God is so quiet

[GrandizerII]

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

Why? There is nothing logically wrong with that. Your imagination =/= the word conceive. Conceive means 'logically speaking...'

How is that logical? There's nothing in "nothingness" to exist.

[SteveII]

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.

I think Matt D. brings up a point worth noting about the argument from contingency by noting the distinction between causal contingency and sustained contingency.  The argument itself is not an argument for sustained contingency...Not that that is its only problem Ofc.  We have the Bible to fill in  those blanks I guess. 😏

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l6esL6yz52Q

I can't listen to 35 minutes waiting for one point. Do you have a timestamp with what you are talking about?

[GrandizerII]

I answered that. You gave an answer that was clear you were not interested in a discussion. We have moved on. 

https://atheistforums.org/post-1698863.html#pid1698863

That's because it was a clear insult to my intelligence. I don't have to humor you on every single point you make.

[LadyForCamus]

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

Why? There is nothing logically wrong with that. Your imagination =/= the word conceive. Conceive means 'logically speaking...'

No, the problem lies with any attempt to conceive of “nothing”.  Nothing, as a concept, isn’t nothing; it’s a concept, which is a thing that exists.  Literally the moment you attempt to use descriptive language and visualization to generate an idea of “nothing”, you are no longer talking about nothing.  You are describing something.  The moment you try to explain what nothing is, you are now talking about a thing that is. Logically speaking, ‘nothing’ is not possible.

[The Grand Nudger]

This entire thread has been an insult to intelligence..and not just any one persons, lol.  We're arguing about contingency with a person who, in this thread..argued that the parameters of the universe are contingent on the dependencies of human life. 

You can't get shit any more backwards than that.

[LadyForCamus]

I think Matt D. brings up a point worth noting about the argument from contingency by noting the distinction between causal contingency and sustained contingency.  The argument itself is not an argument for sustained contingency...Not that that is its only problem Ofc.  We have the Bible to fill in  those blanks I guess. 😏

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l6esL6yz52Q

I can't listen to 35 minutes waiting for one point. Do you have a timestamp with what you are talking about?

It comes up in the first five minutes...

[GrandizerII]

I can't listen to 35 minutes waiting for one point. Do you have a timestamp with what you are talking about?

It comes up in the first five minutes...

INB4 Steve arguing that Matt doesn't know what he's talking about.

[SteveII]

You are confused because you still don't have the terminology down. I said that "if God exists, he exists necessarily". That means he is not contingent. Think about it--if God exists in the actual world, there are no set of contingent facts you can tinker with in a possible world (which are the rules to "possible world" semantics) where God does not exist because you have already established that his existence does not rely on any contingent facts.

So God is, by definition, necessary (according to what you just argued).

Yes--because the definition of God literally contains the notion that he is not contingent. If you try to insert that he is contingent, you get an infinite regress--and therefore meaningless to insert that concept. 

You have failed to explain why the universe is not contingent (like Rickle's said it was). 'Contingent' means caused by something else.

Yes, and I agree, that per the definition that contingency has to do with dependencies (not just causal, by the way), then the universe is contingent. But it is not necessarily contingent on God.

The question remains then is: are there good reasons to think God exist. Very smart people have come down on both sides of that question. I'm not asking that you believe God exists (I'm not offering conclusive proof)--only that your points against the argument are wrong. You can have other, more legit reasons for non-belief.

[possibletarian]

Does existence even require an explanation ?

Having what you personally believe to be a superior explanation , albeit one that has exactly the same problem that it just does have to exist by brute fact to a problem that does not require an explanation seems circular, more importantly unnecessary.

A child could show you the world around you exists, however a God, who presumably would be the single most important obvious thing or living entity in the universe fails to have any convincing evidence, this you claim is a better explanation ?

I guess that's how the theist mind works it cannot conceive existence without a reason, or life without a 'why'.

[SteveII]

Why? There is nothing logically wrong with that. Your imagination =/= the word conceive. Conceive means 'logically speaking...'

No, the problem lies with any attempt to conceive of “nothing”.  Nothing, as a concept, isn’t nothing; it’s a concept, which a thing that exists.  Literally the moment you attempt to use descriptive language and visualization to generate an idea of “nothing”, you are no longer talking about nothing.  You are describing something.  Logically speaking, ‘nothing’ is not possible.

I have already conceded that there is a possible world where there is nothing except abstract objections--which includes the concept of existence. We can certainly conceive of a world where there are no concrete objects. If you don't think so, show the logic--that's the whole point of possible worlds semantics.