why things are rather than not...and necessary existence

[Mystic]

Although many people treat this question as non-sensical saying if it always existed, it had to exist...I think it's a question worth asking.

When it comes to finite things existing in finite numbers, one wonders indeed why it exists at all rather than not. Why such a number as opposed to another. It seems the question is asked because whatever existed is something that needs an explanation as to why it exists rather than not.

When it comes to God, he is Ultimate existence and a neccessary existence. Whatever he is, he has to be that. But the same cannot be said about how much energy/matter existed in the past. Neither are the quantities assigned to each thing an absolute thing that must be the way it is. It didn't HAVE to be that way. For example whatever quantity of matter exists, one can always question, why not more, why not less. The same can be about the quantities assigned to them as properties.

To say it simply is that way seems rather a weak answer. This is not a definitive proof of God, but it shows we have knowledge of God as necessary existence upon mediation. This is why we are unsastified with other things having no explanation, because we know they are not things necessarily so, but reality is what HAD to be in reality.

Now if God was finite, we would ask why he wasn't more greater as opposed to less. If he fell short of perfection, we can ask why he falls short.

But if God is ultimate, and is necessarily so, then he is the only thing is explained independantly, while everything else seems to require an explanation being dependant.

Finite things are not necessary existences. They aren't such that it's impossible for them to have been otherwise. The same is not true of Ultimate Existence and Necessary existence.

Now this is not hard core proof. It can always be dismissed that things don't need explanations.

But I think intuitively we know everything needs an explanation. God is his own explanation, being necessary and ultimate existence. Why he is the way he is, is because he had to be that way. But everything else is not their own explanation, and need an explanation.

Thoughts?

[Darwinian]

<parent mode>

It's "rather than not"

</parent mode>

[Mystic]

<parent mode>

It's "rather than not"

</parent mode>

lol thanks

[Cato]

Although many people treat this question as non-sensical saying if it always existed, it had to exist...I think it's a question worth asking.

When it comes to finite things existing in finite numbers, one wonders indeed why it exists at all rather than not. Why such a number as opposed to another. It seems the question is asked because whatever existed is something that needs an explanation as to why it exists rather than not.

When it comes to God, he is Ultimate existence and a neccessary existence. Whatever he is, he has to be that. But the same cannot be said about how much energy/matter existed in the past. Neither are the quantities assigned to each thing an absolute thing that must be the way it is. It didn't HAVE to be that way. For example whatever quantity of matter exists, one can always question, why not more, why not less. The same can be about the quantities assigned to them as properties.

To say it simply is that way seems rather a weak answer. This is not a definitive proof of God, but it shows we have knowledge of God as necessary existence upon mediation. This is why we are unsastified with other things having no explanation, because we know they are not things necessarily so, but reality is what HAD to be in reality.

Now if God was finite, we would ask why he wasn't more greater as opposed to less. If he fell short of perfection, we can ask why he falls short.

But if God is ultimate, and is necessarily so, then he is the only thing is explained independantly, while everything else seems to require an explanation being dependant.

Finite things are not necessary existences. They aren't such that it's impossible for them to have been otherwise. The same is not true of Ultimate Existence and Necessary existence.

Now this is not hard core proof. It can always be dismissed that things don't need explanations.

But I think intuitively we know everything needs an explanation. God is his own explanation, being necessary and ultimate existence. Why he is the way he is, is because he had to be that way. But everything else is not their own explanation, and need an explanation.

Thoughts?

This is simply a form of the ontological argument.

Refutation: http://www.paul-almond.com/ModalOntologicalArgument.htm

Without the detail found in the attached refutation, I find it disingenuous to say all things need an explanation, but not god (god is its own explanation is the same as saying god does not require an explanation).

[Tempus]

Thoughts?

Lots of assumptions, assertions but very little content. I really don't mean to be rude, but I don't know what the hell you're talking about, nor why you capitalise certain words. These words aren't proper nouns, so why are they being capitalised? To show honour to this deity? It frankly looks ridiculous to me, but hey it's your choice.

one wonders indeed why it exists at all rather than not

I think 'why?' is a poor question. It seems to assume motive and I don't see any reason to do that. Asking 'how', 'what', and 'where' will yield much more useful answers, I think. How am I here? Because I evolved? How did I evolve? How did life originate? How did all the elements come to be? What was the early universe like? How did the universe come to be? If there is a god or gods all these questions will lead there eventually anyway, but with the added bonus of not assuming stuff. You've instead essentially asserted that we all have intuitive knowledge of god, which would implicitly mean we atheists are all secretly denying -- or too incompetent to access -- that knowledge, which I disagree with. I would suggest that any god which couldn't foresee the ineffectiveness of its own revelation via intuitive knowledge is pretty incompetent.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

This is simply a form of the ontological argument.

Refutation: http://www.paul-almond.com/ModalOntologicalArgument.htm

Without the detail found in the attached refutation, I find it disingenuous to say all things need an explanation, but not god (god is its own explanation is the same as saying god does not require an explanation).

It is a Special Pleading Fallacy. Everything needs an explanation/creator/etc, gawd is that explanation, but gawd doesn't need an explanation/cause, cause I said so. By fiat.

[Welsh cake]

It seems the question is asked because whatever existed is something that needs an explanation as to why it exists rather than not.

Because it exists. It cannot come from nothing, nor disappear into nothing. It has always existed, and always will exist. The demonstrably real. The actuality. The timeless fact. Existence existing and continuing to exist is a necessary truth.

When it comes to God, he is Ultimate existence and a neccessary existence.

Existence is what exists, i.e what is real. You don't get to put an asinine "Ultimate" tag on existence. You cannot segregate what is real from what is real just because your definition of god is not self-evident. This isn't the fucking Marvel comics.

If "god" is reality, the total sum of existence, then you are actually a pantheist/pandeist and therefore should amend your religious views to reflect this.

[Angrboda]

You know, I remember as a kid being intrigued by the question of whether there is an edge to the universe, and what's beyond that edge.



Science tells me that the universe is finite but unbounded. Is that true? Maybe. But it's a better answer than I had as a kid.

It's best not to ask questions at the boundaries of science, and then attempt to answer them if you don't know shit about the science of it.

So tell us, Mystic Knight, since you obviously feel competent to go toe to toe with Stephen Hawking, what are your credentials?

[Tempus]

[Tobie]

This argument contains many baseless assertions, such as "god is a necessary existence". Even if your premises can be shown to be true, which is doubtful, all it means is that a god which is irrelevant now created the universe. There are no attributes given to it beyond that, because there would be no basis in fact for these attributes.

When it comes to finite things existing in finite numbers, one wonders indeed why it exists at all rather than not. Why such a number as opposed to another. It seems the question is asked because whatever existed is something that needs an explanation as to why it exists rather than not.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean that everything exists for a reason, or that everything that is around now has to have a cause?

If you meant the first, it is another baseless assertion and is irrelevant or wrong until proven otherwise.

If you meant the second, then yes, everything around today has a cause, but we can only know about the cause for definite if there is first hand evidence that describes a cause that will always lead to the same conclusion, otherwise, there are infinite ways of reaching the same conclusion and we cannot say for definite which way happened, because no one was there to see. We can only say which is the most likely way, which is determined through rigorous testing of theories and their predictions. The best theories are often the simplest and can predict more than one event.

My point is that theories such as the big bang theory are models that if ran, can produce the same or similar results each time, and can be tested against more than one parameter. Most, if not all, ideas of god are not good theories for a few reasons. They are not particularly testable, because none describe the mechanism that the god(s) used to create the universe, so the creation myth cannot be tested. There is only dubious evidence ( that cannot be verified ) of predictions made by them, and the events they were predicting are even more dubious. Unless you can describe perfectly how a god created the universe, there is no basis to believe one did.