Kylie's Pool Challenge

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yeah, the big crunch would not work as elasticity is needed and the whole universe together would be about the least elastic thing ever. But if there was any rebounding there would not be any answer for why there would be that. What would exist before the rebound would be much the same thing, before being reconstituted. That would not be the necessary existence that explains how it is there at all. Nothing of us, or those like us before the universe was reconstituted, would be that necessary existence at all. Understand that what is meant by necessary is not what is necessary for us to exist, it is meaning that there is such existence that just necessarily exists, which cannot be not existing. We don't understand how there is such existence, but there is, or there would be nothing existing. That is mathematically logical.

There are a number of theoretically possible oscillating cosmology models with repeating cycles of big bangs followed by big crunches, but they don't seem to be among the most popular ideas.

But it's true that for stuff to exist, its existence is necessary - and stuff exists. It's not the deepest insight.

 

[FredVB]

Yeah, the big crunch would not work as elasticity is needed and the whole universe together would be about the least elastic thing ever. But if there was any rebounding there would not be any answer for why there would be that. What would exist before the rebound would be much the same thing, before being reconstituted. That would not be the necessary existence that explains how it is there at all. Nothing of us, or those like us before the universe was reconstituted, would be that necessary existence at all. Understand that what is meant by necessary is not what is necessary for us to exist, it is meaning that there is such existence that just necessarily exists, which cannot be not existing. We don't understand how there is such existence, but there is, or there would be nothing existing. That is mathematically logical.

There are a number of theoretically possible oscillating cosmology models with repeating cycles of big bangs followed by big crunches, but they don't seem to be among the most popular ideas.

But it's true that for stuff to exist, its existence is necessary - and stuff exists. It's not the deepest insight.

Those ideas are not so popular among scientists now because there is wider perspective now that it is not explainable from the inadequate elasticity that would be thought to be needed, the universe is apparently accelerating its expansion, which further does not fit with any oscillating model.

Knowing there is necessary existence does not take insight that goes very deep. But that it is distinct which can be reasoned is not generally considered among you, such as shown in wording such as stuffs' existence is necessary because the stuff exists. We can reason, as philosophers have, that the really necessary existence, because that existence is necessary, is changeless, and without any limits at all. That existence really is necessary. That characterizing necessary existence does not correspond to any stuff of the universe. The necessary existence is not something of the universe, or the universe itself. Any of it might just as well not exist. So the necessary existence has the capacity to make a universe such as there is. The necessary existence corresponds to the Creator.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Those ideas are not so popular among scientists now because there is wider perspective now that it is not explainable from the inadequate elasticity that would be thought to be needed, the universe is apparently accelerating its expansion, which further does not fit with any oscillating model.

It's not a question of 'elasticity' (of what, spacetime?) - these models (and a variety of other proposals) are still potentially valid solutions, but it's a question of testability. Until there is some way of testing their predictions, they remain 'on the books' and theoretical research moves on to pastures new.

The accelerating expansion of the universe does make them appear less likely to be appropriate models for our universe, but until the nature of this acceleration is understood, it remains possible that it could eventually slow down, stop, or reverse.

We can reason, as philosophers have, that the really necessary existence, because that existence is necessary, is changeless, and without any limits at all. That existence really is necessary. That characterizing necessary existence does not correspond to any stuff of the universe. The necessary existence is not something of the universe, or the universe itself. Any of it might just as well not exist. So the necessary existence has the capacity to make a universe such as there is. The necessary existence corresponds to the Creator.

I think we've been round this before - if 'really' necessary existence (is there a logical difference between 'necessary' and 'really necessary', or is it just semantic hyperbole?) is changeless, then it cannot account for our universe, which obviously required a change of some kind.

The rest is unjustified assertion without logical coherence. The universe exists, that's it and all about it.

 

[FredVB]

It's not a question of 'elasticity' (of what, spacetime?) - these models (and a variety of other proposals) are still potentially valid solutions, but it's a question of testability. Until there is some way of testing their predictions, they remain 'on the books' and theoretical research moves on to pastures new.

The accelerating expansion of the universe does make them appear less likely to be appropriate models for our universe, but until the nature of this acceleration is understood, it remains possible that it could eventually slow down, stop, or reverse.

I think we've been round this before - if 'really' necessary existence (is there a logical difference between 'necessary' and 'really necessary', or is it just semantic hyperbole?) is changeless, then it cannot account for our universe, which obviously required a change of some kind.

The rest is unjustified assertion without logical coherence. The universe exists, that's it and all about it.

From what I recall reading about that elasticity, it seemed to refer to all the material of the physical universe.

There would be a whole lot to slow down. There is the acceleration itself, which would have to be decreased, and then continually to reach zero, and then become negative, meaning the acceleration decreases until becoming none, and there being deceleration beyond that. Throughout that, the universe is apparently expanding rapidly, and still would be expanding rapidly through this supposed deceleration that is presumed to come, which I have not seen expressed from scientists since the acceleration was found. It would surely take time beyond what is communicated where I find it for the physical universe for the expansion itself to stop, that it could even reverse, that being all very hypothetical.

I have spoken with you about some of these things, which I recall. By 'really' I mean to express 'true', necessary existence just means necessary existence, and I am with this emphasizing the meaning, which is existence that must exist, by nature, and cannot be not existing in any way. That something exists does not itself mean that that cannot be not existing. So something said to be necessary existence is not the true necessary existence, necessarily. And the qualities of necessary existence do not have limits to necessary existence, necessary existence would be unlimited, without gaps, being necessary existence. And physical things change to make new things, but making that a rule for all, including necessary existence which is unlimited, which does not correspond to physical existence, according to these qualities, does not at all follow. If I spoke on these things with you I don't remember that you responded. That the universe exists is not just it, and is not explained as necessary existence. That necessary existence caused the physical universe means that there is power of the necessary existence to create, and that also without limit. So there can be the Creator understood from that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From what I recall reading about that elasticity, it seemed to refer to all the material of the physical universe.

There would be a whole lot to slow down. There is the acceleration itself, which would have to be decreased, and then continually to reach zero, and then become negative, meaning the acceleration decreases until becoming none, and there being deceleration beyond that. Throughout that, the universe is apparently expanding rapidly, and still would be expanding rapidly through this supposed deceleration that is presumed to come, which I have not seen expressed from scientists since the acceleration was found. It would surely take time beyond what is communicated where I find it for the physical universe for the expansion itself to stop, that it could even reverse, that being all very hypothetical.

It sounds like by 'elasticity' you mean inertia, but it's not clear. My point was that the force behind the accelerating expansion may not be constant, so it might vary with time and/or scale, in which case it's conceivable that the universe could recollapse. There are alternative scenarios, such as Penrose's 'Conformal cyclic cosmology', where there is a conformal rescaling of the future timeline boundary of the universe that effectively becomes a new big bang - not very popular, but it's there.

I have spoken with you about some of these things, which I recall. By 'really' I mean to express 'true', necessary existence just means necessary existence, and I am with this emphasizing the meaning, which is existence that must exist, by nature, and cannot be not existing in any way. That something exists does not itself mean that that cannot be not existing. So something said to be necessary existence is not the true necessary existence, necessarily. And the qualities of necessary existence do not have limits to necessary existence, necessary existence would be unlimited, without gaps, being necessary existence. And physical things change to make new things, but making that a rule for all, including necessary existence which is unlimited, which does not correspond to physical existence, according to these qualities, does not at all follow. If I spoke on these things with you I don't remember that you responded. That the universe exists is not just it, and is not explained as necessary existence. That necessary existence caused the physical universe means that there is power of the necessary existence to create, and that also without limit. So there can be the Creator understood from that.

I don't think this will go anywhere until you can justify your assertions about necessary existence and how something that you claim cannot change can act (create).

 

[FredVB]

It sounds like by 'elasticity' you mean inertia, but it's not clear. My point was that the force behind the accelerating expansion may not be constant, so it might vary with time and/or scale, in which case it's conceivable that the universe could recollapse. There are alternative scenarios, such as Penrose's 'Conformal cyclic cosmology', where there is a conformal rescaling of the future timeline boundary of the universe that effectively becomes a new big bang - not very popular, but it's there.

I don't think this will go anywhere until you can justify your assertions about necessary existence and how something that you claim cannot change can act (create).

No, by elasticity I mean physical quantity of capacity for rebound.

I don't know anyone is saying acceleration of the expansion of the physical universe that has been found is not constant. The scientists involved in this area of astronomical science have needed to refer to something not observed in any other way to explain this acceleration. If something changes that acceleration so that there is not constant acceleration that would complicate that explanation and mean there is more unaccouted for. But nothing is found changing that acceleration so it is a guess without anything offered for that. And if there is something further to change it, it might just as well be something adding to the acceleration. But all this is guessing when there is nothing observed for that.

Somebody really wanting a big bang to explain everything as much as possible might want that. But with both the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and the lack of elasticity to account for anything like such a substantial big bang yet further, that does not seem at all to be a possibility desirable to consider.

Though there may be scientists and their findings desirable for refering to, maybe mathematicians are neglected and nothing from them desired to consider.

Take something finite from what is infinite. What is left? I expect you should see that there is still what is infinite when something finite is taken from it.

Requiring that I should accept that necessary existence which I don't say is physical must be subject to physical laws such as necessary existence must be changed when necessary existence makes something further, namely the physical universe, and anything more along with it, if there is more. But I never say necessary existence corresponds to anything of what is physical. And I say necessary existence has no limits. That means necessary existence is that which is infinite. Necessary existence remained infinite after the physical universe and all was made.

Necessary existence does not change if there always remains the same capacity to create, always.

I think you (genetically meant) have to really really be sure God does not exist, to not at all want to find how God may be there. It should be known that God being there means something for us.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, by elasticity I mean physical quantity of capacity for rebound.

OK. What is it exactly, that you think lacks elasticity?

I don't know anyone is saying acceleration of the expansion of the physical universe that has been found is not constant.

It depends on the cause of the acceleration; for example, quintessence is a dynamic scalar field.

The scientists involved in this area of astronomical science have needed to refer to something not observed in any other way to explain this acceleration.

This is how science works - make hypotheses for unexplained observations, and test them.

If something changes that acceleration so that there is not constant acceleration that would complicate that explanation and mean there is more unaccouted for.

That doesn't necessarily follow - some things are dynamic by nature.

But nothing is found changing that acceleration so it is a guess without anything offered for that. And if there is something further to change it, it might just as well be something adding to the acceleration. But all this is guessing when there is nothing observed for that.

They're called 'hypotheses' - potential explanations that are consistent with known physics or reasonable extrapolations of it.

Somebody really wanting a big bang to explain everything as much as possible might want that. But with both the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and the lack of elasticity to account for anything like such a substantial big bang yet further, that does not seem at all to be a possibility desirable to consider.

The big bang was proposed to account for observations; when the predictions of that hypothesis were tested, they were correct.

How is elasticity relevant - elasticity of what?

Take something finite from what is infinite. What is left? I expect you should see that there is still what is infinite when something finite is taken from it.

Yes, but so what - how is that relevant?

Requiring that I should accept that necessary existence which I don't say is physical must be subject to physical laws such as necessary existence must be changed when necessary existence makes something further, namely the physical universe, and anything more along with it, if there is more.

I can't make any sense of this.

But I never say necessary existence corresponds to anything of what is physical. And I say necessary existence has no limits. That means necessary existence is that which is infinite. Necessary existence remained infinite after the physical universe and all was made.

All unsupported assertion. I don't know what you mean by 'existence' here - there is physical existence, i.e. stuff that can physically affect us - matter, radiation, the physical forces, and there is non-physical stuff, i.e. abstractions, ideas and concepts, which are themselves physical states of biological brains.

Physical stuff obviously exists, and is dynamic; non-physical stuff exists while there are biological brains (or some equivalent) to represent it. It's reasonable to say that, for us, physical stuff has necessary existence - without it, we wouldn't be here to discuss it. I don't know what you mean by 'exist' or 'existence' beyond this.

I think you (genetically meant) have to really really be sure God does not exist, to not at all want to find how God may be there. It should be known that God being there means something for us.

All the evidence I'm aware of indicates that supernatural entities are just imaginary beings. Humans have invented thousands of imaginary beings since we became capable of imagining. The world looks exactly as one would expect if this was the case. There are some interesting unexplained puzzles, but invoking an invisible omnipotent being as an explanation seems no more explanatory than invoking pixies or magic.

I can't be really sure God doesn't exist because it's such an ill-defined concept, but my credence that any supernatural entity exists as more than just a fiction, an idea, is extremely low, and I think the idea that any entity can be non-physical is just incoherent. But it's clear that ideas and concepts of the imaginary can be powerful motivators and powerful influences on our behaviour.

 

[FredVB]

OK. What is it exactly, that you think lacks elasticity?

It depends on the cause of the acceleration; for example, quintessence is a dynamic scalar field.

This is how science works - make hypotheses for unexplained observations, and test them.

That doesn't necessarily follow - some things are dynamic by nature.

They're called 'hypotheses' - potential explanations that are consistent with known physics or reasonable extrapolations of it.

The big bang was proposed to account for observations; when the predictions of that hypothesis were tested, they were correct.

How is elasticity relevant - elasticity of what?

Yes, but so what - how is that relevant?

I can't make any sense of this.

All unsupported assertion. I don't know what you mean by 'existence' here - there is physical existence, i.e. stuff that can physically affect us - matter, radiation, the physical forces, and there is non-physical stuff, i.e. abstractions, ideas and concepts, which are themselves physical states of biological brains.

Physical stuff obviously exists, and is dynamic; non-physical stuff exists while there are biological brains (or some equivalent) to represent it. It's reasonable to say that, for us, physical stuff has necessary existence - without it, we wouldn't be here to discuss it. I don't know what you mean by 'exist' or 'existence' beyond this.

All the evidence I'm aware of indicates that supernatural entities are just imaginary beings. Humans have invented thousands of imaginary beings since we became capable of imagining. The world looks exactly as one would expect if this was the case. There are some interesting unexplained puzzles, but invoking an invisible omnipotent being as an explanation seems no more explanatory than invoking pixies or magic.

I can't be really sure God doesn't exist because it's such an ill-defined concept, but my credence that any supernatural entity exists as more than just a fiction, an idea, is extremely low, and I think the idea that any entity can be non-physical is just incoherent. But it's clear that ideas and concepts of the imaginary can be powerful motivators and powerful influences on our behaviour.

I had read in science books, or admittedly possibly a Time Life science book, that all the stuff of the universe is lacking the needed elasticity, which is a physical concept. I can really believe that, gaseous and plasmic bodies are not going to just rebound. Lack of elasticity is relevant to how there would not be repeated big bangs.

What I just said there was not being critical of a big bang but the idea to explain with this repeating big bangs concept.

I admit I neglected to make a full sentence. I can see basic meaning in what I tried to communicate, but don't remember exactly what sentence I was thinking of. So I can impose that it could be this. It is not sensible to be requiring that I should accept that necessary existence which I don't say is physical must be subject to physical laws such as necessary existence must be changed when necessary existence makes something further, namely the physical universe, and anything more along with it, if there is more. But I never say necessary existence corresponds to anything of what is physical. And I say necessary existence has no limits. That means necessary existence is that which is infinite. Necessary existence remained infinite after the physical universe and all was made.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I had read in science books, or admittedly possibly a Time Life science book, that all the stuff of the universe is lacking the needed elasticity, which is a physical concept. I can really believe that, gaseous and plasmic bodies are not going to just rebound. Lack of elasticity is relevant to how there would not be repeated big bangs.

But even if gaseous and plasmic bodies were key to a cyclical universe 'rebounding', we're continually seeing stars (gaseous, plasmic bodies) collapse and go supernova, which is exactly that - an explosive rebound.

But, at a 'big crunch' where all matter has collapsed together under gravity, gaseous and normal plasmic bodies would heat up until they were stripped down a more fundamental quark-gluon plasma, and then into some chaotic state of spacetime - very much like a reversal of the big bang. Then a 'rebound' might occur like another big bang.

What I just said there was not being critical of a big bang but the idea to explain with this repeating big bangs concept.

Well, the reason you gave doesn't hold water, and the people who work in cosmology and know whereof they speak, seem to think that it's a plausible physical model - but it probably isn't a model of our universe - which is expanding ever faster and seems unlikely every to recollapse.

It is not sensible to be requiring that I should accept that necessary existence which I don't say is physical must be subject to physical laws such as necessary existence must be changed when necessary existence makes something further, namely the physical universe, and anything more along with it, if there is more.

Yeah, sorry I still can't make out what you're trying to say. I don't require that you accept necessary existence at all - you brought it up as something you seemed to feel was important, and I explained the only way in which it made sense to me (the existence of the universe is necessary to us because it exists, and if it didn't we wouldn't be around to discuss it).

But I never say necessary existence corresponds to anything of what is physical. And I say necessary existence has no limits. That means necessary existence is that which is infinite. Necessary existence remained infinite after the physical universe and all was made.

I've already addressed this - what does 'existence' mean if not the physical (apart from concepts & ideas)?

Have you any more evidence for the non-physical than you do for the Twilight Zone, or the land of Oz?

In what sense is necessary existence 'infinite'? Why?

 

[FredVB]

All unsupported assertion. I don't know what you mean by 'existence' here - there is physical existence, i.e. stuff that can physically affect us - matter, radiation, the physical forces, and there is non-physical stuff, i.e. abstractions, ideas and concepts, which are themselves physical states of biological brains.

Physical stuff obviously exists, and is dynamic; non-physical stuff exists while there are biological brains (or some equivalent) to represent it. It's reasonable to say that, for us, physical stuff has necessary existence - without it, we wouldn't be here to discuss it. I don't know what you mean by 'exist' or 'existence' beyond this.

All the evidence I'm aware of indicates that supernatural entities are just imaginary beings. Humans have invented thousands of imaginary beings since we became capable of imagining. The world looks exactly as one would expect if this was the case. There are some interesting unexplained puzzles, but invoking an invisible omnipotent being as an explanation seems no more explanatory than invoking pixies or magic.

I can't be really sure God doesn't exist because it's such an ill-defined concept, but my credence that any supernatural entity exists as more than just a fiction, an idea, is extremely low, and I think the idea that any entity can be non-physical is just incoherent. But it's clear that ideas and concepts of the imaginary can be powerful motivators and powerful influences on our behaviour.

So you really consider any real justice, any real love, any real morality, to be nothing at all but physical states of biological brains. But I and others should not need to think that if you claim that.

You are apparently showing you don't, or else do not care to, understand what necessary means in necessary existence. It is not that something exists so then it is existing necessarily. The logic of a thing existing so then it does exist is a necessity of logic but that is not what is asserted. The assertion is that there is existence that in itself is necessarily existing, because that cannot be otherwise not existing. This does not mean because the rest of us of existence do exist, so that means it is necessary, for us to exist. Nothing of the universe fits that description. Anything of it might not exist, while anything further might still exist. Yet everything of it is contingent, and existence needs more than just things that are contingent. None of it sensibly exists, unless there is existence that in itself is necessary. That means there is such existence that in itself exist necessarily, not because of anything else, and so is unlimited, infinite in extension, infinite in duration, without gaps, without change to itself from what it is, with no limitation to any capacities, so that capacity to make further things to exist is not limited and does not change. If there is perception and intelligence in the necessary existence, then there is something of personhood in this existence, and that would be unlimited.

If any of us perceive God involved with us, and in communication with us, we do not have to think that this is nothing but physical states of biological brains, and indeed I would say the same if any were sure their lives have been changed by pixies, or if they were sure they were taken by beings they say are aliens.

There is besides animal life other groups of life. There is besides life other material groups that are not living, and there is besides material the energy, there is yet a medium of space and time. What is existence is not just physical that there can be nothing else not physical.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you really consider any real justice, any real love, any real morality, to be nothing at all but physical states of biological brains. But I and others should not need to think that if you claim that.

What's the difference between 'real' justice, love, and morality, and ordinary justice, love, and morality? Or was that just a rhetorical device to make them sound less like human abstractions?

Well, the answer is yes and no. Yes, they are physical states of biological brains, but I don't think they are "nothing at all" but that (another rhetorical device, I assume, to emphasise how unimportant I think they are). They are abstractions that affect our behaviour and culture in fundamental ways, and love, in particular, is a deeply embodied emotion with a strong physiological contribution.

You make it sound like those things being mental states is a Bad Thing, but it's just what the evidence tells us - each of them can be radically altered or eliminated altogether by modifying the physical or chemical state of the brain.

You are apparently showing you don't, or else do not care to, understand what necessary means in necessary existence. It is not that something exists so then it is existing necessarily. The logic of a thing existing so then it does exist is a necessity of logic but that is not what is asserted.

I realise that's not what you mean by it - I was telling you the way I can make sense of the term. Your previous attempts to explain what you meant were incoherent.

The assertion is that there is existence that in itself is necessarily existing, because that cannot be otherwise not existing.

That which exists necessarily exists, by definition of existing. Try substitution to see whether your phrasing makes sense - for example, "The assertion is that there is existence something 6ft tall that in itself is necessarily existing 6ft tall, because that cannot be otherwise not existing 6ft tall." You see? that just asserts that something 6ft tall is necessarily 6ft tall because it can't not be 6ft tall... it's basically the logic of identity.

This does not mean because the rest of us of existence do exist, so that means it is necessary, for us to exist. Nothing of the universe fits that description.

But we're here, we do exist; the probability of our existence is 1. The fact of our existence makes it necessarily true that we exist - and that is true of everything in the universe, and the universe itself. It's certainly possible to imagine a counterfactual situation where we and/or other things in the universe did not exist, but I don't think the idea of the universe not existing, i.e. there not being anything, is coherent, given existence; and 'nothing' is a concept of negation that requires a context. So stuff necessarily exists.

Anything of it might not exist, while anything further might still exist. Yet everything of it is contingent, and existence needs more than just things that are contingent.

If you're saying things could be different, I agree.

None of it sensibly exists, unless there is existence that in itself is necessary.

But stuff of some sort does exist, so stuff of some sort necessarily exists. As above, it's not coherent that there could be nothing at all - there is something.

That means there is such existence that in itself exist necessarily, not because of anything else, and so is unlimited, infinite in extension, infinite in duration, without gaps, without change to itself from what it is, with no limitation to any capacities, so that capacity to make further things to exist is not limited and does not change.

Now you lost me... how do you go from the idea of necessary existence, i.e. that something must exist, to all that?

If there is perception and intelligence in the necessary existence, then there is something of personhood in this existence, and that would be unlimited.

Why? The only perception and intelligence, and so, personhood, that we know about, has developed (evolved) out of what exists, and it's possible to imagine that it might not have done, but there's no reason whatsoever to suppose that personhood could somehow necessarily exist without ~3.5 billion years of evolution in what already exists.

If any of us perceive God involved with us, and in communication with us, we do not have to think that this is nothing but physical states of biological brains, and indeed I would say the same if any were sure their lives have been changed by pixies, or if they were sure they were taken by beings they say are aliens.

People have all kinds of strange ideas about what motivates their behaviour, but the neuroscientific evidence is, by now, unequivocal; it's the brain (in collusion with the body) wot does it.

There is besides animal life other groups of life.

Sure - plants, fungi, bacteria, archaea...

There is besides life other material groups that are not living, and there is besides material the energy, there is yet a medium of space and time.

OK (although energy is a property of 'stuff').

What is existence is not just physical that there can be nothing else not physical.

All the stuff you just mentioned is physical, it is the province of biology & chemistry (life), and physics (spacetime and energy). As I said previously, there are things that are non-physical, i.e. abstractions, concepts, ideas; but even they are ultimately representations, of patterns of relationships, in a physical substrate.

 

[FredVB]

What's the difference between 'real' justice, love, and morality, and ordinary justice, love, and morality? Or was that just a rhetorical device to make them sound less like human abstractions?

Well, the answer is yes and no. Yes, they are physical states of biological brains, but I don't think they are "nothing at all" but that (another rhetorical device, I assume, to emphasise how unimportant I think they are). They are abstractions that affect our behaviour and culture in fundamental ways, and love, in particular, is a deeply embodied emotion with a strong physiological contribution.

You make it sound like those things being mental states is a Bad Thing, but it's just what the evidence tells us - each of them can be radically altered or eliminated altogether by modifying the physical or chemical state of the brain.

I realise that's not what you mean by it - I was telling you the way I can make sense of the term. Your previous attempts to explain what you meant were incoherent.

That which exists necessarily exists, by definition of existing. Try substitution to see whether your phrasing makes sense - for example, "The assertion is that there is existence something 6ft tall that in itself is necessarily existing 6ft tall, because that cannot be otherwise not existing 6ft tall." You see? that just asserts that something 6ft tall is necessarily 6ft tall because it can't not be 6ft tall... it's basically the logic of identity.

But we're here, we do exist; the probability of our existence is 1. The fact of our existence makes it necessarily true that we exist - and that is true of everything in the universe, and the universe itself. It's certainly possible to imagine a counterfactual situation where we and/or other things in the universe did not exist, but I don't think the idea of the universe not existing, i.e. there not being anything, is coherent, given existence; and 'nothing' is a concept of negation that requires a context. So stuff necessarily exists.

If you're saying things could be different, I agree.

But stuff of some sort does exist, so stuff of some sort necessarily exists. As above, it's not coherent that there could be nothing at all - there is something.

Now you lost me... how do you go from the idea of necessary existence, i.e. that something must exist, to all that?

Why? The only perception and intelligence, and so, personhood, that we know about, has developed (evolved) out of what exists, and it's possible to imagine that it might not have done, but there's no reason whatsoever to suppose that personhood could somehow necessarily exist without ~3.5 billion years of evolution in what already exists.

People have all kinds of strange ideas about what motivates their behaviour, but the neuroscientific evidence is, by now, unequivocal; it's the brain (in collusion with the body) wot does it.

Sure - plants, fungi, bacteria, archaea...

OK (although energy is a property of 'stuff').

All the stuff you just mentioned is physical, it is the province of biology & chemistry (life), and physics (spacetime and energy). As I said previously, there are things that are non-physical, i.e. abstractions, concepts, ideas; but even they are ultimately representations, of patterns of relationships, in a physical substrate.

If justice, love, and morality are nothing but abstractions from our minds that we generally all agree there really are, it it not right that all people are made really with equal rights, and there is no such thing as fair treatment, and trying to give fair treatment is only arbitrary. There would be those being real if they were more than abstractions from our minds that we generally agree are there, which is not really explained as it should be if it is so. Why should you think it so important? Why would you not sneak around those generally agreed on abstractions of our minds when it might be to your advantage when you see that and see that you can get away with it? It would be arbitrarily restricting you if you did not. Unless there is more to it than abstractions of our minds generally agreed on.

Necessary existence is not about something exists because it does exist. That is the case in the roundabout evidence we have observing anything. There is another existence that we can know there would be in the roundabout way of the logic of existence. What we see are contingent things that were caused to be. There would be necessary existence, that is not necessary because it exists, but it must exist, because existence is necessary. If existence is not necessary, but all of it, like all we observe, is contingent on being caused, logically nothing would exist. Contingent things cannot bring themselves into being. Existence is necessary and not all that exists is necessary, that necessary existence always existed, and never had any start, has no limitation which would be an arbitrary imposition, being necessary would then be unlimited, and has no end. As there are contingent things, those are ultimately caused by neccessary existence, which then has unlimited capacity to cause things further to be. It is not that we can understand how there is existence that is necessary, we can't know how that is explained but it isn't relevant for the logic.

All that exists is not necessary existence, because all the rest is contingent.

Personhood can be an aspect of necessary existence, and then it does not need any millions of years, or any amount of time, to develop or evolve. And why would personhood evolve, in the material existence?

In the same way that there are more things beyond any category of physical things there can and I say would be more than the category of physical things, and necessarily existence is beyond the category of all physical things, and beyond all the contingent things together. Necessary existence, not having limits, is everywhere, and if there is personhood with it, such as knowledge, and awareness, that is everywhere as well.

 

[Torah Keeper]

This house burned down:

View attachment 217962

People walked here:

View attachment 217963

This car has crashed while driving:

View attachment 217964



All these are "historical events". None requires faith.

Wow! Look at that tree!

 

[Torah Keeper]

So you believe the Bible because the Bible says it is true.

The documentation about the pool table also claims that it is true.

So again, I ask you why you believe one and not the other.

And don't try to claim that man couldn't have written the Bible. People of lots of religions say that about their holy book. There's nothing in the Bible that man couldn't have written.

One reason: Because the Bible has hundreds of fulfilled prophecies.

There are other reasons but that's a good starting point for credibility.

 

[Torah Keeper]

I think I asked a legitimate question.

Sure you did. Just like other atheists have done for the umpteenth time on a Christian forum. If you are interested in learning about Christianity, you are in the right place. But if you are just another atheist troll, we are all really tired of it.

Put yourself in our shoes a moment. Do we sign up on atheist forums and rant about how atheists are all going to Hell? Even if you insult us on our own turf in a subtle manner, like your billiard example, it is still very rude.

 

[Ophiolite]

Do we sign up on atheist forums and rant about how atheists are all going to Hell?

Yes. But, I ignore them since they represent a tiny proportion of Christians.
It seemed to me that @Kylie's question was not designed to learn more about Christianity, but to try to understand what leads Christians to believe what they believe. This seems a reasonable motive. Would you agree?

 

[AV1611VET]

It seemed to me that @Kylie's question was not designed to learn more about Christianity, but to try to understand what leads Christians to believe what they believe. This seems a reasonable motive. Would you agree?

Don't some say that atheists know the Bible better than Christians?

 

[Ophiolite]

Don't some say that atheists know the Bible better than Christians?

I've heard it said, but it is a nonsensical statement, or rather one that, if it were to be accurate, would require some editing.

• Some people have said that, but
  
• It implies that all atheists know the Bible better than all Christians, which is nonsense.
• Do some atheists know the Bible better than Christians? Not impossible, but unlikely.
• Some atheists know the Bible better than some Christians? Now we have it!

But so what?

 

[AV1611VET]

But so what?

So ask an atheist why Christians believe what they believe and see what they say.

And if you have already, does it differ from why Christians believe what they believe?

 

[Astrid]

There are a number of theoretically possible oscillating cosmology models with repeating cycles of big bangs followed by big crunches, but they don't seem to be among the most popular ideas.

But it's true that for stuff to exist, its existence is necessary - and stuff exists. It's not the deepest insight.

There is some strange meaning to "nevesssry" that our
Kalam- types employ.
I dont think any of them can explain it.