Evidence

[Enai de a lukal]

If... you are bound by the charictaristics that bind you to the title of "biological being" then you are in fact also bound with the primary purpose of procreation.

No, that doesn't follow. Biological beings do NOT have any inherent purpose. Purpose implies teleology, which applies to artifice, not biological organisms.

If you fail to procreate then your genes will be "forgotten" and taken out of the gene pool. You can live your life how you choose and that is not something I've argued against. You seem to think that I am arguing from a point that all of us are here to simply have sex as much as possible and nothing else.

You appear to be confusing function with purpose, and what you're missing is that biological function does not dictate or entail purpose. The function of a biological organism may indeed be, from an evolutionary perspective, to pass on their genes. But this has nothing to do with purpose; function is descriptive- it says what a given thing does. And it is surely a fact that passing on genes/reproduction is something organisms do. But purpose is prescriptive- it says how things should/shall/ought to be(i.e. teleology)- not how they are.

Thus, the fact that organisms pass on genes (function) does not dictate that any particular organism should pass on genes (purpose).

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You didn't answer my question. You don't see the (rather glaring) problem in claiming that something was atemporal (in the sense that they are not subject to temporal relations) "prior to" (a temporal relation) something else? (hint: this is contradictory)

This is semantics. I gave you a clear-cut concept of what I meant. Deal with that, instead of these semantic games. I will say again, time did not EXIST before creation. God existed in a timeless/changeless state before creation.....he created the universe and at that moment of creation, time was also created. Now what part of this don't you understand?

This is not what you said before. You said-

Which leaves out the possibility that the universe had a beginning, and was caused, but was caused by something other than "a supernatural creator" (for instance- the "zero-energy proposal"). To argue otherwise is to commit an argument from ignorance.

You quoted me as saying "either the universe didn't have a beginning and is eternal, or there was a eternally existing supernatural creator that created the universe". Now based on the second explanation, how the heck does this "leave out the possibility that the universe had a beginning" when I explicitly stated that the supernatural creator CREATED THE UNIVERSE?

Are you serious? You need to do your homework my friend- any mathematician acquainted with calculus can help us with the "traverse infinity" business, and the claim that infinite time leads to absurdities is flat wrong.

Ask any mathematician can you ever "reach" infinity by succesive addition, or can you ever have an "infinite number" of things??? The answer to both questions are NO. You will never arrive at infinity by numerically counting one by one. You can never have an infinite number of objects, such as marbles or cards. So you are clearly wrong here.

It is argued- by William Craig, for instance- that "actual infinities" lead to counter-intuitive situations (e.g. Hilbert's Hotel); not any "absurdities" in the logical sense (i.e. contradictions).

WLC uses the infinity argument throughout his debates and in his books, especially when he is presenting the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and by doing this he is presenting the absurdity that would arise if an actual infinite could exist in reality. If you actually read his books and watch his debates as I have, you would know this and I wouldnt have to waste my time responding to inaccuracies on your part.

Since the infinite regress cannot be established as anything worse than counter-intuitive, the causal argument is shipwrecked. Nor does the causal argument prove the existence of (the Christian) God, even if we grant its premises.

Since you were completely wrong in your previous comments above, I guess any comments afterwards will continue in the wrongful direction, as the comment directly above demonstrates.

You're the one positing "maximal" attributes- something I'm not sure is coherent to begin with- so you'll have to tell me. But prima facie, no single entity could possess the maximal degree of two traits which are opposed to one another, like the pairs I mentioned.

So basically you are saying God couldn't be maximally powerful, and maximally weak at the same time. How is the law of excluded middle a defeater of the argument?

I suppose it would be, if it could have successfully ruled out an infinite regress- but it doesn't, so it isn't.

I did. Can you explain how you could reach infinity by successive addition? If you can, I will abandon the infinity argument forever and ever.

P1. It is possible that a slightly less-than-maximally great being (LGMB) exists necessarily. (i.e there is some possible world W such that "a LGMB exists necessarily" is true)

This is CLEARLY false. If this being is LESS than maximally great it wouldn't have the nature of NECESSITY to exist in all possible worlds, because only a MGB would have this necessity. For example, If this being is LESS than maximally great, then its presence would be less than maximally great, which means that it doesn't exist in all possible worlds, and if there is at least one possible world at which it doesn't exist, then that would mean its existence is CONTINGENT.

So your whole counter-argument is....falsified. So to argue against anything else you said regarding this matter is like a broke pencil..it is pointless.

This is a bare assertion. It remains to be seen whether it is coherent.

So you are basically admitting that you haven't found a logical flaw based on the concept of a MGB. Either you can't find a flaw because there isn't one, or you can't find a flaw because you haven't thought of one yet. Either way, an uphill battle for you. Good luck in your quest.

 

[idav]

This is semantics. I gave you a clear-cut concept of what I meant. Deal with that, instead of these semantic games. I will say again, time did not EXIST before creation. God existed in a timeless/changeless state before creation.....he created the universe and at that moment of creation, time was also created. Now what part of this don't you understand?



You quoted me as saying "either the universe didn't have a beginning and is eternal, or there was a eternally existing supernatural creator that created the universe". Now based on the second explanation, how the heck does this "leave out the possibility that the universe had a beginning" when I explicitly stated that the supernatural creator CREATED THE UNIVERSE?



Ask any mathematician can you ever "reach" infinity by succesive addition, or can you ever have an "infinite number" of things??? The answer to both questions are NO. You will never arrive at infinity by numerically counting one by one. You can never have an infinite number of objects, such as marbles or cards. So you are clearly wrong here.



WLC uses the infinity argument throughout his debates and in his books, especially when he is presenting the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and by doing this he is presenting the absurdity that would arise if an actual infinite could exist in reality. If you actually read his books and watch his debates as I have, you would know this and I wouldnt have to waste my time responding to inaccuracies on your part.



Since you were completely wrong in your previous comments above, I guess any comments afterwards will continue in the wrongful direction, as the comment directly above demonstrates.



So basically you are saying God couldn't be maximally powerful, and maximally weak at the same time. How is the law of excluded middle a defeater of the argument?



I did. Can you explain how you could reach infinity by successive addition? If you can, I will abandon the infinity argument forever and ever.



This is CLEARLY false. If this being is LESS than maximally great it wouldn't have the nature of NECESSITY to exist in all possible worlds, because only a MGB would have this necessity. For example, If this being is LESS than maximally great, then its presence would be less than maximally great, which means that it doesn't exist in all possible worlds, and if there is at least one possible world at which it doesn't exist, then that would mean its existence is CONTINGENT.

So your whole counter-argument is....falsified. So to argue against anything else you said regarding this matter is like a broke pencil..it is pointless.



So you are basically admitting that you haven't found a logical flaw based on the concept of a MGB. Either you can't find a flaw because there isn't one, or you can't find a flaw because you haven't thought of one yet. Either way, an uphill battle for you. Good luck in your quest.

The less than maximal being works the same as the logic your using. If anything exists then it necessarily exists meaning no choice on whether to exist. It is dependent on if. You can say if all day but doesn't make it necessary unless the if premise is true which is speculation followed by the logic that follows given that if equals true.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I will say again, time did not EXIST before creation. God existed in a timeless/changeless state before creation.....he created the universe and at that moment of creation, time was also created. Now what part of this don't you understand?

You obviously aren't getting the problem here (which doesn't bode well for less glaringly obvious issues we've yet to deal with), so let's just move on.

You quoted me as saying "either the universe didn't have a beginning and is eternal, or there was a eternally existing supernatural creator that created the universe". Now based on the second explanation, how the heck does this "leave out the possibility that the universe had a beginning" when I explicitly stated that the supernatural creator CREATED THE UNIVERSE?

Read. More. Carefully.

You left out the possibility that the universe had a beginning, but NOT as the result of a "supernatural creator". Whether we think this is probable or not is immaterial; it is nevertheless a possibility which cannot be ruled out. But this is, as above, a side issue.

Ask any mathematician can you ever "reach" infinity by succesive addition, or can you ever have an "infinite number" of things??? The answer to both questions are NO.

Actually, that every mathematician would say no to the second question is hardly true, and would be irrelevant anyways. Mathematicians are experts on numbers, maths, not how many things there are in the world.

You will never arrive at infinity by numerically counting one by one.

So?

You can never have an infinite number of objects, such as marbles or cards.

Prove it.

WLC... is presenting the absurdity that would arise if an actual infinite could exist in reality.

I know. But these "absurdities" are not actual contradictions, simply results that he expects to be counter-intuitive. But most of his intuition-pumps are illicit anyways, such as the Hilbert hotel example which takes an object- a hotel- which is, by definition, finite, and then expects us to draw inferences based on how this finite object works with infinite sets. The argument has been measured for the conclusion.

In any case, an infinite regression being counter-intuitive is not a fatal objection, which is why Craig's causal argument ultimately fails.

If you actually read his books and watch his debates as I have, you would know this and I wouldnt have to waste my time responding to inaccuracies on your part.

Heheheh... Funny.

This is CLEARLY false. If this being is LESS than maximally great it wouldn't have the nature of NECESSITY to exist in all possible worlds

Yes it would, ex hypothesi. You state that it is possible that a MGB exists necessarily- and to that I say, no, it isn't. But if it is, then it is also possible that a LGMB exists necessarily- seeing as this contains no self-contradiction.

 

[Thief]

No. Intent is not needed.

Reasons and evidence are not the same.

Your denial is noted....as not having support.
And I say chemistry without will......no intent....is an accident.

Have you a will?

You actually think such complex chemistry ....just happens?
I don't reason in such a manner.

True it is...reason and evidence are not the same thing.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The less than maximal being works the same as the logic your using. If anything exists then it necessarily exists meaning no choice on whether to exist. It is dependent on if. You can say if all day but doesn't make it necessary unless the if premise is true which is speculation followed by the logic that follows given that if equals true.

I would like a direct response to what I said....if a less than maximally great being exists, its presence would be less than maximally great...and a less than maximally great presence cannot be felt in all possible worlds....so therefore such a being's existence is rendered to contingent, not necessary.

 

[adi2d]

I would like a direct response to what I said....if a less than maximally great being exists, its presence would be less than maximally great...and a less than maximally great presence cannot be felt in all possible worlds....so therefore such a being's existence is rendered to contingent, not necessary.

You sure are stuck on this mgb. You have yet to show it exists in this world let alone existing in all possible worlds. Maybe I'm just too dim to see it but it seems to me that because something can't be shown to not exist doesn't mean that it does

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I would like a direct response to what I said....if a less than maximally great being exists, its presence would be less than maximally great...and a less than maximally great presence cannot be felt in all possible worlds....so therefore such a being's existence is rendered to contingent, not necessary.

This is an ad hoc re-definition of necessity; this is not the sense of "exists necessarily" which you used for your argument for a MGB, and now you are redefining "exists necessarily" so that it cannot apply to a LGMB. Needless to say, this is a fallacy of equivocation, and is thus illicit.

A MGB exists necessarily, because you've argued that it is possible that a MGB exists, and thus that it is possible that a MGB exists necessarily, since an MGB is not self-contradictory. But, if we grant that, then by the same token it is not self-contradictory that a LMGB exist, and so it is possible it exists, and it is possible that it exists necessarily.

Now, your inference from "it is possible a MGB exists necessarily" to "a MGB exists" or "necessarily, a MGB exists" involves the questionable modal principle I've mentioned several times now- the one which is not accepted in quite a few systems of modal logic- but, if we grant it, then it applies to the LGMB as well as your MGB- that is, both of them exist. And they exist necessarily.

Except, since God is, ex hypothesi, a maximally great being, it would seem that he would have to be responsible for everything which exists- since if he was not, something which was responsible for everything would be greater than God, and this would be a contradiction. The problem is that we can prove that an infinite number of LGMB's exist necessarily, and since they exist necessarily, God cannot be responsible for their existence.

In other words, your argument is screwed one way or the other- either we don't grant the questionable inferences your argument requires, or we grant them, but then they must apply to an indefinite number of LGMB's, which are imaginary (since we can just make them up as we go along).... Anytime your argument allows us to prove the existence of an infinite number of imaginary beings, you know you have gone wrong somewhere.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No, that doesn't follow. Biological beings do NOT have any inherent purpose. Purpose implies teleology, which applies to artifice, not biological organisms.

You appear to be confusing function with purpose, and what you're missing is that biological function does not dictate or entail purpose. The function of a biological organism may indeed be, from an evolutionary perspective, to pass on their genes. But this has nothing to do with purpose; function is descriptive- it says what a given thing does. And it is surely a fact that passing on genes/reproduction is something organisms do. But purpose is prescriptive- it says how things should/shall/ought to be(i.e. teleology)- not how they are.

Thus, the fact that organisms pass on genes (function) does not dictate that any particular organism should pass on genes (purpose).

wow. Actually that was my mistake. your exact point is what I spent the last few pages arguing. read back if you don't believe me. That was my fault. Brain fart. Your point is just reiterating exactly what I've been saying. I accidentally used purpose where i should have used function.

Your denial is noted....as not having support.
And I say chemistry without will......no intent....is an accident.

Have you a will?

You actually think such complex chemistry ....just happens?
I don't reason in such a manner.

True it is...reason and evidence are not the same thing.

will is a complex chemical exchange that has been developed by millions and millions of years of evolution and trial and error. Boom. Your argument from ignorance is destroyed.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Perhaps if you tell me what it is I'm to justify, I can give it a crack.

As in your point does not simply stand on its own as truth. You must provide a reason for me to take it as truth.

You already said I'm an illusive construct called "humanity," and I accepted it. I'm good with that. My point also stands. Humanity's function and life's function need not be the same, especially as humanity can cease even while the biological life-forms that we are continue to thrive.

Then you have changed the argument. We can continue but my views on what you mean by "humanity" will differ from what you mean by living.

Please define humanity before we go any further as it can mean many things.

 

[idav]

I would like a direct response to what I said....if a less than maximally great being exists, its presence would be less than maximally great...and a less than maximally great presence cannot be felt in all possible worlds....so therefore such a being's existence is rendered to contingent, not necessary.

If blank exists then blank necessarily exists. At the same time if omnimax God doesnt exist then it does not exist necessarily.

 

[captainbryce]

What I am trying to understand, at a very basic level, is how someone can believe in a supernatural deity. There simply is no credible evidence to support the existence of one.

I mean no disrespect. I simply do not understand.

Here is one of the reasons I believe.

[youtube]4hRfZ_q8ckg[/youtube]
Hugh Ross - Why The Universe Is The Way It Is - YouTube

 

[Thief]

No. Intent is not needed.

Reasons and evidence are not the same.

I think your over using the word...'need'.

Chemistry that has no intelligence can move about and interact.
But that's not life.

Life that has simple chemistry is just that.....but it does have direction and repeats.
Not a lot of intent.....but it does repeat.

Care to say again that you are an accident?
Second time around...I might let you go on that way.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think your over using the word...'need'.

Chemistry that has no intelligence can move about and interact.
But that's not life.

Life that has simple chemistry is just that.....but it does have direction and repeats.
Not a lot of intent.....but it does repeat.

Care to say again that you are an accident?
Second time around...I might let you go on that way.

I keep repeating it because the point you keep insisting is focal on it and its simply not true.

I have never said I was an "accident' you are the only one spouting that.

 

[cottage]

You know what, cot, it doesn’t even matter whether or not I didn’t read or understand your previous post. It just doesn’t matter. If you deny the First Cause hypothesis, then you, by DEFAULT, automatically believe in the absurdity of infinite regress in time.

Well obviously it does matter that you didn’t read or understand my previous post, because had you read it and understood it I wouldn’t need to be explaining it again down the page.

Elaboration needed.

Each one of the items is a function of cause, none of which is logically necessary.

If a necessary cause is negated, then you subject yourself right back to the infinity problem, which I keep mentioning and you keep failing to address.

But that is due entirely to a misconception on your part. You appear to have an idea ingrained in your mind of what you think I’m saying, but which in fact is completely at odds with the view that I take and the arguments I’ve made

Am I in the twilight zone?? You just admitted that the argument “presumes to argue backwards from this world to some other world beyond experience (God).” By definition, God is a NECESSARY BEING. The argument is that God is the only being that is capable of creating space, time, and matter…and this can only be the case if God was a NECESSARY BEING.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not demonstrate a necessary being, it argues to a First Cause as an a posteriori proposition.Your use of the term ‘necessary’ is just an arbitrary assumption that isn’t deducible from the concept: all that can be inferred is that it has the requisite means or power sufficient to bring the world into being. It is the Argument from Contingency that attempts to make the link from contingent being to necessary being (hence the name “contingency” in the title). And that fails, too! Remember what I said to you prior to this? I said: “no logically necessary argument can be built on contingent effects, not the world, not God, not anything.” You replied: “Yes it can, actually. Both the KA and the Argument from Contingency demonstrates this.” Now I’m telling you again it does not! So will you please demonstrate that causation is necessary? Prove to me that one object must be the cause of another, logically without contradiction.

I will, once you respond to the infinity problem that I laid out at least 8 different times. Explain how the universe can eventually begin to exist some 13.7 billion years ago if it was just one event on an infinitely (and past eternal) chain of events. Infinity cannot be traversed by one-by-one increments, and this is exactly what one will have to believe if you negate the existence of a First Cause.

The concept of infinity applies to anything existing in time and space that is said to have always existed or will always exist. My argument is the contingent world has not always existed and that will one day it will cease to be (I believe that is broadly consistent with the general scientific view?) There is no contradiction in denying any necessity in cause, and thus no argument can be made by applying a contingent principle to an external, other worldly first cause that is said to be necessary. Causation begins and ends with the world, and there is no infinity of causes and their effects, forwards or backwards. There was no ‘before’ and there is no prospect of eternity or an everlasting condition since the entire contingent series will end with the world itself.

…coming from someone that previously said “if it is something you don’t understand, ask me and I will elaborate”.

Whoa there! Let’s keep the terms friendly.

When I wrote that passage I immodestly flattered myself in thinking its utter simplicity and clarity spoke for itself, each sentence with its subject and predicate following on from its predecessor. I don’t know how I’m supposed to improve on what I’ve already said but I’ve put the subjects in parenthesis for you

“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 [the world] Is, while the thing that supposedly cannot fail to be [God], 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 [God], but which is itself dependent upon the world in order to be the least intelligible [God]. Therefore neither the world nor God necessarily exists, but the world is the only existent thing that cannot be denied.”

 

[cottage]

Yes, God exists in time, but he doesn’t necessarily exist in space..since God is immaterial. But he is casually active in space (Christian view) without physically occupying space. God exists in time as of now, but he didn’t exist in time before the creation even (when time was created). Time is a creation of God. So before the creation event, God was timeless (changeless). It wasn’t until the moment of creation that God became temporal.

Then God is not immutable!

I don’t understand how you can jump from the assertion that God created contingent things, so therefore the created things themselves and the means of creation can be denied without contradiction. That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I also have no idea on what you mean by it demonstrates a dependency upon his creation. Dependency as far as what?

I’m not ‘asserting that God created contingent things.’ I’m saying causation is a contingent principle, and it cannot be both contingent and necessary. So self-evidently, if you are saying God causes contingent things then he is dependent upon a contingent principle, which is self-evidently absurd if he is necessary.

Ok I understand now. It doesn’t make any sense. Instead of commenting on why I believe it is absolutely absurd, I will accept that we disagree and move on.

No, we really can’t just leave it there, since this is crucial to the discussion. I need to hear your objections - if you don’t mind?

Regardless of what you THINK about the argument, I would like to see why the conclusions of both arguments are false.

They are neither true nor false: they are metaphysical propositions! (I thought you were aware of that?)

So if you are omniscient, can you hold a conversation with someone? If you are omniscient, can you answer questions if someone asks you? Please answer these questions.

Elsewhere I observed how theists defend their beliefs, rather than their God (who if he exists needs no defending). And that observation seems to be the case here because your argument undermines and diminishes God. An omniscient being must be able to give answers to any question without having to think them through or having to recall information or recover data, quite unlike lesser beings. In the case of God there is just pure knowledge: no recollection, and no thoughtfulness or consideration is involved. A thinking being is an anthropomorphic concept, which portrays God in terms of man.

Not at all, and for at least two reasons; the first reason is the fact that it may be easy for you to conceive of God to not exist, but you can’t conceive of a God that is omnipresent to not exist. Remember that omnipresence is one of the attributes of God. If omnipresence is an attribute, than how can you conceive of something to not exist that possess such an attribute. In fact, that is a contradiction. That is equivalent to saying “I can conceive the thought of an omnipresent being to not be present”, which is absurd.

You say ‘Not at all’ but you are not dealing with the argument I gave you: It is the case that a Maximally Great Being that is logically necessary and contingently true is greater than a being that is merely experienced. And of course it is absurd to say “I can conceive the thought of an omnipresent being to not be present”, but I do not presume to state such an absurdity because I do not conceive of any supernatural being with or without that property. There is no innate idea of God.

The second reason is the fact that your logic can be flipped right back around on you. If all it takes is denial of the mind, then I can deny the proposition of God NOT existing. I can easily imagine a MGB existing. So if you being able to conceive of a MGB NOT existing makes it necessarily non-existent, then me being able to conceive of a MGB existing makes it necessarily exist.

Well now, you’ve just made my argument for me!
All objects, whether actual or imagined, are possible beings and their existence or non-existence is equally intelligible despite any analytical proposition or tautology. As David Hume said: “It will be possible for us, at any time, to conceive the non-existence of what we formerly conceived to exist.” So, either p or not-p. Both are conceivable, but not at the same time, and a single instance of not-p demonstrates the contradiction. If it is possible to conceive the non-existence of any object then its non-existence is possible and therefore it cannot be necessary.

But there is a possible necessary world, the world of supernatural reality. God exists in reality, and that reality is as necessary as God himself. Reality is everything real. If God exists, he exists in reality, and the reality that he exists is a necessary reality (or world). So I disagree with the notion that there are no possible necessary worlds, because if God exist, then there is. With that being said I do agree with the fact that there are no possible necessary NATURAL worlds. Big distinction that is to be made here.

If God is necessary and all reality, that is to say being itself, then all reality is possibly necessary and in which case there are no possibly necessary worlds other than God. But in that case then how does one account for other worlds that aren’t possibly necessary, i.e. this, the contingent actual world? The actual world being contingent doesn’t have to exist; it isn’t “a necessary reality” and so it can’t be said that God necessarily exists within it, since there can’t be two necessarily possible realities.

This is completely false. If God decided to make an alien universe, that is contingently possible.

If there are no necessary worlds other than God then no contradiction follows from saying there are no worlds other than the actual world, for that too will always be possible.

I don’t even understand this, but what I do know is there is no way logically possible that you can state how a MGB doesn’t exist in every possible world. Such a being has already been defined as omnipresent, so based on this it is illogical to even begin a statement with “If no such being exists in every world.”

Then the definition is wrongly applied if God doesn’t exist in every world.

 

[cottage]

Umm, Cot..you are saying it is a contradiction based on your standard of what omni-benevolence means to YOU. In order to contradict anything, there has to be a standard at which you compare it too. How can you not see this?

See, right there!!! Exactly what I thought; You are saying there is a contradiction between omni-benevolence and suffering. By your standard of benevolence, suffering should not occur. Based on what though? I fail to see how objective morality exists based on contingent reasoning, and how your subjective opinion about how God conducts his moral duties is anything but…subjective at best.

That is disingenuous. We're talking about a definition, the meaning of which we all understand. If, for example, we speak of omnipotence we all understand it to mean ultimate power, a force and energy without limit. When we speak of omniscience we understand it to mean all knowing, the source of all possible knowledge. And when we speak of omnipresence we understand that as meaning ever present, that is to say always and everywhere in being. When we speak of omni-benevolence we understand it to mean the most caring, charitable, loving, protective and gracious thing possible. From the evidence we see all around us there plainly is nothing that corresponds with that definition. So you are making a fallacious case by pleading special terms as an argument from ignorance for one defined meaning in order to avoid a contradiction.
And regardless of your plea from ignorance, pain and suffering is a fact and if your god exists then it is he who caused it or made it possible.

But before we even get in to depth about morality, we have to determine whether are not objective morality even exists, wouldn’t you agree?

On any question of supposed morality the only entailment is our survival.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This is an ad hoc re-definition of necessity; this is not the sense of "exists necessarily" which you used for your argument for a MGB, and now you are redefining "exists necessarily" so that it cannot apply to a LGMB. Needless to say, this is a fallacy of equivocation, and is thus illicit.

I am not equivocating at all, actually. A necessary truth is a truth that is true in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS. Ask any philosopher this and they will tell you the same. If the “quality” of your presence is necessarily less than maximally great, then you are contingent by default, meaning, there is at least one possible world where your presence is not felt. There is just no way around this.

A MGB exists necessarily, because you've argued that it is possible that a MGB exists, and thus that it is possible that a MGB exists necessarily, since an MGB is not self-contradictory. But, if we grant that, then by the same token it is not self-contradictory that a LMGB exist, and so it is possible it exists, and it is possible that it exists necessarily.

No, it is necessary that the LMGB exist CONTINGENTLY. That is necessary. It is not necessary that the LMGB actually exists. You yourself….you are a LMGB, and by being less than maximally great, your existence is contingent, and everything that is contingent is necessarily contingent. Nothing can be made “necessary” from a previous state of “contingency”. So it is necessary for a LMGB to exist contingently, but it is not necessary for a LMGB to exist at all. It could have not existed.

Now, your inference from "it is possible a MGB exists necessarily" to "a MGB exists" or "necessarily, a MGB exists" involves the questionable modal principle I've mentioned several times now- the one which is not accepted in quite a few systems of modal logic- but, if we grant it, then it applies to the LGMB as well as your MGB- that is, both of them exist. And they exist necessarily.

This is clearly false. If it is possible for something to exist necessarily, then what has to happen for it to exist necessary?? What has to occur? I’ve asked this question before and I have yet to get an answer. For example, if it is possible for me to exist necessarily, what has to happen in order for me to reach this possibility?? There is just no answer to this because there is no way you can reach a state of necessity by a chain of contingent causes. That is why if it is possible for something to exist necessarily, it must exist necessarily because the same question will apply, what can make it exist necessarily if it is possible??? Once again, there is just no way around this.

Except, since God is, ex hypothesi, a maximally great being, it would seem that he would have to be responsible for everything which exists- since if he was not, something which was responsible for everything would be greater than God, and this would be a contradiction.

So God is responsible for a person that is likes to get drink and get behind the wheel? Wow.

The problem is that we can prove that an infinite number of LGMB's exist necessarily, and since they exist necessarily, God cannot be responsible for their existence.

You are making it up as you go along, aren’t you? I wont even bother responding to this.

In other words, your argument is screwed one way or the other- either we don't grant the questionable inferences your argument requires, or we grant them, but then they must apply to an indefinite number of LGMB's, which are imaginary (since we can just make them up as we go along).... Anytime your argument allows us to prove the existence of an infinite number of imaginary beings, you know you have gone wrong somewhere.

Making it up as you go along. I refuse to entertain this.

 

[Thief]

I keep repeating it because the point you keep insisting is focal on it and its simply not true.

I have never said I was an "accident' you are the only one spouting that.

So back to the beginning....the singularity.
Accident or no?

Nothing moves without Something to set it into motion.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well obviously it does matter that you didn’t read or understand my previous post, because had you read it and understood it I wouldn’t need to be explaining it again down the page.

Well, judging by the fact that I myself have been repeating the same thing OVER AND OVER again to both you and others, I am not the only one that doesn’t read or understand.

Each one of the items is a function of cause, none of which is logically necessary.

I forgot what this was in reference too.

But that is due entirely to a misconception on your part. You appear to have an idea ingrained in your mind of what you think I’m saying, but which in fact is completely at odds with the view that I take and the arguments I’ve made

The fact of the matter is I’ve mentioned the infinity problem on more than a dozen occasions and you insist on NOT responding to it.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not demonstrate a necessary being, it argues to a First Cause as an a posteriori proposition.Your use of the term ‘necessary’ is just an arbitrary assumption that isn’t deducible from the concept: all that can be inferred is that it has the requisite means or power sufficient to bring the world into being. It is the Argument from Contingency that attempts to make the link from contingent being to necessary being (hence the name “contingency” in the title). And that fails, too! Remember what I said to you prior to this? I said: “no logically necessary argument can be built on contingent effects, not the world, not God, not anything.” You replied: “Yes it can, actually. Both the KA and the Argument from Contingency demonstrates this.” Now I’m telling you again it does not! So will you please demonstrate that causation is necessary? Prove to me that one object must be the cause of another, logically without contradiction.

Cot, what are you talking about here? You’ve just admitting yourself that the KA argues to a FIRST CAUSE. So if something is a first cause, then this first cause couldn’t be the product of a prior cause, MAKING IT A NECESSARY CAUSE. So what are you talking about?

The concept of infinity applies to anything existing in time and space that is said to have always existed or will always exist.

But nothing in time and space cannot be said to have always existed.

My argument is the contingent world has not always existed and that will one day it will cease to be (I believe that is broadly consistent with the general scientific view?) There is no contradiction in denying any necessity in cause, and thus no argument can be made by applying a contingent principle to an external, other worldly first cause that is said to be necessary. Causation begins and ends with the world, and there is no infinity of causes and their effects, forwards or backwards. There was no ‘before’ and there is no prospect of eternity or an everlasting condition since the entire contingent series will end with the world itself.

So if the world is contingent, then what caused the world? Infinite regression once again.

Whoa there! Let’s keep the terms friendly.

Keep the terms friendly? I merely repeated what you said to me. What is unfriendly about that?