for fun any passing atheist is welcome to a go round on this argument
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
6. Therefore God exists.
Yes, this is the most basic attribute of God: being that does not arise from anything else and is not dependent on anything else. What the nature of this necessary being is, is a question that arises only after we reach this basic definition. We have to let go of all of the concepts that arise from the mere word "God," and just start here.
ReplyDelete1. Something exists.
ReplyDeleteOkay.
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
These need defining, but okay,
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
Why? Prove contingent things cannot appear spontaneously. Prove there is no infinite regression. until you do, this is just your opinion.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
Okay, once you prove number 3.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
Why? Why should we imagine a necessary thing has to be intelligent?
This is, I think, the big one. You are making a huge leap from necessary to God on the basis that you want the necessary thing to be God.
Pix
I have three responses:
ReplyDeleteFirst, I am unconvinced that Premise 3 is true. It seems to me entirely possible that only contingent things exist. (Where a contingent thing is such that it is neither necessary that it exists nor impossible that it exists.)
Second, I am unconvinced that necessity correctly applies to things. This objection derives from Quine, who suggested that necessity is a property of propositions (or perhaps relations), but not of things. Near-quote: "Necessity is not in the world, but in the way we talk about the world."
Third, I am unconvinced of Premise 5. Even assuming the coherence of applying necessity to things, the necessity of a thing does not imply any additional attributes, and a fortiori any of the attributes traditionally ascribed to God.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete1. Something exists.
Okay.
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
These need defining, but okay,
Necessary: either not dependent for existence upon prior existent, or it would be a contradiction for it not to exist.
Contingent: depends for existence upon prior cause or existent, and/or could cease or fail to exist.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
Why? Prove contingent things cannot appear spontaneously. Prove there is no infinite regression. until you do, this is just your opinion.
we never observe something from nothing
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
Okay, once you prove number 3.
your burden: something from nothing
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
Why? Why should we imagine a necessary thing has to be intelligent?
This is, I think, the big one. You are making a huge leap from necessary to God on the basis that you want the necessary thing to be God.
Pix
uncaused eternal existence is definitional for God.
12:52 PM
Delete
ReplyDeleteBlogger Eric Sotnak said...
I have three responses:
First, I am unconvinced that Premise 3 is true. It seems to me entirely possible that only contingent things exist. (Where a contingent thing is such that it is neither necessary that it exists nor impossible that it exists.)
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
b is another way of saying things need causes. so you are saying I'm not convinced things need causes. show me something that came to exist with no cause.
Second, I am unconvinced that necessity correctly applies to things. This objection derives from Quine, who suggested that necessity is a property of propositions (or perhaps relations), but not of things. Near-quote: "Necessity is not in the world, but in the way we talk about the world."
Another term for necessary in this argumemt would be uncaused eternal existence. That applies negatively to things. caused temporal existence applies to things.
Third, I am unconvinced of Premise 5. Even assuming the coherence of applying necessity to things, the necessity of a thing does not imply any additional attributes, and a fortiori any of the attributes traditionally ascribed to God.
I don't get it. I would think the first two justify the third" 5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.' definition of God is eternal uncaused existence, or being itself. It fits the definition of God it's logical to think of it as God
I may use this as Wednesday's post
9:19 AM
your burden: something from nothing
ReplyDeleteNo it is not. Your argument is based on the premise that we cannot get something from nothing, therefore the burden is on you to substantiate that claim.
uncaused eternal existence is definitional for God.
No, Joe, the definition of God is not "something that has uncaused eternal existence". Go look in a dictionary! You are just pretending that to make your argument work.
Pix
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteNo, Joe, the definition of God is not "something that has uncaused eternal existence". Go look in a dictionary! You are just pretending that to make your argument work.
You are using Westminster, you don't even know what is. which you take for definition of a legal term Webster's or blacks law? so why use general dictionary for theology? use a theological dictionary.
Yes eternal necessary beg is definitional for God. God = being itself.
self evidence does not require proof. It's self evidence there is no something from nothing. even Science says it (Newton). I said show me one thing, you have not done it.
Necessary: either not dependent for existence upon prior existent, or it would be a contradiction for it not to exist.
ReplyDeleteContingent: depends for existence upon prior cause or existent, and/or could cease or fail to exist.
- Consider something that exists as a brute fact. Let's say that some kind of physical substrate exists, and has always existed. This is the thing that you might call a quantum field, and from this field virtual particles arise, and various other quantum events, including cosmic inflation, from which the universe itself arises. And note that there was no time before the universe, because space and time are inseparable (please read your physics to understand the truth of that claim). Therefore this substrate, as I call it, must be eternal. It isn't dependent on anything to create it, and yet it would not be a contradiction for this substrate to fail to exist. Is it necessary or is it contingent? Well, if you claim that this quantum field must exist, then it's necessary - but is it God? And who says it must exist? It just does.
It seems to me that your argument is lacking something. It excludes the logical possibility of something that is neither necessary nor contingent according to your definition. That would be a brute fact, that can be eternal (non-contingent) and still not necessarily exist. This is called the fallacy of the excluded middle.
im-skeptical said...
ReplyDeleteNecessary: either not dependent for existence upon prior existent, or it would be a contradiction for it not to exist.
Contingent: depends for existence upon prior cause or existent, and/or could cease or fail to exist.
- Consider something that exists as a brute fact. Let's say that some kind of physical substrate exists, and has always existed.
First you need to define brute fact. it's not certain they exist. Depends upon how you define it,
This is the thing that you might call a quantum field, and from this field virtual particles arise, and various other quantum events, including cosmic inflation, from which the universe itself arises. And note that there was no time before the universe, because space and time are inseparable (please read your physics to understand the truth of that claim).
You call it BF because you buy the idea that they pop out of nothing for no reason, That will damps upon how we define BF. Moreover ot is not proven that anything pops out of nothing for reason. Since has ever been known to do thatI see no reason to assume this has. Virtual particles do not come from nothing they come particles that come from Vacuum flux
Therefore this substrate, as I call it, must be eternal. It isn't dependent on anything to create it, and yet it would not be a contradiction for this substrate to fail to exist. Is it necessary or is it contingent? Well, if you claim that this quantum field must exist, then it's necessary - but is it God? And who says it must exist? It just does.
If it's eternal why should we not think of it as God? It not eternal because it is said to pop out of nothing, It begins it didn't always exist.
It seems to me that your argument is lacking something. It excludes the logical possibility of something that is neither necessary nor contingent according to your definition.
Simply wrong that's P2 no third thing,in terms of being,
That would be a brute fact, that can be eternal (non-contingent) and still not necessarily exist. This is called the fallacy of the excluded middle.
9:42 PM
You are conflating brute fact with eternality nothing in brute factcisty that makes it eternal.
Think: God us eternal necessary being. If Vacuum flux is eternal it is necessary thus eternal necessary being,
First you need to define brute fact. it's not certain they exist. Depends upon how you define it
ReplyDelete- I thought it was pretty clear from my comment: something that is neither necessary nor contingent, as I went to pains to explain. In philosophy, a brute fact is something that has no explanation. Things are explained either in terms of causation or necessity. So something that is contingent (is caused by something else) is not a brute fact, and God (whose existence is necessary, according to theists) is not a brute fact. But the quantum field has no beginning to its existence - it causes things but is not caused, and it is also possible for it not to exist without creating a contradiction. It is a brute fact.
You call it BF because you buy the idea that they pop out of nothing for no reason
- Nope. The quantum field is the source of things that pop into existence. But it doesn't do that itself. It just exists.
If it's eternal why should we not think of it as God?
- Because God (as Christians define it) has the property of rational intellect and intention. The quantum field does not. Things just happen. There is no design - no plan. That's not the way you think of God.
You are conflating brute fact with eternality nothing in brute factcisty that makes it eternal.
- Oh, yes - it has to be eternal. It exists outside of time. It is what space-time arises from.
Think: God us eternal necessary being. If Vacuum flux is eternal it is necessary thus eternal necessary being,
- Being eternal does make something necessary. It can be simply something that exists, but doesn't have to exist.