A proof for god's existence, ***TOO LONG***
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
STILL going on about the necessary thing?
You never responded to why everything must be necessary other than "it is the only thing that makes logical sense" TO YOU
As I said before, the correct answer is: "we do not know." Since we do not know, you cannot build any arguments on "necessitate."
I would still like to know what a necessary thing is... It there anything we can observe that can be considered necessary?
"STILL going on about the necessary thing?"
Is there a problem?
"You never responded to why everything must be necessary other than "it is the only thing that makes logical sense" TO YOU "
i think you want to say why everything must be CONTINGENT not necessary, because i never said that everything is necessary.
but in that case i did give 7 reasons for why the universe is contingent.
"As I said before, the correct answer is: "we do not know.""
it seems to me what you're saying is: Your argument concludes exactly the opposite to what i believe so i prefer to use the "we don't know" magic card, it really fits anywhere anytime.
I've asked twice, perhaps third time is a charm...
Can you give us an example of something that is necessary for us to compare and contrast?
The only being which necessary in itself is God/first cause/necessary being. Everything else we see around us are contingent things. Furthermore it can be proven by reason that there must be only one necessary being. And yes, I know I haven't proofed that here, but I am 99% sure that this is what Peripetic would say.
And to think of all the time wasted writing proofs; when you can just claim they exist!
It's not rhetorical argumentation but clarification. He was asking if theists can give other examples of necessary beings and I am saying we claim their is only one. It is a relevant issue, but I think it's best to stick to discussing wether or not there is at least in necessary being. After we agree on that or at least understand each other on that issue, then we could discuss why or why not there can be only one (if there are any at all).
He makes claims of a necessary being/god, he doesn't prove it. Can you prove a necessary being/god is real? Can you prove there is only one necessary being/god? Can you prove it is the god you worship?
I've asked twice, perhaps third time is a charm...
Can you give us an example of something that is necessary for us to compare and contrast?
It feels like you are making the same basic argument over and over, basically: the "first cause" argument, which to most of us feels like a very flawed argument.
Okay, I went back to the starting post of this thread and read your definitions. I apologize I did not read through your post, because it felt like on initial fast scan you were still arguing the same point.
Why always the big words? "Supposition" "Contingency" I assume because you copy and paste? I am a college graduate educated person, and I encounter these words before, but I still have to look them up to try and get precise definitions. And even then I have to figure out which of the meanings the author of these post means. I often find looking up some of these, (like contingency) it is the less common meaning of the word that is being used. I like to think I am quite well read, and I struggle nightly to try to even understand what is being said here. Again why all the big fancy words and definitions? If all this is so simple and obvious why does it not come across that way?
Anyways, putting in more concrete well understood words in:
1 - A necessary: a thing that "is an uncertain belief" of whose nonexistence entails an impossibility.
2 - An Impossible: a thing that the "is an uncertain belief" of whose existence entails an impossibility.
3 - Contingency/possibility: the negation of necessity i.e. a thing that the "is an uncertain belief" of whose existence or non-existence does not entail an impossibility.
Okay lets break this down:
1. In more plain English, you are saying: "a necessary is when it is impossible for something to not exist."
2. an impossible is: "when something is impossible," using the word in the definition of the word is not a good definition, but what ever, I get it, impossible is the commonly understood "impossible" at least I hope that is how you using it.
3. Contingency/possibility is the opposite of impossible.
If I was able to decipher point 2 and 3 correctly, I can accept those definitions and agree with that use. The first point, is a double negative, at least how I translated it. Taking out the confusing double negative, it reads as: a necessary is when: it is possible for something to exist. I can agree with that. But it is also not saying much. I can also guess that taking the double negative out changes what you are trying to say.
When is it impossible for something to NOT exist? I think even you can agree, (especially from your god point of view,) that everything could potentially not exist 1 second from now, (seems very plausible given that this god figure of yours supposedly created everything in an instant.) I just said everything. Do you include god in "everything?" I am guessing no. So, what you really mean is: it is possible for everything to not exist, but it is impossible for "god" to not exist. So you make a rule, (with no evidence) then you make your god idea the exception to the rule. Do you not see how incredibly faulty this thought process is? And it is not like this "god" came down and explained it to you and all of us, some religious scholar did, and you bought it, because it confirms to your worldview and it uses a bunch of fancy words and writings that makes it very difficult to truly understand what is being said. Hence the term "word salad."
I can argue for anything, and explain anything, no matter how insane, if I create a bunch of rules, then make the entity that supposedly created these rules, above the rules. And some people may actually but it if I use lots of fancy words and confusing sayings that helps people conform to that view that they were indoctrinated in by nearly every peer of theirs since birth.
I missed that I think, I apologize, if you can easily can you point to the posting where you presented your 7 reasons the universe is contingent?
My argument concludes: that we do not know, so we can not build an argument (any) with we do not know. I do not conclude from: "we do not know" that: that means there is no god.
In a court room setting, it is like presenting the case why a certain testimony is not admissible because ultimately the testimony is by a person that does not know one way or another if their testimony is true or not. In a court trial of a murder case, a "witness" come to the stand, and make a testimony, when it is later found out the "witness" has never seen the accused murderer or the victim before, and did not witness the actual murder either. The correct answer from the witness is "I do not know" which then makes any further case building on if the accused murder murdered someone inadmissible. It does not prove the innocence of the murder either, it just dismissed as not evidence, as it should be. If you are going to put an accused murder behind bars for life, you need much more then "we do not know." For a wild claim of some sort of "god" I again demand compelling evidence, not evidence that really is: "we do not know, but it makes sense to me."
yeah that's right. it feels like a very flawed argument to most of you, yet i haven't seen anyone pointing out the flaws or the fallacies in the argument. so i think it feels that way to most of you without any reason.
Is there an argument for god which does not prove a first cause?
yeah i'm still arguing the same point, whatever is contingent must have a cause, but i defended each premise in the argument. and as i said i haven't seen a refutation of the argument. most of the comments are like " Troll. that's not an evidence. it's not scientific .. etc" and no one addressed the argument and pinpoint the flaws in it. most of the comments that addressed the argument were like "why we can't say the universe is necessary, why an actual infinite regress is impossible" so i repost the argument with defending each premise and answering these questions.
Why 'big words'? I assume because you don't understand them? anyone familiar with philosophy, or has read any book in metaphysics would never said that. and yet i have defined those terms. but what is wrong with 'supposition'? it's plain English, it's not even a technical term.
even if they were big words, does that mean that i must have copied them? it doesn't, logically, follow. How does the antecedent imply the consequent?
How could possibly 'supposition' mean an uncertain belief? supposition isn't a belief at all. it just means assuming.
so in other words, something is necessary if and only if it would entail an impossibility to assume its nonexistence. like assuming that there is a triangle that does not have 3 sides, that's would entail a contradiction. so being 3-sided is necessary with respect to the essence of a triangle
Impossibility and it's said for something to be Impossible if and only if it would entail a contradiction if we assume its existence. like a round square. so, non-existence is necessary for such essence. it's impossible to receive existence. its quiddity prevents it from being existent.
and contingent thing, is neither of them, it's simply the negation of necessity, whether it's necessity to be or not to be. neither existence nor nonexistence is necessary with respect to its essence. it's possible to be and not to be. it, in itself, does not necessitate one of the two sides over the other, it's just possible in itself. that's why I said it must need a cause for its existence.
I did not say that everything that exists must exist contingently. but I said everything which is possible to exist and not to exist is contingent and must have a cause, then I proved that the universe is contingent, then an infinite regress is impossible. therefore there must be a necessary cause. I never said that everything is contingent except god and then build my argument, No. that's false by all means. i do not get to exclude god from being contingent unless i prove that the infinite regress of contingent things is impossible. So i don't presuppose its non-contingency but rather deduce it. i think you should've read the post in full scan.
Sorry but this is not professional in any debate. the same thing can be said by anyone to anyone in any discussion between two people have different thoughts or opinions. but it doesn't prove anything, not useful and it makes it complicated to have a decent discussion. the thing that you don't know is that I was an atheist two years ago and still didn't even make up my mind about Religions. so the case is far from being confirming my worldview but rather it shapes it. Again about the fancy words, what is your criteria for distinguishing a fancy word from a non fancy word? and why it's even a bad thing? because this also can be said about anything even about science. and that's why there is something called 'definitions' and I defined all these words.
Again, i did not presuppose that god is "above the rule" I deduced it. and it's not, logically, even accurate to say that it is above the rule. because that would entail that he is an instance of the same subject but the rules that apply to other instances doesn't apply to him. and that's not the case. I prove that there must be a thing that is not an instance of the subject 'contingent things' at all.
For example if we say that cars must stop when the lights are red that doesn't mean that people must also stop if the same lights are red otherwise they would be above the law. no they are not above the law since they are not cars.
they are in that post, numbered First, second, .... seventh.
I agree. but the thing is i build the argument and make conclusions from what we know, not from what we don't know.
I never said that i don't know but since it seems cool to me i'll consider it a proof. And again I still insist that your only objection is "I don't want to accept the conclusion so i must maintain that we all should say that we don't know instead of arguing for things i don't want to accept"
Right, by replacing them with a grip of even more suspicious premises.
eta:Just take one more or less at random: because essential properties cannot change. That might be true, that might be false. But since presumably your numbered premises depend on it being true; you have jeopardized the entire endeavor.
I'm gonna quote from Your comment:
it really should, you're just have a tendency to make objections out of thin air.
No, it cannot be false. it doesn't even need someone who has been engaged with philosophy to know the difference between essential properties and accidental properties.
essential properties. just by their name. they are what make the essence that essence and not another, it's what distinguishes you from a stone. For example: the color, we cannot say that being black is essential property for humans because then, there wouldn't have been a human being that is not black, and that would make us consider anything that has the same color as a human being too. but being an animal distinguishes you from all other things and being rational distinguishes you from any other animal. so these are essential properties for humans. that's what make a thing a human being. there cant be a human being which is not a human being. but there can be human beings which are black and not black.
being 3-sided is an essential property of a triangle.
being even is essential property of number 2.
if it's possible for a triangle to be 4-sided then being 3-sided is an accidental property.
an essential property is necessary. you cannot comprehend an essence without it. we cannot comprehend a triangle that is not 3-sided and we cannot comprehend an even number that can't be divided by two.
as long as the identity of a thing is not affected by a change or loss of a property then it's accidental. an essential property, the change or loss of which alters the identity of a thing.
And a new premise rears its head! You didn't define that at the start. Another rabbit from the hat; just as you need it.
Should call your "proof" premise inception. This one was conjured, to support one that was conjured to support an initial one. How deep does this rabbit hole go? When will we get a list of them all so we can finally examine your "proof" in its entirety, instead of piecemeal?
After he explained himself, do you disagree with what he said? Can you prove what he said wrong? I highly doubt it. You are just complaining so you don't have to refute his argument.
You don't need to prove a premise wrong to refute the proof associated with it; since the truthfulness of the proof depends on the premise being true. If there is even the slightest shadow of doubt about a premise, then the associated "proof" is not a proof. This is why I keep telling you guys you need to choose premises that are uncontroversial; instead of just try to steamroll us with a huge pile of suspicious looking premises.
This is also why it is important to layout all of your premises ahead of time (or in the proof), instead of dribbling them out one at a time in response to criticism. In fact dribbling them out after the fact is kind of dishonest (but I assume the OP has just forgotten them). If your "proof" relies on them and you didn't include it, then clearly your "proof" is not a proof; if it does not rely on them, they are just red herrings.
Yes I do, because his arguement makes assertions such as the universe is contingent.
The study of the universe is done with physics and the main tool of physics is empiricism...
Therefore just wildly asserting a claim regarding the cosmos has absolutely no scientific credence.
Is there a working model of how the universe has a first cause from this stands point? Can it be testable? Can it make accurate predictions? Because empiricism can, and I'm happy to stand along side it
As I've said many times, we can boil it down to a simple arguement of what is more likely... that an all powerful, all knowing deity that isn't in our reality can create our reality from nothing.
Or that a possible natural occurrence could explain the origins of space and time before the big bang which caused the universe to rapidly expand from its previously vert hot and incredibly dense form.
Do not waste your time with him. Nyarlathotep does not want anything to be discussed/clarified in the comment section. For him, that would mean it's word salad or at best Postulate ex post facto. For him, this indicates dishonesty that necessitates complaining and whining about why you haven't said that in the post? why couldn't you presuppose my objection and respond to it in the post.
so unless you haven't anything to say/clarify/defend in the comment section, which is the main concept of a debate/discussion, then you're allowed to write a post that is worth being addressed and refuted.
It is not your place to tell other what they are allowed to post.
Not at all. But remember you posted what you claimed was a proof. Don't you think it is important that all your premises be listed clearly at the start of your "proof"; since the truthfulness of the proof depends on them?
Ok I'll open it to the floor, can anyone give an example of something that is 'necessary' in the context given in the OP so that we can compare and contrast?
do you mean something which is necessary Or something its existence is necessary?
if you mean the former then being 3-sided is necessary for a triangle. if you mean the latter then this is exactly what the argument [trying] to prove. it's all about proving that there is a necessary being.
I think Randomhero is referring to a necessary being. Do you have any necessary beings he can compare?
Yes, the latter...
Is there anything thats existence is necessary?
Anything in nature? anything within reality? Etc...
Ugh God, help me. Anything in nature? Really? have you even read the post? have you read the second premise? the one that states that the universe is contingent? do you think I am arguing that there is a necessary being that caused another necessary being to exist?
Peripatetic has brought in an interesting debate. It has made me review Russell's and other modern rebuts to the Cosmological arguments, and for that I want to thank him.
Sir, I'd like to review your premises once again:
Contingent BEING: its nature neither necessitate its existence nor its nonexistence.
2- the universe is contingent
Therefore, is the Universe a being? Can you give us your definition of this word, given that philosophers have given different definitions of the word 'being' throughout history?
And I still cannot see the truth in your first argument:
1- Whatever is contingent must have a cause.
Premise 1 is self-evident, it doesn't need to be proven.
Contingency is used with logical proposals, I simply cannot see it in regards of existing things.
I'm sorry if this seems tedious. We're a pain in the ass. Thor bless you.
But at least in this context, contingency is not just used in logical proposals so that's just symantics and not a worthy objection.
Is the universe a being? Use your brain. The whole universe that we observe is made of contingent things so the universe as a whole is contingent.
Pursonally, I think it's better to just use one object that is contingent and then reason to a necessary being. Then you can prove there can only be one of these and that he gives being to everything else. But overall Peripatetic's argument is solid.
P.s Russell was an idiot concerning cosmological arguments. He missed characterized them and the best he could do was say things like "contingency only applies to logic".
That is acceptable, after all logic is simply the systematic study of the form of arguments.
Is it completely factual? Can it make scientific predictions? This Is how in science we substantiate claims! Testability, predictability etc... does the hypothesis or claim stand up under scrutiny.
I would agree the OPs original post is fairly decent, but it still doesn't matter... although another poster has picked it apart and I'm sure a physicist would dismiss it rationally very quickly.
When you discuss the cosmos and make claims that requires one to consider the cosmos.. we will always go to empiricism because it is by far the best source of evidence we have available.
These arguments whilst possibly logically ok, cannot be proved scientifically... and I hate to go there with empiricism.. but it is the best tool we have as a species, and it works!
logical arguments do not contain absolute truths from the off,
they ask you to accept a premise that is considered true so the truth or proof should be in the premise.
this is not proof, you can form a valid logical argument that is actually factually incorrect.