(February 11, 2018 at 8:33 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 11, 2018 at 8:10 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Also jumping the shark on the idea one can imagine the universe not existing . And talking about a negation is not the same as being able to conceptualize it the universe not existing .

---

There is literally nothing that makes any god necessary. I can easily think of a universe lacking any god that has every been described to me . In decades have never been able to do the same with all of existence.

Yes, and that is the flaw in Steve's wording earlier. If one can conceive of God not existing in a possible world, then that makes God not necessary.

But of course, in order for arguments like the argument from contingency and the modal ontological argument to work, God has to be deemed a necessary being in the eyes of theists defending those arguments. So perhaps Steve shouldn't have said anything about conceiving, and just stuck to God by definition is necessary, lol.

And, yeah, theists pretty much force a difference between God and the universe in terms of modality when there is none, because they have to. Otherwise, how else would they explain the existence of the universe by appealing to the one God that they adhere to? If the universe can exist independent of God, then there's no point to God, and they can't have that.

I think Matt D. brings up a point worth noting about the argument from contingency by noting the distinction between causal contingency and sustained contingency.  The argument itself is not an argument for sustained contingency...Not that that is its only problem Ofc. We have the Bible to fill in  those blanks I guess. 😏

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l6esL6yz52Q

(February 11, 2018 at 8:33 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 11, 2018 at 8:10 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Also jumping the shark on the idea one can imagine the universe not existing . And talking about a negation is not the same as being able to conceptualize it the universe not existing .

---

There is literally nothing that makes any god necessary. I can easily think of a universe lacking any god that has every been described to me . In decades have never been able to do the same with all of existence.

Yes, and that is the flaw in Steve's wording earlier. If one can conceive of God not existing in a possible world, then that makes God not necessary.

But of course, in order for arguments like the argument from contingency and the modal ontological argument to work, God has to be deemed a necessary being in the eyes of theists defending those arguments. So perhaps Steve shouldn't have said anything about conceiving, and just stuck to God by definition is necessary, lol. 

You are confused because you still don't have the terminology down. I said that "if God exists, he exists necessarily". That means he is not contingent. Think about it--if God exists in the actual world, there are no set of contingent facts you can tinker with in a possible world (which are the rules to "possible world" semantics) where God does not exist because you have already established that his existence does not rely on any contingent facts. 

Quote:And, yeah, theists pretty much force a difference between God and the universe in terms of modality when there is none, because they have to. Otherwise, how else would they explain the existence of the universe by appealing to the one God that they adhere to? If the universe can exist independent of God, then there's no point to God, and they can't have that.

You have failed to explain why the universe is not contingent (like Rickle's said it was). 'Contingent' means caused by something else. 

I can save you a lot of time and tell you your only option is to say that the universe (or multiverse) is a brute fact (a fact that has no explanation). You could go on for a dozen more pages throwing all kinds of misconceptions at the wall, but at the end of the day, professional atheist philosophers say the universe is a brute fact and that will be where you will eventually arrive. My point on this matter will always be that my worldview has an explanation--which I think is superior to no explanation--which is what you have.

---

(February 11, 2018 at 8:47 am)Grandizer Wrote: Oh, I just remembered what the thread OP is about. So while Steve continues to argue for, and defend, his God ... where is God again? Sleeping, or can't be fucked to deal with us puny beings?

I answered that. You gave an answer that was clear you were not interested in a discussion. We have moved on. 

https://atheistforums.org/post-1698863.html#pid1698863

(February 11, 2018 at 9:15 am)SteveII Wrote: I said that "if God exists, he exists necessarily". That means he is not contingent. Think about it--if God exists in the actual world, there are no set of contingent facts you can tinker with in a possible world (which are the rules to "possible world" semantics) where God does not exist because you have already established that his existence does not rely on any contingent facts. 

A strange statement, considering you merely asserted it and then breathlessly claimed it had been demonstrated by that assertion.  I see no reason to conclude that gods wouldn't be contingent beings, if gods existed.  Pantheons are full of contingent gods, your "jesus"...likewise, a contingent being.

Quote: My point on this matter will always be that my worldview has an explanation--which I think is superior to no explanation--which is what you have.

A shitty "explanation" isn't an improvement over no explanation Steve.

(February 11, 2018 at 9:15 am)SteveII Wrote:

(February 11, 2018 at 8:33 am)Grandizer Wrote: Yes, and that is the flaw in Steve's wording earlier. If one can conceive of God not existing in a possible world, then that makes God not necessary.

But of course, in order for arguments like the argument from contingency and the modal ontological argument to work, God has to be deemed a necessary being in the eyes of theists defending those arguments. So perhaps Steve shouldn't have said anything about conceiving, and just stuck to God by definition is necessary, lol. 

You are confused because you still don't have the terminology down. I said that "if God exists, he exists necessarily". That means he is not contingent. Think about it--if God exists in the actual world, there are no set of contingent facts you can tinker with in a possible world (which are the rules to "possible world" semantics) where God does not exist because you have already established that his existence does not rely on any contingent facts.

So God is, by definition, necessary (according to what you just argued).

Quote:You have failed to explain why the universe is not contingent (like Rickle's said it was). 'Contingent' means caused by something else.

Yes, and I agree, that per the definition that contingency has to do with dependencies (not just causal, by the way), then the universe is contingent. But it is not necessarily contingent on God.

(February 11, 2018 at 8:49 am)SteveII Wrote: [quote='Grandizer' pid='1700322' dateline='1518320289']

Why do you always do this thing where you think you know it all, and people disagreeing with you are dumb? You're not even addressing what I'm asking you here.

If the abstract cannot exist without concrete worlds/realities, actual or not, then how can there be a possibly actual world (reality) where only the abstract exist?
[/quote

Well, for an atheist, you would be claiming that abstract objects exist independent of any world. As a theist, I would just say that these abstract objects are grounded in God. Either way, you don't need a concrete world for them to exist.

But you need existence for abstract objects (or anything else for that matter) to exist, lol.  Abstracts are still things, even if they aren’t concrete objects. I really can’t tell if it genuinely hasn’t clicked for you yet, or if you’re simply hand-waving because you know we’ve made made a valid point.

(February 11, 2018 at 8:57 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 11, 2018 at 8:49 am)SteveII Wrote: Well, for an atheist, you would be claiming that abstract objects exist independent of any world. As a theist, I would just say that these abstract objects are grounded in God. Either way, you don't need a concrete world for them to exist.

I can't conceive of a possible world where abstracts exist in the nothingness.

Why? There is nothing logically wrong with that. Your imagination =/= the word conceive. Conceive means 'logically speaking...'

(February 11, 2018 at 9:15 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(February 11, 2018 at 8:33 am)Grandizer Wrote: Yes, and that is the flaw in Steve's wording earlier. If one can conceive of God not existing in a possible world, then that makes God not necessary.

But of course, in order for arguments like the argument from contingency and the modal ontological argument to work, God has to be deemed a necessary being in the eyes of theists defending those arguments. So perhaps Steve shouldn't have said anything about conceiving, and just stuck to God by definition is necessary, lol.

And, yeah, theists pretty much force a difference between God and the universe in terms of modality when there is none, because they have to. Otherwise, how else would they explain the existence of the universe by appealing to the one God that they adhere to? If the universe can exist independent of God, then there's no point to God, and they can't have that.

I think Matt D. brings up a point worth noting about the argument from contingency by noting the distinction between causal contingency and sustained contingency.  The argument itself is not an argument for sustained contingency...Not that that is its only problem Ofc.  We have the Bible to fill in  those blanks I guess. 😏

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l6esL6yz52Q

Yep, seen that one before. Great video, btw. I love listening to him talk about this stuff.

(February 11, 2018 at 9:15 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(February 11, 2018 at 8:49 am)SteveII Wrote: Well, for an atheist, you would be claiming that abstract objects exist independent of any world. As a theist, I would just say that these abstract objects are grounded in God. Either way, you don't need a concrete world for them to exist.

"The Universe" isn't a concrete object.  It's filled with them.  Every abstract object we're aware of is "grounded" in ourselves..god being one of those things.  If god were a concrete object it would just be another one of the things in the universe.

If we removed all the concrete objects within the universe, what is left?

The universe. LOL, you just asked me what was left after we took all the apples out of the bushel, Steve. How did that not jump out at you?

(February 11, 2018 at 8:08 am)Khemikal Wrote: magic book needs a prequel.

Omg, take that back!  Isn’t the original more than enough bullshit lodged in the throats of man for one life time?!