Is the Universe Contingent and Does it Prove the Existence of God?

[Eh]

In metaphysics, the notion of contingent and non contingent being often comes up. A thing or object that is contingent, is something that has the potential to fail to exist. It's very existence is contingent upon something else, with a good example being the planet earth. The Earth is contingent upon an exploding star and the right gravitational circumstances to allow for it's formation. Something non contingent is something that cannot fail to exist, and does not owe it's existence to anything else.

This whole issue of contingency is the basis of a popular argument for the existence of God. I cannot recall who first presented this, but it has appeared in various forms ever since. It goes like this:

P1: The physical universe is made up of contingent parts
P2: Since these contingent parts will eventually fail to exist, given enough time the universe as a whole should fail to exist.
P3: The physical universe exists.

Conclusion: Thus, something non contingent exists which created the physical (and contingent) universe. We will call this non contingent being God.

This is an interesting argument, because everything we know in the universe does in fact appear to be contingent upon something else. Although this was used as an argument for God, it is really only an argument for non contingent being, since calling non contingent being God is quite arbitrary. So the question is, does the argument have validity?

One attempt to answer the question is to deny the first premise that everything in the physical universe is contingent. Perhaps the atoms that make eveything up are contingent, but what about fundamental particles themselves? This was the classic atomist view of eternal particles. But modern physics has overturned this view. Take any fundamental particle, such as a photon. Far from being non contingent, a photon can be obsorbed by another particle, causing a jump in it's energy level. The photon has ceased to exist. So particles are out. But what about the fact the energy in the universe is conserved? If the universe is seen as ever transforming forms of energy, would that not mean the universe as a whole is non contingent?

It would seem not. The problem is that a universe in one form is not equivalent to another. For example, we can imagine the universe as an expanding one dimensional piece of string, and view the different shapes the string can take as different forms of energy. What then? The problem is that we cannot define the term universe precisely enough with this definition. A piece of string with x length is not the same as string with y length, and strings with different geometries are not equivalennt. So when we're taking about any precise definition of the universe, the physical world is indeed contingent. Any possible state the universe can take will fail to exist. That seems to be a result of change, since change is the reason any given state fails to exist in the first place. The only possible non contingent being would be one that does not change.

So does the argument for non contingent being, or in the case of theologians, God, hold? I would argue it doesn't. The argument hinges on what it means for something to fail to exist. In the physical world, it's change that brings this about. But a physical object never vanishes into thin air, as it is transformed into something else. If we look at the universe as a whole, any given state will fail to exist, but only by transforming into a new state. So with the premise that an object failing to exist leaves another in it's place, the argument that the physical universe should not exist no longer follows. So it is logically consistent to claim the physical world is an endless chain of events, given that nothing ever vanishes by itself.

Ultimately, I think the only other option (to propose the existence of something timeless) fails because it runs into a logical contradiction. Something timeless cannot create anything, by definition. There is also the idea that all of time exists as a static 4 dimensional universe, but that idea seems like an easy way out.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Eh
It would seem not. The problem is that a universe in one form is not equivalent to another. For example, we can imagine the universe as an expanding one dimensional piece of string, and view the different shapes the string can take as different forms of energy. What then? The problem is that we cannot define the term universe precisely enough with this definition. A piece of string with x length is not the same as string with y length, and strings with different geometries are not equivalennt. So when we're taking about any precise definition of the universe, the physical world is indeed contingent. Any possible state the universe can take will fail to exist. That seems to be a result of change, since change is the reason any given state fails to exist in the first place. The only possible non contingent being would be one that does not change.

Well, how about energy itself being the non-contingent being? Superficial configurations of energy change, but the total amount of energy (presumably) does not. Equivalently, if conservation of energy holds, we can say that the state of the universe such that it has total energy E will never fail to exist.

 

[Jeebus]

"Not only are humans story-telling animals, we are also pattern-seeking animals, and there is a tendency to find patterns even where none exist. To most of us the patterns of the universe indicate design. For countless millennia, we have taken these patterns and constructed stories about how our cosmos was designed specifically for us. For the past few centuries, however, science has presented with a viable alternative in which we are but one among tens of millions of species, housed on but one planet among many orbiting in an ordinary solar system, itself one among possible billions of solar systems in an ordinary galaxy, located in a cluster of galaxies not so different from billions of other galaxy clusters, themselves whirling away from one another in an expanding cosmic bubble that very possibly is only one among a near-infinite number of bubble universes. Is it really possible that this entire cosmological multiverse exists for one tiny subgroup of a single species on one planet in a lone galaxy in tat solitary bubble universe?"
- pXV, Preface, How We Believe

 

[Sikz]

P1: The physical universe is made up of contingent parts
P2: Since these contingent parts will eventually fail to exist, given enough time the universe as a whole should fail to exist.
P3: The physical universe exists.

It's very existence is contingent upon something else

In order for them to fail to exist, "something else" has to cause that (by eliminating the thing their existence is contingent upon)... Therefore the failing of the physical universe to exist depends on its existence! Any change is brought about by "something" existing. Therefore a change from existence to non-existance requires something to still exist.

Unless, of course, the "something" that eliminates the thing the universe's existence is contingent upon is not itself part of the physical universe (and in order for whatever it IS part of not to also cease to exist, it must be non-contingent).

How can anything influence anything else without itself changing? In order to purposefully go out and influence something, the influencer must change. So the only possibility is that we are changing by seeing the non-contingent thing. In order to see it, though, it would still have to change, wouldn't it? If it never changes, never communicates, never let's light bounce off it, never does any of that, its impossible to know about it.

Thus it appears that a contingent self-contained entity cannot cease to exist, and no outside force can affect the entity without a)becoming part of it, or b)being non-contingent. B) is impossible, since non-contingent things cannot affect anything else.

It seems to me that this whole idea of contingent and non-contingent is illogical. In order for anything to affect anything else, it must change, and thus must be contingent. Thus non-contingent things don't "exist" at all! (Since if they affect nothing else, how can their existence possibly be argued?).

:S Unless I've missed some crucial point...?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Jeebus
Is it really possible that this entire cosmological multiverse exists for one tiny subgroup of a single species on one planet in a lone galaxy in tat solitary bubble universe?"
- pXV, Preface, How We Believe

Is it possible for the gardner to cherish one plant above all others? I don't see why not? ...

What is favoritism? Isn't it a fact, that when you get right down to it, we all practice favoritism? And yet why should we, if there was "nothing" to distinguish (differentiate) between ourselves and anything else?

Why should slime evolve to be something more than slime, if it didn't have the "inherent" need to do so?

Hence it would seem the key to existence is diversity and, the ability to "differentiate." Hey isn't that what life is all about? ... Making choices?

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Well, how about energy itself being the non-contingent being? Superficial configurations of energy change, but the total amount of energy (presumably) does not. Equivalently, if conservation of energy holds, we can say that the state of the universe such that it has total energy E will never fail to exist.

The total amount does not change, but energy cannot be defined by the sum alone, nor does it have any existence without the various forms it can take. Energy, if we were to assume it was actually a thing, in one form is not equivalent to another. Thus any form of energy you can find, is contingent.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Sikz
Thus it appears that a contingent self-contained entity cannot cease to exist, and no outside force can affect the entity without a)becoming part of it, or b)being non-contingent. B) is impossible, since non-contingent things cannot affect anything else.

A contingent thing will fail to exist, by definition. Change means it the thing changes into something else.

It seems to me that this whole idea of contingent and non-contingent is illogical. In order for anything to affect anything else, it must change, and thus must be contingent. Thus non-contingent things don't "exist" at all! (Since if they affect nothing else, how can their existence possibly be argued?).

:S Unless I've missed some crucial point...?

That's basically the gist of it. The way I see it, the idea of a non contingent being is nonsense. The existence of time precludes it.

 

[Sikz]

A contingent thing will fail to exist, by definition. Change means it the thing changes into something else.

Yes, I know that. But the change, by necessity, must be caused by something. Since things are apperently either contingent or non-contingent, it must be one of these. Non-contingent can be ruled out since those things cannot effect anything else. Contingent things could only effect other contingent things by themselves changing, and that change, in turn, has to be caused by something as well. Barring that, anything that effects our closed system (for it must in order for our system to change, and thus to be contingent) becomes PART of our system.

 

[Royce]

I have apperantly missed a step here. Why can't a noncontingent thing change? Either a random change within itself or a selfwilled change within itself would not require by necessity any outside influence, force or energy. It would not be contingent on anything else to exist or change. Any closed system (if such a thing actually does exist) would be noncontingent. The universe can be concidered non-contingent and or God/creator.

This whole argument is to me simply a rewording of the first cause argument and trying to get beyound the infinity of what caused the first cause or where did it come from. Contingency falls into the same logical trap and leaves the same question still begging.

Within space-time there can be no first cause or non-contingent thing. Outside of space-time the statements or questions become meaningless because outside of linear time there can be no first, last or in between; cause and effect are simultaneous and co-exitistant thus meaningless; nor, can there be any failing to exist; either it exists or it doesn't and the term contingent is meaningless.

In fact now that I've thought about it a bit. Outside of space-time the can be no contingent thing nor cause or effect. Inside space time ther can be no non-contingent thing nor any effect without a cause nor cause without effect and therefore no first cause. Which leaves us right back where we were.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Royce
I have apperantly missed a step here. Why can't a noncontingent thing change?

Because if it changes, the old "thing" is no longer the new "thing" and so has ceased to exist. If the identity of an object changes, it is no longer the same thing as it was before the change, by definition. So something non contingent could not change and cease to exist, otherwise it wouldn't be non contingent in the first place.

 

[Gale]

Because if it changes, the old "thing" is no longer the new "thing" and so has ceased to exist.

There are different kinds of changes. 'Things' change all the time but are still the same thing. It also depends on what level you looking at the 'thing' on. Water is still water whether its ice or vapor, and Prince was still the same man even when he became 'The artist' the symbol and the 'artist formerly known as prince (and then the 'new' him was actually defined by who the 'old' him was...)

Anyways, i agree with hypnagauge on the energy idea. First off, i still tend to see energy and god as similar concepts. I see them both as the non-contingent thing you ask about. I think the argument it pretty valid in the proof of something non-contingent, but i also agree with royce. I think though, that in our gut, we all feel like there must be something non-contingent out there.


Maybe the argument for non-contingency is the same as that of 'it just is.' Some things must just exist. And there is nothing more to it than that. They just exist.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Royce
I have apperantly missed a step here. Why can't a noncontingent thing change? Either a random change within itself or a selfwilled change within itself...

You are proposing a two part system, one part of which is able to make random or willfull changes. The existence of the whole two part system is contigent on the random or willfull part. This is not a non-contingent thing.

 

[Iacchus32]

If nothing else changes our perception will, otherwise we would just be standing there, "fixated" like everything else. In which case what would there be to perceive, without any movement?

Doesn't the Big Bang in effect suggest that everything has been set in motion? Otherwise, if one thing were to come to a complete and utter standstill, doesn't it suggest that everything else should follow suit?

Or, perhaps the Laws of Physics themselves -- which, can no doubt be categorized under the term Infinity -- are contigent? And, while infinity itself may seem like a contingent term, is it really? (it is in the sense that represents an actual "property") ... as it covers anything and everything which is possible, including that which is "non-contingent."

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Eh
In metaphysics, the notion of contingent and non contingent being often comes up. A thing or object that is contingent, is something that has the potential to fail to exist. It's very existence is contingent upon something else, with a good example being the planet earth. The Earth is contingent upon an exploding star and the right gravitational circumstances to allow for it's formation. Something non contingent is something that cannot fail to exist, and does not owe it's existence to anything else.

Another way to formulate? Can we say a non contingent element can decay? A contingent can not.

 

[Iacchus32]

Everything is somehow related (contingent in some form), and yet some things are more "relative" (i.e., contingent) than others.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Gale17
There are different kinds of changes. 'Things' change all the time but are still the same thing.

By definition, they are not, otherwise nothing would change.

It also depends on what level you looking at the 'thing' on. Water is still water whether its ice or vapor, and Prince was still the same man even when he became 'The artist' the symbol and the 'artist formerly known as prince (and then the 'new' him was actually defined by who the 'old' him was...)

We have general concepts that label things, and an orange is an orange whether crushed or not. But I'm not talking about the concept, I'm talking about the thing itself. The universe is an ever evolving process, and what we call "things" are made of these processes. So if things fail to exist, everything should have failed to exist by the theologians argument. But the theologian ignores the fact that nothing just ceases to exist without being replaced by something else.

Anyways, i agree with hypnagauge on the energy idea. First off, i still tend to see energy and god as similar concepts. I see them both as the non-contingent thing you ask about.

Any form of energy you can think of is contingent. That is, no one has yet to discover a non contingent form.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by pelastration
Another way to formulate? Can we say a non contingent element can decay? A contingent can not.

That works for everyday objects. Though it might have to be phrased different for a fundamental building block (loops, field lines?) to avoid confusion.

 

[iron~orchid]

Originally posted by Eh
The only possible non contingent being would be one that does not change.

.....

Like a ricocheting bullet, our actions fly back at us from every corner of the Universe. Then, by a circular reasoning, something that created us would be the root of all and thereby have no permanent manner due to the manifestations of change.

Only a root that is abandoned could surely be non contingent and this root might be considered dead.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Eh
Something non contingent is something that cannot fail to exist, and does not owe it's existence to anything else.
...
Conclusion: Thus, something non contingent exists which created the physical (and contingent) universe.
...
So the question is, does the argument have validity?
...
The only possible non contingent being would be one that does not change.

I find that there are fuzzy concepts here. There are several questions to be answered before this one.
What is physical thing, really? What is meaning of "exist"? Is definition of non-contingent precise? Ie. does it necessarily restricts to physical objects, and is term "exists" applicable to it?

Something that does not owe it's existence to anything else, isn't necessarily non-contingent. This leads to question whether acausal events can occur. For any object that has come to existence and does not owe it's existence to anything else, is acausal. Whether its contingent depends whether its physical or not, ie whether it itself interacts/changes, or perhaps only governs how something else "exists'.

The very term "exists" seems to preassume interaction. While physical object cannot exist without existence of any kind of laws of physics. The laws of physics very much shape and define "existence" itself. Thus, to physical object to exist, laws of physics must already be in place, exist. This leads to ideas that something immaterial must exist before anything physical can enter the arena, something, that shapes the very existence of physical. What we call physical isn't necessarily independant from our definitions and perspectives, thus objects aren't necessarily having good distinction from immaterial laws that govern them - they may as well be just manifestations of the laws themselves.

Are physical laws arbitrary? At least one property they have is consistency, also core property of Logic. Outcome of application of the laws can differ wildly, but the laws themselves never change. I tend to believe that physical laws are manifestations of logical relationships, therefore I'll use term logic here.

Logic as such does not owe it's existence to anything else. Infact, its hard to tell whether Logic even technically "exists", for to exist presupposes subject to apply laws upon. Yet although its impossible to apply logic unless subjects exist, Logic itself is independant from subjects, and doesn't change whether subjects exist or cease to exist. Logic is non contingent, it is timeless, it is acausal. It has capacity to shape the universe. Whether it has capacity to create it? Dunno, but I assume so. Ask "What if?" and apply logic. Potentialities becoming realities.

Logic isn't object or being. Well, being can't be non contingent by your definition just by necessity to have parts that interact. Thus either definition of non contingent or of being is too strict.
Claim that something timeless cannot create anything, by definition, seems also too restrictive. I'd say opposite, something timeless is the only thing that can create anything from nada, for being IN time means being contingent, existing by interaction, thus being part of change not creation.
Seems to me, it boils down to definition of "exists", which seems to contradict to being timeless or non contingent.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wimms
I find that there are fuzzy concepts here. There are several questions to be answered before this one.
What is physical thing, really? What is meaning of "exist"? Is definition of non-contingent precise? Ie. does it necessarily restricts to physical objects, and is term "exists" applicable to it?

I'll go with the most commonly accepted definition of instantiation. That is, existence is a property of concepts, not things. A concept that exists is instantiated in objective reality. But it really doesn't make much different for the argument of contingency, since any definition will work.

Something that does not owe it's existence to anything else, isn't necessarily non-contingent. This leads to question whether acausal events can occur. For any object that has come to existence and does not owe it's existence to anything else, is acausal. Whether its contingent depends whether its physical or not, ie whether it itself interacts/changes, or perhaps only governs how something else "exists'.

That's true. The intital event, assuming there is a beginning of time would not be caused by anything. But a better defintion of contingency is something that has the potential to fail to exist. A common use of the term is to say that anything contingent will cease to exist given enough time. This would seem to apply to everything in the known universe.

The very term "exists" seems to preassume interaction.

Yes, it's treated as a verb and seems to imply that there is some property of existence which objects may or may not have. But that position does not stand up to close examination and is really just a matter language.

While physical object cannot exist without existence of any kind of laws of physics. The laws of physics very much shape and define "existence" itself. Thus, to physical object to exist, laws of physics must already be in place, exist. This leads to ideas that something immaterial must exist before anything physical can enter the arena, something, that shapes the very existence of physical. What we call physical isn't necessarily independant from our definitions and perspectives, thus objects aren't necessarily having good distinction from immaterial laws that govern them - they may as well be just manifestations of the laws themselves.

One side of the fence would argue that the laws of physics are just descriptions of the very nature of "things" (a unified quantum field maybe?) and so have no existence without them. On that side, they go hand in hand, and you can't have one without the other. There are some who argue that the laws of physics are fundamental and preceed the existence of anything physical, with Alan Guth being one of them. Personally, I find this view downright silly.

Are physical laws arbitrary? At least one property they have is consistency, also core property of Logic. Outcome of application of the laws can differ wildly, but the laws themselves never change. I tend to believe that physical laws are manifestations of logical relationships, therefore I'll use term logic here.

The laws of physics rely on a set of axioms that you won't find in countless other imagined universes. Whether or not the intital input data is arbitrary or not, is something of interest in the physics community. No one is certain.

Logic as such does not owe it's existence to anything else.

How about a human brain? Logic is true by definition, but one must have a statement before it can be true. This of course is the age old debate over how real abstractions are. Plato would argue they exist independent of the physical world, while others would argue they do not. I don't think I've seen any theologian arguing for abstract ideas in the issue of contingency, so it's not really important to the subject. For the most part, it deals with the physical universe and a so called "proof" that there must exist some non contingent being of substance, though in this case not in the physical sense.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Eh
I'll go with the most commonly accepted definition of instantiation. That is, existence is a property of concepts, not things. A concept that exists is instantiated in objective reality.

Well, I find it difficult to agree. By this call, God exists by definition, case closed..

A common use of the term is to say that anything contingent will cease to exist given enough time. This would seem to apply to everything in the known universe.

Agree with the term, but also difficult to agree with application. Together with above, do I understand you correctly that energy conservation law will cease to exist aswell? Kinda difficult to think about it if we assume that very foundations to rely on are contingent. Sorta leads to opposite of PoE, 'paradox of failure', PoF.
Seems we need to accept that energy conservation, the law, is non contingent.

Yes, it's treated as a verb and seems to imply that there is some property of existence which objects may or may not have. But that position does not stand up to close examination and is really just a matter language.

No, I meant something different from mere language. Contingent physical objects can exist only through interaction, change. That which cannot be detected by any means in principle, is subject to Occam, it does not exist. Here fits to revisit definition of "exist", as instantiation of some delusion doesn't make it objective reality. Infact, I believe you reached quite same conclusion in your initial post, in that contingent is necessarily part of chain of events.

One side of the fence would argue that the laws of physics are just descriptions of the very nature of "things" (a unified quantum field maybe?) and so have no existence without them. On that side, they go hand in hand, and you can't have one without the other.

Indeed. All 'things' have 'identity'. That identity is expressed in a 'form'. All things 'interact' with all other things one way or another. Their existence takes 'form' in conjunction with and by 'interacting' with others. The entity (form) which is observed (interacted with) can never be divorced from that which observes it. Form and interaction are congruent. In this sense, laws of physics that describes interaction are inseparable from the very nature of things. But there are laws above that. Like conservation laws, causality. And, form of pointparticles is expressed completely via laws, the very nature of these things is expressed through laws alone. There is no "very nature of things" for them, instead, the very nature of laws is creating .. things. What that allows is to get laws on "standby", remain intact even when 'things' fail, give birth to virtual particles, etc.

There are some who argue that the laws of physics are fundamental and preceed the existence of anything physical, with Alan Guth being one of them. Personally, I find this view downright silly.

I'm not sure what you mean here, and I'm not familiar with Guth views, but I think there is some point in that.

The laws of physics rely on a set of axioms that you won't find in countless other imagined universes.

I believe you talk about constants. Despite all the imaginable differences, there unavoidably remains common set of laws for any of universes. Else they'd have to be illogical. Thats also why I prefer to say logic instead of laws of physics, as these makes you think of specific laws.

Logic as such does not owe it's existence to anything else.

How about a human brain? Logic is true by definition, but one must have a statement before it can be true.

No, humans did not invent logic, we only discovered it. Any law of physics has its internal logic, relationship, that we express in math. Its most important property is consistency and invariance to variables. Simple and short set of rules we call logic can work well with infinite set of statements. That makes internal structure of logic itself universal. Not statements. I don't mean our logic ruleset to be the very nature of physics, but that reality has one set we are trying to discover. Today we express it with bunch of laws with constants. The less handplaced constants we need, the more we explain.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wimms
Well, I find it difficult to agree. By this call, God exists by definition, case closed..

No. The concept God does not necessarily have an instance in the objective world. This was covered in Kant in response to Anslem's ontological argument, and a great deal has been written about it. There were a few threads here as well, but they are probably burried in the archives.

Agree with the term, but also difficult to agree with application. Together with above, do I understand you correctly that energy conservation law will cease to exist aswell?

Remember that the argument is an attempt to show that something non contingent must necessarily exist. It fails, regardless of whether or not you put any stock into Plato's ideas. For the record, I would argue that the law of energy conservation like all laws, is just descriptive - not proscriptive. The idea of magical laws telling physical objects how to behave is silly and I can't imagine how this isn't something only a child could believe in. It's like talking about computer software which runs without hardware. Likewise, particles are an aspect of a quantum field and without that field, the idea of laws becomes meaningless.

I'm not sure what you mean here, and I'm not familiar with Guth views, but I think there is some point in that.

A search on Google for "Guth's grand guess" should turn up something.

No, humans did not invent logic, we only discovered it. Any law of physics has its internal logic, relationship, that we express in math.

I disagree. But this is an argument of Plato's forms and has little to do with the contingency argument of our theologian friends.

Basically, we have an argument that tries to prove there is some kind of non contingent "thing". It tries to do so by showing that the contingency of physical objects should lead to nothing physical existing at all. This argument falls apart because it fails to take into account the fact that things don't just vanish, as they always change into something else. So we can show that it is at least logically consistent for a contingent universe to exist without the need for a non contingent being. Whether or not you want to claim ideas and abstract laws can qualify as non contingent being is not the point, since the argument fails to prove their necessity.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Eh
No. The concept God does not necessarily have an instance in the objective world. This was covered in Kant in response to Anslem's ontological argument, and a great deal has been written about it.

That confusion is why I asked about a working definition for term "exist". I assumed that we use exists only to "things" that have a physical instance in the objective world. That leads to debates whether abstract ideas, like triangle, exist. But, imo, its necessary to make distinction between two meanings for "exists" (really versus potentially), because if we accept abstract ideas as real on same level as physical "things", we loose distinction between imaginary and objective world, adding confusion. For eg. I imagine something weird, describe it. By me, it exists. You can't find it in objective world. I say look at me, I carry it in my brain, it thus has an instance in the objective world. And we can go thousand years arguing whether it exists or not. God or whatnot

For the record, I would argue that the law of energy conservation like all laws, is just descriptive - not proscriptive.
The idea of magical laws telling physical objects how to behave is silly and I can't imagine how this isn't something only a child could believe in. It's like talking about computer software which runs without hardware. Likewise, particles are an aspect of a quantum field and without that field, the idea of laws becomes meaningless.

Was that child thing for me? Of course laws are descriptive. But they describe objective reality, that is damn proscriptive. You may hide behind calling laws descriptive "only", but you can't claim there isn't anything "behind" them that is proscriptive. Would you like to say that energy conservation is "property" of each "thing"? Or would you rather guess that there must be some logical reason why interaction maintains constant amount of energy, that's inherent to the very interaction concept as such? Quantum field without its inherent rules for interactions is meaningless, let alone particles as aspect with their properties. You can't even define quantum field without referring to quite a few laws.

A search on Google for "Guth's grand guess" should turn up something.

I did. I'm afraid that you ridicule the point more than it deserves.

"No, humans did not invent logic, we only discovered it. Any law of physics has its internal logic, relationship, that we express in math."
I disagree. But this is an argument of Plato's forms.

I mean no Plato. Just recall what you use to prove or disprove any theory analytically. There is a reason why it works. It is inherent to objective reality. What happens in the objective reality, is logic of the reality. How we describe it, is our human problem. I'm not idealising math as real. But we can't ignore that there is something behind it all that's very consistent and logical.

Basically, we have an argument that tries to prove there is some kind of non contingent "thing". It tries to do so by showing that the contingency of physical objects should lead to nothing physical existing at all. This argument falls apart because it fails to take into account the fact that things don't just vanish, as they always change into something else. So we can show that it is at least logically consistent for a contingent universe to exist without the need for a non contingent being.

Lets leave god, and focus on the idea of argument. We don't care about god, or any creature. Let's go more open, and include abstract concepts or ideas.

Arrangement of Physical "things" as triangle "exists" as contingent objective "thing".
Contingent means "changing", vanishing.
Abstract idea of triangle does not depend on existence of any particular physical "thing". It can be found any time there exists at least 3 distinguishable entities.
Abstract idea of triangle "exists" as non contingent concept.

You assert without fear that "things don't just vanish", which would imply being non contingent, but then, "change" means that things just vanish as they were known. Don't you see anything wrong here?
"things don't just vanish" is non contingent rule. Without that, we don't have any consistency. "Change", is nothing else but vanishing of one "thing" and appearing of other. The glue of rules that connect these "things" is non contingent logic of reality. Without that, we can't have consistent logical reality.

Whether or not you want to claim ideas and abstract laws can qualify as non contingent being is not the point, since the argument fails to prove their necessity.

My point would be here that term "exists" should apply to physical objects envolved in chain of interactions, only. Abstract ideas, that can "potentially exist" without interactions, are non contingent. They do not change, they might only be (in)applicable. By mixing these different kinds into same soup we call for trouble. For eg, to think that abstract idea of tringle interacts with abstract idea of circle and thus changes, is nonsense. Saying that triangle as such exists, is absurd. But whenever you have some stuff, you can find triangle there. To say that law of energy conservation as such exists, is nuts. But it is there.
Why bring here? Because to me it seems that although idea that non contingent "being" must exist is absurd, there are strong hints that there are non contingent ingredients to reality, without which it would fall apart. For eg. consistent logic of nature.

 

[Eh]

Why is it that you always seem to drag things way off topic? I can appreciate that the depth of the sub topics that come up prevent that matter from being sweep away with a few words, but in this case they are irrelevant to the argument. The contingency argument used by theologians deals strictly with the contingency of physical objects, and in no way is altered by either the definition of existence or the ontological status of abstractions.

From the archives, there was a discussion on the problematic use of existence as a verb: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2633&highlight=existence+as+a+verb

Whether or not abstract laws of physics and ideas are merely descriptive or not has also been done, but the point I must stress is that it doesn't have any effect on the argument for God. The entire argument is whether or not the logical argument is valid from the intital propositions. There is nothing that changes if you change the definition of existence or bring up abstract entities.

I'll address the few on topic points raised:

Lets leave god, and focus on the idea of argument. We don't care about god, or any creature. Let's go more open, and include abstract concepts or ideas.

Sure. Tell me, how does it effect the contingency argument used by theologians?

In other words, take a look at the original argument. What premises are invalidated by including abstract things? You will find that none are.

Arrangement of Physical "things" as triangle "exists" as contingent objective "thing".
Contingent means "changing", vanishing.

Abstract idea of triangle does not depend on existence of any particular physical "thing". It can be found any time there exists at least 3 distinguishable entities.
Abstract idea of triangle "exists" as non contingent concept.

No. The concept of a triangle is contingent upon a mind, but an actual triangle is contingent upon lines, a plane or a volume. I still don't see how that changes the argument.

You assert without fear that "things don't just vanish", which would imply being non contingent, but then, "change" means that things just vanish as they were known. Don't you see anything wrong here?

No I don't, you will have to enlighten me. I explained that change neccessarily means contingency. But I also said that an object doesn't just vanish on it's own, because it is always replaced by something else. Nothing non contingent implied here. But you can have a series of contingent events that will never lead to everything physical ceasing to exist. Hence, the argument fails. Where do you see a problem with that?

"things don't just vanish" is non contingent rule. Without that, we don't have any consistency. "Change", is nothing else but vanishing of one "thing" and appearing of other. The glue of rules that connect these "things" is non contingent logic of reality. Without that, we can't have consistent logical reality.

If we were to assume this "rule" was non contingent, it still has absolutely nothing to add to the argument. The importance is whether or not the contingency of the physical things themselves will lead to the nonexistence of a physical world. So you can talk about laws of physics, logic are whatever, but it's quite irrelevant when the argument focuses strictly on the contingency of physical objects.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Eh
Why is it that you always seem to drag things way off topic?

I'm sorry Eh if you feel so, its certainly not my intention. From your first post it seems that your main interest is not the theological argument, which is flawed as it is presented anyway, and really needs no deeper analysis than logical fallacies.

I can appreciate that ..., but in this case they are irrelevant to the argument. The contingency argument used by theologians deals strictly with the contingency of physical objects, and in no way is altered by either the definition of existence or the ontological status of abstractions.

Change of definition of "existence" can very well render whole argument of first post into logical fallacy clearly. (which it is anyway)

Whether or not abstract laws of physics and ideas are merely descriptive or not has also been done, but the point I must stress is that it doesn't have any effect on the argument for God. The entire argument is whether or not the logical argument is valid from the intital propositions. There is nothing that changes if you change the definition of existence or bring up abstract entities.

I'm not so sure. First, as I've said I don't care about god. On other hand, you seem to have precise definition of god, I don't. Why is it that you analyse god statement as if god is necessarily physical phenomena?
Anyway, conclusion of initial argument is clearly biased, non-sequitir, attributing non-contingency to some creature. As you found structure of the argument interesting to discuss, I strip off that biased approach and try to discuss what's left, which is no theologian argument.

Sure. Tell me, how does it effect the contingency argument used by theologians?

It changes argument from theologian to generally philosophical.

In other words, take a look at the original argument. What premises are invalidated by including abstract things? You will find that none are.

Original argument is flawed. There is no need to defend or attack it anymore. If you'd like to discuss the gist of the argument, you need to modify it. From very first post in this thread I suggested that we need to better define meaning of some terms. It because with some meanings the whole argument is fallacy, and not even applicable to concepts it tries to be applied to.

No. The concept of a triangle is contingent upon a mind, but an actual triangle is contingent upon lines, a plane or a volume. I still don't see how that changes the argument.

Why you've gone defensive? Concept of triangle is contingent on existence of 3 angles, 3 differentiable points. Are you saying that 3 pointparticles in force equilibrium are not facing triangle?

No I don't, you will have to enlighten me. I explained that change neccessarily means contingency. But I also said that an object doesn't just vanish on it's own, because it is always replaced by something else. Nothing non contingent implied here. But you can have a series of contingent events that will never lead to everything physical ceasing to exist. Hence, the argument fails. Where do you see a problem with that?

1. You defined "contingent" as ability to "vanish", stop existence.
2. you assert that when object changes, original object ceases to exist, ie. vanishes. You equate this with contingency. Ie. "change" = ability to vanish, cease to exist.
3. then you say, "things don't just vanish", which is assertion unrelated to the consistency of argument, but is injection from empirical experience. You use this to prove that "change" is valid argument to show that "things" cease to exist and at the same time do not. This is inconsistent use of arguments, has to do with double or muddy meanings of some terms, leading to contradiction.

Either you accept that change is vanishing of thing, or you accept that change has nothing to do with contingency. If you accept former, you can't include "things don't just vanish" into your argument, as they constantly do, and there is no logical reason why one of changes couldn't be just vanishing from existence. All you have here is "they just don't".

Then, change is either continuum or discrete events. If its continuum, how do you define moment when previous state vanishes? Then, in any case concept of "change" relies on concept of "time". Similarily, concept of "physical existence" relies on concept of interaction, change, time. Thus, physical existence is opposite of vanishing, or equivalent to it? Seems like equivalent, and opposite at the same time. And then we consider vanishing of physical existence...
Again, either change has nothing to do with contingency, or basically contingent things "do not exist".

Lets make a translation.
P1: The physical universe exists ("does not vanish"), made up of vanishing parts
P2: Since these vanishing parts will eventually vanish, given enough "change/non-vanishing/time/existence" the universe as a whole should vanish.
P3: The physical universe exists (does not vanish).

Conclusion: Thus, something non vanishing exists which created the physical (and vanishing) universe. We will call this non vanishing being God.

1) there is no reason to call that non contingent entity "being".
2) there is no reasoning justifying that what's existing was created.
3) as you've showed, there is no direct correlation between vanishing parts and vanishing of universe.
4) there are mixed meanings if term "exist", physical existence implies change/time/contingency, while "existence" of non-contingent being implies timelessness, no change. Mutually contradictory meanings of existence.
5) either meaning of "existence" is inapplicable to the other. The very concept of "vanishing" implies time, and event. There is no meaning in even considering non-contingence of something that is IN time. And there is very serious question about meaning of "exists" as applied to non-contingent, timeless.

 

[Eh]

...Anyway, conclusion of initial argument is clearly biased, non-sequitir, attributing non-contingency to some creature. As you found structure of the argument interesting to discuss, I strip off that biased approach and try to discuss what's left, which is no theologian argument.

Of course it is biased, but I've already said numerous times that aspect is irrelevant. Does the argument establish that the need for a non contingent being in the first place? I say no because the premise that the contingency of of physical objects would bring about their nonexistence is a baseless assertion. That premise sinks the argument.

Why you've gone defensive? Concept of triangle is contingent on existence of 3 angles, 3 differentiable points. Are you saying that 3 pointparticles in force equilibrium are not facing triangle?

Point particles require a background of space anyway, so I don't see your point there. The concept however, by definition is contingent upon a mind.

1. You defined "contingent" as ability to "vanish", stop existence.

Yes, I defined it as something that has the ability to cease to exist. And numerous times, I showed that "change" into something else is a necessary part of this. It is the theologians, and those using the contingency argument fail to understand this point. They are the ones who fail to to recognize that the observation that all physical things fail to exist includes this aspect. But notice that defining existence as something other than instantiation is not where the argument goes wrong.

The concept of cessation is where things fall apart, not existence, abstractions or anything else.

2. you assert that when object changes, original object ceases to exist, ie. vanishes. You equate this with contingency. Ie. "change" = ability to vanish, cease to exist.

Changing into something else and ceasing to exist are part of it, so what?

An example: String A (a photon) changes into String B. String A no longer exists, ie. String A is no longer instantiated in reality.

3. then you say, "things don't just vanish", which is assertion unrelated to the consistency of argument, but is injection from empirical experience.

Unless the individual reading the post cannot read or has a learning disability, they would have noticed that I've already shown countless times that the change into something else and vanishing cannot be seperated. Transforming into something else and vanishing, and vanishing alone are not equivalent. All premises here are based on empirical experience.

You use this to prove that "change" is valid argument to show that "things" cease to exist and at the same time do not.

Err, no. I showed that the postulate that an object ceasing to exist is always replaced by something else renders the argument impotent. That is hardly the same as saying things cease to exist and do not at the same time.

And I honestly can't see why you are having difficulty with that.

Either you accept that change is vanishing of thing, or you accept that change has nothing to do with contingency.

Surely by now you can tell the difference between vanshing alone and changing+vanishing.

If you accept former, you can't include "things don't just vanish" into your argument, as they constantly do, and there is no logical reason why one of changes couldn't be just vanishing from existence.

Actually, the whole reason the theologians argument fails is because they ignore the fact that ceasing to exist also includes a transformation. The premise that all things in the physical world cease to exist is not a logical statement on it's own right. It's a statement based on our limited observations of the world, which so far have shown that the things we can observe do not last forever. But this limited observation includes the transformation of these same things, ie. the conservation of energy.

Then, change is either continuum or discrete events. If its continuum, how do you define moment when previous state vanishes?

The same way you define a point on a plane. But at any rate, it seems like another typical attempt to drag the thread off topic. Pinpointing events is irrelevant to whether or not the original argument is valid.

Again, either change has nothing to do with contingency, or basically contingent things "do not exist".

You can say it as many times as you like, but it won't make it true. Your conclusion here, has not been supported by the slightest bit in the rest of your post above.

Lets make a translation.

P1: The physical universe exists ("does not vanish"), made up of vanishing parts

P2: Since these vanishing parts will eventually vanish, given enough "change/non-vanishing/time/existence" the universe as a whole should vanish.

P3: The physical universe exists (does not vanish).

Conclusion: Thus, something non vanishing exists which created the physical (and vanishing) universe. We will call this non vanishing being God.

Ok so far...

1) there is no reason to call that non contingent entity "being".

And that's quite irrelevant.

2) there is no reasoning justifying that what's existing was created.

Actually, that's the whole point of the argument. If all things will eventually exist, there is no way for the universe to have existed forever. But I've already demonstrated the point where this fails.

3) as you've showed, there is no direct correlation between vanishing parts and vanishing of universe.

Because the conclusion: Given enough time, everything would fail to exist does not hold up. Premise 1 is correct but they have missed a crucial part of it.

4) there are mixed meanings if term "exist", physical existence implies change/time/contingency, while "existence" of non-contingent being implies timelessness, no change. Mutually contradictory meanings of existence.

No, you just given 2 kinds of things. The instantiation of either a timeless thing or physical, changing universe are both logically consistent.

5) either meaning of "existence" is inapplicable to the other. The very concept of "vanishing" implies time, and event.

Yes, we've already established that time and contingency are inseperable, almost at the very start of the thread.

There is no meaning in even considering non-contingence of something that is IN time.

Obviously. You win a gold sticker.

And there is very serious question about meaning of "exists" as applied to non-contingent, timeless.

No there isn't. Exists still works as instantiation.