Evidence

[cottage]

Yes it is. All possible necessary truths are in fact actual necessary truths.

Once again, ‘God exists’ is not a necessary truth. The statement is not analytic or self-evident, and denial implies no contradiction.

I can see where you are coming from, no doubt. But still, just because you can conceive of a God not existing does NOT (not shouting, just placing emphasis) mean that if God did exist his existence wouldn’t be necessarily true. The fact still remains, that all possible necessary truths must be true. Once that fact stops being true, you would have a case. But since that is the nature of necessity, I don’t see why you aren’t accepting it.

I’m sorry but despite my explaining the problem you are just not seeing the essence of the matter. What we mean by a necessary truth is described by the Aristotelian laws of thought, that is to say non-contradiction, excluded-middle, and identity, whereby its truth is such because two conflicting premises cannot be held in the mind at the same time. And whatever the proposition, that is the litmus test as it applies to putative existents. Metaphysically necessary propositions, ie tautologies, while they may be true in themselves, do not award actual existence to the concept, and we know that to be the case because it is impossible to think what cannot be thought. Both you and I (and every other person) can conceive of there being no God while our thoughts impose no existence upon the concept, quite regardless of any tautological proposition whether spoken or written.

Hey cot, you are speaking wayyy to technical for me. Break it down for me lol.

This is an absolutely crucial point and I will address it fully in your second post that you’ve dedicated to the Cosmological Argument.

A first cause is necessary. Either there was a necessary first cause or a necessary infinite regression. Can’t be both.

There is no necessity in cause.

Right

You agree, so perhaps you would address the question I raised concerning the reason for God creating the world?

Well, I don’t think that is a sufficient response because even if you did live in the third century and didn’t subscribe to the latest superstition of the day, I don’t think you would see the object (I forgot what it was) and not suspect intelligent design.

The analogy seems trivial and I just don’t know what truth I’m supposed to glean from it.

Wait a minute, so if you are an omniscient being and you know at the beginning of the 2014 NBA season which team will win the championship, do you know THAT they won? Or do you know that they WILL win? Isn’t there a difference between what you know will happen and what you know actually happened?

Now you are talking about an entirely different matter altogether! You said there is a God who ‘thinks and learns’. Omniscience is not thinking and reasoning, it means knowledge augmented without limit – all there is to be known in other words.

 

[cottage]

I wanted to respond to this separately. So what it boils down to is this; Regardless of how anyone looks at it, we only have to options. You see, regardless of whether you are a theists, atheist, whatever, there are only two options.

Here is what we know. We know that we exist. We also know that the universe exists. Now, either the universe (that is all physical reality, anywhere) is eternal and never began to exist, or there was a supernatural creator that created the universe, and this supernatural creator is eternal and never began to exist. So either way, something is eternal, whether it is the universe, or the creator that created the universe. But either way, something is eternal. There is a “something” out there that is eternal. So whether you are a theist or naturalist, you believe in the concept of eternity.

Now, due to the fact that both options are competing views, both can’t be true. Both options can’t be eternal. So if one is negated, then the other one is true by default. Since I am a Christian theist, and I believe my position is true, how can I debunk the opposing view? What evidence is there for a finite universe?

Evidence against a finite universe:

1. Infinity problem
2. 2nd law of thermodynamics
3. Entropy problem
4. BGV theorem
5. Observational evidence (expanding universe)
6. Contingency problem

There are at least SIX (that I can think of) problems that are plaguing the theory of a finite universe, and EACH of these problems are independent of the other. So if you successfully know refute on problem, you still have to deal with the others. But I don’t think you can successfully refute even one, and if you think you can, go for it. In fact, the infinity problem is a logical problem and I think that is the more tougher problem than the rest, but all are equally difficult for the naturalist to deal with.

Now, on the other hand, we have the God Hypothesis.

Which is what, that there is some unfathomable entity that created the world so that he could absurdly have a relationship with his finite, error-prone creation? And then this needy being, having made a mess of things sent his son to earth to suffer and die because of the evil in the world that God the supposed creator of all existent things himself brought into being. And then what happened? Oh yes, God restored life to his son and sneaked him back to never-never land – hardly an act of self-sacrifice and moral virtue, Meanwhile and thereafter the evil that God made possible continues unabated. Hardly a tenable and intelligent hypothesis now is it?

Evidence against a supernatural creator??? I can’t think of one. Maybe the problem of evil, and I don’t even think that is a strong one.

I notice how quickly you glossed over the problem of evil, which is simply unarguable and a very serious difficulty indeed for theism, especially for the Christian tradition. If evil isn’t, as you say, ‘a strong’ [evidence] then how do you account for its existence in the face of a loving creator?

Based on the evidence against a finite universe, I don’t see how theism isn’t the more plausible explanation. Just merely thinking about it, I mean heck, if those problems indicate a finite universe, then whatever gave the universe its beginning could not itself be made up of matter and space. God just so HAPPENS to have always been defined as immaterial, by people that didn’t have a clue about cosmology or physics. An immaterial entity omnipotent entity is what is needed to create a universe, and God has always been defined as such. Theists have always believed the universe began to exist when science was telling everyone that the universe was eternal, yet, science has confirmed what the theists have been claiming all along.

Theists believe from faith and nothing is permitted to count against what is believed. Scientists can always be wrong - and frequently are wrong. But science is the seeking of knowledge and not the propping up of doctrinal beliefs. That is the difference.

But yeah, your position is plagued with problems my man.

And so is yours (my man).

Look at your itemised list, 1– 6, by which you mean to argue to a supernatural creator. Every single one of those items describes a causal dependence. The contingent world is not logically necessary; it simply doesn’t have to be. But… if we agree that the material world isn’t logically necessary then where does the legend: ‘Everything must have a cause’ have its logical foundation? It is the case that every effect must logically have a cause only in the sense that the term ‘cause’ implies the correlative ‘effect’, just as every married man must be a husband. But cause isn’t necessary. An unfortunate consequence of this reliance is the unintended claim that all worlds are as ours; so that what is true of our world (cause and effect) is also true of God. So on that account God is absurdly dependent upon the material world for his existence and must therefore be part of it. And thus if the material world need not be, the same can be then said of God.
What is actually implied by that venerable notion, that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence? It certainly isn’t a necessary truth. All we are aware of is that matter is continually changing form, and in all cases we see objects appearing from existent matter, whether that be the chicken or the egg with reference to that well-known causal dilemma, for while the egg may be necessary for the chicken, and the chicken is necessary for the egg, neither the chicken nor the egg are possible without matter. The Cosmological argument takes a linear form that assumes a beginning and an end, and yet since life is certainly cyclical in its operations it seems reasonable to ask: Does a circle have a beginning?

1. The world is all that is the case (everything that can be stated or conceived of, including logic and God).
2. The material world is contingent and need not exist, and yet the world does exist for to say there is nothing, ie no world, is self-refuting (anti-sceptical), and therefore something about the world must be true.
3. If there is a transcendent cause for material existence it must belong to the world.

If the conclusion (3) is false then so must be (1), which is contradictory.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not quite the same though, is it?

The sceptic asks for evidence because of an assertion. Had the assertion not been made then of course there would be no demand for evidence.

Plantiga lists two dozen or so theistic arguments. We offer more than assertions, we offer arguments in favor of.

The poster made a valid point. We are being asked to believe that there is an all sufficient, Almighty God, the creator and conserver of every conceivable thing whose non-existence is said to be impossible. If that were the case its existence would be self-evident and impossible to deny and unbelief would be the equal of conceiving twice four to be seven. And yet there are millions of unbelievers in the world while the believers themselves have to resort to arcane arguments or make inferences from the material world.

As stated in a previous post, based on the arguments against a finite universe, the existence of God is impossible to deny, unless you just don’t like the idea of a god existing. But that in itself is not a valid reason to deny God’s existence. I don’t think you can negate the existence of God, but yet believe that time is eternal and traversed an infinite number of days, hours, years, etc to reach the present moment. Not only is this irrational, but it is a downright absurdity, and absurdities cannot “happen”. So you either believe in God or believe in the absurdity. Your choice.

I think what is most damning is that one can imagine a being who is all the things that your God is not, ie self-evident and undeniably ever-present, non-faith dependent, non-worshipful, benevolent, charitable and merciful. Now since that God self-evidently doesn't exist and your conception is wholly inferior, it must follow that there can be no Almighty God period.

I didn’t quite understand that. But from what I can gather I don’t see how it follows.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The problem is that this is not really an acceptable inference in modal logic (that if it is possible that P is necessary, then P, or then P is necessary).

Yes it is!! For a being to be necessary there cannot be any pre-conditions relating to it or to make it what it is. So for example, neither one of our existences can be necessarily true, nor is it even possible for either of our existences to be necessarily true. A necessary existence is not something that can be “made” necessary based on contingent conditions. If it is a fact that you are I are contingent beings, then it cannot be possible for us to be necessary beings. If it was possible for us to be necessary beings, we would have to actually be necessary beings because if we can’t reach necessity by causal conditions, then how would we ever “actualize” that possibility and thus become necessary?

That is why if it is possible that P is necessary, then P is necessary. That is also why the OA is so powerful because proponents don’t have to prove the existence of God, all we need to do is show that the existence of God is possible, and based on that possibility alone, that makes it true. The only way to refute to argument is to demonstrate that the idea of God is contradictory, absurd, illogical, irrational, or nonsensical (all synonyms, of course), and I don’t think anyone can do that.

But if the inference is allowed, then it follows that it is possible that it is necessary that a slightly less than maximally great being exists, and we can infer that an infinite number of slightly less than maximally great beings exist necessarily- and thus the maximally great being cannot be responsible for their existence (since each slightly less than maximally great being exists necessarily in its own right), and thus the maximally great being is not maximally great.

Not a good result, either way.

A slightly less maximally great being is not necessary.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yes it is!!

Um, no... It is a substitution instance of the general modal principle, sometimes referred to as the "B-principle", □◊p->p (if it is possibly necessary that P, then P), or the stronger S5 principle ("Becker's hypothesis) □◊p->◊p (if it is possibly necessary that P, then P is necessary), depending on the formulation. The B principle is not a part of the standard modal system T, nor any Lewis system weaker than S5.

Fail.

For a being to be necessary there cannot be any pre-conditions relating to it or to make it what it is. So for example, neither one of our existences can be necessarily true, nor is it even possible for either of our existences to be necessarily true. A necessary existence is not something that can be “made” necessary based on contingent conditions. If it is a fact that you are I are contingent beings, then it cannot be possible for us to be necessary beings. If it was possible for us to be necessary beings, we would have to actually be necessary beings because if we can’t reach necessity by causal conditions, then how would we ever “actualize” that possibility and thus become necessary?

You're missing the point.

A. it is not obvious that God is possible.
B. it is thus not obvious that God is possibly necessary
C. even if we could say with any confidence that God's existence is possibly necessary, it would not follow that God actually exists, much less exists necessarily, unless we are committed to the modal principles required to make this inference valid- which are not widely accepted (as I mentioned above).

The only way to refute to argument is to demonstrate that the idea of God is contradictory, absurd, illogical, irrational, or nonsensical (all synonyms, of course), and I don’t think anyone can do that.

Or do what I've done and show that it requires a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and a questionable inference which, even if granted, lead to disasterous consequences (the less-than-maximally-great-necessary beings).

A slightly less maximally great being is not necessary.

Yes it is, ex hypothesi.

If we grant the inference from "God's existence is possibly necessary" to "God's existence is necessary", then we must grant the inference from "a less than maximally great necessary being's existence is possibly necessary" to "a less than maximally great necessary being's existence is necessary".

Either way, your argument is shipwrecked.

 

[Thief]

An entire branch of sciences relies on the fact that there is no certainty of the pending result. It is axiomatic in quantum physics: experiments are probabilistic and nobody knows the cause. What causes nonlocal correlations? Faster than light travel that can't be used to send signals? Causation that doesn't require time, and therefore there is no difference between cause and effect?

And even when experiments do end up with a particular result, often enough the choice of "cause" is arbitrary. The classic example is metabolic-repair within a cell. What causes it? The parts of the cell. What causes them to do particular things? The metabolic-repair process. Complex systems exhibit circular causality which, in the weak sense, means that the scientists building a model, running an experiment, etc., can choose something arbitrarily to be the cause of some effect(s), or vice versa.



Nothing about that holds true. There are many experiments which have no hypotheses. Exploratory experiments of this type have no "result" that they are predicting, they want to see what happens. The "effect" or "effects" are important no matter what they are.



Much of the time, you don't need to. That's the point of models. You can make certain parameters dependent on others, or the other way around. Either way, you can still check the model against the system.


If you mean the equivalence relation e=mc^2, it was one of his first publications.




Then you're talking about general relativity, which he didn't ever shelve, but worked on tirelessly from having first formulated his special relativity and then published in 1915. The eclipse was four years later.


...we realize that classical physics isn't accurate and that these 17th century equations of motion were outdated even before quantum physics.

Your denial is noted.

But you lean to uncertainty as your crutch.
That's not much of a soap box you got there.

And yes.... Albert wasn't sure.
btw...there is a story of a house keeper asking what he might be working on....as Albert continued his work into his old age.....
He said...."I'm trying to catch God in the act."
That's the story I got.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

But you lean to uncertainty as your crutch.
That's not much of a soap box you got there.

An appeal to ignorance is not an argument!

 

[Thief]

An appeal to ignorance is not an argument!

Calling me ignorant?....as if I don't understand?

Obviously I do.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Calling me ignorant?....as if I don't understand?

Obviously I do.

No, I'm saying that an argument from ignorance/appeal to ignorance- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance- which is basically what you're advancing, is a logical fallacy, and is thus "not an argument" in the sense that it is not a valid or acceptable form of argument.

 

[cottage]

Plantiga lists two dozen or so theistic arguments. We offer more than assertions, we offer arguments in favor of.

That’s just splitting hairs. Assertion or argument, the sceptic’s position is only a response to theism; no theism then no atheism. It’s obvious really.

As stated in a previous post, based on the arguments against a finite universe, the existence of God is impossible to deny, unless you just don’t like the idea of a god existing. But that in itself is not a valid reason to deny God’s existence. I don’t think you can negate the existence of God, but yet believe that time is eternal and traversed an infinite number of days, hours, years, etc to reach the present moment. Not only is this irrational, but it is a downright absurdity, and absurdities cannot “happen”. So you either believe in God or believe in the absurdity. Your choice.

Forgive me but ‘not liking the idea of God existing’ is a fatuous notion. God either exists or he does not.

You are insisting on a choice to be made according to very a simplistic view? You will excuse me if I decline and offer my own view instead. It is not my argument that contingent existence is infinite (though it may be according to some sources), and nor is it my argument that the material world is anything other than contingent. There is no necessity in causation, and an object is only designated an effect because a cause must be assumed; causation is therefore perfectly compatible with contingent matter and as the principle of causation can be rejected without contradiction it cannot be argued without circularity that the world needs a cause for its existence. The other side of the argumentation coin is that a supposed external cause must also be contingent, and a contingent God self-evidently cannot be necessary.

I didn’t quite understand that. But from what I can gather I don’t see how it follows.

It’s very simple. What I’m saying to you is that we, that is anybody, can enumerate the notional qualities of a maximally great or Almighty God as I outlined previously, but that conception is at odds with evidential argument (ie experience), which shows conclusively that there is no being corresponding with that notion. So we see by a direct comparison that your Almighty God is actually not that mighty, which contradicts the concept of your maximally great being, and as the notional God plainly does not exist either it is therefore proved that there are no maximally great or Almighty Gods.

 

[Thief]

No, I'm saying that an argument from ignorance/appeal to ignorance- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance- which is basically what you're advancing, is a logical fallacy, and is thus "not an argument" in the sense that it is not a valid or acceptable form of argument.

So you are willing to say...uncertainty...is a better pivot point?
Cause and effect are not foundation?

 

[Sculelos]

Once again, ‘God exists’ is not a necessary truth. The statement is not analytic or self-evident, and denial implies no contradiction.

The first question people must ask themselves is what is God. The meaning of God is the being that all things reside within. God is in us, but God is also out of us, that is because God is Everything that exist in our time and everything that will exist, has existed or does exist.

God created himself. It sounds like a logical absurdity but if anything has a beginning and anything has an ending then there must by definition be something that is outside of our own personal life. I mean the world was not created when we were conceived but was already here.

These reasons are to me at least evidence why I.

1) Believe God does exist
2) Believe he is both unfinite and finite at the Same Time.

Knowing that God exist is the first step but the second step is to find out 'Who God Is?' If you find out that answer you can find out what he wants you to do. I honestly believe the answer to the meaning of life is to find out the meaning of that question. The ability to even comprehend the worlds I'm speaking to you through a computer monitor is amazing in and of itself.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You're missing the point.

A. it is not obvious that God is possible.

What does it being obvious have to do with possibility? Nothing.

B. it is thus not obvious that God is possibly necessary

It is to Christians.

C. even if we could say with any confidence that God's existence is possibly necessary, it would not follow that God actually exists

Something cannot be possibly necessary, but not true. I’ve already used the example of our own contingent existence, which I would like a direct response to. You are basically repeating the same thing without further explanation.

Not to mention the fact that your logic is flawed. Look at what you are saying: You said “even if we could say with any confidence that God’s existence is possibly necessary…”, and that is saying that it is possible for you to reach necessary existence based on contingent conditions, which is completely irrational, because if this were the case then the question becomes what has to happen in order for you to meet those conditions??? If it is possible, but not true, then explain how can that possibility be “actualized” based on contingent conditions. Can I have an answer please? If you fail to answer this question there is no point in discussing this any further.

If we grant the inference from "God's existence is possibly necessary" to "God's existence is necessary", then we must grant the inference from "a less than maximally great necessary being's existence is possibly necessary" to "a less than maximally great necessary being's existence is necessary".

Either way, your argument is shipwrecked.

How is this a difficult objection? Every living creature in this universe is “less than maximally great”, making our existence contingent. So no it is not possible for a less than maximally great being to exist necessarily.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

What does it being obvious have to do with possibility? Nothing.

That God's existence is possibly necessary is a premise of your argument, and its far from obvious that its true. That's a problem.

It is to Christians.

That's cool, but if you want to have more than a circular and question-begging argument, you're going to have to substantiate it to those of us to whom it is not obvious.

Something cannot be possibly necessary, but not true.

Sure it can; this inference is invalid in many systems of modal logic (i.e. the type of logic your argument uses. If it is an invalid inference, then you cannot infer that God exists, or exists necessarily, from the premise that his existence is possibly necessary).

The problem is that necessity in logic means that the negation is self-contradictory. Possibility means the negation is not contradictory. So to say that God's existence is possibly necessary is to say that "God's non-existence is contradictory" is not contradictory. It doesn't appear to follow that God exists, because we could say the same thing of virtually any non-existent object- this is why many modal systems do not allow the inference you require here.

and that is saying that it is possible for you to reach necessary existence based on contingent conditions, which is completely irrational, because if this were the case then the question becomes what has to happen in order for you to meet those conditions??? If it is possible, but not true, then explain how can that possibility be “actualized” based on contingent conditions. Can I have an answer please? If you fail to answer this question there is no point in discussing this any further.

You're going to have to repeat your question in English then, because this is virtually unintelligible.

How is this a difficult objection? Every living creature in this universe is “less than maximally great”, making our existence contingent.

No, it does not follow that something's existence is contingent because it is less than maximally great. If you insist on the questionable inference- the B-principle, from "it is possibly necessary that X" to "X"- then it must apply to a slightly less than maximally great being; it is possibly necessary that a slightly maximally great being exists. But then, using your own logic, it exists necessarily ex hypothesi.

But then, since these SLTMG beings exist necessarily, God cannot be the source of their existence (by definition), and thus God cannot be the maximally great being, since a being that IS responsible for everything that exists would be slightly more great than God.

Oops!

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So you are willing to say...uncertainty...is a better pivot point?

I'm saying uncertainty doesn't justify leaps to unwarranted conclusions like "a wizard did it" or "God did it".

Cause and effect are not foundation?

Sure they are, but within their proper scope. Cause and effect relations hold between objects in the universe. To suppose that they must hold between the universe itself (and... well, something else- "non-universe", whatever that means!) is a compositional fallacy. (Fallacy of composition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[cottage]

The first question people must ask themselves is what is God. The meaning of God is the being that all things reside within. God is in us, but God is also out of us, that is because God is Everything that exist in our time and everything that will exist, has existed or does exist.

With respect that isn't the more generally accepted concept of God. God is understood to be the Supreme Being, the creator and sustainer of all things. That is the broad definition upon which theists and sceptics agree, although there may be other additional attributes according to the preferred doctrine or belief system, such as immanance, which you've alluded to.

God is not everything that exists, except as a committed belief as faith. The world is everything and everything is the world, including the concept of God. The world is logically prior and necessary for every system of faith and for every notion of supernatural beings.

 

[Sculelos]

With respect that isn't the more generally accepted concept of God. God is understood to be the Supreme Being, the creator and sustainer of all things. That is the broad definition upon which theists and sceptics agree, although there may be other additional attributes according to the preferred doctrine or belief system, such as immanance, which you've alluded to.

God is not everything that exists, except as a committed belief as faith. The world is everything and everything is the world, including the concept of God. The world is logically prior and necessary for every system of faith and for every notion of supernatural beings.

I could also say the World created itself and the World was in God and the World was God this statement is also true with your quoted statement.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

With respect that isn't the more generally accepted concept of God.

You're being overly generous. It isn't "the more generally accepted concept of God", it simply isn't the concept of God at all. There is an unfortunate tendency, particularly on the part of New-Agey types, to try to redefine the term "God" absolutely willy-nilly to mean whatever we happen to want it to mean. (frequently this is done in order to have a more tenable or defensible concept of deity, by making "God" mean essentially the same thing as "universe" or "world")

Unfortunately, "God" is the name of a specific god-concept from a specific religious tradition (Christianity), with specific information sources (the Christian scriptures). The definition of this concept or entity is given by the information sources within this tradition- particularly the Bible (but also various theologies and doctrinal traditions). Using the word "God" outside of this fairly clearly delineated usage is simply incorrect, and an obstacle to effective communication.

If you aren't talking about the Christian God, then don't use the word "God"- at least talk of "god" (lowercase).

(of course, its unfortunate that Christianity had the singular lack of imagination to name their god "God", thus encouraging widespread confusion- the same way that me naming my dog "Dog" would lead to confusion when people talked about a different dog besides Dog.)

 

[idav]

You're being overly generous. It isn't "the more generally accepted concept of God", it simply isn't the concept of God at all. There is an unfortunate tendency, particularly on the part of New-Agey types, to try to redefine the term "God" absolutely willy-nilly to mean whatever we happen to want it to mean. (frequently this is done in order to have a more tenable or defensible concept of deity, by making "God" mean essentially the same thing as "universe" or "world")

Unfortunately, "God" is the name of a specific god-concept from a specific religious tradition (Christianity), with specific information sources (the Christian scriptures). The definition of this concept or entity is given by the information sources within this tradition- particularly the Bible (but also various theologies and doctrinal traditions). Using the word "God" outside of this fairly clearly delineated usage is simply incorrect, and an obstacle to effective communication.

If you aren't talking about the Christian God, then don't use the word "God"- at least talk of "god" (lowercase).

(of course, its unfortunate that Christianity had the singular lack of imagination to name their god "God", thus encouraging widespread confusion- the same way that me naming my dog "Dog" would lead to confusion when people talked about a different dog besides Dog.)

Since when has Christianity owned the God trademark?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Since when has Christianity owned the God trademark?

Um... Seriously? For about 2000 years, give or take...

Do we maybe need to do an intro to comparative religions here, so we can get squared away on the gods of various religions- that Islam posits "Allah", Judaism "YHWH", Christianity "God", and so on?

I thought this was pretty basic general knowledge, but maybe I was mistaken...