while in uffish thought I stood.... necessarily...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-08-2017, 12:25 PM
while in uffish thought I stood.... necessarily...
At work.

And so... while whiling away the wee hours of a dark, dank and chilling morning. Twix the times tween sleep and waking. A troublesome thoght did my consciousness stir.

Folks such as Naielis and such freinds have pointed out to me the whole "Necessary" argument/philosophical discourse.

Reality/The Universe is "Necessary"
Such could only have come about/been instigated by a "Necessary" being (Add everything about such here for short hand)
All the history that follows is "Necessary" (Adam's sin/fall. God's incarnation and atonment etc)


Now my thoughts turned to the idea that the "Necessary" never actually stops.

The past and everything in it/about it 'was' "Necessary".
The present and everything about it/in it 'is' "Necessasy"
So, by extension. ....
The future and everything in it/about it 'must be' "Necessary".

Hence, by the above we have no free will.....

Consider

Hope that makes sense, tapped out on my phone/stream of consciousness as it was.

Happy cogitating! Thumbsup

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Peebothuhul's post
28-08-2017, 12:30 PM
RE: while in uffish thought I stood.... necessarily...
yabut....was it necessary to create this thread???? Consider Big Grin

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
28-08-2017, 12:32 PM
RE: while in uffish thought I stood.... necessarily...
At work.

Big Grin

Heart

Though..... at the crux of the matter. ...... 'Yes'? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
28-08-2017, 12:43 PM
RE: while in uffish thought I stood.... necessarily...
Necessary for whom?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2017, 12:55 PM
RE: while in uffish thought I stood.... necessarily...
At work.

I was just thinking through the whole "Necessary" definitions and such......

Still not even sure about 'Free will' and whether anything has it.....

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2017, 01:29 PM
RE: while in uffish thought I stood.... necessarily...
Didnt daddy tell you to stay away from word games? Look what you have done to your mind now.
Mommy is not gonna clean up this mess for you again. Tongue

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
28-08-2017, 01:34 PM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2017 01:52 PM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: while in uffish thought I stood.... necessarily...
(28-08-2017 12:25 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Now my thoughts turned to the idea that the "Necessary" never actually stops.

I think you misunderstand the idea of a necessary truth.

"A necessary truth is a proposition that could not possibly have been false. This can be expressed by saying that a necessary truth is a proposition that is true in every possible world. An example of a truth that many philosophers take to be necessary in this sense is: 2+2 = 4."

This is typically contrasted with a contingent proposition.

"A contingent proposition is a proposition that is not necessarily true or necessarily false (i.e., is not the negation of a necessary truth). A contingent truth is a true proposition that could have been false; a contingent falsehood is a false proposition that could have been true. This is sometimes expressed by saying that a contingent proposition is one that is true in some possible worlds and not in others."

Both definitions are from: http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/p...aepist.htm

Since the ontological argument for the existence of God fails because existence is not a property, that would make God's existence contingent in my opinion. You can't define God into existence, by claiming he is necessary or otherwise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
28-08-2017, 02:42 PM
RE: while in uffish thought I stood.... necessarily...
(28-08-2017 01:34 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Since the ontological argument for the existence of God fails because existence is not a property, that would make God's existence contingent in my opinion. You can't define God into existence, by claiming he is necessary or otherwise.

Oh, I get that. Yes

I was just thiking along the ines of;

"If we give/accept the porposition of "Necessary' for reality and diety THEN doesn't it follow that "Necessary" continues to be enforced not just in the past but onwards into the future and hence said position leads to 'No free will' since 'Evrything' is "Necessary" and nothing can deviate from said 'Necessary"?

Consider

Not at work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
28-08-2017, 04:08 PM
RE: while in uffish thought I stood.... necessarily...
This is similar to the philosophical debate about hard facts and soft facts. Something that has happened and now is in the past is a hard fact. If John had eggs and bacon for breakfast yesterday, that is a hard fact. If the future is not deterministic, then all facts about the future are soft, that is contingent. What John may have for breakfast tomorrow is a soft fact, a possibility, contingent. But if there is a God who knows that John will have pancakes Friday morning, then that seems to be a hard fact similar to a hard fact about the past. And is then a necessary fact. and what about now. Is now a hard fact or not? If God knew that at this moment what would happen, it is hard and necessary.

It is a twist that makes it harder to argue for compatibilism. Theological fatalism. For God, all facts are hard, if God is as claimed, omniscient.

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter
- Thomas Jefferson

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post
28-08-2017, 04:25 PM
RE: while in uffish thought I stood.... necessarily...
This reminds of Leibniz and the Principle of Sufficient Reason. It also reminds me of Jim Morrison and The Soft Parade. Smile

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: