Evidence

[paarsurrey]

So, for example, Gaṇeśa, the Elephant-Headed God Manifestation of Hinduism, is the Lord of Removing Obstacles. I don't really believe he exists as an actual entity, sitting up in the sky, so no actual elephant head -- but its appearance translates like this:

And his story has a meaning behind it, too. ​

How do you know it translates like that?

 

[cottage]

The "inferential arguments" fall flat anyways, and the very ideaof "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.

The concept of necessary existence is perfectly coherent. Kant described it as a "pure concept". "The concept of en realissimum (the most real thing) is that which best agrees with the concept of an unconditioned and necessary being" (Critique of Pure Reason). But the absurdity, as Hume pointed out, is in "pretending to demonstrate any matter of fact a priori" (Dialogues, Cleanthes to Demea).

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.

Thank you. However I do not require you to inform me of what it is I want to say. And if you read my previous post you will have noticed this: “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 cause.”

And several posts back I also wrote this:“The argument from contingency wants to make a causal connection between contingent and necessary being, but Leibniz’ argument is inferential rather than deductive since it takes cause to be necessary, which of course it isn’t. It may be argued that neither God nor the world existing from eternity need a reason for being, since there will be nothing external to them, and the contingency of the world isn’t explained by God since his non-existence can be conceived just as easily as any contingent thing, and if there is some unknowable and mysterious element that shrouds God’s elusive necessity from minds, then that that same argument may apply to the world itself, but if we accept that the world is created then there must be a reason and a purpose for its being brought into being. So what is it? According to the principle of sufficient reason nothing happens by chance and a thing that doesn’t have to exist but does exist needs a reason for its existence. But Leibniz (and William Lane Craig) takes that basic principle much further, which demands a different answer; for it is immediately evident that to say an intelligent being freely chose to bring the world into existence is to assign a purpose to the act of creation. And there can only be two answers to that question. God created the world for himself, or for the benefit of others. Both possibilities appear incoherent. For it seems obvious that an omnipotent Supreme Being, who is sufficient in all things, cannot have needs, unfulfilled wishes or desires. He has everything and is everything by definition. And nor can it be said that he created the world for the benefits of others, since it is nonsensical to imply that creatures that didn’t formerly exist can benefit from anything.”


In sum, if it is insisted that cause is necessary, or that there is some latent causal power inherent in the concept of Supreme Being that brought the world into existence, then the above argument shows that it must run to a contradiction.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In all the excitement generated by yet another debater whom Call_of_the_Wild is responding to, my reply has gone unanswered for some time, even though I gave what I was asked to. Some highlights, then, of that post:

If there can be no change without time, then the creation of the universe didn't change anything.


A proof:
1) If something really exists it must exist in some reality |A
2) God existed when the universe did not |P
3) God created the universe | P
4) Time did not exist until the universe did. |P
5) Without time, change is impossible |P
6) There was a reality that existed without time which changed by the creation of the universe (the universe was not, and then was; ergo change) | from 3, P & 1, MP

Conclusion: The universe doesn't exist | from 5 & 6 via contradiction

[comment: the notations are designed not meant to mean much, as they are intended (like the derivation) illustrate how a proof of the kind Plantinga, Craig, and everyone else uses not just statements, but works within a logical system. Every single step is justified by precise structure and rules]

Also an illustration of what derivations involve, while at the same time addressing Call_of_the_Wild's "proof":

1. God, by definition, is a MBG that exists necessarily. | P (for premise) or A (for assumption) ?
Comment:
Let X by any event or entity (including a MGB). If X exists necessarily, then X exists in all possible worlds. That means X exists in our world. So step one asserts that God exists in this world. Why? Which system are you using?

2. It is possible for a maximally great being to exist in some possible world. | A (or it is redundant but follows from 1 )
Comment:
The statement isn't derived as is, and although it could follow from 1 it would just be redundant, as 1 already accepts as given that God exists in our world. EVEN with a better first step, this statement is still internally redundant, as being possible means that it exists/happens in some possible world

3. If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in some world, it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in this world. | ?Tautology

Comment:
If a MGB exists in some possible world, that again means it is possible for a MGB to exist in this world.

4. If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in this world, then a maximally great being must exist in this world. | ?

Comment:
This is false. There are only certain systems in which this is valid, but such systems require things not in your proof.


On what Penrose really says:
In The Road to Reality he states (p. 758) that "We do not have much idea, for example, what conditions are actually necessary for the production of sentient life."

and (emphases added): "It seems to me that with a spatially infinite and essentially uniform universe (e.g., K ≤ 0, in the standard models) the strong anthropic principle is almost useless for tuning physical parameters, beyond demanding that the physical laws be such that sentience is possible (which is, itself fairly unusable, since we do not know the prerequisites for sentience). For if sentient life is possile at all, then we expect that, in a spatially infinite universe, it will occur. This will happen even if the conditions for sentience are extraordinarily unlikely to come about in any given finite region of the universe." (p. 760).



On yet another attempt to explain conditionals in proofs;

The point is the argument assumes God exists: If God exists, then God is all-powerful". How might this be refuted? Simply by saying God doesn't exist. Every conditional is an assumption.

When you can explain how one conditional does not entail contingency, but the example of "if x the y" with the Japanese woman does, then we can start dealing with what the terms you use really mean.

You are talking about things you don't understand, namely this: X→□◊X or this ◊(∃x)□[(E!x ⊃ Px) & E!x] or a number of other systems that deal with things like necessarily possible or possibly necessary. They all have different ways of showing how to get from possible to necessary through rules that are valid. Your "proof" starts by stating God exists in this world and ends with saying that anything which is possible it true.

There was much more in the link I have to that post, and given that I answered once again what was demanded of me, I don't find it unfair to have answers either accepted or justifiably refuted by actually addressing that post (and not this one; the original post)

 

[Sculelos]

A proof:
1) If something really exists it must exist in some reality |A
2) God existed when the universe did not |P
3) God created the universe | P
4) Time did not exist until the universe did. |P
5) Without time, change is impossible |P
6) There was a reality that existed without time which changed by the creation of the universe (the universe was not, and then was; ergo change) | from 3, P & 1, MP

Conclusion: The universe doesn't exist | from 5 & 6 via contradiction

1) True, that reality could be virtual or real
2) True
3) True
4) God created Time, God never changes but God changes time.
5) God never changes as God is the order of nothingness.
6) God is always the same and never changes, God is nothing and nothing is God. If you have something it is not God but the creation of God.

Conclusion: God doesn't exist: at least not in a physical way that human minds can comprehend yet he ordered everything physical into existence.

It's important to note that there are 4 parts of creation.

The Father: The Order of Nothingness
The Mother: The Path of Time
The Son: The physical makeup of everything
The Spirit: All parts working together to bring all his creation to the full knowledge of himself.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

That wording was specifically in response to Call of the wild's claim that god would exist via the nature of necessity which is simply false. It is a commonly used theological fallback to state that "we exist therefore we require a creator".

I don't know exactly what your perspective is on the matter so I can't properly respond.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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

*
I don't follow.
*
*

Reminder:*You*are the one claiming to have all the answers, not me!

*
I am making claims based on empirical and philosophical evidence.

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.

LMAO keep trying buddy.

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.

*
And whenever I found something difficult to follow didn't I always let it be known?
*
*

It does*not*follow that because the material world is contingent that it must answer to a necessary existence

*
Then you have the problem of infinite regress, because negating a necessary First Cause is to say that the universe was linked to an eternal but yet contingent causal chain. You are not directly responding to this problem and are continuing to argue in its favor despite the absurdities that would result because of it.
*
*

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.

*
Actually I did. As long as the OA argument is sound, a MGB is necessary. This only supplements the KA (Kalam Argument) which states that the cause of the universe must have been necessary. These are two independent arguments but they both draw the same conclusion and I don't think this is by coincidence.
*
*

So first explain to me how your necessary being created the contingent world by means of the contingent world

*
And who is claiming this?
*
*

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

*
Because he wanted too, perhaps?
*
*
*

An external, all-sufficient Being cannot logically exist without the world since that is where the belief begins

*
This is one most unjustified claims I've ever seen. So if the world didn't exist, God wouldn't exist?? Wow. How on earth does that follow?
*
*

and if we argue that an omnipotent necessary being is known by its causal powers then that is to say causality exists outside experience.

A omnipotent being whose existence is necessary existed in a supernatural realm at which he was in a timeless and changeless state. This being had a eternal will to create the universe at which he did, some 13.7 billion years ago. This act of creation was the “first causal” event, after which this necessary being stepped in to time and has been temporal ever sense.

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.

Ok?

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.

Wait a minute, are you saying that this Being cannot be omnipotent because it depends on causation to work? It doesn't have the “power” to not use causation to work? Please tell me that isn't the argument.

The concept is stymied twice over! If cause isn’t necessary, then it makes no sense to ask ‘so what caused the world?’

As long as there is change, cause is necessary. When the world was created, a change was made, making a cause necessary.

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.

No one said a initiation began within the world?? The point is; God is the EXTERNAL cause of the world.

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.

I have the slightest idea where you are going with this buddy.

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.

So right now as I look at my computer clock, it is 7:30. God knows it is 7:30. God doesn't know that it is 7:31. One minute from now, God will know it is 7:31. He didn't know it was 7:31 a minute prior. What is the problem here?

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).”

With respect, I have been maintaining from the very beginning that possible necessary existence implies necessary existence. From the very beginning. Now with respect to the above quote, I was saying if we had 100% proof that God does exist, that would mean he exists necessarily. It would not be a contingent existence was my point.

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.*

If there is no objective morality then there cannot be a problem of evil. If there is an objective morality, then there has to be a transcendent standard that is not dependent upon what society thinks. This objective standard (if you believe it) cannot come from evolution or natural selection. So if you think there is a problem of evil, where are you getting your moral standards for what is good and what is evil from?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The concept of necessary existence is perfectly coherent.

Only in a conditional sense. Something "existing necessarily", not given something else, is not intelligible.

Kant described it as a "pure concept". "The concept of en realissimum (the most real thing) is that which best agrees with the concept of an unconditioned and necessary being" (Critique of Pure Reason).

Kant got a litle bit confused, and was unwilling to follow his (quite apt) criticism of necessary existence to its logical conclusion, i.e.

Critique of Pure Reason[/i]-]

SECTION IV. Of the Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God.

... Philosophers have always talked of an absolutely necessary being, and have nevertheless declined to take the trouble of conceiving whether—and how—a being of this nature is even cogitable...

All the examples adduced have been drawn, without exception, from judgements, and not from things. But the unconditioned necessity of a judgement does not form the absolute necessity of a thing. On the contrary, the absolute necessity of a judgement is only a conditioned necessity of a thing, or of the predicate in a judgement. The proposition (that a triangle has three angles) does not enounce that three angles necessarily exist, but, upon condition that a triangle exists, three angles must necessarily exist—in it.

There simply is nothing which can be said to exist necessarily, without respect to something else. Thus, the notion of any necessary being is nonsense; since any being which is possible may either exist or not exist without contradiction.

And Hume made this same point- existence is a contingent matter of fact.

Thank you. However I do not require you to inform me of what it is I want to say. And if you read my previous post you will have noticed this: “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 cause.”

And several posts back I also wrote this:“The argument from contingency wants to make a causal connection between contingent and necessary being, but Leibniz’ argument is inferential rather than deductive since it takes cause to be necessary, which of course it isn’t. It may be argued that neither God nor the world existing from eternity need a reason for being, since there will be nothing external to them, and the contingency of the world isn’t explained by God since his non-existence can be conceived just as easily as any contingent thing, and if there is some unknowable and mysterious element that shrouds God’s elusive necessity from minds, then that that same argument may apply to the world itself, but if we accept that the world is created then there must be a reason and a purpose for its being brought into being. So what is it? According to the principle of sufficient reason nothing happens by chance and a thing that doesn’t have to exist but does exist needs a reason for its existence. But Leibniz (and William Lane Craig) takes that basic principle much further, which demands a different answer; for it is immediately evident that to say an intelligent being freely chose to bring the world into existence is to assign a purpose to the act of creation. And there can only be two answers to that question. God created the world for himself, or for the benefit of others. Both possibilities appear incoherent. For it seems obvious that an omnipotent Supreme Being, who is sufficient in all things, cannot have needs, unfulfilled wishes or desires. He has everything and is everything by definition. And nor can it be said that he created the world for the benefits of others, since it is nonsensical to imply that creatures that didn’t formerly exist can benefit from anything.”

And if we don't invoke the Principle of Sufficient Reason- which we don't need to anyways- then there's no need to differentiate between our application of it and Craig's (which, I would agree "goes to far") and we could simply rule Craigs usage out by denying that the PSR has any logical standing- since it does not.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I am making claims based on empirical and philosophical evidence.

Most of the time I read your posts and let others just deal with you but honestly this one I can't let slide. No. No. and no. You are making claims based on highly selective empirical evidence while rejecting the overwhelming vast majority of other empirical evidence. and secondly there is no such thing is philosophical evidence. There is logic based evidence. There is reason based evidence. There is no such thing as philosophical evidence.

 

[Thief]

That wording was specifically in response to Call of the wild's claim that god would exist via the nature of necessity which is simply false. It is a commonly used theological fallback to state that "we exist therefore we require a creator".

I don't know exactly what your perspective is on the matter so I can't properly respond.

God's perspective..... not mine.
I can see it.
So can you.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

God's perspective..... not mine.
I can see it.
So can you.

On what grounds do you call it god's perspective? which god? And how did he convey this message to you?

 

[Thief]

On what grounds do you call it god's perspective? which god? And how did he convey this message to you?

Anyone can do this.

A creation is a reflection of it's creator.

Consider your five senses and your terminal chemistry.

What are you here for?
It's not a mystery.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Most of the time I read your posts and let others just deal with you but honestly this one I can't let slide.

Well, join the intellectual beat down. Come one, come all.

No. No. and no. You are making claims based on highly selective empirical evidence while rejecting the overwhelming vast majority of other empirical evidence.

I gave at least 6 reasons based on empirical evidence that the universe is finite, and instead of refuting either of those 6, you waste both of our time with the above post. I would prefer to respond to something more substantial since that is what I've been giving.

and secondly there is no such thing is philosophical evidence. There is logic based evidence. There is reason based evidence. There is no such thing as philosophical evidence.

Ok so instead of me claiming to have given philosophical evidence, I will say I've given logical and reasonable evidence. No arguments here.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That wording was specifically in response to Call of the wild's claim that god would exist via the nature of necessity which is simply false. It is a commonly used theological fallback to state that "we exist therefore we require a creator".

If God did not exist via necessity, then it would exist via contingency. But a contingent being is not a maximally great being and that is exactly what we are questioning, the possibility of a MGB.

 

[idav]

If God did not exist via necessity, then it would exist via contingency. But a contingent being is not a maximally great being and that is exactly what we are questioning, the possibility of a MGB.

A maximal being is a contradiction unto itself. It assumes that god can and does every single thing possible without the possibility of contradiction so that not only is everything possible but God makes every possibility happen just cause he can.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

A maximal being is a contradiction unto itself. It assumes that god can and does every single thing possible without the possibility of contradiction so that not only is everything possible but God makes every possibility happen just cause he can.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Conclusion: God doesn't exist: at least not in a physical way that human minds can comprehend yet he ordered everything physical into existence.

That post was intended specifically for another (not that you can't respond to it, of course, but it has a context). The proof I gave was related specifically to claims made by another, as was that entire post. So a lot of it might seem out of place if one hasn't followed this thread for some time, simply because so much is based on what another member has said.

 

[idav]

God would be so powerful that it could do everything, doesn't mean he will actually do everything especially if it is self contradicting. The maximal being can limit itself without really taking anything away, at least that would avoid contradictions like a rock too heavy to lift.

 

[cottage]

Only in a conditional sense. Something "existing necessarily", not given something else, is not intelligible.

You said ‘“the very idea of "necessary existence" is simply incoherent.”’ That is not so. We understand exactly what is meant by the idea, whether or not there is anything corresponding to the concept, which is a different matter. Kant was quite clear on both of these points.

There simply is nothing which can be said to exist necessarily, without respect to something else. Thus, the notion of any necessary being is nonsense; since any being which is possible may either exist or not exist without contradiction.

You are preaching to the converted! I have already said this elsewhere on the forum:
“My first objection takes the form that if ‘God exists’ is true it seems reasonable to say his existence must be factually necessary as well as logically necessary, and yet there is no demonstration in the former case. The logical structure of the argument wants to take us outside and beyond the internal truth implied by the analytical proposition, but, as Kant said, no existential proposition follows from the laws of logic alone. It is necessarily true for example that a triangle can never have more or fewer than three angles, but there need be no triangles anywhere in existence. And of course it cannot be said that, unlike the triangle, which need not exist, God’s is a necessarily existent being, since that is what the argument is supposed to prove!”

And Hume made this same point- existence is a contingent matter of fact.

You are only repeating what I stated in my first reply to you: “But the absurdity, as Hume pointed out, is in "pretending to demonstrate any matter of fact a priori" (Dialogues, Cleanthes to Demea).”

And if we don't invoke the Principle of Sufficient Reason- which we don't need to anyways- then there's no need to differentiate between our application of it and Craig's (which, I would agree "goes to far") and we could simply rule Craigs usage out by denying that the PSR has any logical standing- since it does not.

I disagree entirely. The argument here is not simply advocating a bare-bones metaphysical concept as an unadulterated First Cause, but an intelligent, personal being that interacts with his creation. Theists supporting this view (Craig et al) claim that God has done and is yet to do particular things. There must, therefore, be a reason or purpose in the act of creation. I said:

“…for it is immediately evident that to say an intelligent being freely chose to bring the world into existence is to assign a purpose to the act of creation. And there can only be two answers to that question. God created the world for himself, or for the benefit of others. Both possibilities appear incoherent. For it seems obvious that an omnipotent Supreme Being, who is sufficient in all things, cannot have needs, unfulfilled wishes or desires. He has everything and is everything by definition. And nor can it be said that he created the world for the benefits of others, since it is nonsensical to imply that creatures that didn’t formerly exist can benefit from anything.”

 

[cottage]

I don't follow.

IOWS they cannot be demonstrated as factual.

I am making claims based on empirical and philosophical evidence.

You are making claims to the truth.
And I’m not sure what is meant by ‘philosophical evidence.’

LMAO keep trying buddy.

Thanks. But I’ll just continue with what I’ve been doing, if that’s okay with you?

And whenever I found something difficult to follow didn't I always let it be known?

But that is exactly what I expect you to do! That response, however, has no relevance to the reply I gave with reference to your statement.

Then you have the problem of infinite regress, because negating a necessary First Cause is to say that the universe was linked to an eternal but yet contingent causal chain. You are not directly responding to this problem and are continuing to argue in its favor despite the absurdities that would result because of it.

If the world is all that is the case, which is certainly logically possible given that it actually exists, then on that account the world is self-existent, that is to say it exists of itself requiring no creator or sustainer. For there is no logical impediment in conceiving of the world existing where before there was once nothing at all, a conception that is supported by being able to deny without contradiction the belief we have that every event must always answer to another, for there is demonstrably no necessity in cause. And any causal regression must end with the world, and with the world being contingent no contradiction is implied in saying the world will end tomorrow, since it might!

Actually I did. As long as the OA argument is sound, a MGB is necessary.

No, I’m sorry but you did not. And you must surely be aware that one thing being the cause of another is a contingent principle?

This only supplements the KA (Kalam Argument) which states that the cause of the universe must have been necessary. These are two independent arguments but they both draw the same conclusion and I don't think this is by coincidence.

That is quite wrong! The Kalam Argument does not state that the cause of the universe is necessary

And who is claiming this?

You are!

Because he wanted too, perhaps?

That he wanted to is already evident (if he existed). But the principle of sufficient reason, as I’ve explained it, requires a purpose. So what is your answer?

This is one most unjustified claims I've ever seen. So if the world didn't exist, God wouldn't exist?? Wow.

Yes, that's right, because logically no argument can be made to God without reference to the world.

If we said the world doesn’t exist we would be uttering an absurdity because the world does exist. The concept of ‘God’ is an entity that has always existed and cannot fail to exist, and yet there is nothing absurd in conceiving the non-existence of such a being. So the thing that need not be is while the thing that supposedly cannot fail to be, isn’t? So the very thing upon which the world, that needn’t exist but does exist, is said to depend for its existence is a thing that supposedly cannot but exist, but which is itself dependent upon the world in order to be the least intelligible. Therefore neither the world nor God necessarily exists, but the world is the only existent thing that cannot be denied.

How on earth does that follow?

The existence of the world can be stated and acknowledged without the least reference to any creator gods, whereas any attempt at the converse is impossible.

A omnipotent being whose existence is necessary existed in a supernatural realm at which he was in a timeless and changeless state. This being had a eternal will to create the universe at which he did, some 13.7 billion years ago. This act of creation was the “first causal” event, after which this necessary being stepped in to time and has been temporal ever sense.

So the antecedent event was contingent, and so is God himself, who now continues to exist in the temporal world!

Wait a minute, are you saying that this Being cannot be omnipotent because it depends on causation to work? It doesn't have the “power” to not use causation to work? Please tell me that isn't the argument.

Then let me make it crystal clear to you that I’m saying it is an absurdity to assert that the Necessary Being used a contingent principle to bring about a contingent world.

As long as there is change, cause is necessary. When the world was created, a change was made, making a cause necessary.

That argument is specious. You are saying there is change and change cannot happen without cause and effect, therefore change is necessary. You are misusing the term ‘necessary’ by applying it in the vernacular; in other words you are saying cause and effect would be required for change, which it is, but only in the contingent world, in which necessity can never be demonstrated.

No one said a initiation began within the world?? The point is; God is the EXTERNAL cause of the world.

Yes but I am disagreeing with you. Please read again what I wrote: 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.

I have the slightest idea where you are going with this buddy.

What I’m saying (Buddy) is that no logically necessary argument can be built on contingent effects, not the world, not God, not anything.

So right now as I look at my computer clock, it is 7:30. God knows it is 7:30. God doesn't know that it is 7:31. One minute from now, God will know it is 7:31. He didn't know it was 7:31 a minute prior. What is the problem here?

If it is 07.30 then of course even God can’t know that it is 07.31; a thing is the same as itself and can only be what it is and not what it isn’t! Now an omniscient God knows that it is 07.30 and just like his imperfect creation he knows that one minute from now it will be 07.31. But unlike his creation he knows this will be the case, or will not be the case, in real time; since the event, whatever it is, happens only according to his will and cannot occur without his knowledge. But in any case your analogy is irrelevant and your self-stultifying anthropomorphic explanation that god thinks and learns remains contradictory for the Supreme Being is knowledge itself by definition, for otherwise it could not be the Supreme Being.

With respect, I have been maintaining from the very beginning that possible necessary existence implies necessary existence. From the very beginning. Now with respect to the above quote, I was saying if we had 100% proof that God does exist, that would mean he exists necessarily. It would not be a contingent existence was my point.

But that is just an if-then conditional tautology. One hundred percent proof that God’s existence is true means it is necessary if it is impossible to demonstrate a contradiction. And since any existent thing, as an a priori concept, can be denied both in thought and in fact the concept is not therefore demonstrably or factually true.

If there is no objective morality then there cannot be a problem of evil. If there is an objective morality, then there has to be a transcendent standard that is not dependent upon what society thinks. This objective standard (if you believe it) cannot come from evolution or natural selection. So if you think there is a problem of evil, where are you getting your moral standards for what is good and what is evil from?

You are attempting to skirt round the problem while leaving it in place. This has nothing at all to do with a moral code, but with the pain and suffering in the world that directly contradicts a supposedly loving and benevolent God.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You said ‘“the very idea of "necessary existence" is simply incoherent.”’

And the part that should have gone without saying is,"... in the sense that is claimed (i.e. of God)." Which is an unconditional necessary existence. Which is simply incoherent.

Good gravy...

You are preaching to the converted! I have already said this elsewhere on the forum:
“My first objection takes the form that if ‘God exists’ is true it seems reasonable to say his existence must be factually necessary as well as logically necessary, and yet there is no demonstration in the former case.

What does "factually necessary" mean here? And why would God's existence be "logically necessary" if "God exists" is true? Why would "God exists" not be contingently true? (i.e. not logically necessary)

You are only repeating what I stated in my first reply to you: “But the absurdity, as Hume pointed out, is in "pretending to demonstrate any matter of fact a priori"

No, that is not the "only" absurdity for Hume; the mere conjunction of "necessary" and "being" is an absurdity since any question of existence is factual, and thus contingent.

I disagree entirely. The argument here is not simply advocating a bare-bones metaphysical concept as an unadulterated First Cause, but an intelligent, personal being that interacts with his creation. Theists supporting this view (Craig et al) claim that God has done and is yet to do particular things. There must, therefore, be a reason or purpose in the act of creation. I said:

“…for it is immediately evident that to say an intelligent being freely chose to bring the world into existence is to assign a purpose to the act of creation. And there can only be two answers to that question. God created the world for himself, or for the benefit of others. Both possibilities appear incoherent. For it seems obvious that an omnipotent Supreme Being, who is sufficient in all things, cannot have needs, unfulfilled wishes or desires. He has everything and is everything by definition. And nor can it be said that he created the world for the benefits of others, since it is nonsensical to imply that creatures that didn’t formerly exist can benefit from anything.”

That's all fine and good, but I'm not sure how persuasive, or how necessary, any of this is. For one, its not obvious that you even have a valid argument here- in that you've shown there is any logical impossibility that God created the world for others.

Worse, you have, as I've said, left the Principle of Sufficient Reason in the toolbox for the theist to pick up and use themselves- which needn't be done in the first place. The entire argument falls apart if you yank the PSR out of the game- since it is neither a well-established scientific principle nor a logical truth- and point out the fallacy of composition lying at the heart of the argument.

You simply needn't let the argument get this far to refute it.