God is so quiet

[Abaddon_ire]

Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but from my perusal of this thread I was under the impression that you were using the premise that the universe is contingent in service to your natural theology arguments.  Since the aim of those arguments is to derive the conclusion that God exists, your use of the idea of something god-like, which is by your definition a necessary being, to derive the result that the universe is contingent, is improper.  Doing so would be to invoke the existence of God, to derive the contingency of the universe, to then use that result to derive the conclusion that God exists.  That would be a clear case of begging the question. 

I don't know what you mean by "some other medium of existence" here, but regardless, I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify what greater argument you are using the result of the universe's contingency in service toward. (I'm not sure what you're working toward by invoking additional contingent entities such as an 'other' medium of existence and would appreciate you clarifying exactly what the relationship to the current question is.  In regard to your comments about infinite regresses and occam's razor, I will simply caution you that if such objections are in the service of supporting natural theology arguments of the usual sort, I consider such objections problematic for reasons we will get into if the conversation turns in that direction.)

The hurdle in the discussion was proving that the cosmos is a contingent entity. There were several who thought it was not contingent.  

I tried to show this using the conception of a possible world that had 'nothing' in it. That brings up other problems about what 'nothing' is. I realized my mistake and changed my point to say there is a possible world where there is something else besides our cosmos. This possible world could consist of just God (or something akin to God), perhaps just minds, perhaps some other substance (I used the word medium) that contained other entities. It really doesn't matter what the example is because the the point I was trying to prove is the very conservative claim: our cosmos is contingent. 

The conversation really had not gotten to any objections about God being the first cause yet  because of near constant pressing the issue on whether the cosmos was a necessary entity or not. Are you willing to grant that the cosmos seems to be a contingent entity?

Then answer a question. Does your god interact with the universe or not?

[SteveII]

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.

Either God is a concrete being or he is abstract. I don't think you want to go with the latter option. Just because God is spirit (in your view) doesn't mean he is not concrete.

If God exists, he would be a unique entity and I don't think there is any reason to insist he has to be either category. 'Concrete' carries connotations of existing in time and space that don't apply. 

And I don't agree that your God is even possible. After all, we're dealing with a being who supposedly created things from "nothingness" (no material cause) and can timelessly act (can act without time, even though acts imply time) and that makes me have doubts about even its possibility. Since they imply logical contradictions (which I got into in other threads), then God as the Creator is not logical.

There is nothing illogical about God existing timelessly (in a changeless state) prior to creation and upon the instant of creation exists in a temporal one. 

There is also nothing logically wrong with God being the efficient cause and having the power to create matter. You are using our laws of physics to apply to a state prior to our universe. You can't show why that is even remotely appropriate. Logically, all questions/answers prior to our universe are metaphysical in nature. Science simply does not apply. 

I'm not sure I agree with you that space-time is not abstract, but I'll set that aside either way and focus on the important point being made here.

Now, numbers. I think even those which we deem necessary abstract objects require concrete entities to refer to. Without such references, it is meaningless to talk about such abstract objects existing. What do numbers mean without the existence of something that they can refer to? How does "two" exist in the absence of concrete entities that have the potential to add up to "two entities"? Again, we may as well talk about true "nothingness".

I have already conceded that there is not a possible world where nothing (in its most basic sense) exists. As such, we only have words that have something for numbers to apply. You don't need a possible world to have physical objects in it. For example, one possible world is one in which only God (or something like him) exists with no physical objects. Numbers would still exist since they are key to rational thought. 

---

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

Yes, and if theists like Steve want to keep God and "our" reality separate from each other, then this means God coexisted with "non-reality" before creating reality out of "it"? So many wrongs with the notion of a Creator God, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

That's just silly reasoning. Reality prior to the universe would just contain God. You are conflating 'reality' with something physical. That is wrong.

---

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. 

I think you're not working in the right direction...
When trying to establish that a god exists, one can't posit that it already does so and has a mind.

Whether I am a realist or and anti-realist when it comes to abstract objects does not matter to any argument. It is an a posteriori conclusion after belief in God had been established.  

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.

Space-time is not exactly a "concrete object" is it?
I'd describe it more as a framework upon which concrete objects exist.... a framework that can bring forth concrete objects, it seems.

I don't think so. Cosmologist do not consider space-time to have existed prior to the big bang. So the singularity (all matter in one spot) existed prior to our space-time.

[LadyForCamus]

@steve,

If you agree with the proposition that reality does not need a cause; that the fact that things exist at all is a necessity of reality...but, you maintainthat the cosmos is contingent, what meaningful or practical distinction is there between reality, and cosmos? I don’t see that there is one.

[pocaracas]

Space-time is not exactly a "concrete object" is it?
I'd describe it more as a framework upon which concrete objects exist.... a framework that can bring forth concrete objects, it seems.

I don't think so. Cosmologist do not consider space-time to have existed prior to the big bang. So the singularity (all matter in one spot) existed prior to our space-time.

Cosmologists consider that all space-time in our universe was compacted into a very small singular "location".
If any lies beyond that is unknown and no cosmologist will claim anything about it, unless under a hypothetical. Just like I'm hypothesizing that space-time (if it exists beyond our Universe) could be the origin of our Universe, the generator of that singularity.

Also, note how your words undermine what you want to say -- "the singularity existed prior to our space-time". What would "prior" mean, in your hypothetical scenario in which time is non-existent? Also, what would the verbal form "existed" mean?
My mind finds it extremely difficult to think in terms of absence of time... yours seems to be similar.

My hypothesis has the merit of retaining the temporal factor across the Big Bang so we can still think of causation and use our words and concepts.

[The Grand Nudger]

A less confused rendition of this claim is that while a universe is not contingent on some god, and god requires a universe in which to exist, the properties of the universe as we see them are contingent upon this being.  That, sitting in that void or other state or x, the universe as it is could have taken any number of other configurations..this specific configuration being the handiwork of pixies.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

And, if no god at all existed, that would still be reality.  If reality can eternally be, without any cause, then an additional uncaused, eternal god is redundant and unnecessary.  Unless ofc, you’re asserting that ‘god’ and ‘reality’, are two different words that mean the same thing?

[SteveII]

I don't think so. Cosmologist do not consider space-time to have existed prior to the big bang. So the singularity (all matter in one spot) existed prior to our space-time.

Cosmologists consider that all space-time in our universe was compacted into a very small singular "location".
If any lies beyond that is unknown and no cosmologist will claim anything about it, unless under a hypothetical. Just like I'm hypothesizing that space-time (if it exists beyond our Universe) could be the origin of our Universe, the generator of that singularity.

I don't think that anyone believe spacetime to be capable of causation. It is a description or model of how all objects/forces in our universe relate to each other. 

Also, note how your words undermine what you want to say -- "the singularity existed prior to our space-time". What would "prior" mean, in you hypothetical scenario in which time is non-existent? Also, what would the verbal form "existed" mean?
My mind finds it extremely difficult to think in terms of absence of time... yours seems to be similar.

The word 'prior' does not require time. It only requires a direction of causation. Spacetime is a model of how objects in this universe relate to each other. If there were no objects in this universe to relate to each other prior to the big bang, then there is no need for a model. 

My hypothesis has the merit of retaining the temporal factor across the Big Bang so we can still think of causation and use our words and concepts.

I made points above why I don't think your model is tenable.

---

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.

And, if no god at all existed, that would still be reality.  If reality can eternally be, without any cause, then an additional uncaused, eternal god is redundant and unnecessary.  Unless ofc, you’re asserting that ‘god’ and ‘reality’, are two different words that mean the same thing?

No, my position is that God could not have failed to exists so existence of some type could not have failed to exists. I have something to ground that belief in. 

It would be up to the atheist to explain everything without logical contradictions. Proving that possible worlds semantics must assume existence is a far cry from having an explanatory ultimate for it. You can't use logic to create existence (a concept has no causal power)--you must answer the actual question--why is there something rather than nothing. If you listen to Dean Rickles again, you will notice that he never actually answers the question posed to him. You can say that is a meaningless question, but that is really just part and parcel to admitting you are stuck with a brute fact--a fact you can't explain.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, my position is that God could not have failed to exists so existence of some type could not have failed to exists. I have something to ground that belief in. 

Yeah..your belief.  That's all it's grounded in.  It's an assertion of the articles of your faith and nothing more.

It would be up to the atheist to explain everything without logical contradictions.

That's not how any of this works, lol.

Proving that possible worlds semantics must assume existence is a far cry from having an explanatory ultimate for it.

It's not as if god is an explanatory ultimate. Point of fact, it explains nothing at all, so I don't see why it matters.   However, establishing that possible worlds semantics assumes a universe even in the absence of a god does show that there is at least one thing that isn't contingent upon a god no matter how it's asserted.  Ergo god is not a necessary being. This is why a reasonable person does not have to accept the modal operator. It;s not capable of answering the question..any conclusion is a mechanical artifact of ones original assumptions..and there is no basis upon which to judge whether or not any of those assumptions are sound.

You can't use logic to create existence (a concept has no causal power)--you must answer the actual question--why is there something rather than nothing. If you listen to Dean Rickles again, you will notice that he never actually answers the question posed to him. You can say that is a meaningless question, but that is really just part and parcel to admitting you are stuck with a brute fact--a fact you can't explain.

We don't know, and neither do you.  That's how this actually works.  When you can't muster an answer, you just acknowledge that and move on.  Positing gods as a euphemism for ignorance is silly.

Speaking of brute facts, the only valid form of the ontological argument assumes precisely that. What grounds a necessary being or any necessary x, like a universe? Nothing at all. So you're either content with them or you aren;t..but at some point you need to stop contradicting yourself with every other breath while demanding that others iron out the growing pile of misapprehensions you've saddled yourself with.

Here's a fun question, I don't expect you to answer me, here..but I do think you should give it some thought. Why force your god to die on this hill, either left hanging as an assertion or as a non-answer to a potentially meaningless question? You have nothing to gain from doing so and everything to lose. None of the core values of christian theology are impacted by revision in this regard, and it's not as if christianity is incapable of revision in light of new facts or a more accurate knowledge. You're defending your own peculiarities to the detriment of any existent divinity.

[possibletarian]

It would be up to the atheist to explain everything without logical contradictions. Proving that possible worlds semantics must assume existence is a far cry from having an explanatory ultimate for it. You can't use logic to create existence (a concept has no causal power)--you must answer the actual question--why is there something rather than nothing. If you listen to Dean Rickles again, you will notice that he never actually answers the question posed to him. You can say that is a meaningless question, but that is really just part and parcel to admitting you are stuck with a brute fact--a fact you can't explain.

We know the universe exists, and we can prove it. Have you an example of a nothing that could exist in it's place?

To ask why is there A and not B, we first both have to be sure that A and B are possibilities, we know that A (The universe) does exist, there is no, not universe to exist is there ?

The reason he says it is meaningless as I understand it is because nothing is not a possible scenario. It's a bit like asking why is that cloud not a non cloud.

[Angrboda]

Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but from my perusal of this thread I was under the impression that you were using the premise that the universe is contingent in service to your natural theology arguments.  Since the aim of those arguments is to derive the conclusion that God exists, your use of the idea of something god-like, which is by your definition a necessary being, to derive the result that the universe is contingent, is improper.  Doing so would be to invoke the existence of God, to derive the contingency of the universe, to then use that result to derive the conclusion that God exists.  That would be a clear case of begging the question. 

I don't know what you mean by "some other medium of existence" here, but regardless, I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify what greater argument you are using the result of the universe's contingency in service toward. (I'm not sure what you're working toward by invoking additional contingent entities such as an 'other' medium of existence and would appreciate you clarifying exactly what the relationship to the current question is.  In regard to your comments about infinite regresses and occam's razor, I will simply caution you that if such objections are in the service of supporting natural theology arguments of the usual sort, I consider such objections problematic for reasons we will get into if the conversation turns in that direction.)

The hurdle in the discussion was proving that the cosmos is a contingent entity. There were several who thought it was not contingent.  

I tried to show this using the conception of a possible world that had 'nothing' in it. That brings up other problems about what 'nothing' is. I realized my mistake and changed my point to say there is a possible world where there is something else besides our cosmos. This possible world could consist of just God (or something akin to God), perhaps just minds, perhaps some other substance (I used the word medium) that contained other entities. It really doesn't matter what the example is because the the point I was trying to prove is the very conservative claim: our cosmos is contingent. 

The conversation really had not gotten to any objections about God being the first cause yet  because of near constant pressing the issue on whether the cosmos was a necessary entity or not. Are you willing to grant that the cosmos seems to be a contingent entity?

Here is my take on the question you are proposing. You want to arrive at the result that the universe is contingent. There are multiple paths toward that end, and I think it would be instructive to examine some of them. The first such path is to argue that the universe is contingent by way of analogy with objects existing within the universe. Unfortunately that path is open to numerous objections which render it of little use in greater arguments. So I think that is all that needs to be said about that.

Another path is to assume that the universe is necessary, and then in a reductio ad absurdum demonstrate that this leads to a contradiction, either logically or a contradiction with known properties of the universe (e.g. Craig's attempt to show that there was a "time" when the universe did not exist via the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem). This approach has both advantages and disadvantages, but since this doesn't appear to be the path you've taken, I will simply leave it at that.

A third path is to simply assume the universe is contingent without justification. As a matter of definition, it is the very meaning of the term contingent that the entity in question does not exist in all possible worlds. When people argue ala possible worlds with respect to God, they typically assume as a matter of definition that God is necessary unless doing so results in a contradiction. If one applies the same principle to the universe, there does not appear to be any inherent contradiction with assuming that the universe is necessary, if one is going solely by the arguments about possible worlds you've presented here. Rather than having demonstrated that the universe is contingent, you've simply expressed the proposition that the universe is contingent using the semantics of possible worlds. You assume the universe is contingent, to derive the result that the universe doesn't necessarily exist in all possible worlds, to turn around and use that as justification that the universe is contingent. But "not necessarily existing in all possible worlds" is the definition of contingency, so to all appearances, you have simply assumed that the universe is contingent, then used a discussion of possible worlds to camouflage that assumption.

If indeed you are simply assuming the contingency of the universe without justification, as I've suggested here, I have no problem entertaining the notion ex hypothesi as in, "if the universe is contingent, then X, Y, and Z follows," however given the arguments I suspect you are likely to make, such a move won't profitably suit your ends. If one simply wishes to assert the proposition that the universe is contingent without justification, as I believe you have done, then that opens one's argument to the simple expedient of simply rejecting your assumption, equally without justification. Regardless, if I'm correct here, your detour into the field of possible worlds does not substantively advance your claim that the universe is contingent, so any argument based upon the proposition will have to depend upon other arguments than this possible worlds business.