What are the minimum requirements for a Creator of the universe?

[Heyo]

Perpetual existence is as illogical as spontaneous existence from non-existence. The only logical hypothesis is some realm of existential transcendency setting existence as we know it into being.

And that "realm of existential transcendency", does it perpetually exist, or did it spontaneously form?

Iow, you just pushed the paradox up the ladder where we don't - and probably can't - know how it works. And now that realm is open for all possible speculations, aliens, gods or just something that churns out universes as a natural function of its existence.

Anyone who thinks they have solved the paradox of existence, just stopped thinking at a convenient point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And that "realm of existential transcendency", does it perpetually exist, or did it spontaneously form?

Iow, you just pushed the paradox up the ladder where we don't - and probably can't - know how it works. And now that realm is open for all possible speculations, aliens, gods or just something that churns out universes as a natural function of its existence.

Anyone who thinks they have solved the paradox of existence, just stopped thinking at a convenient point.

Yeah, it is a part of Agrippa's Trilemma, so it is an old one.

 

[PureX]

And that "realm of existential transcendency", does it perpetually exist, or did it spontaneously form?

Being transcendent of existence, that question does not logically apply.

Iow, you just pushed the paradox up the ladder where we don't - and probably can't - know how it works. And now that realm is open for all possible speculations, aliens, gods or just something that churns out universes as a natural function of its existence.

No, I didn't. You're just grasping at straws, here.

Anyone who thinks they have solved the paradox of existence, just stopped thinking at a convenient point.

No one is claiming to have solved anything. Only that some theories are illogical and some are not. Perpetuity and nothing-to-something are not logical theories.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Perpetual existence is as illogical as spontaneous existence from non-existence. The only logical hypothesis is some realm of existential transcendency setting existence as we know it into being.

Sorry, but this is a word game used to try to fool us. "Existential transcendency" is just trying to cover up that you really mean some sort of other perpetual existence -- which you begin by claiming is illogical.

 

[PureX]

Sorry, but this is a word game used to try to fool us. "Existential transcendency" is just trying to cover up that you really mean some sort of other perpetual existence -- which you begin by claiming is illogical.

That which transcends (and can create) existence does not logically have to comply with the characteristics or limitations that we apply to existence. We have no idea what the word "existence" would even mean in relation to such transcendence. And therefor no reason to presume an origin upon it.

 

[Heyo]

That which transcends (and can create) existence does not logically have to comply with the characteristics or limitations that we apply to existence.

This is what we call "special pleading". It's a fallacy.

 

[PureX]

This is what we call "special pleading". It's a fallacy.

This is what we call the mystery beyond human understanding. Yet the mystery logically persists via human understanding. And the other theories are not logical via human understanding. You want to eliminate it as a possibility, but you cannot. Any more than I can ensure it as a solution.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is what we call the mystery beyond human understanding. Yet the mystery logically persists via human understanding. And the other theories are not logical via human understanding. You want to eliminate it as a possibility, but you cannot. Any more than I can ensure it as a solution.

In which case, Occam's Razor applies. Your solution involves assuming the existence of something complex enough to have intention and ability. Ours does not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In which case, Occam's Razor applied. Your solution involves assuming the existence of something complex enough to have intention and ability. Ours does not.

But neither decides what is actually the fact and as far as I can tell it is unknown.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Sorry, but this is a word game used to try to fool us. "Existential transcendency" is just trying to cover up that you really mean some sort of other perpetual existence -- which you begin by claiming is illogical.

When folks start tossing logic back and forth on the internet, the activity seems much more natural (and more logical!) if you think of logic as a big rock, rather than as an academic discipline.

I don’t know how anthropologists look at the activity. I just look at it as a mathematician.

Maybe some anthropologist can explain why I look at it that way.

 

[PureX]

In which case, Occam's Razor applies.

No, it does not. Since the simplicity/complexity of transcendence are unknown. And so are any logical alternative theories.

Your solution involves assuming the existence of something complex enough to have intention and ability. Ours does not.

Yours is not logical, so it's simplicity is not relevant. Transcendence is not knowable, by us, so again simplicity is not relevant. Either way, Occam has nothing to say on it.

 

[Heyo]

This is what we call the mystery beyond human understanding. Yet the mystery logically persists via human understanding. And the other theories are not logical via human understanding. You want to eliminate it as a possibility,

I don't. I'm just saying that you didn't raise the probability by your faulty logic. The paradox (or, as you call it, mystery) remains.

but you cannot. Any more than I can ensure it as a solution.

So, we agree? There is no known way to solve the paradox? The difference between us is, that you act as if you have solved it, and I stay agnostic (and an Agnostic).

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

No, it does not. Since the simplicity/complexity of transcendence are unknown. And so are any logical alternative theories.

Yours is not logical, so it's simplicity is not relevant. Transcendence is not knowable, by us, so again simplicity is not relevant. Either way, Occam has nothing to say on it.

This logician ain’t arguing with Occam until he puts his razor down.

By the way, why a razor? Didn’t they have machetes for settling philosophical disputes back in Occam’s day?

 

[PureX]

I don't. I'm just saying that you didn't raise the probability by your faulty logic. The paradox (or, as you call it, mystery) remains.

Probability is not knowable. So why would you look for it if not to use the lack of it to bolster your desire to dismiss the possibility?

So, we agree? There is no known way to solve the paradox?

It's not a paradox. It's just a mystery being driven by logical necessity. Logically, existence needs a source. Yet we are not capable of determining that source from within that which exists. It's a conundrum.

The difference between us is, that you act as if you have solved it, and I stay agnostic (and an Agnostic).

I have solved nothing. I am simply stating that logically only one theory stands. That is the theory of a transcendent source.

 

[Pogo]

This logician ain’t arguing with Occam until he puts his razor down.

By the way, why a razor? Didn’t they have machetes for settling philosophical disputes back in Occam’s day?

Machetes are a new world invention, the English used Axes but Occam only wanted to remove the unnecessary parts so he used a razor though possibly of the cutthroat variety.

 

[Pogo]

Probability is not knowable. So why would you look for it if not to use the lack of it to bolster your desire to dismiss the possibility?

It's not a paradox. It's just a mystery being driven by logical necessity. Logically, existence needs a source. Yet we are not capable of determining that source from within that which exists. It's a conundrum.

I have solved nothing. I am simply stating that logically only one theory stands. That is the theory of a transcendent source.

An uncaused existence is a logical possibility since I can conceive of one by definition of logical possibility.

Logical possibility is possibility in the broadest sense: whatever is conceivable, whatever can be imagined or thought, is logically possible, even if it isn't physically possible. Physical possibility is a restriction on logical possibility. Everything physically possible is logically possible but not vice versa.

https://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/logic/1.Logical%20Possibility.pdf

Logical necessity is logically possible things without without alternatives ie there is only one way for them to exist.

Transcendant source is a hypothesis without evidence not a logical necessity.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Machetes are a new world invention, the English used Axes but Occam only wanted to remove the unnecessary parts so he used a razor though possibly of the cutthroat variety.

They don’t do philosophy like they used to.

 

[Pogo]

They don’t do philosophy like they used to.

And that's a good thing?

 

[Heyo]

Probability is not knowable. So why would you look for it if not to use the lack of it to bolster your desire to dismiss the possibility?

It's not a paradox. It's just a mystery being driven by logical necessity. Logically, existence needs a source. Yet we are not capable of determining that source from within that which exists. It's a conundrum.

I have solved nothing. I am simply stating that logically only one theory stands. That is the theory of a transcendent source.

And round and round and round we go.
Or not, I quit.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

And that's a good thing?

Lots of value judgements can be made about evolution, I suppose.

But without change, things would just stay the same, which may comfort some and bore others.