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

[Angrboda]

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.

This is reminiscent of Alvin Plantinga's modal argument for the existence of God. In his argument, he postulates a certain kind of God as necessarily existing, however, examination of his argument shows that the term 'God' is just a placeholder for certain, minimal attributes, and that 'the universe' satisfies those attributes as well as anything like the gods of religion. These arguments don't really postulate that 'God' exist/ed, so much as 'a something' existed, and that something, unlike our current somethings, had the capacity to be the cause. Three things about this. First, it's obvious that something is being brought in solely for that property and that property alone, and is little more than a deus ex machina. Second, it's relatively easy for that something to become just like our current something, only in a closely related form, instead of requiring something radically different, like a thinking force; nature yields to a slightly different nature. Third, this is obvious equivocation: using the word God in a very limited sense, while at the same time pretending your argument demonstrates the existence of the larger entity of 'God'. It's dishonest.

It's also important to note that what happens at the boundary conditions is seldom simply a linear extension of conditions in the middle.

[Whateverist]

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.

Two categories whose meanings are clear enough but which you haven't shown to have any members. Most of us here think these are empty. Such an argument can't possibly get traction unless you can establish that they aren't both empty sets.

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?

Lame. Why don't you see that saying God did it is very far from an explanation. All you're doing is sorting the mysterious into piles. All true explanations are natural explanations, otherwise nothing is explained .. just sorted. Unless you have a unified field theory that explains how God does what He does -how he interacts with what we know of the world from his place outside of space and time- then you've explained nothing with "goddidit".

[toro]

You are using two different definitions of "necessary", not defining "ultimate", assuming your rationale by intuition, and eventually defining God as the answer.

In short, this argument doesn't show an externally defined God to be the logical conclusion reached by analysis. Instead, it premises the entire logical set-up and equates "god" with the incredibly ambiguous result.

You are saying "god = necessary existence". Not, "necessary existence proves the existence of an omnibenevolent (insert adjectives here) conscious entity". You may as well say God is a cupcake, cupcakes exist, ergo the guy discussed in the bible exists too.

[downbeatplumb]

MMMM Cupcakes.

[Mystic]

Well here is the thing with non-ultimate things. Why would it be one number as opposed to another? For example. Let's say gazillion quarks exist. You may wonder why not more, why not less. Also the size of the thing, the number assigned, the properties, they aren't all necessary.

But when it comes to ultimate existence and being necessary, you don't question, why not more, why not less, because he has to be ultimate existence. The same cannot be said about finite existence.

Therefore we seek an explanation as to why things are such and such amount, or such and such size, and I don't think "it just is" goes without our intuition. Nothing is just is without reason.

[Angrboda]

Nothing is just is without reason.

Where did you get this principle from? Did you just pull this out of your ass? You did, didn't you? Trying to guess how the universe works from intuition or first principles will only demonstrate the human capacity for foolishness. Quantum mechanics seems to delight in defying our intuitions. And radioactive decay is a perfect example of things being without a reason. We can predict how much of a radioactive sample will decay over time, but there is no reason why one particular atom decays when another doesn't. It's random. The result of radioactive decay "just is". So much for your principle.

And before that you engaged in the lottery fallacy. That a particular person won the lottery is not evidence that they were possessed of properties that the losers didn't possess (aside from number of lottery tickets purchased). Some theorists propose that the specific properties of our universe evolved as a consequence of its method of origination. And others, like Victor Stenger, point out that people who tally up properties in order to make an argument based on fine tuning frequently over count massively by doing things like counting properties that aren't independent as independent properties, and counting essentially dimensionless properties as if their having a unique value meant anything, and for properties that matter, choosing the scale such that the specific zone of comfort appears small, but which is only small because of the scale chosen (arbitrarily). (Tell you what, see if you can get William Lane Craig to give you a list, and, first he won't give you a list, but those who will populate their lists with items that don't belong.)