Does God require a creator?

[ratiocinator]

Does something necessary exist?

I don't know but I doubt it. It doesn't seem to be a logically self-consistent concept (from the definitions I have so far seem). You talk about what people can imagine, well I can't imagine anything at all whose non-existence would be impossible or cause a contradiction (in general, rather than for a specific scenario). Can you? If so, can you explain how that works?

 

[Left Coast]

well, yes, but I can also imagine a world where no God exists.

This depends entirely on how one defines God. We're talking about a necessary being. Can a world exist without something metaphysically necessary?

But I'm interested to get back to you. Are you ready to concede yet that you're contigent? Or are you going to make an argument that you're a necessary being?

 

[syo]

Does God require a creator?.

?

 

[Left Coast]

I don't know but I doubt it. It doesn't seem to be a logically self-consistent concept (from the definitions I have so far seem).

So you think everything that exists is contingent? That runs into problems with the Principle of Sufficient Reason. The existence of contingent things, by their nature, is explained by other things.

You talk about what people can imagine, well I can't imagine anything at all whose non-existence would be impossible or cause a contradiction (in general, rather than for a specific scenario). Can you? If so, can you explain how that works?

I hope if we're able to flesh out this issue about contingency it'll become more clear.

 

[dybmh]

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

If you please, would you type this out?

 

[viole]

This depends entirely on how one defines God. We're talking about a necessary being. Can a world exist without something metaphysically necessary?

But I'm interested to get back to you. Are you ready to concede yet that you're contigent? Or are you going to make an argument that you're a necessary being?

I am not conceding anything. And I am not making an argument that I am a necessary being.
I claim that the Universe, including me, COULD be necessary. Not that is necessary.

there is no law of logic that prohibits that, unless you can show me one.

your question: Can a world exist without something metaphysically necessary?
since metaphysically necessary means existing in all possible worlds, then the answer is no. But it is a tautological no. Based on the definition, a bit like asking: is there a possible world with married bachelors? Same kind of no.

i am not sure how useful that would be. And that does not defeat my claim, that postulates that everything could be necessary.


ciao

- viole

 

[1213]

So, is that what you mean by a "god"? waves, neutrino's and such?

Bible tells God is spirit and love.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

So, I think it is something else than waves or neutrinos. However, spirit may be something like that, something that is on next level.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bible tells God is spirit and love.

God is specific activity inside human brains?
I'm inclined to agree.

So, I think it is something else than waves or neutrinos. However, spirit may be something like that, something that is on next level.

Undetectable levels, it seems. Aka, levels that are indistinguishable from non-existent things.

 

[ratiocinator]

So you think everything that exists is contingent?

I don't know.

That runs into problems with the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

What's the sufficient reason for the Principle of Sufficient Reason?

Seriously, who is to say if it's universal? The basis of reality may be (to borrow somebody else's phrase) not only stranger than we imagine but stranger than we can imagine.

I hope if we're able to flesh out this issue about contingency it'll become more clear.

If you can't make sense of it from the get-go, I'm not sure there is much to discuss? The whole problem with this argument is that it makes some assumptions and then kind of paints itself into a corner and has to invent something 'necessary' without (as far as I've seen to date) being able to explain how such a thing could possibly exist.

Some of the better attempts of the argument have sort of got to some sort of basis for things existing but without really explaining the necessity and, when they then tried to identify it with the usual theistic notions of a god, it just descended into comedy.

 

[viole]

If you please, would you type this out?

Oh dear. Isn’t that obvious, from the discussion?

Premise: God is necessary
Premise: something is contingent if we can imagine its not existence
Fact: it is very easy to imagine the not existence of God, all atheists do that
Conclusion: God is contingent
Conclusion: God is necessary and contingent at the same time. Contradiction with premise! Violation of excluded third!
Conclusion: God cannot exist

so, this are the premises of the claimant, the first is from me, and the conclusions follow from simple logic, and your old excluded middle friend. Well, simple for most of us, at least.

and, as any proof, it is valid if

1) the premises hold
2) the conclusion is not a non sequitur

in this case it is not a non sequitur, ergo, if God exists, some of the premises are false.

i am not holding my breath that you see it, given the cognitive dissonance that reductio ad absurdum gives you, but here is your chance to prove that God exists, by understanding It.

joking of course.



ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Oh dear. Isn’t that obvious, from the discussion?

Premise: God is necessary
Premise: something is contingent if we can imagine its not existence
Fact: it is very easy to imagine the not existence of God, all atheists do that
Conclusion: God is contingent
Conclusion: God is necessary and contingent at the same time. Contradiction with premise! Violation of excluded third!
Conclusion: God cannot exist

so, this are the premises of the claimant, the first is from me, and the conclusions follow from simple logic, and your old excluded middle friend. Well, simple for most of us, at least.

and, as any proof, it is valid if

1) the premises hold
2) the conclusion is not a non sequitur

in this case it is not a non sequitur, ergo, if God exists, some of the premises are false.

i am not holding my breath that you see it, given the cognitive dissonance that reductio ad absurdum gives you, but here is your chance to prove that God exists, by understanding It.

joking of course.



ciao

- viole

The part I am questioning is, who can prove a negative claim of anything based on what is or is not imagined? No one.

In other words, premise #2 doesn't hold. It's a bucket full of holes. There are so many counter-examples.

this isn't logic, it's ignorance.

And this seems typical for you. And many atheists here to be honest. They draw a conclusion, pretend it's "critical-thinking" and don't go back to make sure their conclusion is actually sound. In other words, it's critical of others, but never themself. Typical hypocrisy.

 

[Left Coast]

I am not conceding anything. And I am not making an argument that I am a necessary being.
I claim that the Universe, including me, COULD be necessary. Not that is necessary.

Then you need to make an argument in that regard. You are a particular feature of the universe. Your existence is demonstrably dependent on other things. Your parents had sex to bring you into existence. You haven't always existed. So your piece of the universe, the thing we call you, is demonstrably not necessary.

If you think some other part or feature of the universe is necessary, or could be necessary, I'd be interested to know what you think that is and why.

your question: Can a world exist without something metaphysically necessary?
since metaphysically necessary means existing in all possible worlds, then the answer is no. But it is a tautological no. Based on the definition, a bit like asking: is there a possible world with married bachelors? Same kind of no.

Agreed. It's a self-evident sort of thing, like asking whether a triangle can have more or less than 3 sides.

i am not sure how useful that would be. And that does not defeat my claim, that postulates that everything could be necessary.

I think it does, because there's no facet of the definition of "everything" that would seem to definitionally require it to be necessary. We've already talked about you. We could talk about many other things that clearly are not necessary. Can you think of some definitional feature of everything that makes it necessary?

 

[Left Coast]

Seriously, who is to say if [PSR is] universal? The basis of reality may be (to borrow somebody else's phrase) not only stranger than we imagine but stranger than we can imagine.

That would seem to contradict basically our entire lived experience if it were the case, though. If the PSR isn't true, we'd expect things to happen all the time for no reason at all, with things popping into existence outside of any causal framework whatsoever. Yet that's not the world we live in at all.

If you can't make sense of it from the get-go, I'm not sure there is much to discuss?

It's not that I can't make sense of it. If anything it's your view, wherein you deny that the existence of something requires an explanation, that I can't make sense of. But perhaps you'll defend it in your next reply.

The whole problem with this argument is that it makes some assumptions and then kind of paints itself into a corner and has to invent something 'necessary' without (as far as I've seen to date) being able to explain how such a thing could possibly exist.

If we deduce logically that something must exist, then explaining how such a thing exists, it seems to me, would be a second order concern. Consciousness exists - I hope you'll concede that - and I don't think we've fully explicated how. Do you really believe that we must be able to fully explain how something can be in order to determine that it is?

 

[ratiocinator]

That would seem to contradict basically our entire lived experience if it were the case, though. If the PSR isn't true, we'd expect things to happen all the time for no reason at all, with things popping into existence outside of any causal framework whatsoever. Yet that's not the world we live in at all.

That's just black and white thinking. The PSR is a principle we've generalised from our experience. There is no necessity that it applies always to the base of existence, in fact it would seem to lead to a contradiction if it did. There are all sorts of things that appear to be true in everyday life that turn out not to be universal. Look at the most basic theories in science, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Both upend our everyday experience.

It's not that I can't make sense of it.

Please do then. How is it possible for something to exist whose non-existence would be impossible?

If anything it's your view, wherein you deny that the existence of something requires an explanation, that I can't make sense of. But perhaps you'll defend it in your next reply.

I'm saying I don't really the answer. There may be something that has no further explanation. I find that more believable that something whose non-existence would be impossible.

If we deduce logically that something must exist, then explaining how such a thing exists, it seems to me, would be a second order concern.

But if your deduction ends with something that appears to be impossible and certainly impossible to imagine, then it might be time to re-examine the premises.

Consciousness exists - I hope you'll concede that - and I don't think we've fully explicated how. Do you really believe that we must be able to fully explain how something can be in order to determine that it is?

Consciousness is something we all experience directly. It is not the result of a deduction based on assumptions.

 

[ratiocinator]

If you think some other part or feature of the universe is necessary, or could be necessary, I'd be interested to know what you think that is and why.

It is worth noting that the universe as a whole, that is, the space-time manifold, does not appear to be contingent on anything. It exists (according to general relativity) as a sort of 4-dimensional object. Time and causality are internal to it and it makes no sense to apply them to the whole. I'm not saying that that makes it necessary because it's very easy to imagine it not existing or being different.

It's a self-evident sort of thing, like asking whether a triangle can have more or less than 3 sides.

Except it really isn't. You've just contrived the definition in such a way as to make it true. I can't imagine anything at all that I can't then imagine a world without it. If you're talking about all possible worlds and using the imagination to 'explore' them, then your 'necessary entity' becomes impossible.

 

[ratiocinator]

Some light reading for those interested:

Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing? by Sean M. Carroll (PDF).

 

[viole]

Then you need to make an argument in that regard. You are a particular feature of the universe. Your existence is demonstrably dependent on other things. Your parents had sex to bring you into existence. You haven't always existed. So your piece of the universe, the thing we call you, is demonstrably not necessary.

I don’t see why. I live both options open. So, it should be the one making the stronger claim to prove that.

anyway, you say I am a piece of the Universe, and therefore contingent. My claim is that it is possible that the entire Universe is necessary, including what is inside. Including my parents, and all the things that led to my existence. So, I am afraid your defense does not work here. It actually assumes that my primary challenge is wrong, to infer things about me. So, you should first prove that my initial challenge is wrong. Namely, that the Universe is definitely contingent,

incidentally, my parents and all those things that led to my existence become less contingent, so to speak, by simply invoking strict determinism. that is, the state of the universe at any antecedent state, would necessarily determine my existence. And if that was necessary, then I am necessary too.

Agreed. It's a self-evident sort of thing, like asking whether a triangle can have more or less than 3 sides.

Actually, on second thought, I do not agree with myself anymore. Defining something as existing in all possible worlds does not magically pull it into existence in all possible worlds.

However, the very requirement of being possible, assumes that the laws of logic apply in all universes. Otherwise, it would be meaningless to even call them “possible”. So, we can assume that those abstracta are tautologically available in every possible universe.

I think it does, because there's no facet of the definition of "everything" that would seem to definitionally require it to be necessary. We've already talked about you. We could talk about many other things that clearly are not necessary. Can you think of some definitional feature of everything that makes it necessary?

we do not know. As I said, it is entirely possible that we live in a world dominated by strict deterministic laws. In that case, any state of affairs would be completely determined by its antecedents. And if their antecedents are necessary, it would be necessary, too. And this could go like that forever, making the sheer possibility of an alternative scenario, utterly logically impossible.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

In other words, premise #2 doesn't hold. It's a bucket full of holes. There are so many counter-examples.

this isn't logic, it's ignorance.

Yes, that premise was my critique to the OP, who appeared to maintain it. I was building a case assuming it, in order to defeat it.

The OP, Left Coast, whom you just therefore called ignorant.

i would suggest three things to avoid further attempts to destroy your feet, by constantly shooting on them:

1) Read the thread, and try to assess the context and the rationale of the discussions
2) try to understand what a premise is
3) avoid to offend people

ciao

- viole

 

[Left Coast]

That's just black and white thinking. The PSR is a principle we've generalised from our experience. There is no necessity that it applies always to the base of existence, in fact it would seem to lead to a contradiction if it did. There are all sorts of things that appear to be true in everyday life that turn out not to be universal. Look at the most basic theories in science, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Both upend our everyday experience.

It seems to me that all theories of science are predicated on some version of PSR. If everything just has no explanation, and things just happen completely at random for no discernible reason, scientific enquiry becomes a non-starter. The whole point of science is to determine why and how things happen as they do, and it assumes they occur for reasons that are discoverable and understandable. My point in bringing up everyday experience isn't to say that no scientific discovery could ever contradict what may seem intuitively obvious, but merely to say that the evidence seems stacked pretty strongly in favor of some version of PSR, as we can all sample in our everyday experience of the world.

Please do then. How is it possible for something to exist whose non-existence would be impossible?

I'm not even sure what you're asking here. If something can't not exist, wouldn't the more relevant question be to ask how it could possibly not?

I'm curious what you'd say about certain abstract objects that people have argued are necessary. The Law of Non-Contradiction, for example. Could a world exist where things aren't themselves?

I'm saying I don't really the answer. There may be something that has no further explanation. I find that more believable that something whose non-existence would be impossible.

Why do you find that more believable? If you genuinely don't know, I assume you'd find their likelihoods relatively equal?

But if your deduction ends with something that appears to be impossible and certainly impossible to imagine, then it might be time to re-examine the premises.

I don't see how it's impossible. Can you explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

Consciousness is something we all experience directly. It is not the result of a deduction based on assumptions.

Sure that's true. But it's existence, despite a complete explanation of how it works, demonstrates that we can know something exists without understanding how.

We can imagine other things that scientists have discovered by deduction that would fit this bill as well. Dark matter, as I understand it, was logically deduced to exist based on the rate of expansion of the universe given the fact that the observable quantity of matter in the universe shouldn't produce that rate. Yet we didn't (and I think, still don't) fully understand how such a thing exists. But that doesn't prevent us from logically deducing that it does.

 

[InChrist]

Does God require a creator?.

If God does not require a creator, then does that logically imply that the universe does not either? Something can come out of nothing.

If one assumes that something can't come out of nothing, and this is a reasoning for their belief in God, then don't they have to question where God came from?

"God exists outside of time"
Time is relative... right? In the original Planet of the Apes (spoiler alert) them astronauts time traveled due to their speed and time's relativity, right? So, if time isn't concrete and static throughout the universe, I guess it's reasonable to assume a deity could be outside of time.

"God exists outside of existence." maybe?

I dunno

If God is THE ultimate and only Creator, then God does not need a creator and cannot have a creator. As well, according to the biblical scriptures, God is Spirit and eternal existing beyond and outside of time and physical creation.