Question for former theists...

[viole]

A necessary being is a being that exists necessarily. Online lets say our earth. It came to being some time ago. Maybe billions of years ago. So its contingent. Thus, when you go back in regression, logically it goes back to a necessary being.

It is not logical at all. Nothing speaks against contingent things caused by other contingent things. Ad infinitum.
So, when you say “logically” what you men is “logically for me”

it is a bit like when you say “irrelevant”. What that really means is “no idea how to reply to this”. Right?

ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

no worries. Being against theology is no big deal. Being against reason and logic is kind of stupid and lame. So as long as.......

A necessary being is a being that exists necessarily. Online lets say our earth. It came to being some time ago. Maybe billions of years ago. So its contingent. Thus, when you go back in regression, logically it goes back to a necessary being.

The universe appears to have always existed. Your mistake appears to be one of using classical physics in your reasoning. The universe could both have a beginning and have always existed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who created the universe?

Why think that a "who" is necessary? That is quite an assumption.

 

[firedragon]

The universe appears to have always existed. Your mistake appears to be one of using classical physics in your reasoning. The universe could both have a beginning and have always existed.

I was only speaking of a beginning since you said "began".

Nevertheless, I am not using physics.

Why think that a "who" is necessary? That is quite an assumption.

Please read through the statements clearly, and if you want a clarification do ask.

Cheers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was only speaking of a beginning since you said "began".

Nevertheless, I am not using physics.

I know. it is even worse. You are just using hand waving.

Please read through the statements clearly, and if you want a clarification do ask.

Cheers.

I asked for clarifications. None were given.

 

[firedragon]

I know. it is even worse. You are just using hand waving.

OK

I asked for clarifications. None were given.

What clarification did you ask for?

 

[Shakeel]

Why think that a "who" is necessary? That is quite an assumption.

Because they said "who created God"

 

[stvdv]

The same definition I use for unicorns.

Okay, then I understand

I can't be absolutely certain they don't exist

Okay, with this I agree

but there is no evidence that they do.

To be more accurate "so far you have found no evidence that they do"

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK



What clarification did you ask for?

I asked for clear definitions of the terms that you have used.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because they said "who created God"

People ask "Who created God?" to demonstrate that there is no evidence of need for a God for the beginning of the universe.. You did not understand how that question refutes the unjustified claim that the universe needs a maker. By the same logic that they use to claim that the universe needs a creator then God needs a creator.

 

[firedragon]

I asked for clear definitions of the terms that you have used.

If you mean necessary being, it is a necessary thing which means it does not bank on anything and other things will ultimately bank on it but by itself, it is not not relying or banking on anything else outside of it.

 

[Kfox]

Logically, can you justify multiple necessary beings?

The same logic that justifies one, justifies more than one.

When there is a multiple, one has to be contingent upon another. It is just simply illogical.

If one can exist without being contingent upon anything else, why can't multiple exist without being contingent upon anything else?

 

[Kfox]

Who created the universe?

What makes you think the Universe was actually created?

 

[firedragon]

If one can exist without being contingent upon anything else, why can't multiple exist without being contingent upon anything else?

How many?

 

[Altfish]

To be more accurate "so far you have found no evidence that they do"

indeed
But neither has anyone else found any evidence

 

[stvdv]

indeed
But neither has anyone else found any evidence

Again, a generalizing claim, never smart ... you need to know all people. Not all people share their wisdom.

 

[Kfox]

How many?

Ten? A Million, A Billion? A Trillion??? How am I supposed to know?

 

[Altfish]

Again, a generalizing claim, never smart ... you need to know all people. Not all people share their wisdom.

I've never claimed to be smart BUT give me an example of the evidence that has been found.

 

[firedragon]

Ten? A Million, A Billion? A Trillion??? How am I supposed to know?

You mean like the multiverse theory? A bubble bath?

 

[Kfox]

You mean like the multiverse theory? A bubble bath?

No. By definition, Universe means all that exists. How can there be more than one "all that exists"?