God is so quiet

[Amarok]

Also their is the fact that existence itself  cannot be dependent on other things . And comparing you to existence is just silly steve. And no abstracts are meaningless with concrete things for them to describe. And no existence could never not have not existed in no world is comprised of non existence . Existence could be configured differently but it's still existence .

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure why the impulse to describe a god as a necessary being is a thing.  Even magic book tells us that god was sitting in the void before he started muttering cantrips. The story tells us that it made the things -in- the universe, not that it made the universe. However that happened is never addressed, magic book needs a prequel.

[Amarok]

Also jumping the shark on the idea one can imagine the universe not existing . And talking about a negation is not the same as being able to conceptualize it the universe not existing .

---

I'm not sure why the impulse to describe a god as a necessary being is a thing.  Even magic book tells us that god was sitting in the void before he started muttering cantrips.

There is literally nothing that makes any god necessary. I can easily think of a universe lacking any god that has every been described to me . In decades have never been able to do the same with all of existence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Factually speaking, all of our gods are contingent beings...they depend on us for their existence.  That's not a satisfying conclusion to believers, though, because the idea of a necessary being has never been anything other than a euphemism for gods.  A way to assert a rule of contingency..and then immediately propose some entity that circumvents it.  It's not just plugging a gap..it's punching the hole -then- plugging the gap, lol. No more or less than a rationalization meant to defend the idea that there is nothing "greater" than god - and this..for no reason other than to assert it's authority. As if an existent gods authority would come from it's having a fatter ass than the universe in the first place.

-but that;s going all the way down this silly little rabbit hole, lol.

[GrandizerII]

Also jumping the shark on the idea one can imagine the universe not existing . And talking about a negation is not the same as being able to conceptualize it the universe not existing .

---

I'm not sure why the impulse to describe a god as a necessary being is a thing.  Even magic book tells us that god was sitting in the void before he started muttering cantrips.

There is literally nothing that makes any god necessary. I can easily think of a universe lacking any god that has every been described to me . In decades have never been able to do the same with all of existence.

Yes, and that is the flaw in Steve's wording earlier. If one can conceive of God not existing in a possible world, then that makes God not necessary.

But of course, in order for arguments like the argument from contingency and the modal ontological argument to work, God has to be deemed a necessary being in the eyes of theists defending those arguments. So perhaps Steve shouldn't have said anything about conceiving, and just stuck to God by definition is necessary, lol.

And, yeah, theists pretty much force a difference between God and the universe in terms of modality when there is none, because they have to. Otherwise, how else would they explain the existence of the universe by appealing to the one God that they adhere to? If the universe can exist independent of God, then there's no point to God, and they can't have that.

[SteveII]

And there is no possible world where reality could have been nothing, because that doesn’t make any sense.  You’re complicating this unnecessarily, Steve.

If you believe abstract objects are something, then I agree with you. There are no possible worlds where there could have been nothing at all--because abstract objects persist across all possible worlds. This does not mean at all that there has to be something concrete (like universes) in all possible worlds--not at all. All concrete things (like universes) are contingent on something else for their existence.

[GrandizerII]

Oh, I just remembered what the thread OP is about. So while Steve continues to argue for, and defend, his God ... where is God again? Sleeping, or can't be fucked to deal with us puny beings?

[SteveII]

Not at all. You are missing what "possible world" semantics means. A "possible world" is the way reality could have been. While the actual world is a possible world, all the rest of them are just conceptions used to iron out logical questions. If you are going to discuss philosophy and metaphysics, you MUST become acquainted and know how to use the terms. Read this if you need to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world

To be clear, there is only one actual world--the one we see.

Why do you always do this thing where you think you know it all, and people disagreeing with you are dumb? You're not even addressing what I'm asking you here.

If the abstract cannot exist without concrete worlds/realities, actual or not, then how can there be a possibly actual world (reality) where only the abstract exist?

Well, for an atheist, you would be claiming that abstract objects exist independent of any world. As a theist, I would just say that these abstract objects are grounded in God. Either way, you don't need a concrete world for them to exist.

[GrandizerII]

Why do you always do this thing where you think you know it all, and people disagreeing with you are dumb? You're not even addressing what I'm asking you here.

If the abstract cannot exist without concrete worlds/realities, actual or not, then how can there be a possibly actual world (reality) where only the abstract exist?

Well, for an atheist, you would be claiming that abstract objects exist independent of any world. As a theist, I would just say that these abstract objects are grounded in God. Either way, you don't need a concrete world for them to exist.

I can't conceive of a possible world where abstracts exist in the nothingness.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, for an atheist, you would be claiming that abstract objects exist independent of any world. As a theist, I would just say that these abstract objects are grounded in God. Either way, you don't need a concrete world for them to exist.

"The Universe" isn't a concrete object.  It's filled with them.  Every abstract object we're aware of is "grounded" in ourselves..god being one of those things.  If god were a concrete object it would just be another one of the things in the universe.