wordsmyth

The following link gives good definitions and examples of basic logic fallacies including the "Straw-man"...<a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html" target="_blank">Logic&Fallacies</a>

This link is a good primer for learning what is and what is not a logical argument... <a href="http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_logic_index.htm?PM=ss13_atheism" target="_blank">Logic&Skepticism</a>

HelenM

The "Art Of Baloney Detection" 'kit' in The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan is a brilliant, comprehensive list of logical fallacies that people employ to try to prove things.

I don't know if it's on the Internet anywhere.

The links you gave seem like good ones, wordsmyth, for learning about logical fallacies.

love
Helen

rainbow walking

Sikh: Noted.

Sikh: I'll agree with this.

Sikh: Really? Could you expand a little?

Rw: Scientific investigation

Sikh: I don't know what a 'non-actual concept' is, but I'll suppose that you refer to God.

Rw: The above was submitted in reference to this:

Sikh: We being the creation have been granted this attribute too.

rw: It was submitted on the assumption that YOU were referring to a god as the permitting agent conferring existence as a granted attribute. In as much as god has been defined as A BEING without the necessary substantiation required to verify his having actual being, he therefore remains only as a non-actualized concept until substantiation to the contrary is forthcoming. A non-actual concept is a concept that has been associated with something that has not been established as factual, only assumed to be so.


sikh: Human life is dependant upon a space to exist.

Rw: Yes, said ‘space’ having been conceptualized as THIS UNIVERSE. There is no evidence to suggest that any single human or humanity in the aggregate sought or was granted permission from this universe to exist. Indeed, the evidence suggests this universe to be indifferent to our existence.

Sikh: This is where I'de proclaim some sort of cosmological or fine-tuning arguement, which you would try to refute, and then we'de both stick to our premises, and get nowhere.

Rw: Yes, this is one possible avenue of thought you could pursue. To say that I would venture forth with a refutation seems a bit presumptuous. You are invited to make any proclamation you deem crucial to your rebuttals as long as those rebuttals remain cogent to the topic of this thread.

Sikh: I don't know what this means. Sorry but I'm new to this atheist-theist-philisophical jargon.

Rw: Existence is not partial to anything having actual being…indifferent. It does not grant or reject anything that has actual being or that could have actual being. The actuality of being is the sole responsibility of the actual being that exists.

Sikh: I find this rather interesting. 'All that can' would imply that something has some sort of reproducable merit in respect to past events.

Rw: Replication, always a current event to the actual being replicating, is contingent on previous events. Not having specified whether you are referring to biological, cosmological or philosophical actualities I will stick with the philosophical line of reasoning to formulate a response. Infinite regress is a fact of existence. Existence exists and always HAS. Infinite progress however, the more pertinent question for biological entities, is not an established fact and remains contingent on existence and the adaptability of the biological entity actively engaging in the continuation of that existence.

Sikh: This itself would mean that something that has happened will happen again in some degree or another.

Rw: What you have just described, (in a rather unorthodox manner), is the subtle difference between replication and duplication. It is not a necessary given that any single action will duplicate itself in the reaction. Any degree of variation in the reaction will result in a replication rather than a duplication. These are all properties of actual being that require existence to actualize.

sikh: Suppose however that we are in a universe.

Rw: That is a factual supposition.

Sikh: It is conceivable that the molecules in this universe could aggregate and produce a human.

Rw: Indeed.

Sikh: This is possible and this can happen, therefor it will?

Rw: It has. There is nothing to support a contention that it was necessary.

Sikh: Now suppose that that universe will exist for a fraction of a second, and then will stop existing. After this destruction, we find that humans did not randomly come into existence due to random aggregation.

Rw: Then you would conclude that something other than randomness alone played a role in the aggregation of molecules to form a human. In fact, in this universe, it did. It has been empirically verified that actual being is endowed with specific properties that regulate all actualities, for instance, gravity as a property of mass. Now it is at precisely this point that one may insert an intelligent designer who endowed these actualities with the necessary properties such that humanity would be a necessary actuality. However intelligence, being an attribute of an actual being, requires this designer to be an actual being and therefore CONTINGENT upon existence for actually being. I hope you are beginning to see that I am not arguing that humanity could not possibly be the result of intelligent design, rather I am arguing that intelligence as an attribute of actual being cannot logically point to a non-contingent being, therefore existence remains the viable factor in all that actually exists.

Sikh: I think I agree.

Sikh: I thought we were working under the assumption of the existence of God.

Rw: No, it is you who are laboring under this assumption. If you will note the title of this thread, “DOES…GOD…EXIST&gt;&gt;&gt;?”, no such assumption has been made or built into the argument.

Sikh: Just like how triangles exist as both concepts and things of existence outside of the human mind.

Rw: There are some similarities in the formulation of concepts but there are also some pointed differences between the concept of god and the concept of triangles that determine the respective validity of the concepts.

Triangle is a term used to designate the conceptualization, within the human mind, of a specific geometric shape, outside the human mind. The specificity of this shape can be empirically verified such that the concept makes a valid connection to something that actually exists outside the human mind. The same connection cannot be verified with the concept of a god because no such empirical verification has been made.

Sikh: Concepts being integrated perceptions, I agree to some degree. The point at which you claim that God is devised concept is where we part ways.

Rw: I understand. Then let us focus on this parting of ways for a moment. Since you allow that concepts require perceptions for integration what perceptions have you had relating to the god concept that have allowed you to integrate this into your knowledge base as a valid concept? Is it your contention that the process of integration can be accomplished by some means other than or equal to your perceptual faculties? Would this be revelation or intuition or inspiration or perhaps some special intellectual faculty that not everyone has developed? Maybe a sixth sense that humans have been endowed with but are not aware of or recognize as an actual sense?

Sikh: Your use of 'thus' is dependant upon your previous statement. You connotate God with specific theistic points of views, opposed to a supernatural being, which is a more universal attribute of God.

Rw: Then it is your desire to define god as a supernatural being? Need I point out the inescapability of referring to this god as A BEING regardless of which attribute you attempt to insert to liberate this being from the reality of its contingency upon existence to actually be?

Since you have now inserted “supernatural” as a necessary attribute of this being’s definition let’s examine this alleged attribute to see if it negates existence as a necessary ground of this god’s being. Since the term refers to a specific alleged quality of nature and nature is contingent upon the universe and the universe upon existence we can readily see that the incorporation of this attribute still doesn’t render your god a non-contingent being.

Sikh: I should have been more specific. My intention was to say that all that exists in this universe is dependant upon a non-contingent creator, because the universe itself is contingent.

Rw: It does not follow that the contingency of this universe upon existence requires a non-contingent creator. Since non-contingency is equivalent to non-existent, how do you propose to derive a contingent aspect of existence from the non-existent? Since the concept of god cannot escape the necessity of being defined as A BEING and BEING is contingent upon existence, your assertion incorporates a contradiction to support the allegation.

Sikh: Moreover, all I tried to assert was that God is not contingent upon existence, since it is an attribute.

Rw: Unfortunately the assertion only emphasizes the universality of existence throughout all that actually exists and does not support a contention that this god somehow exists non-contingently to the very existence required for him to actually be.

sikh: Sorry to waste your time on defining things, but could you tell me what 'making a strawman' is? There aren't many philisophical outlets for me other than online for a fifteen year old like me.

Rw: Certainly. Here is a good online resource to use when such questions arise:
<a href="http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html" target="_blank">http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html</a>

Thank you for your continued interest and dedication to this topic. I look forward to your next reply.

rainbow walking

For the sake of clarification, and to further serve the purposes of this discussion, I am not positing existence as eternal but only as infinitely regressive. A simple analogy:

Eternality is equivalent to a snake swallowing his tail. Infinite regression backwards without appealing to eternality forwards is equivalent to a snake that has no tail.

There is a subtle but critical difference.

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: rainbow walking ]</p>

HelenM

rw

I'm confused...are you saying 'locally' (time-wise, not spatially) infinitely regressive, as in, my parents had parents had parents etc etc And in non-organic things, energy is conserved and you can't make something out of nothing

Or are you saying the universe has eternally existed - does it contradict the Big Bang theory that what is material came into existence from nothing a finite number of years ago?

Are you simply saying that locally (time-wise, I mean), all existence is contingent...

And likewise, going forward are you simply saying, "why would all things end" since by induction things come from things so things make more things etc etc and conversation of the material universe...?

I hope these questions make sense!

(I usually stay away from anything so 'technical' on these boards because I feel so outclassed in such matters )

love
Helen

rainbow walking

rw

Helen

Rw: All that exists is contingent upon existence existing. Time and space are necessary attributes of THIS UNIVERSE but are not necessarily attributes of existence. Existence is NOT contingent upon time and space…only this universe. You are thinking in the conceptual restraints imposed by your existence in THIS UNIVERSE. To arrive at the full implications of this argument you must conceptualize THIS UNIVERSE within a much broader context of existence.

Imagine existence as a fabric upon which this universe has been embroidered. The fabric is infinite in scope. This universe is not. Destroy the fabric and you destroy this universe. Destroy this universe and you only leave a tear or hole in the fabric. This fabric encompasses everything defined as having actual being. That means that no THING can have actual being separate from this fabric.

Now, this brings up the question of how the embroidery of this universe got here. At this point you can insert a god or universal embroiderer if you wish. The problem with inserting this universal embroiderer begins when you define him as A BEING and no matter how you try to define him in order to describe him you cannot escape the necessity of referring to him as A BEING. The reason this creates a problem or contradiction is because you are trying to make him separate from the fabric when you’ve already defined the fabric as encompassing all that which has actual being. Remember A BEING must have ACTUAL BEING to exist. You are, in effect, trying to say that a universal embroiderer must exist independent of the fabric to account for the embroidery of this universe on that fabric. But every way you turn your argument to liberate your embroiderer from the fabric you encounter his BEING which only further entangles him in the fabric.

Now let’s address the seemingly complicated issue of time and space. It is not so complicated as you may think. Let’s continue to use this fabric as our example. This fabric has two sides: a front and back, (as do all fabrics). Now imagine you are standing on the top edge of this fabric looking backwards. The fabric appears to extend backwards beyond the scope of your vision and it does…infinitely so. It is impossible for you to see the end of this fabric because one does not exist. Now let’s turn you around to look forward. This side of the fabric appears to end at the precise moment of your looking. You can almost detect a hint of a shadow that would seem to indicate the fabric extends further than the precise moment in which you are looking…but does it? So you have a decision to make. Do you want to know if this fabric extends further or not? If you do you will have to take a step into what appears to you like complete un-known emptiness. So you gingerly extend your foot forward and to your amazement the fabric immediately, in time with your step, extends itself forward to support your weight. So you take another and another and another. With each successive step the fabric accommodates your presence but never beyond. Now you might begin to realize that you’ll likely never find the end of this fabric but you can’t resist the urge to press on. It’s irresistible. Your choice now is how far and fast you wish to pursue your future. That will depend on how confident you are that you have one. You can take little baby steps or even crawl along at a snails pace or you can burst into a run and fling yourself into it confidently. Either way, the fabric will accommodate your progress until your physical body can no longer take another step. You exist within an existence broad enough to accommodate your every move. The path is not so narrow nor the gate so strait that you can’t negotiate because it is and will always be only as narrow and strait as you will it to be. Existence exists and so do you.

rw: Simply saying it and living your life as though you genuinely believe it are two separate animals….sometimes.

rw: They made perfect sense. I hope my answers did too. They are valid questions so don’t stay away so long.

rainbow walking

Note: For anyone interested...

Arguing AGAINST non-contingency places the theist in the uncomfortable position of arguing IN FAVOR of a non-existent god. I'm only arguing against non-contingency.

Why does the theist absolutely insist upon non-contingency as a necessity of his god? What is it about existence that he sees threatening to this god's GODLINESS?

Is it?

Why?

Why must god be absolutely necessarliy non-contingent? I am mystified. I thought it was my place to argue god out of existence, yet one simple argument has turned the tables so effectively that my opponents have lost their perspective to preserve an impossibility and refuse to heed a warning I have been issuing for years.

Gentlemen, you can create a rock to big to pick up or put down.

Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden for my yoke is easy and my burden is light...

Those hardly sound like words of a non-contingent god to me.

HelenM

Originally posted by rainbow walking:

Rw: [...] this brings up the question of how the embroidery of this universe got here. At this point you can insert a god or universal embroiderer if you wish. The problem with inserting this universal embroiderer begins when you define him as A BEING and no matter how you try to define him in order to describe him you cannot escape the necessity of referring to him as A BEING. The reason this creates a problem or contradiction is because you are trying to make him separate from the fabric when you’ve already defined the fabric as encompassing all that which has actual being. Remember A BEING must have ACTUAL BEING to exist. You are, in effect, trying to say that a universal embroiderer must exist independent of the fabric to account for the embroidery of this universe on that fabric. But every way you turn your argument to liberate your embroiderer from the fabric you encounter his BEING which only further entangles him in the fabric.

Ok, some this part, at least, falls within the realm in which I have done some thinking.

Discovering the term 'panentheist' was very interesting to me.

I believe I have thought my way through all the issues raised if God is a "Being" with emotions and volition and will.

If not then I'm not sure that there's any practical difference in having some sort of belief in God or being an atheist.

But if so then is the "God loves me" outweighed by "God can be angry with me; God can send me to hell"...?

How much is the rejection of "God is a Being with emotions, volition and will" a rejection of the fear that incites (i.e. an emotional response) and how much is a legitimately intellectual pointing out that there is no way to define God as a Being without getting into logical conundrums that force a mental disconnect?

Now let’s address the seemingly complicated issue of time and space. It is not so complicated as you may think. Let’s continue to use this fabric as our example. This fabric has two sides: a front and back, (as do all fabrics). Now imagine you are standing on the top edge of this fabric looking backwards. The fabric appears to extend backwards beyond the scope of your vision and it does…infinitely so. It is impossible for you to see the end of this fabric because one does not exist. Now let’s turn you around to look forward. This side of the fabric appears to end at the precise moment of your looking. You can almost detect a hint of a shadow that would seem to indicate the fabric extends further than the precise moment in which you are looking…but does it? So you have a decision to make. Do you want to know if this fabric extends further or not? If you do you will have to take a step into what appears to you like complete un-known emptiness. So you gingerly extend your foot forward and to your amazement the fabric immediately, in time with your step, extends itself forward to support your weight. So you take another and another and another. With each successive step the fabric accommodates your presence but never beyond. Now you might begin to realize that you’ll likely never find the end of this fabric but you can’t resist the urge to press on. It’s irresistible. Your choice now is how far and fast you wish to pursue your future. That will depend on how confident you are that you have one. You can take little baby steps or even crawl along at a snails pace or you can burst into a run and fling yourself into it confidently. Either way, the fabric will accommodate your progress until your physical body can no longer take another step. You exist within an existence broad enough to accommodate your every move. The path is not so narrow nor the gate so strait that you can’t negotiate because it is and will always be only as narrow and strait as you will it to be. Existence exists and so do you.

This sounds too much like Scientology...or Jonathon Livingstone Seagull...

I can't go there because it scares me. I live 'locally' and I don't run anymore faster and faster because then I'm manic.

These are my limitations on me and of course you're free to think as far as you please...

rw: Simply saying it and living your life as though you genuinely believe it are two separate animals….sometimes.

Yes

rw: They made perfect sense. I hope my answers did too. They are valid questions so don’t stay away so long.

Thanks

Although they made sense, thinking 'outside' the universe is too scary for me.

Compared to that I breathe a sigh of relief at 'love God and love people' knowing that if they are like, then regardless of the nature of God I have some clue where to put my next step

Here's something I've been thinking about for a while...why didn't God set things up so that choosing A or not A would both lead to a successful outcome? Did He? If most people end up in hell it seems not. Anyway I am off the subject now

love
Helen

E_muse

We're agreed on this then

What I am saying is, if God exists then he cannot be dependent upon anything else for his existence and must therefore be being itself.

I agree with most of what you've put although all you're saying is that a contingent universe (and anything that produced it) is contingent on actual being. The universe (and anything that created it) requires actual being to actually be!

Because ACTUAL BEING is the definition of EXISTENCE wouldn't you agree that they say the same thing in different ways?

I would agree that every aspect of this universe is contingent because it had a beginning - and therefore nothing before it could have been dependent upon it for its existence.

Secondly, the concept of God and the images we form of God are contingent because they depend upon a pre-existent mind.

However, to be contingent upon existence means to be contingent on something. There must be something that makes the existence of everything else possible.

So to summarize:

The existence of anything requires the presence of existence.

The presence of existence requires the presence of something - as yet undefined.

I am seeking to question how much we can know or logically assume about that something.

To be non-contingent upon existence in my mind simply means to not depend upon something that pre-existed you for your own being.

Let us say that x is a non-contingent being that makes it possible for everything else to exist. In the absence of anything else, existence would be x. To exist would be to be x. x would not have to be personal. x could simply be defined as contingent cause.

I am only arguing hypothetically here.

The only alternative I see is an infinite regression of 'contingencies' which could mean that there had always been existence because there was always something.

Are both equally logically possible?

It is important to note that neither will be perceptually verifiable and, I suggest, a matter of faith.

But this seems to be arguing in a circle.

Allow me to elaborate by rewording my question by using the definition of 'exist'.

Agreed. But doesn't this also imply that something must always have had actual being.

You answered:

Yes. Actual being.

Existence, or actual being, is a quality possessed by something. Something has existence at some level - even if it is just a thought.

I would therefore argue that existence is contingent upon something existing. Without a being or beings there is nothing and therefore no existence.

You're saying that existence has always existed. I'm saying that the quality of existence must be applied to something.

You can't say that existence has always been without considering what that existence was like.

Existence exists simply means actual beings actually are or real things are actually real.

In short, to me, it appears to be a tautology and an example of circular reasoning.

The conclusions of circular reasoning are not always wrong but must be considered unreliable and validated in some other way.

Here I am in agreement. But then what is the nature of the something that has always existed. I have suggested two:

a) An infinite regression of contingencies.
b) An infinite non-contingent being.

Both of these require further definition but I am anxious to understand your own starting point first.

I am also assuming Hume's rule (I think it was Hume), that cause cannot overlap effect. In other words, the cause of something cannot also be a part of the effect and vice versa.

I think that to have actual being and to exist is saying the same thing twice as the former is the definition of the latter.

O.K. Would you mind stating it from your own point of view? I think that complete knowledge is impossible and that intuition and reason also play a strong part.

You've already stated that we cannot consider anything as 'actually being' unless it is perceptually verifiable.

Can I accept something because it is logically necessary? This would mean that perceptual verification is non-absolute I think.

I need some clarification here I'm afraid.

Can something exist non-contingently outside of the universe and therefore outside of time?

My reason for asking is this - more questions!

Is it logical to assume that any contingency must have had a beginning because it is an event that is not inevitable and also an event dependent upon other events that pre-exist it?

A quick definition of contingent:

If something is liable to occur but not with certainty and therefore relies on other things for its potential existence, can such a thing exist outside of time and therefore be responsible for the universe?

O.K. Let's just take another look at the definition of EXIST that you presented:

Would you agree that because "To have actual being" is the definition of "Exist" then to say that something exists is actually the same as saying that something has actual being simply using different words (which is all a definiton is).

Given that.. if we look at the above statement, replacing exist with it's definition (saying the same thing) it reads like this to me:

Because 'contingent' means likely but not inevitable your phrase could read:

Sorry to be so picky - but I am anxious that I've understood what you're trying to say.

Well, I would say that existence is an attribute of any actual being - not the other way around.

You've said here that you don't know the attributes of what had actual existence prior to our existence. However, you've also argued that something cannot be considered real unless it is perceptually verifiable.

If we must reject the actuality (existence) of something that is logically possible because it isn't perceptually verifiable must we reject the idea that anything exists outside of the universe?

But above you've said that Existence (Actual being) is contingent (upon actual being).. here is the quote:

Can something be contingent and the ground of being? This is what you seem to be saying.

I'm sorry, I really feel like I'm missing something here.

Aren't ACTUAL BEING and EXISTENCE the same thing? One is a definition of the other and therefore to use one phrase in relation to the other is a tautology?

When you say that ACTUAL BEING (which defines existence) cannot be non-contingent are you saying therefore that EXISTENCE is non-contingent? So how can it be the ground of being?

All you seem to be saying is that in order to actually be something must have actual being.

What would help us to decide if something had actual being - especially if it exists outside the known universe?

I would argue that ACTUAL BEING is an attribute of the universe. But again there is evidence of tautology here in the statement, "The reason this universe has actual being is due to its attributes which have actual being."

This simply says that the universe actually exists because it is made up of things that actually exist.

Can something that hasn't been perceived be considered ACTUALLY BEING because it is logically necessary?

'Existence has always been' simply means 'things having being' have always been? How do you know?

I agree. However, if EXISTENCE is an attribute of all these things (and requires these things to actually exist to give it definition), how do we know that existence has always been, given that I think we've agreed that the universe had a beginning?

If nothing exists outside of existence (which is true by definition) then surely it is knownable that nothing exists there?

What is the logical basis for this conclusion?

What you're actually saying is that the idea that God is non-contingent would prevent him from actually being.

See my arguement above re: 'x'.

Another subject I think!

Again.. why?

It is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate that their position is thoroughly reasonable.

Applying logical rules to things that cannot be perceptually verified.

But how do you know? Can you verify this perceptually? If you can't then you must be applying rules other than empiricism.

I'm more than happy to debate from either angle

I'm really enjoying it! And believe me, I'm wrestling with ideas.. not with you as a person.

Many thanks for a stimulating debate.

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

rainbow walking

E: We're agreed on this then

Rw: Yes we are but further on you posited actual being as non-contingent. Certainly observable phenomena can be said to have actual being and is therefore contingent.

E: What I am saying is, if God exists then he cannot be dependent upon anything else for his existence and must therefore be being itself.

Rw: It is known and a given that existence exists. This cannot be said of god. Which came first? God or existence? For god to be non-contingent he must have been prior to existence, but there are only two options with existence: Existence or non-existence. Anything prior to existence would have to have been non-existent. Since you have agreed that non-existence is equivalent to nothingness, a non-contingent god is one who created himself into existence out of nothingness, hardly a logical or defensible claim. God requires existence as an ingredient to his godhood. Existence imposes no such requirements because it makes no claims to godhood. It simply is and it satisfies Ockam’s penchant for bloodshed when he un-sheath’s his razor. Infinite existence…no god required. Infinite god…existence required in the ingredients for god to have actual being. One is more parsimonious than the other.

E: I agree with most of what you've put although all you're saying is that a contingent universe (and anything that produced it) is contingent on actual being. The universe (and anything that created it) requires actual being to actually be!
Because ACTUAL BEING is the definition of EXISTENCE wouldn't you agree that they say the same thing in different ways?

Rw: Ah, but it is in these “different ways” that we may find our common ground. Actual being is the proper definition of existence as it relates to THIS UNIVERSE because this universe is comprised of actual beings that are empirically verifiable.

Because we appear to be moving back and forth between pre-universe and post-universal existence in our discussion I can see how confusing it has become. Let me outline my position here for clarity:

1. Pre-universe: Existence has no definition outside of itself. The only factual claim I can make for pre-universal existence is that existence had to have existed. I say this because I think we both agree that this universe had a beginning so it is only logical to assume that existence has to be extended back beyond this universe for it to have had a beginning. It is not logical to assume that the laws of logic that guide our thinking in this universe will necessarily exist during pre-universal existence.

2. Post universe: Existence now takes on definition based on the actual existence of actual beings. All the empirical rules apply and existence appears to be contingent on actual being for definition.

3. God, defined as “a being”, would also fall within this actual being category because it is impossible to define god without resorting to “A BEING” in any attempt at definition. When we move outside the constraints of THIS UNIVERSE we fall back on existence without definition beyond itself because actual being no longer has the same value to existence beyond the empirical constraints of this universe.

We must remember that the current definition was compiled by actual beings that could or did not fathom any other form of existence otherwise. We both agree that SOMETHING existed prior to this universe. I say that that something was existence itself as its own value and definition. I say this because it is more parsimonious than to invoke a being that requires actual being to exist and cannot therefore be non-contingent. We know that existence exists. So I say that existence has always existed and that existence is something. That satisfies the logical requirement that something must have always existed. It did…existence as an end in itself. We do not know that god exists so to invoke him in the formulae is to complicate that which needn’t be.

E: I would agree that every aspect of this universe is contingent because it had a beginning - and therefore nothing before it could have been dependent upon it for its existence.
Secondly, the concept of God and the images we form of God are contingent because they depend upon a pre-existent mind.

However, to be contingent upon existence means to be contingent on something. There must be something that makes the existence of everything else possible.

Rw: Yes…existence is the axiomatic and most logical explanation. Everything is contingent on existence to be who or what it is. Existence encompasses everything that is, was and will ever be…except non-existence. It is self contingent and self evident. Since it is not possible to know what form or what things comprised existence prior to this universe it is much simpler to say existence exists. We cannot so confidently say this of a god.

E: So to summarize:
The existence of anything requires the presence of existence.

The presence of existence requires the presence of something - as yet undefined.

Rw: Many things within this universe have already been defined. Prior to this universe nothing has been defined but we can say that if there was a “before this universe” existence had to be part of the equation. We can posit god, but we can’t posit god without existence, therefore such a god is not non-contingent. OTOH, we can posit existence without a god without contradiction because existence exists. We cannot refute that existence exists and we cannot substantiate that god does. This is two strikes against a non-contingent god.

E: I am seeking to question how much we can know or logically assume about that something.

Rw: If what you mean by “that something” is what existed prior to this universe I would say we are not likely to know very much for certain but we can logically eliminate all but the simplest hypothesis.

E: To be non-contingent upon existence in my mind simply means to not depend upon something that pre-existed you for your own being.

Rw: Pre-existence? Isn’t that synonymous with non-existence? How can something exist before existence existed? This seems highly illogical.

E: Let us say that x is a non-contingent being that makes it possible for everything else to exist. In the absence of anything else, existence would be x. To exist would be to be x. [x] would not have to be personal. [/i]x[/i] could simply be defined as contingent cause.

Rw: X cannot exist as a non-contingent being. To exist X is therefore dependent upon existence as a necessary contingency. Remember existence and A BEING cannot be one and the same. Existence is an attribute of X making X contingent on that attribute for definition. Existence exists. If X wishes to be non-contingent he cannot allow himself to exist else his existence becomes a necessary contingent of his being.

E: I am only arguing hypothetically here.
The only alternative I see is an infinite regression of 'contingencies' which could[/] mean that there had always been [i]existence because there was always something.

Are both equally logically possible?

Rw: Well E_muse, I’m not going to say I know for sure that a non-contingent BEING couldn’t have winked himself into existence out of non-existence and became the ground of all being. It’s just that it sounds so…magical as opposed to logical. It seems more intuitively satisfying to me to allow that existence has always existed in some form or state, (even though that still leaves plenty of un-answered questions). It also seems quite plausible that the rules of logic we apply in this universe to achieve definition and understanding likely wouldn’t apply to a pre-universal state of existence. I realize that you could argue this same reasoning to defend a non-contingent being but it all boils down to logic or magic.

E: It is important to note that neither will be perceptually verifiable and, I suggest, a matter of faith.

Rw: Faith? Or logic?

E: But this seems to be arguing in a circle.
Allow me to elaborate by rewording my question by using the definition of 'exist'.
Agreed. But doesn't this also imply that something must always have had actual being.
You answered:

[i]Yes. Actual being.
Existence, or actual being, is a quality possessed by [i]something. Something has existence at some level - even if it is just a thought.

I would therefore argue that existence is contingent upon something existing. Without a being or beings there is nothing and therefore no existence.

You're saying that existence has always existed. I'm saying that the quality of existence must be applied to something.
You can't say that existence has always been without considering what that existence was like.

Rw: I hope by now that you understand the difference between post-universal definition and pre-universal lack of definition. I have only posited that existence has always existed. I will speculate that the state of pre-universal existence might not have required anything other than itself as that “something” you keep stumbling over.

E: Existence exists simply means actual beings actually are or real things are actually real.
In short, to me, it appears to be a tautology and an example of circular reasoning.
The conclusions of circular reasoning are not always wrong but must be considered unreliable and validated in some other way.

Rw: It appears circular when confusing post universal definition with pre-universal lack of same. This is my fault for not clarifying this sooner. I apologize for this confusion.

E: Here I am in agreement. But then what is the nature of the something that has always existed. I have suggested two:

a) An infinite regression of contingencies.
b) An infinite non-contingent being.

Both of these require further definition but I am anxious to understand your own starting point first.

Rw: There is a third alternative: An infinite regression of a self-contingent state of existence. Defined as a state of being as an end in itself, causeless and self actualizing.

E: I am also assuming Hume's rule (I think it was Hume), that cause cannot overlap effect. In other words, the cause of something cannot also be a part of the effect and vice versa.

Rw: Cause and effect are specific to post universal existence.

E: O.K. Would you mind stating it from your own point of view? I think that complete knowledge is impossible and that intuition and reason also play a strong part.

Rw: Epistemologically, knowledge is defined as a justified true belief. Some rely more on belief than truth or justification. When empirical verification is not available one can resort to induction.

E: You've already stated that we cannot consider anything as 'actually being' unless it is perceptually verifiable.

Can I accept something because it is logically necessary? This would mean that perceptual verification is non-absolute I think.

Rw: I was specifically referring to concepts as they relate to actual beings and things that are said to exist. Of course I recognize that some things worthy of consideration may not be perceptually verifiable. Matters relating to pre-universal states of existence for instance require us to formulate hypothesis and theories based on logic and reason.

E: I need some clarification here I'm afraid.
Can something exist non-contingently outside of the universe and therefore outside of time?

Rw: I hold that nothing, even existence itself, can exist non-contingently. I do, however, recognize the possibility of a state of self-contingency in the rarest case.


E: Is it logical to assume that any contingency must have had a beginning because it is an event that is not inevitable and also an event dependent upon other events that pre-exist it?

Rw: In this universe, yes. In a pre-universal state…no. Existence cannot have had a beginning because the only available state from which a beginning could have been derived is from non-existence, which is equivalent to something from nothing. Conversely, anything that began to exist presupposes a prior state of existence from which a beginning could be derived. Non-contingency and existence are anti-thetical because nothing can exist prior to existence nor can it exist independent of existence. Both “prior to” and “independent of” are states of non-existence in relation to existence itself. Existence must necessarily be the ground of all being.

E:If something is liable to occur but not with certainty and therefore relies on other things for its potential existence, can such a thing exist outside of time and therefore be responsible for the universe?

Rw: Nothing can exist outside of time for to do so would be to exist in non-existence. Time and existence are different sides of the same coin. One cannot logically hold that time began at the inception of this universe. If a prior event or state of existence prevailed, which seems a reasonable conclusion if we hold that this universe had a beginning, then time in some form or fashion must have been an attribute of that pre-universal existence. I believe that time and existence are inseparably entwined else the concept of infinite regress is meaningless.

E: Would you agree that because "To have actual being" is the definition of "Exist" then to say that something exists is actually the same as saying that something has actual being simply using different words (which is all a definiton is).

Rw: This is true from a post-universal perspective.

E: Sorry to be so picky - but I am anxious that I've understood what you're trying to say.

Rw: Again, from a post-universal perspective this is a true statement.

E: Well, I would say that existence is an attribute of any actual being - not the other way around.

Rw: Any actual being must necessarily exist to have the attribute of existence.

E: You've said here that you don't know the attributes of what had actual existence prior to our existence. However, you've also argued that something cannot be considered real unless it is perceptually verifiable.

Rw: This is true of actual beings in a post universal existence.

E: If we must reject the actuality (existence) of something that is logically possible because it isn't perceptually verifiable must we reject the idea that anything exists outside of the universe?

Rw: An actual being that is not perceptually verifiable does not exist. It is not necessary to reject any logical possibility on the basis of non-perception. A non-contingent being however is a logical impossibility.

E: But above you've said that Existence (Actual being) is contingent (upon actual being).. here is the quote:

Actual being is contingent upon actual being to actually be.

rw: Methinks you may have mis-quoted( or misunderstood) me. What I said is that actual being, (meaning an actual being), is contingent upon existence to actually be.

E: Can something be contingent and the ground of being? This is what you seem to be saying.

Rw: Not an actual being, no, but existence itself, yes.

E: I'm sorry, I really feel like I'm missing something here.

Aren't ACTUAL BEING and EXISTENCE the same thing? One is a definition of the other and therefore to use one phrase in relation to the other is a tautology?

Rw: I agree. It is tautological, but, nonetheless true. Nothing, including existence itself, exists non-contingently. I hold that pre-universal existence may have existed self contingently but nothing can be said to be non-contingent and remain in existence. It isn’t logically possible. Anything that is said to exist must have some defining attribute, even if the only defining attribute is existence. Once you assign an attribute the thing in question becomes contingent upon that attribute for definition and hence, for continued existence as the thing in question. The defining attribute of existence in a post universal state is actual being. In a pre-universal state it is self defined: Existence exists.

E: When you say that ACTUAL BEING (which defines existence) cannot be non-contingent are you saying therefore that EXISTENCE is non-contingent? So how can it be the ground of being?

Rw: Nothing can be non-contingent and still exist. The reason I say that existence is the ground of all being is because it is the one universal attribute that must be true for any single thing to actually BE. You name any single thing from god on down and try to convince me that it is real without applying existence as the first attribute. No other attribute has this distinction.

E: All you seem to be saying is that in order to actually be something must have actual being.

Rw: Yes, in this universe, that is true.

E: What would help us to decide if something had actual being - especially if it exists outside the known universe?

Rw: A careful consideration of its attributes. Name something you believe has actual being and exists outside the known universe and list its prevailing attributes and we will work together to decide if actually exists. If those attributes do not contradict one another or represent a logical impossibility we can say the thing actually exists.

E: I would argue that ACTUAL BEING is an attribute of the universe.

Rw: I was wondering if you were going to pick up on that.

E: But again there is evidence of tautology here in the statement, "The reason this universe has actual being is due to its attributes which have actual being."

This simply says that the universe actually exists because it is made up of things that actually exist.

Rw: It is a true statement nonetheless. Would you deny the universe actually exists or that it is made up of things that actually exist?

E: Can something that hasn't been perceived be considered ACTUALLY BEING because it is logically necessary?

Rw: Can you give me a specific?

E: 'Existence has always been' simply means 'things having being' have always been? How do you know?

Rw: If existence exists as an end in itself that means it doesn’t require other things for its existence. Just because existence is defined by an attribute of actual being in this universe doesn’t mean that this attribute is required in a pre-universal state for existence to exist. In a pre-universal state there might not be any actual things to give it this definition but that doesn’t mean existence would cease to exist. It is self contingent.

E: I agree. However, if EXISTENCE is an attribute of all these things (and requires these things to actually exist to give it definition), how do we know that existence has always been, given that I think we've agreed that the universe had a beginning?

Rw: As an attribute existence is a universal necessity of any beings actuality. Things do not define existence but require existence to be a necessary attribute in their definition if they claim to actually be. Given the universe had a beginning absolutely requires a prior existence unless you are willing to declare that existence began at the precise moment the universe did.

E: What is the logical basis for this conclusion?
What you're actually saying is that the idea that God is non-contingent would prevent him from actually being.

Rw: There is no such entity in or out of this universe that can exist as a non-contingent entity. All that exists or is said to exist is dependent on existence as an attribute and hence existence becomes a contingency of said entities existence.

E: Does it?

Rw: Did man discover the existence of viruses by prayer and fasting? Of the two, which has saved more lives? Given the choice between the two, which one do you think the majority of people suffering from a deadly viral infection would elect?

E: Again.. why?

Rw: Because our continued existence as a species absolutely depends on our expansion into the stars. If we have all most exhausted our quest for the knowledge and technical skills which are derived from that knowledge, we are nowhere near able to traverse the heavens at our current level of understanding. We will eventually consume the natural resources and over-populate this planet until we extinguish ourselves in an orgy of concrete and garbage.

E: It is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate that their position is thoroughly reasonable.

Rw: I’m working on it, aren’t I?


E: I'm really enjoying it! And believe me, I'm wrestling with ideas.. not with you as a person.
Many thanks for a stimulating debate.

Rw: I’m really sorry but I had to snip some of this to shorten my time in front of this screen. I tried to keep the snips to a minimum so as not to lose the pertinent points we’ve covered thus far. I too am enjoying this discussion and really appreciate the time and effort you are putting into it. Perhaps together we can wrestle these ideas into some coherent form of mutual understanding and appreciation of the greater mysteries of existence.

Thank you and have a good Sabbath.