God is so quiet

[GrandizerII]

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.

If you want to not have an infinite regress (in the successive sense), no need for God. The cosmos is good enough.

The question remains then is: are there good reasons to think God exist.

Nope.

And being smart doesn't preclude one from prioritizing sacred views over logic.

[The Grand Nudger]

the definition of God literally contains the notion that he is not contingent.

No it doesn't..that's just an article of your specific faith.  

The question remains then is: are there good reasons to think God exist. 

If there are you haven't offered any in thread.

[pocaracas]

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.

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 can forgive philosophers from pre-1950's to completely fail to understand this. I can understand philosophers from 30 or 40 years after that to hold on to the ideas of their masters... but it's now 2018 and philosophy must catch up with science and realize that somethings are not so clear cut as they were led to believe by prior generations.

[LadyForCamus]

‘Nothing’ cannot be even a possibly actual alternative to existence, because if were actual; if that possibility were to become a reality, it wouldn’t be nothing, it would be a real and actual some kind of thing. I’m running out of ways to explain this.

---

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. 

So, you agree that existence exists necessarily then?  So...any god would be superfluous, yes?

[SteveII]

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 listened. There might be a point to make about the possibility God created the universe and in doing so ceased to exist. However, that is only a solution to the argument and does not address the rest of the reasons to think God exists (personal experience, people claiming to be changed/minor miracles, the NT, etc.). As I have always stated, the case for Christianity is cumulative. 

Also, don't buy the nonsense of going through the premises and having Matt say the conclusion does not follow. He knows very well that is the summary version and discussion on the crucial premises take pages and pages to show the reasoning. I think there is 60 pages in my Natural Theology textbook on this argument alone.

---

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'.

Your whole point boils down to your opinion that an explanation is not needed. What came first, your opinion that one is not needed or that your worldview does not have one? 

God is not a brute fact. All these words have specific meaning. Learn what they are.

[Abaddon_ire]

General point.

As the corner theists in general find themselves painted into by the relentless advance of science, the arguments for god become increasingly based on logical fallacies and semantic quibbling.

In that regard, I would recommend Sean Carroll, but my experience is that theists in general do not understand that.

The bottom line is that "god" has run out of gaps in which to hide.

We are left with a deity who ignored Homo Sapiens Sapiens for the first 180,000 years, briefly showed up to cast a hatload of immoral rules in a tiny region of the world and then vanished without trace. Europeans, indigenous Americans, antipodeans, chinese they can all go *** right off. "god" doesn't care.

"Loving god" my bum. "Can't give a flying **** god" might be more accurate.

Now, without doubt, there will be some who object that this is not the "god" to which they adhere. That in itself is interesting. We as humans number 7 billion or so. Of those, over half believe in the Abrahamic god. It seems to me that our theist protagonists here have invented their own peculiar version of "god" which simply comports to their own desires. Atlas has a heretical version of islam, GC has his own version of xtianity, Neo has some version of I don't know what, CL is the ultimate a-la-carte catholic, and so on and on.

All of them have one thing in common. They all have some personal version of "god" and not one of them agrees with the other.

As an atheist, what am I to make of this diversity? Well, these claimed deities cannot all be true because they all disagree. Each of them also disagrees with their holy books, whereby they all cite their holy book of choice when convenient, yet dismiss the very same book when convenient. I must therefore conclude that their holy books are fundamentally unreliable. Each of them cites their church as an authority when convenient and dismisses that same authority when convenient.

What conclusion might one draw from that? Simple. They are all making it up.

[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 listened. There might be a point to make about the possibility God created the universe and in doing so ceased to exist. However, that is only a solution to the argument and does not address the rest of the reasons to think God exists (personal experience, people claiming to be changed/minor miracles, the NT, etc.). As I have always stated, the case for Christianity is cumulative. 

Also, don't buy the nonsense of going through the premises and having Matt say the conclusion does not follow. He knows very well that is the summary version and discussion on the crucial premises take pages and pages to show the reasoning. I think there is 60 pages in my Natural Theology textbook on this argument alone.

Is there any particular point he made that you have a problem with?  Or, is it just easier to go with your, ‘lots of important people write lots of important stuff on this topic,’ blanket dismissal?

[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?

[The Grand Nudger]

Your whole point boils down to your opinion that an explanation is not needed. 

Irrelevant, since you don't have one anyway.  "God" isn't an explanation, it's an elaborate claim.  Saying "godidit" explains nothing...it only adds another entity requiring even more explanation. Your god, specifically..is not only an elaborate claim and an additional entity, it's a fictitious entity. It exists between your eyes, and nothing between your ears is responsible for the creation of existence, the universe, or anything of these things in the universe which you would leverage god as a non-answer for.

[possibletarian]

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 listened. There might be a point to make about the possibility God created the universe and in doing so ceased to exist. However, that is only a solution to the argument and does not address the rest of the reasons to think God exists (personal experience, people claiming to be changed/minor miracles, the NT, etc.). As I have always stated, the case for Christianity is cumulative. 

Also, don't buy the nonsense of going through the premises and having Matt say the conclusion does not follow. He knows very well that is the summary version and discussion on the crucial premises take pages and pages to show the reasoning. I think there is 60 pages in my Natural Theology textbook on this argument alone.

---

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'.

Your whole point boils down to your opinion that an explanation is not needed. What came first, your opinion that one is not needed or that your worldview does not have one? 

God is not a brute fact. All these words have specific meaning. Learn what they are.

That's the silliest reply I've seen to date
How could god not be a brute fact to someone who believes god needs no explanation for its existence ?