The End of WAR

“The universe always was.” Then, “it was perhaps misleading for me to say that…” “By saying that it always existed, I simply meant [something which doesn’t require that it always existed.]”

Then, “Why are you pressing this point,” “I explained very clearly that I rejected existence having had a start.”

Then, “let's say that relative to an extraterrestrial planet, everything on earth were expanding at the same rate.” Then, no rate at all—just a one-time expansion, “on the order of, say, 2%,” which “would not be enough for us to notice.”

Then the assertion—contrary to the obvious truth that a discrete number of entities can interact only so much in a discrete period of time, yielding a finite number of events—I am told that “there is no answer.” Not even, ‘large but finite,’ just, “there is no answer.”

To say that time is a property of the universe, while denying that the universe exists within time, is to make a distinction where there is no difference, if the universe began to exist. If the universe began to exist (and began to exist in motion), then the universe itself, which amounts to just those things of which it is composed, possesses time as an essential property of itself. And this is just to say that the universe exists within time; since there is no way it could possibly exist without it.

It is expanding in relation to itself. It began as it progessed from a dimensionless point, or singularity, to a state of expansion relative to this point.

There is no reason to suppose that all constituents within the universe expand at a rate proportional to the rate of the universe's expansion.

It only needs to be the case that at least a single constituent does, viz. the dimensional substratum.

Universals refer to properties which can be predicated universally of the substances which possess them. "Redness" is thus a universal applying to all those things which are red. It is not a universal in the sense that everything is red.

The universe is contingent, i.e. what it is does not entail that it exist.

This is the case insofar as all of the entitites that compose the universe are contingent. My T-mobile cell-phone, for instance, is a contingent entity, since its concept does not entail that it exist. I can prove this by imagining its concept while smashing it to pieces with a hammer.

A necessary being must be a being for whom it is impossible that it not exist . . .

Okay, then the fundamental constituents of existence are "necessary beings," for it is impossible for them not to exist.

. . . hence it must be a being whose conceptual possibility entails its necessary existence.

But:
(1) Necessary existence is a positive property.
(2) God, as a maximally perfect being, possesses all and only positive properties.
________________________________________________________
(3) God exists (necessarily).

The universe does not exist necessarily, because the universe possesses negative properties (e.g. privation). Hence, the universe must require something to actualize, or create, it: God.

If you say the universe exists within time, you're implying that it exists for a certain period of time -- for a certain duration --which in turn implies that its duration can be measured by a standard outside itself, which is impossible since there is nothing outside the universe.

You can't say that it's expanding in relation to itself. One part may move or expand in relation to another, but the whole cannot do so in relation to itself.

Again, you're assuming that the universe as a whole can be said to expand; it cannot, for the reasons I already stated. Things within the universe can expand relative to other things, but the universe as a whole -- as the sum total of existence -- cannot, because it would have to expand relative to a standard outside itself, which is impossible, since nothing exists outside the universe.

What's a "dimensional substratum"?

Of course! But if I'm talking about the universe of existents, I mean everything in existence.

What it is certainly does entail that it exist, because "what it is" is something that exists.

As I understand the term "contingent," it means dependent on something else for its existence -- and generally, on something else that could have been otherwise, like human choice -- but the ultimate constituents of the universe are not dependent on anything else, much less on human choice. They are irreducible, indestructible primaries.

Okay, then the fundamental constituents of existence are "necessary beings," for it is impossible for them not to exist.

It doesn't follow that a necessary being is one whose conceptual possibility entails its necessary existence.

From the fact that something is conceptually possible it doesn't follow that it exists, let alone exists necessarily. 

 Suppose that a maximally perfect being didn't exist. In other words, suppose that every being lacked some positive property. Then obviously such a being wouldn't exist, in which case, he wouldn't exist necessarily.

So, according to this argument, his existence is necessary only if he first exists. But that he exists is the very thing the argument is designed to prove. Therefore, it cannot be argued that God exists because his existence is necessary, if his existence is necessary only if he first exists. In short, this "ontological argument" is question begging and circular.

To say that something is contingent is to say that it is dependent on something else, but the fundamental constituents of existence cannot be dependent on anything else; if they were, they wouldn't be fundamental. 

Doesn't it constitute conceptual analysis to show that if the fundamental constituents of existence could not have come into existence out of nothing, they are necessary? If nihilo ex nihilo -- from nothing comes nothing -- then if the fundamental constituents of the universe are here, they are here necessarily, because there is no alternative to their existence. They could not have failed to exist, for if they did, they could not have come into existence.

This principle applies to whatever you consider fundamental. It applies to God, if you consider God fundamental, and it applies to nature if you consider nature fundamental. Since I don't believe in a God, because I don't see any evidence for such a being, it is logical for me to infer that nature is fundamental and that its existence is therefore logically necessary.

But what is possible depends on what is actual. It is from the actual world that we get our concepts of possibility.

E.g., it is not possible for water to boil at zero degrees centigrade under normal atmospheric pressure, because that is the nature of water. It is not possible for human beings to live without oxygen, because that is the nature of human beings.

That you can imagine something does not mean that it is possible, still less that it exists.