If B could only occur after A's occurrence, yes. Otherwise, A and B could be concurrent.

they could be, yes, if A and B are co-contingent. I have altered the original post to account for this.

I don't understand your response to L'elephant.

I am a sceptic about necessity. But putting that aside, if A exists of necessity and B depends on A, A and B can nevertheless exist simultaneously. That is, in the beginning A and B can exist. Yet A exists of necessity and B contingently. Not that 'necessary' and 'contingent' mean anything, of course.

I am not sure what you mean by “skeptic about necessity?” how can you be a skeptic about necessity if your claim that “necessity does not exist,” is either a necessary truth, and if it is not a necessary truth, it is a necessary falsehood?

but of course, I am not using the word “necessity” here in the absolute sense, as in “A ‘necessarily’ exists because the existence of A is logically impossible, and hence that A exists eternally,” I am using the term in the relative sense such that “if B exists, and A is necessary for the existence of B, then B implies the prior existence of A (so long as A and B are not co-necessary).”

Imagine that for all time there has been a two storey building. Imagine the first storey exists of necessity, but the second does not. The second depends on the first. but the first did not exist before the second. One exists of necessity and the other, though it depends on the first, does not. But the second was not temporally prior to the first.

I am not sure what you mean by “skeptic about necessity?” — TheGreatArcanum

I mean that I do not believe it makes sense as a concept. And nor does 'contingent' either. So I do not believe that reality contains 'necessary' and 'contingent' existences. There's just what exists. Nothing that exists exists of necessity or contingently, for those are empty terms. They say nothing about what exists. And no truths are necessary or contingent for the same reason.

If one tries to define a necessary truth, one will have to make mention of contingency and so one's definition will be 'a necessary truth is not a contingent truth'. And if one tries to define a contingent truth, one will be able to do no better than 'not a necessary truth'.

And so necessary truths and contingent truths are no different from hoity truths and toity truths, where a hoity truth is not a toity truth and a toity truth is not a hoity truth.

So, my claim that necessity is unreal is just true, I would say, and is neither necessarily true nor contingently true, but just true.

Imagine that for all time there has been a two storey building. Imagine the first storey exists of necessity, but the second does not. The second depends on the first. but the first did not exist before the second. — Bartricks

firstly, this is a logically impossible hypothetical scenario, so there’s no point of even trying to use it as a mental experiment. secondly, it contains contradictions, for the first like part of the statement says that both floors are eternal and the second part says that the second is it eternal. if they both exist eternally, they are both exist necessarily. you cannot claim that they are both eternal and then subsequently that because the second necessitates the prior existence of the first, that the first is temporally prior to the second. this is a contradiction in terms here. this I why you shouldn’t use logically impossible hypothetical scenarios in thought experiments.”

You cannot deny the existence of the categories of necessity and contingency without denying the existence of time. Are you also prepared to deny that fact that the present logically follows from the past and that the past and present do not exist simultaneously? Where is this absurd belief that “the categories of contingency and necessity are manmade constructs” coming from?

when you say that “logical necessity is logically impossible,” you cannot do so without contradicting yourself, for the proposition is either necessary or it is not necessary and therefore contingent, and if it is contingent, it is true sometimes and not at others, and also, necessarily continent and not possibly contingent. do you see how your using the category of necessity to deny the possibility of necessity here?

irstly, this is a logically impossible hypothetical scenario, so there’s no point of even trying to use it as a mental experiment. — TheGreatArcanum

No it isn't. That's question begging. Explain how it is logically impossible. (It's from Kant)

secondly, it contains contradictions, for the first like part of the statement says that both floors are eternal and the second part says that the second is it eternal. if they both exist eternally, they are both exist necessarily. — TheGreatArcanum

No, you're conflating 'exists of necessity' with 'exists eternally'. They're different. The first entails the latter, the latter does not entail the first. You're affirming the consequent.

You cannot deny the existence of the categories of necessity and contingency without denying the existence of time. — TheGreatArcanum

Yes I can. There are no necessary truths or contingent truths. But it is true that time exists. There.

No it isn't. That's question begging. Explain how it is logically impossible. (It's from Kant) — Bartricks

this is an easy one, because buildings cannot exist eternally. they are contingent upon the prior existence of manmade building materials, and also of humans. are you prepared to also make the claim that humans are eternal, that the earth is eternal, and also the solar system?

Are you also prepared to deny that fact that the present logically follows from the past and that the past and present do not exist simultaneously? — TheGreatArcanum

No, I do not deny that. Why would you think I would deny that?

No, you're conflating 'exists of necessity' with 'exists eternally'. They're different. The first entails the latter, the latter does not entail the first. You're affirming the consequent. — Bartricks

how can it be possible for something to exist eternally and exist not necessarily, but contingently. this is another logically impossible state of relations here…

when you say that “logical necessity is logically impossible,” you cannot do so without contradicting yourself, for the proposition is either necessary or it is not necessary and therefore contingent, and if it is contingent, it is true sometimes and not at others, and also, necessarily continent and not possibly contingent. do you see how your using the category of necessity to deny the possibility of necessity here? — TheGreatArcanum

You're begging the question. Remember: I deny the reality of necessity and contingency.

Look, do you deny that there are any hoity truths?

how can it be possible for something to exist eternally and exist not necessarily, but contingently. this is another logically impossible state of relations here… — TheGreatArcanum

Can't you see that 'eternal' and 'necessity' are different?

Yes I can. There are no necessary truths or contingent truths. But it is true that time exists. There. — Bartricks

what you mean to say is that “there are no necessary or contingent truths except for the truth that “there are no necessary or contingent truths,” and this is a self-contradiction.

also, you cannot make the claim that “time exists” without also implying that the present logically follows from the past and this invoking the category of necessity, and also contingency (and this is because they are logical opposites).

Take anything that exists now. Can you imagine it existing yesterday? And the day before. Keep doing that until you get to the first moment. Now you're imagining it existing eternally. And yet it exists 'contingently' not of necessity, yes?

These are different notions, then. Which is just as well, for eternal existence makes sense, whereas 'necessary' existence is nonsense.

what you mean to say is that “there are no necessary or contingent truths except for the truth that “there are no necessary or contingent truths,” and this is a self-contradiction. — TheGreatArcanum

No, I know better than you do what I mean to say.

I said it is true that time exists.

I say it is nonsense to say that time exists 'of necessity' and nonsense to say 'time exists contingently'. Just as it is nonsene to say 'time exists hoitily' or to say 'time exists of toitily'.

And I say that it is 'true' that there are no necessary truths or contingent truths. I do not say that is necessarily true, for that would be to speak nonsense.

Can't you see that 'eternal' and 'necessity' are different? — Bartricks

they are not different. if x exists eternally, x exists necessarily, meaning that it’s existence is logically impossible. if x exists contingently, it is dependent upon the prior existence of something else, and is therefore not eternal (unless that contingent entity is co-contingent with some eternally existing entity).

how is this not obvious to you?

they are not different. — TheGreatArcanum

Oh, ok then. Jesus.

And no, if something exists eternally it does not therefore exist of necessity. Bloody hell. This is basic.

If something exists of necessity, then it exists eternally. The reverse does not hold. You know, because 'eternal' doesn't mean 'necessary'.

Look, if you're using the word 'necessity' to mean 'eternally' then you're misusing a word. Not my fault. Yours.

I didn’t say that the word necessity necessarily refers to eternally existing entities, for something can be necessary for the existence of something else and not be eternal (e.g. space is necessary for motion and space is not eternal); however, it is logically impossible for an entity to exist eternally and not exist necessarily. this follows necessarily from the law of non contradiction. if you do not make the distinction between necessary and contingent beings, you cannot make a distinction, conceptually, between eternal and non-eternal beings (or relations), and you cannot simply presume that non-eternal beings do not exist without proof (which I presume is what you’re going to do next).

I didn’t say that the word necessity necessarily refers to eternally existing entities, for something can be necessary for the existence of something else and not be eternal (e.g. space is necessary for motion and space is not eternal); however, it is logically impossible for an entity to exist eternally and not exist necessarily. this follows necessarily from the law of non contradiction. if you do not make the distinction between necessary and contingent beings, you cannot make a distinction, conceptually, between eternal and non-eternal beings (or relations), and you cannot simply presume that non-eternal beings do not exist without proof (which I presume is what you’re going to do next).

Presumably you realize that if something exists contingently, then that can be consistent with it actually existing? Or do you not understand that?

So, if object X exists contingently, then that's consistent with it actually existing.

Now imagine that object x exists at every moment in time.

It's still existing contingently, isn't it? Or are you now going to deny this becasue you now can't accept that you were wrong to confuse 'exists of necessity' with 'exists eternally'?

Of course, if you are just using the word 'necessary' to mean 'eternally' (and 'contingent' to mean 'not eternal') then I do think that there are necessary and contingent existences!

it is logically impossible for an entity to exist eternally and not exist necessarily. — TheGreatArcanum

No, that's just you asserting what you're mistaken about. Say it as often as you like, it's not going to be true.

Again: X exists contingently. Now imagine X existing at every moment in time. Now it exists eternally. But it still exists contingently.

You're just confused matey.

this follows necessarily from the law of non contradiction. if you do not make the distinction between necessary and contingent beings, you cannot make a distinction, conceptually, between eternal and non-eternal beings (or relations), and you cannot simply presume that non-eternal beings do not exist without proof (which I presume is what you’re going to do next). — TheGreatArcanum

What?

Show your working. You don't seem to know what important words mean. So, the law of non-contradiction says that if a proposition is true, it is not also false. Yes?

I think that's true.

Now, show me how you get from that law to the conclusion that if something exists eternally, it exists of necessity.

Presumably you realize that if something exists contingently, then that can be consistent with it actually existing? Or do you not understand that? — Bartricks

by definition, if something exists contingently, it does not exist necessarily, and therefore had the potential to come into and out of being (which is not true of something that exists necessarily because it is eternal).

if I imagine that a contingent being exists in every moment of time, which I cannot actually do, for that would take an eternity, then it wouldn’t necessarily follow that that contingent being is eternal because my mere conception that something is physically possible doesn’t make it physically possible.

by definition, if something exists contingently, it does not exist necessarily, and therefore had the potential to come into and out of being (which is not true of something that exists necessarily because it is eternal). — TheGreatArcanum

You don't seem to understnad what I am asking you.

Something can exist and its existence can be contingent, yes? (Not something I beleive - for I believe 'contingent' is nonesense - but it's something you believe).

So, the fact something exists is not evidence that it exists of necessity.

You've be a total fucking spanner if you reasoned 'X exists....therefore X exists of necessity" yes? FOr then everything that exists exists of necessity -which, I take it, is not something you think?

So, does anything stop a thing that exists at one moment from existing at all others? No.

So, imagine that thing - the thing that is existing contingently now - existing at all monents.

Does it now magically exist of necessity? No. You: yes. You're wrong.

I think that's true. — Bartricks

ok. Is it eternally true, or did it become true in some moment of time, and if so, how long will it be true and when will it become false again?

if it is not eternally true, it is by definition contingently true because it’s existence depends upon its truth maker, and if it is eternally true, it is necessarily eternally true because it cannot not be eternally true, that is, because its non-existence is logically impossible.

ok. Is it eternally true, or did it become true in some moment of time, and if so, how long will it be true and when will it become false again? — TheGreatArcanum

I think it's always been true. But perhaps I'm wrong about that. Doesn't matter: the important point is that it is true.

Now show me how that law somehow entails that if something has always existed, then it exists of necessity.

I think it's always been true. — Bartricks

Then it exists necessarily and not contingently because it’s being false is logically impossible.

on that note. I think I call it a night. I need to get your poop smell off of me now.

Then it exists necessarily a — TheGreatArcanum

No it doesn't. That's you just insisting that if a proposition has always been true, then it is true of necessity. Stop begging the question.

Now, once more: try and show how the law of non-contradiction shows how if something has always existed, it thereby exists of necessity.

You're having one of two thoughts right now - you're either thinking "shit, I am being hugely outclassed here and need to run away or have my face blown clean off by the force of this guy's reason" or you're thinking "this guy is making no sense whatsoever - he's clearly the biggest idiot here for nothing he thinks seems like anything I think. Better go - can't profit by reasoning with someone this stupid".

Which is it, punk?

An interesting OP. :up:

Mill's 5 methods (to establish causality).

1. Method of agreement

A, B, C occur with w, x, y
A, D, E occur with w, t, u

When w, also A (A is a necessary cause of w).

.
.
.

Visit Wikipedia for more.