E_muse

Again, CONTINGENT simply means likely, possible but not inevitable. I think we can safely describe our universe and everything in it using these terms. Quantum Cosmology has given credence to this view. I would call it into question though!

By non-contingent I refer to necessary. Something absolutely necessary. Contingent means likely, possible but not certain. The ground of being must be certain and therefore not a contingency. That which is absolutely necessary to make all being possible. If something is necessary to this degree, then how can it be dependent upon anything else for its own existence.

It is given and known that there are entities that have actual being. Because they possess this quality they are said to EXIST.

EXISTENCE has no meaning in the absence of entities that have actual being.. wouldn't you agree?

Wouldn't you also agree that, in terms of our universe, EXISTENCE has no meaning independently of entities that actual being?

Which came first, matter or existence? How can existence have meaning in the absence of entities that have actual being?

I'm not refusing to answer the question. You don't believe in God and I'm not asking that you do. I'm simply saying that if God exists as an entity and is responsible for all things then he would have to be existence itself. He would be the necessary ground of being.

The question is, can existence be personal?

But I've already said that, in terms of our thinking, EXISTENCE requires the presence of an entity that has actual being to be meaningful as this is what gives the term definition. This is how the word relates to experience and so we cannot divorce the term from experience.

I'm saying that, if there has always been existence, which we seem to agree on, then there must have been some entity or entities if we are to appreciate this.

I have suggested two alternatives:

1. A non-contingent (not dependent) actual being that is infinite and is the necessary ground for all other actual beings.

2. A infinite regression of contingent actual beings each being dependent on the contingent entity before it for its existence.

I shall add a third:

3. Before the universe was non-existence - nothing.

Agreed. All this is saying is, prior to anything having actual being there was nothing with actual being.

I'm not saying that. I am saying that, as the necessary ground of all being (the being that makes all other being possible and therefore existence), God would have to be eternal and a non-created being if he exists.

Once there is actual being there is existence.. that is it. But in order for there to be actual being there must be an entity.

Any non-contingent entity would have to have this property though - not just God.

The only alternative (as I see it), for existence to be possible would be an infinite regression of non-contingent entities.

Out of interest, you have described something that is 'self creating' (in your example God) out of nothing as 'hardly a logical or defensible claim.

Does the same hold true for the universe to have self created out of nothing?

But existence has no meaning without actual being, without something that has actual being.

But existence requires the presence of something that has actual being. Outside of that concept it no longer has any meaning does it?

As for Occam's Razor - as the great Einstein said - Keep things simple but not too simple!

You can't make things more simple than they logically need to be.

No problem there.

Well, earlier you said:

In fairness, you were the one who expanded the definition of existence and implied that we should not limit the discussion to this universe as your concept of existence requires timelessness.

If we remove the definition of existence, to say that existence existed is to say.... nothing!!

How do you know that your claim is factual? It cannot be founded on empiricism.

I agree with you wholeheartedly here!

But our brains are a product of this universe aren't they?

You've just said that your claim that existence existed prior to the universe is factual. You've just said:

But that conclusion is the product of something that only exists in this universe .. your brain. So what are you using if you're not using logic for this claim to be factual? How can I trust your conclusion? Doesn't your arguement shoot itself in the foot?

Agreed. This is what I've been arguing all along.

But then I could pull out the arguement that you've just used. We can't apply the logical laws of this universe to things outside the universe (God). He defines himself.

Haven't you just taken the false reasoning that is used to defend belief in God and superimposed it onto something else.. EXISTENCE?

But does that mean that we can't say anything meaningful about it?

You have. You've said it is eternal.

All you're saying is that actual being had actual being. The same can be said of this universe, so why should I assume that what caused the universe is any different?

No it doesn't - because it is founded on a tautology. Please look <a href="http://www.richmond.edu/~writing/wweb/reason.htm" target="_blank">HERE</a>. Look at Circular reasoning under 'Fallacies of Reasoning'.

The Bible is the word of God!
How do you know?
It says so in the Bible!

This is just true!

I'm not invoking him. What I am seeking to find out is if we can anything meaningful about what caused the universe.

I have suggested three.

Yes. And if there was existence there must have been actual being. There must have been something otherwise the term loses its meaning and is useless in describing reality prior to our universe.

But we can't posit existence without impying that there must have been an 'actual something' that existed without making the term absolutely meaningless.

Once you talk about about substanciating God you are going back to empiricism.

That's what I'm trying to do.

Once an entity has actual being then there is existence.. not the other way around.

No. If something has actual being we can describe it as existing and therefore it makes existence a reality if it is the only thing that possesses this quality.

If X can be said to have actual being (even by logical necessity) then it can be described as existing.

Again, to reword your statement:

Actual being is an attribute of X making X contingent on that attribute for definition.[/quote]

In other words, for existence there has to be actual being. Our question is then not whether there was actual being before the universe but whether that being could have been God.

Existence exists is a tautology and a logical fallacy.

Existence exists is a tautology and opposed to logic.

I'm not arguing that God is the ground of being. I'm saying that the ground of being must have the quality of being non-contingent (not dependent on anything else for its being) and that if god exists and is the ground of being then he must possess this quality.

This suggests an infinite regress of contingent entities. Could something exist contingently outside of time .. in other words, had a beginning?

Therefore you cannot say that existence has always existed.

How about both? That's an example of Linear thinking. Do go and have a look at the link I've provided.

Can you decide that it is logical to excercise faith - or that faith is a logical necessity?

But without something actually being (something), the term 'existence' loses its defintion and cannot be used.

So if the pre-universe gives us no definition we can no longer use the term 'existence' can we?

What word would you use for something that lacks definition (which is how you've described the pre-universe).

My only problem with this is that I cannot see how such an entity could be self-contingent when contingency carries with it the element of uncertainty. Could something be self-likely, self-possible and self-not-certain? That is why I have used the phrase, non-contingent.

However, I agree with what you're saying in principle and it is a perfect description of what God must be if he exists. At least we can establish such a thing as a logical necessity.

Just to clarify through a rewording:

I think that only something like this could exist outside of time.. unless there are any other ideas.

The next question is to see whether we can understand anything about the attributes of this self-contingent state. Could this self-contingent state be personal?

No problem!

I wholeheartedly agree!

How do you recognize it?

I suggested that the timelessness of existence outside of this universe allows for non-contingent being.

I agree. But if you're saying that existence cannot have had a beginning, you're saying that 'actual being' could not have had a beginning.

This means that you must believe that something caused this universe, that is eternal and self actualizing and had actual being.

The moment you removed the concept of 'actual being' from existence you can no longer apply it to the pre-universe state as that is what the word means.

So actual being must be the ground of all being.

How can something actually be without being something? The moment you remove something actually being you can no longer refer to it as existing.

I'll go with that!

This is the only perspective from which we can understand anything isn't it?

How would you know?

Probably poor wording on my part. By non-contingent I mean not depending upon anything else for its own existence.

Well, it wasn't a misquote because I cut and paste it from your post!

As for you comment on actual being meaning an actual being.. earlier you said:

This I have done.

You're now saying that:

Emphasis mine.

And again..

I'm actually sticking to what you have previously stipulated. But in your last statement you say that you are using 'being' to mean 'a being'. Which is it?

A definition of tautology from dictionary.com

THEISTS would not get away with it on these board RW.. and you know it!

Then this is poor wording on my part. Non-coningent is meant as the opposite of contingent.

Self being, self actualization .. these may be better terms.

Self definition is a tautology. It is true by defintion whether the statement is actually true or not .. see above.

Apologies for being so blunt .. but this sounds like a poor arguement for God's existence superimposed onto something else. God has been replaced with existence.

Isn't it true that if we can't be sure that definitions apply to the pre-universe state then we cannot apply the words that they define either?

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?

Agreed. As I've said, this may be bad wording on my part. However, this is the basis for my reasoning. Again, CONTINGENT is defined as:

If we've agreed that some entity must 'actually be' then it cannot be contingent because we are certain that it must exist.

I think that we agree that the ground of being must exist. We are certain.. therefore it is, in my mind, non-contingent. It cannot be contingent because it has to exist not simply liable to occur.

Actual being defines existence. If there is no actual being outside of this universe then we cannot use the term existence to describe it can we? Unless of course we can all go around changing word definitions as we wish.

But earlier you said:

You're now saying that our conclusions must be logical. Are we applying logic to the pre-universe or not? I want to and because we apply logic to every other aspect of reality think that we should. If we don't apply logic to cosmological origins don't we shoot science in the foot?

I agree, but please can you stop using tautological arguementation that are themselves logical fallacies?

It is true by definition - whether the individual statements that make it up are actually true or not. See above.

As I've said before, the conclusions of circular arguement are not necessarily wrong a priori but must be validated in some other way.

Whatever caused the universe.

But ACTUAL BEING is the definition of the word EXISTENCE. If you can't be sure of the concept in the pre-universe that you cannot use EXISTENCE to describe it can you?

Otherwise you're just using words to make them mean whatever you want them to mean in order to make your arguement true.

So are you saying that you can use the term EXISTENCE to make it mean whatever you want it to mean. What you're saying is:

1. In our universe EXISTENCE refers to ACTUAL BEING.

2. There might be no ACTUAL BEING in the pre-universe.

3. In the pre-universe EXISTENCE EXISTED (a tautology that is true by definition whether it is actually true or not).

Can't you see that if 1 and 2 are true then we can't use 3?

If 1 and 2 are true then we can't be sure that we can apply the term EXISTENCE to the pre-universe.

How do you know it didn't?

What if EXISTENCE and ACTUAL BEING are mutually contingent in circle of being?

Again, non-contingent = must be certain.

A good question. If man had never have had a religious conviction would he have pursued science?

Both.

Again, I can't fault this. But the dinosaurs became exinct. There are always circumstances beyond our control.

Indeed you are, and I'm sorry if it feels as though I'm being hard on you.

I know the transition you've made in recent months and I've re-read a lot of your previous posts that you've contributed to over the months.

It does make me wonder whether you've been on the receiving end of a lot of poor apologetics or whether there are some vestiges of theism that still inform your thinking.

That would be good!

That link on reason again:

<a href="http://www.richmond.edu/~writing/wweb/reason.htm" target="_blank">The Process of Reasoning</a>

I hope you will pick me up if I am guilty of the same errors.

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Metacrock

RW put up this argument on my board. He never came back to see my answer. But you can read the thread and see for yourselves what I said.

He's posting under the name "firebrand" and my first resonse is the third post in the thread.


<a href="http://pub18.ezboard.com/fhavetheologywillargueapologetics.showMessage?topi cID=581.topic" target="_blank">http://pub18.ezboard.com/fhavetheologywillargueapologetics.showMessage?topi cID=581.topic</a>

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]</p>

rainbow walking

E: Again, CONTINGENT simply means likely, possible but not inevitable. I think we can safely describe our universe and everything in it using these terms. Quantum Cosmology has given credence to this view. I would call it into question though!

Rw: I think you’ll find that dependent and conditional are also used to define this concept.

E: By non-contingent I refer to necessary. Something possible, likely and absolutely necessary. That which is absolutely necessary to make all being possible. If something is necessary to this degree, then how can it be dependent upon anything else for its own existence.

Rw: Let’s compare the basics of non-contingency to the subjects of our discussion.
Can it be logically stated, without appealing to assumption, that _______, in relation to all things in a post universal state, is:


1. necessary Existence: Yes God: no
2. possible Existence: yes God : yes
3. likely EXISTENCE: yes God: no

4. Absolutely necessary

Existence: yes God: no


5&gt; Absolute possibility of all being:

Existence: yes God: no


If number five applies, 1 thru 4 are a given.

thing (th¹ng) n. 1. An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence. 2.a. The real or concrete substance of an entity. b. An entity existing in space and time. c. An inanimate object. 3. Something referred to by a word, a symbol, a sign, or an idea; a referent.

I further hold that the concept EXISTENCE, in relation to things, is the primary attribute absolutely necessary to any definition of anything. Whether it is implied, assumed or specified. Without this attribute no definition can be derived that would render anything meaningful. Thus number five above applies.

But wait…! It gets even more interesting. Let’s do the exorcise again using the two terms I listed above that are also part of the definition of CONTINGENT that you omitted.

Can it be logically stated, without appealing to assumption, that _______, in relation to all things in a post universal state, is:
Existence God

1. Dependent: yes no


2. Conditional: yes yes

According to the standard dictionary definition existence is defined as actual being thus existence is conditional on there actually being something to depend upon.

We now have a contradiction. It seems existence is both contingent and non-contingent. Existence is non-contingent, (using your definition of non-contingency), and yet we find that it also contingent using the standard definition of contingency. If we use likely, possible and not inevitable as our defining terms we arrive at the same conclusion. So we seem to have a problem with classifying existence. Is it contingent or non-contingent? It appears to be a unique concept in our human understanding. As an attribute it is dependent on something else for meaning yet it is the one single universal absolutely necessary attribute that must be true for anything that is meaningful and must be appealed to for definition of actual being.

Thus I have, perhaps, over-simplified this brain teasing exorcise by simply declaring “Existence Exists”. It stands alone among human conceptualizations as the one and only concept that occupies this unique configuration. No other known concept, not even the concept of god, has such a distinction.

Now let’s take a look at how god faired in this test. Keeping in mind that god, as an actual being, is indeed an assumption in relation to a post universal state, I was generous and allowed an affirmative to number 2 that god was a possibility. But nowhere, even if we granted his existence, can we find that he must necessarily be non-contingent. He is simply defined as such using a tautology based on an assumption.

1. Everything exists because god exists therefore…

2. God is non-contingent

To see the tautology and realize the fallacy we can simplify things to their common denominators.

Let’s start with GOD. As you can see unless we define this term it stands alone meaningless. No definition, no meaning. Still with me?

So let’s give god an attribute that begins to define the term so that we can derive some meaning. Let’s start with the basic attribute common to all other terms implied or expressed.

God exists. Now we have a term that is beginning to be defined and its first basic stab at definition is to assign it an attribute of existence.

What does this do for the term? First it renders its meaningfulness contingent to that attribute. Take away “exists” and the term becomes incomprehensible again.

So we can now say that god exists is meaningful because the attribute “exist” renders some meaning, the actual basic and necessary meaning, to a clear definition of the term god. No attribute=incomprehensible term lacking definition. Attribute=comprehensibility. Thus god is contingent on existence for meaning.

Now let’s add another attribute. I think one of the biggies is eternality. So we can say “God exists eternally” or we can say “God is eternal”. Either way existence has to be factored in whether expressed or implied. God, to be a meaningful concept must necessarily invoke the attribute of existence. If god is eternal or exists eternal that can only mean that both god and existence are eternal. This is just simple analogical deduction. Nothing complicated. The thing is, if god exists, he cannot be non-contingent because he requires an attribute of existence to be meaningful. God is contingent on existence to exist as a meaningful concept.

Applying additional deductive reasoning we know that existence is a meaningful term because we can readily observe that existence exists by virtue of the fact that everything we can empirically verify to be real and meaningful also incorporates this attribute. However, using the same empirical techniques we cannot confirm that such a being as a god actually exists. Existence is undeniable. God is un-confirmable.

So I ask you, whose tautology carries the most weight?





E: It is given and known that there are entities that have actual being. Because they possess this quality they are said to EXIST.

Rw: Therefore existence exists.

E: EXISTENCE has no meaning in the absence of entities that have actual being.. wouldn't you agree?

Rw: Not at all. What you are asking me is if existence is a meaningful term as a stand alone concept. Let’s try a comparison test.

EXISTENCE GOD

Two terms standing alone with no defining attributes. Are both meaningless? Is one more meaningful than the other? Both terms represent something as opposed to nothing. Two terms standing before us to be validated or rejected with no attributes to define them. What can we deduce about them respectively that will aid us in our task? Well, we can see them as words in front of us so we can truthfully say that both words EXIST. That’s about it. But we found ourselves incorporating one of those very terms in our assessment of what we could verify about both words. So I ask you, as stand alone terms, which one is more meaningful?

E: Wouldn't you also agree that, in terms of our universe, EXISTENCE has no meaning independently of entities that actual being?

Rw: Again, no I wouldn’t. Existence is itself a thing. It’s a necessary attribute of all other things. Existence can stand alone as an attribute of itself because it is something. In order to qualify as something it must exist. Tautological yes. False conclusion? Not at all: Existence exists.

We know that existence has been validated as a necessary contingent to all other things. It’s inescapable. We can’t say the same for god without appealing to assumption. No assumption is required for existence.

E: Which came first, matter or existence? How can existence have meaning in the absence of entities that have actual being?

Rw: Entities are not the only things that exist. Attributes are also something and they exist. Existence is an attribute. The only attribute that is self-contingent. It is something and therefore exists. It is self-contingent. All other entities require this attribute for actual being and meaning. No existence…no actuality. Existence, as a self-contingent something does not require entities to exist, only to have meaning. To my knowledge there is no rule against a meaningless something existing. There are likely many things in this universe that are meaningless to us, but they still exist. Maybe god is one of them. I don’t know, but I do know he can’t exist as a non-contingent being. This is impossible and not just meaningless. If he exists he will always be contingent upon existence to be. You may claim that god has plenty of references to supply meaning to his existence. I will reply that existence has far more.

E: I'm not refusing to answer the question. You don't believe in God and I'm not asking that you do. I'm simply saying that if God exists as an entity and is responsible for all things then he would have to be existence itself. He would be the necessary ground of being.

Rw: God cannot be both god and existence. He must be one or the other. If you mean that god is existence then you are positing a pantheistic view of god. He is defined as A BEING. Can A BEING be existence itself? It sounds meaningless to me.

E: The question is, can existence be personal?

Rw: My existence is, is yours not? On the other hand, need it be? My existence is more personal to me than god. I use to talk to god when I believed there was a god to talk to but my own existence was still more personal to me than god was. Every time I talk to my wife, who exists, it’s on a personal basis. Much more personal and meaningful than my conversations with god were because I did all the talking when I talked to god. He never responded. So I ask you, can god be personal without responding?

E: But I've already said that, in terms of our thinking, EXISTENCE requires the presence of an entity that has actual being to be meaningful as this is what gives the term definition. This is how the word relates to experience and so we cannot divorce the term from experience.
I'm saying that, if there has always been existence, which we seem to agree on, then there must have been some entity or entities if we are to appreciate this.

Rw: There must have been something yes. But existence is something…yes?

E: I have suggested two alternatives:

1. A non-contingent (not dependent) actual being that is infinite and is the necessary ground for all other actual beings.

2. A infinite regression of contingent actual beings each being dependent on the contingent entity before it for its existence.

I shall add a third:

3. Before the universe was non-existence - nothing.

Rw: Well, these are all very good suggestions but they each have their inherent problems. I know that you favor number 1 and since we’ve beat the non-contingent horse to death let’s examine the other two. Number 2 is just number one multiplied into infinity stripped of non-contingency. Number three begs the question if something can be derived from nothing.

Basically you are positing a non-contingent actual being where I am positing a self-contingent state of existence. Both are something but only one represents the simplest explanation. Your non-contingent being, who has always existed must incorporate existence into his being to actually be, so either way we go existence must necessarily be taken along for the ride. A self-contingent existence requires nothing outside of itself and travels alone. Your non-contingent being, to have always been, had to have always existed. Take away existence and he ceases to be. He is not, therefore, non-contingent. This attribute of non-contingency invalidates his existence. Until you demonstrate how this actual being can exist without being contingent on this attribute to actually be, you are dangling on the precipice of the slippery slope. A non-contingent being is a non-existent being.

E: Agreed. All this is saying is, prior to anything having actual being there was nothing with actual being.

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. [/quote]

E: I'm not saying that. I am saying that, as the necessary ground of all being (the being that makes all other being possible and therefore existence), God would have to be eternal and a non-created being if he exists.

Rw: If he is eternal he would certainly be non-created.

But if he is the necessary ground of all being and eternal it would mean that all being is also eternal, unless you are saying that he is the beginning of all being.

If he is the beginning of all being, (meaning existence), then he could not be eternal, unless he existed in non-existence prior to beginning all being.

If all being/existence had a beginning in god then god could not have existed as a being until all being had its beginning.

He could not be eternal.

If you mean that all being flows outward from him then all being/existence must be as eternal as god.

If god and existence exist as one then he cannot be a being. He would be existence itself.

If god and existence exist separately but eternally then he is contingent on existence for his being.

If all being flows back into god can he still exist as a single entity without any being?

These are valid questions to be sure, but what comes out of this into my reasoning mind is that you are saying god is in existence as the ground of all being. According to this hypothesis existence is grounded in god but god is not grounded in existence. Un-fortunately, that only leaves non-existence. But then god cannot be in existence without being grounded in it. This is like saying existence is contingent upon god but god is not contingent upon existence yet god exists as a being.

It seems much simpler and satisfying to me to simply say existence exists and leave it at that.


E: Once there is actual being there is existence.. that is it. But in order for there to be actual being there must be an entity.

Rw: And this negates the claim of eternality. When you incorporate “once” you are implying a beginning.

E: Any non-contingent entity would have to have this property though - not just God.
The only alternative (as I see it), for existence to be possible would be an infinite regression of non-contingent entities.

Rw: Or a self contingent existence.

E: Out of interest, you have described something that is 'self creating' (in your example God) out of nothing as 'hardly a logical or defensible claim.

Does the same hold true for the universe to have self created out of nothing?

Rw: Shouldn’t we establish the logical necessity of this god before we put him to work? I suppose it is simpler, from a human endeavor standpoint, to assume a god just spoke this universe into existence. But does that sound logical to you? Or possible?

Up to this point I’ve focused on establishing the simplest explanation for existence and have arrived at a self-contingent existence. Existence exists. Since you’ve brought it up I think now is a good time to delve into the mechanics of getting from point A to point B, that is to say from existence exists to everything else. The cosmological quotient. I think we’ve both agreed that if this universe had a beginning something had to exist prior to that beginning. I posited time and existence, you posit god, time and existence. Now it’s time to consider the journey. How do we get from self-contingent existence to this universe without appealing to a non-contingent being to show us the way?

Let’s start with what self-contingent existence isn’t. It isn’t nothing therefore it is something. It isn’t god therefore it is something else. It isn’t non-existence therefore it is existent. But it isn’t just existence it is self-contingent existence which is something more than just existence. Self-contingent means it is dependent on itself and nothing else for its existence. But to make the transition from self contingent to contingent requires something else. It is that something else that we must find.
Thus we begin our journey by the only logical means available: Induction.

Induction requires the most exacting dedication to intellectual integrity as it requires us to begin with the specifics that are known and given, then to work outwards to its most logical hypothetical possibility. To begin with an hypothesis and then flesh it out with specifics will lead us away from considering all logical possibilities as it leads us to privilege our assigned hypothetical possibility to the exclusion of any other hypothetical possibilities.

So let us consider the specifics we have established thusfar in a side-by-side comparison to see if we can ascertain a proper place or configuration for each specific.

I posit the specific of Existence/time. I say “existence exists.”

You have posited the specifics of God, existence and time. You say, “God exists and is eternal.” Your position includes a specific that is not known nor a given, (God), but must be assumed. My position specifies only that which is known and given. Time and existence.

We both agree that existence and time are necessary factors. You, however, posit God as their necessary contingent who is, himself, non-contingent.

I posit existence and time as a single, unified self-contingent stand alone specific.

Your position requires three specifics, God&gt;&gt;&gt;existence&gt;&gt;&gt;time.

In my position I allow only infinite regress. This is not the same as eternal. It makes no assumptions about the future being infinitely progressive. Any position based on future events is not logically knowable and therefore an assumption.

Your position indicates you require infinite regress as well as infinite progress. This is what eternal means. So your position immediately incorporates two assumptions that are not known nor given: God and eternity. Your position also declares God to be non-contingent, meaning he exists as a being that is not contingent upon existence/time for his existence. Your position has now increased its level of difficulty as a logical possibility in that it has incorporated two assumptions and a contradiction.

My position, (existence exists), employs a tautology that needs additional support to render it a meaningful specific. I offer the following to justify the tautology:

We both agree that time is also a necessary factor of existence, especially post-universal existence and logically, (if this universe had a beginning), pre-universal existence. So time is a necessary factor of existence. Existence, to exist, must have time to do so. I have posited time and existence as Siamese sisters joined at the hip. I have not posited existence as non-contingent but rather self-contingent. I say that because of the necessity of both time and existence for any contingent being to actually be…including existence itself. Existence is contingent upon time and time is contingent upon existence. To have one without the other is a contradiction and a logical impossibility.

So I support my tautology of “Existence exists” by declaring existence self-contingent and defining self-contingency on the basis of the relationship between existence and time. As two sides of the same coin, inter-dependent upon one another for meaning, I offer this relationship as the additional support of the tautology.

Existence is something and so is time. Both are absolute necessities for any actual being. Everything must have time to exist and any actual being must exist in time. Nothing exists outside of time. It is a logical possibility that pre-universal Existence existed as a self-contingent entity.

That is the basis of my claim of an infinitely regressive Existence/time as my logically derived known and given specific from which I begin. Existence is a known and given factor and so is time. Neither require any un-known, non-given assumption to be meaningful. No baseless assumptions and no contradictions.

But this doesn’t take us to post universal contingent being. It only gets us started in that direction. We both agree that something happened to begin this universe. I have not yet posited what that something could be as a logical possibility. You have implied that it was the result of God’s creative attributes in operation.

Let me say now that starting with my specific allows you to insert god without contradiction. It doesn’t relieve you of the responsibility of justifying the assumption of a god but if you were to insert god at precisely this point you could do so without contradiction. The point I am referring to is that place between existence/time and post universe. Such an insertion would look like this:

Existence/time&gt;&gt;&gt;God&gt;&gt;&gt;post universe.

The obvious ramifications of course are that you lose your claim to non-contingency. With god in this position he is logically contingent on existence/time for his being. But I ask you, “So what?” How does this detract from your subsequent claims of post universe being a product of his creation? He still retains the value of ground zero as the first of a seemingly endless string of subsequent beings. What do you really lose by this except the contradiction? Do you imagine anyone could find any meaningfulness in worshipping existence/time? Or derive any higher purpose from it? Or a moral code from it? Why continue to stubbornly cling to a contradiction which only wastes your intellectual energies to defend and leaves you in no better a position? Do you think anyone would object to admitting that if god exists he must be contingent on existence/time to do so?

I do not say this because I believe god is the most logical possibility to insert, only because I have seen these contradictions become the downfall of many a good debate on the actual existence of a god.

I believe that because god is still an assumption rather than a known or a given we cannot simply declare god as the most logical possibility to insert between existence/time and post universe. We can logically insert him, without contradiction, but not without assumptions that require further substantiation. I hope you see the difference. The rules of induction require us to be guided by parsimony in our choices of specifics in order to arrive at the most logical hypothesis.

Again, to compare the specifics will determine the parsimony of assumptions.

God exists incorporates the assumption of god, which is neither a known or a given, coupled with existed which satisfies both.

Existence exists incorporates an assumption based only on a known and given: Existence.

Of the two, which satisfies the rule of parsimony?

I am convinced that the apologist is content to deal with the contradiction of placing god as a non-contingent being out front of existence/time because it is the quickest answer to the question, “where did god come from?” It would be too embarrassing to admit, “We don’t know.” Never mind the fact that the question is not answered with an appeal to non-contingency or eternality. It still lingers un-answered and a raw, unsupported assumption.

Anyway, back to the task at hand. How to get from self-contingent existence/time to post universe? We both likely will agree that existence/time are not enough to account for this universe. Something else is required, something of substance, or perhaps some substance.

Here is what I will hypothesize as what I believe is the more logical possibility. I propose that at some point in time, (14 or so billion years ago), existence and time converged upon themselves in such a way as to produce something. (Notice the cause effect relationship)

I propose that what was produced in that convergence was the one thing we humans, as yet, have not properly defined: SPACE. Some call it dark matter but no one really knows what space is. It is the one un-known factor of this universe for man. But it exists as that substance, or whatever, between any two points whether they be two points between sub-atomic particles or between two stars or between two people.

I propose that space was the result of that convergence of existence/time and became A SPACE between existence/time and the immediate result was an implosion. Space converging upon itself into a concentrated single unit until it came to that point of almost complete non-existence and then formed into a single atomic structure containing all the known and un-known elements and energies of this universe.

I propose that at that precise moment in time and existence it EXPLODED becoming what we refer to as the Big Bang. The first thing that was emitted in this explosion was space itself appearing to expand like a balloon rushing outwards in all directions just as we would expect from any explosion in space. In the process all energies and atomic elements, complete with all their respective properties, rushed outward and began the process of cosmic evolution following the expansion of space itself.



Now I have presented an alternative logical possibility to god dunnit. I believe I have supported my proposal as much as possible. So I think I’ll post what I’ve got thusfar and let you have your turn. To continue to answer every one of your points line by line has become too time intensive. I think I’ve fleshed out my position enough to give us more to go on so I hope you won’t hold it against me for not pursuing your every point to the end. I do appreciate your concern for me and your efforts in this discussion immensely.

If you feel there are some points in the remainder of your reply that I should address please do not hesitate to re-post them and I’ll try to respond as time permits.

I am leaving today for Jackson Michigan for a three to four week stint so I'm not sure if I'll be able to respond further until I return.

Metacrock

Ender

Au contraire, Metacrock!

Heraclitus has the right idea: "being is an empty fiction."

~WiGGiN~

E_muse

In what sense did they means it? Obviously not in the absolute sense, otherwise you are claiming that existence is an empty fiction.

E_muse

Which is a contradiction. Remember, you said:

To this I fully agreed. You are saying that we must make conclusions based on logic and reason.

A contradiction is a logical fallacy.

Hang on!! You've presented an arguement that is now based on two logical fallacies:

1. A tautology (existence exists)
2. A contradiction (existence is contingent and non-contingent)

You were the one who insisted that we must stick to logic rather than blind faith. Yes?

Because you either want to believe your own arguement (or simply be seen to win the arguement) you are now prepared to redefine two logical fallacies as 'unique concepts'.

Allow me summarize what you've said:

1. Existence exists: A circular arguement and a tautology - simply a logical fallacy. One The Oxford English Dictionary includes "As a fault of style" in its definition of tautology.

2. Existence is both contingent and non-contingent. A contradiction and yet another logical fallacy.

As I shall state later, you previously said that any conclusion we reach regarding what had actual being prior to the universe must not be contradictory otherwise we must consider it false.

I'll say it again RW, theists would never get away with this sort of hogwash. You know it full well (you've been on these boards long enought). This is absolutely ridiculous.

Are we keeping to the rules of logic or not? You can't keep shifting your allegiance every time you want your arguement to be true. Remember, YOU SAID THIS!!!!

Because your conclusions do present a contradiction I shall assume that what you have argued so far doesn't actually exist because if fails to fulfill the criteria that YOU previously set!

You are coming across as muddled.

It is a tautology and also contradictory ... according to your arguement above.

Are you saying that we can now relabel logical fallacies as unique human conceptualizations!?! Please answer this aspect of my post if none other.

You asked, faith or logic? You also refused blind faith.

Because of the nature of what we are discussing here, all conclusions my rest on faith .. at least in part .. because they cannot be perceptually verified.

You have now been prepared to rest your arguement on two logical fallacies meaning that your arguement no longer rests on pure reason - it must therefore be based on blind faith alone.

BTW, I'm glad that the god concept DOESN'T have the 'distinctions' you describe.

Well, I haven't defined any God yet. However, why is it that you frown upon a God concept that is based upon a tautology and then present your own tautological arguement and refer to it as a unique concept?

You say here that tautologies are a fallacy. Existence exists is a tautology in referring to a pre-universal state. Yet if I said this to you, you would simply say that it was true, despite being a tautology wouldn't you?

If you want to get rid of tautologies you must get rid of them all, on both sides of the debate otherwise you're not playing even handedly are you?

I think I'm just managing to hand on to what you're saying....

Much in the same way that Existence exists is a vaccuous statement due to the fact that the terms are tautological because they define each other.

In other words, the attribute of having actual being .. for that is the definition of existence.. or have you changed it to fit the arguement?

Sorry, I'm finding it hard to take this seriously.

I want to come on to the subject of God eventually, but not yet. I simply want to start making some statements about the nature of the first cause.. whether it be God or not.

This simply states that God is contingent on acutual being. What actual being? What attributes does that have? Don't tell me, ... let me guess .... er ..... IT EXISTS!! That's it, I've got it!

Oh dear. Doesn't that take us back to the start of the arguement. Perhaps this arguement could be based on circular logic?

Hang on! That could be because ACTUAL BEING and EXISTENCE are used to define each and therefore present a tautology .. a logical fallacy.

I'm sorry. I REALLY want you to be able to see how ridiculous this is.

Can't you see that eventually you have to start assigning other attributes to causes other than just saying they exist?

This is just more tautology.

Instead of trying to pull apart what you think a belief in God must rest on why can't we simply discuss the nature of the first cause?

I will then try and demonstrate how the necessary nature of the first cause (logical necessities) lend support to a belief in God.

O.K. Again...

Existence exists is a tautology and therefore a logical fallacy.

However, in this universe it doesn't matter. Circular arguements are not incorrect a priori it is just that the results are unreliable.

The fact that the definitions are by definition tautological presents no problem when referring to things in this universe. Most things that are said to have actual being and fall into the realm of our existence are self evident and so the tautology can be overlooked.

However, when referring to entities that are not that self evident we must not allow tautologies or contradictions or any other logical fallacy. It simply won't do.

That's rather a bold statement. I wouldn't quite agree.

Remember, you're pulling apart your own thinking in terms of what you think must be the baseline for a belief in God. I haven't presented one yet because I simply want to talk about the nature of the first cause.

With respect, I think you seem a little over obsessed with trying to disprove the existence of God.

More Linear either/or arguementation.

How about "No tautolgies carry the most weight because they represent a logical fallacy."

Any arguement, whether for God or for anything else is totally unacceptable in my thinking as they are based on logical fallacies.

More tautology.

[quote][b]EXISTENCE GOD

That's not true. Existence means to have actual being which is a defining attribute. God is simply a label placed upon something that is believed to have actual being.

EXISTENCE = to have actual being.
GOD = Being believed to have attribute of existence.

Will that do?

Self evident for anything in this universe. Not so for anything that may exist outside of it.

As I've said, when applied to entities in this universe that can be perceptually verified and are self evident, the tautology can be overlooked. Not so for anything else.

Do you want to apply the rules of logic or not? You suggested that we should.

A quick definition of attribute.

Attributes are therefore qualities and characteristics inherent in or ascribed to entities. They therefore cannot exist without entities.

Only when it is characteristic to someone or something (see definition). Isn't this what I've been saying all along?

Yes it does. It is an attribute. As an attribute it is a characterisitc inherent in or ascribed to someone or something.

I haven't posited any substancial view of God yet.

E: The question is, can existence be personal?

No. It is an attribute. A characteristic inherent in or ascribed to someone or something.

No. YOU'VE attempted to beat the non-contingent horse to death using arguementation that contains a tautology and a contradiction.

Although these are both logical fallacies, because they both support what you want to believe you have chosen to refer to them as 'unique concepts'.

Well, you could have gone into more detail than that. What are the inherent problems?

Totally inaccurate and not true. Existence is not something .. as you claim. It is an attribute (you said that). It is a characteristic of something or someone. I really don't want to have to cover that ground again.

This is blatantly false. If existence is an attribute - an inherent characteristic of someone or something - how can it exist without someone or something? How can existence therefore travel alone?

Yes.

I'm not dangling on the edge of anything. You've only pulled apart your own ideas. What you've presented I don't actually believe because it is based on a tautology and a contradiction.

I shall have to email INFIDELS and tell them that these can now be reclassified as 'unique concepts'. The THEISTS will be pleased.

Excuse the sarcasm .. nothing more than a hyperbole, it is there to try and make a point.

Yes, but it is you that wants to keep talking about God. I wouldn't even start there.

[quote]But if he is the necessary ground of all being and eternal it would mean that all being is also eternal, unless you are saying that he is the beginning of all being.

I would say that whatever caused the universe would have this characteristic.

Do you want me to start my own arguement .. then you won't have to try and guess at what I think.

But your reasoning mind allows you to redefine logical fallacies such as tautologies and contradictions as unique concepts, even though you had previously said that you would rule out as non-existent anything based on these.

This causes me to lose confidence in your reasoning mind.

Satisfying in what way? It certainly doesn't satisfy the rules of logic.

I wouldn't even start by referring to God. You seem to suggest that I must assume a God right from the start. I wouldn't.

This is really what I wanted to get to.

Well, I would start by assuming that I knew nothing about the pre-existent cause. I wouldn't rule god out a priori.

Well, your self existent existence arguement rests upon two logical fallacies. A tautology and a contradiction. So why do we now invoke the rules of logic at this stage having already abandoned them twice?

The most exacting dedication to intellectual integrity doesn't allow arguementation on the basis of tautologies or contradictions. Intellectual integrity wouldn't redefine them as unique concepts - it would call them logical fallacies.

Which you've established on the basis of two logical fallacies and relabelled 'unique concepts'.

I haven't said anything meaningful about God yet. I've only mentioned God in response to comments that you've made about him.

How about asking me what I think rather than telling me.

I haven't given a systematic outline of why I believe in God and so haven't really posited anything yet.

No it doesn't. That is what you are saying based upon your own reasoning. I wouldn't argue it that way at all.

Does it? It's refreshing to be told what I think. You seem to know a lot about what exists inside my mind.

Is that worse or better than a tautology and and a contradiction?

And a contradiction don't forget.

And as a tautology is a logical fallacy you have thus abandonded any desired adherence to intellectual integrity.

Existence is an attribute - an inherent characteristic or something else and so not quite as simple as you try and make it.

That's not true. At the beginning of this post you point out at least one contradiction and redefine it as a 'unique concept'.

No I couldn't, because the basis of your arguement contains at least one contradiction. Neither would I assume God. You're telling me that, without even asking.

I would have abandonded your arguement long ago on the basis that it contains a tautological arguement and a contradiction.

I would. But only on the basis that your arguement contains two logical fallacies.

Then I would hardly call these a good defence for God's existence.

I don't think that I assume God. You assume that I do.

A logical hypothesis would have long ago disregarded the tautology and the contradiction that I've mentioned.

I think your ideas of why people believe are over simplified.

It also incorporates a tautology and a contradiction - as you pointed out at the start of your post. You remember .. you said that existence was contingent and non-contingent. You then called it a 'unique concept'.

Which apologist is that.

As you have allowed one tautology and a contradiction into your hypotheses and implied that this is adherence to strict intellectual integrity I have little confidence in what you consider more logical.

I think it would be better if I present my case .. then you can decide whether my arguements are based upon assumptions and tautologies.

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Ender

By any chance are you Epitomii who hung out at Meta's board a year ago or so?
I wrote this in the "chaos" thread in the philo forum: The ontology of heraclitean flux is a world of becoming or "chaos." Frozen concepts like "being" are grounds for order, whereas a dynamic term "becoming" translates to "chaos." The conception of the world itself is "becoming" or "chaos" or a dynamic force- a fluid, impermanent and undifferentiated Urwelt where the categories of knoweldge [as in idenitty, substance, or causality] no longer apply.....A thoroughgoing empiricism concludes in "becoming" as in there is only the world of nature, life, history, becoming, and appearance. Anything constant or invariable such as mental entities (or Being) of Parmenides, Plato's One, the God of Christianity, Kant, Schopenhauer are of secondary concern. In fact they are derived from the world of nature, experience and becoming!"

~WiGGiN~

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

rainbow walking

Rw: Yes, so let’s straiten out this mess you’ve created with the rather selective cut and paste. You have rather surreptitiously omitted this:

So I support my tautology of “Existence exists” by declaring existence self-contingent and defining self-contingency on the basis of the relationship between existence and time. As two sides of the same coin, inter-dependent upon one another for meaning, I offer this relationship as the additional support of the tautology.

rw: As anyone with half a brain can see, self-contingency eliminates the appearance of a contradiction. Aside from the fact that ”I” was the one who pointed out the apparent contradiction in the first place why would you jump on that without looking to see if I had eliminated it? In fact, you’ve jumped on it so hard that it comprises two thirds of your rebuttals in this post.
As far as the tautology is concerned I don’t give a rats ass if you catagorize it a logical fallacy. Do you deny that existence exists? It is a true statement! It is true logically and factually. Either offer some argument demonstrating it to be false or give it a rest.
Your level of argumentation in this post has degenerated considerably and has taken on an insulting tone unjustifiably.

E: Because you either want to believe your own arguement (or simply be seen to win the arguement) you are now prepared to redefine two logical fallacies as 'unique concepts'.

Rw: Calling “existence” a unique concept is hardly a redefinition. It is a concept and it is unique and I’ve pointed out many of its unique qualities. You have yet to demonstrate a single fallacy in anything I’ve presented. Just because “existence exists” is tautological doesn’t render it any less true or devalue it as a viable argument. Answer my question: Is “existence exists” a true or false statement? If it is both logically and factually true, (and it is whether you like it or not), then your lame ass excuses aren’t worth the bandwidth you’ve wasted posting them here.

E: Allow me summarize what you've said:
1. Existence exists: A circular arguement and a tautology - simply a logical fallacy. One The Oxford English Dictionary includes "As a fault of style" in its definition of tautology.

Rw: And since you apparently have ignored the fact that I have fleshed this statement out such that it can no longer be said to be either empty or vacuous and since it is also true both logically and factually and since no fault in style exists, outside of this pissing and moaning about it being a tautology, the fallacy is all in your head. Again, I challenge you to tell me if it is a true statement or not. The conclusion is sound.

You also claim it is circular. I say, “so what!” It’s a very big circle that encompasses everything including your god.

E: 2. Existence is both contingent and non-contingent. A contradiction and yet another logical fallacy.

Rw: Wrong again. I defined existence, in relation to contingency, as self contingent which effectively eliminates the contradiction.

E: As I shall state later, you previously said that any conclusion we reach regarding what had actual being prior to the universe must not be contradictory otherwise we must consider it false.

Rw: And I’ll state now, for the record, that I’m getting tired of you swapping existence with actual being whenever it suites your fancy. What I said was that conclusions regarding what EXISTED prior to this universe must not be contradictory. I also said that pre-universal states may not require actual being as a prerequisite of existence.

E: I'll say it again RW, theists would never get away with this sort of hogwash. You know it full well (you've been on these boards long enought). This is absolutely ridiculous.

Rw: That’s a laugh. Everything you’ve tried to sneak in thusfar to half heartedly support your not quite taken position has been hogwash and I’ve exposed the hog and the water on every occasion. I think that, more than anything, is the reason you’ve become insulting. Why not indulge us with a stated position of what you think is the most logical possibility for the existence of your god that you believe accounts for the existence of everything and let’s see how many logical fallacies you can avoid?

E: Are we keeping to the rules of logic or not? You can't keep shifting your allegiance every time you want your arguement to be true. Remember, YOU SAID THIS!!!!

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: Because your conclusions do present a contradiction I shall assume that what you have argued so far doesn't actually exist because if fails to fulfill the criteria that YOU previously set!

Rw: Oh you mean the contradiction “I” pointed out to you and then eliminated?

E: You are coming across as muddled.

Rw: Shall I tell you how you are now coming across?



E: Are you saying that we can now relabel logical fallacies as unique human conceptualizations!?! Please answer this aspect of my post if none other.

Rw: Are you saying the concept of existence is a logical fallacy? I haven’t relabeled anything. You’re so eager to make me say what I haven’t that you’re stumbling all over the keyboard and confusing the issues. I said the term is a unique concept. I pointed out the many unique qualities of it. And it is a concept. Do you deny either of these facts? So where’s the fallacy or the support for this accusation of re-labeling? You’re really bottom feeding with this one.

E: You asked, faith or logic? You also refused blind faith.
Because of the nature of what we are discussing here, all conclusions my rest on faith .. at least in part .. because they cannot be perceptually verified.

Rw: Yeah, well I’m here to make sure some of the conclusions you are trying to wrangle aren’t based on your twisted interpretation of what you think I’m saying or on your apparent inability to read with any comprehensive skills.

E: You have now been prepared to rest your arguement on two logical fallacies meaning that your arguement no longer rests on pure reason - it must therefore be based on blind faith alone.

Rw: Are you prepared to deny that existence exists or to deny that I was the one who told you about the contradiction and that you are the one who failed to notice that I had resolved the contradiction? So we can say your arguments are no longer based on anything pure or reasonable.

E: BTW, I'm glad that the god concept DOESN'T have the 'distinctions' you describe

Rw: You have failed to grasp the integrity of my position. There is no contradiction or logical fallacy in the finished product. The only two distinctions I’ve argued against in the god concept you’ve defended are the attributes of god as a non-contingent being and eternal.
Earlier you appeared to be offering the following as your position:

E_muse: However, I think there is a need to define the God concept that we are considering. For example, with regard to the Biblical concept of God, God cannot be contingent to the universe because he is claimed to have created it all. He is described as 'necessary being'.

Obviously I do not present this as a proof of God. I am simply saying that God, in order to be God, would have to possess the qualities of absolute being (if the existence of everything else depended upon him).

I'm not saying that. I am saying that, as the necessary ground of all being (the being that makes all other being possible and therefore existence), God would have to be eternal and a non-created being if he exists.


Rw: These are the only distinctions I’ve used to argue the comparisons and it was actually YOU who described them…not I.


Rw: You have proffered some basic attributes that lend themselves towards a definition without any logical support for them. I have effectively transitioned a tautology into a logical possibility by positing TIME as an intricate factor of EXISTENCE. When I say “EXISTENCE EXISTS” time is implied because it is as necessary to existence as existence is to time.

E: You say here that tautologies are a fallacy. Existence exists is a tautology in referring to a pre-universal state. Yet if I said this to you, you would simply say that it was true, despite being a tautology wouldn't you?

Rw: I have eliminated this tautological aspect of “existence exists” by incorporating TIME, another factor that is verifiable and a given. What logical arguments have you offered to make the connection between god and existence? The argument for a non-contingent god as the ground of all being jumps from “everything” to non-contingency without license or warrant and fails to show any logical connection between god and anything.

E: If you want to get rid of tautologies you must get rid of them all, on both sides of the debate otherwise you're not playing even handedly are you?

Rw: I’ve done my part utilizing common verifiable ingredients. When are you going to do yours? As we shall see below, any attempt you make to connect the dots in your tautology requires you to borrow terms from my pile of dots so your claim of non-contingency immediately flounders.

E:I think I'm just managing to hand on to what you're saying....


Much in the same way that Existence exists is a vaccuous statement due to the fact that the terms are tautological because they define each other.

Rw: I’ve made several sincere attempts to eliminate the vacuousness of the statement. I can’t help it if it comes off as a tautology. That’s just the nature of the term. It is the simplest most concise way I can put it. But that isn’t even the critical issue and I’m frankly surprised you’ve settled your rebuttal on such a vacuous argument. Do you deny that existence exists? Only if you continue to ignore the defining characteristics I’ve additionally applied to the phrase. What logical defining characteristics have you incorporated thusfar? You claim that god is the ground of all being without explaining why this being needs no ground. A telephone pole needs ground as does an airplane upon which to land. I’ve grounded time and existence into one another without logical contradiction. You require my grounding to posit god or to define it. Such a being cannot exist without the defining characteristic of existence and time to do so, whether implied or stated. It cannot logically be possible for such a being to be non-contingent whether you define him as “being” or A Being. How can “being” BE without existence or time to do so? How can A Being meet this same requirement and remain non-contingent? My position is far more logical than any position that posits a god as the non-contingent ground of time and existence. To be non-contingent means to place this god outside of both time and existence. You cannot invoke eternality as this is an attribute of time. He is hemmed in by the very fabric claimed to be his handiwork. In every attempt to define him with these terms he is either diminished or rendered incomprehensible.

E: In other words, the attribute of having actual being .. for that is the definition of existence.. or have you changed it to fit the arguement?

Rw: I find this amusing coming from someone who tends to waffle back and forth between actual being and “being”. Neither method leads to a logical possibility so it doesn’t really matter to me which one you choose to incorporate into any attempt at definition, but it would be helpful if you would decide if we’re using the dictionary definition of god or the theological one.

E: Sorry, I'm finding it hard to take this seriously.

Rw: Or to respond to it accurately without ignoring the fleshed out explanation of existence exists?

[quote]What does this do for the term? First it renders its meaningfulness contingent to that attribute. Take away “exists” and the term becomes incomprehensible again.

E: I want to come on to the subject of God eventually, but not yet. I simply want to start making some statements about the nature of the first cause.. whether it be God or not.

Rw: O’kay, but I hope you won’t take too long coming on to it.

E: This simply states that God is contingent on actual being. What actual being?

Rw: You tell me? I’m not the one claiming such a being exists. This is the point where the slip-knot is adjusted by claiming this god as the ground of all being. Somehow this is supposed to explain how this god can exist without having actual being. Well, that’s easy. In fact I’ve already conceded that this god exists as a concept in the minds of men. This is one way such a being can exist without having actual being. If there is another I am anxious to learn of it. But even the concept is contingent on men with minds willing to entertain the thought.

E: What attributes does that have? Don't tell me, ... let me guess .... er ..... IT EXISTS!! That's it, I've got it!

Rw: You’ve already alluded to several; eternality, non-contingency, ground of all being…I’m sure there are many more, all as equally contradictory as these are. But let’s just focus on the most basic attribute common to all claims of actuality: EXISTENCE. Does this god actually exist? Until you can build a logical bridge across this chasm, introducing other attributes will only obfuscate the topic of this thread.

E: Oh dear. Doesn't that take us back to the start of the arguement. Perhaps this arguement could be based on circular logic?

Rw: There’s no argument here, just a simple basic assumption that most theists represent a god who they believe actually exists. Are you taking the position that this god doesn’t have actual being?

E: Hang on! That could be because ACTUAL BEING and EXISTENCE are used to define each and therefore present a tautology .. a logical fallacy.

Rw: So you would have us believe that the dictionary definition of existence is based on a logical fallacy?

E: I'm sorry. I REALLY want you to be able to see how ridiculous this is.
Can't you see that eventually you have to start assigning other attributes to causes other than just saying they exist?

Rw: It’s not my responsibility to assign anything. I’m only using those attributes you’ve already assigned, either by implication or specification, to compare the logic of positing a god as opposed to an infinitely regressive self-contingent existence/time. I’ve already detailed the logical possibility of my position and await you to do the same. If you’re unhappy with the comparison simply restate your position and define this god you appear to be wanting to defend without actually making a commitment to do so.

E: This is just more tautology.

Rw: No, this is logic pure and simple. Can god exist if there is no existence? Doesn’t the existence of such a being necessitate the existence of existence? If not, why not?

E: Instead of trying to pull apart what you think a belief in God must rest on why can't we simply discuss the nature of the first cause?

Rw: Why not first establish the logical necessity of this god before attempting to place him in the broader scheme of things? You wish to start with an hypothesis that assumes god’s existence to be logical and then proceed from that point to create a web of definition. But logic doesn’t allow us to assume the predicate. Since neither of us can conclusively prove the existence or non-existence of this god we are left with parsimony in our arguments and assumptions to guide us towards a better understanding of the logical possibilities inherent in our respective positions. Rather than argue against the existence of your god I find it more revealing to demonstrate a simpler, cleaner logical possibility that negates the necessity of any such being in the scheme of things. Existence is self evident; god is not.

E: I will then try and demonstrate how the necessary nature of the first cause (logical necessities) lend support to a belief in God.

Rw: One would think EXISTENCE to be the one most logical necessity in any cause be it first or last. Has a totally non-existent cause ever produced a single effect?

E: O.K. Again...
Existence exists is a tautology and therefore a logical fallacy.

Rw: I’ve already demonstrated the validity of the logic. Only if you continue to ignore the entire explanation can you continue to levy a charge of logical fallacy.

E: However, in this universe it doesn't matter. Circular arguements are not incorrect a priori it is just that the results are unreliable.

Rw: Really? It’s unreliable to build an argument on something as basic as existence exists?

E: The fact that the definitions are by definition tautological presents no problem when referring to things in this universe. Most things that are said to have actual being and fall into the realm of our existence are self evident and so the tautology can be overlooked.
However, when referring to entities that are not that self evident we must not allow tautologies or contradictions or any other logical fallacy. It simply won't do.

Rw: Time and existence are not that self evident? If this universe had a beginning then time had to exist prior to this universe. I thought we’d already established this mile marker several pages back. Unless you can come up with a more logical or simpler verifiable foundation than time and existence or demonstrate how one can have actual being without the other you’re just wasting our time harping on this.

E: That's rather a bold statement. I wouldn't quite agree.

Rw: Then you have some verifiable means of establishing god as an actual being?

E: Remember, you're pulling apart your own thinking in terms of what you think must be the baseline for a belief in God. I haven't presented one yet because I simply want to talk about the nature of the first cause.

Rw: Then you find it meaningful to posit a belief in a god who doesn’t exist?

E: With respect, I think you seem a little over obsessed with trying to disprove the existence of God.

Rw: I am only demonstrating the illogic of a non-contingent, eternal god as the ground of all being and replacing it with a much simpler, far more logical possibility.

E: More Linear either/or arguementation.
How about "No tautolgies carry the most weight because they represent a logical fallacy."
Any arguement, whether for God or for anything else is totally unacceptable in my thinking as they are based on logical fallacies.

Rw: Since I’ve already un-loaded the tautology of my position we’re left breathlessly awaiting a reasonable argument justifying your own position, whatever that may be.


E: That's not true. Existence means to have actual being which is a defining attribute. God is simply a label placed upon something that is believed to have actual being.

Rw: Thank you for proving my point below. See how easy and natural it was for you to define existence? But when you come to God it becomes only a label for something undefined, yet impossibly inescapable from claiming actual being (existence). I still await any argumentation taking us from belief to logical possibility.

E: EXISTENCE = to have actual being.
GOD = Being believed to have attribute of existence.
Will that do?

Rw: No, it doesn’t establish meaningfulness. Which one is real, literal, verifiable and self-evident? You cannot escape the necessity of incorporating existence into any attempted definition of god. This is the simplest way of demonstrating the utter futility of claiming such a being to be non-contingent. It also renders any claim that this god is the ground of all being suspect since any attempt to define him demands immediate incorporation of an even simpler concept to get off the ground. Who is standing on the ground and who is floating away into incomprehensibility without borrowing some real estate from the simpler concept of existence?

E: Self evident for anything in this universe. Not so for anything that may exist outside of it.

Rw: But you do see the difficulty you are facing with this tact. The only place outside this universe we have been discussing is pre-universe and I have only incorporated attributes derived from this universe and self evident, thus logically supportive in my arguments. My task is to take what I have to work with here and render a logically possible explanation for how everything came to be here.

E: As I've said, when applied to entities in this universe that can be perceptually verified and are self evident, the tautology can be overlooked. Not so for anything else.
Do you want to apply the rules of logic or not? You suggested that we should.

Rw: You can hide behind this claim if you like but it doesn’t stop the hemorrhaging resulting from your own lack of any logical argumentation to support a non-contingent, eternal god as the ground of all being. You are familiar with the Razor and parsimony and understand the rules of induction, aren’t you? Nothing could be simpler than existence exists. Nothing could be more self-evident than existence/time. Nothing could be more necessary or inescapable than the concept of existence in any attempt to define something else as a meaningful explanation for how existence exists.
No disrespect intended but I’m willing to wager a Canadian quarter that you spend more TIME securing your own EXISTENCE than you do acknowledging the existence of such a god as this. Nothing could be more meaningful.

E: A quick definition of attribute.

A quality or characteristic inherent in or ascribed to someone or something.

E: Attributes are therefore qualities and characteristics inherent in or ascribed to entities. They therefore cannot exist without entities.

Rw: And do you imagine that an entity without attributes can be said to EXIST. We’re not talking about just any old attribute but the one basic necessary attribute required before any such concept as ENTITY becomes meaningful. Whether it’s implied or specified, without the attribute of existence, no other attribute, quality, quantity or state is meaningful. Besides, I’ve already established that needed something: TIME. Existence/Time as two sides of the same coin, remember.

E: Only when it is characteristic to someone or something (see definition). Isn't this what I've been saying all along?

Rw: And existence IS something therefore self contingent when applied to itself. When coupled with time even more so. Isn’t that what I’ve been saying all along?

E: Yes it does. It is an attribute. As an attribute it is a characterisitc inherent in or ascribed to someone or something.

Rw: Then your position appears to be running perpendicular to your earlier claims. If existence is contingent on someone or something then THIS UNIVERSE is the totality of all that is. But earlier you hinted at the possibility of something existing outside this universe. If existence is not SOMETHING then what is it? The only proper conceptualization of this particular property, characteristic or attribute is self-contingency because if existence doesn’t exist then no thing or being can. Existence is and must be an attribute of itself and the necessary ground of all being. It does not require anything outside of itself to exist but any other thing outside of it that does exist renders it a more meaningful concept. Nothing can exist independent of it.

E: I haven't posited any substancial view of God yet.

Rw: Sure you have.

E: The question is, can existence be personal?

Rw: What exactly do you mean by “personal”? If you mean subjectively valuable then yes, my own existence is subjectively valuable to me and my family. Of what subjective value is god and/or is this subjective value more personal than ones own personal existence? Or ones family?

E: No. It is an attribute. A characteristic inherent in or ascribed to someone or something.

Rw: Ah…then an attribute is nothing as opposed to something? Can you ascribe any value or meaning to a thing that has no attributes? If not then it is the attributes that render the thing a reality. What you seem not to understand is that it is the attributes of a thing that are the totality of the thing. Here is a thing. It has a specific mass, a specific shape, a specific color, a specific texture. It is the sum of the specifics that render it a thing to be defined by those specifics. Implied beneath all these specifics is the foundational specific that this thing EXISTS because the sum of its attributes make its existence factual. Are attributes real? Just as real and necessary as the things to which they are attributed. And the most basic necessary attribute of all is existence/time.

E: Totally inaccurate and not true. Existence is not something .. as you claim. It is an attribute (you said that). It is a characteristic of something or someone. I really don't want to have to cover that ground again.

Rw: Attributes are something. They are created by the peculiar properties of matter/energy. But matter/energy must EXIST before any such properties can be defined. The most basic fundamental state of matter/energy is the TIME/MASS signature. I gave you a logically possible explanation that accounts for the matter/energy relationship of this universe. I posited self-contingent EXISTENCE/TIME from which was derived matter/energy that further evolved into space/mass/gravity/sentience. It is a meta-physical intellectual flaw to approach existence on the basis of things. It is the attributes that make a thing and not the other way around. And the most basic attribute is existence. You cannot escape it try as you may. Science is the discovery of attributes. Natural law is the reduction of those attributes into definable things. Even, and especially, theology is dependent on attributes to define its parameters. God, without any defining attributes, is meaningless. Therefore attributes are the crucial something necessary to all things. They are the essence from which the substance is derived.

E: This is blatantly false. If existence is an attribute - an inherent characteristic of someone or something - how can it exist without someone or something? How can existence therefore travel alone?

Rw: Existence/Time

E: I'm not dangling on the edge of anything. You've only pulled apart your own ideas. What you've presented I don't actually believe because it is based on a tautology and a contradiction.
I shall have to email INFIDELS and tell them that these can now be reclassified as 'unique concepts'. The THEISTS will be pleased.
Excuse the sarcasm .. nothing more than a hyperbole, it is there to try and make a point.

Rw: Or perhaps it is the product of frustration created by an unwillingness to consider the ramifications.

E: Yes, but it is you that wants to keep talking about God. I wouldn't even start there.

Rw: It was I who started this thread entitled “DOES…GOD…EXIST”

E: Do you want me to start my own arguement .. then you won't have to try and guess at what I think.

Rw: This is based on an extrapolation of points you’ve previously covered. But if you wish to clarify or rectify any perceived error please feel free to do so.

E: But your reasoning mind allows you to redefine logical fallacies such as tautologies and contradictions as unique concepts, even though you had previously said that you would rule out as non-existent anything based on these.
This causes me to lose confidence in your reasoning mind.

Rw: There are no fallacies or contradictions in my position. This is irrelevant ad hominem and fails to address the point. Are you, or are you not positing this god as an existent ground of all being?

E: Satisfying in what way? It certainly doesn't satisfy the rules of logic.

Rw: It doesn’t violate any rules of logic. A tautology is not necessarily false. I have more than established its veracity. And you have yet to counter with any logical demonstration supporting your own position or to even establish much of one.

E: I wouldn't even start by referring to God. You seem to suggest that I must assume a God right from the start. I wouldn't.

Rw: O’kay, then proceed. I’m all ears.

[quote]Let’s start with what self-contingent existence isn’t. It isn’t nothing therefore it is something.

E: This is really what I wanted to get to.
It isn’t god therefore it is something else.

E: Well, I would start by assuming that I knew nothing about the pre-existent cause. I wouldn't rule god out a priori.

Rw: Then you are assuming that a god could be equated with existence. But you haven’t established any logical groundwork for the existence of a god. I, on the other hand, would rule a god out at this point a posteriori. I have experienced existence. I have mistakenly attributed some of those experiences to a god. I have rectified the mistake and would not want to taint any future considerations with such an assumption. Remember, our only logical tool here is induction.

E: Well, your self existent existence arguement rests upon two logical fallacies. A tautology and a contradiction. So why do we now invoke the rules of logic at this stage having already abandoned them twice?

Rw: And you are mistaken on both counts. As I’ve said countless times, self-contingent eliminates the contradiction between contingent and non-contingent and existence/time rescues the tautology.

E: The most exacting dedication to intellectual integrity doesn't allow arguementation on the basis of tautologies or contradictions. Intellectual integrity wouldn't redefine them as unique concepts - it would call them logical fallacies.

Rw: Yawn…

E: Which you've established on the basis of two logical fallacies and relabelled 'unique concepts'.

Rw: And you continue to parrot the same mistake. There are NO logical fallacies and existence IS a unique concept. There was no “relabelling” and I resent this accusation. Could it be borne from a lack of any substantial refutational material?

E: I haven't said anything meaningful about God yet.

Rw: This is true.

E: I've only mentioned God in response to comments that you've made about him.

Rw: Whatever. As if this is somehow more important than the points made above.

E: How about asking me what I think rather than telling me.

Rw: How about toning down the smart-ass attitude and just stating your position. This is an open forum and you can say whatever the hell you please.

E: I haven't given a systematic outline of why I believe in God and so haven't really posited anything yet.

Rw: And your point being?

E: No it doesn't. That is what you are saying based upon your own reasoning. I wouldn't argue it that way at all.


Rw: It doesn’t appear as if you’re going to argue it at all anyway so just keep threatening.

E: Does it? It's refreshing to be told what I think. You seem to know a lot about what exists inside my mind.

Rw: Hohum

E: Is that worse or better than a tautology and and a contradiction?

Rw: Worse. Especially when the tautology is true and the contradiction doesn’t exist.

E: And a contradiction don't forget.

Rw: No, you’re not about to let us forget your imagined contradiction created in your own mind when you couldn’t recognize the difference between contingent, non-contingent, and self contingent. Perhaps the reason you keep harping on this falls back to that lack of substantive input to establish your own defensible position.

[quote]So I support my tautology of “Existence exists” by declaring existence self-contingent and defining self-contingency on the basis of the relationship between existence and time.

E: And as a tautology is a logical fallacy you have thus abandonded any desired adherence to intellectual integrity.

Rw: The statement is tautological in the general sense but it is not a fallacy because it is both logically true and factually true. For it to be a fallacy you must demonstrate one of its components to be false or redundant. Do you deny that existence exists? If you cannot answer the question truthfully or refuse to acknowledge the simple truth of it then it is you who lacks any intellectual integrity.

E: Existence is an attribute - an inherent characteristic or something else and so not quite as simple as you try and make it.

Rw: Is an attribute something or not? There’s no wiggle room here and it is as simple as that. Now demonstrate some intellectual integrity and quit trying to weasel around the obvious.

E: That's not true. At the beginning of this post you point out at least one contradiction and redefine it as a 'unique concept'.

Rw: Yes, and I further defined this unique concept as a self contingent, thus rescuing it from the contradiction, that I (I might add) went to some lengths to demonstrate was inherent when applying the dictionary definition of contingent. Or perhaps you missed that part of my argument in your eagerness to find some fault or flaw where none exists.

E: No I couldn't, because the basis of your arguement contains at least one contradiction. Neither would I assume God. You're telling me that, without even asking.
I would have abandonded your arguement long ago on the basis that it contains a tautological arguement and a contradiction.

Rw: Nope, wrong again. Existence exists and it is self-contingent. Show me the contradiction or the logical fallacy. The only reason you even brain-locked onto the contradiction was because I pointed it out in the specific case of defining the term contingent and applying the definition to existence. You completely ignored the fact that the comparison utterly destroyed any contention of your god as a non-contingent being. And you completely ignored the fact that the contradiction ONLY exists between contingent/non-contingent. Self contingent is another animal altogether.

E: I would. But only on the basis that your arguement contains two logical fallacies.

Rw: Which are? Then if the fallacies are removed you’d concede god to be a contingent concept?

E: Then I would hardly call these a good defence for God's existence.

Rw: Precisely

E: I don't think that I assume God. You assume that I do.

Rw: That’s not my problem. If you don’t want me stating your position based on extrapolation of your earlier comments then state it for the record.

E: A logical hypothesis would have long ago disregarded the tautology and the contradiction that I've mentioned.

Rw: You mean the contradiction that “I” pointed out to you and then easily resolved and the tautology that stands as both logically and factually true that you seem unwilling to concede in spite of its obvious and self-evident status?

E: I think your ideas of what people believe are over simplified.

Rw: Relevence?

E: It also incorporates a tautology and a contradiction - as you pointed out at the start of your post. You remember .. you said that existence was contingent and non-contingent. You then called it a 'unique concept'.

Rw: And I also demonstrated its self contingency thereby removing it from the cloud of contradiction…or did you miss that part? And the tautology that you so abhor is both logically and factually true. Existence exists: True or false? The fact that I called it a unique concept is irrelevant but you seem to think I had some ulterior motive for doing so and accused me of re-labeling it. An accusation you have yet to support.
quote:

E: As you have allowed one tautology and a contradiction into your hypotheses and implied that this is adherence to strict intellectual integrity I have little confidence in what you consider more logical.

I think it would be better if I present my case .. then you can decide whether my arguements are based upon assumptions and tautologies.

Rw: That’s an excellent idea.

E_muse

Hello again RW:

Onto your reply...

Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by self-contingent. This simply means "self-likely", "self-possible"... and so on. If existence were self-contingent it would be dependent upon itself for existence but at the same time only a possibility, likely but not inevitable.

The other problem concerning time is that it appears to have had a beginning at the Big Bang singularity.

Stephen Hawking have tried to get around this through the use of imaginary time but this is exactly what it says!

I don't think something can be self-contingent. It would be reliant upon itself for existence but at the same time only likely and not inevitable.

Because I don't think you have eliminated it.

That's because you've appealed to logic and yet started from a base point that contains a tautology and a contradiction .. both of these are logical fallacies.

No, you're misrepresenting what I've said. You are here making it sound as though categorizing your ideas as tautological is simply my idea. This is false and which is why I gave a link to the site that outlined logical fallacies.

Whether or not you give a rats ass is of no concern to me whatsoever, you have to live with that. I'm only concerned that you are prepared to based your conclusions on a tautology.

I say that the term is meaningless. The only reason it can pass when describing things that are in our universe is that most of them are self-evident. The same cannot be said of what may or may not have caused the universe.

I would say that existence is a term that can be applied to any object or entity that can be demonstrated as having actual being - or that which is not dependent on a mind for its existence.

No, it isn't true logically... that is my point. It is based upon a tautology and so it is true by definition. The statement is true whether or not the contents of the statement have any ontological counterpart.

No, I won't give it a rest. I am saying that existence is always an attribute of something.

I am sorry if you feel offended but are we sticking to the rules of logic or not?

I've pointed out two.

In our experience in our universe, existence is always a term (and nothing more) applied to any entity or object that can be said to have actual being.

If 'nothing' existed (there were no 'things') then there would be no existence.

As I've said so many times, it simply means 'actual being has actual being'. It is saying the same thing twice.

Would you please demonstrate how existence can exist independently of any object or entity during a period when time may not have existed (according to cosmologists). To quote Stephen Hawking:

Emphasis mine.

This is just in case you try and say that this is simply my idea.

Also, could you explain more fully, your term 'self-contingent' which simply means that something relies upon itself for existence but is only possible and not inevitable?

I have applied the term 'non-contingent' meaning, not dependent on anything else for existence. Again this is not simply my own idea but a term used by philosophers, Robert Koons, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas for one.

What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that the statement is true by definition regardless of whether it has any ontological counterpart.

Any object, such as a chair, computer, or person that is self-evident can be said to have actual being (not simply in the mind) and can therefore be said to exist. It can be described as real.

Existence doesn't exist as an independent concept, it is always an attribute of something we observe. Existence is an attribute of any entity or object that we observe and appears to exist independently of the mind.

No, it isn't logically true.. but then I don't want to have to go through all of that again.

And your arguements here are degenerating into a form of ad hominem arguement. You're attacking me and not my ideas.

It is true by definition.. but then I've been through all of that.

This is hardly rational arguement is it!

In what way.

How can this be the case when the term 'existence' is never really used independently of any object that it is being attributed to?

I haven't presented my position yet.

I'm not sure it has been eliminated. You've added time to the equation but science seems to suggest that time had a beginning at the big bang.

No. I'm saying that 'existence exists' is a logical fallacy that is true by definition regardless of whether the contents of the statement relate to any ontological counterpart.

More ad hominem arguementation.

But according to cosmology we should consider that time had a beginning at the big bang.

O.K. Here we go.

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>