RE: God is so quiet
February 12, 2018 at 12:07 am
(This post was last modified: February 12, 2018 at 12:22 am by SteveII.)
(February 11, 2018 at 11:39 pm)possibletarian Wrote:(February 11, 2018 at 10:42 pm)SteveII Wrote: Because words have meanings.
Brute fact: a fact that has no explanation
Necessary object: an object that exists by necessity of its own nature
Contingent object: an object that relies on something else for its existence.
If God exists, then part of what we are saying is that there exists a being that is the ultimate cause of all reality. If that is not what we are talking about, then we are not talking about God. God has a pretty standard definition. Therefore IF God exists, he does so necessarily--not contingently.
Why do you believe there has to be a cause of reality ? What possible explanation can something that has always existed have for existing ?
I don't think that there has to be a cause of reality. If God existed by himself from eternity past, that would still be reality. Regarding your second question, that is why they have a special term for it: existing necessarily--the reason for its existence is found within the object itself. Logic demands that there has to be at least one necessarily existing object that can cause all other contingent things.
Quote:Quote:It does not follow that if our cosmos is contingent, then so is God--at all. The argument is if our cosmos is contingent, what properties would a first cause have to have? Beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and intentional?
When you get down to it, those properties sound a lot like God.
Well yes definitions made to look like a god, surprisingly look like a god, but do any of those really exist outside of the mind , when applied to a thinking supernatural being ?
The universe can be proven to exist, to add made up supernatural beings and intention is is just daft.
You might be happy with the the universe being a brute fact and live a full and complete life in spite of the question. Others are not happy with that conclusion and go through all kinds of machinations to avoid discussing a possible "first cause". Still others find other compelling reasons to believe in God and are interested in knowing if the natural world supports their conclusions arrived at from other sources.
(February 11, 2018 at 11:56 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:(February 11, 2018 at 11:05 pm)SteveII Wrote: Like I said above. One such possible world is one that only has God or something like him--a immaterial mind if you will. There--a possible world with no concrete objects.
Sure. But that wouldn’t be nothing. It would still be a world with a mind in it. Yes?
Quote:This very clearly illustrates that the physical cosmos could have failed to exist.
Its current state? Yes, I agree. I’m saying reality itself cannot fail to be, because there is no logical alternative.
Quote:You can argue that some existence medium must exist to have a possible world.
Yes, that is exactly what I’m arguing.
Quote:However, if it does not have to be OUR cosmos, then our cosmos could have failed to exist and therefore it is contingent on something else.
I tentatively agree. What are you including/excluding in your definition of cosmos?
Cosmos--all material/physical objects and their effects that exist in our reality.
If you agree that our cosmos could have failed to exists, what do you think caused it? Or, do you accept it as a brute fact with no explanation.
Quote:
(February 11, 2018 at 11:34 pm)SteveII Wrote: I agree with that! If God exists, there was always a "reality". There might not be a logical alternative (or at least its a meaningless question).
We sort of agree on something?! *high five*
The difference is, I think think your God is superfluous within this proposition. If reality is necessarily real, what do we a god for?
*high five*
As to the cosmological question, God avoids having to admit the universe/cosmos is a brute fact. It also established some probability that he exists that can be used as part of a cumulative case. Remember, this is not proof of God--an inductive argument supplies evidence/reasons to believe the conclusion is true--not proof of the conclusion.
Quote:Addendum:
Tibs and Steel said we are incorrect in our use of the word “existence”. They say ‘existence’ is a descriptive term only; not a noun, and that there is no such thing as, “a state of existence.” You guys agree or disagree?
I think 'existence' is a noun. 'Exists' is the verb form and 'existing' is the adjective.
