Existence

[bricklayer]

There are two types of existence: necessary existence and contingent existence.
That which exists contingently is subject to change; it is subjective.
That which exists necessarily is not subject to anything; it is sovereign.

Necessary-existence and contingent-existence can only produce contingent-existence.
Contingent-existence cannot, by definition, exist necessarily.
Necessary-existence cannot, by definition, exist contingently.
Contingent-existence begs the existence of the necessary.
If contingent-existence exists, necessary-existence must exist.

No particle of matter can occupy the same position to the balance of matter in any two increments of time.
The matter-space-time continuum is subject to constant exhaustive change.
That which is subject to change is subject. It is not-sovereign, not-necessary; it is contingent.

Therefore, material-spacial-temporal existence is contingent and begs a metaphysical-spiritual-eternal necessary cause, an unchanging sovereign cause.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

This is all nice and quite ok -- up to a certain point. This stuff about matter and spirit in the last two paragraphs is way beyond that point.

 

[CTD]

Paragraph 3, sentence 1 is not even required. It breaks the flow by being poorly worded and should be discarded until it is improved.

Other than that, nice work!

 

[Cabal]

Metaphysical and spiritual introduced out of nowhere without definition.

Shame

 

[The Nihilist]

No no, my good man, the entire universe rests on the back of a giant turtle swimming in a giant sea.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

That which exists contingently is subject to change; it is subjective.
That which exists necessarily is not subject to anything; it is sovereign.

Why is that which exist contingently subject to change but not that which exists necesarily?
It must mean that change is contingent?
If so what is change contingent upon and why can that which is nessessarily unchanging produce change? Which is clearly the first contingent thing that must be produced in order for things to be subject to it.
If that which exists can produce change, it cannot be sovereign.

 

[qualitas occulta]

A misuse of the terms "contingent" and "necessary". In possible worlds semantics, "contingent" means not necessarily true in all possible worlds, and "necessary" means necessarily true in all possible worlds. Thus, a hunch-backed camel chewing tobacco is contingent, while statements of logic (e.g., p is not not p) are necessary.

The terms "subject to change" and "sovereign" are nowhere close to that.

According to your argument, the world could have been created out of a triangle having three sides, or 1 + 1 = 2, which is absurd.

 

[Upisoft]

According to your argument, the world could have been created out of a triangle having three sides, or 1 + 1 = 2, which is absurd.

Why do you find that absurd?

 

[qualitas occulta]

Why do you find that absurd?

The analytic a priori reaching down and molding the clay of life?

Perhaps we should write a new cosmogony.

 

[Upisoft]

The analytic a priori reaching down and molding the clay of life?

Perhaps we should write a new cosmogony.

No idea is absurd. It can be true or false. The word "absurd" is used when someone can't find proof the idea is false.

 

[qualitas occulta]

I was using it in the colloquial sense.

 

[KCfromNC]

No no, my good man, the entire universe rests on the back of a giant turtle swimming in a giant sea.

I have it on good authority it is in fact turtles all the way down.

 

[Beechwell]

In your definition, contigent simply means changing in time, and necessary means stationary in time. How then does your claim
Contingent-existence begs the existence of the necessary.
follow?

 

[bricklayer]

Why is that which exist contingently subject to change but not that which exists necessarily?
It must mean that change is contingent?
If so what is change contingent upon and why can that which is necessarily unchanging produce change? Which is clearly the first contingent thing that must be produced in order for things to be subject to it.
If that which exists can produce change, it cannot be sovereign.

Contingent-existence is an effect; that is true. It can be the effect of either a necessary or contingent cause. However, only a necessary-existence can be an efficient cause.

That which changes cannot be sovereign. A sovereign cannot, by definition, be subject to change. A sovereign cannot be subject to anything.

 

[Upisoft]

Contingent-existence is an effect; that is true. It can be the effect of either a necessary or contingent cause. However, only a necessary-existence can be an efficient cause.

That which changes cannot be sovereign. A sovereign cannot, by definition, be subject to change. A sovereign cannot be subject to anything.

Therefore a sovereign cannot be subject of cause-effect relationship.

 

[bricklayer]

In your definition, contingent simply means changing in time, and necessary means stationary in time. How then does your claim
Contingent-existence begs the existence of the necessary.
follow?

Being exists.
Contingent being is a complex of actuality and potentiality.
Necessary being is simple actuality.
Contingent being actually exists, has the potential to not exist, and has the potential to change.
Necessary being has no potential to not exist or to change.

For contingent being to exist it must, by definition, be the effect of a cause. Although contingent being can produce contingent being, only necessary being can be the efficient cause, the uncaused-cause, the first-cause.

Matter is that with mass.
Space is position relative to matter.
Time is the progressive sequential increments of the matter-space continuum.
(Note matter's special relativity.)

No particle of matter can occupy the same position to the balance of matter in any two increments of time. In less precise terms, nothing can be in the same space twice, nothing, not even a subatomic particle for a fraction of a second. That is constant exhaustive change. That "screams" subjectivity.

 

[Upisoft]

No particle of matter can occupy the same position to the balance of matter in any two increments of time.

True only for fermions and not for bosons.

But anyway if a sovereign is a cause, then it either must be subject of a law that governs what kind of effect is going to happen or it must be a cause of all effects directly. And by "all effects" I mean it. Thus the fact there is not hot tube with hot chicks in it in my room, I assume that not all effects are produced by the sovereign cause. Thus it is governed by some law and thus it is not sovereign.

 

[quatona]

As I have said before I don´t think that "contingent vs. necessary" makes any sense when it comes to existence. It´s taken from logic where it refers to assumptions and statements.

 

[bricklayer]

True only for fermions and not for bosons.

But anyway if a sovereign is a cause, then it either must be subject of a law that governs what kind of effect is going to happen or it must be a cause of all effects directly. And by "all effects" I mean it. Thus the fact there is not hot tube with hot chicks in it in my room, I assume that not all effects are produced by the sovereign cause. Thus it is governed by some law and thus it is not sovereign.

I do not affirm that God does not want what God does not like.
I affirm that God "gets what He wants" constantly.
There is a great deal that God hates;
therefore, God wants to reveal what He hates.

God's primary purpose for His creation is the revelation of His glory.
God's glory is the inviolate balance of His infinite perfections.
God's primary purpose for the incarnation of Jesus Christ is salvation from sin.
God's primary purpose for sin is to necessitate the incarnation of Jeus Christ.
God chose to create a creation wherein He is hero.

God has a nature, an inviolate nature.
It is quite a stretch to imply that God is subject to His own nature and is therefore subject.
That is true of us because we has a changing (subjective) nature.
God's nature is inviolate and therefore necessary.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Wouldn't God hating something entail his desiring it's non-existence. That is, he would want the hated thing to exist.

Thus if God hates anything, he isn't "getting what he wants".