Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[Sy123]

I have some issue with your definition of "impossible".

The reason why is because we really cannot ever really tell conclusively what is impossible or contingent in our present. You may provide examples of things that are "obviously" impossible (such as a married bachelor, though that is impossible by definition, rather than impossible by observation).

For example, a triangle with angles adding to be > 180 degrees was thought to be impossible, then spherical geometry came in and it was then possible. It was thought that parallel lines can never intersect, then projective geometry came in.

But that is equivocating the word triangle here, triangle when it is meant in a Euclidean sense, has angle addition to 180 degrees. Sure when you look at Spherical geometry a 'triangle' has greater than 180 angle addition, but that is trivial. But again, if you don't want to take shape definitions as necessary, that is actually fine since you may hold to a different Mathematical philosophy. However surely you cannot deny the necessity of the laws of logic?

We can never really determine what is possible or impossible, without venturing beyond our world (In Euclidean space, angles in a triangle cannot add to 180 degrees if we strictly stay in said space, but extend this space to a sphere...).

But here's the kicker.

How can we venture beyond our world without knowing the existence of it? And how can we know the existence of it without venturing beyond our world?

The reason why impossible things are impossible is because they contradict what is necessary. i.e. square circles are impossible since they contradict the law of non-contradiction, which is what we take to be necessary.

Again if you want to deny the law of non-contradiction, you can go ahead, but dialogue then becomes utterly impossible since everything and anything becomes absolutely meaningless if you deny the laws of logic.

We do not need to explore the universe to know married bachelors do not exist, since they cannot exist by the very virtue of the fact that it is a contradictory concept

Nevertheless the issue of contingency/impossibility/necessity is a side issue, rather I was employing these terms to give weight to the first premise, which again is self-evident and if you want to deny it then you need evidence

 

[jdennis]

Take the situation that something comes into existence uncaused, that thing must be contingent, for if it were impossible, it would never come into existence, and if it were necessary, then the thing would always exist.

Consider the possibility (and it is very possible) that time began with the creation of the universe. If this is true, there is no possibility that the universe did not exist, at any point in time. This makes the universe necessary as it is impossible for it to not exist, and things that are necessary do not need a cause. For example the number 2 does not need a cause, it just "is".

Since that thing is contingent, then its existence and non-existence are equally possible.

Let's look at evolved life on this planet as an example of where this is not true. You would agree that on the Earth today we have a selection of life forms whose combined existences are highly improbable. Statistically, there are many more combinations of possible life forms than what we have today. It is possible for the current set of life forms to exist and it is possible for them not to, therefore the current situation is contingent. But it is clear that because their existence is contingent does not mean existence and non-existence are equally possible. So even if we accept that the universe's existence is contingent, we cannot conclude that this gives equal probability to its existence or non-existence. If it is conceivable that the universe is more likely to exist than not, its creation could occur without a Will being required. For example, the process of evolution started with a scientific process, not a Will. A Will is only required if preponderance to a certain event is required, as you have said.

The premise is self-evident, those who deny this premise should give evidence as to why such a self-evident premise is wrong

The premise is flawed and is a fallacy of composition. Simply because all events in the observable universe require a cause does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause, because as I have said, it is conceivable that the universe always existed and therefore is necessary, not contingent.

Premise 2 - no argument there. I agree that the universe had a beginning, I just don't think that it necessarily required a cause that had a Will (ie God).

If the Universe has a cause, then this cause has a Will, since if the Universe was caused by a non-conscious cause, then the cause cannot give preponderance to the existence of the Universe over its non-existence. Since they are of equal possibility. Therefore the cause of the Universe must have a Will, and thus be conscious.

See above, the cause of the universe (if we accept that there is one, and it is conceivable that this is not the case) does not need a Will because existence and non-existence may not be of equal possibility.

Finally, if you propose God as the cause of the universe, you are left with a sticky situation, in that you have not explained the existence of God. You cannot argue that God has always existed, because this leads to a contradiction of the law of non-contradiction. Let me paraphrase your example from earlier. Say I had an infinite number of years of existence of God, and you took an infinite amount, if all that remained for me were 1 year, you took an infinite amount of years. But if there were 2, or 3 or 5 or 26 years left of existence of God, you still took an infinite amount of years. Thus, the same situation has led to many different possibilities, this of course contradicts the law of non-contradiction, meaning that A and not-A cannot both be true. Since an actual infinite cannot exist in the real world, there can not exist an actually infinite number of past events. Thus God cannot be pre-eternal. I agree with you that it's impossible for something to have existed eternally. The difference is that you seem to only apply this logic to everything but God.

 

[Sy123]

Consider the possibility (and it is very possible) that time began with the creation of the universe. If this is true, there is no possibility that the universe did not exist, at any point in time. This makes the universe necessary as it is impossible for it to not exist, and things that are necessary do not need a cause. For example the number 2 does not need a cause, it just "is".

You claim is that since time began therefore the Universe is necessary, this is not true, since because the Universe began, it actually came into existence. What you are postulating (though you do not know it) is what some people have called a 'B-theory of time', in that time is merely an illusion, the Universe never actually began to exist. I have already stated the assumption that time is assumed to be a real experienced thing. So this postulation goes no where

If you wish to say that time is not actually real, then I have no need to talk to you just as I have no need to talk to a solipsist who believes that only he exists. Both you and the solipsist deny very basic tenets of human experience.

Let's look at evolved life on this planet as an example of where this is not true.

This is evidence that you have misunderstood the concept

You would agree that on the Earth today we have a selection of life forms whose combined existences are highly improbable. Statistically, there are many more combinations of possible life forms than what we have today. It is possible for the current set of life forms to exist and it is possible for them not to, therefore the current situation is contingent. But it is clear that because their existence is contingent does not mean existence and non-existence are equally possible.

You have misunderstood what is meant by 'possibility', it does not equate to a mathematical probability (which does not exist in reality anyway), but rather an equal conceivability. Just because we can conceive of a 100 different ways evolution could have gone, does not negate the definition of contingent.

In any case, you can take an alternate definition of contingent and the argument would remain the same

So even if we accept that the universe's existence is contingent, we cannot conclude that this gives equal probability to its existence or non-existence. If it is conceivable that the universe is more likely to exist than not, its creation could occur without a Will being required. For example, the process of evolution started with a scientific process, not a Will. A Will is only required if preponderance to a certain event is required, as you have said.

Again you have misunderstood what is meant by probability
Also, even if its 99.9999999% 'probable' that the Universe came into existence, does not mean that the Universe does not require a Will, for you are still affirming Preponderance without a preferrer.

The premise is flawed and is a fallacy of composition. Simply because all events in the observable universe require a cause does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause, because as I have said, it is conceivable that the universe always existed and therefore is necessary, not contingent.

You clearly did not read my post, quite embarrassing
I do not even claim that because all the events in the Universe require a cause, then the Universe requires a cause, not even close

Premise 2 - no argument there. I agree that the universe had a beginning, I just don't think that it necessarily required a cause that had a Will (ie God).

If you accept that the Universe began to exist, then you must affirm the contingency of the Universe, the only things that can be Necessary in existence are pre-eternal things, i.e. there can never be a state of affairs in which the Universe did not exist

See above, the cause of the universe (if we accept that there is one, and it is conceivable that this is not the case) does not need a Will because existence and non-existence may not be of equal possibility.

You ran away with the word possibility and equated it with a mathematical probability

Finally, if you propose God as the cause of the universe, you are left with a sticky situation, in that you have not explained the existence of God. You cannot argue that God has always existed, because this leads to a contradiction of the law of non-contradiction. Let me paraphrase your example from earlier. Say I had an infinite number of years of existence of God, and you took an infinite amount, if all that remained for me were 1 year, you took an infinite amount of years. But if there were 2, or 3 or 5 or 26 years left of existence of God, you still took an infinite amount of years. Thus, the same situation has led to many different possibilities, this of course contradicts the law of non-contradiction, meaning that A and not-A cannot both be true. Since an actual infinite cannot exist in the real world, there can not exist an actually infinite number of past events. Thus God cannot be pre-eternal. I agree with you that it's impossible for something to have existed eternally. The difference is that you seem to only apply this logic to everything but God.

You also do not understand the concept of God, and you also did not actually read my argument, I said that an actual infinite in reality cannot exist except and since on an eternal Universe there are an infinite number of past events, thus the Universe cannot be eternal.

God is also not in time, He is timeless, thus you cannot say 'take away 1 year of the existence of God' since God is outside time.

 

[Sy123]

Further arguments that the cause of the Universe must have a Will (I assure you that most critics of the argument from Causation do not deny that the cause of the Universe, if there was one, would be God, rather they draw their attention to the first premise or to theories of time)

- If the Universe had been caused by a natural law or process, then the conditions to create the Universe had been fulfilled since pre-eternity

- If the cause is natural and possesses no Will, then as such, it cannot delay the effect of its causal power

- Since the conditions to create the Universe had been fulfilled since pre-eternity, and a natural cause cannot delay its effect, therefore the Universe should have been caused from pre-eternity

- We should then observe a pre-eternal Universe, but we do not

- Thus the cause of the Universe must have a Will
-------

 

[Sy123]

Additional arguments for the contingency of the Universe

- If the Universe were metaphysically Necessary, then such a Universe cannot possess any accidental properties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(philosophy)

- For if it were to possess accidental properties, it would require a preponderance to give Preponderance to those specific properties of the Universe over others, but the Universe is Necessary and thus having a preponderator above the Universe is inconceivable and already defeats the adversary who wishes to run away from the Causal argument by postulating a Necessary Universe

- However the Universe as we know it, could conceivably be different, certain natural laws could have been different, certain fundamental particles could have behaved in a different manner and so on, thus the Universe posesses accidental properties

- Whatever possesses accidental properties is itself contingent for it cannot be Necessary

 

[jdennis]

Firstly:

...for someone to come and (probably do a copypasta) of nonsense...
...does not look like this nonsense
What you are postulating (though you do not know it)
You clearly did not read my post, quite embarrassing

May I remind you that your continued attempts at expressing your intellectual superiority over me do not constitute argument of any sort. They just make you look arrogant and insecure.

You claim is that since time began therefore the Universe is necessary, this is not true, since because the Universe began, it actually came into existence. What you are postulating (though you do not know it) is what some people have called a 'B-theory of time', in that time is merely an illusion, the Universe never actually began to exist. I have already stated the assumption that time is assumed to be a real experienced thing. So this postulation goes no where

I didn't claim that time is an "illusion", all I said was that it is conceivable that time began with the creation of the universe, so that it is impossible for the universe to have not existed. This is not, as you might think, saying that the universe did not begin, just that it is conceivable that the non-existence of the universe is not possible and therefore it cannot be contingent.

If you wish to say that time is not actually real, then I have no need to talk to you just as I have no need to talk to a solipsist who believes that only he exists. Both you and the solipsist deny very basic tenets of human experience.

I don't wish to say that, and I never did. So you can keep talking to me.

This is evidence that you have misunderstood the concept
You have misunderstood what is meant by 'possibility', it does not equate to a mathematical probability (which does not exist in reality anyway), but rather an equal conceivability. Just because we can conceive of a 100 different ways evolution could have gone, does not negate the definition of contingent.

Sorry. I did not realise that "equally possible" did not mean "equally possible", but "equally conceivable". In any case, is something not more conceivable if it is more probable? For example, it is more conceivable that the Sun will rise tomorrow than that it won't, despite the fact that both are conceivable. Synonyms for conceivable include possible, plausible, and credible, which all relate to probability.
Therefore, as I said, there is not equal preponderance to something's existence and non-existence just because it is contingent.

Again you have misunderstood what is meant by probability
Also, even if its 99.9999999% 'probable' that the Universe came into existence, does not mean that the Universe does not require a Will, for you are still affirming Preponderance without a preferrer.

As I said before, if the existence of something is already more likely than its non-existence, or vice versa, despite it being contingent, a Will is not required to make that 'decision'. And in any case, the proposition of God raises more questions than it answers.

I do not even claim that because all the events in the Universe require a cause, then the Universe requires a cause, not even close

The premises of your argument are based in understanding of observable events. The universe, however, is different, because it is conceivable that no time existed where the universe did not exist. You are applying the same logic to both, hence a fallacy of composition.

If you accept that the Universe began to exist, then you must affirm the contingency of the Universe, the only things that can be Necessary in existence are pre-eternal things, i.e. there can never be a state of affairs in which the Universe did not exist

I already said that it is possible that there never was a "state of affairs in which the Universe did not exist", because it is possible that time only began when the universe began to exist.

You ran away with the word possibility and equated it with a mathematical probability

You can play with words all you like but what you're suggesting is the same idea, which I've already addressed.

God is also not in time, He is timeless, thus you cannot say 'take away 1 year of the existence of God' since God is outside time.

Aside from your blatant assertion that this is the case, without reference to any objective evidence, a being without temporal qualities is logically impossible. If God created the universe, there must be a distinction between when God existed alone and when God existed along with the universe. Furthermore, God's will to create the universe suggests that this occurred at a particular instant. This would be impossible for a time-less God. So it is impossible to say that God exists outside of time, and hence an infinite regress occurs if you propose God as the creator of the universe, because the law of non-contradiction is breached as per my last post.

Further arguments that the cause of the Universe must have a Will (I assure you that most critics of the argument from Causation do not deny that the cause of the Universe, if there was one, would be God, rather they draw their attention to the first premise or to theories of time)

- If the Universe had been caused by a natural law or process, then the conditions to create the Universe had been fulfilled since pre-eternity

- If the cause is natural and possesses no Will, then as such, it cannot delay the effect of its causal power

- Since the conditions to create the Universe had been fulfilled since pre-eternity, and a natural cause cannot delay its effect, therefore the Universe should have been caused from pre-eternity

- We should then observe a pre-eternal Universe, but we do not

- Thus the cause of the Universe must have a Will
-------

A Will, by this logic, which acts at a specific temporal moment (because it delays the effect of its power - delay is related directly to time), which would be impossible for a God existing outside of time.

Additional arguments for the contingency of the Universe

- If the Universe were metaphysically Necessary, then such a Universe cannot possess any accidental properties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(philosophy)

- For if it were to possess accidental properties, it would require a preponderance to give Preponderance to those specific properties of the Universe over others, but the Universe is Necessary and thus having a preponderator above the Universe is inconceivable and already defeats the adversary who wishes to run away from the Causal argument by postulating a Necessary Universe

- However the Universe as we know it, could conceivably be different, certain natural laws could have been different, certain fundamental particles could have behaved in a different manner and so on, thus the Universe posesses accidental properties

- Whatever possesses accidental properties is itself contingent for it cannot be Necessary

Yes, the universe could be different. But aside from its properties, as an entity as a whole, it is conceivable that there is no possible moment where the universe does not exist, as it is possible that time originated with the creation of the universe. Hence there is adistinct possibility that your premises are invalid.

 

[Sy123]

I didn't claim that time is an "illusion", all I said was that it is conceivable that time began with the creation of the universe, so that it is impossible for the universe to have not existed. This is not, as you might think, saying that the universe did not begin, just that it is conceivable that the non-existence of the universe is not possible and therefore it cannot be contingent.

I already said that it is possible that there never was a "state of affairs in which the Universe did not exist", because it is possible that time only began when the universe began to exist.

In both these statements you claim that since time began when the Universe began, then this entails somehow that the Universe cannot not exist. If we take temporal becoming to be real, then you must show the 2 premises are related.

Sorry. I did not realise that "equally possible" did not mean "equally possible", but "equally conceivable". In any case, is something not more conceivable if it is more probable? For example, it is more conceivable that the Sun will rise tomorrow than that it won't, despite the fact that both are conceivable. Synonyms for conceivable include possible, plausible, and credible, which all relate to probability.
Therefore, as I said, there is not equal preponderance to something's existence and non-existence just because it is contingent.

As I said before, if the existence of something is already more likely than its non-existence, or vice versa, despite it being contingent, a Will is not required to make that 'decision'. And in any case, the proposition of God raises more questions than it answers.

In both these statements you make the claim that since one outcome is more probable than another, then it does not require a preponderance to give preponderance to one over the other. Firstly you must clarify your concept of probabilities, what do you mean by it?

Next, it still does not defeat the premise that preponderance occurs without a preferrer. For unless the 'probability' is 100% the existent thing still requires a preponderator to move it from non-existence to existence. Merely saying that it has a 99.99% chance of doing so says nothing about whether the preponderator is no longer needed.

The premises of your argument are based in understanding of observable events. The universe, however, is different, because it is conceivable that no time existed where the universe did not exist. You are applying the same logic to both, hence a fallacy of composition.

I have really not made any fallacy from composition, to keep pressing this will not end well for you. No where have I claimed that because all the parts of the Universe need a cause, thus the Universe needs a cause. You will not even find a close statement to it.

Aside from your blatant assertion that this is the case, without reference to any objective evidence, a being without temporal qualities is logically impossible. If God created the universe, there must be a distinction between when God existed alone and when God existed along with the universe. Furthermore, God's will to create the universe suggests that this occurred at a particular instant. This would be impossible for a time-less God. So it is impossible to say that God exists outside of time, and hence an infinite regress occurs if you propose God as the creator of the universe, because the law of non-contradiction is breached as per my last post.

Here you are touching into a very deep question in theological matters, and that is God's relationship with time. Rather like scientists, theologians have given their own analyses on how God can exist timelessly yet still be personal, to go through all that literature is exhaustive.

This is by no means a getaway card, for there are many things that have not been established

- Your definition of time, you claim that because there is a difference in the state of existence, since at one 'moment' there was God, and another there was God and the Universe, then that this must entail that God is temporal. This is not entirely clear. For when it is meant that God is timeless, or outside time, then there is no real difference to what is past, present and future. So while we may experience temporal becoming, God does not 'experience' it.

- If one were to suggest that God can exist in time since eternity (an eternity of time), though I do not accept it for more subtle theological reasons, there is no reason why this is rationally untenable.

You try to apply the proof against the existence of actual infinite to the eternality in time of God. However it does not work for a number of reasons

- The proof implies a contradiction with the law of non-contradiction since we are able to subtract and divide. However there is no such thing as subtracting from 'God's age' since if one were to subtract from God, then He wouldn't be God anymore.

However there is no reason to divert the issue at hand, what needs to be shown, is that the specific premises in my argument is flawed, by going into this discussion, one attains nothing.

A Will, by this logic, which acts at a specific temporal moment (because it delays the effect of its power - delay is related directly to time), which would be impossible for a God existing outside of time.

The Will does not act in a specific temporal moment, when we say delay, it is merely trying to explain how if we posit a Being that has a Will, then this solves the problem of having a temporal effect from an eternal necessary cause. For in the latter the effect should exist eternally with its cause if the cause is completely natural.

Yes, the universe could be different. But aside from its properties, as an entity as a whole, it is conceivable that there is no possible moment where the universe does not exist, as it is possible that time originated with the creation of the universe. Hence there is adistinct possibility that your premises are invalid.

You have not actually refuted my argument, you merely restated your statement that the Universe is Necessarily existent, despite my proof showing that this cannot be true as the Universe possesses accidental properties (which you agree that it does have)

 

[seventhroot]

There seems to be 'evidence' both ways


imo, maybe

 

[Sy123]

There seems to be 'evidence' both ways


imo, maybe

Keep in mind that jdennis has not actually presented an affirmative case for atheism, it has always been the theist who is presenting arguments.

So there is no 'both ways', rather there is evidence in only 1 direction, theism.

 

[Sy123]

Here are the key contentions that I think jdennis is bringing up:

1) The Universe is Necessarily existent because time began with the Universe
- It does not seem clear at all for why time has any relationship to the necessity of the Universe, for it is quite conceivable for the Universe to not exist. Thus it cannot be necessary. This is quite straightfoward, and I hope we can get past this point.

2) The cause of the Universe does not have a Will

I want to clarify the issue of Will, since it is an important point.

The reason why the cause of the Universe has a Will, is precisely because of the problem of invoking a temporal effect from an eternal cause.
How is it possible that a temporal effect comes from an eternal necessary cause? Shouldn't the effect be eternal with the cause? I used the word delay, but not in a literal way, it is simply to show that an eternal necessary cause cannot produce a temporal effect. For when we talk about eternality, it is meant that whatever it is, it is permanent.

So if the eternal natural necessary cause is permanent, how then is the effect of this cause not permanent?

To solve this problem, one need only posit a being with Will.

Whether God exists sempiternally, eternally in time, or timelessly is quite irrelevant I think to the discussion. What we are discussing is whether such a cause exists or not.

I am simply going to ask, what parts of the argument do you accept as true?

 

[Menomaths]

There seems to be 'evidence' both ways


imo, maybe

But only one is correct

 

[seventhroot]

imo; theism cos of the reasons meno explained to me today cbf typing them all out

 

[boat460]

If every religion claims to be the one "true" one, then why are there so many different religions?
Also if God already or does exist, what is he here for? If its to guide us, he clearly doesn't guide everyone. If it just to oversee us, then why is he even there at all?
inb4rekt

 

[iBibah]

If every religion claims to be the one "true" one, then why are there so many different religions?
Also if God already or does exist, what is he here for? If its to guide us, he clearly doesn't guide everyone. If it just to oversee us, then why is he even there at all?
inb4rekt

That's the question for theists, which is the one true religion, if it exists yet.

 

[astroman]

 

[astroman]

ily science

 

[Stygian]

Who cares.

 

[Sy123]

What an ignorant human being, you know there is a reason why I don't invoke modern cosmology in order to try and show that the Universe began to exist, its because I respect it as a discipline. I wonder why Tyson thinks he can paint a brush all over natural theology when in reality his comment is as ignorant as a YEC trying to refute evolution.

physcists don't understand it, that means God did it?

No theist who actually knows how to engage in dialectics ever claims that because we don't know something, therefore God did it

Tyson has completely demolished and burnt down an incredibly smelly and obnoxious scarecrow of a strawman

Beautiful. Was looking for this pic for quite some time.

ily science

lmao

 

[Menomaths]

lmao

Had the same reaction

 

[seventhroot]

what do you guys think happened at ?