Existence and necessity

[Veritas]

Can someone give me the Objectivist position on these questions?

1. What is it about the nature of the universe that says that the universe must exist. To give an analogy: I exist but not necessarily. I did not have to exist. If my parents never met I would not have existed. Is there anything that necessitates that the universe must exist? Is it possible that it could have not existed?

2. What do you think of the Kallam argument posed by William Lane Craig?

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Following from this it would follow that whatever caused space, time, and matter to begin to exist cannot itself be spatial, temporal, or material and posits something divine.

Thanks

[aequalsa]

Can someone give me the Objectivist position on these questions?

1. What is it about the nature of the universe that says that the universe must exist. To give an analogy: I exist but not necessarily. I did not have to exist. If my parents never met I would not have existed. Is there anything that necessitates that the universe must exist? Is it possible that it could have not existed?

2. What do you think of the Kallam argument posed by William Lane Craig?

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Following from this it would follow that whatever caused space, time, and matter to begin to exist cannot itself be spatial, temporal, or material and posits something divine.

Thanks

This argument ignores scale. The premise that everything which begins to exist is conflated with the idea that everything which does exist has a cause.

It would be similar to saying

Premise 1: Everything that is composed of matter falls towards the earth when dropped.

Premise 2: Hydrogen is matter.

:. Hydrogen falls to the earth.

This ignores the context of the hydrogen atom which is far more effected by nuclear forces then gravity and preys upon your common sense assessment that everything you interact with falls toward the earth.

The fact that humans and rocks and trees were caused do not mean that the universe necessarily was, nor for that matter that subatomic particles are caused.

That's the trouble with using deduction to understand the world. It takes too many liberties with the details and relies heavily on broad reaching assumptions.

I prefer induction. It's probabilistic uncertainty is a small price to pay for corresponding more closely to reality.

[Nate T.]

Can someone give me the Objectivist position on these questions?

1. What is it about the nature of the universe that says that the universe must exist.

2. What do you think of the Kallam argument posed by William Lane Craig?

A good lead to the first question is a nice essay that Peikoff wrote about the analytic/synthetic dichotomy, which is what you seem to be bringing up here. Objectivism does not accept the analytic/synthetic dichotomy as valid, and instead upholds the distinction of metaphysical vs. man made, elaborated upon in the essay of the same name by Ayn Rand (in "Philosophy : Who Needs It?", I believe).

The idea here is to be is to be necessary; a fact which is true is true unconditionally, and there is no way it can be otherwise. To your example about being born: while at one time it was possible for your parents not to have conceived you (this being a man-made choice) now that you exist, you exist necessarily, and there is nothing contingent about your existence now. Also, even though its possible to imagine the facts as other than they are (Peikoff gives the example of imagining ice sinking in water) the fact that one can imagine the facts as otherwise does not change that they are facts.

Philosophers that try to talk about "contingent truths" are speaking implicitly from the standpoint of someone who thinks they can make reality other than what it is by wishing it so (apart from volitional action)-- they feel free to dream up "possible worlds" and thereby argue that ours wasn't necessary since they can imagine the facts to be otherwise. But A is A, of course. A special case of this is the religious frame, that regards facts as contingent on God's will-- things are contingent in that God could have willed them to be otherwise.

As for the second argument about the universe having a cause, the minor premise is faulty. The universe is all that exists-- time is defined in terms of change among things that exist, i.e., in the universe. So speaking of beginnings and endings outside of all that exist is nonsensical.

[RationalBiker]

Can someone give me the Objectivist position on these questions?

1. What is it about the nature of the universe that says that the universe must exist.

Nothing about Objectivism says that the universe must exist, only that it does, and that it and all things in it have a particular identity. Objectivism only addresses what man should do to live as man should he decide to continue his existence. As was mentioned in a previous thread, the existence of something does not imply that such existence need be justified.