It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: namelesss
"If the primary assumption fails, as this one does, then the rest of the 'argument' fails. Everything exists (by necessity)! That something 'is', is evidence that it could never have been otherwise! Not anything can 'fail to exist'. If you can name it, it exists in your mind and words, if nowhere else! Fail 1."
Yes if something exist then it exist. This is in the realm of temporal possibility. Temporally, things that exist would be necessary, but a metaphysically necessary being cannot fail to exist.
You and I exist but we exist contingently. If our parents did not exist then you nor I could exist. We owe our existence to some external cause, this immediately disproves your idea that everything exist by necessity.
That is a truth claim and one you definitely cannot back up.
The idea of contingent things is not in question by an philosopher that I know of and none of them argue that all things are necessary.....
There is not anything that is 'external/autonomous' to anything else! All that exists is 'interconnected', an inherent feature of the One Reality.
I mean your entitled to your opinion but I see no reason to think that this is true.
Are you saying that programmers are external to their programs?
Carpenters aren't external to the table ? A watchmaker not external to their watch? I simply don't understand what you think you know, but it seems completely false.
"God/Universe is One! Quantum mechanics demonstrates that all the time."
THE UNIVERSE IS ONE!
How do you know?
QUANTUM MECHANICS!! Consciousness consists of electrical impulses of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a redefining of the sensual. Beauty is the driver of life-force. We exist as electromagnetic forces!!!!!
"Even 'classical physics' has declared that there cannot be found, anywhere, where one thing definitively leaves off and another begins!"
Well jeez. I bet I get the nobel prize for showing the separation between an artist and his art.
This is not a sound argument or true premise.
Nothing ever ceases to exist, it just transforms, depending on the boundaries of perceptions of an observer.
Says who? You? Nobody knows the boundaries or mechanism of the universe, in total.
Animals go extinct for example. These animals literally don't exist in reality anymore.
These animals literally don't exist in reality anymore.
Yes the material that made these things transforms(First law of thermodynamics), but the thing loses all the properties that made it what it was are no longer exemplified in reality.
So saying it still exist doesn't make much sense unless your simply talking about what the matter turned into after death.
If you are going to say my position is incorrect or say that I don't know then show the universe to be the opposite or state your opinion let us know you have no intention of actually backing up your own position and save us both a bunch of time.
Whether the Universe is finite or infinite is an important question, and either outcome is mindblenderingly fun. So far, astronomers have no idea what the answer is, but they're working towards it and maybe someday they'll be able to tell us. Read more at: phys.org...
That is absolute gobbledygook! I said that everything exists, and you agreed. Fine. You must be intelligent and handsome! *__- Then (cometh the gobbledygook) you asserted that something "this" is the realm of temporal possibility, and anything and everything that exists in this realm, does so necessarily.
I guess that the 'fact' that it exists, is evidence of the necessity of it's existing,
Then you go on to say that a 'metaphysically necessary being cannot fail to exist', but neither can your 'temporal.
Things don't 'necessarily or unnecessarily exist, they all exist! There are no levels of existence, no hierarchy. All that 'dualism' is ego, thought, imprinting. Vanity.
Just your unsupported assertion proves nothing. The existence of any and everything in existence is 'contingent' on the existence of the Universe.
The functioning of your body depends on you retaining your head. Is your body contingent on your head? What a silly question, no?
And yet I can successfully argue that everything is 'contingent' on everything else, and that there is not anything else on which anything would be 'contingent'.
As far as your statement; See; appeal to ignorance fallacy. See; appeal to authority fallacy. Obviously, you haven't thought this out for yourself, but 'imbibed' the thoughts of others.
Pay attention, perhaps you might. Again I ask, do you not 'believe/think' God is One? Very simple question. Because if you do, and have the slightest insight as to what it might mean then you would have to agree with me that not anything exists other than the One Universe/Reality/God!!
No! Quite the opposite, there is no difference between the program and the programmer! They are merely two Perspectives of the same One Reality!
There are many avenues of Knowledge. I'm going to grab a very simple concept; The definition of something defines whether that something is that something, or not!
Neither does the sandwich I had for lunch yesterday.
Now you're back talking about identity and existence being the same thing.
Why do you concentrate on "after death" and not on before conception? Does something come from nothing? Does something turn into nothing? Of course not!
Whether the Universe is finite or infinite is an important question, and either outcome is mindblenderingly fun. So far, astronomers have no idea what the answer is, but they're working towards it and maybe someday they'll be able to tell us.
This isn't evidence but I'll take it that your position is you don't know.
Windword: "Nothing ever ceases to exist, it just transforms, depending on the boundaries of perceptions of an observer. "
Windword: "Yes. Things pop in and out of existence. "
Which one is it?
I never said it turned into nothing, I simply said that if the properties that make something what it is fundamentally, cease to be exemplified, then the thing itself also ceases to be exemplified.
No. My position is that science doesn't "know", and neither do you.
In other words, you contend that "something" ceases to exist after death. But you fail to acknowledge that it also failed to exist before its conception. In other words, you're telling me that some fundamental thing arises from nothing, and returns to nothing.
Both. Nothing ever really ceases to exist, the boundaries in which the observer perceives an identity changes. Absence doesn't equal nothingness.
A wave moving along an ocean current, heading for the shore, does not cease to exist when it leaves one set of coordinates, and moves through a continuous new sets of coordinates. It's energy doesn't cease to exist when that wave crashes into the shore, either. Eventually you'll lose sight of the effects of the wave's energy, but that energy doesn't cease to exist.
I don't think you asked the right question, as the first statement was, "THE FUNCTIONING" of your body depends on you retaining your head. So the question should actually be is the functioning of your body contingent upon your head? The answer to this question is yes. Not such a silly question when you follow the pattern you set up in the first place as again it shows you how everything we can think of in the Universe is contingent.
Please defend this position to me. I write software for a living so let's hear it. Explain to me how my programs are not contingent upon me and my existence.
Yes I believe God is One, but what I mean by that statement and what you mean by that statement are two totally different things. All I mean is that there is but One God.
I don't need Science to tell me impossible things can't be exemplified in the actual world.
You should know I think God created all that is. So these things don't rise from nothing but rather an efficient cause.
You are calling this an identity change. The problem is the identity doesn't change but rather the thing we are observing no longer fits that identity.
Everything exists. Actually. With 100% 'probability'. Demonstrably.
2. occurring or existing only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent on. "resolution of the conflict was contingent on the signing of a ceasefire agreement" synonyms: dependent on, conditional on, subject to, determined by, hinging on, resting on "the merger is contingent on government approval"
~~~ This variant affirms that the existence of something is, ultimately, 'contingent' on it's existence. Seems to violate Occam's razor in it's needless and meaningless redundancy and unnecessary jargon. All it says is what is, is!
You and your produce are One. You are asking me to explain how your programs are not 'features' of who and what you are.
Well, that would be the most superficial of readings.
Do you believe in this One God's 'Omni-qualities'; all-Knowing, all present, etc...? Because if you do, then that completely validates my assertion of the One God being Universally ALL inclusive
I hate to break it to you, but our actual world isn't "all there is" in the universe.
The universe is filled with things that defy your logic, like black holes and dark matter, not to mention the laws of physics that are broken and the impossible realities that are true on the quantum level.
Secondly, an exemplification of a thing is not the actual thing.
Yes, I know that when you encounter the "impossible" among the bricks in your wall of logic, you fill in the gaps with meaningless pseudo intellectual gobble-gook like "efficient cause", which simply translates "God did it".
What if the Universe IS "God", and that the Universe is all there is?
I don't think you understand what a possible world is.
It doesn't simply refer to a universe but rather a description of reality.
So if multiverse theory where true or something like that then that would be one world description not many.
You don't seem to realize that I pick my words carefully not to trick you but rather so that it is harder to misunderstand what I mean.
The idea of an efficient cause is not meaningless nor is it something I made up.
No because exemplifications refers to the properties of a thing. Unlike ostension, or the act of showing or pointing to a sample, exemplification is possession of a particular property plus reference to that properties label. For example, if a color sample has the property labelled 'blue', then the color sample exemplifies blue.
What? Like Heaven, the place where your "possible" god lives?
What? We live in the "world". Technically, we don't live out in space or on another planet or in another galaxy or in another dimension. However, if the universe is one, then everything is one, and there is no such thing as separation.
I think you parrot your words carefully.
For your argument, "an efficient cause" simply means that "God did it", and you don't know why.
Blue is NOT a property of anything. Blue is an intangible vibration, which is actually being rejected, or thrown off of the object being observed. An object retains the opposite color on the color wheel, so what you perceive to be a blue object is in fact red.
However, all things are made up of vibration, as Pythagoras discovered, and manifest according to density. this brings us to black holes and the subject of infinity, which you deny exists within the universe. The speed of light is one of the walls that define the parameter of the physical universe that we live in. Black holes seem to defy that wall, or appear to be a possible door to an adjoining dimension, within the universe.
You say that an infinite universe and infinity are impossible. Take an object, any object you want, and cut it in half. Then cut it in half again and do that until there is nothing left to half. There you have infinity.
Your argument, again, boils down to your belief that there is a creator outside of the universe, that created the universe. You cite the universe as proof.
You say that god is an entity that has no beginning or end. I say that the universe is a self creating entity that has no beginning or end.