Why does god have to be perfect?

[cottage]

Ok, good...so if there was a time at which NO MATTER existed...yet matter currently exists...what caused matter to come in to existence??? There is just no way out of this cot, but I reckon I am going to love to see you dazzle yourself out of it.

Cottage’s metaphysical argument for a self-existent world


1. The world is all that is the case (everything that can be observed, stated or conceptualised).

2. The material/phenomenal began to exist and is in want of a transcendent cause.

3. If there is a transcendent cause for material existence it must belong to the world.

If (3) is false then so must be (1), which is contradictory.


All material/phenomenal things are an effect sustained within the world by an immutable cause that transcends form and matter. There is neither causal regression nor any infinitely forward progression since being immaterial it is not within the constraints of time or space. And, while all natural phenomena are finite, the renewal of form and matter is made possible by the transcendent causal power, which isn’t independent of the contingent effect and has no necessary determination beyond the world (whatever the world may be). The world in its essence continues to exist but the material aspect will come to its natural end. All operations will cease but then begin anew, repeatedly and without intermission, and by such means form and matter is thus successively restored and may continue to exist eternally.

Note:
Every concept or argument to transcendent entities or deities such as ‘God’ is included in (1).

The Antithesis

The eternity of the world is rejected.
The world began to exist and there was nothing before the world began to exist (Fundamentally the Big Bang Theory.)
The world has not always existed; there was nothing before the world and with no necessary existence it will one day cease to be. Hence there is no infinite regression or infinite progression of causes. The world is finite, and uncaused since there is no contradiction in denying any necessity in cause and effect, which being a contingent principle belongs to the world; and nor is there any necessity or empirical evidence for acts of creation, no evidence whatsoever, it being nothing more than an arbitrary act of the mind. The world neither created itself nor was it produced from nothing, but appeared where no thing existed previously; and causality being a worldly phenomenon began and will end with the world.

“So how did life begin?” One who asks the question wants to say that a thing cannot spring into existence uncaused by some other thing, which of course is begging the question on the basis of a contingent principle. But if there was once nothing at all then that must include all contingent principles. And thus with no demonstrable law of causation no objection can be made that a thing cannot come from nothing as that argument is made irrelevant because the entire causal principle is without meaning in prior nothingness.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Cottage’s metaphysical argument for a self-existent world


1. The world is all that is the case (everything that can be observed, stated or conceptualised).

2. The material/phenomenal began to exist and is in want of a transcendent cause.

3. If there is a transcendent cause for material existence it must belong to the world.

If (3) is false then so must be (1), which is contradictory.


All material/phenomenal things are an effect sustained within the world by an immutable cause that transcends form and matter. There is neither causal regression nor any infinitely forward progression since being immaterial it is not within the constraints of time or space. And, while all natural phenomena are finite, the renewal of form and matter is made possible by the transcendent causal power, which isn’t independent of the contingent effect and has no necessary determination beyond the world (whatever the world may be). The world in its essence continues to exist but the material aspect will come to its natural end. All operations will cease but then begin anew, repeatedly and without intermission, and by such means form and matter is thus successively restored and may continue to exist eternally.

Note:
Every concept or argument to transcendent entities or deities such as ‘God’ is included in (1).

The Antithesis

The eternity of the world is rejected.
The world began to exist and there was nothing before the world began to exist (Fundamentally the Big Bang Theory.)
The world has not always existed; there was nothing before the world and with no necessary existence it will one day cease to be. Hence there is no infinite regression or infinite progression of causes. The world is finite, and uncaused since there is no contradiction in denying any necessity in cause and effect, which being a contingent principle belongs to the world; and nor is there any necessity or empirical evidence for acts of creation, no evidence whatsoever, it being nothing more than an arbitrary act of the mind. The world neither created itself nor was it produced from nothing, but appeared where no thing existed previously; and causality being a worldly phenomenon began and will end with the world.

“So how did life begin?” One who asks the question wants to say that a thing cannot spring into existence uncaused by some other thing, which of course is begging the question on the basis of a contingent principle. But if there was once nothing at all then that must include all contingent principles. And thus with no demonstrable law of causation no objection can be made that a thing cannot come from nothing as that argument is made irrelevant because the entire causal principle is without meaning in prior nothingness.

To much stuff going on there, cot. There is no way to posit any of that without the need of an explanation to explain the existence of time. You can't have any physical reality without time...and if there was a point at which time didn't exist, then there is a point at which physical reality (the material world/universe) would also NOT exist.

 

[cottage]

To much stuff going on there, cot. There is no way to posit any of that without the need of an explanation to explain the existence of time. You can't have any physical reality without time...and if there was a point at which time didn't exist, then there is a point at which physical reality (the material world/universe) would also NOT exist.

They are simple arguments.

I can see a few of things I need to say here but I’ll just deal with a couple for now.

There isn’t a “point at which time didn’t exist” as that implies a period in time, when actually there would be nothing at all. There is only the “point” where material existence and time itself began. The material world (and therefore time) begins to exist, and that is an elementary core of both hypotheses. And to be clear I should explain that “eternity”, in the way I’ve used the term in the first hypothesis, does not mean the material world has always existed: it means everlasting, as explained in the last sentence of that argument.

 

[idav]

You can't have any physical reality without time...and if there was a point at which time didn't exist, then there is a point at which physical reality (the material world/universe) would also NOT exist.

Time isnt about existence its about change. Existence could be there in a state of timelessness until the first change occurs.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Time isnt about existence its about change. Existence could be there in a state of timelessness until the first change occurs.

Right, and that is EXACTLY the Christian view, that God existed in a state of timelessness until the first act of creation, which is when the first change occurred.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There isn’t a “point at which time didn’t exist” as that implies a period in time, when actually there would be nothing at all. There is only the “point” where material existence and time itself began.

But that doesn't make any sense, cot. If there isn't a point at which time didn't exist, then that would imply an infinite past, and this is exactly the problem. If you are claiming that time is past eternal, then you have the infinity problem. If you imply that time had a beginning, you have to posit a timeless cause to get the clock rolling. Either way, you have problems.

As far as material existence is concerned, you still have a problem, because if there was a point at which material existence began, then from a logical standpoint, only a immaterial entity could be the absolute cause of matter. No way out of it.

The material world (and therefore time) begins to exist, and that is an elementary core of both hypotheses.

If both matter and time began to exist, the cause of both existences cannot itself be temporal or material, cot.

And to be clear I should explain that “eternity”, in the way I’ve used the term in the first hypothesis, does not mean the material world has always existed: it means everlasting, as explained in the last sentence of that argument.

If it is everlasting...infinity problem...and if it had a beginning the "cause" of its beginning could not itself possess the same properties that came in to being. Either way...problems.

 

[cottage]

But that doesn't make any sense, cot. If there isn't a point at which time didn't exist, then that would imply an infinite past, and this is exactly the problem. If you are claiming that time is past eternal, then you have the infinity problem. If you imply that time had a beginning, you have to posit a timeless cause to get the clock rolling. Either way, you have problems.

I suspect it doesn’t make sense to you because you’ve banged off a reply rather quickly without understanding or properly reading what has been stated?
I said:

“There isn’t a “point at which time didn’t exist” as that implies a period in time, when actually there would be nothing at all. There is only the “point” where material existence and time itself began.”

It was your statement: “a point at which time didn’t exist” that doesn’t make sense, as I explained to you, because a “point at which time didn’t exist” implies what there isn’t, i.e. a point in time! In other words there was no time before it existed. There is only the point at which things began, which is to say the beginning of time!

And nowhere in the argument is it stated or implied that time extends backwards eternally, which I would have thought obvious if time is said to have begun. Please read the argument!

As far as material existence is concerned, you still have a problem, because if there was a point at which material existence began, then from a logical standpoint, only a immaterial entity could be the absolute cause of matter. No way out of it.

All material things are in time, all things in time are contingent, but not all contingent things must be material and in time. The world is all that is the case, and if the world began to exist then the material aspect of existence is in want of a transcendent cause that must also belong to the world. And this transcendent and sustaining cause of material existence, that belongs to the world, is not itself material but it has no necessary association or determination beyond the world as a whole as such a presupposition would evidently be self-contradictory.


“All material/phenomenal things are an effect sustained within the world by an immutable cause that transcends form and matter.”

If both matter and time began to exist, the cause of both existences cannot itself be temporal or material, cot.

And nor is it!

If it is everlasting...infinity problem...and if it had a beginning the "cause" of its beginning could not itself possess the same properties that came in to being. Either way...problems.

If you read the argument properly, line-by-line, I’m sure you’ll fall in to what is being stated.

 

[idav]

Right, and that is EXACTLY the Christian view, that God existed in a state of timelessness until the first act of creation, which is when the first change occurred.

Of course Christians conveniently apply infinite concept to god but god would become change once he stepped out of timlessness. Which is how I work out creation and creator being one and the same.

 

[EtuMalku]

The Abrahamic god has to be perfect because it says so in the Christian bible and the Christian bible is the word of the Abrahamic god . . . or it/he isn't.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I suspect it doesn’t make sense to you because you’ve banged off a reply rather quickly without understanding or properly reading what has been stated?

Oh, I read it.

I said:

“There isn’t a “point at which time didn’t exist” as that implies a period in time, when actually there would be nothing at all. There is only the “point” where material existence and time itself began.”

It was your statement: “a point at which time didn’t exist” that doesn’t make sense, as I explained to you, because a “point at which time didn’t exist” implies what there isn’t, i.e. a point in time! In other words there was no time before it existed. There is only the point at which things began, which is to say the beginning of time!

Right! But if you posit the concept of a temporal beginning (as you are), you would NEED A TIMELESS entity to provide a explanation of this temporal beginning and that explanation cannot be natural or material, because any kind of nature or material must be in TIME.

And nowhere in the argument is it stated or implied that time extends backwards eternally, which I would have thought obvious if time is said to have begun. Please read the argument!

But it is implied!!! Here is a breakdown...please read.

Now, between both of us, we BOTH believe in the concept of eternity. Something is eternal, right? Either the God that I think exists is eternal...or the universe that you think exists independent of God is eternal (and by "universe", I mean ANY kind of natural reality which exists regardless of where it is in space). So either God is eternal, or the universe is eternal...and we draw these conclusions based on the fact that we exist in a universe, and neither the universe nor mankinds existence could have came from a state of non-being, right? So, some kind of existence transcends our own...either a super-reality, or a natural reality....something is eternal here...so we both believe in an eternal "x", right?

My view: God is a supernatural being which created the universe, and as I reflect on the universe, certain arguments can be made which allows me to draw the conclusion of creationism. Now, on my view, before the universe was created, God existed in a timeless and changless state for all eternity. Time simply did not apply to God before creation. God was in a motionless and stationary state for all eternity, yet perfectly content...with an eternal will to create the universe. Now, how is he timeless? If he never moved or began to do anything (before creation), time did not apply to him. There were never any moments prior, so there couldn't be any moment after...as there isn't even a "present" moment. Now...13.7 billion years ago (or whenever), God made his first movement, the first act of creation...and from that VERY moment of motion...the first change was produced, thus giving birth to time itself....so time began...and thus God has forever become temporal...as time is moving forward infinitely into the future (potential infinity).

So, on that note, the ONLY way time could begin to exist would have to be from a timeless cause. I don't know how you can posit a beginning of time without God, and ANYTHING you posit would have to itself be in time, and there is no way you can logically think otherwise without running in to absurdity.

All material things are in time, all things in time are contingent, but not all contingent things must be material and in time.

Give me one example of something that is contingent but not in time.

The world is all that is the case

The world is contingent, material, and in time.

, and if the world began to exist then the material aspect of existence is in want of a transcendent cause that must also belong to the world.

Based on...?

And this transcendent and sustaining cause of material existence

So it is the cause of material existence, but it is not made up of material? That is a supernatural explanation, cot. To transcend matter is to be immaterial, cot.

, that belongs to the world, is not itself material but it has no necessary association or determination beyond the world as a whole as such a presupposition would evidently be self-contradictory.

If it isn't material, it is immaterial. One or the other. Can't be both. Pick your poison.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Of course Christians conveniently apply infinite concept to god but god would become change once he stepped out of timlessness. Which is how I work out creation and creator being one and the same.

From the first act of creation, God stepped in to time and time itself goes infinitely (potentially) towards the future.

 

[cottage]

But it is implied!!! Here is a breakdown...please read.

Now, between both of us, we BOTH believe in the concept of eternity. Something is eternal, right? Either the God that I think exists is eternal...or the universe that you think exists independent of God is eternal (and by "universe", I mean ANY kind of natural reality which exists regardless of where it is in space). So either God is eternal, or the universe is eternal...and we draw these conclusions based on the fact that we exist in a universe, and neither the universe nor mankinds existence could have came from a state of non-being, right? So, some kind of existence transcends our own...either a super-reality, or a natural reality....something is eternal here...so we both believe in an eternal "x", right?

No, there’s a difference. You believe that God is eternal, in the sense that he has always existed and will always exist. I’m saying the world has not always existed but exists now and can continue to exist infinitely under the terms I explained. So while there is no infinitely backward existence the world is potentially everlasting.

My view: God is a supernatural being which created the universe, and as I reflect on the universe, certain arguments can be made which allows me to draw the conclusion of creationism. Now, on my view, before the universe was created, God existed in a timeless and changless state for all eternity. Time simply did not apply to God before creation. God was in a motionless and stationary state for all eternity, yet perfectly content...with an eternal will to create the universe. Now, how is he timeless? If he never moved or began to do anything (before creation), time did not apply to him. There were never any moments prior, so there couldn't be any moment after...as there isn't even a "present" moment. Now...13.7 billion years ago (or whenever), God made his first movement, the first act of creation...and from that VERY moment of motion...the first change was produced, thus giving birth to time itself....so time began...and thus God has forever become temporal...as time is moving forward infinitely into the future (potential infinity).

So, on that note, the ONLY way time could begin to exist would have to be from a timeless cause. I don't know how you can posit a beginning of time without God, and ANYTHING you posit would have to itself be in time, and there is no way you can logically think otherwise without running in to absurdity.

If you understood my argument you would know that the cause is not in time.
But anyway, I reject your God argument for two particular reasons, which I’ve explained to you in our past discussions, both of which run to a contradiction. First, causality is a contingent principle – and it cannot be both contingent and necessary. So the absurdity we arrive at is that God’s omnipotence and creative ability is causation dependent: it cannot be the former without the latter, and yet the latter (thedenial of which invites no contradiction) means that it cannot be the former! Secondly, considered on their own, neither God nor the world needs a reason for existing. But if God, as a personal and intelligent being, freely chose to create the world then he must have had a reason for doing so. And whatever reason or reasons may be given they will in all cases be contradictory since by definition he is necessarily sufficient in all things.

In contrast, my argument depends on a contingent principle (causality) because the cause itself is contingent, and the immaterial cause has no necessary existence beyond its relationship with the world (the effect) as a whole, and thus there can be no contradictions. My argument applies a contingent principle to contingent being, a principle that is known in experience, whereas yours attempts to endow a non-contingent being with a contingent principle in order to create something from nothing! A direct contradiction twice over!

Give me one example of something that is contingent but not in time.

I said all material things are contingent but not all contingent things must be material (the same as saying: All husbands are men but not all men must be husbands). Contingency applies to objects, concepts and propositions. For example: Pegasus is a mythological creature but it is necessarily true that Pegasus is a horse with wings, and while we cannot logically deny Pegasus its wings there is no contradiction in asserting its non-existence, subject and predicate together, but as a contingent thing its existence is still logically possible.

The world is contingent, material, and in time.

Based on...?

So it is the cause of material existence, but it is not made up of material? That is a supernatural explanation, cot. To transcend matter is to be immaterial, cot.

If it isn't material, it is immaterial. One or the other. Can't be both. Pick your poison.

There is only the world (everything experienced, stated or conceptualized – even God belongs to the world). If the world began then it was caused, and cause and effect belongs to the world of experience. But a material thing cannot be its own cause and therefore all phenomenal/material things are sustained by an immutable cause that transcends and is prior to form and matter but which belongs to the world as a whole. So, in plain language there is the material aspect as the effect and then there is the immaterial, timeless cause, which together forms the world. Now the effect, as the material aspect that is in time, is finite and will wind down but the cause, being immaterial and not constrained by time, winds it up again, renewing form and matter and thus a material existence can continue indefinitely.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, there’s a difference. You believe that God is eternal, in the sense that he has always existed and will always exist.

True.

I’m saying the world has not always existed but exists now and can continue to exist infinitely under the terms I explained. So while there is no infinitely backward existence the world is potentially everlasting.

I honestly don't know what the heck you are talking about man.

If you understood my argument you would know that the cause is not in time.

What can be material and contingent and not be in time?

But anyway, I reject your God argument for two particular reasons, which I’ve explained to you in our past discussions, both of which run to a contradiction. First, causality is a contingent principle – and it cannot be both contingent and necessary.

That is actually a good point, but not for you lol. Well, it is good that you noticed a flaw, in particular with the argument from contingency. I mean, like you said, it cannot be both contingent and necessary. So, it is just necessary..and here is why...

If God had an eternal will to create the universe, he cannot make a decision other than what he KNOW that he would do, right? So if he had an eternal will to create the universe, that would make the universes existence necessary, because it couldn't be otherwise. Now the argument from contingency basically says that since the universe "didn't have to be here" but yet it is here, this cries out of an explanation. But this seems to be false if the universe had to be here based on God's eternal will for it to be here. So you are right, it cannot be both contingent and necessary...so it is just necessary.

So the absurdity we arrive at is that God’s omnipotence and creative ability is causation dependent: it cannot be the former without the latter, and yet the latter (thedenial of which invites no contradiction) means that it cannot be the former!

I really don't understand this, cot...break it down for me...slow lol.

Secondly, considered on their own, neither God nor the world needs a reason for existing.

The world does, God doesn't.

But if God, as a personal and intelligent being, freely chose to create the world then he must have had a reason for doing so. And whatever reason or reasons may be given they will in all cases be contradictory since by definition he is necessarily sufficient in all things.

I don't understand how God being "necessarily sufficient in all things" is contradictory to him having reasons or reasons for freely choosing to create the world.

In contrast, my argument depends on a contingent principle (causality) because the cause itself is contingent

I would like to know the exact point at which this conclusion was drawn.

, and the immaterial cause has no necessary existence beyond its relationship with the world (the effect) as a whole, and thus there can be no contradictions. My argument applies a contingent principle to contingent being, a principle that is known in experience, whereas yours attempts to endow a non-contingent being with a contingent principle in order to create something from nothing! A direct contradiction twice over!

Saying im lost is an understatement.

I said all material things are contingent but not all contingent things must be material (the same as saying: All husbands are men but not all men must be husbands).

And what is the universe....material!

There is only the world (everything experienced, stated or conceptualized – even God belongs to the world). If the world began then it was caused, and cause and effect belongs to the world of experience. But a material thing cannot be its own cause and therefore all phenomenal/material things are sustained by an immutable cause that transcends and is prior to form and matter but which belongs to the world as a whole.

How does this negate the existence of God?

So, in plain language there is the material aspect as the effect and then there is the immaterial, timeless cause, which together forms the world. Now the effect, as the material aspect that is in time, is finite and will wind down but the cause, being immaterial and not constrained by time, winds it up again, renewing form and matter and thus a material existence can continue indefinitely.

Apparently there is this phantom gou of immaterial-ness that is not God......and there has been no attempt made to explain exactly what this is. What is it? What is "being immaterial and not contrained by time". What?

 

[cottage]

What can be material and contingent and not be in time?

Nothing! I think you're misreading me

That is actually a good point, but not for you lol. Well, it is good that you noticed a flaw, in particular with the argument from contingency. I mean, like you said, it cannot be both contingent and necessary. So, it is just necessary..and here is why...

If God had an eternal will to create the universe, he cannot make a decision other than what he KNOW that he would do, right? So if he had an eternal will to create the universe, that would make the universes existence necessary, because it couldn't be otherwise. Now the argument from contingency basically says that since the universe "didn't have to be here" but yet it is here, this cries out of an explanation. But this seems to be false if the universe had to be here based on God's eternal will for it to be here. So you are right, it cannot be both contingent and necessary...so it is just necessary.

Well, I see you’ve not understood what it is I’m saying. And the Argument from Contingency has no relevance to the point I’m making here, and in any case I’ve already given my objections to that argument but you didn’t seem to understand that either and so I’ve articulated it more fully down the page. But I’ll try again with the causal problem first. Please go to the next quote.

really don't understand this, cot...break it down for me...slow lol.

Blimey, you are hard work! J

Your argument is that God caused the world to come into being, i.e. as an effect, but cause and effect is a contingent principle. And if you acknowledge that causality is contingent, which you must as no contradiction is involved in denying its necessity (and it can’t be both contingent and necessary), then you are saying, nonsensically, that your necessary being used a contingent principle to create contingent existence. But things get worse. We know the material world is not logically necessary; it simply doesn’t have to be. But… if we agree that the material world isn’t logically necessary then where does the legend: ‘Everything that begins to exist must have a cause’ have its logical foundation? (See my Antithesis) An unintended consequence of that mantra is to say that what is true of our world (cause and effect) is also true of God, who must bring the world into being by means of causality and is thus absurdly dependent upon a feature of the material world. But on that account if the material world need not exist, then same can be said of God as the creator of the world, which of course would be contradictory since the advocates want to say that he is, necessarily so.

I don't understand how God being "necessarily sufficient in all things" is contradictory to him having reasons or reasons for freely choosing to create the world.

Considered in their own right neither God nor the world existing eternally need a reason for being, since there will be nothing external to them, but if the world is created then there must be a reason and a purpose for its being brought into being. It is immediately evident that to say an intelligent, personal 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 are incoherent, given the supposed nature of God. For it is 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. It is a direct contradiction, not a conundrum to be answered with an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I would like to know the exact point at which this conclusion was drawn.

So in response to what I said you want to know at what point it was concluded that causality is contingent!! <cottage is speechless>

Apparently there is this phantom gou of immaterial-ness that is not God......and there has been no attempt made to explain exactly what this is. What is it? What is "being immaterial and not contrained by time". What?

The sustaining cause is simply a non-material aspect of the world, as explained down the page, and no more in need of further explanation than saying “God is a supernatural being”. A supernatural entity is a self-explanatory in terms of it being non-natural and it can only be described metaphysically in terms of what it does. Perhaps you should have asked: “Where did it come?” And the answer to that is it didn’t come from anywhere as there was nothing existent before it, and being immaterial and not bound by time the question of a cause for the cause cannot even be intelligible.



1. The world is all that is the case (everything that can be experienced, stated or conceptualised).

2. The material/phenomenal began to exist and is in want of a cause.

3. If there is a cause for material existence it must belong to the world (as in 1)

Therefore any transcendent cause must belong to the world, including the concept of God. And indeed, that entity can only be thought of in terms of the world, a supposedly necessary being that is absurdly dependent upon a contingent principle to create contingent being, who created the world with no cogent purpose or reason for doing so, and who never intervenes in the sum total of human suffering?

Thus there is no transcendent entity external to the world but only our ideas about the world as in (1) implying a sustaining cause, which, although it must be immaterial and unaffected by time, underlies the phenomenal world and is in essence necessarily part of the world. It came into existence with the world and enables the world’s continued existence. The world is all that is the case.

Paradoxically the argument is in one sense closely related to the antithesis I gave (below). In both cases the world is contingent and came into existence where nothing existed previously. It isn’t pretended that the world necessarily continues into eternity for that isn’t what my argument states, and yet it may do so because the immaterial aspect allows for that, but equally the world might wind down and then cease to be as I suggest below.

The Antithesis
The eternity of the world is rejected.
The world began to exist and there was nothing before the world began to exist (Fundamentally the Big Bang Theory.)
The world has not always existed; there was nothing before the world and with no necessary existence it will one day cease to be. Hence there is no infinite regression or infinite progression of causes. The world is finite, and uncaused since there is no contradiction in denying any necessity in cause and effect, which being a contingent principle belongs to the world; and nor is there any necessity or empirical evidence for acts of creation, no evidence whatsoever, it being nothing more than an arbitrary act of the mind. The world neither created itself nor was it produced from nothing, but appeared where no thing existed previously; and causality being a worldly phenomenon began and will end with the world.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Nothing! I think you're misreading me



Well, I see you’ve not understood what it is I’m saying. And the Argument from Contingency has no relevance to the point I’m making here, and in any case I’ve already given my objections to that argument but you didn’t seem to understand that either and so I’ve articulated it more fully down the page. But I’ll try again with the causal problem first. Please go to the next quote.




Blimey, you are hard work! J

Your argument is that God caused the world to come into being, i.e. as an effect, but cause and effect is a contingent principle. And if you acknowledge that causality is contingent, which you must as no contradiction is involved in denying its necessity (and it can’t be both contingent and necessary), then you are saying, nonsensically, that your necessary being used a contingent principle to create contingent existence. But things get worse. We know the material world is not logically necessary; it simply doesn’t have to be. But… if we agree that the material world isn’t logically necessary then where does the legend: ‘Everything that begins to exist must have a cause’ have its logical foundation? (See my Antithesis) An unintended consequence of that mantra is to say that what is true of our world (cause and effect) is also true of God, who must bring the world into being by means of causality and is thus absurdly dependent upon a feature of the material world. But on that account if the material world need not exist, then same can be said of God as the creator of the world, which of course would be contradictory since the advocates want to say that he is, necessarily so.







Considered in their own right neither God nor the world existing eternally need a reason for being, since there will be nothing external to them, but if the world is created then there must be a reason and a purpose for its being brought into being. It is immediately evident that to say an intelligent, personal 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 are incoherent, given the supposed nature of God. For it is 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. It is a direct contradiction, not a conundrum to be answered with an argumentum ad ignorantiam.






So in response to what I said you want to know at what point it was concluded that causality is contingent!! <cottage is speechless>




The sustaining cause is simply a non-material aspect of the world, as explained down the page, and no more in need of further explanation than saying “God is a supernatural being”. A supernatural entity is a self-explanatory in terms of it being non-natural and it can only be described metaphysically in terms of what it does. Perhaps you should have asked: “Where did it come?” And the answer to that is it didn’t come from anywhere as there was nothing existent before it, and being immaterial and not bound by time the question of a cause for the cause cannot even be intelligible.



1. The world is all that is the case (everything that can be experienced, stated or conceptualised).

2. The material/phenomenal began to exist and is in want of a cause.

3. If there is a cause for material existence it must belong to the world (as in 1)

Therefore any transcendent cause must belong to the world, including the concept of God. And indeed, that entity can only be thought of in terms of the world, a supposedly necessary being that is absurdly dependent upon a contingent principle to create contingent being, who created the world with no cogent purpose or reason for doing so, and who never intervenes in the sum total of human suffering?

Thus there is no transcendent entity external to the world but only our ideas about the world as in (1) implying a sustaining cause, which, although it must be immaterial and unaffected by time, underlies the phenomenal world and is in essence necessarily part of the world. It came into existence with the world and enables the world’s continued existence. The world is all that is the case.

Paradoxically the argument is in one sense closely related to the antithesis I gave (below). In both cases the world is contingent and came into existence where nothing existed previously. It isn’t pretended that the world necessarily continues into eternity for that isn’t what my argument states, and yet it may do so because the immaterial aspect allows for that, but equally the world might wind down and then cease to be as I suggest below.

The Antithesis
The eternity of the world is rejected.
The world began to exist and there was nothing before the world began to exist (Fundamentally the Big Bang Theory.)
The world has not always existed; there was nothing before the world and with no necessary existence it will one day cease to be. Hence there is no infinite regression or infinite progression of causes. The world is finite, and uncaused since there is no contradiction in denying any necessity in cause and effect, which being a contingent principle belongs to the world; and nor is there any necessity or empirical evidence for acts of creation, no evidence whatsoever, it being nothing more than an arbitrary act of the mind. The world neither created itself nor was it produced from nothing, but appeared where no thing existed previously; and causality being a worldly phenomenon began and will end with the world.

Would rather have this convo either in messenger or over the phone.

 

[cottage]

Would rather have this convo either in messenger or over the phone.

I’m sorry but with all due respect I would rather we continue here. To have the discussion via messenger or telephone would make it exclusive and personal when, if anything, it would surely be better if more people joined us in both sides of the debate?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I’m sorry but with all due respect I would rather we continue here. To have the discussion via messenger or telephone would make it exclusive and personal when, if anything, it would surely be better if more people joined us in both sides of the debate?

What a pity...

 

[Sha'irullah]

Before anyone argues on whether god is perfect we must all decide upon what is the definition fo perfect because many agnostics and atheists are utterly clueless on this.

The common argument is that somehow perfection implies moral absolution which is simply not the case.

Perfect - "Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be"

Anything that creates in accordance as theists claim is by default perfect. Perfection is only relative to the quality and subjective bias you wish it to be applied to.

You could say that god is not perfect in morality but then the counter question would be "does morality have anything to do with god". This is also a straw-man because morality is subjective to begin with on either side in relation to other religions or lack there of.

There is another false statement many non-theists will make. Which is that god is not perfect because the world is not 'perfectly' suited for mankind. This is as vain as theists claiming that the world is designed for mankind. Why on earth would anyone believe that this world id created for us? As far as possibly conceivable the universe could be created for the benefit of stars and God may have created Betelgeuse to be the savior of all the galaxies! Humans could just be a useless byproduct of this which is necessary for another unrelated issue.

Perfection can only be applied to what is immediately observable about the creation and nature of it's existence not the intent of something upon a singular entity that ironically is deciding the perfection of the creator.