Author Topic: Universe as necessary being  (Read 122 times)

sfs

  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Universe as necessary being
« on: August 12, 2017, 04:39:18 PM »
Hi,
sry about my English so I apologize in advance,

Leibniz' argument divided between contingency being and necessary being. (and the world is contingency)
My question is why we need to say that the universe is contingency?
After that we know that there is the 'conservation matter-energy law' we never could destroy or add any from/to the energy, we could just destroy the form of the energy - material and move it back to the energy and vice versa (from energy to material).

It's sound good to call him necessary being. Even the description of necessary being is like something that u never can to destroy it
why not?

lucious

  • Posts: 3477
    • View Profile
Re: Universe as necessary being
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2017, 08:49:06 AM »
It makes no sense--the universe is an aggregate of events and things in time.


It's not a nature, as in, the universe is not a substantial whole or a metaphysical identity. It's a collection, a set.

bruce culver

  • Posts: 4367
    • View Profile
Re: Universe as necessary being
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2017, 09:14:26 PM »
It makes no sense--the universe is an aggregate of events and things in time.


It's not a nature, as in, the universe is not a substantial whole or a metaphysical identity. It's a collection, a set.

In it's initial condition it probably was a substantial whole. Metaphysical entity? I don't even know what that means. I think probably nothing. Also the universe is not JUST the collection of its complex proper parts. That is an impoverished view. The physical has universal properties such as physical laws that are holistic. So, this objection is just wrong, IMO.
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

 

anything