosophy is o lot more flexible than evidence based science so you might actually last a little longer this time with your inevitable god rants but make no mistake, you will fail as long as you will not provide viable, comfirmed evidence for your religious stance, good luck though. 

It work, they don't only accept. If I fail in providing good evidences it doesn't mean that there is no evidence. 

On 5/22/2018 at 7:40 PM, studiot said:

The description 'Properties' hides a multitude of different situations.

I

 

I am guessing that by this statement you are distinguishing between properties that are inherent in something and those which are bestowed upon it by external agency.

Please confirm this or explain further what you actually mean.

 

For instance

So far as we know you it is impossible to remove the property of mass from something.

But we can remove or bestow certain types of energy at will.

 

Both inherited and due to external agency. As you see the 2 you suggest denotes property coming from outside source.

On 5/17/2018 at 3:27 PM, Eise said:

 

Nicely stated. But can you inform us about the proof of this 'property argument'?

The proof of this property argument are seen around us. You see everything has a property. You can rightly ask, why that is the property of something instead of this? Or to make it clear for example, why unicorns don't exist? Why monkey exist instead?

On 5/16/2018 at 1:29 PM, Bender said:

Couldn't there be universes with a different dimensionality or a spacetime that is warped to the point that (some) shapes cannot exist there?

 

I don't mean literal shapes, but ideal shapes that are possible to exist like square, triangle, circle, because there are shapes that are impossible to exist in all possible worlds like square-circle. It is really impossible obviously.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Randolpin

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

It's due to logic, there is really infinite regression so to avoid infinite regression there must be an entity so to speak, necessary entity that has a property that can cater all possibilities.

You have once again made a leap to "there must be an entity" with no evidence whatsoever. It doesn't follow logically from anything you say that "there must be an entity". This is simply based on your belief that there is an entity, and you are trying to justify it post hoc.

24 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

We can't imagine anything other than mind.

And now an argument from incredulity: "this is the only thing I can imagine, therefore it must be true".

25 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

There is no other thing other than mind that can do what the mind does.

You have evidence of that? No. Of course not.

26 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

But note, I don't intended to introduce an argument for the existence of God here.

Well, that would make a pleasant change.

26 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

What I want to show is the possibility of a necessary being, which is what metaphysics suggest.

You are failing abysmally. 

And what would your "necessary being" be if not your god? 

27 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

If I fail in providing good evidences it doesn't mean that there is no evidence. 

If you, as a believer, cannot produce any evidence, then I have to assume that there isn't any.

28 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

Or to make it clear for example, why unicorns don't exist? Why monkey exist instead?

Evolution. Chance. Nothing to do with your god. Unless you have evidence that your god hates unicorns and let them all die on The Flood.

 

[DrP]

 

Supporting evidence for the existence of a creator?

[swansont]

On May 22, 2018 at 7:40 AM, studiot said:

 

For instance

So far as we know you it is impossible to remove the property of mass from something.

But we can remove or bestow certain types of energy at will.

 

Certain types. But not energy, as a category. 

3 hours ago, Randolpin said:

It's due to logic, there is really infinite regression so to avoid infinite regression there must be an entity so to speak, necessary entity that has a property that can cater all possibilities. Imagine,  what entity that can cater all possibilities and choose one of this possibilities to exist. We can't imagine anything other than mind. We know obviously that an intelligent being can think of anything inside his mind. That's the power of intelligence. There is no other thing other than mind that can do what the mind does. But note, I don't intended to introduce an argument for the existence of God here. What I want to show is the possibility of a necessary being, which is what metaphysics suggest.

 

Must be? There's no mandate here. It's an act of laziness, of conveniemce, to ascribe it to a creator.

[Strange]

On 22/05/2018 at 1:40 PM, studiot said:

So far as we know you it is impossible to remove the property of mass from something.

We can reduce the mass of something and release it as energy (fusion and fission, for example).

We can even remove all the mass and convert it to energy (e.g. matter-antimatter annihilation).

[Bender]

6 hours ago, Randolpin said:

These are properties inherited by the ant from it's parents so still these properties came  from outside the ant. You can ask, why that is the ration of antenna length to body length? Answer: It is inherited by the ant combined by environmental and developmental factors. So still outside the ant. You really can't explain why that is the property of the ant if we search the answer only on the ant

Only because the ant has an environment to influence it. A proper analogy would be the properties of things that do not necessarily have an environment, such as the universe. 

6 hours ago, Randolpin said:

I don't mean literal shapes, but ideal shapes that are possible to exist like square, triangle, circle, because there are shapes that are impossible to exist in all possible worlds like square-circle. It is really impossible obviously

While I'm no expert on topology, I would be very surprised if there are no topologies in which squares and circles do not exist; such as eg fractal geometries.

A square circle on the other hand, would exist in a spherical universe.

[universaltheory]

On 29/05/2018 at 3:44 PM, DrP said:

 

Supporting evidence for the existence of a creator?

What evidence?= quotations from previous propositions!

Quotations work to ferterlise the truth or falsity value behind the view point of our arguments.

Ifour point of view is wrong; quotations do nothing to justify it scientifically apart from making our view point religious in nature .

Some times asking oneself if science is a natural intelligent ability or an artificial ability is good though paradoxical! Because if it is a natural ability; then it justifies why science deals with the nature of our existence! But if it is artificial then science becomes another form of natual religion though not a supernatural one. Our minds can tweak or duplicate the nature of existence limitlessly and conserve this information in form of any kind of imagination possible. But when it comes to science; such imaginations must agree with reality as a limit else they collapse to the weight of their own incompleteness and inconsistencies