God is so quiet

[GrandizerII]

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.

Universe, here, meaning this local universe. Just to be clear.

If we're talking the totality of all things in existence (cosmos or whatever), then I think it is necessary because logic mandates it. But then, wouldn't this mean it's contingent on logical absolutes? But logical absolutes are abstract, aren't they? How do they exist independently of concrete things?

Honestly, this whole thing gets me all confused when I think too deeply about it. Which is why I'm starting to think (and this is an advice mainly for me more than anyone else) that it's better to get theists to realize that God isn't in any better situation with regards to this whole necessary vs. contingent thing, and that if the whole cosmos is contingent, then so is God (after all, theists haven't shown that it's logically impossible for God to exist in one possible world and not exist in another, or that God does not depend on some necessary thing for its existence; they only assert that their God is necessary), and vice versa (if God is necessary, why not the cosmos). And so in this case, we go straight to the infamous razor and cut God out (no God needed).

[pocaracas]

God isn't in any better situation with regards to this whole necessary vs. contingent thing, and that if the whole cosmos is contingent, then so is God (after all, theists haven't shown that it's logically impossible for God to exist in one possible world and not exist in another, or that God does not depend on some necessary thing for its existence; they only assert that their God is necessary), and vice versa (if God is necessary, why not the cosmos). And so in this case, we go straight to the infamous razor and cut God out (no God needed).

(my bold)
They claim that there is one necessary thing and to this thing they call god. Not the other way around, like you're implying.
Although, a case can be made that the whole philosophy was developed to arrive at this particular outcome.

What is not entirely demonstrated, because reality is weirder than our logic would suggest based on our sampling of the rules on this corner of the cosmos, is that there need be such a necessary thing in the first place.

The infinite regress (that can be claimed to come about through the establishment of space-time, the cosmos, as the most necessary thing) can be avoided if one notes that it is possible for time to exist and yet not pass - a photon, traveling at the speed of light, does not age.

[Angrboda]

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

Yes--because the definition of God literally contains the notion that he is not contingent. If you try to insert that he is contingent, you get an infinite regress--and therefore meaningless to insert that concept. 

As a matter of principle, God's necessity is an accidental property, not an essential one. God would still be identifiable as God if he were contingent, so necessity isn't essential to the definition of God. You may believe in a God who by your requirements is a necessary being, but that is you putting conditions upon your belief, not an indictment of the concept of a contingent god. In a way similar to Kant's example that a hundred imaginary thalars share the same properties as a hundred actually existing thalars, a God that is contingent shares all the same essential properties as a God whose existence is necessary. They are in essence the same.

As a response to the general question argued, no, a possible world where nothing exists is not logically possible because if nothing exists, then there is no "world" there. The universe is defined as everything that exists. You simply cannot have a "world" where neither God nor the universe exists, because that by definition is nothing, not a world. Duh. A possible world by definition is everything that exists; if you have no thing, you don't have a world. So, no, the universe doesn't fit your definition of what makes something contingent, even if I agreed with it, which I don't. (You are also unintentionally conflating imagine with conceive. You can imagine a situation where nothing exists. Whether you can conceive a situation in which nothing exists, using your definition of "logically possible" is a higher bar, and one you haven't demonstrated.)

ps. I'd like your input on the following post, HERE.

[Abaddon_ire]

I listened. There might be a point to make about the possibility God created the universe and in doing so ceased to exist. However, that is only a solution to the argument and does not address the rest of the reasons to think God exists (personal experience, people claiming to be changed/minor miracles, the NT, etc.). As I have always stated, the case for Christianity is cumulative. 

Also, don't buy the nonsense of going through the premises and having Matt say the conclusion does not follow. He knows very well that is the summary version and discussion on the crucial premises take pages and pages to show the reasoning. I think there is 60 pages in my Natural Theology textbook on this argument alone.

---

Your whole point boils down to your opinion that an explanation is not needed. What came first, your opinion that one is not needed or that your worldview does not have one? 

God is not a brute fact. All these words have specific meaning. Learn what they are.

That's the silliest reply I've seen to date
How could god not be a brute fact to someone who believes god needs no explanation for its existence ?

How could god not be a brute fact to someone who believes in no god at all?

[GrandizerII]

God isn't in any better situation with regards to this whole necessary vs. contingent thing, and that if the whole cosmos is contingent, then so is God (after all, theists haven't shown that it's logically impossible for God to exist in one possible world and not exist in another, or that God does not depend on some necessary thing for its existence; they only assert that their God is necessary), and vice versa (if God is necessary, why not the cosmos). And so in this case, we go straight to the infamous razor and cut God out (no God needed).

(my bold)
They claim that there is one necessary thing and to this thing they call god. Not the other way around, like you're implying.

Unless you elaborate on what you mean, I don't think I'm wrong here. God, by definition, is necessary (according to them). If God is not necessary, he is not God. Again, according to them.

What is not entirely demonstrated, because reality is weirder than our logic would suggest based on our sampling of the rules on this corner of the cosmos, is that there need be such a necessary thing in the first place.

And yet reality can be even weirder. Perhaps, there isn't really, in the sense that even that which we deem necessary is dependent on something for its existence. Perhaps, logical absolutes and the substance of the cosmos depend on each other. Without one or the other, neither can exist.

The infinite regress (that can be claimed to come about through the establishment of space-time, the cosmos, as the most necessary thing) can be avoided if one notes that it is possible for time to exist and yet not pass - a photon, traveling at the speed of light, does not age.

You mean the B-theory of time? I agree.

[Amarok]

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.

I can't conceive of a world were abstracts are not tied to real phenomenon

[pocaracas]

(my bold)
They claim that there is one necessary thing and to this thing they call god. Not the other way around, like you're implying.

Unless you elaborate on what you mean, I don't think I'm wrong here. God, by definition, is necessary (according to them). If God is not necessary, he is not God. Again, according to them.

I mean that their arguments establishes that a purely necessary thing must exist and only then do they call it god. Then they work the other way and fill up this god with a bunch of features.

The infinite regress (that can be claimed to come about through the establishment of space-time, the cosmos, as the most necessary thing) can be avoided if one notes that it is possible for time to exist and yet not pass - a photon, traveling at the speed of light, does not age.

You mean the B-theory of time? I agree.

No, I don't mean that.... but I'd put that in as one of those weird features... at least a possible one.

[GrandizerII]

I mean that their arguments establishes that a purely necessary thing must exist and only then do they call it god. Then they work the other way and fill up this god with a bunch of features.

I see what you mean, and maybe this is so in some arguments. But with the modal ontological one, they have to define God as necessary before making the argument. Otherwise, it would be even more useless than it already is.

You mean the B-theory of time? I agree.

No, I don't mean that.... but I'd put that in as one of those weird features... at least a possible one.

Ok, I'm curious now. I thought you were referring to that because it fits what you were describing. Einsteinian Relativity implies the B-theory of time. I'm not that sophisticated when it comes to physics.

[pocaracas]

Ok, I'm curious now. I thought you were referring to that because it fits what you were describing. Einsteinian Relativity implies the B-theory of time. I'm not that sophisticated when it comes to physics.

(my bold)
Does it?
I wonder how that works...

[GrandizerII]

Ok, I'm curious now. I thought you were referring to that because it fits what you were describing. Einsteinian Relativity implies the B-theory of time. I'm not that sophisticated when it comes to physics.

(my bold)
Does it?
I wonder how that works...

So I don't do this injustice, I'll refer you to this Wiki link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

B-theory in theoretical physics

The B-theory of time has received support from the physics community.[17][18] This is likely due to its compatibility with physics and the fact that many theories such as special relativity, the ADD model, and brane cosmology, point to a theory of time similar to B-theory.

In special relativity, the relativity of simultaneity shows that there's no unique present, and that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment.

Many of special relativity's now-proven counter-intuitive predictions, such as length contraction and time dilation, are a result of this. Relativity of simultaneity is often taken to imply eternalism (and hence a B-theory of time), where the present for different observers is a time slice of the four dimensional universe. This is demonstrated in the Rietdijk–Putnam argument and additionally in an advanced form of this argument called the Andromeda paradox, created by mathematical physicist Roger Penrose.[19]

It is therefore common (though not universal), for B-theorists to be four-dimensionalists, that is, to believe that objects are extended in time as well as in space and therefore have temporal as well as spatial parts. This is sometimes called a time-slice ontology.[20]