cosmologically derived phenomena: they are involved in a
cause and effect relationship which may also overlap with intervening
variables, such that if we change the conditions that produced a
phenomenon the phenomenon would not be as such.
Cosmologically primary related to the cosmos as a higher
framework beyond event horizon, yet capable of interacting, eternal, not
derived not dependent upon any other source of existence.
Naturalistic: Of or pertaining to the realm of life from
life; the process through which biological life, and/or the conditions
suited to maintain it come to be. This includes non organic matter such
as energy, solids, gases and so forth.
(1) the connection between empirical and synthetic is that phenomena
which ground synthetic statements are based upon cosmologically
derivedphenomena: they are involved in a cause and effect relationship
which may also overlap with intervening variables, such that if we
change the conditions that produced a phenomenon the phenomenon would
not be as such.
(2) when we ask "why are we here?" meaning why is there a world and how
did it get here we can't answer this question by appealing to
cosmologically derived phenomena because that only puts the process of
cosmic evolution back one step. It doesn't explain the how or the why of
(3) We have no examples of phenomena springing forth form total absolute
nothing; all phenomena that we know of in the natural world is
(4) when we ask "why are we here?" meaning why is there a world and how
did it get here we cant' answer this question by appealing to cosmologically derived phenomena because that only puts the process of cosmic evolution back one step. It doesn't explain the how or the why of it.
(5) The idea of an eternal cosmologically primary aspect of "existence* is a better answer than an appeal to naturalistic means because all naturalistic means is cosmologically derived.
(6) The theistic as well as the super essential PanENtheistic aspect of existence related phenomena* is cosmologically primary.
(7) This cosmologically primary thing is the origin of all things, is therefore, eternal and must proceed physical laws and must have created them. This means it is the ground of being and that is my definition of God.
of the same argument by Clarke in 1700s. It uses the more traditionjal language of God arguments.
This is a new version of the Argument my old cosmological necessity
argument. I've changed the terms "necessity/contingency" because they
are just easily muddled.
Defense of Premises 1-3:
Their truth is said to be contingent upon (depends on) the facts concerning the way the world is. Thus all contingent statements are synthetic statements.
"Contingent Statement a statement which could logically be either true or false."
"All true statements which are not necessarily true (logically could not
be other than true) are contingently true. Their truth is said to be
contingent upon (depends on) the facts concerning the way the world is. Thus all contingent statements are synthetic statements." Ibid
"the analytic-synthetic distinction is a distinction made in philosophy
between two different types of statements or propositions. This
distinction is also referred to as the analytic-synthetic dichotomy and
the first elucidation of this distinction is credited to Immanuel Kant,
who presented it in his work Critique of Pure Reason (1781).
"Analytic statements are those that are made true by the meaning of
their constituent concepts and thus do not require further experience
for their validation. Or alternately such statements are true as they
merely repeat what the content of the concepts presupposes. Analytic
statements are also often characterized as tautological in that nothing
new is presented in such statements which was not already given in the
meaning of the statements concepts. Definitions as well as the
propositions of mathematics and logic are analytic propositions. Synthetic
statements, on the other hand, are those which require experience for
the validation of their truth. Or in other words the truth of a
synthetic statement cannot be determined solely by an analysis of the
meaning or definitions of its concepts, but rather require a further act
of experience for the verification of its truth. Examples
of analytic statements are "All bachelors are unmarried" and "A
triangle has three sides". While examples of synthetic statement include
"It is raining outside" and "There are owls in Austria".
"Some scientists have tried to argue that if only
we knew enough about the laws of physics, if we were to discover a final
theory that united all the fundamental forces and particles of nature
into a single mathematical scheme, then we would find that this
superlaw, or theory of everything, would describe the only logically
consistent world. In other words, the nature of the physical world would
be entirely a consequence of logical and mathematical necessity. There
would be no choice about it. I think this is demonstrably wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary.
Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine
alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal
contenders for reality." First Things: Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address (1999)
"Philosophers commonly relate the analytic-synthetic dichotomy to two
other distinctions: firstly that between a priori and a posteriori
truths and secondly that between necessary and contingent truths. For
many philosopher the distinction lines up as follows: analaytic-a
priori-neccessary statements are viewed in a similar light versus the similarity of synthetic-a posteriori-contingent statements. "
(for answer to Qm arguemnt see: Review and Deubuncking of Lawrence Krauss's A Universe From Nothing.)