RE: God is so quiet
February 12, 2018 at 7:16 am
(This post was last modified: February 12, 2018 at 7:24 am by GrandizerII.)
(February 11, 2018 at 11:05 pm)SteveII Wrote:(February 11, 2018 at 12:27 pm)Grandizer Wrote: 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.
This is not much in harmony with how I've been thinking about all this. In my view, it seems everything in existence is contingent on something (even abstract objects are contingent on concrete ones, and even your God has to be contingent on something such as logical principles or whatever).
But in the purely "possible worlds" sense of the terms necessary and contingency, I still believe that all things in existence necessarily exist, as in there is no possible world in which the actual world could be different (this is my personal view, given what I think about the actual world itself). But in terms of dependencies, they all depend on one another for existence, even those deemed necessary.
Quote:Quote: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.
The cosmos being contingent does not mean God is contingent, correct. Nevertheless, there is every reason to think that God (assuming he even exists), or any other form of "first cause" (and even that is in doubt) has to be contingent on something for its existence. The way I see it is there may even have to be some codepencies happening.
And also, terms like "timeless", "spaceless", and similar such terms, seem like such absurd terms when describing a being who is supposed to be present "somewhere" and doing stuff.
And "intentional" is clearly an example of anthropomorphizing.
(February 11, 2018 at 11:56 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: 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?
I'm not an expert when it comes to English grammar, but I'm pretty sure it's a noun?
That said, sure. Existence, in the purely abstract sense of the word, is just a descriptive term referring to things that exist. But I think they may be conflating different senses of the word.
What you and I have (and some others) have been referring to in this thread is that which encompasses all that exists. Sort of the equivalent to what you and I consider to be the cosmos, I guess. But I will say that I have used both senses of the term in this thread.
