Does God require a creator?

[viole]

I don't think so. You're part of the universe, aren't you? Are you necessary?

Who knows? I see no logical defeater of the claim “I am necessary “. Do you?
and being part of the universe is irrelevant, since I am challenging the statement that the Universe is necessarily contingent, so to speak.

i am not claiming I am necessary, I just claim I could be necessary. The same with everything, basically. There is, in my opinion, no defeater of me, and the rest, being necessary.

but I am sure I would love a rational fight about that. We can use PSR and modal logic, if you want. But they are not necessary for the discussion. They are contingent, lol.

ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think so. You're part of the universe, aren't you? Are you necessary?

Compositional fallacy.

"Every cell in my body is invisible to the naked eye" does not imply "I am invisible to the naked eye."

"No part of the universe is necessary" does not imply "the universe is not necessary."

 

[ratiocinator]

No, because God didn't "come from" something. Whereas empirically we know the universe did.

No we don't.

 

[dybmh]

I don't see what's silly about point out the obvious difference between the laws of physics and the laws of a country. What seems silly to me, is to pretend they are in the same category, like you are doing.

They are in the same catagory in relation to a creator god and its creation. Creator/creation is the context of this thread. So it's silly to abandon that context.

No. What they do there is describe an imaginary universe where magic exists.

Yup! That's a perfectly valid way of describing our existence from an outside perspective.

I think I just told you........

Just because we can use our imagination to imagine senseless things, that doesn't mean they are also actually possible in actual reality...........
I can imagine breaking / violating / suspending the laws of physics by being able to fly at light speed like Son Goku using only "Ki".
That doesn't mean it is also possible in reality.

And it definitely doesn't mean that I get to use such imagination as an argument that it IS in fact possible - just because I can imagine it.
What a silly proposition...............

And As I said, this is not about what is actual, it's not even about what is plausible. It is about imagining. That is the context. There's nothing wrong with imagining if that is permitted in the premise. God as a creator is no different than an author writing a book. If you don't like the book, if it's logically incoherent to you. So be it. It doesn't change anything about the metaphor.

Listen, Atheists make some good arguments. This simply isn't one of them.

Q: "How can God be outside of time, and outside of the laws of physics??? It makes no sense?"

A: "Easy, it's the same thing an author does when they are writing a book."

Now the Atheist might get angry and frustrated because one of their talking points gets shut down. So what? They've got others that are perfectly valid.

 

[Left Coast]

Who knows? I see no logical defeater of the claim “I am necessary “. Do you?

You believe you couldn't not exist? You must exist? By that logic, I assume you believe you'll always exist? I can't wait for a logical proof of that.

and being part of the universe is irrelevant, since I am challenging the statement that the Universe is necessarily contingent, so to speak.

It's quite relevant. The universe is all matter and energy, so far as I use the term. If you're matter and energy, you're part of the universe. If you aren't necessary, then your part of the universe isn't necessary. So which part is?

i am not claiming I am necessary, I just claim I could be necessary.

Prove it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You believe you couldn't not exist? You must exist? By that logic, I assume you believe you'll always exist? I can't wait for a logical proof of that.

A necessary being exists in all possible worlds. @viole exists in at least one world - this one - so that's a mark in her favour. I have no idea how we would investigate all of the remaining possible, but not actual, worlds to see which ones she does and does not exist in.

 

[Left Coast]

Compositional fallacy.

"Every cell in my body is invisible to the naked eye" does not imply "I am invisible to the naked eye."

This analogy doesn't really work unless you're claiming that an aggregate of a bunch of contingent things somehow eventually produces a necessary thing if you put enough of them together. That's not what you're claiming, is it?

 

[Left Coast]

A necessary being exists in all possible worlds. @viole exists in at least one world - this one - so that's a mark in her favour. I have no idea how we would investigate all of the remaining possible, but not actual, worlds to see which ones she does and does not exist in.

Could you really not imagine a world where @viole doesn't exist?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This analogy doesn't really work unless you're claiming that an aggregate of a bunch of contingent things somehow eventually produces a necessary thing if you put enough of them together. That's not what you're claiming, is it?

I'm saying that the attributes of the parts are not necessarily the attributes of the whole.

If you want to make an argument that this universe is necessary, do it instead of sloppily flailing around pretending to make a valid argument.

 

[Left Coast]

No we don't.

The universe has always been as it is now? Unchanged?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Could you really not imagine a world where @viole doesn't exist?

What bearing does what I imagine have on what's possible?

 

[Left Coast]

I'm saying that the attributes of the parts are not necessarily the attributes of the whole.

But which attribute we're discussing is relevant. The cell/body analogy only works if you think necessity is some emergent property that can arise from putting together a bunch of contingent things. Do you?

If you want to make an argument that this universe is necessary,

I dont.

do it instead of sloppily flailing around pretending to make a valid argument.

For a guy making bad analogies, you should really work on your own arguments before bossing others around.

 

[Left Coast]

What bearing does what I imagine have on what's possible?

I assume you have a relatively realistic, functioning brain...? That you could recognize if the absence of something in a scenario would make it impossible or absurd or logically contradictory?

 

[ratiocinator]

The universe has always been as it is now? Unchanged?

No. That's not what you said, you said we know that it came from something. There is no evidence that that is the case.

 

[ratiocinator]

Could you really not imagine a world where @viole doesn't exist?

If that's your criterion, it's easy enough to imagine a world with no god.

 

[ratiocinator]

That you could recognize if the absence of something in a scenario would make it impossible or absurd or logically contradictory?

But only with respect to a particular scenario. That is, obviously if you outline some particular scenario then there may well be some things that the scenario wouldn't work without but in order to get to a 'necessary entity' you need something whose absence would be impossible or contradictory regardless of specific scenarios (in all possible worlds); something that is its own reason for existing. I have never heard anybody explain how that is in any way imaginable or logically possible. Sounds like BS, quite frankly.

 

[Left Coast]

No. That's not what you said, you said we know that it came from something. There is no evidence that that is the case.

That is precisely what I meant - if the universe hasn't always been as it is now, then it came from some prior conditions in the past that lead to the conditions we see today.

 

[Left Coast]

If that's your criterion, it's easy enough to imagine a world with no god.

A world with no necessary being would literally be entirely contingent. Is an entirely contingent world, with nothing necessary underlying it, possible?

 

[Left Coast]

But only with respect to a particular scenario. That is, obviously if you outline some particular scenario then there may well be some things that the scenario wouldn't work without but in order to get to a 'necessary entity' you need something whose absence would be impossible or contradictory regardless of specific scenarios (in all possible worlds); something that is its own reason for existing. I have never heard anybody explain how that is in any way imaginable or logically possible. Sounds like BS, quite frankly.

Does something necessary exist? If so, what is it?

 

[viole]

Could you really not imagine a world where @viole doesn't exist?

well, yes, but I can also imagine a world where no God exists. Actually, I would not be an atheist, if I could not imagine that.

now, if God exists it must be necessary. But since I can imagine Her not existence, She must contingent, too. According to your contingency criterium. Therefore, according to your criteria, it is indeed the case that we are not finished yet with the claims about the contingency of the Universe, but we already collected a bonus, namely that God’s existence can be disproven on pure logical grounds, since Her existence would lead to mutually contradicting conclusions.

which is cool. A nice proof that God does not exist.

now, if you accept my conclusions, we can proceed with analyzing the rest. if not, then you must agree that it is not necessarily the case that something is contingent if I can imagine its not existence. Or, alternatively, that God is not necessary. Your call, really.

let me know, and we will proceed.

ciao

- viole