E_muse

O.K RW, here we go. I shall start to present some arguements that we can chew over.

Firstly, we relation to debate and reasoned arguement I suppose that I sympathize with Descartes when he said, "I think therefore I am". We can argue to a point where it is possible to raise doubts about the existence of anything. Where we can only be sure that we are real and that our experiences are real.

This is one of the limitations of logical arguement and any rational conclusion will have its inherent weaknesses and will not be beyond doubt in any absolute sense. Some measure of faith is always necessary .. even if it is faith in our own experiences.

The final arbiter in any arguement will be experience I think.

O.K. We are talking about the universe. With regard to our consideration about 'existence' we can say that the universe exists. It has actual being and this is self evident.

Secondly, in our experience, the term existence, meaning actual being, is only ever applied to objects or entities that are known to have this quality of existing independently of the mind, or thought to do so beyond all reasonable doubt.

Before considering God I think that there is a more fundamental question. Did the universe have a beginning? Did it begin to exist?

These are very important questions, not only to the theist but also the atheist, especially one who is involved in the cosmological sciences. How we answer these question has implications on the scientific method.

The question relates to a metaphysical conviction that, 'everthing that begins to exist must have a cause' or 'from nothing, nothing comes'. Therefore, if the universe began to exist then, we can conclude that it is highly reasonable to suggest that it had a cause.

I only see three alternatives concerning our universe. What follows is only a summary.

1. The universe popped up out of nothing. It began to exist with no cause. Here I am referring to absolute nothingness and not quantum fluctutations in background radiation.

2. The universe is eternal. Something has always existed in some form.

3. The universe began to exist and was caused.

First let us consider 1.

I think that 1 can be discounted for two reasons.

Firstly, it goes against a metaphysical first principle that 'from nothing, nothing comes'.

Secondly, once you have argued that something as complex as the universe can pop up out of absolutely nothing then I believe that you lose any rational basis for rejecting a similar explanation for any complex object. Allow me to elaborate with a silly example.

Imagine that you visit me for a coffee. You do this on a regular basis and on this occassion I give you your coffee in a new mug. You comment on it and ask me where I got it from. I reply that it simply popped up 'out of nothing'. Of course you do not believe me and attempt to demonstrate how mugs are in fact manufactured. In your frustration, you even take me to a factory that makes the things. However, I simply state that my mug is unique and popped up out of nothing.

You may disbelieve my statement with all your being, but once you have allowed for something popping up out of nothing, you have no rational basis for pulling apart my claim.

The second claim is that the universe has always existed. This is more plausible and closely linked to 3 because the 'cause' in 3 could be some pre-universe state. However, there are problems.

The theory of general relativity predicts a point of singularity at the big bang. At this point space and time become infinitely dense and curved. It would appear from this model that time and space had a beginning - a point of origin. However, This has its problems.

To begin with, if the theory is wholly correct, then all the known laws of science break down at this point of singularity. Stephen Hawking recognised the problem with this. If the laws of science could break down at the big bang, then they could break down anywhere. The only alternative is that general relativity is not a complete theory and needs to be quantized. In other words, take quantum phenomena into consideration.

On the quantum level it has been observed (even in a vacuum) that background radiation or fluctuations exist and that these fluctuations cause elementary particles to pop into and out of existence. These particles borrow energy from the background fluctuations for their brief existence. These particles also appear unpredictable and one can only say where a particle is likely to be .. this is known as the uncertainty principle.

At the moment quantum theory and classical theories such as general relativity form separate theories and attempts are being made to combine them to come up with a theory of everything or the M theory.

Because the universe was so small at its beginning, quantum mechanics has been applied to the early universe. I am aware of two theories that are predominant.

First is string theory. Within this theory all phenomena such as gravity to elementary particles are a product of 'strings' that vibrate in the background of the universe. These strings exist in the background fluctuations as I have mentioned. However, there is a problem with this theory. That is, the theory only seems to hold up in a universe that possesses either 10 or 26 dimensions, although I believe that 5 string theories have been combined to form one theory that is consistent in an 11 dimensional universe.

The problem here is that there is a need to explain why only four dimensions (three spacial and one time) flattened out as the universe expanded and not the others. It is argued (hypothetically) that the other dimensions are curled up really small and so we don't see them .. just the four of which we aware.

The other is the theory championed by Stephen Hawking. Again, he has sought to apply quantum theory to the universe and has come up with a model of the universe that has no beginning, is finite and yet has no boundaries or edges. Quite a concept! However, his model involves the use of imaginary time, which is nothing more than a mathematical trick and may not relate to anything more substancial than the singularity it is seeking to replace. It must be noted that the idea of time having a beginning is as much a problem for a scientist as it is for the theologian and I don't think we should be ashamed to admit that there are things we can't explain.

Within these models it could be argued that the background fluctuations that scientists observe could have always existed and that the universe grew out of the matter that was produced from the elementary particles produced by these fluctuations.

However, there is a problem with this. These phenomena exist within this universe and so may have begun with the universe. To apply these phenomena to the start of the universe has the potential of being circular. We don't know that these other phenomena didn't have a beginning.

The only other alternative is that it was caused by something else but not in a way dictated to by the laws of physics. In fact, this cause produced the laws of physics. Because of the predictions of general relativity, a number of things can be said of this potential cause.

To begin with, it is not joined to the universe in the usual cause/effect manner that we observe. It is not of the same fabric as the universe.

Secondly, we seem unable to observe it. It is invisible.

It's late and I think that's enough to be going on with for now!

rainbow walking

Hello again RW:

Hello E_muse,
Onto your reply...

E: 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.

Rw: Metaphysical naturalism holds this universe to be non-contingent. Regardless of the reasoning used to support this claim I think it bares a fundamental flaw. To say that something is non-contingent simply because it exists is unsatisfactory. I see no guarantees inherent in the existence of THIS universe simply because it exists. Having said that, I would remind you that I have taken two known factors of THIS universe, combined them into one single element (existence/time) and posited them as the logically possible state of things (with the understanding that existence/time were the only two logically possible things) available in a pre-universal state. I am postulating that they existed in a singularity form and were thus contingent upon themselves for their presence, and nothing else, hence “existence/time” as self-contingent. Of course I don’t mean to imply they had a “self” in any sentient sense of the term. If you polarized contingent and non-contingent and placed them on a line as extreme points on opposite ends of the line I would place self-contingency somewhere closer to the point of contingency rather than in the middle between the two. I cannot reasonably say that existence/time was non-contingent in this pre-universal state because I have taken these two factors from THIS universe, which I also hold cannot be non-contingent, thus they must bare the burden of their attributes prior to THIS universe to remain as logically consistent as they appear to be now. So they (time and existence) existed totally dependent on one another for their existence. By combining them into a single coherent unit they become self-contingent. However when compared to any other physical characteristics of THIS universe they remain non-contingent. That is to say their presence as the only two viable factors in a pre-universal state was not contingent on such things as space, mass, gravity, energy, sentience or mathematics. So when you say that existence must have something in order to exist I say that “something” was time and because time must “exist” as a prerequisite of anything that is said to have existence I postulate existence as that something that had TIME to exist. Existence derived actual being from time and time actually existed. Having then these crucial factors as their prerequisite logical necessities I combined them into a single coherent unit and they become “self-contingent”.

Now it can be argued that both time and existence are only ATTRIBUTES in THIS universe and are meaningless when divorced from something to be attributed to. That is a reasonable argument and I suspect the point you and I are at odds over more than anything else. But I believe I have over-come this objection by combining them into a single unified factor. Both are SOMETHING. Maybe not a material THING but I remind you that not all THINGS are material or physical. In a pre-universal state we are not dealing with physical things but attributes which is also what physical laws deal with just like gravity being an attribute of mass.

For a theist to raise an objection based on existence/time as only attributes in THIS universe is unusual when they are quite willing to postulate god as BEING itself which is to say nothing more than an attribute of existence, since BEING is defined as an attribute of existence. When a theist utilizes this Tillichian definition of god he is declaring that god, as BEING itself, is nothing more than an attribute of existence and attempts to divorce the attribute from its defining substances and give it a life of its own and declaring it to be the essence of god.

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

Rw: It did indeed have a MATHEMATICAL beginning but because mathematics has no conceptual symbol for infinite regress time appears to have been created rather than just documented.

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

Rw: Because Hawking is married to the scientific method that is itself dependent upon the physical characteristics of THIS universe he cannot postulate a mathematical model to support a theory that includes time before it became mathematically supportable. Thus he was forced to induce an IMAGINARY time which should tell you that even he admits that something akin to time, as we understand it, must have preceeded THIS universe. There simply is no mathematical quotient for infinity forwards or backwards whether you’re discussing it in the context of time or hen’s eggs. How many hen’s eggs will you have if you have an infinite supply of them?

E: 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.

Rw: You are absolutely correct. I say it is likely because THIS universe exists. I cannot logically say it was inevitable JUST because THIS universe exists. To do so would require an additional assumption that is not necessary or logical.




E: I say that the term is meaningless.

Rw: I am mystified by this stance. Existence exists. That is to say everything that is, was and will be…is was and will be. You cannot exclude the concept of existence itself from the “everything” and remain logically consistent. I cannot help it if this appears tautological. It is logically consistent and factually true. Deny it if you wish or declare it meaningless if you prefer but the fact remains it IS meaningful and logically consistent.

E: 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.

Rw: Yes it can. Self-evidence is not the test of logic. Everything that exists is not self-evident. Any effect that had a cause must necessarily imply or specify that cause as having existed to create the effect. You cannot escape the necessity of either existence or time. These are logical necessities in THIS universe and, if we are to remain true to logic, in any pre-universal state.

E: 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.


Rw: And I would concur. The problem with your objection is that it is based on a limitation of the concept of existence because you apparently cannot fathom the idea of an attribute wedded to an attribute becoming a substance. In THIS universe existence and time are attributes of THIS universe. In a pre-universal state they are the substance that became THIS universe. You cannot reasonably deny that existence or time are not themselves something and exclude them from the EVERY in everything.

E: 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.

Rw: So you concede the statement is true. Yet you are determined to undermine its logic by using a tool of logic designed to eliminate a vacuous claim. The problem with your objection is that this particular statement, though having the form of a tautology, is not a vacuous claim. It is both true and self-evident. It is logical and factual. Would it be logical to claim that existence does not exist? Would it be more universal to say that actual being exists? Existence, meaning everything that is, was or ever will be…is, was, and will be. It immediately denies that anything that is, isn’t; that anything that ever was, wasn’t; or that anything that ever will be, won’t be. It is meaningful and logically consistent. It is not a fallacy simply because it has the form of a tautology because it is not vacuous. It has meaning that is both factual and logical. You have become stuck, like a Pharisee, on a letter of the law.

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

Rw: And I have given you that something time and again ad naseum: existence/time.

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

Rw: I was offended and without justification. Are you saying that you are justified in using a tone and verbiage designed to hurt if I appear to violate a rule of logic? If you just want to sling real estate I can hang with the best of them. But that isn’t what initially attracted you to this discussion, is it?

E: I've pointed out two.

Rw: And I have given reasonable consideration to them, eliminating the contradiction and the vacuousness in the tautology.

E: 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.

Rw: In our experience and our universe everything we claim to know or believe is expressed with terms that have specific conceptual meaning. A term that is nothing more than a term is meaningless. A term that signifies a concept can be meaningful if the concept can be verified as either factual or logical. Existence is a term that satisfies both. So it is more than just a term. It is a meaningful concept derived from our experience of our universe.

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

Rw: In THIS universe that is true. But in a pre-universal state that cannot be true. Time is a thing as is existence. When coupled together they become someTHING more.

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

Rw: No it isn’t. It is affirming that existence itself is also a component of all that has actual being. In THIS universe it is an attribute of things in THIS universe. Not just an attribute but the one single attribute necessary to any single thing that is said to have actual being. It stands alone in this distinction.

E: 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:

rw: And Hawking is simply wrong. THIS universe, if it had a beginning, has to be a consequence of something prior to THIS universe so there must be an event resulting in THIS universe as the consequence of said event. And he is wrong in declaring that this special event should not form part of any scientific model of THIS universe. It would have been more accurate had he said that any scientific model that includes that event must await scientific verification of said event before it can be included. Because science, like mathematics, cannot yet factor in the concept of infinity and substances formed from combinative attributes, does not mean these factors are negated. They simply defy current scientific and mathematical modeling. Even Hawking was reduced to conceding that some type or form of time had to pre-exist THIS universe. Calling it “imaginary” was just a way of covering his professional and academic ass.

E: 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?

Rw: See above…

E: 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.

Rw: Applied it to what?

E: 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.

Rw: And what you are un-willing to admit is that the statement is not vacuous. But thank you for conceding it as true. That’s a start.

E: 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,

Rw: Yes it does. It may require specific things to make it a meaningful concept to us but meaningful conceptualization to humans is not a necessary prerequisite to something being said to exist. It is my aim, during this discussion, to render it a stand alone sister to time and make it meaningful enough to pass the test of logical consistency in comparison to god as the other option.

E: it is always an attribute of something we observe.

Rw: You cannot observe the thoughts in my mind but you wouldn’t deny they exist.

E: Existence is an attribute of any entity or object that we observe and appears to exist independently of the mind.

Rw: In THIS universe, yes, but that doesn’t prevent it from becoming a source of this universe taken from a pre-universal state. Would this universe cease to exist if our minds became blank?


E: This is hardly rational arguement is it!

Rw: And the irrationality is…?

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

Rw: Because it is attached to time which is something more than existence but not unless it actually existed prior to THIS universe.

E: 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.

Rw: A mathematical beginning, to be sure. There is no mathematical symbol for infinite regress.

E: 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.

Rw: It can be falsified if you can demonstrate any single thing that can exist without incorporating the concept in the demonstration. Existence is a logical necessity, not only of everything that exists but of itself as well. So the statement is not a fallacy nor is it vacuous.


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

Rw: A mathematical beginning…yes. It cannot be demonstrated that time had an actual beginning along with this universe using current scientific methods or models. This would require a model demonstrating that something existed outside of time.

E_muse

I don't think that metaphysical naturalists would seek to justify the idea that the universe is non-contingent simply from their own philisophical standpoint or on the grounds that it simply exists. They would point to methodological naturalism as a justification - the methodology of science is a justification because of the accurate results it appears to yield.

To say that the universe is non-contingent is clearly false because there are elements in the universe that are clearly contingent. However, this does not mean that all universal elements are contingent. One idea of an non-contingent element in the universe might be energy. Energy seems to inform everything but does not appear contingent on anything. It is also scientifically defensible because the effects of quantum energy fluctuations can be observed ... even in a vacuum.

The problem is that energy may have begun at the big bang as the fluctuations I am describing can only be observed to exist [/i]within[/i] this universe.

Indeed not.

Firstly, because you are taking things that are only known to exist in the universe, how do you know that they can be applied to a pre-universal state or that they could even exist then?

What about energy? Couldn't energy have existed in a pre-universal state? The big bang itself would have required energy from somewhere - the effects of energy can be observed in a vaccum in this universe.

However, once again, we're saying that something that is known to be a part of this universe pre-existed it.

The problem with your proposition is that within this universe existence/time are both dependent upon 'things' for meaning - as is energy for energy cannot be perceived unless it is present in something or seen to have an effect on something.

But this means nothing if you have no evidence for what you are claiming. If you have no evidence then your claim is not scientific. If it is not scientific, then what is it?

If it is simply based upon logic then are you postulating an argument based upon enlightenment thinking that puts forth the idea of 'the necessary truths of reason'. That our powers of reason, acting independently of perceptual verification, can lead us into truth.

You may be able to fully persuade me that there is no reason to believe in God because there is no evidence for such a being .... however, if you have based your own conclusions on 'no evidence' then your own claim must be rejected for similar reasons.

If a theistic standpoint seems unacceptable one cannot simply embrace an atheistic idea as 'more acceptable' simply because it is atheistic in nature and is based upon a preferred philisophical standpoint, yet equally unfounded.

Let us say that two ideas are put forward for the origin of the universe. One is put forward according to a Theistic Hypothesis (TH) (incorporating intelligent design) and the other is put forward as an Atheistic Hypothesis (AH) (natural design). If neither AH or TH relate to observation or experience then they must both be rejected.

So if you cannot rule that existence/time are non-contingent (because they appear contingent in this universe) you have just shifted the problem back haven't you?

Because existence and time are elements of this universe (going with your arguement) and the universe is contingent then, applying the process of induction, I think we should say that they are contingent themselves, especially as we can have no concept of them in the presence of 'nothing' and the scientific method dictates that real time had a beginning at the big bang.

We now have a universe that sprang out of existence/time but these elements from which it sprang can reasonably be considered contingent. So what caused them? Remember, they are only likely, possible and not-inevitable. This suggests that they could have had a beginning.

If they did have a beginning then what caused them must have existed outside of existence (a logical impossibility) and time because it caused both of them.

Again, what evidence do you have for this proposition - knowing that one cannot assume that the laws that regulate this universe regulated any pre-universal state?

Our perceptions dictate that, logically speaking, there can be no change or transition without time. But change or transition in what? We have our sense of time because of changes that go on around us - the sun apparently going around our planet for one. In the absence of anything, would time exist?

Are you saying that because something exists out of logical necessity in the mind then it must therefore have an ontological counterpart? You seem to be saying, "Because my arguement is logical what I am describing must therefore exist".

As I've said earlier, this seems based upon enlightenment thinking. Why can't I take your conclusions as being an indication of the limitations of the human mind in its attempts to describe reality?

How can we dictate that things that seem logically plausible must have an ontological counterpart when scientific theory is constantly in need of modification - our understanding constantly needs shifting.

Can't you see why our conclusions must be validated by experience in some way? Otherwise we're saying that the physical universe must exist in a certain way because it must conform to a particular philisophical paradigm that we have constructed. We make the physical universe subservient to the mind.

Evidence? Otherwise, are you expecting me to accept that what you are stating must describe the physical universe because the idea exists out of logical necessity in your mind?

Logical necessity then implies that your statement is a 'necessary truth of reason'. Are you therefore suggesting that something must exist ontologically because it has to exist in the mind?

Does your model describe the actual universe or only reflect the limitations of our faculty of reason that is a product of THIS universe and limited by the physical relationships that exist within it?

Indeed it could. I am saying this - in fact, I think this is what I've been saying all along.

Agreed.

How do you know if something exists non-materially or non-physcially?

Evidence? Without evidence there is no need to prefer your hypothesis over God is there? It could only exist in your mind and not describe the actual universe at all.

I wouldn't say that because I wouldn't say that existence exists by itself .... it is always an attribute of something. I am saying this because, in this universe, it is the only way we can understand it.

God would be the necessary 'something' that had the attribute of existence.

I haven't begun arguing for God yet.. but I don't think a theist would say this. Something having actual being is necessary for other things to have actual being ... that is what I am saying. From nothing, nothing comes. There has to be something. That something would by the fact of its existence have existence as the necessary attribute, making all other existence possible. However, we must seek to define the thing having actual being. You have simply added time, but neither time or existence have any meaning in the absence of 'something' because of our experiences in this universe.

Of course, as I've argued already, simply because something exists in the mind out of logical necessity, doesn't mean that it has any ontological counterpart - which is where experience comes in.

And mathematics is governed by logic. You wouldn't disagree with that would you? So it is logically possible that time had a beginning. Can you see that logic can come up with many differing and self consistent ideas concerning reality? You can perhaps now understand why I sympathize with Descartes!

I'm saying that we can apply logic .... and must. But we must also be aware of its limitations.

Which is all a comment on our logical capabilities and not the actual universe - the thing that we're actually trying to understand. Is time always necessary to something existing or is it that we can't conceptualize a reality without time?

You are applying the rules of logic that are a part of this universe to something that may have existed outside of this universe - something that cannot be perceptually verified.

I am saying that existence exists simply says "actual being has actual being" and there is no point in saying the same thing twice - which is all a tautology is. Allow me to elaborate this again:

Firstly, saying existence exists is making an empty statement. It is saying 'actual being has actual being'. We know that from first hand experience relating to anything that is self evident - anything that forms a part of our experience.

If 'nothing' is impossible then 'something' must have always existed or had actual being. It would be necessary for there to always be something that was 'real'. That something would have to be 'real' in the sense that other things that are said to be 'real' are real.

All things that are said to exist in this universe have attributes other that raw existence. The fact that existent things are always detectable in some way means that existence itself has no meaning without other attributes that support the existence.

You've applied logic to certain aspects of THIS universe and applied it to the pre-universe state. But where does one draw the line?

Things have 'actual being' in this universe .. including the universe itself. The same cannot be assumed of anything prior to the universe can it? And any satement that says .... "This is logically necessary" is only saying that the model being presented is the only one possible in the context of the human mind at the moment and may not be referring to the actual universe at all. That is my scientific theories are subject to testing and change - and you should be glad that they are!

Again, you are suggesting 'the truth of logic' here.

But does the fact that something is a logical necessity mean that it must therefore correspond to anything that 'actually exists'. Logically necessary simply means "This is the only way we can think about it" and nothing more. You may not be describing the actual universe at all.

No. Because it doesn't seem to correspond to anything in human experience. And, bringing in Occam's Razor, there is no point in widening a concept, if we don't know that the results of the concept widening correspond to any ontological couterpart.

Evidence?

They are attributes of 'things' in this universe.

It is true and self evident of anything in THIS universe. It is not true and self evident of anything outside of the universe is it.

You seem to be equivocating that which is self-evident through experience and that which must exist in the mind by logical necessity.

How are you going to demonstrate that, because something is logcially necessary, it must therefore correspond to some ontological counterpart?

No, because it would be saying that 'actual being does not have actual being'. It would be a meaningless statement .. and this isn't what I'm saying.

I am saying that to state, existence exists is simply saying 'actual being has actual being' and is saying the same thing twice. It is tautological. Also, if we apply Occam's Razor, that centres around parsimony, we can see that we can slice part of the sentence away and simply speak about 'existence' or 'actual being'.

If we're saying that 'nothing' is a logical impossibility then we can simply say that there must have always been something - there must always have been something (or some things) with 'actual being'.

Exactly! Everything that is! That is exactly my point.

BTW You were the one who insisted that the letter of the law must be followed.

I don't intend to hurt anyone.. but neither will I let an atheist get away with things that no theist would get away with on these boards. The burden is firmly on you to prove your point at the moment. It is also frustrating when you have made a big deal about conforming to the rules of logic and yet you tolerate tautologies - however self evident the statements they are making.

Your response to me is simply to imply that it is I who states that tautologies are a problem, which is quite false.

I'm surprised because I've offered to give an arguement for God .. possibly. I've even given a starting arguement for you to begin arguing with me about. I will gladly shift the burden onto myself.. but while you continue with this arguement it will rest on you.

I am now asking you to demonstrate how, simply because something conforms to logic, it must have an ontological counterpart and said to exist independently of the mind, particularly as logic is entirely to do with the mind?

If you present an arguement for the origins of the universe, even if it is entirely logical (and I don't think it is, I'm trying to be gracious), on what basis should I believe that it corresponds to the actual universe and describes something that has actual existence independently of your mind in the absence of perceptual verification? This is also in knowledge of the fact that your statements are being made in a societical context where all known scientific theories are only provisional - they don't claim to be truth statements - they are partial theories.

Having said this, I'm still not convinced that your arguement does conform to the rules of logic, but I am prepared to entertain the notion for the sake of arguement.

Factual or logical. So something can be said to be real if it is self-evidently factual or entirely logical.. is that right?

So we can be sure that, so long as an arguement conforms to the rules of logic, what it describes must correspond to something real? Is that what you are saying?

Please would you provide evidence that time and existence can 'be' independently of 'something' being?

Firstly, do you have the necessary academic credentials to simply state "Hawking is simply wrong"? Have you been able to independently assess all of the materials with which he is working in order to make such a statement?

I could never be so bold I'm afraid. All I do is read some of his work - read what other experts say about him and then feel in a position (having assessed a number of positions) to say that something about his arguementation may be a problem ... leaving the question open.

What evidence do you have that combinative attributes form substances? If you don't have evidence then how do I know that what you are describing exists independently of your mind?

No it wasn't. Imaginary time is a mathematical tool and one that Hawking uses to eliminate the space/time singularity which predicts that time had a beginning and all the known laws of science break down.

There is something even more concerning about your blatant dismissal of Hawking.

Scientific and mathematical modelling are governed by the rules of logic.

Are you now arguing that your logic somehow transcends all the known logical constructs of science and philosophy put together? Are you suggesting that, through the powers of your faculty of reason, you have discovered something about the universe, through your powers of your reason, that has alluded scientists, philosophers and other geniuses over millenia?

I haven't conceded it is true. I have said it is a tautology and requires the presence of Occam's Razor.

There has always been existence. Existence is an attribute of something. Therefore something must always have existed.

E: 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,

I think this over simplifies the arguement. You're suggesting that 'it's either my arguement or God'.

If your main concern is to disprove the existence of God then I think that the motivation for the discussion is completely wrong. I am primarily concerned with discovering certain truths about our universe, whether God forms a part of that reality or not!

No, because you can give them expression and I can experience them at some level. Also, you experience them and this discussion would be impossible if your thoughts did not exist.

They form a part of our experience of this world - that is what validates them. They are something that can be experienced.

However, we are discussing entities that may or may not exist independently of the mind.

E: Existence is an attribute of any entity or object that we observe and appears to exist independently of the mind.

That's a good question!! As far as we were concerned, it may well in fact.. but I won't go there!!

If our minds went blank I personally don't think that the universe in which we exist would cease to be. However, the universe that exists in your head, the one you are trying to describe might because that might be the only place it exists. In order to demonstrate that it exists independently of your mind you must provide evidence.

If I point out that something is circular and you say 'so what?' then it suggests an ignorance of the rules governing reasoned debate. If you were a logician then circular logic would bother you!

I am not seeking to falsify the statement, I am seeking to simplify it!!

You are asking me to demonstrate something and yet you cannot demonstrate for one second that time and existence can be independently of the universe.

I will reask the question again.. does the fact that something has to exist in your mind as a logical necessity within your paradigm of understanding mean that what you are describing must then have an ontological counterpart and describe the universe as it actually is?

Please answer this question.

What do you mean by 'demonstrated' here? Demonstrated through logical arguement or demonstrated through experiment?

Can you demonstrate that time and existence can be independently of the universe?

If by demonstrate you then fall back on logical arguement I will want to know how I can know that your logical arguement describes the actual universe and doesn't simply exist as an idea in your head!

tronvillain

Whew! When posts get this long, skimming the thread becomes quite the ordeal.

E_muse

Jobar

From the Rubaiyat-
" Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went."

RW, e-muse, you are both trying to screw the inscrutible! We simply can't speak with any meaningfulness about topics as big as existence, because words are dualistic and (AFAIK) existence is nondual. And if you try to argue whether non-existence exists... well, I suppose if it gets you your jollies, go ahead. (In Philosophy, PLEASE!)

And the state of our knowledge right now makes any statement about 'time' or 'existence' BEFORE the Big Bang necessarily indeterminate. We simply can't know. It is quite possible that we can never know.

Rainbow Walking, if your goal is to establish that there is more to reality than the universe of observation- well, actually, I agree. But we simply can say nothing about it!

E_muse

I wouldn't quite agree with this. Existence is simply a reference to that which has actual being or is real in the universe (or outside of it of course).

For one, the purpose of this site is to promote metaphysical naturalism - the view that the natural world is all that there is - a closed self sufficient system in no need of an explanation. The view that all observed phenomena has a perfectly natural explanation. This view would undergird methodological naturalism, the view that we should pursue and favour natural explanations in favour of supernatural ones - even when trying to describe our universe.

Isn't this in itself a comment on the nature of existence? However, if we cannot speak with any meaningfulness with reference to the nature of existence, where does this leave the view of metaphysical naturalism? Does it essentially have no meaning then?

If we cannot speak with any meaningfulness on subjects such as 'existence' in an absolute sense of this statement representing truth, then this would suggest that we cannot speak with any meaningfulness concerning things that we know to exist and inform at least a part of that existence - again, rendering metaphysical naturalism debunked.

I don't think we would want to discuss 'nothing' as there would be 'nothing' to discuss Even if it did exist I think that it would be unecessary to our current conversation.

However, we can discuss the nature of that which we hold to have actual being can't we? The nothing would simply be that which didn't form a part of what we considered to be 'necessary being'.

Unfortunately the topic of God is very philosophical.

I would agree that it is possible that we can never know, but is that the same as saying that knowing is impossible?

I know this is to RW.. but ......

...... by saying that there is more to reality than the observable universe, you have already said something about that 'more' haven't you? For a start you have counted it a part of reality meaning that you have attributed 'it' with actual existence. In your definition this 'something more' forms a part of reality and therefore you have already attributed it with actual being.

Furthermore, you have said that this greater reality lies beyond that which is observable, suggesting that it is unobservable or even invisible!

So you've already suggested that you accept the existence of a greater reality that is invisible.

However, you then go on to say that we can say nothing about it! This is having said that it both has actual existence and is invisible.

Isn't this contradictory?

To summarize:

Your arguement goes like this:

1. There is more to reality than the observable universe. If I may rephrase slightly - there is something more to the observable universe that has actual being - it exists but is unobservable. It is therefore invisible to us.

2. You can say nothing about it.

Aren't 1 and 2 contradictory because 1 is saying 'something' about that greater reality, even if it is only saying that it exists and is invisible. 2 therefore cannot be true in any absolute sense.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

rainbow walking

E: I don't think that metaphysical naturalists would seek to justify the idea that the universe is non-contingent simply from their own philisophical standpoint or on the grounds that it simply exists. They would point to methodological naturalism as a justification - the methodology of science is a justification because of the accurate results it appears to yield.

Rw: It justifies a claim that the universe is non-contingent? Then the cosmological search for the origins of the universe aren’t based on a premise that the existence of the universe is contingent on a prior event or mechanism?

E: To say that the universe is non-contingent is clearly false because there are elements in the universe that are clearly contingent. However, this does not mean that all universal elements are contingent. One idea of an non-contingent element in the universe might be energy. Energy seems to inform everything but does not appear contingent on anything. It is also scientifically defensible because the effects of quantum energy fluctuations can be observed ... even in a vacuum.

Rw: Energy, whether expressed in wave or particle form, requires a source, thus it is contingent.

E: The problem is that energy may have begun at the big bang as the fluctuations I am describing can only be observed to exist [/i]within[/i] this universe.

Rw: A particular atomic structure may have been energized at the inception of this universe but the source of all energy is some form of matter or another.

E: Firstly, because you are taking things that are only known to exist in the universe, how do you know that they can be applied to a pre-universal state or that they could even exist then?

Rw: I’m not saying that I “KNOW” this as a matter of certainty and verifiability. Re-read the above paragraph again and see if it doesn’t refer to a logical possibility. Remember, I began this as a comparison of naturalistic possibilities to god as a possibility. I am making no truth claims but attempting, via induction, to establish a higher degree of logical possibility than a claim that goddunnit. That you admit I have taken from things known to exist to postulate a logical possibility strengthens my argument against god as a logical possibility because god has not been established to exist as a known or a given.

E: What about energy? Couldn't energy have existed in a pre-universal state? The big bang itself would have required energy from somewhere - the effects of energy can be observed in a vaccum in this universe.

Rw: A vacuum is not devoid of particles. Quarks and other sub-atomic artifices are particles and thus material things. To postulate energy as a possible pre-universal agent must necessarily presuppose some form or type of material from which it is derived. Magnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces, thermo-dynamics, kinetics, light, heat and gravity are all attributes of matter.

E: However, once again, we're saying that something that is known to be a part of this universe pre-existed it.

Rw: Well, we’re not saying it as though it were an already established truth nor are we saying it as a presuppositional belief. I am merely trying to establish logical possibility. I have chosen existence and time because they are axiomatic to everything else. Energy is not.

E: The problem with your proposition is that within this universe existence/time are both dependent upon 'things' for meaning - as is energy for energy cannot be perceived unless it is present in something or seen to have an effect on something.

Rw: Yes, within this universe that is true. But I am not trying to establish the same degree of observable, verifiable, falsifiable truth… just logical possibility. It is impossible for either of us to accomplish such a mission in our respective hypothetical postulations. We are left with induction, a tool of logic, to establish as many logical possibilities as we can and then to use parsimony to eliminate all but the most economical. Induction starts with specifics that are known and given to a reasonable degree and attempts to arrive at a general consensus or hypothesis. It cannot begin with a presupposition.

E: But this means nothing if you have no evidence for what you are claiming. If you have no evidence then your claim is not scientific. If it is not scientific, then what is it?

Rw: I’m not making a scientific claim or a statement of fact…just defining the terms in my logical possibility. I began the sentence with “I am postulating”. I shouldn’t need any evidence to establish the logical connection between the concepts of time and existence and their ontological connection to the reality of this universe. They are axiomatic to it.

E: If it is simply based upon logic then are you postulating an argument based upon enlightenment thinking that puts forth the idea of 'the necessary truths of reason'. That our powers of reason, acting independently of perceptual verification, can lead us into truth.

Rw: No, I’m not trying to establish the TRUTH of my postulates, just the logical possibility.

E: You may be able to fully persuade me that there is no reason to believe in God because there is no evidence for such a being .... however, if you have based your own conclusions on 'no evidence' then your own claim must be rejected for similar reasons.

Rw: I’m not trying to influence your beliefs as much as test their veracity by comparing them to other logical possibilities. I can’t, nor will I, say that there is absolutely no possible way that this universe is the product of divine creation. What I can do is examine all the evidence available within this universe and establish some alternative logical possibilities to compare to the claim that goddunnit. If I can establish a logical possibility from things that are known and given and god has not been established as a known or given then I think my logical possibility is superior and justifies my skepticism of the claim that godunnit as the only possible conclusion.

E: If a theistic standpoint seems unacceptable one cannot simply embrace an atheistic idea as 'more acceptable' simply because it is atheistic in nature and is based upon a preferred philisophical standpoint, yet equally unfounded.

Rw: I was once a theist. “God” as a definable concept has become meaningless to me in its definition. It is not a logical term with ontological connections to reality. It is only a presuppositional belief. If I am positing an alternative logical possibility to godunnit I must necessarily do so from an atheistic or agnostic perspective. Time and existence are terms with logical connections to reality. We all do not get together and make believe that we exist in real time. No matter how many terms with ontological connections to reality you borrow to define god they always come up short and the definition of god remains incomprehensible and meaningless. God just can’t be pulled out of the muck and mire of faith into the shining light of reality.

E: Let us say that two ideas are put forward for the origin of the universe. One is put forward according to a Theistic Hypothesis (TH) (incorporating intelligent design) and the other is put forward as an Atheistic Hypothesis (AH) (natural design). If neither AH or TH relate to observation or experience then they must both be rejected.

Rw: If they are being put forward as factual claims this is true. But no factual claim can be established about pre-universal forms or states. So the only alternative is to establish a range of logical possibilities and then compare them for consistency and economy.

E: So if you cannot rule that existence/time are non-contingent (because they appear contingent in this universe) you have just shifted the problem back haven't you?

Because existence and time are elements of this universe (going with your arguement) and the universe is contingent then, applying the process of induction, I think we should say that they are contingent themselves,

Rw: That’s where I began and what I just said above. They are contingent themselves on one another as axioms, and not just axioms but axioms that are axiomatic to all other axioms. Thus self-contingency is not problematic from a pre-universal perspective.

E: especially as we can have no concept of them in the presence of 'nothing' and the scientific method dictates that real time had a beginning at the big bang.

Rw: Because science cannot carry us beyond this universe we must choose our terms carefully. I only use science to verify the logical connection of the terms to this universe. Once this has been established, in my quest for the most consistent and logical possibility, I must argue the terms into a logically conceptual possibility.

Existence/time are terms used to express concepts that are necessary and axiomatic to all other concepts in this universe. Terms are meaningless until defined by their attributes. To increase our conceptual abilities is to increase our knowledge base. This is accomplished by defining the terms from which those concepts are derived. This process enriches the understanding of our position in this universe making our lives more meaningful. Any term whose attributes of definition are contradictory to our broader base of conceptualization, is meaningless and fails to promote enrichment of understanding.

Conceptualization, to be logical, must be based on ontological connectives. Logic is a system of ordering our thought processes to render them consistent to those ontological connectives. If we allow that we have the capacity to order our thought processes then we must consider that we also have the option to abandon that ordering at will, making it possible to accept certain terms as meaningful without considering their consistency to reality. We can invoke imaginary definitions to fill in the missing blanks inherent in illogical terms. We can create the appearance of conceptualization from contradictory attributes when we refuse to consider the contradictions. Once a term becomes meaningless it loses its ability to enrich our understanding. God is just such a term.

E: We now have a universe that sprang out of existence/time but these elements from which it sprang can reasonably be considered contingent. So what caused them?

Rw: If you’ll remember, as part of my postulate, I argued them to be infinitely regressive…causeless. All other terms and concepts in this universe are contingent on existence/time as axiomatic to them. As self-contingent necessary axioms, from which all other axioms, terms and concepts are derived, they remain constant and causeless. At the inception of this universe they become the necessary primary attributes of it. At the same time they become contingent and therefore not eternal.

E: Remember, they are only likely, possible and not-inevitable. This suggests that they could have had a beginning.

Rw: This is only applicable in their post universal state as attributes. Projecting them back into an infinitely regressive pre-universal state requires only self-contingency. In reality they only change states at the inception of this universe.

E: If they did have a beginning then what caused them must have existed outside of existence (a logical impossibility) and time because it caused both of them.

Rw: I’m glad you see the logical impossibility of their having a beginning. This additional “IT” isn’t necessary unless you are fishing for infinitely regressive “ITS”. Existence/time will remain the primary attributes of this universe as long as this universe remains as a factual and valid concept. Even if this universe ceases to be, there’s no assurance that existence/time will be affected outside of another change in states.

E: Again, what evidence do you have for this proposition - knowing that one cannot assume that the laws that regulate this universe regulated any pre-universal state?

Rw: Evidence is an invalid integer of any pre-universal state. Evidence is only viable in establishing the logical connection of the terms of this universe before extending them back to a pre-universal state. Evidence and science and logic facilitate selection of the proper terms. Induction allows us to propose them as logically possible states prior to this universe. This universe, as a self-regulating mechanism in a constant state of flux, doesn’t require intelligent design. Flux negates design. Existence/time is the only constancy in a state of flux. Existence/time are the best terms available that have any logical connection to reality.

E: Our perceptions dictate that, logically speaking, there can be no change or transition without time. But change or transition in what?

Rw: Existence

E: We have our sense of time because of changes that go on around us - the sun apparently going around our planet for one. In the absence of anything, would time exist?

Rw: Existence/time are something as opposed to nothing. They are axiomatic to everything and anything including themselves. Because we perceive, and hence, conceptualize them as attributes to anything and everything only accentuates our limited ability to conceptualize other possibilities being attributed to our perception of them. Our inability to conceptualize a particular state of being doesn’t necessarily render such a state of being impossible. At least existence/time has ontological connectives to reality, which is more than can be said for a god. The appearance of the sun going down or coming up is a good case in point. Our perceptual abilities can lead us to erroneous conclusions that can be sustained for centuries by conceptual agreement. Because a pre-universal state is not observable, perceptual dictates are not applicable. All we can do is postulate possibilities. I am postulating that the two attributes, axiomatic to all other aspects of this universe, could have existed independent of anything other than themselves in a pre-universal state. I do not know how but the “how” (though it would be helpful) is not necessary in a comparison to godunnit, to establish my postulates as logically possible and superior to the godunnit possibility, which has not been established as logically consistent to this universe by evidence, science or argument. I would add that the godunnit’s can not explain how godunnit in their postulates either. So we stand on equal footing on this one point.


E: Are you saying that because something exists out of logical necessity in the mind then it must therefore have an ontological counterpart? You seem to be saying, "Because my arguement is logical what I am describing must therefore exist".

Rw: Or I am saying that as a logical possibility it is superior to godunnit. If it is logically necessary any inductive reasoning derived from it is certainly logically possible…yes?

E: As I've said earlier, this seems based upon enlightenment thinking. Why can't I take your conclusions as being an indication of the limitations of the human mind in its attempts to describe reality?

Rw: The only conclusion I have drawn thusfar is that my argument is more logically possible than godunnit.

E: How can we dictate that things that seem logically plausible must have an ontological counterpart when scientific theory is constantly in need of modification - our understanding constantly needs shifting.

Rw: I’m only arguing logical possibility…not actuality. I’m only comparing the logics…not testing a scientific theory or submitting one for peer review.

E: Can't you see why our conclusions must be validated by experience in some way?

Rw: The only conclusions I’ve drawn are those relative to a comparison between my postulates and godunnit as logical possibilities. My postulates are derived from experiential attributes of this universe: existence/time. These experiences are universal truths and self evident, hence axiomatic to all other experiences.

E: Otherwise we're saying that the physical universe must exist in a certain way because it must conform to a particular philisophical paradigm that we have constructed. We make the physical universe subservient to the mind.

Rw: All I’ve said ontologically is that time and existence are axiomatic to all other aspects of this universe. The epistemology is derived from this ontology and not vice versa. I didn’t just arbitrarily decide to select metaphysical naturalism as the most logically consistent derivative of the methodology that supports it…nature did the selecting for me. If godunnit he sure didn’t invest in any advertisement to that effect. But that is the problem for the theist to resolve. It is disingenuous to accuse scientists of arbitrarily excluding theism. Nature itself has excluded it and scientists are only being true to their professions in not attaching any un-necessary significance to claims that nature does not support. Any philosophical paradigm that is not constructed around the way we recognize the universe to ACTUALLY exist cannot use proper philosophical paradigms to substantiate its impropriety. If god exists and the mechanism of this universe is a derivative of that claim there must be some evidence to that effect inherent in the mechanism. Where’s the beef?

E: Evidence? Otherwise, are you expecting me to accept that what you are stating must describe the physical universe because the idea exists out of logical necessity in your mind?

Rw: All I expect is that you accept the idea as logically possible. You are free to submit any other logical possibilities you wish or to demonstrate the illogic of the induction. I can facilitate your objection to the tautology by rewording the postulate. “Existence/time is axiomatic to all other concepts, including itself, in this universe.” I just found it simpler to say “existence exists”.

E: Logical necessity then implies that your statement is a 'necessary truth of reason'. Are you therefore suggesting that something must exist ontologically because it has to exist in the mind?

Rw: If something is logically necessary, then its use in any hypothetical claim certainly lends credence to the claim as a logical possibility. The theist claims god is a logical necessity but they have not established the logic or the necessity. Their claim is not logical but presuppositional and anti-thetical to induction. They begin with an unsupported assumptive hypothesis and then proceed to establish its veracity with the specifics. I began with specifics to arrive at a logical possibility. The theist’s argument does not incorporate logic but seeks to short circuit it. Knowing they cannot have a non-contingent god who actually exists they side step the obvious by declaring that he does not actually exist but is BEING itself. To accomplish this travesty of logic they redefine BEING so as to make it appear as if it is something independent of existence. But existence is axiomatic to any truth claim. Knowing their god cannot be contingent on time as an axiom they eradicate the problem by declaring him to be eternal…an incomprehensible defining attribute. This is not logic, it’s wishful thinking. Are you suggesting therefore that something that does not exist ontologically can account for the existence of the mind or reason?

E: Does your model describe the actual universe or only reflect the limitations of our faculty of reason that is a product of THIS universe and limited by the physical relationships that exist within it?

Rw: It is based on axioms that would apply even if we never existed as sentient beings. If we are products of this universe then it certainly exists and if there are relationships between things in this universe then time certainly exists also.

E: How do you know if something exists non-materially or non-physcially?

Rw: It isn’t necessary that I “know” this as a justified true belief to postulate it as a logical possibility. Because the terms are known the possibility is greater than “godunnit”. Unless you wish to deny that time and existence are axiomatic to material, physical things.


E: Evidence? Without evidence there is no need to prefer your hypothesis over God is there? It could only exist in your mind and not describe the actual universe at all.

Rw: The above is not a description of the actual universe but a logically possible description of a pre-universal state. Again induction is our engine, not science. Where is your evidence for the existence of god in the actual universe?

E: I wouldn't say that because I wouldn't say that existence exists by itself .... it is always an attribute of something. I am saying this because, in this universe, it is the only way we can understand it.
God would be the necessary 'something' that had the attribute of existence.

Rw: And you would define this necessary something god…how? Of course, if god has this attribute then he cannot be non-contingent. All existent things or beings are contingent. All existent things are contingent upon their attributes to define them as a particular thing. The moment you name a thing and declare it existent it becomes contingent. Which of this gods attributes makes him necessary?

E: I haven't begun arguing for God yet.. but I don't think a theist would say this. Something having actual being is necessary for other things to have actual being ... that is what I am saying. From nothing, nothing comes.

Rw: Both time and existence are something, so any claim to the contrary is false. That they must have actual being to account for actual beings has not been established beyond your say so. It is a fact that they must actually be in order that any other actuality can be meaningfully said to actually be. They are foundational axioms to everything…including a claim that god is something. They are verified actual concepts with actual logical connections to this universe. Does god share this distinction? Has a god actually been verified as a legitimate something in this universe? I would say that the “something” from which all things are derived must be something that was carried over during the transition to become just as axiomatic in this universe as it was prior to it. When a child is born his parents don’t normally cease to exist or vanish without a trace.

E: There has to be something. That something would by the fact of its existence have existence as the necessary attribute, making all other existence possible. However, we must seek to define the thing having actual being. You have simply added time, but neither time or existence have any meaning in the absence of 'something' because of our experiences in this universe.

Rw: There is no reason to automatically assume that cause and effect will manifest in such a state the same way they do now. In this universe “cause” precedes “effect” and is traceable to physical entities. In a pre-universal state this need not be. This universe is a conglomeration of physical things yet this conglomeration of things is also an effect of something that transpired previous to it. Something happened to create the effect of this universe. Just because existence/time are inconceivable as a cause because they are not a substance does not automatically render them illogical. Just because we perceive the sun as coming up and going down does not automatically mean the sun circles the earth. Because we perceive cause as substance and CENTRAL to effect doesn’t make it so. Our perception is grounded in the fact that we are also substance. It is conceivably possible that essence is the primary cause of all substance and central to it with existence/time as the primary essence in this universe.

I knew that you would raise an objection to my claim that the “essence” of this universe could have been the “substance” from which it was derived. Time and existence, in this universe, are attributes. Attributes are necessary in defining any single thing as meaningful. Attributes must be known and comprehensible to be used in any logical and meaningful definition of any single thing. Time and existence are axiomatic to all other attributes, including themselves, and are both known and easily understood. Attributes are the essence of a substance or thing. Your insistence that the “something” must be a material thing is to take matter, or some derivative of it, into pre-universal existence and make it the CENTRAL thing because this is so in this universe. You also act as if time and existence themselves must automatically be excluded from that list of “somethings” to be considered as logical possibilities, as though time and existence do not themselves exist. Time and existence are something (in this universe axiomatic attributes of everything) so why does this negate their logical possibility as THE something from which this universe was derived? You zero in on the “thing” in something as though it must necessarily be a material object yet I notice you don’t apply this to god when you are implicating him as that something. Is god a thing? How is god, as something, different from time and existence as something? What is it about god that makes him necessary?

E: Of course, as I've argued already, simply because something exists in the mind out of logical necessity, doesn't mean that it has any ontological counterpart - which is where experience comes in.

Rw: Then you wish to raise an objection that we have never experienced time and existence? Everyone appears to “experience” these axioms consistently every day of their lives. Of course, many claim to have “experienced” god but none can attach their experience to anything significant outside of their self/mind/emotions.

E: Which is all a comment on our logical capabilities and not the actual universe - the thing that we're actually trying to understand.

Rw: Logic was derived from the consistency of this universe. We are capable of formulating logical possibilities, are we not?

E: Is time always necessary to something existing or is it that we can't conceptualize a reality without time?

Rw: Can anything be real or exist without the time to do so?

E: You are applying the rules of logic that are a part of this universe to something that may have existed outside of this universe - something that cannot be perceptually verified.


Rw: That is precisely why I have appealed to induction as my modeling clay.

E: I am saying that existence exists simply says "actual being has actual being" and there is no point in saying the same thing twice - which is all a tautology is. Allow me to elaborate this again:

Rw: The “point” was to establish existence as axiomatic to everything including itself.

E: Firstly, saying existence exists is making an empty statement.

Rw: Unless it is further expounded upon to remove the vacuousness.

E: It is saying 'actual being has actual being'. We know that from first hand experience relating to anything that is self evident - anything that forms a part of our experience.

If 'nothing' is impossible then 'something' must have always existed or had actual being. It would be necessary for there to always be something that was 'real'. That something would have to be 'real' in the sense that other things that are said to be 'real' are real.

Rw: Time and existence meet these qualifications superbly. They are something and they are real.

E: All things that are said to exist in this universe have attributes other than raw existence.

Rw: Yet existence, and the time to do so, are axiomatic to all other attributes and things to which they are attributed. This counts for more than you wish to allow.

E: The fact that existent things are always detectable in some way means that existence itself has no meaning without other attributes that support the existence.

Rw: What renders them detectable? Definable? Is it not their attributes? And is not existence/time the primary attribute necessary to their detectability?

E: You've applied logic to certain aspects of THIS universe and applied it to the pre-universe state. But where does one draw the line?

Rw: In the “sand of time”.

E: Things have 'actual being' in this universe .. including the universe itself. The same cannot be assumed of anything prior to the universe can it?

Rw: Isn’t that the basis of my argument?

E: And any statement that says .... "This is logically necessary" is only saying that the model being presented is the only one possible in the context of the human mind at the moment and may not be referring to the actual universe at all.

Rw: I have presented no model as logically necessary. I have established the logical necessity of the terms. The model has been submitted as a logical possibility.

E: Again, you are suggesting 'the truth of logic' here.
But does the fact that something is a logical necessity mean that it must therefore correspond to anything that 'actually exists'. Logically necessary simply means "This is the only way we can think about it" and nothing more. You may not be describing the actual universe at all.

Rw: You mean time and existence may not accurately reflect the reality of this universe? Is there another way to think of this universe without invoking the primary attributes of existence/time?

E: No. Because it doesn't seem to correspond to anything in human experience.

Rw: Do you know someone who’s actually experienced a pre-universal state?

E: And, bringing in Occam's Razor, there is no point in widening a concept, if we don't know that the results of the concept widening correspond to any ontological couterpart.

Rw: The Razor has no jurisdiction over defining terms, only when introducing new ones…like god. This is not a widening of the terms but a reduction of them to their lowest common denominator.

E: Evidence?

Rw: None required. It stands as part of a logical possibility, not a factual claim.

E: They are attributes of 'things' in this universe.

Rw: They are axiomatic to every single thing in this universe and must be appealed to for any single thing to be defined as a meaningful concept.

E: It is true and self evident of anything in THIS universe. It is not true and self evident of anything outside of the universe is it.

Rw: It doesn’t apply to anything outside this universe. It goes towards establishing the validity of the terms.

E: You seem to be equivocating that which is self-evident through experience and that which must exist in the mind by logical necessity.

Rw: You have just defined an axiom. There is no equivocation. Existence is self evident experientially and therefore must be a logical necessity.

E: How are you going to demonstrate that, because something is logcially necessary, it must therefore correspond to some ontological counterpart?

Rw: Is it really necessary to demonstrate the validity of these terms? Are they not self evident and universally true?

E: If our minds went blank I personally don't think that the universe in which we exist would cease to be. However, the universe that exists in your head, the one you are trying to describe might because that might be the only place it exists. In order to demonstrate that it exists independently of your mind you must provide evidence.

Rw: You must be referring to the pre-universal state I am postulating as a logical possibility.


E: I am not seeking to falsify the statement, I am seeking to simplify it!!

You are asking me to demonstrate something and yet you cannot demonstrate for one second that time and existence can be independently of the universe.

Rw: You have already conceded that for this universe to have had a beginning time must have preceded it. And if time was before this universe it had to EXIST. Therefore I have successfully demonstrated that, logically, existence/time must have been independent of this universe to have preceded it. It is a logical possibility, not a demonstrable newly discovered fact of this universe.

E: What do you mean by 'demonstrated' here? Demonstrated through logical argument or demonstrated through experiment?

Rw: In reference to mathematics you incur both logic and science. Just because you begin to record time at a specific point doesn’t mean that time began to exist at that point. You might claim that it began to exist for you as a meaningful concept at that point but, again, not that the point meaningful to you has any power to begin time. You can trace the age of entities back to a point where any further recording becomes impossible but, again, does this mean that time had an actual beginning at this point or just a meaningful beginning to the recorder?

E: Can you demonstrate that time and existence can be independently of the universe?

Rw: I already have demonstrated the logical possibility. When you claim god as eternal you are making a claim based on time. You are, in effect, stating that god is an entity whose age is endless forwards and backwards.

E: If by demonstrate you then fall back on logical argument I will want to know how I can know that your logical argument describes the actual universe and doesn't simply exist as an idea in your head!

Rw: Again you imply that time and existence are not meaningful concepts that actually apply to this universe and exist as relevant terms. Are you saying that time and existence are just ideas that exist in my head and my head only? Is this the brain-in-a-jar argument? Or are you objecting to my use of the term “demonstrate”?

I demonstrate the validity of the terms. I then induce a logical possibility derived from them. I further compare this to the godunnit premise. That is all.

If you are planning to submit an argument for the possibility of godunnit I hope you begin by defining the terms as I have. I also hope you begin by defining the term "god". This term is almost always defined by listing his attributes. The problem I am having, and the reason I am no longer a theist, is that these attributes always fall victim to inconsistency and incompatability with reality, when critically reviewed. A term that has no meaning cannot relate to a concept that is meaningful and so, leavess us no more the richer for its introduction. God, for me, has become a meaningless term impossible to conceptualize, thus incomprehensible.

Thanx for your continued participation and interest in this topic E_muse.

E_muse

Our current universe would simply be an evolved state of the universe in an earlier form. That earlier form could simply have been elementary particles popping in and out of existence within a quantum vacuum.

Energy always travels through 'something' and is always transferred from one body to another.

In this universe.. yes.

As I have explained already, a logical possibility is simply something that exists in the mind, until verified in some way .. and you have already said that this is impossible concerning the matter under discussion.

However, presumably you would also say that God is something that only exists in the mind .. and that seemed entirely logical to people at some point .. and still does!

Therefore your arguement has the potential of existing on the same level as your view of God, meaning that it has no ontological counterpart.

Is it that our way of thinking forces us to consider these unknowns that we are discussing and because of such are forced to adopt fantasies to fill in the gaps in our understanding and that we are simply discussing what would be a preferable fantasy?

If none of it relates to truth then I would suggest, "Whatever makes people happy. Leave them to it."

No, I don't think you've strengthened your case because you've taken things that are known to exist in this universe and applied them to a time when the universe didn't exist.

Could it be that reference to anything that could exist outside the universe is by its very nature a reference to a fantasy?

Then I think we're agreed. But then it must be noted that time and existence are also attributes of matter too.

Nothing can happen without energy can it?

And because a logical possibility only exists in the mind we are only discussing a preferred fantasy.

It works up from an axiom - a self-evident truth.

Is it self-evident that we can know nothing of the pre-universe - if there was a pre-universe that is?

And I am relabelling your logical possibility as 'fantasy'. I am using fantasy in the sense of the definition - "An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream, usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need."

Again, this seems to be more, "Which imagined state of being do we prefer?"

If something exists in the mind, does it matter whether or not it is logical?

I appreciate your humility in this regard.

But as a logical possibility it may only exist in the mind and as such could be nothing more than a preferred fantasy .. simply a more logical one.

Time and existence may have no ontological connection to a pre-universal state!

No, but 'reality' is concerned with truth, you've already said that your arguements regarding a universal cause don't represent truth and as such don't necessarily represent reality.

And neither can your belief that time and existence pre-existed the universe. You seem to suggest that faith is a dirty thing.. I'm not sure I feel comfortable with that.

Bingo!! Here you've said it. The emphasis is mine. If nothing we are discussing is factual or true we are simply discussing preferred fantasies.

Why? If it only exists in our head, and we know this to be the case, why can't we be free to abandon logic and believe what we want? If it only exists in our heads as some artefact of how we are forced to think given our experiences then why should we care anything for it?

Perhaps the TRUTHFULNESS of what we're saying really does matter after all?

O.K, let me consider this axiom.

You began by simply saying that existence exists with time being added into the arguement later.

I pointed out that existence exists is a tautology and a logical fallacy. It is true by definition. This is where it differs from an axiom in one fundamental way.. an axiom is something that is self-evidently true.

All existence exists says is, 'all that has actual being has actual being'. It is an example of needless repetiton - according to the dictionary definition. If there is needless repetition we can apply Occam's Razor to remove the repetition, but then all we are left with is a statement like, "Existence is", or "All that has actual being is".

Is what? As with all tautologies it is totally vaccuous. I have pointed this out to Philosoft on another thread. There he is using it as the founding axiom of his metaphysical naturalism.

And my point here is the same.. it can be used to support any belief because it is a tautology and vaccous. Any belief system could incorporate the statement into their belief without contradiction. Let me give an example:

A theist would agree that, all that exists exists and could use it as a founding axiom. They would simply insert 'God' into initial defining term of existence.

Someone who believed that they were the only person to exist, and that the perceived world was merely a construct of their own psyche could adopt it. They would simply say that 'existence' was simply themselves and what exists in their mind.

The fact that the term could support any belief is not an indication of its self-evident truthfulness, but its tautological vaccuousness, meaning that people can insert into it whatever they want. It simply says "all that exists is". It says nothing! It doesn't say on what basis we can consider something to exist. Can something be considered to exist because it is a logical necessity? Can we consider something to exist because it is perceptually verifiable? The starting statement answers none of these questions. It says nothing and therefore people are free to add anything into it that they want. You've simply chosen to insert 'time' there.

Exactly, in this universe! But we are discussing something that is outside the known universe.

Exactly. And you've already said that we cannot do this concerning any pre-universal states.

Which we can't do concerning the pre-universe.

God isn't a meaningless concept in my life because I can associate the term with specific events that I think it logical to consider wouldn't have otherwise occured had the term 'God' not been in use.

Basically, our chosen axioms are not so much logical necessities IMO, but informed by our experiences because we refer to them as self-evident truths. What is self-evident can differ from person to person.

But all of this only exists in your head and as such I feel that it causes me to lose interest in it. I'm not saying I want to stop discussin this, I don't. I'm just expressing a feeling that I sense rising as the realization dawns as to the true nature of your arguement. In much the same way that I would lose interest in God should I discover that he is just something in my head.

But because you've conceded that none of your claims are factual, only subjective logical necesities, I realise that I can only ever understand more about how you think. I can't learn anything about the actual universe.

Can't you see the contradiction here. How can you take anything that is this universe and say that it must logically exist pre-universe. There is no logical necessity that it should do.

But you've divorced your statements concerning the pre-universe from 'reality' by saying that they are not factual claims or truth claims concerning the actual universe, only logical necessities and I don't think you can equivocate 'logical necessity' with 'real'.

However, you've yet to demonstrate why I should consider it logically necessary to believe anything must exist prior to the universe that is only known to exist as part of it.

Well, firstly you're saying that God is not a logical possibility because you seem to be saying above that the logical possibility of what you are postulating makes it superior to the notion of God.

However, you have yet to demonstrate how something that is only known to exist as part of this universe (existence/time) must logically exist before it and how inductive prosessing can go beyond that which is known to exist.

Logical possibilites are only known to exist in the mind unless they can be verified in some other way, and we can't do that regarding the matter under discussion .. so no, I don't think it is superior.

If you agree that God only exists in the mind, and we can agree that logical possibilities only exist in the mind, then we can see that they exist on an equal footing.

You haven't convinced me. What logical basis do I have to assume that things that are only known to exist as part of the universe, must have existed before it?

Again.. not arguing actuality. And because your 'logical possibility' can never be verified it remains a preferable fantasy to 'God'.

So, unless something is true for everyone (universal), it cannot be considered true? Is that what you are saying?

Again, this universe. Meaning that they do not have to logically apply to pre-universe.

A logical possibility only exists in the mind, and as your ideas can never be verified, they can only be considered to exist in this way.

However, I don't seem them as 'logically possible' because you're taking things that are only known to exist as part of this unviverse and saying that they must therefore logically exist in the pre-universe.

I have no rational grounds for believing that anything that is only known to exist as part of this universe must logically exist before it, no.

Existence/time is axiomatic to all other concepts in this universe. However it doesn't follow that they are axiomatic to the pre-universe.

With all due respect RW, I have started to present ideas in this thread and you haven't picked up on any of them. This has all centred around your arguements.

No.

In this universe, yes. But that says nothing of the pre-universe.

I don't deny this at all. But you're trying to say that they are axiomatic when there are no material, physical things, yet they are not known to exist independently of them.

Your comment here highlights that logical possibilities only exist in the mind as you seperate them from the 'actual' universe. Something can exist as a logical possibility and have an ontological counterpart but not without verification.

Please would you pick up on the posts I have already made above so that I don't have to repeat myself.

They are something in this universe RW. This says nothing about any pre-universe state because they are not known to exist independently of it.

And that time/existence must be in the pre-universe has not been established beyond your say so. Can you see why this is going nowhere.

Would you please pick up on one of the posts that I have already given as my arguementation for the existence of God. Because you insist that belief in God is presuppositional you seem to ignore my arguements because they don't yet include God.

Once upon a time I didn't believe in God, so my belief in him now could hardly be presuppositional could it? I can't say why I believe in God without describing the journey I took to get there.

No, I'm most certainly not saying that. You've misunderstood my arguements.

There you go again.... this universe.

Perhaps not. Then perhaps before the universe there was nothing .... as far as we can know.

If all the known laws of science break down at the big bang, why shouldn't all the known laws of logic? Actually the two go together.

In this universe.

Again... this is true... in this universe.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

Which what I have done with existence exists.

Agreed. They are axiomatic 'terms'. What gives something 'existence' differs from thing to thing.

And the terms only apply to things which we have derived from an experience of this universe.

What attributes make existence a reality? We can describe a chair, a table.. and so on.

Of this universe, yes.

But can time exist without there being something that can change?

A pleasure

rainbow walking

E: Our current universe would simply be an evolved state of the universe in an earlier form. That earlier form could simply have been elementary particles popping in and out of existence within a quantum vacuum.

Rw: Which then begs the question of the origin of the quantum vacuum, so we’re back to infinitely regressive causes. Due to our presence within this universe we become inextricably contingent to its substance. Our thoughts are guided by that contingency. In order to get beneath or prior to this universe we either extend the substance of it backwards beyond our current workable theorems about substances or we invent a non-contingent to the substance. Both are inherently problematic. The resolution of the problems have culminated in conflicting ideologies: theism or meta-physical naturalism.

E: Energy always travels through 'something' and is always transferred from one body to another.


Rw: And requires a substance of transference. This doesn’t account for the source, only the general relativity of the substance to its essence.

E: As I have explained already, a logical possibility is simply something that exists in the mind, until verified in some way .. and you have already said that this is impossible concerning the matter under discussion.

Rw: Let us not diminish the value of logic. The mind exists. Logic is a system of ordering its thought processes to be consistent to what is real and exists. Concepts derived from terms with ontological value are not diminished simply because they are only conceptual. Ontological connection lends them credence in their relativity to meta-physics. Their ontological value has been determined by methodology rather than theology. Thus logical possibility is more consistent to reality than presupposition. And this universe is a reality as are our minds and methods of connecting the two in a meaningful way.

E: However, presumably you would also say that God is something that only exists in the mind .. and that seemed entirely logical to people at some point .. and still does!

Rw: No I couldn’t say this. God is meaningless to me as a concept because the terms used to define the concept are not internally consistent or ontologically connected to reality. In order to render the concept meaningful one must appeal to imagination rather than logic. This, in itself, is not a bad thing if it produces a meaningful relationship between the mind and reality but it has no epistemological value. It cannot increase our knowledge of reality. The nature of the mind is such that it can reformat the context of its experiences any way it chooses but this is not logic. Logic is a format designed to maximize methodology and minimize imagination. Methodology is the only tried and proven way to increase our knowledge of reality and has created its own explanatory value. Imagination can be a useful tool of our sanity when our minds are over-taxed with inexplicable experiences. But when our methodology surpasses the inexplicability of our experiences sanity is no longer threatened and our minds are free to contemplate our methodologies. Because our reality is predicated on conflict and change it produces many inexplicable experiences that threaten our mental health.

E: Therefore your arguement has the potential of existing on the same level as your view of God, meaning that it has no ontological counterpart.

Rw: No, I have used terms that have ontological value thus it is logically possible. It was constructed from valid terms and is consistent to methodology up to the same point as all other theorems have reached. Beyond that point I have only induction, a tool of logic, as my anchor.

E: Is it that our way of thinking forces us to consider these unknowns that we are discussing and because of such are forced to adopt fantasies to fill in the gaps in our understanding and that we are simply discussing what would be a preferable fantasy?

Rw: Logical possibilities can be nothing more than fantasy, yes. If you were wealthy and were approached by two men, each asking you to invest your fortune in their ideas, and the idea of one was to fund an experiment to test a logically possible hypothesis about the origins of the universe, and the idea of the other was to fund the construction of a new church, which would have the greater likelihood of expanding your knowledge base?

E: If none of it relates to truth then I would suggest, "Whatever makes people happy. Leave them to it."

Rw: This all depends on how you define truth. Logical possibility is more relative to truth than presupposition. People are happiest when they understand their experiences. Understanding is a product of knowledge. Genuine knowledge is not a matter of personal preference. It has consistent explanatory power in relation to our experiences. Experience has taught us that methodology increases explanatory power consistent to our reality. Presupposition has explanatory power also but it is not consistent to reality. It sustains its balance of power by pre-empting the explanations secured by methodology. In this way it appears to be credible, but left to its own devices it would soon fade. If you took everyone who presupposed the existence of a god and relied on this presupposition to explain their experiences and placed them on another planet, leaving only those who aspired to methodology to explain their experiences, which group would ultimately realize any progress as a species?

E: No, I don't think you've strengthened your case because you've taken things that are known to exist in this universe and applied them to a time when the universe didn't exist.

Rw: You miss the point. This universe is the only one known to exist. The terms I’ve used are consistent to this universe and axiomatic to it. The term “god” does not share this distinction.

E: Could it be that reference to anything that could exist outside the universe is by its very nature a reference to a fantasy?

Rw: You are equivocating a spatial reference with a time reference. The two are not synonymous. PRIOR TO this universe there would be no universe to be outside of. Your question speaks to the fact that what we actually know about our universe is very limited. To push the envelope of our knowledge beyond its current level requires hypothesizing which is equivalent to mentally feeling our way forward. Methodology is then employed to establish our progress as legitimate or erroneous. Hypothesizing is often accomplished by selecting the most logical possibilities from a myriad of speculations. To summarily classify logical possibility as nothing more than fantasy is to gainsay the ability to mentally push the envelope.

E: Then I think we're agreed. But then it must be noted that time and existence are also attributes of matter too.

Rw: Is time directly attributable to matter, or more a factor of sentience? Isn’t it conceptualized relative to our position in the universe? Considering all the increments of time we’ve established thusfar; millennium, century, decade, year, month, week, day, hour, minute, second, nanosecond, aren’’t all of these increments related back to one thing: our initial observation of the sunrise and sunset? In other words, the movement of the earth as it rotates on its axis and circles the sun? What happens if we wake up tomorrow on Pluto? Pluto revolves faster on its axis and takes hundreds of times longer to make one trip around the sun. To be consistent to our new position on Pluto we would be forced to devise a new system of time increments consistent to the revolution of Pluto on its axis and its journey around the sun. From our new position, if it took Pluto 200 earth years to make one journey around the sun we could no longer say the universe is 14 billion years old. From our new position it would only appear to be 70 million Pluto years old. We could say the universe has existed long enough for the third planet from our sun to have made 14 billion revolutions around the sun, (which it hasn’t), but would that be meaningful to us if we lived on Pluto? I can say the universe has existed long enough for Pluto to make 70 million revolutions around the sun but is that conveying any useful information to earthlings? What would happen if we devised a reference of time from a planet that circled its star every 24 hours? The universe would appear to be 5 trillion 110 billion years old. Time is relative to our conceptualization of our position in the universe. Due to the consistency of the earth’s movements we are able to establish the relationship. If you are thinking about the consistency in the decay of Cesium or carbon dating, remember these are also measured using time relative to our position on earth. The only thing we are recording is the consistency of decay using increments of time relevant only to our position on earth. These measurements would be meaningless to a Plutonian. Time is contingent on matter in consistent motion and is relative only to our sentient ability to conceptualize the consistency of movement. To the millions of stars and planets in our universe time is immaterial. The only material factor is consistency of motion. This doesn’t mean that the time increments we’ve devised aren’t valid in our relationship to the universe. They are and will remain so as long as we remain on earth. If we change positions in the universe and plan on staying we’ll have to devise a new system of time based on our new position. And when you consider that the earth, in relation to the universe, has not actually made 14 billion revolutions around the sun since the inception of the universe because our solar system hasn’t been around that long itself, time, as we know it, begins to take on a peculiar quality.

E: Nothing can happen without energy can it?

Rw: Good point. Existence/time would have to have the energy to exist. I shall have to revise my initial argument to account for this. But first I am going to do more research on energy.

E: And because a logical possibility only exists in the mind we are only discussing a preferred fantasy.

Rw: Because the terms used in the argument are axiomatic to reality it doesn’t only exist in my mind. Speculation would be a more appropriate term than fantasy.

E: Is it self-evident that we can know nothing of the pre-universe - if there was a pre-universe that is?

Rw: Of course not, unless you mean by “know” to actually experience it. Just because our present base of knowledge doesn’t allow us to penetrate the barrier doesn’t make it anywhere close to self evident that we never will.

E: And I am relabelling your logical possibility as 'fantasy'. I am using fantasy in the sense of the definition - "An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream, usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need."

Rw: Ha…that’s humorous. Sorry E_muse, I reject your label. But it is funny.



E: Time and existence may have no ontological connection to a pre-universal state!

Rw: But are axiomatic in this one and this universe is where we must begin our search.

E: No, but 'reality' is concerned with truth, you've already said that your arguements regarding a universal cause don't represent truth and as such don't necessarily represent reality.

Rw: And all truths are not self evident. Some must be sought out…don’t you think? And if one is seeking shouldn’t they look in the most obvious places first?

E: Bingo!! Here you've said it. The emphasis is mine. If nothing we are discussing is factual or true we are simply discussing preferred fantasies.

Rw: If that were the case science would have no basis in hypothesis and theory. Methodology doesn’t proceed before hypothesis but is the means of testing it. Hypothesis is developed from a range of possibilities, the more logical the better. A preferred fantasy suggests something with no purpose, logic or reason except as entertainment. Facts and truth find them who are seeking. There is no seeking allowed or necessary in a presupposition. But I was errant in my statement above. What I should have said is that no factual claim has YET been established. There is no way I can be sure that one CAN or CAN’T be.

E: Why? If it only exists in our head, and we know this to be the case, why can't we be free to abandon logic and believe what we want? If it only exists in our heads as some artefact of how we are forced to think given our experiences then why should we care anything for it?
Perhaps the TRUTHFULNESS of what we're saying really does matter after all?

Rw: And truth is seldom self evident. Sometimes it is stumbled upon but most of the time it comes by way of painstaking research. But it always begins in the mind as an idea or possibility. To call this fantasy is ludicrous. If no means or method of testing is currently available then logic remains the only valid tool to establish the validity of the possibility.


E: O.K, let me consider this axiom.
You began by simply saying that existence exists with time being added into the arguement later.

Rw: I don’t know why you’re re-arguing this point. I changed the wording in my last post to “Existence is axiomatic to all other axioms including its own.” I personally think existence exists is just as meaningful because all I’m trying to establish in this is the ontological value of the term. But rather than continue to beat a dead horse I decided to change the wording to eliminate the appearance of a fallacy.

E: Exactly, in this universe! But we are discussing something that is outside the known universe.

Rw: No, the above statement is directed at establishing the validity of the terms. It says nothing towards their application to a pre-universal state. That comes later.

E: Exactly. And you've already said that we cannot do this concerning any pre-universal states.

Rw: No, I said that we must use induction to make the logical connection. The ontological connection to this universe is contained in the axioms. The inductive tool of logic allows us to form a hypothetical possibility about the pre-universal state using axioms with ontological connections to this universe. The logic is contained in the connection, not the hypothesis itself because, as I said earlier, logic may not apply in a pre-universal state.

E: Which we can't do concerning the pre-universe.

Rw: We can use logic to bring us to the gate and induction to form hypothetical possibilities about what’s on the other side. Or we can presuppose it to be something without any concern for logic or consistency.

E: God isn't a meaningless concept in my life because I can associate the term with specific events that I think it logical to consider wouldn't have otherwise occured had the term 'God' not been in use.

Rw: Then you define “god” as a specific event in your life?

E: Basically, our chosen axioms are not so much logical necessities IMO, but informed by our experiences because we refer to them as self-evident truths. What is self-evident can differ from person to person.

Rw: For a concept to qualify as an axiom it must be UNIVERSALLY self evident, not contingent on the whims of the individual. Anything or concept that is self evident to one person but not to another cannot be an axiom. It can, however, be a presupposition.

E: But all of this only exists in your head and as such I feel that it causes me to lose interest in it. I'm not saying I want to stop discussin this, I don't. I'm just expressing a feeling that I sense rising as the realization dawns as to the true nature of your arguement. In much the same way that I would lose interest in God should I discover that he is just something in my head.

Rw: Then it would be a good idea for you to present your side of things now and let’s see just how far outside of your head god can get. I read your earlier commentary on the various hypothetical possibilities currently in vogue and I saw nothing to dis-agree with you on or to add. You kind of left us hanging at the end and I just assumed you’d pick up somewhere when you were ready. It sounds like you might be about ready…yes?

E: Can't you see the contradiction here. How can you take anything that is this universe and say that it must logically exist pre-universe. There is no logical necessity that it should do.

Rw: And where exactly did I present this as a MUST or as a logical necessity? Logical possibility, yes, necessity, no.


E: But you've divorced your statements concerning the pre-universe from 'reality' by saying that they are not factual claims or truth claims concerning the actual universe, only logical necessities and I don't think you can equivocate 'logical necessity' with 'real'.

Rw: Nowhere have I divorced the terms used from their ontological connection to this universe. Nowhere have I posited them as logical necessities in a pre-universal state. In this universe the terms are axiomatic which is more than logically necessary. In a pre-universal state they are inductively established logical possibilities, nothing more. You are the party guilty of equivocation here, my friend, not I.

E: However, you've yet to demonstrate why I should consider it logically necessary to believe anything must exist prior to the universe that is only known to exist as part of it.

Rw: And for the umpteenth time, I’ve never asked you to consider anything I’ve postulated concerning a pre-universal state as logically necessary…only logical possibility. In this universe, to establish the validity of the axioms, logical necessity; in pre-universe…logical possibility. Kapeech?

E: Well, firstly you're saying that God is not a logical possibility because you seem to be saying above that the logical possibility of what you are postulating makes it superior to the notion of God.

Rw: Exactly.

E: However, you have yet to demonstrate how something that is only known to exist as part of this universe (existence/time) must logically exist before it and how inductive prosessing can go beyond that which is known to exist.

Rw: It goes beyond that which is known on the basis of the terms that are not only known but axiomatic. Do we hypothesize only about what is known, or do we hypothesize from what is known to establish logically possible claims about the un-known that we hope to substantiate? How do you think knowledge is extended beyond its threshold? I realize that not all possibilities are currently verifiable but that doesn’t diminish the logic of a possibility. It only prevents us from establishing it as anything more than a possibility until we are able to verify it or falsify it. It isn’t fantasy and it is logical.


E: Logical possibilites are only known to exist in the mind unless they can be verified in some other way, and we can't do that regarding the matter under discussion .. so no, I don't think it is superior.

Rw: And you are quite mistaken. If it’s logical that means it has an ontological connection and thus it’s terms are actual and not just imagined. The possibility itself may not be actualized but if the terms used to establish the possibility are actual, then it is logical, which provides a more robust argument.

E: If you agree that God only exists in the mind, and we can agree that logical possibilities only exist in the mind, then we can see that they exist on an equal footing.

Rw: I don’t agree that god only exists in the mind. I am unable to derive any meaningful conceptualization from the term “god” so it only exists as an incomprehensible term in my mind. If you can define it into comprehensibility I would appreciate it.

E: You haven't convinced me. What logical basis do I have to assume that things that are only known to exist as part of the universe, must have existed before it?

Rw: Here’s one. I assume that we both understand that if this universe had a beginning it was associated with what is commonly heralded as the “big bang”, a gigantic explosion of some kind. Allow me to indulge in an analogy to establish the logic.

If your house inexplicably blew up one day while you were at work there’d be FBI agents crawling all over the debris looking for clues as to what caused the explosion. They’d call in Forensics experts who would piece together the cause based on the clues they found among the debris. Eventually they’d discover the cause and identify the culprit.

Based on this analogy, which has been tested time and again, it is quite logical for me to postulate that whatever caused the BB should have left some clues that carried over into this universe. So it isn’t illogical to use axioms from this universe to account for the possibility of a pre-universal state. In fact, it is even more logical to begin the search around the most obvious place: those areas that are absolutely necessary to the meaningful definition of this universe.

E: So, unless something is true for everyone (universal), it cannot be considered true? Is that what you are saying?

Rw: No, it just can’t be considered or defined as an axiom. If something must be presupposed to be true does that make it true? Is it more logical to presuppose a truth or discover it from amid a myriad of possibilities?



E: I have no rational grounds for believing that anything that is only known to exist as part of this universe must logically exist before it, no.

Rw: But you think you have rational grounds for believing that something never established as part of any universe can be responsible for this one?

E: Existence/time is axiomatic to all other concepts in this universe. However it doesn't follow that they are axiomatic to the pre-universe.

Rw: I never said they were. In fact, they couldn’t possibly qualify as axiomatic in a pre-universal state. How could they be universal before the universe or self evident before self or evidence even existed?

E: No.

Rw: Then you are going to argue for a god that exists ontologically?



E: I don't deny this at all. But you're trying to say that they are axiomatic when there are no material, physical things, yet they are not known to exist independently of them.

Rw: No, I never said they were axiomatic prior to this universe, only self-contingent. I only established them as axiomatic in this universe to demonstrate the validity of the terms.

E: Your comment here highlights that logical possibilities only exist in the mind as you seperate them from the 'actual' universe. Something can exist as a logical possibility and have an ontological counterpart but not without verification.

Rw: For a possibility to be logical it must be ontologically connected. If it qualifies as logical it exists independent of the mind. Verification isn’t necessary when presenting a possibility, only when attempting to establish the possibility as an actuality. Something I have not set out to do.

E: They are something in this universe RW. This says nothing about any pre-universe state because they are not known to exist independently of it.

Rw: And I am not trying to establish this as knowledge, just logical possibility. Yet you and I both agreed that if this universe had a beginning time must have existed prior to it.

E: And that time/existence must be in the pre-universe has not been established beyond your say so. Can you see why this is going nowhere.

Rw: I never said it “MUST” be so, only that it seems to be the most logical possibility. At one point during this discussion, some pages back, you agreed that time would have had to exist prior to this universe. I’ll go find it if need be.

E: Once upon a time I didn't believe in God, so my belief in him now could hardly be presuppositional could it? I can't say why I believe in God without describing the journey I took to get there.

Rw: O’kay E_muse, I apologize for the assumption. It’s just that you seemed to be arguing from a presuppositional position on those occasions when you did submit argumentation for the existence of god.

E: Perhaps not. Then perhaps before the universe there was nothing .... as far as we can know.

Rw: Is this a logical possibility?

E: If all the known laws of science break down at the big bang, why shouldn't all the known laws of logic? Actually the two go together.

Rw: Except for induction. Induction provides a key to the door allowing us to postulate possibilities as long as we base those possibilities on logical connectives to reality. From these possibilities we may be able to devise means of testing their veracity, or not. It’s a difficult task to be sure.

E: And the terms only apply to things which we have derived from an experience of this universe.

Rw: Can you prove this?

E: But can time exist without there being something that can change?

Rw: Something did change: Existence