LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
It is possible for you and I not to exist.
It is not just possible for 'you' to not to exist but 'you' once did NOT even exist. However, it is NOT possible for 'I' to not exist.
Now, if you take this to subjectively and want to LOOK AT 'this' objectively, then the 'you' once did NOT exist but thee 'I' ALWAYS exists.
LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
At death we discover, that the world continues without the physical presence of the deceased.
Agreed.
LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Therefore the possibility for us to have never existed in the first place, is a very real discussion to be had.
Is there ANY discussion that is NOT 'very real'? And, WHY does, or what makes, this discussion 'very real' 'to be had'?
LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Yet we do exist.
Yep, here 'we' are.
By the way, how are 'you' defining the word 'we' here?
To make a discussion 'very real', to me, then it is best that ALL involved in the discussion are made FULLY AWARE of what is ACTUALLY MEANT by the words that are used, and SAID.
LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Those who doubt their own existence are far and very few.
So, WHY even bring this up?
LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Even people who doubt their own existence do not consistently live out this belief. David Hume doubted his own existence, yet admittedly stated that he did not do so consistently. That he went home, enjoyed a glass of cognac and played backgammon with his friends.
All of this may well be exciting, to some, but has this REALLY got ANY thing to do with what it is that 'you' are SEEKING OUT or CLAIMING here?
LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
The late, great philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz asked the question "why is there something rather than nothing?"
Because it could NOT be ANY other way.
LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Contingency literally means true by the way things are and NOT by logical necessity.
So, I seem to have RESOLVED this "issue" here with my last comment, which, by the way, can be VERY EASILY PROVEN True, and VERY EASILY UNDERSTOOD WHY.
LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
So the possibility exists that we could have never existed in the first place, thus rendering our existence contingent.
Again, this ALL DEPENDS on who and/or what 'you' are referring to when 'you' use the 'we' word and the 'our' word here.
If 'your' parents did NOT meet, then 'you' would NEVER have existed. So, the possibility does exist that 'you' could have NEVER existed in the first place.
What is called "father" HAS TO put the semen from its body into the body of what is called "mother", IN THE FIRST PLACE, for ALL of 'you' to come into Existence, Itself, and thus come to be to exist, "yourselves".
But this has absolutely NO bearing AT ALL with whether Existence, Itself, is contingent or not. But, 'you' are correct that 'your' existence is contingent. But who and what 'you' are, EXACTLY, and 'your', or even 'our', human, existence, is so tiny, puny, and minute that it REALLY does have absolutely NO bearing AT ALL on and with Existence, Itself.
See, when and if you LEARN who and what the 'we' word ACTUALLY refers to, then 'you', hopefully, will FULLY understand WHY Existence, Itself, is NOT contingent on 'you', personally, nor on human beings ONLY.
LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Therefore the must exist a logically necessary Being, for if all that exists were simply contingent, we could have never come into being, since we are simply not logically necessary.
Thee Being JUST EXISTS, just like thee Universe exists, and HAS TO EXIST, because there could be NO other way.
LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Now if one were to satirically say I come from my mother, and continue this pattern, he would be guilty of committing the logical fallacy of an infinite regress.
WHY do some of 'you', human beings, LOOK AT and SEE that an 'infinite regress' is somehow negative, illogical, or unreachable?
LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Thomas Aquinas (another great philosopher) wrote concerning the issue of contingency, "The Argument from Necessity:
Since objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time.
Since objects are countable, the objects in the universe are finite in number.
Talk about a 'logical fallacy', and CORRECT 'me' if I am WRONG here. But, is what is being said and/or inferred here is that;
That just because we could count say three apples on the table, THEN THEREFORE this MUST MEAN that the objects IN the Universe MUST BE 'finite'?
If this is CORRECT, then I can see at least two issues with this.
However, if this is NOT CORRECT, then what is.
LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence. (Nothing can come from nothing—there is no creation ex nihilo) for individual existent objects.But, in fact, many objects exist in the universe.Therefore, a Necessary Being (i.e., a Being of which it is impossible that it should not exist) exists.
To me, this does NOT 'logically follow' at all.
And, it just appears to me, once again, just ANOTHER human being expressing their OWN BELIEF of some 'thing' and then TRYING ANY thing, with the hope that 'it' will back up and support one's ALREADY GAINED and HELD ONTO BELIEF.
The fact that A Being ACTUALLY EXISTS and ALWAYS EXISTS is one 'thing'. But to be able to SHOW and REVEAL this FACT, with ACTUAL PROOF, then 'we' have to LOOK AT at this step-by-step through LOGICALLY REASONED OUT words and views.
LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
Because the possibility exists that nothing can exist,
Does it?
If yes, then HOW EXACTLY?
SEE, once you LEARN and UNDERSTAND what thee Universe ACTUALLY IS and how It ACTUALLY WORKS, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN is a bit DIFFERENT to this.
But, AGAIN, it all depends on what you are SEEING, SAYING, and MEANING here EXACTLY.
LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
nevertheless objects do exist, that contingent objects cannot cause the casual chain of existence, there demands a Being who cannot not exist, who exists necessarily, who by the very act of His will has brought all things into existence.
HOW and WHY did this Being JUMP to being a "he", out of ALL the things in the Universe?
Could this have absolutely ANY thing to do with the fact that A Story, about such a Being, was written by the MEN of a species?
LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
To deny such a necessary being exists,
To make and state an irrefutable CLAIM, does NOT make the OTHER CLAIM, WITHIN this CLAIM, true AT ALL.
For example, to state and CLAIM that; "To deny such a necessary sink exists ..." would be "foolish", does NOT mean that an ACTUAL 'sink' exists.
It just means that there is some 'necessary' sink IN or UNDER some VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
LoverofWisdom wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:18 am
one would have to explain how contingent beings came from contingent beings, or to say it another way. One would have to explain that how nothing (x) noone= everything. Good luck with that.
Well it sounds like you are CLAIMING that there is One Being which has ALWAYS EXISTED, and which made/created every OTHER thing.
Are you ABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW this One Being 'Thing' created EVERY 'thing' else?
And, HOW that 'Thing' created Everything FROM Nothing?
Because IF some Being created Everything, then either there was something there PRIOR to which It created Everything from, or, there was nothing there from which It created Everything from. But, OBVIOUSLY, if there was something there ALREADY, then that Being did NOT create Everything. And, this is besides the FACT that if that Being was ALREADY EXISTING, then It did NOT create Itself. Or, did It?
Now, CAN 'you' and WILL 'you' EXPLAIN HOW this could have POSSIBLY OCCURRED? Or, EXPLAIN what ACTUALLY OCCURRED. And, by the way, some are saying; 'Good luck with that'.