Anselm's 'Necessary Being'...

and that is as it should be!

The Singularity Isn't a Neccessary Being
If a necessary being were possible to exist, it must exist. A necessary being is a being is a being that depends on nothing else for existence. If something is to be asserted as being a necessary being, it must exist in actuality (if it is what it is asserted to be) because if it doesn?t exist, it would be contingent in that whatever kept it from being an actuality kept it from being an actuality and that would be something that would keep it from existing independently of anything else. Am I making sense? I can be confusing sometimes. Now as for the Singularity, I can only fully conceive of it as being a contingent being. Maybe it existed for a time - maybe even infinitely pre-big bang - but the singularity became the universe or expanded into what we now call the universe at the moment the big bang took place. The singularity, as I understand it does not any longer exist as such but the substance that it consisted of, now is the substance that makes up the natural universe. I can conceive of the universe as ceasing to be, the ultimate logical end of the law of entropy. If the universe were to end, so to would the singularity, and it would therefore not be a necessary being. Anslem suggested that a necessary being is simply nothing more than the negation of contingent being and that in order for one to conceive of a necessary being, on must simply imagine a contingent being and then imagine its negation. This sounds easy enough and is conceptually true. However for one to truly conceive of the negation of a contingent being, one must conceive all of the essential attributes and properties of this negation. Of these is necessary existence, that is to say existence that exists independently of anything else sustaining it and that which nothing can do away with. This is an essential attribute that I cannot conceive of and I don't believe that anybody else can either.


~TSC

One little problem with this "necessary being"; someone would have to form the criteria of its necessity; thus this pre being would preclude and render unnecessary, the "necessary being"!

Not being necessary is only mildly less anoying than not being at all!

I have often been amused by the number of people who jump when one points out that their "necessary being" may not be necessary at all. Particularly when it cannot be shown to exist, nor will ever exist, nor did ever exist.
This can be a Prime mover, a Big Bang,a fifth or more dimension,
a Supreme Intelligence, or even a Godhead.
I am beginning to think that , for humans, the desire to "believe" may well be right below the desire to eat and have sex. (:-)

truth
Akamechsmith: Indubitably.

Mech, good to see you here. There is a great deal of evidence that the universe had a beginning and has been expanding ever since. We do not know what, if anything, existed before the initial expansion or whether "time" has any meaning if there are no clocks or even a space-time framework against which to measure change.

The math simply does not work with only four dimensions. Kaku's book "Hyperspace" has a very good explanation of why 10 or 11 are necessary.

I wonder why human beings would have a desire to believe in gods? Is there any evolutionary advantage to belief?

Where did the idea that God must necessarily be perfect come from, since a perfect being would presumably have come up with a perfect creation instead of the flawed world in which we find ourselves?

truth
Terry, many anthropologists have argued since the 19th century that religion has survival value insofar as it forms an institution around which groups of people identify themselves (in contrast to non-believers). This unity serves the political function of unification for cooperation against outsiders. Others emphasize the pychological support against existential anxieties (like mortality), and others treat it as a source of powerful legitimacy of moral rules and political authority.

Yo, Mech.

Allow me to second Terry's greetings and welcome you to A2K. Good to see you here.

Hi Terry,
I am still trying to do the math within the four dimensions which are more or less obvious to most of us.
I have done enough to realize that it is not inconsequential (the red shift)
and still have a sneaky suspicion that it may be absolute. ( if anything can be)
I have outlined the math required on the Abuzz thread,(2) Describe and discuss your Bibles books, by Ican. ( about 1/2 way down the thread)
( You have to kiss a lot of frogs to find a prince)
Satts and Ican have both been very helpful but ascertaining a particles size at a given distance is difficult for one who is "checkbook challenged".
I am still fairly well convinced that the "Expanding Universe" is naught but another religious explanation.
I certainly would be grateful for any help or insights that you may have, to say the least. Arguements welcome!!!

As regards the book (Hyperspace). I will try to look it up. I have run into one trying to explain "braines", and several others that appealed to other dimensions to explain our existence. But (IMO natch) all of the books which postulate an unknowable, unduplicable suspension of the laws of Physics have weaknesses similar to the various tracts which postulate an unknowable, unduplicable entiety.
Sometimes these books are even more blatant in their suspension of natural laws than the religious ones. One of these is "The Five Ages of The Universe". by Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin. If you need a disgusted chuckle read it. The physics is worse than Eric Lerners.
The book "Cosmology and Controversy"(the historical development of two theories of the universe) by Helge Kragh does a good job of determining that there is no sure thing yet as far a originations go.
(It's nice to {think-believe} that I am not completely bonkers. I gracefully admit that may be only my opinion!!!

Tragans post neatly underscores the point that---
"In an Infinite Universe all possible things are inevitable"
(This is the basis for my attempting to show that the Universe may well be infinite)
If it's infinite then intelligence must exist somewhere, someplace, sometime. Some humans think it's here on Earth. Others ain't so sure!!! Best M.

truth
Some have supported Nietzsche's notion of the Eternal Recurrence, namely that everything will be repeated ad infinitum on the principle that "in an infinite universe all possible things are inevitable". The problem for me, when I'm sober, is that terms such as "infinite" and (even) "universe" are highly problematical. They are constructs not givens.

jlN; we finally disagree!

To me, infinity is the obvious; feels right, and is the benchmark from which all other possibilities must be assessed.

The universe "feels" infinite.
A finite life is bonded by sensuality to the infinite.

I like the thought that when one looks into the sky, one looks out forever, beyond fact, beyond knowledge, beyond the limits of the physical............
we see the past; and at the same time, look out into the future.

He, Mech, why couldn't you have expressed that thought that way when I was fighting that issue out with Ican? (smiles)

Good post.

Frank; as I remember it manner of expression didn't enter into effectivness in debate with Ican;

Now that was uncalled for!

truth
BoGoWo, that's nice. "Infinity" is an emotionally charged concept for you. But it STILL an invention. The first sapien speakers starting with "ughs" most likely (dare I say "undoubtedly") had no idea that their descendants would someday invent such a wonderful concept. As far as I can figure.

truth
BTW, BoGoWo, the universe certainly does--in a very ambiguous way-- feel "infinite" to me. I think of the notion as synonymous with "allverse", meaning boundless or unbounded (excluding nothing). The concept of universe makes no sense at all if it is assumed to have physical boundaries. I can't imagine an end of time or space, yet infinity is almost unthinkable to me; it cannot characterize anything physical or empirical. It's strictly constructural. But it IS a wonderful construct--the opposite of all limiting notions; completely open-ended and awesome.

JL,
You have my sympathies. A true infinity is apparently a difficult one for us to grasp, or understand with both our mind and our brain.
Personally I spent some twenty years forcing my "mind" to accept what my brain "knew".
I suspect that this difficulty is responsible for a lot of Gods, Big Bangs, Singularities, umpteen dimensions, and a turtle for the Earth to sit on.
Nietzsches eternal recurrence is a philosophical understanding of the "rebounding universe" theory. It also demonstrates a poor understanding of the term "infinity". IF we have a truly infinite universe then there will also be an infinite number of possible peremutations of this universe. As I once assured Ican, regretfully, We will never have this conversation again. The universe will not rebound. Our atoms will NEVER again be arranged in this fashion again. Similarly, indoubtably. Exactly-Never no matter how many zeroes after the decimal point.


Frank, I have tried to and I think that I may have, pointed out the differences between a "poetic" view of infinity and a true infinity.
In a true infinity time will not end nor is a beginning of time in the script.
Space, regarded as merely an empty volume also will not end nor begin.
It need not bend, although it may with some definitions.
The biggest problem with an infinite universe that I can see is the supposition that it would result in infinite temperatures thus becoming inimical to life. This math apparently was done before anybody had chased Einsteins theories to the limit and found "Black Holes". Mechanically speaking a "Black Hole" acts acts as a huge "heat sink". It will absorb energies (same as matter in Quantum Mechanics) until such time as (mechanically speaking) more energy has been poured into it than the forces holding it together can withstand. Then it blows up forming another "Observable Universe". The energies that we are now observing will scatter and join other conglomerations and develop along similar lines. This is an "evolving universe" theory. Needs no beginnings, won't end. Not popular with either theoligicians or disbursers of government grants; no prime movers, no big bangs, no purposes. Just IS. No money in it.


(My pet name for God is Izzy) He's a lot easier to get along with than most of the others. :-)

Infinity blends well with my bi-valence principle (signature line);
it contains everything; it contains nothing.
it is inspiring; it is terifying.
and it will always be interesting to try to fathom the heights and depths of infinity; to reach a "sense" of what it is, and how it is, or is not configured.
I relate this to the eastern concept of "nirvana", and the Judeo/Christian construct of "heaven", etc.
I feel than the human animal has always sensed the extreme nature of our environment, but most of the "explanations" are both too earthy", and/or too "off the wall"y for my liking!

Agreed, Bo.

That is why I love the "I don't know and there doesn't seem to be enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess" take on matters.