God is so quiet

[SteveII]

I have already conceded that there is a possible world where there is nothing except abstract objections--which includes the concept of existence. We can certainly conceive of a world where there are no concrete objects. If you don't think so, show the logic--that's the whole point of possible worlds semantics.

I think the problem many of us have with "abstract objects" is whether they are discovered or invented.
Is mathematics discovered or invented?

Is the concept of the perfect circle a discovery or an invention?
Is the concept of existence a discovery or an invention?

If they are discoveries, then I'd agree with you on there being such a world, or realm, of abstract concepts.
But if they are invented, then they are contingent upon rational minds - minds which, as far as we can tell, are contingent upon working brains, which are contingent upon a whole plethora of biological machinery, which is contingent on chemistry and, ultimately, physics.... the same physics that popped out of the big bang through... who knows?... quantum fluctuations?
So the best guess we have for the only necessary thing is the framework upon which all of existence plays out: space-time.

I agree with your analysis about abstract objects. I for one do not believe they are real objects because I think all those things can be grounded in the mind of God. However, atheists have to wrestle with the question and the consequences of either decision. 

However, why do you say our space-time contains within it an explanation of its existence (the definition of necessary)? Most philosophers consider all concrete objects as contingent.

---

‘Nothing’ cannot be even a possibly actual alternative to existence, because if were actual; if that possibility were to become a reality, it wouldn’t be nothing, it would be a real and actual some kind of thing.  I’m running out of ways to explain this.

---

I have already conceded that there is a possible world where there is nothing except abstract objections--which includes the concept of existence. 

So, you agree that existence exists necessarily then?  So...any god would be superfluous, yes?

I agree that it does not make much sense to argue "existence" point because it does not create a problem for me or solve the problem for you. There still are possible worlds where there are not universes or universes of different kinds. Possible worlds that only have minds, You don't need concrete objects to have a possible world. Therefore our actual universe does not contain within itself an explanation of its existence--it could have failed to exist. If it could have failed to exist, it is contingent. If it is contingent on something else, what is it? It must be something that itself is not contingent (at least somewhere in the chain going back). There must be a first cause.

[SteveII]

About the abstract, not really sure how the abstract can exist independently of the concrete. Existence is abstract, but what does this even mean without something existing concretely to allow for its expression? We may as well speak of non-existence instead of purely abstract existence because they seem to imply the same thing. What does "round" mean without the round objects it describes? What does "space-time" mean without the entity that possesses space-time coordinates? What do "numbers" mean without minds counting things? What does "beauty" mean without someone to perceive beauty?

You can definitely have a possible world where there is nothing concrete. One such possible world is where only God exists--or beings like him.

Your examples of abstract objects are all over the place. "Round" and "beauty" are contingent (and are therefore not necessary) properties. "Space-time" is not an abstract object at all. Only "numbers" are examples of necessary abstract objects.

---

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 ?

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

There you go, peddling the articles of your specific faith, again.

Meanwhile.

You can definitely have a possible world where there is nothing concrete. One such possible world is where only God exists--or beings like him.

Since we've determined that there is no possible world where there is..wait for it, no world....-some- universe necessarily exits. Since a god can only exist in some possible world..god is contingent upon some universe existing, at the very least. This shouldn't be taken as an exhaustive list of a gods contingencies...ofc..but one is enough to handle the faith-based nonsense on parade in this thread.

This is an unfortunate consequence of possible world arguments. You opened the bottle, and that let's anyone stuff your genie right into it. This isn't really much of a problem for gods..it's your problem, since you refuse to accept a contingent god as god. As another poster has already mentioned...a contingent god would still be a super duper magic man, satisfying in all of the ways that matter as far as gods go.

Even more troubling, is the assertion that god is not a concrete object. Concrete objects are often categorized as material objects with causal power, conversely, abstract objects as immaterial....without causal power.

[LadyForCamus]

And maybe reality doesn’t need a cause. Maybe reality is necessarily real by definition. What’s the logical alternative? Non-reality?

[SteveII]

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?

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. This very clearly illustrates that the physical cosmos could have failed to exist. You can argue that some existence medium must exist to have a possible world. 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. 

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).

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.

---

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.

God cannot be contingent. If he were contingent on something else for his existence, whatever that was would be God. Something at some point had to exist necessarily. It is simply easier to stop the infinite regress that would occur (Occam's razor and all). Also, part of the traditional definition of God is that he is the ultimate reality. If he was contingent, that very important part would have to be stripped away--and then you would be defining something else. 

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. 

Fine. I concede that point. 

The universe is defined as everything that exists. 

materially 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. 

I agree. I was made to realize my mistake and I altered my example of a possible world that only consisted of an immaterial mind (something god-like) or some other medium of existence to illustrate that it is logically possible that our universe could have failed to exist. 

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.)

Noted. I will clean up my phrasing. 

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

I will look at the link tomorrow and give you my thoughts.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and a description of a plane can sound alot like a bird, particularly when some committed person makes demands of both descriptions and refuses any counterfactual.  So what?

This entire thing is soup sandwich.  First you want to assert that there can;t be an infinite regress only to immediately posit a rule breaking entity.  Then you want to assert that this demonstrably contingent being somehow created the universe it inhabits....and yet mystifyingly place it in a category of objects with no causal power.  Throughout the entirety you wish to ignore any discussion of any god concept which better fits all these fun little musings...because it's not your god.

All of this failure occurs before your hopelessly confused god concept is demolished on point of fact as a primitive superstition. If I were a believer, I'd demand a higher quality god. If I were a god, I'd demand a higher quality apologist.

[SteveII]

And maybe reality doesn’t need a cause.  Maybe reality is necessarily real by definition.  What’s the logical alternative?  Non-reality?

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).

[possibletarian]

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.

'More narrowly, brute facts may instead be defined as those facts which cannot be explained (as opposed to simply having no explanation).'

Why do you believe there has to be a cause of reality ?  What possible explanation can something that has always existed have for existing ?  

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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).

Your agreement is inconsistent with your god concept.

[LadyForCamus]

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?

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?  

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.  

You can argue that some existence medium must exist to have a possible world.

Yes, that is exactly what I’m arguing.

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?

---

And maybe reality doesn’t need a cause.  Maybe reality is necessarily real by definition.  What’s the logical alternative?  Non-reality?

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?


Addendum:

Tibs and Steel said we (or, probably just me, lol) 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?