Materialists......

[Soapy Sam]

Evolution could not operate if things did not die.

Why not?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Evolution could not operate if things did not die.

But why is there evolution?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sustaining causes are not like temporal causes. They are more like logical causes, and they must continue indefinately. In other words, if God (viewed as a sustaining cause) were to stop existing, then the Universe would also stop existing.

How is this different from "if the universe were to stop existing, then it would stop existing"?

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Why not?

Because natural selection could not operate. There would be no selection. There would also be no space for the next generation to fill.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But why is there evolution?

~~ Paul

Because without it, everything remains static. Without evolution, there could be no change.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Because without it, everything remains static. Without evolution, there could be no change.

And then I'd still have my Fluffy.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

How is this different from "if the universe were to stop existing, then it would stop existing"?

~~ Paul

Because the Universe is viewed as contingent and God is viewed as necessary. It the Universe were to stop existing, God would continue to exist. If God were to stop existing, the Universe would also stop existing. If you want to argue that the Universe itself is a sort-of neccesary being, then go ahead. That would be a form of pantheism, and leads to various questions about repeating Universes.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And then I'd still have my Fluffy.

~~ Paul

But you'd never be able to have anything new. Do you want to remain in stasis forever or will you pay the price of mortality in order to experience new things?

 

[chriswl]

Chris.....you are trying to dismiss with a wave of your hand something which has been and still is a very active branch of philosophy... this isn't as simple as you make out.

Perhaps it is so subtle that you are the only one on here who understands what you mean by "necessary being". Which doesn't make for much of a discussion.

From your Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy link:

"The term necessary being can be understood in different ways. Kant, like some modern defenders of the ontological argument, understands "necessary being" as having to do with logically necessary existence, that is, with existence that is logically undeniable. But this is not the sense in which "necessary being" is understood in the cosmological argument. Necessity is understood in the sense of ontological or metaphysical necessity. A necessary being is one that if it exists, it cannot cease to exist, and correspondingly, if it does not exist, it cannot come into existence. Since such a concept is not self-contradictory, the existence of a necessary being is not intrinsically impossible."

To which I can only say, so what? They've saved the concept of "necessary being" by redefining it to something utterly uninteresting. If this being might or might not exist then there is still the logical possibility that there might have been nothing rather than something. So, the question of why there is something rather than nothing is still unanswered.

Are you looking, perhaps, for a being that is necessary given that you exist? This wouldn't explain why you are here, so it doesn't really answer the deep question, which of course is unanswerable.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

But you'd never be able to have anything new. Do you want to remain in stasis forever or will you pay the price of mortality in order to experience new things?

Well, a dead person would not experience anything at all. Besides, even when we could attach some time inmortality (maybe being some kind of cyborg) I would not imagine that such a being would not experience new things.

Of course, you were talking in general, except for this post.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But you'd never be able to have anything new. Do you want to remain in stasis forever or will you pay the price of mortality in order to experience new things?

I just want Fluffy back! What does stasis mean, Daddy?

~~ Paul

 

[Soapy Sam]

Because natural selection could not operate. There would be no selection. There would also be no space for the next generation to fill.

And then I'd still have my Fluffy.

~~ Paul

Your fluffy what?

Why could natural selection not operate? Natural selection does not affect dead things. It affects living things. So long as things go on being born, death is irrelevant. Some would still breed faster than others, some with fewer copying errors- only longevity would be unimportant.
There would be no shortage of space. The total volume of the biosphere would not change.
Critters would go on eating each other. They just wouldn't die when eaten. What fun!

Anyway, Fluffy had to die . It was necessary.

 

[Belz...]

Yes.

That's an interesting suggestion, actually. Not that I agree, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Now, secondly, the world is simply the real or imagined totality or aggregate of individual objects, none of which contain in themselves alone the reason for their existence.
None of them ? He has examined every object in the universe? Every quantum fluctuation? Every virtual particle?

There isn't any world distinct from the objects which form it, any more than the human race is something apart from the members.
Is this where Thatcher got her "There is no society" line!

Therefore, I should say, since objects or events exist, and since no object of experience contains within itself reason of its existence, (because that's how I just defined the universe) this reason, the totality of objects, must have a reason external to itself.
Why? Why does it need a reason at all? What if every rock and being is composed entirely of vibrating strings which in fact are acausal (ie whose exstence is their essence?)

That reason must be an existent being. Why? Why not an existent cloakroom ticket? Why not a bubble in the frothy void? Why not Fluffy? Why bother at all?

Well, this being is either itself the reason for its own existence, or it is not. If it is, well and good. If it is not, then we must proceed farther. But if we proceed to infinity in that sense, then there's no explanation of existence at all.
And that's impossible or just unthinkable?

So, I should say, in order to explain existence, we must come to a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence, that is to say, which cannot not exist.
As explanations go, this seems as credible as "The dog ate my homework".

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why could natural selection not operate? Natural selection does not affect dead things. It affects living things. So long as things go on being born, death is irrelevant. Some would still breed faster than others, some with fewer copying errors- only longevity would be unimportant.
There would be no shortage of space. The total volume of the biosphere would not change.
Critters would go on eating each other. They just wouldn't die when eaten. What fun!

Then what would the scavengers eat? What would happen to organisms that consume dead organic matter? How would the producer/consumer cycles be affected? What would happen to O2 and CO2 levels? Would the topsoil still be fertile? When would lakes clog up with too many critters? Would symbiotic relationships be messed up?

Evolution would be radically altered. But at least I'd have my Fluffy!

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

It would seem to me that increasing entropy ensures 'death' of anything more complex than the smallest irreducible part (whatever that might be ... I'll say a Higgs boson just for kicks.. ).

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Perhaps it is so subtle that you are the only one on here who understands what you mean by "necessary being". Which doesn't make for much of a discussion.

Well, that isn't because I haven't clearly explained it already.

From your Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy link:

To which I can only say, so what?

So it's not logically contradictory. Kant revolutionised philosophy, but he wasn't faultless. In this particular case Kant's position invalidated the then-predominant ontological argument for the existence of God. This is still generally accepted to be the case. But Kant also believed that the cosmological argument was critically dependent on the ontological argument. This is generally accepted to be the result of a mistake by Kant, in that he confused what was meant by "Necessary Being" in the two different arguments. Therefore, his logical proof against the ontological argument makes no difference to the cosmological argument.

 

[Belz...]

Because natural selection could not operate. There would be no selection. There would also be no space for the next generation to fill.

Because without it, everything remains static. Without evolution, there could be no change.

But you'd never be able to have anything new. Do you want to remain in stasis forever or will you pay the price of mortality in order to experience new things?

That's nice, Geoff, but unfortunately these are all man-made answers to the question, and it doesn't actually tell us WHY flully died. He died because his biological processes failed, or his heart was malfunctioning or he was hit by a car. He died because the necessary conditions for life were no longer there. In turn, these answers have their own causes.

But you can't invent a human "reason" like the universe has a purpose, and expect it to really close the case.

Of course, kids don't know that, so we can stuff 'em full of lies as much as we want !

 

[Robin]

Usually when children say "Why?", they deserve an answer. Very often, it isn't supplied.

This reminds me of an ad that is playing here. A boy asks his father "why was the great wall of China built?" The father answers "To keep the rabbits out - there was a big rabbit plague in China at the time".

"I don't know" is not always a satisfactory answer. But it is the right answer when you really don't know.

 

[Robin]

Not really. Universes are contingent. Gods are neccesary. i.e. Universes can stop existing, Gods cannot.

Gods are necessary for what? Who was it necessary to that God existed?

No Gods are not necessary beings, they are necessarily accidental beings.

And how do you know a God can't stop existing?

Exactly. If God exists, God neccesarily exists and cannot stop existing.

This does not follow from or even relate to what I said. And as I pointed out earlier, you can't justify this statement. If God exists then God is by definition accidental.

Franko answered this question on this board a long time ago. Because existence is better than non-existence.

So if I build a thermonuclear device in my back yard, it would be sufficient reason for me to say "existence (of my bomb) is better than non-existence".

This one doesn't. My life is utterly meaningless. I am the most extreme nihilist you are ever likely to encounter. Why do you think I go on and on about ZERO?

You are also a materialist atheist by any standard theistic definition.