Modern cosmology asserts that there was NEVER “nothing”. It is instructive to consider time rather like a dimension of space, with 2004 being one ‘place’, the dinosaurs ‘somewhere else’ and the “compressed into a point” stage somewhere else again.
The relevant issue concerning the “compressed into a point” stage is that time might not apply to it. As that ‘place’ is approached (a little like approaching the speed of light), time might well become an essentially meaningless term, such that one might as well say that the “compressed into a point” stage is timeless, and we happen to live in the region of the universe where time exists.
Existence, therefore, would no more have a ‘beginning’ than a circle.
Right. Except that it isn’t a claim of his proof. It’s something that he’s musing about after he has finished stating his conclusion. It is merely commentary, and to treat it as part of the proof would be a strawman fallacy.
Only if you define “God” to be something as vacuous as an axiom of logic, who’s existence is necessary. Which, of course, renders any type of proof like that useless.
Sure, it can be defined that way. But, that disuades from the point completely. You have transcribed nothing but necessary existence to the entity you describe. You have not provided a reason for us to suggest that this entity is anything more than an axiom of logic, which are logically necessary, and which the being would depend upon. Doesn’t sound much like a “God” at all; well, perhaps, but just a God that does not precede logic.
Oh, that’s fine so long as you do not insist on having it both ways. You may say that a natural number is a mere axiom of logic, but then you may not use those numbers to quantify your hallowed scientific measurements and pretend they have any meaning.
I’m sorry, but you have completely gone off topic from your original assertion. Let’s take this slow, an spell it out.
You define God as an entity that has necessary existence. That is, existence in all possible worlds. What else do you attach to your God? Is He (i) omniscient, (ii) omnipotent, (iii) loving, (iv), creator of the Universe? If you answer “yes” to any of those latter questions, you require justification. You define God as something that has necessary existence. Fine. So do axioms of modal logic and PC. Do you deny it? Therefore, you’re discretely speaking of, pretty much, a vacuous being – just something like an axiom of logic. However, you wish to call this “God”. If you have justification for any of the above, then that’s different. But simply suggesting that God is “necessary existence”, this does not, obviously, prove the prelimenary idea that we have of a Supreme Being. Just a case of a hidden premise, rendering any argument you have unsound, I should think.
This? From the man or woman who is protesting about off-topicness? If the task is nothing more than to prove the existence of a supreme being — a being whose existence is necessary — then such matters as attachments are red herrings not pertinent to the proof at all. You seem to enjoy applying restrictions to others that you are unwilling to endure for yourself. It is like saying to Peano, “Okay, you’ve proved that one plus one is equal to two, but what does that say about thermodynamic systems or Newton’s laws of motion?” If the hypothesis is ontological— that is, about the nature of existence — then the proof ought to address existential matters only and not such things as quantities of power or knowledge. It is possible to examine the question of God from many different angles and aspects, just as it is possible to do so with any other entity, such as the universe. But is is ridiculous to demand that the examination of one single solitary narrow aspect account for the whole thing. In fact, if we did that, it would be a fallacy of division.
Thanks, but I assure you that I will keep up if you go full speed.
Okay, fine. Then, considering all things from the modal scope, there is no difference between God and an axiom of logic? Perhaps a little difference since God would be contingent upon them, but let’s not worry about that. Your proof is indeed valid. Whether it’s useful in any sense is an entirely different issue. Perhaps we should make another thread that can touch upon the issues of the usefullness of the proof, and whether it’s truly logical to call such an entity “God”?
Sorry, that post was de-arranged and I cannot edit it. Here’s what it should look like:
Okay, fine. Then, considering all things from the modal scope, there is no difference between God and an axiom of logic? Perhaps a little difference since God would be contingent upon them, but let’s not worry about that. Your proof is indeed valid. Whether it’s useful in any sense is an entirely different issue. Perhaps we should make another thread that can touch upon the issues of the usefullness of the proof, and whether it’s truly logical to call such an entity “God”?
I think you’ve misunderstood me. I’m not suggesting that we prove something about, say, God’s knowledge by solely looking in the “frame”, or whatever, of existence. I’m suggesting that, given x, what can we determine about x with regard to y. That is, given that such an entity has logically necessary existence, what else can we determine about it? Which, would be about the usefulness of the argument.
OK, fine. But while it may not be part of his proof, he does say:
(again, the bold is mine) I’m not saying this invalidates the proof that precedes it. I just object to that statement as it stands by itself. That can’t be plausibly argued at all, at least not in the way he attempts. At best, it can be argued that the cause of the universe might be a personal creator.
Yes, his proof that the universe must have a cause ends on the first line quoted in the OP. But the rest of the quote is just utter nonsensical garbage. I figured this thread was to discuss that quote (since it is what’s provided in the OP), but perhaps we’ve shifted to talking about the proof that precedes it on his website. Honestly, I haven’t examined that proof carefully enough to see if I think it’s flawed (although given my past experience of proofs of this kind, I suspect I would), I just wanted to complain about the absurd statements he follows it with. Seriously, “a man sitting for eternity may will to stand up?” Ugh.
The antecedant makes sense, and in fact is the crux of the OP’s whole question: “Is God necessary?”. It is, after all, a question of modality; therefore, a modal proof is appropriate to address the question. The consequent, however, is a non sequitur. In any Kripke system, A and “A” are two different things: A is the logical element, i.e., the thing that “A” is about. If we assign to God the free variable G, then G represents God, while “G” is a statement about God. In a modal context, G might represent that God exists in actuality, while “G” is the proposition, “God exists in actuality”. In practice, the quotes are seldom used because it is easy to understand whether we are talking about a thing or about a statement about a thing. It is the same distinction that is made in linguistics, where a word and the thing it represents are two different entities. There is “tree”, the word, and tree, the tree. Math is the same. There is the number 2 and the numeral “2”, the latter being merely a codification of the former. The numeral “2” has no value; it is merely a squiggly mark that signifies a number that does have a value. So, just because we can make a logical statement about God does not mean that God is a logical statement.
Well, thank goodness we’re not to worry about that because if we did, we would have a contradiction. God is either necessary or contingent, but cannot be both.
Well, that depends on what we look at, the tools with which we look, and the scope of what it is we are to determine. As with anything else, we can ask any number of questions about God and make any number of determinations. For example, if x is necessary, then we know that there exists for every x some y such that y = x. (Proof). But if it is given that God has logically necessary existence, then the question in the thread title in answered.
In a thread a while ago, I asked for evidence that the Bible got it right about creation, even assuming God was the first cause, and you quoted John. It’s about as good as anyone ever did in answering my challenge, which is:
Assuming a first cause has to be a deity, provide justification that your brand of deity is that first cause.
You seem to be perpetually mixed up. I have never believed that the Bible “got it right about creation”. Sometimes, we mix into our presumptions a context that really isn’t there. That is not to condemn you in particular; we all fall victim to it from time to time.
Well, I could search, but I think the context was I asked about an accurate connection between the Bible and the first cause (nothing to do with creationism). The sad part is that you were more responsive than anyone else who I’ve given this challenge over the past five years on various fora. Traditionally religious people using first cause arguments tend to disappear when they see the challenge.
Oh, a connection. Well, then, if I gave you John, I gave you a connection. There is a direct connection between the concept of God as first cause and the first verses of John. Did you perhaps mean a chain of inference? For your information, I do not believe that the Bible is the word of God, and hold no opinion on the cosmological argument. That is not to say that I find the argument invalid. (The argument linked by the OP is valid, but suspect for the reasons I stated.) Do not assume that every man of faith is either religious or an idiot.
