Evidence

[Enai de a lukal]

Or maybe you're confusing "God" (uppercase, proper noun) with "god" (lowercase, common noun)?

Obviously Christianity has no monopoly on the latter, but the former is the specific god-modal of Christianity. Arguing over this is like arguing over whether "MacBeth" is a character from Shakespeare or not- in other words, it isn't really up for debate.

 

[Thief]

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

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)

Correct that uncertainty cannot justify a leap toward faith.

To believe you have to be sure.

Cause and effect.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

To believe you have to be sure.

Being sure doesn't make a belief or inference reasonable or justifiable.

Cause and effect.

What about it? You can't just say "cause and effect" as if these three words contain a line of reasoning or something... Are you being coy for a reason, are you afraid to say what you mean, or maybe you aren't sure what you mean?

What's the deal?

 

[idav]

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...

God is not the name of the Christian God and they don't own it even if they want to use it as such.

 

[Thief]

Being sure doesn't make a belief or inference reasonable or justifiable.



What about it? You can't just say "cause and effect" as if these three words contain a line of reasoning or something... Are you being coy for a reason, are you afraid to say what you mean, or maybe you aren't sure what you mean?

What's the deal?

Cause and effect is a foundation.
A form of reason considered undeniable.

That you choose uncertainty doesn't make your conviction better.
You speak with uncertainty as your foundation.

That is illogical.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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 obvious once you consider the fact that there is no logical incoherency based on the concept of such a being. If it is logically valid then it true in some possible world.

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.

Whether or not it is obvious is subjective.

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.

First off I do believe the non-existence of God is contradictory, and that is in light of the background evidence we have on the finitude of the universe and my personal beliefs towards evolution and abiogenesis. For example, intelligence coming from non-intelligence is completely absurd to me, so absurd I don’t understand how anyone can believe such a thing. That is why what is obvious to me and obvious to you are two different things.

But to the main point, if God does exist, he would exist necessarily, correct? So based on that proposition, the non-existence of God would be contradictory (if he exists). But not only that, think about it; even God himself appeared to you personally, and you were convinced that he exist…wouldn’t you agree that you could still conceive of a world without him??? I know I could, and I actually believe in him.

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

I thought you would never ask, and I would love to0…now it is time for the knockout punch, and here it is:

Now keep in mind, you said “even if we could say with any confidence that God's existence is possibly necessary, it would not follow that God actually exists”
Look at that statement. You admit that either it is possibly necessarily true, or possibly necessarily false, correct?

If you already admitted that it is possibly necessarily true in some possible world, that would mean that it is possibly necessarily true in ALL possible worlds, correct? But if it is possibly necessarily true in all possible worlds, there are no possible worlds at which it could be possibly necessarily false.

So if it is possibly necessarily true in all possible worlds, then it must actually be necessarily true, because the proposition of it being possibly necessarily false has already been ruled by the fact that you already admitted that it is possibly necessarily true, something that would apply to all possible worlds.

So if something is possibly necessarily true in all possible worlds, there isn’t even the potentiality of it being possibly necessarily false in any possible world.

So basically, you just admitted that a MGB exists, and it happened so fast you didn’t even know it lol.

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.

Well, first define a SLMGB.

 

[cottage]

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.)

The contributor used the term ‘God’, and my response was to reply in those terms. The greater part of my discussions happen to be with those of the Judaeo/Christian and Islamic traditions, who also use the appellation ‘God’ on this forum (Yahweh and Allah are consistent with the concept of Supreme Being). However if the contributor has a different understanding or interpretation and argues for creator gods that aren’t monotheistic, Supreme, and all-sufficient then I am entirely happy to reappraise the broad definition that I gave.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

God is not the name of the Christian God and they don't own it even if they want to use it as such.

God is the name of the Christian god, not the name of the Christian God. Allah is a god, not a God. Dagon, Ra, and Zeus are gods, not Gods.

Remember 2nd grade English class and the difference between proper nouns and common nouns? God is a god, specifically the god of Christianity.

And if "God" is not the name of the Christian god, what is it, and who is this "God" person the Bible mentions so frequently? Lol...

 

[cottage]

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.

But in saying that you’re missing something, aren’t you?

Consider that last sentence of mine:

‘The world is logically prior and necessary for every system of faith and for every notion of supernatural beings.’

 

[Thief]

But in saying that you’re missing something, aren’t you?

Consider that last sentence of mine:

‘The world is logically prior and necessary for every system of faith and for every notion of supernatural beings.’

And the world was capable of logic as a substance?
The continuity and design 'just happened'?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And the world was capable of logic as a substance?

Care to repeat that in english?

The continuity and design 'just happened'?

What continuity and design? And what's to say it didn't "just happen", or have never happened in the sense that it never began or got started, but always was?

You need to try to flesh out your position here, because it is extremely scattered and confused.

 

[idav]

God is the name of the Christian god, not the name of the Christian God. Allah is a god, not a God. Dagon, Ra, and Zeus are gods, not Gods.

Remember 2nd grade English class and the difference between proper nouns and common nouns? God is a god, specifically the god of Christianity.

And if "God" is not the name of the Christian god, what is it, and who is this "God" person the Bible mentions so frequently? Lol...

Great only Christians get to use the capital 'G'. That's hilarious.

edit: Often times people use the capital G out off respect and other times people use the capital G to distinguish the greater deity from a lesser one.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Great only Christians get to use the capital 'G'. That's hilarious.

Um... Do only Christians "get" to talk about the Christian god? What about religious scholars? Atheists arguing against the existence of God? etc?

When you get confused by the whole God/god business, think of it this way- suppose you have a dog named Dog. Now, other people also have dogs. But they don't call their dog "Dog", because that's your dogs name. They don't use the name "Dog" when they mean to talk about a generic dog, as in "the perfect dog"- it would be confusing to say "the perfect Dog", because so far as we know, only one person was silly enough to name their dog "Dog"- you.

It is unfortunate that Christianity had the singular lack of imagination to not come up with a real name for their god, naming it instead the (capitalized) proper noun version of the common noun "god"- but we can avoid further confusion by minding our "p's" and "q's" (and our "god" and "God") when we talk about deities...

edit: Often times people use the capital G out off respect and other times people use the capital G to distinguish the greater deity from a lesser one.

People abuse language in all sorts of curious ways. Using the name of the Christian deity when you mean to talk about something else is nevertheless just misleading and unnecessary.

Just say what you mean.

(besides, alot of times when people improperly use the proper name "God" when they are thinking of something else, it is done as a concession to Christianity- offering an olive branch, if you will; as if by using the name for their deity to refer to something else, which we happen to believe in- since we don't really believe in their god, i.e. God- whether it be the universe, or some vague cosmic spirit or something- is more diplomatic and conciliatory and thus more persuasive... when in fact is just misleading and incorrect)

 

[cottage]

First off I do believe the non-existence of God is contradictory, and that is in light of the background evidence we have on the finitude of the universe and my personal beliefs towards evolution and abiogenesis. For example, intelligence coming from non-intelligence is completely absurd to me, so absurd I don’t understand how anyone can believe such a thing. That is why what is obvious to me and obvious to you are two different things.

I think the first thing to be said here is that no inferential argument can ever demonstrate a contradiction or a logical absurdity. The second point I would make is that the finite nature of the universe does not imply an infinite cause or an infinite being, even allowing for the questionable intelligibility of infinity itself. Lastly, your remark concerning ‘intelligence coming from non-intelligence’ is a question-begging statement that assumes what it hopes to prove, which is that for intelligence to exist there must be a first cause as a greater intelligence, and that is simply the Cosmological Proof in a different dress and with all the contingent implications of that argument.

But to the main point, if God does exist, he would exist necessarily, correct? So based on that proposition, the non-existence of God would be contradictory (if he exists).

Well of course! You’re saying if God exists then he exists. That’s an if-then proposition, the denial of which invites a contradiction where the condition is met. It’s just a miserable tautology.

But not only that, think about it; even God himself appeared to you personally, and you were convinced that he exist…wouldn’t you agree that you could still conceive of a world without him??? I know I could, and I actually believe in him.

In that case the conclusion is and must be that God doesn’t exist, despite the apparition and the fact that you were convinced. Why? Because as you admit you can easily conceive of there being no God in the world, but try as you may you cannot conceive of there being no world. So what is the difference here? It is that the world exists as an undeniable objective reality while God is a mere concept that is logically contingent upon the former condition.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I think the first thing to be said here is that no inferential argument can ever demonstrate a contradiction or a logical absurdity.

In reference to?

The second point I would make is that the finite nature of the universe does not imply an infinite cause or an infinite being , even allowing for the questionable intelligibility of infinity itself.

Um, Cot...if the universe is finite, that mean it is contingent. If it is contingent, that mean it didn't have to be here. If it didn't have to be here, that mean there is a external reason why it is here. If there is an external reason why it is here, then its cause must have been from an eternal source, whether that was an infinite chain of events leading up to its existence, or whether its origins was from a first cause. Either way, some "eternal-ness" was going on and there is no way around it. I've already stated why one of those two options is absurd and it would be nice if you could deal with the issue I raised instead of just basically saying "no it isn't", or "no it didn't".

Lastly, your remark concerning ‘intelligence coming from non-intelligence’ is a question-begging statement that assumes what it hopes to prove, which is that for intelligence to exist there must be a first cause as a greater intelligence, and that is simply the Cosmological Proof in a different dress and with all the contingent implications of that argument.

Intelligence is the ability to think and learn. How can you get the ability to think and learn from a source that doesn't have the ability to think and learn? The ability to learn is a capability in itself, and I am at a loss of how you can obtain that ability from something that doesn't have that ability.

Well of course! You’re saying if God exists then he exists. That’s an if-then proposition, the denial of which invites a contradiction where the condition is met. It’s just a miserable tautology.

No, I am saying if it is possible for God to exist, he exist...and that is based on the nature of necessity.

In that case the conclusion is and must be that God doesn’t exist, despite the apparition and the fact that you were convinced. Why? Because as you admit you can easily conceive of there being no God in the world, but try as you may you cannot conceive of there being no world. So what is the difference here? It is that the world exists as an undeniable objective reality while God is a mere concept that is logically contingent upon the former condition.

Ok so let me ask you this: Is the concept of a MGB a logically coherent concept?? Yes or no. Does the concept of a MGB defy logic? Now, if you think it does, please explain why. If it doesn't, then I can continue with the follow up questions.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No, I am saying if it is possible for God to exist, he exist...and that is based on the nature of necessity.

This is an argument from ignorance and a fallacy. We think there needs to be a creator therefore there is a god. We don't have the ample knowledge to state "what" was required for us to come into existence or to have set the ball rolling. Anything beyond "I don't know" is a guess pure and simple.

 

[Thief]

Care to repeat that in english?



What continuity and design? And what's to say it didn't "just happen", or have never happened in the sense that it never began or got started, but always was?

You need to try to flesh out your position here, because it is extremely scattered and confused.

I'm not the one scattered and confused.
I don't base my belief upon uncertainty.

Was, is, and shall always be....are attributes of God...so I've heard.

 

[Thief]

This is an argument from ignorance and a fallacy. We think there needs to be a creator therefore there is a god. We don't have the ample knowledge to state "what" was required for us to come into existence or to have set the ball rolling. Anything beyond "I don't know" is a guess pure and simple.

To Whom does the 'need' belong?

I say we have been created as retort from an Echo is only an echo.

Formed as unique individuals your linear existence insures a fresh perspective.

I suspect....his would be what heaven seeks.

I further suspect, your thoughts and feelings...properly formed....make all the difference.

 

[cottage]

In reference to?

Anything at all, gods, demons, aliens, other worlds etc.

Um, Cot...if the universe is finite, that mean it is contingent. If it is contingent, that mean it didn't have to be here. If it didn't have to be here, that mean there is a external reason why it is here. If there is an external reason why it is here, then its cause must have been from an eternal source, whether that was an infinite chain of events leading up to its existence, or whether its origins was from a first cause. Either way, some "eternal-ness" was going on and there is no way around it. I've already stated why one of those two options is absurd and it would be nice if you could deal with the issue I raised instead of just basically saying "no it isn't", or "no it didn't".

Reminder: You are the one claiming to have all the answers, not me! All I can do is to show the faults in your arguments, which is what I’ve been doing and what I shall continue to do. And I don’t just basically say ‘no it isn’t or no it didn’t.’ I justify my statements with arguments, and I have already given you my views on the inferential argument (358 & 382), and if we must quibble I don’t believe I had a full response to the former? But anyway, if something is not clear to you, or not sufficiently explained, then I will very happily respond by return.


It does not follow that because the material world is contingent that it must answer to a necessary existence, nor to any other form of creator, come to that, and that is why you have to resort to inferential arguments to make the link. You would have to demonstrate necessity in cause, which of course you can’t. So first explain to me how your necessary being created the contingent world by means of the contingent world, and while you are at it perhaps you might explain why God created the world in the first place (principle of sufficient reason).
An external, all-sufficient Being cannot logically exist without the world since that is where the belief begins, and if we argue that an omnipotent necessary being is known by its causal powers then that is to say causality exists outside experience. But the phenomenon of causation is a feature of the physical world and we are already agreed that it cannot be both necessary and contingent. But if cause is necessary for the omnipotent Being’s work then Being’s omnipotence and creative ability is causation dependent. The absurdity, then, is that the Being cannot be omnipotent without causation but its dependence upon a contingent principle means the Being cannot be omnipotent. The concept is stymied twice over! If cause isn’t necessary, then it makes no sense to ask ‘so what caused the world?’ Cause and effect is a feature of the world and it is entirely consistent and not contradictory to assume that an initiation began within the world, and its contingency is only a difficulty for those who argue fallaciously that that it requires a necessary cause. And the same reply is given to those that assert that the world wasn’t the cause of itself and nothing cannot be the cause of anything. If cause can be denied, which it can, then all that is left is the actual world, which unlike gods or other-worldly beings we know for a fact exists even though it might disappear, uncaused, tomorrow.

Intelligence is the ability to think and learn. How can you get the ability to think and learn from a source that doesn't have the ability to think and learn? The ability to learn is a capability in itself, and I am at a loss of how you can obtain that ability from something that doesn't have that ability.

That argument falls flat on its face by undermining the very concept you’re supposed to be defending!
All references to intelligence are founded in mind, that is to say a cognitive ability to reason. Our understanding of intelligence is, as Alan Turing said: ‘to respond like a human being’. To say God shares this similarity with man is to say God has human traits. But clearly in the case of an omniscient Being there is no learning from experience, no problem solving, no gaining of knowledge and no coping with adverse situations. So is it really being said with a straight face that an omniscient being has to learn and understand in order to deal with new and surprising situations (two contradictions in one there)? By its very definition the concept of Supreme Being doesn’t reason: it is reason. So according to your argument we have a God that has to learn, presumably about the very thing he created, and then think about what he’s learned before he can come to a decision. This God is farcical, comical even, and certainly not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

No, I am saying if it is possible for God to exist, he exist...and that is based on the nature of necessity

.



With respect, no you didn’t. You said, and I quote:
“…if God does exist, he would exist necessarily, correct? So based on that proposition, the non-existence of God would be contradictory (if he exists).”

Ok so let me ask you this: Is the concept of a MGB a logically coherent concept?? Yes or no. Does the concept of a MGB defy logic? Now, if you think it does, please explain why. If it doesn't, then I can continue with the follow up questions.

I thought I’d made this point abundantly clear in my previous replies to you? Any given explanation for a Supreme Being is generally coherent, except where an obvious contradiction follows, such as, for example, with the Problem of Evil and the inconsistent triad. But regardless of its coherency or intelligibility we can at any time conceive the non-existence of any object to which the concept is said to apply. And you’ve said yourself that you [just like every other person] can conceive of there being no God in the world.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It does not follow that because the material world is contingent that it must answer to a necessary existence, nor to any other form of creator, come to that, and that is why you have to resort to inferential arguments to make the link.

The "inferential arguments" fall flat anyways, and the very idea of "necessary existence" is simply incoherent (for reasons documented by philosophers and logicians for centuries now- Hume, Kant, Frege, Russell etc.). There simply is no plausible reason to suppose there be at least one necessary thing. It is perfectly possible that the entire universe, and all that exists, is contingent.

while you are at it perhaps you might explain why God created the world in the first place (principle of sufficient reason).

Actually, that's not really what you want to say here. The whole problem with this "there must be a necessary being" nonsense is that the principle of sufficient reason has no logical standing. It's a useful principle, but it is not a logical truth. There needn't be a "sufficient reason" for the universe to exist, even if the entire universe is logically contingent.