Cosmological Arguments from Contingency
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- Why does anything exist? Is there something that necessarily exists? If so, what is its nature? Today I discuss Dr. Josh Rasmussen's Philosophy Compass article "Cosmological Arguments from Contingency".
Article: appearedtoblog...
Book: www.amazon.com...
Website: www.majestyofreason.wordpress.com/
Just found your channel this week and wow what a gem. Thank you for all the work you do
Is metaphysical contingency argument (like done by Ibn Sina in his metaphysics of healings) better than Modal contingency and Contingency argument referring to Cosmos?
It would be a lot easier to focus on the video if there's a ppt on the screen.
Good video, tho!
Thanks! Many of my videos will be accompanied by powerpoints, but many won't. I'll be mixing it up!
9:43
In e-mail Pruss told me he no longer defends this view, but he didn't tell me why :(
Hi. Thanks for the video! Dr. Rasmussen's argument is very complicated, but it seems like you tried to present it in an organized and clear manner. I didn't always follow everything, but not because of your explanation. While I think Dr. Rasmussen is a very good guy and a very good thinker, I disagree with him on the question that's really being discussed: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I agree with him that there has to be some necessarily existent entity that is self-defining, or self-existing. It's a non-contingent entity whose reason for existence must be contained within it so that its existence isn't dependent on any other thing. But, this necessary entity does not have to be a God-like being. It could just be a physically existent entity.
My view on the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that to answer it, we have to tackle the possibility that there could have been "nothing" but now there is "something". Without addressing this, we'll never get a satisfying answer. A summary of what I think is below. I apologize for this being a long comment.
Others have suggested that the seeming insolubility of the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is based on a flawed assumption. I agree and propose the following. I think the flawed assumption is that the situation we often visualize as being "absolute nothing" or the lack of all existent entities (e.g., the lack of all matter; energy; space/volume; time; abstract concepts; laws of physics, math and logic; and minds and consciousness to consider this supposed "nothing") is really the lack of all existent entities. Instead, I think this situation is itself an existent entity, or a "something". If so, this means that "something" is necessary, or non-contingent because even what we used to think of as "absolute nothing" is a something. How can this be? The proposed explanation is as follows. In regard to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", two possible solutions are:
A. “Something” has always been here.
B. “Something” has not always been here.
Choice A is possible but doesn’t explain anything; although, more will be said about it at the end of this paragraph. Also, in order to ever answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" in a satisfactory manner, I think we're going to have to address choice B. People think there must be a reason why "something" is here. So, let's address it. If we go with choice B, if “something” has not always been here, then “nothing” must have been here before it. In other words, there was "nothing" and now there is "something".
While the words "was" and "now " imply a temporal change, time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation, and that the human mind, after the fact, can view the switching between the two different words/perspectives as a temporal change.
Now, if this supposed "nothing” before the "something" was truly the lack of all existent entities, though, there would be no mechanism present to change, or transform, this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. But, because we can see that “something” is here now, the only possible choice is that the supposed “nothing” we were thinking of was not in fact the lack of all existent entities, or absolute “nothing”. There must have been some existent entity, or “something”, present that could either have been the “something” we see now or that would have contained the mechanism needed to cause that “something” to appear. Because we got rid of all the existent entities we could think of, the only thing that could be an existent entity would be the supposed “nothing” itself. That is, it must in fact be a “something”. This is logically required if we go with choice B, and I don’t think there’s a way around that. Another way to say this is that if you start with 0 and end up with 1, you can't do this unless somehow the 0 isn't really 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. Overall, this idea leads to the result that “something” is necessary because even what we used to think of as the lack of all existent entities, or “nothing”, is a “something”. Ironically, going with choice B leads to choice A. If what we used to think of as "absolute nothing" is actually an existent entity, or a "something", this would always have been true, which means that this "something" would always have been here.
Instead of insisting that "nothing" can't be a "something" and refusing to continue, it's more useful to follow the logic described above and try to figure out how "nothing" can be a "something". So, how can this be? I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping that defines what is contained within. By defining what is contained within, it groups what is contained within into a single unit whole. This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing. In the case of a book, the grouping together of all the individual atoms and the bonds individual atoms creates a new and unique existent entity called a “book”, which is a different existent entity than the atoms and bonds inside considered individually. This grouping provides the surface that we see and can touch and that we call the "book". Try to imagine a book that has no surface defining what is contained within. Even if you remove the cover, the collection of pages that’s left still has a surface. How do you even touch or see something without a surface? You can’t because it wouldn’t exist. As a different example, consider the concept of an automobile. This is a mental construct in the head that groups together individual concepts/constructs labeled “tire”, “engine”, “car body”, etc. into a new and unique entity labeled as the concept “automobile”. Here, the grouping is not seen as a physical surface but as the mental label “automobile” for the collection of subconcepts. But, this construct still exists because it’s a grouping defining what is contained within. One last example is that of a set. Does a set exist before the rule defining what elements are contained within is present? No. So, in conclusion, a grouping or relationship present defining what is contained within is an existent entity.
Next, let's apply this definition of why a thing exist to the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" To start, "absolute nothing", or "non-existence", is first defined to mean: no energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc.; and no minds to think about this "absolute lack-of-all". Now, try to visualize this. When we get rid of all existent entities including matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics and math as well as minds to consider this supposed lack of all, we think what is left is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" (here, I don't mean our mind's conception of this supposed "absolute nothing", I mean the supposed "absolute nothing" itself, in which all minds would be gone). This situation is very hard to visualize because the mind is trying to imagine a situation in which it doesn't exist. But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute lack-of-all", would be it; it would be the everything. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety, whole amount or "the all" is a grouping that defines what is contained within (e.g., everything), which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. The entirety/whole amount/"the all" grouping is itself the surface, or boundary, of this existent entity. Said another way, by its very nature, "absolute nothing"/"the all" defines itself and is therefore the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities. What this means is that "something" is necessary, or non-contingent, because even what we previously, and incorrectly, visualized as the lack of all existent entities, or "nothing", is a "something. While this is not a new idea, the current paper presents a physical mechanism for how this can be and uses this mechanism to build a primitive model of the existent universe, which is made of "something"s. The rest of this paper will go over this proposed solution in more detail.
If anyone's still reading at this point, thanks for that! I've got more detail at my website at
sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/
Thanks!
Have you read How Reason Can Lead To God?
@@barry.anderberg Not yet. Thanks!
Barry Anderberg
🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT):
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the slightest shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person or Deity, for the notion of an omnipresent PERSON is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly.
The English word “person” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “person”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Simple logic dictates that the Ultimate Reality transcends all concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization.
There are at least FOUR reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Supreme Personal God:
1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit).
2. Because they have experienced some kind of mystical phenomenon or miracle, which they mistakenly attribute to “God's grace”, but which can be more logically explicated by another means. As explained, all such phenomena are produced by the TRUE Self of all selves (“Paramātman”, in Sanskrit). I, the author of this Holy Scripture, have personally experienced very powerful, miraculous, mystical phenomena, which I formerly ascribed to the personal conception of God (since I was a Theist), but now know to be caused, ultimately, by the Real Self.
3. Because they may have witnessed the deeds or read the words of an individual who seems to be a perfect person - in other words an incarnation of the Divine Principle (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit). To be sure, such persons do exist, but that does not necessarily prove that the Supreme Truth is PERSONAL. An Avatar is a man who was born fully enlightened, with all noble qualities, but not necessarily perfect in every possible way. For example, very few (if any) of the recognized Avatars in human history taught or practiced veganism.
4. Because they have been CONDITIONED by their family, society and/or religious organization over many years or decades. Unfortunately, we humans are very gullible. Due to low intelligence and lack of critical analysis, the typical person believes almost anything they read or hear from virtually any source. During a visit to one's local place of worship on any given weekend, one will notice a congregation of sheepish individuals nodding in agreement with practically every nonsensical, inane word spouted by their deluded so-called “priest”, imam, mullah, rabbi, guru, monk, or preacher. Even the current World Teacher, despite his genius intellect, was once a thoroughly-indoctrinated religious fundamentalist, before he awoke to a definitive understanding of life.
Having stated the above, the worship of the Personal Deity (“bhakti yoga”, in Sanskrit), is a legitimate spiritual path for the masses. However, the most ACCURATE understanding is monistic or non-dual (“advaita”, in Sanskrit). If one wishes to be even more pedantic, the ultimate understanding is beyond even the concept of nonduality, as the great South Indian sage, Śri Ramana Maharishi, once so rightly proclaimed.
As an aside, it seems that practically every religious organization, particularly those originating in Bhārata (India), claims to have been founded by an Avatar, but that’s simply wishful thinking on the part of their congregations. Only a great sage or World Teacher can POSSIBLY recognize an enlightened being, what to speak of an Incarnation of the Divine. The typical spiritual aspirant, even one who may seem to be a highly-exalted practitioner, has very little idea of what constitutes actual holiness. Frankly speaking, many famous (infamous?) religious leaders were some of the most vile and contemptible characters in human history, particularly in this Epoch of Darkness (“Kali Yuga”, in Sanskrit).
“God is greater than God.”
*************
“Where there is Isness, there God is. Creation is the giving of isness from God. That is why God becomes where any creature expresses God.”
*************
“Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.”
*************
“There is something in the soul that is so akin to God that it is one with Him... It has nothing in common with anything created.”
*************
“The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.”
*************
“The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.”
Eckhart von Hochheim O.P. (AKA Meister Eckhart) ,
German Roman Catholic Priest.
“God is merely one of man's concepts, a symbol used for pointing the way, to the Ultimate Reality, which has been mistaken for the Reality itself.
The map has been mistaken for the actual territory.”
*************
“Worshipers may derive some sort of satisfaction or peace of mind, through worship of a concept such as God (created by themselves), but it is a futile process, from the viewpoint of experiencing one's true nature.”
Ramesh Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
846roger
🐟 05. THE PHENOMENAL UNIVERSE:
The fact that the external, phenomenal universe (“prakṛti”, in Sanskrit) of names and forms (“nāmarūpa”, in Sanskrit/Pali) exists solely within personal consciousness (and by extension, Universal Consciousness), is superlatively logical. If this material world actually existed as a separate reality, then obviously, it would have limits, because the nature of matter is that it has a measurable, three-dimensional finity. Therefore, if one were to travel to the edge of the universe, there would need to be something WITHOUT the boundary of the universe (some other ’’universe’’, which contains this universe). This contradicts the very concept of a universe (literally, “turned into one”).
The late, great Professor Dr. Alan Watts’ response to the question: “where is the universe located?”, was: “nowhere and everywhere”.
This phenomenal manifestation is composed of space, time, energy, and matter, the latter of which comprises eight elemental groups - the five GROSS elements (“mahābhūta”, in Sanskrit), which are perceivable by at least one of the five senses, and the three SUBTLE elements (“tanmātra” or “atisūkṣma mātra”, in Sanskrit), which are symptomatic of localized consciousness.
N. B. Dark matter is not included in this system, as cosmological science has yet to determine its structural composition.
The five gross material elements and three subtle material elements are (from most gross to most subtle):
SOLIDS (AKA earth - “bhūmiḥ” or “pṛthivī”, in Sanskrit) are made of densely-packed atoms and molecules of a steady shape at room temperature.
LIQUIDS (AKA water - “jala” or “āpaḥ”, in Sanskrit) are composed of moderately dense molecules (usually including at least some water) of no fixed shape.
GAS (AKA air - “vāyuḥ” or “marut”, in Sanskrit) consists of rarefied atomic particles of no fixed shape.
HEAT (AKA fire - “analaḥ” or “tejas”, in Sanskrit) is made of kinetic energy (which may or may not appear visibly as fire, or at least heat waves).
ETHER (AKA space - “ākāśa” or “khaṃ”, in Sanskrit) is a vacuum consisting of three-dimensional space (length, breadth, and width). However, recent investigation has confirmed that empty space is actually filled with virtual particles (matter and antimatter). Thus, the explanation for the material universe being created from “nothing” (anti-matter) is plausible, according to quantum field theory.
MIND (“manaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is composed of sensual perceptions, instinctual thoughts, abstract images (including memories and fantasies), and emotions. Not all animals species possess a mind, but function purely on base instincts originating from their genetic code via the nerves.
INTELLECT (“buddhiḥ”, in Sanskrit) consists of conceptual thoughts. Only the very higher species of animal life possess an intellectual capacity.
PSEUDO-EGO (“ahaṃkāraḥ”, in Sanskrit) is comprised of the “I” thought (in this case, the illusory, temporal self-identity). Only humans possess the self-awareness necessary to question their own existence. Read Chapter 10 for a full elucidation of egoity.
Each of the FIVE gross material elements corresponds to one of the senses of the body. E.g. In outer space, where there is a vacuum (ether), one can detect light with the eyes, yet space is not tactile and cannot be smelled or tasted, nor can sound waves travel via space. At the opposite extreme, solid matter can be seen with the eyes, felt with the sense of touch, tasted with the tongue, smelt with the nose, and heard with the ear (when the solid matter is physically vibrated).
Beyond these eight material elements is the TRUE self - which pervades the entire body, and indeed, which is the Universal Self (“ayam ātmā brahma”, in Sanskrit). That explains why we say: “This is my hand”, “This is my mind”. Who is the owner of the body and the mind? It is us, the anti-matter, the inextinguishable authentic self/Self (“ātmana/Paramātmana”, in Sanskrit). Ultimately speaking, the Universal Self alone is.
HOWEVER, all eight elements are in fact “made” of Consciousness, since, as demonstrated previously, naught but Consciousness exists. Consciousness is the ultimate reality (“prajñānam brahma”, in Sanskrit). Just as a wedding ring depends on gold for its very existence, so too does the phenomenal universe depend entirely on ”Beingness” or “Isness”, Consciousness, and Blissful Awareness.
Although The Absolute cannot be verbally-described, (otherwise, it would be an OBJECT), as a concession to materialists, Infinite Consciousness has said to exhibit three innate attributes, known as “sacchidānanda”, a compounded Sanskrit epithet, consisting of the three words “sat”, “cit” and “ānanda” - Eternal Being(ness), Existence, or Truth; Conscious Knowledge; and Perfect Peace (often translated as “bliss”. However, the term “bliss” connotes a temporal experience of euphoria, whereas “peace” is the absence of any form of temporal suffering).
Because Absolutely Nothing (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) is Infinite Creative Potentiality, it actualizes as Absolutely Everything.
Attributeless Consciousness at Rest (in Sanskrit, “Nirguna Brahman”) manifests as this phenomenal universe (Consciousness in Action, or in Sanskrit, “Saguna Brahman”). In the verbiage of quantum physics, the enfolded implicate order becomes the unfolded explicate order.
In REALITY there is no separation of anything at any time (assuming that Consciousness is a “thing”, and that time is an attribute of The Uncaused Absolute).
The phenomenal manifestation is eternally cyclical, because ‘coming into existence’ implies ‘going out of existence’, just as ‘black’ implies the existence of ‘white’, or as ‘rich’ implies ‘poor’. Is it possible to have something without nothing? Obviously not, because the two go together, as interrelated opposites.
Similarly, despite what most believe, the outer-world is as much the Self as the inner-world. Where is the boundary of the human body? When we look at a person, we cannot see that person UNLESS we also see the background image. The two are inseparable, just as a flower and a bee cannot exist without the other. This fact alone is ample evidence that the universe is a holistic and wholistic system or entity.
You who are reading these words are that Totality of Existence, the Highest Universal Principle, the Essential Irreducible Self.
In common parlance, you are God (IF you only knew it!).
Most of the greatest sages in history have spoken about either or both these concepts (of the Absolute Truth being either Absolutely Everything or Absolute Nothingness), such as the concept of “nirvana” in Buddhism, or in Avatar Meher Baba's book “The Everything and the Nothing” (which is highly-recommended, particularly Chapters 51 to 56, which poetically describe the Ineffable One-without-a-second ). Even an ordinary writer, American author Kurt Vonnegut, once penned: “Everything is nothing - with a twist”.
The Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics professor, Doctor Leonard Susskind's so-called “minus first law of physics” states that information is INDESTRUCTIBLE. This is akin to the law of conservation of energy in classical physics, and proves that neither physical or psychic energy is lost. Read subsequent chapters to learn more about how this law relates to the notion of reincarnation, as well as to miraculous phenomena such as savant syndrome.
The planet on which we are residing consists of animate/organic life, as well as inanimate/inorganic matter.
The six stages of ORGANIC life are:
1. conception/birth
2. growth/development
3. maintenance
4. reproduction
5. ageing/deterioration
6. death
British polymath Thomas Young's famous double-slit experiment suggests that matter exists purely as potentiality or as a "possibility" until it is observed by a conscious being. This phenomenon, known as the wave-particle duality, is often discussed in advanced spiritual discourses, as it gives credence to the primacy of Consciousness. There are other aspects of the universe (e.g. the various philosophical approaches to the nature of ontological time, the accelerated expanding universe, holographic universe principle, quantum superposition, wave function, and quantum entanglement), as well as the possibility of life on other planets, the crop circle phenomenon, and the presence of the Fibonacci sequence in nature, which are beyond the scope of this document, and which do not directly relate to the most important thing in life (to find the unending peace/happiness which we humans are ULTIMATELY seeking).
“Find out who you REALLY are so that when death comes…there is no-one to kill, for while you are identified with your role, with your name, with your ego, there is someone to kill. But when you are identified with the whole universe, death finds you already annihilated and there’s no-one to kill”.
*************
“Just as you depend on the universe, so too does the universe depend on YOU.
Everything depends on everything else.”
Professor Alan W. Watts,
British-American Philosopher.
“Who is the perceiver?
Universal Consciousness alone is the perceiver.
The body is merely the mechanism, through which perceiving takes place and from which the ego is inferred, as the perceiver of other objects.
Strictly speaking, there is neither the perceiver nor the perceived.
There is only perceiving, as the objective expression of the subjective functioning, of the one Universal Consciousness.”
Ramesh Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
This video would be substantially improved by a diagram
*𝙱𝚒𝚐 𝙵*
Awesome episode! Thank you!
This time I watched until the end before commenting and will limit myself to one clarifying question and a couple of follow-up thoughts/questions :)
Near the end of the video, you talked about two strategies to avoid the inference to the personhood of the necessary being. I am especially interested in your scenario involving two necessary beings. You said it is possible that one necessary being "gives rise" to another necessary being with the effect that the system involving the two as a whole, and not either one of them individually, has the probabilistic causal power which explains the fact about the existence of contingent reality. What did you mean by "gives rise"? Were you assuming eternalism to account for at least the second "necessary being's" "necessity" in spite of its having at least one temporal boundary (the beginning corresponding to the first necessary being's "giving rise" to the second) in each possible world? It looks like if I want to preserve my deep-seated intuition that, for any x, if x is necessary, then it is eternal, I will have to go back and re-define the concept of necessity (and, by implication, possibility) by introducing tense into standard possible worlds semantics (if I want to use the latter device in my definition, that is). The fact is that the standard possible worlds semantics, by abstracting from the reality of tense, just will not be fine-grained enough for the purposes of the argument from contingency, in particular for Stage II of the argument. Stage I can be successful, as Dr. Oppy is willing to admit, without the logical inference to either, on presentism, the necessary being's presently existing or existing simpliciter, or, on eternalism, the existence of the necessary being at t1 corresponding to the moment at which the argument is assessed.
In any case, could not the relevant inference to personhood at Stage II of the argument be the inference to the best explanation as opposed to some form of deductive inference? If so, do you think a proponent of the contingency argument could argue that the explanation involving two necessary entities comprising a system with certain causal properties massively loses on simplicity and should not be preferred to the simpler one involving one personal agent?
Thank you for the comment my dude!
"In any case, could not the relevant inference to personhood at Stage II of the argument be the inference to the best explanation as opposed to some form of deductive inference?"
I think this is the best path to go. In fact, I think that the best path to go is simply to combine the fine-tuning argument with stage one to give a case for personhood.
But ignoring considerations about fine-tuning, I'm skeptical that personhood is the best explanation. This would posit a radically categorically different kind of being entering into our ontology: a supernatural, personal being, responsible for causing contingent reality. From our experience, persons are 'late, local, and embodied/physically dependent'. It would be better (and much simpler, it seems) to maintain a categorical uniformity in our hypothesis about the necessary being: simply be natural, like everything else. We already have (both theist and naturalist alike) natural, indeterministic events in our ontology. Positing a supernatural indeterministic event is less simple -- or so it seems (at least prima facie).
I don't like the two necessary beings hypothesis -- as you know, of course, I was only giving that to show that *even if* concrete physical objects only deterministically cause things, we still won't get to a non-physical being (since we could still have an indeterministic, irreducible physical system, blah blah lol). But I think physical objects can indeterministically cause things. So, putting on my naturalist hat, the necessary being is just a physical thing with indeterministic causal powers. That's simpler than my weird 'two being' thought experiment, lol.
@@MajestyofReasonSUPER helpful comments to clarify my thinking about it. THANK YOU!!
"So, I left that open. Perhaps the 'giving rise to' relation is a grounding relation. Or perhaps it's a causal relation. I'll stick with the latter for simplicity, clarity, and ease of exposition.
So, one necessary being causes the other necessary being. This need not involve temporal boundaries. Perhaps they're both timeless. Or, perhaps both extend into the infinite past, but one of them is a more fundamental cause of the other (similar to how a foot can be the cause of a footprint even if the state of affairs of the foot's being imprinted on the sand is past-eternal and beginningless). Or perhaps they have temporal boundaries in an eternalist ontology. Or [and so on]."
I totally get it now. I think I just got hung up on the phrase "gives rise" with ideas of beginning to exist or coming into being usually associated with it and I did not interpret it broadly enough. I can see how the phrase can be used more neutrally and indeed how you used it in the video :)
"If eternalism is true, then I think it could easily be that a necessary thing doesn't exist at all times and in that sense has a 'beginning' and 'end'. It would exist in all words, and at some time or other in all worlds."
Yes, I completely agree with that!
"If presentism is true, all that necessary means is existing in all possible worlds -- that neither means nor entails existing at all times in all worlds."
This is really cool! I agree with you that a presentist can mean by "necessary" that when the term is applied to objects, the claim is that the objects exist in all possible worlds or that when applied to propositions, that they are true at all possible worlds. This is a useful concept that a presentist can successfully utilize in many contexts. What worries me as a presentist is whether this sense of 'necessity' is all I will need to argue in Stage II for the existence of God. Consider that often defenders of the argument from contingency explain what they mean by God's necessary existence by saying that God cannot fail to exist. Now, this "cannot fail to exist" is tricky. One might just mean by that existence-in-worlds but I doubt that that is all one means in our context. It seems to me that what one also is saying by that phrase is that there is a kind of further necessity (factual? intra-world?) at play which requires that the "necessary" object "always" exists "in reality" and cannot not exist in it. This is where theories of time matter, for it seems to me that only presentism captures the intuition of this way of thinking about necessity. What is it, on a B-theoretic framework, for an object to fail to exist given that all moments of time are equally real? No object is really "gone" because temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality. All objects that exist at a world that obtains (the actual world) "exist" in reality; they do not "fail to exist" simply because relative to some observer they happen to be located earlier than the moment at which the observer exists. Since both the observer and the objects in question are equally real, the objects do not objectively "fail to exist". Things are very different in a presentist framework. First, if objective temporal becoming is real then what is 'real', understood as what exists simpliciter, changes from moment to moment as objects that used to exist cease to exist and so on. To cash this out, we need the notion of 'reality' you mentioned as including everything that was, is, or will be. It is indeed close to the notion of a possible world that obtains ("the actual world") but is still very different. The standard "possible worlds" talk abstracts even further from "everything that was, is, or will be" because the tenses of the verbs in the latter are irreducible and, on presentism, express constantly changing facts about reality whereas the standard possible worlds semantics only uses verbs tenselessly in their descriptions of worlds. But then the standard possible worlds semantics is in principle incapable of expressing all we might want to say about reality, namely that things really do come into and go out of existence, i.e., that temporal becoming is real. And to the extent to which "cannot fail to exist" has something to do with not going out of existence, the realistic construal of which presupposes the truth of temporal becoming, the "across-possible-worlds" notion of necessity invoked in the standard possible worlds semantics just will not be sufficient to capture the notion of necessity according to which what is necessary cannot fail to exist.
Where does all this leave a theist arguing for God from contingency? Well, I guess one way is to adopt a B-theoretic framework together with God's atemporality and so be unmoved by the possibility that the conclusion that there is a necessary being can be interpreted in a way compatible with the said being's non-existence at the time the argument is put forward and assessed. But the reason why the theist might not be moved would, in this case, be trivial: the theist denies that God literally exists AT any moment of time. Another option is to endorse presentism, but, like Feser and unlike Craig, insist that God is nevertheless timeless. Again, trivially, the possible non-existence at a time would not be a problem (the challenge I see with this model is its overall intelligibility). It's only if the theist wants to say that God is in time and yet in virtue of God's necessity cannot fail to exist that there will be a problem to capture this sense of necessity by the standard possible worlds semantics.
Or so it seems to me :)
Majesty of Reason
Your reasoning faculty MAY be “majestic”, yet your lack of basic social etiquette leaves much to be desired, Slave.
I’m referring, here, to your habit of addressing your viewers as “my dude” (leaving aside your lack of punctuation/capitalization skills).
Dima Zhyvov
🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT):
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the slightest shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person or Deity, for the notion of an omnipresent PERSON is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly.
The English word “person” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “person”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Simple logic dictates that the Ultimate Reality transcends all concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization.
There are at least FOUR reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Supreme Personal God:
1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit).
2. Because they have experienced some kind of mystical phenomenon or miracle, which they mistakenly attribute to “God's grace”, but which can be more logically explicated by another means. As explained, all such phenomena are produced by the TRUE Self of all selves (“Paramātman”, in Sanskrit). I, the author of this Holy Scripture, have personally experienced very powerful, miraculous, mystical phenomena, which I formerly ascribed to the personal conception of God (since I was a Theist), but now know to be caused, ultimately, by the Real Self.
3. Because they may have witnessed the deeds or read the words of an individual who seems to be a perfect person - in other words an incarnation of the Divine Principle (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit). To be sure, such persons do exist, but that does not necessarily prove that the Supreme Truth is PERSONAL. An Avatar is a man who was born fully enlightened, with all noble qualities, but not necessarily perfect in every possible way. For example, very few (if any) of the recognized Avatars in human history taught or practiced veganism.
4. Because they have been CONDITIONED by their family, society and/or religious organization over many years or decades. Unfortunately, we humans are very gullible. Due to low intelligence and lack of critical analysis, the typical person believes almost anything they read or hear from virtually any source. During a visit to one's local place of worship on any given weekend, one will notice a congregation of sheepish individuals nodding in agreement with practically every nonsensical, inane word spouted by their deluded so-called “priest”, imam, mullah, rabbi, guru, monk, or preacher. Even the current World Teacher, despite his genius intellect, was once a thoroughly-indoctrinated religious fundamentalist, before he awoke to a definitive understanding of life.
Having stated the above, the worship of the Personal Deity (“bhakti yoga”, in Sanskrit), is a legitimate spiritual path for the masses. However, the most ACCURATE understanding is monistic or non-dual (“advaita”, in Sanskrit). If one wishes to be even more pedantic, the ultimate understanding is beyond even the concept of nonduality, as the great South Indian sage, Śri Ramana Maharishi, once so rightly proclaimed.
As an aside, it seems that practically every religious organization, particularly those originating in Bhārata (India), claims to have been founded by an Avatar, but that’s simply wishful thinking on the part of their congregations. Only a great sage or World Teacher can POSSIBLY recognize an enlightened being, what to speak of an Incarnation of the Divine. The typical spiritual aspirant, even one who may seem to be a highly-exalted practitioner, has very little idea of what constitutes actual holiness. Frankly speaking, many famous (infamous?) religious leaders were some of the most vile and contemptible characters in human history, particularly in this Epoch of Darkness (“Kali Yuga”, in Sanskrit).
“God is greater than God.”
*************
“Where there is Isness, there God is. Creation is the giving of isness from God. That is why God becomes where any creature expresses God.”
*************
“Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.”
*************
“There is something in the soul that is so akin to God that it is one with Him... It has nothing in common with anything created.”
*************
“The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.”
*************
“The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.”
Eckhart von Hochheim O.P. (AKA Meister Eckhart) ,
German Roman Catholic Priest.
“God is merely one of man's concepts, a symbol used for pointing the way, to the Ultimate Reality, which has been mistaken for the Reality itself.
The map has been mistaken for the actual territory.”
*************
“Worshipers may derive some sort of satisfaction or peace of mind, through worship of a concept such as God (created by themselves), but it is a futile process, from the viewpoint of experiencing one's true nature.”
Ramesh Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
Hey Joe, another great philrel vid. Though the philrel content is really good and is what I'm mainly here for, do you reckon you'll be doing anything that isn't talked about in philrel? Maybe political philosophy?
Yes! I'll be doing lots of stuff outside philosophy of religion, including:
Ethics (both applied and meta-ethics)
Epistemology
Metaphysics
Logic
Philosophy of Time
Philosophy of Science
Political Philosophy (occasionally)
Here’s some political TRUTH for you, in the meantime:
🐟 22. NON-MONARCHICAL GOVERNANCE:
COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM is intrinsically evil, because it reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their talents are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Wealth is literally stolen from the rich. Spiritual teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and illegitimate government.
DEMOCRACY is evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will invariably vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the overwhelming majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still wrong for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler/leader does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force.
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler. They are most assuredly not. Just as the typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial to them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is meant misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for their distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries, but if anarchists were to understand that most all “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane 'system'.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12).
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to attempt to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen. For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or 'Australia', as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not), and even trying to influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Basically, the worst of the non-monarchical governments promote (or at least permit) ALL things contrary to God’s perfect and pure will, such as adultery, fornication, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, gambling (even running lotteries themselves), illegitimate abortion of poor innocent unborn children, irreligion, drug addiction, disrespect for authority, and advancing materialism and ignorance via a powerful network of institutions of miseducation (so-called “schools, colleges and universities”). Their aim is to produce a population of indoctrinated citizens who have been conditioned to serve the state and its perverse agendas.
Even though non-monarchical leaders are committing a criminal act by ordering the persecution of its citizens, or instigating war on another nation, the police and military personnel who execute their orders are equally (if not MORE) guilty of their dirty deeds. Even if a non-monarchical government punishes a criminal, that in itself is a criminal act, because it has absolutely no authority to do so. That is akin to a baby punishing its mother for theft, when it is actually the role of the infant's father to enact disciplinary action upon the woman in question.
For the past few centuries, most of the earth has been controlled by a CABAL of men comprising of extremely wealthy businessmen (particularly bankers) and so-called religious leaders (those who command a huge following). Ironically, some of these elite businessmen instigate a pseudo-socialist government within their nations, so that they themselves can control the financial system for their selfish goals.
This planet is surely doomed, unless the most pernicious institutions ever known to man (democracy, socialism and communism), are replaced by the ONLY legitimate form of government (monarchy - ideally a holy monarch, though even a mediocre king is preferable to being ruled by an elected official or a sociopathic megalomaniac, who could almost never be a righteous ruler).
Let it be known, however - non-monarchical rule can not and will not endure. Once society has devolved to such a debased level where it can no longer survive intact, the natural-born kings of the earth shall arise and regain their rightful place at the head of each and every nation.
The truth shall surely triumph (“satyam-eva jayate”, in Sanskrit).
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
Samuel Langhorne Clemens (AKA Mark Twain),
American writer.
“The only reason why a person has an issue with anyone else’s power, is because they feel powerless”.
Mrs. Teal Swan,
American Spiritual Teacher.
Hi, great video!
Great video.
There is a difference between Identity Vs Causal limitations.
A necessary being cannot have any causal limitations whatsoever= infinite in its existence and must also be omnipotent but it can have identity limitations like being ONE, because by definition a necessary being is a being who depends on completely nothing for its existence, he doesn't need any causes whatsoever in order to exist = infinite in its existence and also doesn't need any causes whatsoever in order to act, so he must be omnipotent also.
You as a human being has limited existence/limited attributes and thus causally limited actions because you are a dependent being you depends on deeper layers of reality (specific/changeable arrangements and interactions between subatomic particles) and also external factors (oxygen, water, atmosphere etc ...).
Dependency creates limitations, if something has x y z (limited) attributes and thus x y z actions that follow from these attributes there must be a deeper or an external explanation (selection or diversifying principle) why it has x y z attributes and not a b c attributes for example, it must be caused and conditioned/forced by something else to have those specific attributes instead of others, otherwise if there is nothing that conditions it to have these causally limited attributes instead of others then it will be able to have whatever attributes it wants and will be omnipotent and capable of giving out all logically possible effects, so anything that is limited cannot be necessary or eternal, what is necessary and eternal (nothing deeper/external limits or constrains it) is causally unlimited by definition.
The argument 'all contingent facts regarding the existence of contingent things have an explanation, the fact that all the contingent things that exist or have existed exist or have existed therefote has an explanation, which cannot itself be contingent' seems to be quite weak for a simple reason: possibly, one can go back in time infinitely and e. g. explain position and momentum of the world's atoms with position and momentum of the world's atoms the moment before etc. That's the reason, i suppose, for aquinas introducing per se series.
The videos good but the Jersey.... ehhh
ahaha COYGGGGGG
The part at 0:45 was disproportionately loud, had to adjust volume a lot for that...
The louder the better!
It’s Vivaldi’s “Winter” from his “Four Seasons”! ❤️
Though I agree that it was unexpectedly too loud there haha.
Hi joe, can you burn your Arsenal top , it’s offensive …. 😆