God is so quiet

[SteveII]

Because words have meanings. 

Brute fact: a fact that has no explanation
Necessary object: an object that exists by necessity of its own nature
Contingent object: an object that relies on something else for its existence. 

If God exists, then part of what we are saying is that there exists a being that is the ultimate cause of all reality. If that is not what we are talking about, then we are not talking about God. God has a pretty standard definition. Therefore IF God exists, he does so necessarily--not contingently.

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. Regarding your second question, that is why they have a special term for it: existing necessarily--the reason for its existence is found within the object itself. Logic demands that there has to be at least one necessarily existing object that can cause all other contingent things. 

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.

Well yes definitions made to look like a god, surprisingly look like a god, but do any of those really exist outside of the mind , when applied to a thinking supernatural being ?

The universe can be proven to exist, to add made up supernatural beings and intention is is just daft.

You might be happy with the the universe being a brute fact and live a full and complete life in spite of the question. Others are not happy with that conclusion and go through all kinds of machinations to avoid discussing a possible "first cause". Still others find other compelling reasons to believe in God and are interested in knowing if the natural world supports their conclusions arrived at from other sources.

---

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.

Sure.  But that wouldn’t be nothing.  It would still be a world with a mind in it. Yes?  

This very clearly illustrates that the physical cosmos could have failed to exist.

Its current state?  Yes, I agree.  I’m saying reality itself cannot fail to be, because there is no logical alternative.  

You can argue that some existence medium must exist to have a possible world.

Yes, that is exactly what I’m arguing.

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.

I tentatively agree.  What are you including/excluding in your definition of cosmos?

Cosmos--all material/physical objects and their effects that exist in our reality. 

If you agree that our cosmos could have failed to exists, what do you think caused it? Or, do you accept it as a brute fact with no explanation. 

---

I agree with that! If God exists, there was always a "reality". There might not be a logical alternative (or at least its a meaningless question).

We sort of agree on something?!  *high five*

The difference is, I think think your God is superfluous within this proposition.  If reality is necessarily real, what do we a god for?

*high five*

As to the cosmological question, God avoids having to admit the universe/cosmos is a brute fact. It also established some probability that he exists that can be used as part of a cumulative case. Remember, this is not proof of God--an inductive argument supplies evidence/reasons to believe the conclusion is true--not proof of the conclusion. 

Addendum:

Tibs and Steel said we 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 think 'existence' is a noun. 'Exists' is the verb form and 'existing' is the adjective.

[The Grand Nudger]

 Logic demands that there has to be at least one necessarily existing object that can cause all other contingent things. 

No, it doesn't.  It's simple incapable of reaching a terminus in conclusion in the case of infinite regress.  That's it, that's all.  There's no law of "There cannot be infinite regress!"

You demand it, because you want an answer that you do not possess, and, ironically, where there may be no answer.  

You might be happy with the the universe being a brute fact and live a full and complete life in spite of the question. Others are not happy with that conclusion and go through all kinds of machinations to avoid discussing a possible "first cause". Still others find other compelling reasons to believe in God and are interested in knowing if the natural world supports their conclusions arrived at from other sources.

There's no reason to bullshit yourself or anyone else endlessly about first causes.  It's not existence, or reality, or the universe that you seek to explain anyway.  It's this rock, your life.  If something caused god and then god caused all of this..made you out of mud just like magic book says...do you think you'd walk right out of church?

OFC not, you'd think (and probably crow on to no end) "See, god -is- the explanation for human beings and the earth..we didn't have it exactly right but we got the important bits! Allah Akbar!"

[Angrboda]

You simply cannot have a "world" where neither God nor the universe exists, because that by definition is nothing, not a world.  Duh.  A possible world by definition is everything that exists; if you have no thing, you don't have a world. 

I agree. I was made to realize my mistake and I altered my example of a possible world that only consisted of an immaterial mind (something god-like) or some other medium of existence to illustrate that it is logically possible that our universe could have failed to exist. 

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.)

[Losty]

https://www.bustle.com/articles/137865-8...en-chicken

So now you’re a nutrition expert too, Rikki?  😂

The first thread I ever read by him, back when his name was (I think) Enrico (or something like that) was about nutrition. It was very comical and had rednecks and vegetarians and god all wrapped up in there. I’ll have to see if I can dig up a link to it.

Update: Here we go, in case you can’t sleep and need something weird to read https://atheistforums.org/thread-24304.html

[Amarok]

 Logic demands that there has to be at least one necessarily existing object that can cause all other contingent things. 

No, it doesn't.  It's simple incapable of reaching a terminus in conclusion in the case of infinite regress.  That's it, that's all.  There's no law of "There cannot be infinite regress!"

You demand it, because you want an answer that you do not possess, and, ironically, where there may be no answer.  

You might be happy with the the universe being a brute fact and live a full and complete life in spite of the question. Others are not happy with that conclusion and go through all kinds of machinations to avoid discussing a possible "first cause". Still others find other compelling reasons to believe in God and are interested in knowing if the natural world supports their conclusions arrived at from other sources.

There's no reason to bullshit yourself or anyone else endlessly about first causes.  It's not existence, or reality, or the universe that you seek to explain anyway.  It's this rock, your life.  If something caused god and then god caused all of this..made you out of mud just like magic book says...do you think you'd walk right out of church?  

OFC not, you'd think (and probably crow on to no end) "See, god -is- the explanation for human beings and the earth..we didn't have it exactly right but we got the important bits!  Allah Akbar!"

Theists delude themselves that it's intellectual curiosity that drives them to the so called "first cause " But really it purely about reinforcing their dogma .

---

1.There is once again no reason that god is necessary. Simply saying god must be x is Steve's stubbornness not a fact about god. 

2. There is no reason to believe existence is contingent. And no way you can conceive of non existence . And in no world could non existence be the case . And no reason that existence is not its own explanation or needs a cause like things within existence   . What people are happy with means absolutely nothing .

[GrandizerII]

About the abstract, not really sure how the abstract can exist independently of the concrete. Existence is abstract, but what does this even mean without something existing concretely to allow for its expression? We may as well speak of non-existence instead of purely abstract existence because they seem to imply the same thing. What does "round" mean without the round objects it describes? What does "space-time" mean without the entity that possesses space-time coordinates? What do "numbers" mean without minds counting things? What does "beauty" mean without someone to perceive beauty?

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. 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.

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".

---

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.

[Amarok]

But grand god gets magic exceptions to every objection because the theist needs him to them . It's like playing chess were the theist gets to make up how the pieces move . And you just have accept it as valid because they say so .

[GrandizerII]

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.

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.

---

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.

[pocaracas]

I think the problem many of us have with "abstract objects" is whether they are discovered or invented.
Is mathematics discovered or invented?

Is the concept of the perfect circle a discovery or an invention?
Is the concept of existence a discovery or an invention?

If they are discoveries, then I'd agree with you on there being such a world, or realm, of abstract concepts.
But if they are invented, then they are contingent upon rational minds - minds which, as far as we can tell, are contingent upon working brains, which are contingent upon a whole plethora of biological machinery, which is contingent on chemistry and, ultimately, physics.... the same physics that popped out of the big bang through... who knows?... quantum fluctuations?
So the best guess we have for the only necessary thing is the framework upon which all of existence plays out: space-time.

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.

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.

[SteveII]

I agree. I was made to realize my mistake and I altered my example of a possible world that only consisted of an immaterial mind (something god-like) or some other medium of existence to illustrate that it is logically possible that our universe could have failed to exist. 

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?