Evidence

[PolyHedral]

Anyone who can tell me what rules I'm working under such that 2+2=1 gets frubals.

 

[cottage]

Talk about being factually incorrect from the start....

If you don’t mind I would rather you explained your objection and then I can give you a proper response. But meanwhile in case of a misunderstanding I’ll put for you again in a different way. The world has no necessary existence therefore need not exist. But to say nothing exists is to deny the possibility of knowledge (the Anti-Sceptical position). Therefore lest we utter absurdities it must be necessarily true that something exists (the world or whatever it is we're arguing from) even though nothing exists necessarily. See it now?

Numbers do exist necessarily.

It should be obvious from my argument that intuitive truths and the laws of thought are not disputed. The issue here is one of ontology: things that have, or are claimed to have, being.

Not only isn't that the point, but that isn't even the argument.

But, with respect, that’s because you’ve chopped that one sentence out of the paragraph where I went on to make the point.

If God exists as a necessary being, then it is a contradiction in saying "There is no God">

And ‘if’ my aunt had testicles she would be my uncle!

From ‘God’ (not a proper name) being given it does not logically follow that he is necessary. And further more even if, for example, it were stated that: ‘God is the Supreme Being’, which would seem to imply that he is necessary, it remains the case that no contradiction is involved for the concept can still be annihilated in thought.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If you don’t mind I would rather you explained your objection and then I can give you a proper response. But meanwhile in case of a misunderstanding I’ll put for you again in a different way. The world has no necessary existence therefore need not exist. But to say nothing exists is to deny the possibility of knowledge (the Anti-Sceptical position). Therefore lest we utter absurdities it must be necessarily true that something exists (the world or whatever it is we're arguing from) even though nothing exists necessarily. See it now?

Cottage, excuse me, but who the HELL said "nothing exists"??? That is not my argument so what are you talking about?

It should be obvious from my argument that intuitive truths and the laws of thought are not disputed. The issue here is one of ontology: things that have, or are claimed to have, being.

And ‘if’ my aunt had testicles she would be my uncle!

It is not possible for your aunt to have testicles. Just like it isn't possible for a married man to be single. Categorical error.

From ‘God’ (not a proper name) being given it does not logically follow that he is necessary.

Actually it does logically follow that he is necessary. The "omni" properties that a MGB have is not something you can "gain". It's either you have it or you don't...but it isn't something that a contingent being can just "acquire". If it is even remotely possible for such a being to exist, then it must actually exist.

And further more even if, for example, it were stated that: ‘God is the Supreme Being’, which would seem to imply that he is necessary, it remains the case that no contradiction is involved for the concept can still be annihilated in thought.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Call of the wild

You stated maybe God was sitting perfectly still for eternity before He made the universe. I have one question

What was he sitting on?

It doesn't matter...he could of been standing. As long as he remained changeless, then he was not in time. But you raise a good question...I used the word "sitting" to simply describe a state of rest. When I think of God, I think of a bright light with a vertical stature...now of course in this case there is no sitting or standing, there is just.......existence.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes, but you accept this ill-defined omniscient being as having existed before the universe and being exempt from the need for a cause. Why are you so certain that the same couldn't apply to the laws of quantum physics? Just because they're measurable in the physical universe they couldn't have existed before it?

The key thing to remember is the fact that time began with the beginning of the universe, according to the big bang theory. So if time itself began to exist, then the cause of time had to transcend time itself. That cause could not itself BE IN TIME if it was the CREATOR of time. There is no way anything considered "nature" can be said to be outside of time, because there is always a cause/effect chain that is taking place within it, and with every cause and effect there is a change.....and there is no such thing as a "timeless" change.

But if time itself was created with the universe (as we have philosophical evidence supporting), then we need an external cause to explain the effects (the beginning of time and the universe). No naturalistic explanation is sufficient to explain this. So what are we left with if no natural explanation is sufficient......supernatural.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Anyone who can tell me what rules I'm working under such that 2+2=1 gets frubals.

Let's see...given that I know you don't just use, program, and work with computers, but find a sort of spirituality (pardon the term, as I can't think of the word I want to use) in computing metaphors (and perhaps a very literal conception of a cosmic computer), I'll start with Boolean algebras. It could be just a sort of pseudo-Boolean ring, such that the additive operation " + " would give us 1 while " * " (multiplication) would give us 2 (I'm treating the numbers as a units in a set with only two elements, 2 and 1, and defining 1 as the inverse of 2). Or it could be basically the exact same thing only the operators are logical (i.e., such that " + " could be replaced by ∨ as the symbol for disjunction). Am I warm?

 

[cottage]

Cottage, excuse me, but who the HELL said "nothing exists"??? That is not my argument so what are you talking about?

I was replying to your response, where an objection was implied by you but not actually given. You said: ‘Talk about being factually incorrect from the start....’ I had to guess what it is that you meant and so I restated what I had written. I assumed in my first reply that you understood that I was pointing out the distinction to be made between necessary existence and necessary conditions (for existence).

You mentioned numbers. Remember now?

It is not possible for your aunt to have testicles. Just like it isn't possible for a married man to be single. Categorical error.

<chuckles> I think perhaps the point sailed over your head? I was remarking on the conditional ‘if’. But if we must digress I have tell you that while it is impossible for a married man to be a bachelor, it is logically possible for a female to have testicles.

Actually it does logically follow that he is necessary. The "omni" properties that a MGB have is not something you can "gain". It's either you have it or you don't...but it isn't something that a contingent being can just "acquire". If it is even remotely possible for such a being to exist, then it must actually exist.

I’m sorry, but no! If you begin from possibility then you’re committed to the principle. If a thing is possible then it is possible, but if it is possible then it is not necessary (excluded middle, non-contradiction, and identity, ie: p or not-p). (N.B. In the case of contingent existence it follows from what is actual (the world) that it is also possible but that is because there is no necessitation.) So Plantinga was wrong, for it is self-evident that God cannot be both possible and necessary, whereas it is possible that no being exists of necessity, since no contradiction follows from ‘There is no Maximally Excellent Being’, and thus it is demonstrated that no such Being exists of necessity.

If anything I say is unclear I’m quite happy to explain further.

 

[PolyHedral]

Let's see...given that I know you don't just use, program, and work with computers, but find a sort of spirituality (pardon the term, as I can't think of the word I want to use) in computing metaphors (and perhaps a very literal conception of a cosmic computer), I'll start with Boolean algebras. It could be just a sort of pseudo-Boolean ring, such that the additive operation " + " would give us 1 while " * " (multiplication) would give us 2 (I'm treating the numbers as a units in a set with only two elements, 2 and 1, and defining 1 as the inverse of 2). Or it could be basically the exact same thing only the operators are logical (i.e., such that " + " could be replaced by &#8744; as the symbol for disjunction). Am I warm?

It was simpler than that. '2' and '1' still refer to the integers.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It was simpler than that. '2' and '1' still refer to the integers.

Erm...you've just switched the value assignments to the integers? 2 holds a value of 1 and 1 holds a value of 2?

 

[PolyHedral]

Erm...you've just switched the value assignments to the integers? 2 holds a value of 1 and 1 holds a value of 2?

I thought all the previous examples missed the point by re-assigning the labels.

 

[Copernicus]

I thought all the previous examples missed the point by re-assigning the labels.

There are lots of ways to make the statement true by changing the interpretation of the symbols. For example, you can reinterpret '+' to be a division operator.

 

[PolyHedral]

There are lots of ways to make the statement true by changing the interpretation of the symbols. For example, you can reinterpret '+' to be a division operator.

I know, but there is one way to make it true with a completely conventional interpretation of the symbols.

 

[Copernicus]

I know, but there is one way to make it true with a completely conventional interpretation of the symbols.

But aren't you then reinterpreting the equal sign to be a congruence relation?

 

[sonofdad]

The key thing to remember is the fact that time began with the beginning of the universe, according to the big bang theory. So if time itself began to exist, then the cause of time had to transcend time itself. That cause could not itself BE IN TIME if it was the CREATOR of time. There is no way anything considered "nature" can be said to be outside of time, because there is always a cause/effect chain that is taking place within it, and with every cause and effect there is a change.....and there is no such thing as a "timeless" change.

But if time itself was created with the universe (as we have philosophical evidence supporting), then we need an external cause to explain the effects (the beginning of time and the universe). No naturalistic explanation is sufficient to explain this. So what are we left with if no natural explanation is sufficient......supernatural.

There is no such thing as a "timeless change" (as far as I know), so why is your omnipotent creator exempt from that?
If there is no time, there is no change, and if there is no change there is no way to create a universe.

Btw, how can "time" have a beginning? Doesn't a beginning require a concept of "before" which entails time?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I was replying to your response, where an objection was implied by you but not actually given. You said: ‘Talk about being factually incorrect from the start....’ I had to guess what it is that you meant and so I restated what I had written. I assumed in my first reply that you understood that I was pointing out the distinction to be made between necessary existence and necessary conditions (for existence).

And my point was either something exists necessarily, or something exists contingently. It is only when you make the distinction between the two that you can understand the argument.

You mentioned numbers. Remember now?

Right; and I said numbers exist necessarily. There is no possible world at which numbers do not exist.

<chuckles> I think perhaps the point sailed over your head? I was remarking on the conditional ‘if’. But if we must digress I have tell you that while it is impossible for a married man to be a bachelor, it is logically possible for a female to have testicles.

But it isn't logically possible for a female to be a male.

I’m sorry, but no! If you begin from possibility then you’re committed to the principle.

Committed to the principal? So If I say “It is possible for there to be a lawyer in China named “Cheng”, how am I committed to anything other than admitting that it is possible?

If a thing is possible then it is possible, but if it is possible then it is not necessary (excluded middle, non-contradiction, and identity, ie: p or not-p). (N.B. In the case of contingent existence it follows from what is actual (the world) that it is also possible but that is because there is no necessitation.)

I agree, that just because something is possible doesn’t mean it is necessary. But based on the nature of necessity, if it IS possible for something to be necessary, then that “thing” must be necessary, because if it isn’t necessary, it wouldn’t even be possible for it to be necessary.

So Plantinga was wrong, for it is self-evident that God cannot be both possible and necessary

Well, I haven’t seen any such evidence as of yet.

whereas it is possible that no being exists of necessity

How is it not possible for God to exist necessarily?

since no contradiction follows from ‘There is no Maximally Excellent Being’, and thus it is demonstrated that no such Being exists of necessity.

I don’t know where you are getting your conclusions from, cot.

If anything I say is unclear I’m quite happy to explain further.

You are a scholar and a gentleman

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There is no such thing as a "timeless change" (as far as I know), so why is your omnipotent creator exempt from that?

Because he wasn’t changing.

If there is no time, there is no change, and if there is no change there is no way to create a universe.

I agree with you 100%. That is why time began when God created the universe. That was the very first change. If I was sitting perfectly still in a chair for all eternity, I am in a timeless state. Time just simply doesn’t apply; it doesn’t exist. If I begin to stand up from my sitting state, that is the first change, and time begins. It isn’t until the first change that time began. Likewise, God was in a changeless state, content in his holiness. He began to create the universe at which time began. It wasn’t until this act of creation did God step in to time and become forever temporal.

Btw, how can "time" have a beginning? Doesn't a beginning require a concept of "before" which entails time?

This goes back to my “sitting” example. If I have been sitting perfectly still in a chair forever…there is no moment “prior” to me sitting……and no moments “after” I began sitting. There isn’t even a present moment because in order to have a present moment you have to have a preceding moment after that moment….but you cant have a preceding moment if there were no prior moments leading up to the preceding moment. So basically, all aspects of time just don’t exist.

That is why there was no “before” time in terms of chronologically, but there was a “before” in terms of causality; there was a causal agent.

 

[sonofdad]

I agree with you 100%. That is why time began when God created the universe. That was the very first change. If I was sitting perfectly still in a chair for all eternity, I am in a timeless state. Time just simply doesn&#8217;t apply; it doesn&#8217;t exist. If I begin to stand up from my sitting state, that is the first change, and time begins. It isn&#8217;t until the first change that time began. Likewise, God was in a changeless state, content in his holiness. He began to create the universe at which time began. It wasn&#8217;t until this act of creation did God step in to time and become forever temporal.

God was sitting in a chair, not changing at all and there is absolutely nothing else in existence.
How did he decide to stand up?
Without change and therefor without time there can be no thought. He would just sit there, frozen for eternity, unless an external entity acted upon him.

 

[Philomath]

I believe in god, the definition of that god is still a work in progress though. I don't have any evidence for god nor do I claim to have any. For I think something started the Universe. You can continuously regress but I think there's something which started it all. I recognize though that Universe could have started through others means.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

How did he decide to stand up?

How did he decide to stand up? The same way you decide to stand up if you are sitting. He freely choose to stand up.

Without change and therefore without time there can be no thought. He would just sit there, frozen for eternity, unless an external entity acted upon him.

If God’s had an eternal will to do everything that he is going to do, then there would be no need to change anything. God had an eternal will to create the universe, so if that is what he was going to do, then there is no reason for him to think about anything besides what he KNOWS he will do. So therefore no change is required.

 

[sonofdad]

How did he decide to stand up? The same way you decide to stand up if you are sitting. He freely choose to stand up.

When I decide to stand up, it's because of electrons shooting around in my brain, usually as a result of some sensory input. That is change in my brain which is measurable with time.

If my brain stopped changing at this very moment, I would not do anything until something started it up again.