Jobar

luvluv, Sir Drinks-a-lot is right- logic does not apply to physical reality, it applies to our *concepts* of reality. Reality is not logical- it simply *is*. You say-

"This really does not apply because we know that this physical universe, and everything in it, does not exist necessarily. We know that because there was a time at which it came into existence. (the Big Bang). It is one of the first principles of logic that a Necessary Beings exists necessarily, i.e., it has no beginning. The fact that the universe had a begining automatically disqualifies it from being a Necessary Being. A Necessary Being has no potential to not exist, and anything which has the potential to not exist has a cause. The universe has a potential to not exist, since at a certain point it did not exist. Therefore, it is Contingent Being, that which does not hold it's cause within itself."

Firstly, we don't know enough about the birth of the universe to say too much about beginnings. It is entirely possible that matter-energy is always-existing, and the only reason we can call the Big Bang a beginning is that we cannot see or say anything about what went before. We just don't know that "the universe has a potential to not exist."

Secondly, I think that the term 'Necessary Being' is simply a synonym for God. It would have to be eternal, and uncreated, by your own statement. All the objections we have to God(s) apply- your postulation of a Necessary Being has no evidence to back it up, and answers no questions about observed reality.

luvluv

sir-drinks a lot and Jobar:

I perhaps should have said the first principles of reason. Although a neophyte in philosophy, I tentatively consider myself to be a foundationalist.

I was attempting to apply the positive principal of modality, which states that only a necessary being can cause a contingent being, to the pfrinciple of existential necessity, which states that a Necessary Being must exist (and therefore has no possibility of not existing or begining to exist).

Since all the information we have about the universe leads us to believe that it came into existence, we are reasonably justified in saying that the universe is not a Necessary Being. Anything that comes into being cannot be a Necessary Being.

Jobar:

I know there is no evidence to back it up, but I simply pointed out that the universe fails to meet the criteria for a Necessary Being. If a Necessary Being exists, it is safe to say it is not the universe. We are forced, then, to some very hard questions. If the universe was caused, and if nothing that was caused can cause itself(the principle of contingency), then what caused the universe? Only a necessary being can be the answer to this question, because any other contingent being or entity (natural law) would only promote another question of "what caused that"?

So, philosophically at least, it seems to me that one can draw the conclusion that there is a necessary being and that this being is not the universe.

K

luvluv:

If quantum mechanics is correct (and so far it appears very likely that it is), then causality is not guaranteed. Some events don't require causes. They just happen in a probabilistic manner. So the argument that causes are required for everything but a necessary being (whatever that is) is on shaky ground to begin with.

luvluv

I'm no expert, but I don't think quantum mechanics says that events have no causes, only that their causes (and effects) are unpredictable.

Quantum fluctuations, if I understand them correctly, do not state that matter springs into existence out of nothing. It states that energy, of which all matter is composed, can sometimes "borrow" enough energy to become matter so long as that energy is immediately "paid back" in the energy released by the destruction of that matter. That doesn't really answer the question of where the energy to produce the matter in this universe came from.

I'm not aware of any quantum cosmologist (and this is an extremely young field, I believe) who claims that quantum fluctuations can account for the universe. At any rate, it is again premature for you to say that causality, as concerns the universe, is on shaky ground. I've recently done some casual reading in this area (I had to do something while my computer was down) and the two experts I've read so far (Lee Smolin and Steven Hawking) don't seem to believe that quantum mechanics solves the issue. (Hawkings goes with his infinite time scenario, and Smolin doesn't even think a quantum theory of gravity will solve the mystery).

Admittedly I'm talking way over my head here and somebody will probably be along to correct me shortly.

But my larger point is that atheists are presently entirely premature not only in pretending that these larger questions of origins are solved, but even in thinking that they can be solved. I'm not trying to convince you that the God hypothesis is correct, only that it is not yet extraneous, if indeed it ever will be.

K

luvluv:

I never meant to imply that quantum mechanics could account for the universe. I only meant to point out that causality is probably a bad assumption as the foundation of a proof. If quantum mechanics seems to indicate that there are areas of the universe where causality doesn't apply, then the statement, "every event in the universe has a cause," is FALSE. That puts any proof of God that rests on causality on shaky ground.

As a side note, Einstein and Bohr debated back and forth about whether there was an underlying causality behind the quantum mechanical behavior we observe. Einstein believed there was. Bohr didn't. It now appears that Bohr was probably right.

Autonemesis

The universe had no discernible beginning. When it emerged into existence, it was already 10 to the -43 second old.

Please explain how you have been able to determine that the Universe has the potential to not-exist. No one else has been able to make that determination. The best we can say is that the universe was already an infinitesimal fraction of a second old, at the moment it came into being.

Quantum mechanics has established the "Necessary Beingness" of the universe, in every way that you mean.

luvluv

K and Kind Bud:

I didn't say that everything which exists in this universe has a cause, I said that everything which begins to exist has a cause. If it did not need a cause to exist, it would have always existed. If the necessary and efficient causes for it's existence were present it would begin to exist spontaneously and immediately.

There is no such thing as a self caused being or entity, that would include the universe. Even God is not self-caused, He is uncaused. Though we have no evidence for this, we cannot reject this notion because, unlike the universe, we have no direct evidence that God began to exist. Since the universe began, it must be caused. A thing cannot have it's own beginning within itself. Therefore the entire universe is contingent.

Kind Bud:

What is the difference between the terms "beginning" and the term "emerged into existence"?

Alls I know is, a Necessary Being doesn't do either one.

K:

Can you link me to some information that will help me understand this?

All I know about quantum mechanics is the principle of indeterminancy, which says that certain events are unpredictable. This is directly related to the fact that the means by which we acquire information will effect any experiment we do with quantum sized objects. But just because WE can't predict these things does not mean they have no cause. I'd be really interested in reading any paper on how quantum mechanics does away with causality. If that's the case then why does anybody do any work in physics anymore? None of the books I've found say anything about quantum mechanics doing away with causality, they just say that OUR knowledge of the causes of certain events may have hard limitations. I'd be happy to read an article that says otherwise, though.

K

luvluv:

Here's one in Bohr's own words.

<a href="http://www.emr.hibu.no/lars/eng/schilpp/" target="_blank">Bohr-Einstein Debate</a>

TerryTryon

I have been reading this thread now and then but have not joined the discussion because nothing that interests me has entered in. The idea is not foreign to me, but I have never read it put in such succinct form. It is a crucial matter that has not been addressed adequately in this discussion.

All of the "rational" arguments for the omnimax god try to develop a dichotomy between necessary and contingent existence. That is, they attempt to show that empirical reality is contingent on a necessary being.

(Is "omnimax" an established word or a nonce word? It's a great expression, and I would love to use it more if only it has been established!)

None of these arguments are quite successful in this regard, and it is in this area of the arguments that the debate is usually centered. But in my opinion, where the arguments are weakest is their failure to establish that the necessary being has any of the attributes of the omnimax god.

Even if theists could demonstrate the necessity of a First Cause or an Intelligent Designer, the demonstration does not point to the attributes of their supposed god, and yet they jump blithely to this identity as if the argument had already been sealed. Until it is shown that the First Cause/Intelligent Designer, of his own nature, must continually hold all other existence under his personal will, nothing has been said about god.