http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/02/01/three-ontological-arguments/#disqus_thread
Fun filled Friday: what could be ,more fun than the modal Argument?
I was Arguing on Secular outpost about the ontological argument. This guy is coming at it from a scientific perspective. That's not going to cut it. I am challenging atheists to take up this guy's argument where I cut it short.
" All we can say is that the universe is all matter and energy that exist."
The relationship between spacetime and matter/energy is not such that you can easily separate the two. They do not exist apart from one another, so far as we know. When I say "universe" I mean all the stuff and all the substrate, taken as a whole.
I'm entirely unclear on what it would mean for anything to "contain the reason for its own existence." So far as I can tell, the reason for any one thing existing requires that we invoke the operation of physical laws operating on its constituent elements over time.
The relationship between spacetime and matter/energy is not such that you can easily separate the two. They do not exist apart from one another, so far as we know. When I say "universe" I mean all the stuff and all the substrate, taken as a whole.
I'm entirely unclear on what it would mean for anything to "contain the reason for its own existence." So far as I can tell, the reason for any one thing existing requires that we invoke the operation of physical laws operating on its constituent elements over time.
Joe Hinman
what makes the physical laws? you have only energy to go by and along you limit reality to that you can't explain anything or break out of ICR.
DR
I can only begin to guess as to why we have to particular natural laws and physical constants that we do. Isn't that more of a question for the fine-tuning post?
What you seem to be saying is that if X exists necessarily, that implies that the nature of X provides the explanation of why X exists. And you think that the phrase "exists necessarily" is useful, because...?
In other words, is there some particular X (or aggregation of things) which we have discovered to exist in this unique and peculiar way? If not, why do we need to posit the concept?
In other words, is there some particular X (or aggregation of things) which we have discovered to exist in this unique and peculiar way? If not, why do we need to posit the concept?
Joe Hinman
we don't. all of you are missing the point about the nature of necessity as it is used in the OA. At least in terms of the modal argument.DR
Can you point to some phenomenon X which exists necessarily in the sense that people invoke in order to make the modal ontological argument valid and sound? If not, why have any confidence that anything exists necessarily? Indeed, why invent the concept of necessary existence if we've never observed something existing in that very peculiar way?Joe Hinman
sure. being itself. let's suppose that there is an X such that X is the basis of Y...whatever.. Whatever that X stands for has to be there or nothing else would be. so that is true regardless of X being a quark a boson or God. you asserted physical laws that make things happen which is really not done any more but let's go with that. what made the laws? you want special plead and sayIdomn't have to say that I can just assert that it must be naturalistic because burden of proof is on the theist. The very heart and sould of special pleading.
...
so there is an X and since it's the basis of all else we can call it being, the others things are "the beings" so the challenge is to fill in the X.I say we need not assume that X has to conform to our puniy understanding just because we think we can control nature.
\...
that gives us a theoretical basis for using the G word at least in a metaphorical sense if not for more.
No comments:
Post a Comment