Heya, here goes
Is a world with NO contingent beings (not even one) possible?
Or perhaps for better wording:
Is a world without the existence of any contingent beings possible?
Please help me with this one
What's a contingent being?
Does a hurricane need an ocean god to cause it? Does lightening need a god to cause it?
A god is not required or any type of being for anything in the universe to happen. PERIOD!
An imagination and wishful thinking is all it takes to pull shit out of one's ass.
Sounds like a backwards-question. We know contingent beings are possible, because we exist. There appears to be no good reason why the universe couldn't get along without us, though. Shouldn't the question be if it is possible for a non-contingent being to exist?
Quote from: "Mister Agenda"Sounds like a backwards-question. We know contingent beings are possible, because we exist. There appears to be no good reason why the universe couldn't get along without us, though. Shouldn't the question be if it is possible for a non-contingent being to exist?
How about skip the mental masturbation and chalk it up to human imagination?
I'm simply asking if it's possible to conceive of a world like that. I know contingent beings are possible in some worlds and not in others. I'm asking if it's possible for there to be a world without even ONE contingent being, or a world without the existence of contingent beings.
Quote from: "Tryed"Is a world with NO contingent beings (not even one) possible?
Is a world without the existence of any contingent beings possible?
Yes.
Glad to be of help.
Quote from: "Tryed"Is a world without the existence of any contingent beings possible?
Why would 'contingent beings', whatever the fuck they are, be nessecary for a world to exist?
Have contingent beings been observed on Mars? On Venus?
We conceive of contingent beings because we are here. Haven't found any on Mars, far as I know.
Quote from: "stromboli"We conceive of contingent beings because we are here. Haven't found any on Mars, far as I know.
Could you link me to a definition?
All google turns up is that 'contingent' means 'neither true nor false', and that - in my mind - is rather difficult to apply to 'beings'.
As far as we know all beings in the universe are a byproduct of the universe. Once you have a universe, atoms combine, and things happen, beings being one of the things that happen. I don't see how anything could happen without a universe.
Yes, SGOS, I wonder how necessary beings can exist without the existence of something physical.
I reformulated the question I think
Is the existence of contingent beings necessary in itself?
Quote from: "stromboli"We conceive of contingent beings because we are here. Haven't found any on Mars, far as I know.
And there is a word for that "anthropomorphism". It is nothing but psychological projectionism of human qualities on the world around you.
I forget which ancient Greek was on to this idea but said "If horses had gods their gods would look like horses"
Quote from: "Tryed"Yes, SGOS, I wonder how necessary beings can exist without the existence of something physical.
I reformulated the question I think
Is the existence of contingent beings necessary in itself?
The answer is no. If anything this bullshit over complicates explanations of reality. It is nothing more than a gap answer caused by credulity and willful ignorance.
Quote from: "Tryed"I'm simply asking if it's possible to conceive of a world like that. I know contingent beings are possible in some worlds and not in others. I'm asking if it's possible for there to be a world without even ONE contingent being, or a world without the existence of contingent beings.
Asked & answered ??
:wink:
Is this the old " If a tree falls in the forest," thing?
I always get a lip twitch when people mentally masturbate. It still amounts to "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts" when what is important is EVIDENCE.
One can postulate an infinite amount of possible claims. But they never consider the most likely answer is that it is just a "feel good" or "woo" claim.
When you look at our species evolution, especially from the start of the written era, you see tons of dead myths humans no longer believe in. But even with all the invisible friend claims made by billions of people, not one can beat anyone to a patient office or win a Nobel Prize by proving it.
So between a god existing or people making them up, the safe bet is that people make them up.
You must think I'm a theist, no, I'm not. I was in need of that answer to complete an argument AGAINST the existence of god, but all you did was throw hissy fits at me
But since the answer is no to the reformulated question, my argument fell apart.
Too bad.
Quote from: "Tryed"I'm simply asking if it's possible to conceive of a world like that. I know contingent beings are possible in some worlds and not in others. I'm asking if it's possible for there to be a world without even ONE contingent being, or a world without the existence of contingent beings.
Asked & answered ??
:wink:
Quote from: "Tryed"You must think I'm a theist, no, I'm not. I was in need of that answer to complete an argument AGAINST the existence of god, but all you did was throw hissy fits at me
But since the answer is no to the reformulated question, my argument fell apart.
Too bad.
WTF?
You butthurt, dude?
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "Tryed"You must think I'm a theist, no, I'm not. I was in need of that answer to complete an argument AGAINST the existence of god, but all you did was throw hissy fits at me
But since the answer is no to the reformulated question, my argument fell apart.
Too bad.
WTF?
You butthurt, dude?
Not one bit, unfortunately the answer was not the one that I wanted, so I had to drop the argument.
Let's also define "world". Since the definition is applied by humans the "moon" is not a world but I would suggest if a being lives within it, it is indeed a world. Or a star, how anything can survive in a inferno is beyond me but not impossible I suppose. So are stars worlds in your scenario...
most likely the answer is rather simply. Some do, some don't.
Quote from: "Tryed"You must think I'm a theist, no, I'm not. I was in need of that answer to complete an argument AGAINST the existence of god, but all you did was throw hissy fits at me
But since the answer is no to the reformulated question, my argument fell apart.
Too bad.
I didn't assume anything about you. I hate mental masturbation no matter who it is coming from. If you think you have something, you do your homework first, kick the shit out of the claim, then get it independently peer reviewed. If after all that your claim survives, then you are onto something.
Otherwise since I like the idea of getting a blowjob from Angelina Jolie must mean it will happen because I thought of it and uttered it.
The point is EVIDENCE is what matters, not claims. Claims are only claims until evidence backs them up.
Quote from: "aitm"Let's also define "world". Since the definition is applied by humans the "moon" is not a world but I would suggest if a being lives within it, it is indeed a world. Or a star, how anything can survive in a inferno is beyond me but not impossible I suppose. So are stars worlds in your scenario...
most likely the answer is rather simply. Some do, some don't.
World in the context of the thread means the "possible worlds", that thing used a lot in philosophy.
Quote from: "Tryed"Quote from: "aitm"Let's also define "world". Since the definition is applied by humans the "moon" is not a world but I would suggest if a being lives within it, it is indeed a world. Or a star, how anything can survive in a inferno is beyond me but not impossible I suppose. So are stars worlds in your scenario...
most likely the answer is rather simply. Some do, some don't.
World in the context of the thread means the "possible worlds", that thing used a lot in philosophy.
okay so the moon, an asteroid and the sun is a "possible" world since we can't define whatever life you are trying to define.
Quote from: "Tryed"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "Tryed"You must think I'm a theist, no, I'm not. I was in need of that answer to complete an argument AGAINST the existence of god, but all you did was throw hissy fits at me
But since the answer is no to the reformulated question, my argument fell apart.
Too bad.
WTF?
You butthurt, dude?
Not one bit, unfortunately the answer was not the one that I wanted, so I had to drop the argument.
No don't just "drop" the argument. That is a dodge because we challenged you. The intellectual and right thing to do is when your argument gets defeated, treat it as a learning experience and discard it. That is how one learns and grows.
Quote from: "Tryed"Quote from: "aitm"Let's also define "world". Since the definition is applied by humans the "moon" is not a world but I would suggest if a being lives within it, it is indeed a world. Or a star, how anything can survive in a inferno is beyond me but not impossible I suppose. So are stars worlds in your scenario...
most likely the answer is rather simply. Some do, some don't.
World in the context of the thread means the "possible worlds", that thing used a lot in philosophy.
I hate the word "Philosophy" it is a loaded and abused word outside of science is nothing more than excuse to be dogmatic. Religions and political parties are "philosophies" and they have been fucking up humans since their invention.
I don't give a shit about "philosophy". I care what you can prove in a lab and what can be independently verified.
Quote from: "Brian37"No don't just "drop" the argument. That is a dodge because we challenged you. The intellectual and right thing to do is when your argument gets defeated, treat it as a learning experience and discard it. That is how one learns and grows.
Isn't dropping it the same as discarding it? Should I abandon the argument or try to fix it?
Quote from: "Brian37"I hate the word "Philosophy" it is a loaded and abused word outside of science is nothing more than excuse to be dogmatic. Religions and political parties are "philosophies" and they have been fucking up humans since their invention.
I don't give a shit about "philosophy". I care what you can prove in a lab and what can be independently verified.
I too don't like philosophy, I used to avoid it. But I'm feeling forced to attack some "philosophical" theistic arguments for reasons I don't think it's good for me to reveal
Quote from: "Tryed"Quote from: "aitm"Let's also define "world". Since the definition is applied by humans the "moon" is not a world but I would suggest if a being lives within it, it is indeed a world. Or a star, how anything can survive in a inferno is beyond me but not impossible I suppose. So are stars worlds in your scenario...
most likely the answer is rather simply. Some do, some don't.
World in the context of the thread means the "possible worlds", that thing used a lot in philosophy.
"possible worlds"
Ok, lets take this naked assertion to its absurd conclusion
If anything is possible until we prove it isn't then the following is true.
The universe was farted out of a monkey's ass.
The universe is a giant computer program.
The universe was made from pixy dust.
The universe was made from Thor.
The universe was made from ice cream.
The universe came from quarks with human brains.
The universe came from Allah.
The universe came from Jesus.
The universe was started by "The Force".
I could go on, but I am hoping you get the point.
Where your logic fails is there is a HUGE difference between not knowing the answer to something and the "probability", of your claim being the likely answer. Since human perception is notoriously flawed, it is a bad idea to fill in the gap. It is better to simply go with the best current data and work from there. And right now our current data is saying that a cognition IS NOT required and is INFINITELY UNLIKELY to be the cause.
Quote from: "Tryed"Quote from: "Brian37"I hate the word "Philosophy" it is a loaded and abused word outside of science is nothing more than excuse to be dogmatic. Religions and political parties are "philosophies" and they have been fucking up humans since their invention.
I don't give a shit about "philosophy". I care what you can prove in a lab and what can be independently verified.
I too don't like philosophy, I used to avoid it. But I'm feeling forced to attack some "philosophical" theistic arguments for reasons I don't think it's good for me to reveal
Well if you are not going to "reveal" what you claim then we have no intellectual obligation to blindly buy it.
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "Tryed"Quote from: "Brian37"I hate the word "Philosophy" it is a loaded and abused word outside of science is nothing more than excuse to be dogmatic. Religions and political parties are "philosophies" and they have been fucking up humans since their invention.
I don't give a shit about "philosophy". I care what you can prove in a lab and what can be independently verified.
I too don't like philosophy, I used to avoid it. But I'm feeling forced to attack some "philosophical" theistic arguments for reasons I don't think it's good for me to reveal
Well if you are not going to "reveal" what you claim then we have no intellectual obligation to blindly buy it.
Of course not. I just asked a question and got the answer. Reformulated the question and got the answer. It was that simple.
Quote from: "Tryed"Quote from: "Brian37"No don't just "drop" the argument. That is a dodge because we challenged you. The intellectual and right thing to do is when your argument gets defeated, treat it as a learning experience and discard it. That is how one learns and grows.
Isn't dropping it the same as discarding it? Should I abandon the argument or try to fix it?
I am a bit confused. If you are arguing with a theist, don't let them trap you with "GOTCHA" crap. I have been at this for 12 years. I have been occasionally "stumped". But that does not make them right. Ultimately the thing they cannot do and refuse to do is have their "god theory" empirically proven. And humans are known for making up fictitious gods and falsely believing them to be real.
So if you are "stumped" all that really means is that they are using elaborate smoke and mirrors to hide their hollow man.
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "Tryed"Quote from: "Brian37"No don't just "drop" the argument. That is a dodge because we challenged you. The intellectual and right thing to do is when your argument gets defeated, treat it as a learning experience and discard it. That is how one learns and grows.
Isn't dropping it the same as discarding it? Should I abandon the argument or try to fix it?
I am a bit confused. If you are arguing with a theist, don't let them trap you with "GOTCHA" crap. I have been at this for 12 years. I have been occasionally "stumped". But that does not make them right. Ultimately the thing they cannot do and refuse to do is have their "god theory" empirically proven. And humans are known for making up fictitious gods and falsely believing them to be real.
So if you are "stumped" all that really means is that they are using elaborate smoke and mirrors to hide their hollow man.
No... I'm not debating with a theist, I was trying to create an argument against the existance of god. And the statement "the existance of contingent beings is necessary in itself" being true was key to fill a hole I found in my own argument. Since that statement is false, I guess I have to abandon my own argument. Unfortunately.
Why are you making arguments against the existance of god?
You're supposed to make arguments for the existance of god, because he's not been proven to exist yet. You'll quickly find that there are no arguments for the existance of god that hold up under scientific scrutiny.
Quote from: "Plu"Why are you making arguments against the existance of god?
You're supposed to make arguments for the existance of god, because he's not been proven to exist yet. You'll quickly find that there are no arguments for the existance of god that hold up under scientific scrutiny.
Sorry, a better phrasing would be "creating an objection against a theistic argument"
Why is it that I never orgasm from mental masturbation?
But why? You can simply discard them without discussion if you feel like it. None of them have been proven to be viable, so no counter-argument is needed beyond "that hasn't been proven".
I mean; enjoying the tearing into them is one thing, but you're under no obligation to find objections to their arguments.
Quote from: "Plu"But why? You can simply discard them without discussion if you feel like it. None of them have been proven to be viable, so no counter-argument is needed beyond "that hasn't been proven".
I mean; enjoying the tearing into them is one thing, but you're under no obligation to find objections to their arguments.
That may be true, but there is a reason, I get extremely anxious when I don't get the answer that I want to a specific question at least vaguely related about this stuff.
I wish I could just shrug it off like you guys do.
You should try answering the questions with "It's never been proven", it should be the proper answer to these questions ;)
Quote from: "Tryed"No... I'm not debating with a theist, I was trying to create an argument against the existance of god. And the statement "the existance of contingent beings is necessary in itself" being true was key to fill a hole I found in my own argument. Since that statement is false, I guess I have to abandon my own argument. Unfortunately.
Dont hurt yourself because it really is not that complicated.
Ocham's razor solves this quite nicely.
"Out of multiple postulations to solve a problem the one with the least baggage is the most likely"
So.
1. A god does exist.
Or
2. People make up gods.
Which to you seems more likely and which to you seems to explain reality more simply?
Now on a scientific level, there is NO evidence of cognition existing outside biological evolution.
The theist may try to get you with "thoughts are not things". I explain "thoughts" as much like the speed of a car in motion. Our "self" is merely our brain in motion. But life that has cognition needs a biological structure(car) to have the ability to speed(thoughts, personality, self).
I'd suggest rather than make up your own arguments, learn from the pros already here.
Quote from: "Seabear"Why is it that I never orgasm from mental masturbation?
To do that you need an egg beater, condoms and K-Y jelly and a neurologist.
Quote from: "Tryed"No... I'm not debating with a theist, I was trying to create an argument against the existance of god. And the statement "the existance of contingent beings is necessary in itself" being true was key to fill a hole I found in my own argument. Since that statement is false, I guess I have to abandon my own argument. Unfortunately.
The key problem is that the terms you use are so off, undefined and weird. You have yet to even explain what you meant by contignent being? Does it mean neccesary being? If so, by definition, the answer would be that it's neccesary, BUT only if such a thing existed, and no such thing has been proven to do so. Furthermore this neccesary being kinda sounds like a god ... so in order to make an argument against the existence of god(s) you must have the premise that a god exist???
You really need to clarify here, dude. You haven't really defined what you mean by possible worlds either, or you referring to potential/possible universes/planes of existence? And if so, why? Possiblities of unknown or any likelyhood, i.e. arguments (almost, partly or entirely) depending on "everything is possible" are utterly useless to determine anything.
Quote from: "Plu"What's a contingent being?
An argument developed by Aquinas for "Universal Causation", IE Gawd-done-it.
Quote from: "Tryed"Heya, here goes
Is a world with NO contingent beings (not even one) possible?
Or perhaps for better wording:
Is a world without the existence of any contingent beings possible?
Please help me with this one
Yes, a world, and a universe, without contingent beings is indeed possible, and demands the possibility as well.
It is more rational to argue that the universe has always existed, going through cyclic "Big Bangs", and will always exist as the evidence suggests this. There is no evidence supporting the idea of some creator deity. Indeed, the only evidence offered is easily dismissed.