There Cannot not be a God

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2011



garden of the gods

I have a standard sort of God argument that I used to make all the time. It began as an version of the cosmological argument and I called "cosmological necessity."



(1) The Universe is contingent upon "prior" conditions (conditions that existed "prior" to our understanding of space/time:

(a) Prior condition being space/time, or gravitational field.

Matter, energy, all physical phenomena stem from 'gravitational field' the prior condition of which is he big bang, the prior condition of which is the singularity, the prior condition of which is...we do not know.
(b)All naturalistic phenomena are empirically derived, thus they are contingent by their very nature.


"There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders for reality." First Things: Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address (1999)


(2) By definition the "ultimate" origin cannot be contingent, since it would reuqire the explaination of still prior conditions (a string of infinite contingencies with no necessity is logical nonsense;the existence of contingent conditions requires the existence of necessary conditions).

(3) Therefore, the universe must have emerged from some prior condition which always existed, is self sufficient, and not dependent upon anything "higher."


(4) Naturalistic assumptions of determinism, and the arbitrary nature of naturalistic cosmology creates an arbitrary necessity; if the UEO has to produce existents automatically and/or deterministically due to naturalistic forces, the congtingencies function as necessities

(5) Therefore, since arbitrary necessities are impossible by nature of their absurdity, thus we should attribute creation to an act of the will; the eternal existent must be possessed of some ability to create at will; and thus must possess will.

Corollary:


(6) An eternal existent which creates all things and chooses to do so is compatible with the definition of "God" found in any major world religion, and therefore, can be regarded as God. Thus God must exist QED!
Over time it began slowing to run together with the Tillich idea of begin itself and I began to argue it quite differently form a cosmological argument. Then when I began to take Tillich's views on the cosmological argument seriously (he didn't like it) I sort of slipped over the line and turned it into another argument I was already making about Tillich. So now it became this:


Argument: Based loosely upon Tillich's ideas. He never advanced argument like this.



(1) For many people, the “sense of the numinous” evokes feelings of religious devotion. [Premise 1]

(2) For [some of(?)] those people, this “sense of the numinous” results from a perception of the juxtaposition of the finite nature of ourselves and the infinite nature of the universe, and contemplation of the “special nature of being” which is rationally inferred on the basis of these perceptions. [Premise 2]

(3) This “special nature of being” refers to the necessary existence of a “ground of all being” or “being itself” as the basis of reality. [Premise 3]

(4) These perceptions and the inferred “special nature of being” meet our criteria of epistemic judgment. [Premise 4]

(5) If certain perceptions or inferences meet our criteria of epistemic judgment, then it is rationally warranted to conclude that the perceptions, and that which is inferred on their basis, accurately represents the nature of reality. [Premise 5]

(6) For many people, feelings of religious devotion are evoked by that which results from contemplation of the “ground of all being” or “being itself” as the basis of all reality, which they are rationally warranted in taking to accurately represent the nature of reality. [From 1~5]

(7) For these people, the “ground of being” or “being itself” is itself the object or source of the evoked feelings of religious devotion. [Premise 6]

(8) Whatever is the object or source of feelings of religious devotion can be reasonably defined as “God”. [Premise 7]

(9) There are people who are rationally warranted in concluding that reality contains as its basis that which we can reasonably call "God".
[Conclusion, from 6, 7, & 8]

If the reader would care to notice the real difference in these two is that the first one connects to God through concept of explaining the eternal nature of existence and the distinction between naturalistic (temporal, consent) being and 'the divine' (known by it's ontologically necessary nature). The second one turns upon and connects to God through the nature of the eternal and the way that triggers the religious nature of humans. There's an implied syllogism here.

Only God is a fit object of worship

Whatever evokes the sense of the numinous must be a fit object of worship becuase worship is a response to the sense of the numinous.

Eternal necessary being triggers the sense of numinous, thus it must be a fit object of worship, therefore, it must be divine (becuase only the divine is a fit object of worship).

the corollary: Only God is divine, therefore, if eternal necessary being is divine, Eternal necessary being must be God.
Atheists have responded to this, (the whole thing but mainly the newer version) by saying "you are just things are the way they are"). That's a clumsy way to put it. It's easy to dismiss in that form becuase I usually just say "that's because the way things are is that God must be." They see as circular becuase they don't get the implied steps in the syllogism. I've made them explicit now and then but the point is not to carp about atheist understanding, after it's also very likely that's my inability to communicate.

I got to thinking, that answer to the issue assumes they put the argument in a clumsy way. What if they put argument in an adroit way. Would be able to answering it? I always did have this realization in the back of my mind, if they ever got serious about answering that aspect of it it might be hard to come back on it. I decided to make the best argument I could on their behalf. That would be this, not to make a straw man argument to really try and challenge myself. That's how one blocks out arguments, it's making straw man because you don't claim "this is really their argument," just a "what if they said this what would I say?"

The what if I see out there no one has put this way but, what if they said, "suppose this eteranl necessary aspect of being did not evoke the numinous, suppose it had nothing special about it but was "naturalistic," how else could it be but eternal and necessary?" In other words isn't the real difference between my concept of God and their concept of naturalism just an attitude one takes toward nature? That's tricky because if they put that tag on it "an attitude toward nature" then it's easy to get out of. I can say "no" because I'm not thinking of "nature" which is anything form rocks and trees to the laws of physics, but "being itself" which is literally the raw nature of what it means to be whatever you are, rocks, trees, gold fish, laws of physics, or whatever. It's not nature that I'm expounding but the eternal necessary aspect of Being.

So the hypothetical atheist needs to refine his work. He needs say "isn't the difference in their view, which is naturalistic, and my view, that is "religious" just a matter of attitude toward what it means to be? All I'm doing is doubing an aspect of nature as "a special form of being" because it makes me feel a certain way? If that's the argument, one must ask "what real negating power does it hold over the argument?" It reduces the sense of the numinous to the atheist ideology and declarers victory becuase it refuses to take seriously the ultimate transfomrative power of religion. Yet that an arbitrary gain saying of an attitude that differs from their own.

Of course by this time the real atheists reading this will be saying "it's more than just disagreement about how to approach being, it's a matter of God not being real, God being a big sky man unicorn what have you." Those who say that are not tumbling to the fact that when I say "God" and they say "God" we mean two totally different things. My idea of God is an aspect of being that is eternal and necessary, it need NOT be viewed as a father figure, it is not a big man in the sky, it doesn't have a white beard or sit on a literal throne. Atheists always get angry here and demand that stop this nonsense, everyone knows that religious people believe in a big man in the sky and God has to be that or it's not God. They often reveal the most bizarre assumption that popularity makes right by demanding that since the majority of theists believe God is a big man (which is a gross oversimplification) then of course that's the only way to be a Christian. If you beileve in God you must believe popularity makes right. Yet they are atheists. Surely they know they are in the minority? Although I've seen some rationalize their way around that in shameless and idiotic fashion. The most appealing one was a guy who tried to narrow liberal theology down to just me. I'm a minority of one so there are more atheists than there are any particular branch of Christianity (to pull that off he had to declare that Hindus are atheists--then all polytheists are atheists).

I don't even wont to dignify such philosophical clowning with an answer.In a sense the hypothetical atheist is right, the actual atheist is wrong. The hypothetical one is righ tin that the argument is really a matter of the attitude one takes toward begin in a certain sense. The actual atheist is wrong in thinking that the impersonal view of God cannot be considered a valid theological view point even from a Christian perspective. Process theology has been taken in by liberal Christianity. That is not to say that I agree with such a view. I think God is the source of consciousness and is conscious, although in a way that is beyond our understanding. There's no point in trying to draw an analogy between God and biological life, but that's another issue. The point is this "impersonal" ground of understanding sort process notion of God is my default assumption, that is it's the basic level one needs to call it "God."

The better question would be to ask, what would the situation with being look like without God? Since we can expect a naturalistic universe to also be laden with eternal necessary being, under that means, by the default described above, there can't fail to be a God as long as anything at all exists. It's the total victory of God over any doubt that this situation musters, I am sure, that cause complete ire on the part of atheists. So what would things be like if there were not God? Just becuase the conditions can't obtain logically doesn't mean that such conditions as one might suggest would not be the negation of the God concept. For example, if the world sprang up out of nothing for no reason, even though logically we should assume that can't happen, that would be a condition such that were it proved to have been the case might indicate no God. That's too easy because we could still say it's the product of God. The problem with having nothing that could count against belief is that it means there's nothing counts for it either.

The criteria do exist, however, to falsify belief in the Tillichian concept of God as being itself. The major one would be if being has no depth. If being is merely surface level and the surface nature of being were transparent. It's the depth aspect of being that creates the situation in which we can have faith. What would a "shallow" universe be like? For one thing the nature of the eternal would not trigger the sense of numinous. In fact we might well posit there would be no sense of the numinous. I'm bracketing the issues brain chemistry for now, that doesn't mean we can't discuss them. I feel I should point that the situation is not anywhere near the "done deal" that atheists thin it is, vis brain chemistry and religious experience. If being had no depth it would be a done deal. There would be no recourse and no hard problem of consciousness. So a world without God would probably be a world of philosophical zombies. A PhilosophicalZombie is David Chalmer's* hypothetical concept for getting across the idea of the hard problem. Unlike their Hollywood counter parts, the philosophical variety don't. Wonder about with too much make up and holding their arms in front of them with a glassy stare, they just don't have the sorts of inner feelings we do. Other than that you can't tell them from ordinary people.

Non falsifiability is the concept we are working here, the idea that if there are no circumstances under which something can be proved false then it can't be proved either. That concept is only applicable to the empirical side of proof. It doesn't apply to arguments that are subjective nd personal anyway,such as existentially based arguments. It doesn't apply to deductive reasoning either such as the ontological argument. So, while the argument I am discussing has some falsifiable aspects, it doesn't really need them. It's not a proof it's a ratioanl for personal assurance, or rational warrant perhaps. When Atheists say "there's no proof for your God" I say "I have something better than proof." The sort of deep knowledge (personal assurance) that the phenomenological/existential approach offers, when it's real and it's life changing, is much stronger and more reliable also less demonstrable than empirical scientific proof. I'm sure that in itself is a proposition that gals atheists becuase it flays in the face of their God substitute, their own er zots science. The actual situation is there can't not be a God. Being has to be eternal and necessary and grounded and God is the eternal and necessary ground of being.



*I don't know if he invented them, but he uses the concept and made it famous. Chalmers loves to clown and in a hilarious spoof sings a little Jazz beat tune about "Zombie Blues" on You tube. this is Chamlers himself.

Comments

im-skeptical said…
Non falsifiability is the concept we are working here, the idea that if there are no circumstances under which something can be proved false then it can't be proved either.

- I have not heardthis definition. I don't think it's true. In a strict sense, nothing can be proven true, but many things can be proven false. That which is non-falsifiable is deemed to be outside the realm of science, since it defies verification by scientific method.
im-skeptical said…
(4) Naturalistic assumptions of determinism, and the arbitrary nature of naturalistic cosmology creates an arbitrary necessity; if the UEO has to produce existents automatically and/or deterministically due to naturalistic forces, the congtingencies function as necessities

- This argument presents a false dichotomy between contingency and necessity. (Actually, this is something that all theists do, as far as I know, because their God arguments depend on it.) Why can't there be something that is neither necessary nor contingent? I have yet to see a valid argument that disproves the existence of any brute fact.
im-skeptical said…
(1) For many people, the “sense of the numinous” evokes feelings of religious devotion. [Premise 1]
- Just because people feel this does not imply that the feeling they have corresponds to external reality.

(2) For [some of(?)] those people, this “sense of the numinous” results from a perception of the juxtaposition of the finite nature of ourselves and the infinite nature of the universe, and contemplation of the “special nature of being” which is rationally inferred on the basis of these perceptions. [Premise 2]
- A perception of something does not mean that what is perceived is real. Someone might just as well "perceive" a spaghetti monster.

(3) This “special nature of being” refers to the necessary existence of a “ground of all being” or “being itself” as the basis of reality. [Premise 3]
- Or it might refer to anything else you care to claim.

(4) These perceptions and the inferred “special nature of being” meet our criteria of epistemic judgment. [Premise 4]
- Judgment is not justification. Real epistemic justification must have a basis other than "That's what I feel".

(5) If certain perceptions or inferences meet our criteria of epistemic judgment, then it is rationally warranted to conclude that the perceptions, and that which is inferred on their basis, accurately represents the nature of reality. [Premise 5]
- Judgment doesn't require criteria. Nor does it imply "warrant". People make judgments all the time. Many of them have little or no basis at all.

(6) For many people, feelings of religious devotion are evoked by that which results from contemplation of the “ground of all being” or “being itself” as the basis of all reality, which they are rationally warranted in taking to accurately represent the nature of reality. [From 1~5]
- Since premises 1-5 are nothing more than unjustified claims (based on feelings), there is no real basis for this conclusion.

(7) For these people, the “ground of being” or “being itself” is itself the object or source of the evoked feelings of religious devotion. [Premise 6]
- Or it could be just emotion or some other source that these people don't understand.

(8) Whatever is the object or source of feelings of religious devotion can be reasonably defined as “God”. [Premise 7]
- OK, if you want to define your emotions as "God".

(9) There are people who are rationally warranted in concluding that reality contains as its basis that which we can reasonably call "God".
[Conclusion, from 6, 7, & 8]

- This has got to be one of the poorest arguments I have seen. It boils down to this:
(1) I feel something special.
(2) I think what I feel is God.
(3) Therefore, I am warranted in believing that God is real.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Me:(4) Naturalistic assumptions of determinism, and the arbitrary nature of naturalistic cosmology creates an arbitrary necessity; if the UEO has to produce existents automatically and/or deterministically due to naturalistic forces, the congtingencies function as necessities

Skepster:- This argument presents a false dichotomy between contingency and necessity.

ajaahahahahaahahahahha so ignorant , you know nothing! no dumb ass necessity and cont ency ear as much a valid part of logic as logical and illogical.


(Actually, this is something that all theists do, as far as I know, because their God arguments depend on it.) Why can't there be something that is neither necessary nor contingent? I have yet to see a valid argument that disproves the existence of any brute fact.

Because how logic work. Kellie saying why can't there be an arguer that demesne;t reacquire a premise?

this massiveness stupid, learn something about the topic before you flap gums
m-skeptical said...
(1) For many people, the “sense of the numinous” evokes feelings of religious devotion. [Premise 1]
- Just because people feel this does not imply that the feeling they have corresponds to external reality.

why should I give your stupid little anti religious bigotry the time of day You want o taken illustrious within knowing shit.

(2) For [some of(?)] those people, this “sense of the numinous” results from a perception of the juxtaposition of the finite nature of ourselves and the infinite nature of the universe, and contemplation of the “special nature of being” which is rationally inferred on the basis of these perceptions. [Premise 2]
- A perception of something does not mean that what is perceived is real. Someone might just as well "perceive" a spaghetti monster.

that's not what scene assumes, why should we laud your phony observations just because you indulge yourself by spelling out conditions under which you assume truth has been imparted? If we don;t go by our perceptions what do we go by?

(3) This “special nature of being” refers to the necessary existence of a “ground of all being” or “being itself” as the basis of reality. [Premise 3]
- Or it might refer to anything else you care to claim.

why would it? give me a rational reason to assume so?

this is every bit as ignorant as I expected it to be



2/18/2019 09:17:00 AM Delete
im-skeptical said…
ajaahahahahaahahahahha so ignorant , you know nothing! no dumb ass necessity and cont ency ear as much a valid part of logic as logical and illogical.

- OK. Let's try using a little bit of logic, for a change. Something that is necessary must exist eternally, and couldn't fail to exist. Something that is contingent need not exist, but depends for its existence upon something that is necessary. This is your argument. You claim that a necessary thing must exist to explain the existence of contingent things. But there is another logical possibility. Something might not be necessary, but also not be contingent upon another thing.

Let's say we have contingent object C. How do we explain the existence of C? We could say (as you do) that C can only be explained by object N, which exists necessarily. But C could just as well be explained by object B, which is a brute fact. Now, B is not a necessary thing. B is simply a fact of reality, and in another world, B might not be the case at all. But it just so happens that in our world, B is true.

Why is this not a logical possibility? What if B is the simple reality that quantum events occur, and sometimes, those events result in cosmic expansion? Reality doesn't have to be structured that way, but in our world, it is. No Gods involved. No necessary beings at all. Just reality.
m-skeptical said...
ajaahahahahaahahahahha so ignorant , you know nothing! no dumb ass necessity and cont ency ear as much a valid part of logic as logical and illogical.

- OK. Let's try using a little bit of logic,

Have to be a little because you don't know a lot


Something that is necessary must exist eternally, and couldn't fail to exist. Something that is contingent need not exist, but depends for its existence upon something that is necessary. This is your argument. You claim that a necessary thing must exist to explain the existence of contingent things. But there is another logical possibility. Something might not be necessary, but also not be contingent upon another thing.

no that is wrong, there is no third option.


Let's say we have contingent object C. How do we explain the existence of C? We could say (as you do) that C can only be explained by object N, which exists necessarily. But C could just as well be explained by object B, which is a brute fact. Now, B is not a necessary thing. B is simply a fact of reality, and in another world, B might not be the case at all. But it just so happens that in our world, B is true.

no Brute fact is not outside the paradigm necessity or contingent, a brute fact is either necessary or contingent,


Why is this not a logical possibility?

brutishness of a fact has nothing to do with it's mode of existence, or with modal operators.


What if B is the simple reality that quantum events occur, and sometimes, those events result in cosmic expansion? Reality doesn't have to be structured that way, but in our world, it is. No Gods involved. No necessary beings at all. Just reality.

you are begging the question, just saying that does not free it from modality,
im-skeptical said…
you are begging the question, just saying that does not free it from modality

- It's not begging the question. I am simply posing a possibility. And you are conflating modal logic with modes of existence. In S5 modal logic, a proposition is necessarily true, or it isn't. That is the dichotomy. There is no "contingent" proposition. You don't seem to understand the difference between modal logic and modes of existence.
ou are begging the question, just saying that does not free it from modality

- It's not begging the question. I am simply posing a possibility.


ok I wont quibble over question begging bit your argument assumes things can happen without causes, you either have an infinite regression or you need a final cause. you don't have one


And you are conflating modal logic with modes of existence.

aahahah stupid! that exactly what modal logic is, it;s about modes of existence. like necessity is a mode,and contingency is a mode.

In S5 modal logic, a proposition is necessarily true, or it isn't. That is the dichotomy. There is no "contingent" proposition. You don't seem to understand the difference between modal logic and modes of existence.

You don't understand the basics you want to look like you do..they most certainly spake contingency in s5. my arguments are from Hartshorne who was the expert on S5

you are just proving you have never read anything about model logic,

saying the universe is continent is not the same as saying a proposition is not necessary or that does not mean they capt use contingency in argument,
im-skeptical said…
ok I wont quibble over question begging bit your argument assumes things can happen without causes, you either have an infinite regression or you need a final cause. you don't have one
- That would be a first cause - not a final cause. And I do have one. It's the quantum event that just happens.

aahahah stupid! that exactly what modal logic is, it;s about modes of existence. like necessity is a mode,and contingency is a mode. ... You don't understand the basics you want to look like you do..they most certainly spake contingency in s5. my arguments are from Hartshorne who was the expert on S5
- S5 modal logic uses modal operators for necessity and possibility. Nothing about "contingency" there. See this reference.

you are just proving you have never read anything about model logic
- And what have you proven?

saying the universe is continent is not the same as saying a proposition is not necessary or that does not mean they capt use contingency in argument
- You are confused. There is a difference between modal logic (involving necessarily true or possibly true propositions) and modes of existence (involving things that exist necessarily, contingently, or as as brute facts that may be neither necessary nor contingent). I understand that you reject the existence of brute facts, but that's only because your religious belief requires it. It's still a logically possible mode of existence.
ok I wont quibble over question begging bit your argument assumes things can happen without causes, you either have an infinite regression or you need a final cause. you don't have one
- That would be a first cause - not a final cause. And I do have one. It's the quantum event that just happens.

when you start from first thing it's first cause. When you start with us and work back it's final cause because it's the final thing in the series. Either way it's the same origin, those are the same thing.

aahahah stupid! that exactly what modal logic is, it;s about modes of existence. like necessity is a mode,and contingency is a mode. ... You don't understand the basics you want to look like you do..they most certainly spake contingency in s5. my arguments are from Hartshorne who was the expert on S5.


- S5 modal logic uses modal operators for necessity and possibility. Nothing about "contingency" there. See this reference.

I am sorry my fried you are wrong. "We introduce a logic with modal operators of positive and negative contingency and positive and negative necessity that are interpreted in reflexive Kripke models. We then study the validities in S5 models. of a formula ϕ is the maximum number of nested modal op- erators in ϕ.
Logics of Contingency - Association for the Advancement of Artificial ...
https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/SSS/SSS11/paper/viewFile/2432/2955"


contingency and modal logic

"One of the logical problems with which Arthur Prior struggled both in time and modality and in Past Present and future is the problem of finding, in Prior's own phrase, 'a logic for contingent beings.'the beings he has in mind were beings such as you and I."

you are just proving you have never read anything about model logic


- And what have you proven?

Just proved I have. I had a correspondence with Plantinga in which we discussed this very thing

saying the universe is continent is not the same as saying a proposition is not necessary or that does not mean they capt use contingency in argument


- You are confused. There is a difference between modal logic (involving necessarily true or possibly true propositions) and modes of existence (involving things that exist necessarily, contingently, or as as brute facts that may be neither necessary nor contingent).

No. You don't know anything about it because only the rankest unread amateur would not know about the Central place of contingency. Modal logic studies modes of being,necessity is mode of being, that's why they talk about a bring is necessary that is why they say God is necessary and not contingent,


I understand that you reject the existence of brute facts, but that's only because your religious belief requires it. It's still a logically possible mode of existence.

I do not eject brute facts. I reject the idea that my life is one of them that this is the result of Christian teaching is fine, Christianity gives life meaning and purpose and atheism takes it away
im-skeptical said…
when you start from first thing it's first cause. When you start with us and work back it's final cause because it's the final thing in the series. Either way it's the same origin, those are the same thing.
- Joe, that's not how final cause is defined.

I am sorry my fried you are wrong. "We introduce a logic with modal operators ...
- Nom YOU are wrong. You don't even begin to understand the words you quoted. He's not talking about S5. He's talking about a whole new system of logic.

"One of the logical problems with which Arthur Prior struggled both in time and modality and in Past Present and future is the problem of finding, in Prior's own phrase, 'a logic for contingent beings.'the beings he has in mind were beings such as you and I."
- I never said that standard logical systems couldn't be used to address issues of contingent existence, as this author does. What I said is that you have conflated two different kinds of modality. One is modal logic, and the other is modes of existence. They are NOT the same thing.

Just proved I have. I had a correspondence with Plantinga in which we discussed this very thing
- Dropping names does not prove your point. I doubt you have ever had a serious exchange with Plantinga. I doubt he ever made more than a brief reply in passing (if even that) to some comment you made.

No. You don't know anything about it because only the rankest unread amateur would not know about the Central place of contingency. Modal logic studies modes of being,necessity is mode of being, that's why they talk about a bring is necessary that is why they say God is necessary and not contingent
- You don't know what you're talking about, Joe. They are NOT one and the same, even though modal logic can deal with issues of contingent being. If you understood those two papers you cited, you would see that what I'm saying is true.

I do not eject brute facts. I reject the idea that my life is one of them that this is the result of Christian teaching is fine, Christianity gives life meaning and purpose and atheism takes it away
- You DO reject brute facts. You said it yourself: "the existence of contingent conditions requires the existence of necessary conditions". That is an explicit denial of the possibility of brute facts. You don't even understand your own words, let alone any genuine logic.
Joe
when you start from first thing it's first cause. When you start with us and work back it's final cause because it's the final thing in the series. Either way it's the same origin, those are the same thing.


Skp- Joe, that's not how final cause is defined.

yes it is you must stop going by atheist web sites,I;ve been doing this for 20 years, and with coaching fro plantinga



I am sorry my fried you are wrong. "We introduce a logic with modal operators ...


- Nom YOU are wrong. You don't even begin to understand the words you quoted. He's not talking about S5. He's talking about a whole new system of logic.

that does not mean that you can't talk contingent in S5. why are you talking about S5?I advanced the argument and it was in SS. You are totally wrong about it but I am not usinf it

- You DO reject brute facts. You said it yourself: "the existence of contingent conditions requires the existence of necessary conditions". That is an explicit denial of the possibility of brute facts. You don't even understand your own words, let alone any genuine logic.

I've already told you brute facts are not alternatives to necessity/contingency. Some facts are brute facts but my life is not one norr, the existence of the universe

Xanthun is used in chewing gum that is a brute fact,
some people think Brute facts are things without causes,(other than God) there are no things without causes. That is not really the definition of BF/ IO t's a existential that has no reasonm it has a cause but no meaning.
im-skeptical said…
yes it is you must stop going by atheist web sites,I;ve been doing this for 20 years, and with coaching fro plantinga
- I suggest you look up 'final cause', Joe. Your extensive experience obviously didn't teach you what any student of philosophy knows.

that does not mean that you can't talk contingent in S5. why are you talking about S5?I advanced the argument and it was in SS. You are totally wrong about it but I am not usinf it
- I see you left out the part of my comment where I told you that. I'll repeat what I said: "They are NOT one and the same, even though modal logic can deal with issues of contingent being. If you understood those two papers you cited, you would see that what I'm saying is true." But the fact remains that even though you claim you were not using S5 modal logic, you WERE using the 'necessity' operator from S5, and then conflating that with necessary existence. Let's just face it, Joe. You don't know what you're talking about (as usual).

I've already told you brute facts are not alternatives to necessity/contingency.
- A brute fact is defined as: "An inscrutable datum of experience; a thing that is undeniably the case, but which is impervious to reasoned explication." Going by that definition, Christians exclude the one and only necessary being (God), because he is supposedly his own explanation, and they exclude all contingent things, which are explained by their causes. The other logical possibility is some existential brute fact that is neither God nor a contingent object. Simple logic, Joe. This is not an argument for the existence of a brute fact, but it is simply the recognition of a logical possibility.

some people think Brute facts are things without causes,(other than God) there are no things without causes. That is not really the definition of BF/ IO t's a existential that has no reasonm it has a cause but no meaning.
I gave you the definition from the dictionary. That's something you should use once in a while. It has nothing to do with 'meaning'.
Blogger im-skeptical said...
yes it is you must stop going by atheist web sites,I;ve been doing this for 20 years, and with coaching fro plantinga


- I suggest you look up 'final cause', Joe. Your extensive experience obviously didn't teach you what any student of philosophy knows.


"Aristotle's very ancient metaphysics often centered on the four causes of being. They are the material, formal, efficient, and final cause. According to Aristotle, the material cause of a being is its physical properties or makeup. ... And the final cause is the ultimate purpose for its being."Feb 28, 2015
Aristotle's Metaphysics: The Four Causes - Video & Lesson ...
https://study.com/academy/lesson/aristotles-metaphysics-the-four-causes.html

Note final cause is "And the final cause is the ultimate purpose for its being" in cosmological argent final cause is God's purpose. final cause of the universe is God's purpose






that does not mean that you can't talk contingent in S5. why are you talking about S5?I advanced the argument and it was in SS. You are totally wrong about it but I am not usinf it


- I see you left out the part of my comment where I told you that. I'll repeat what I said: "They are NOT one and the same, even though modal logic can deal with issues of contingent being. If you understood those two papers you cited, you would see that what I'm saying is true." But the fact remains that even though you claim you were not using S5 modal logic, you WERE using the 'necessity' operator from S5, and then conflating that with necessary existence. Let's just face it, Joe. You don't know what you're talking about (as usual).

you are just harping on some bs fingernail to make look like you know some thinr butyou don't it's ot a poimt dispeoces or changesmy arguen,t

JoeI've already told you brute facts are not alternatives to necessity/contingency.



- A brute fact is defined as: "An inscrutable datum of experience; a thing that is undeniably the case, but which is impervious to reasoned explication."

that is insubordinate to answer, There are two major differences most philosophers assume. some assume it is something the cause of which is unknown other assume no purpose.


Going by that definition, Christians exclude the one and only necessary being (God), because he is supposedly his own explanation, and they exclude all contingent things, which are explained by their causes.

utter bull shit. Only some philosophers use the definition you gave if you would actually think for once you would see it basically works as a prelude forthe two assumptions I made.


The other logical possibility is some existential brute fact that is neither God nor a contingent object. Simple logic, Joe. This is not an argument for the existence of a brute fact, but it is simply the recognition of a logical possibility.

It can't crate from necessity or from a hither law that governs it, then it would be contingent. Thus it's creative act must be a free act of will. Hast makes it God

some people think Brute facts are things without causes,(other than God) there are no things without causes. That is not really the definition of BF/ IO t's a existential that has no reasonm it has a cause but no meaning.

this jibes with your definition there may be nothing w/o cause but there are things thr cause of which we cannot know, that was my other definition


I gave you the definition from the dictionary. That's something you should use once in a while. It has nothing to do with 'meaning'.

well you get a fat red A or you woulds in 6th grade but real thinkers read the who;e body of thought and forge their own definitions. Besides you didn't get it get that definition from Westernmost or from Flew I'm you used a popular dictionary

2/20/2019 08:11:00 AM
I googled your defimniion of brute fact: https://www.yourdictionary.com/brute-fact

"your dictionary"


(PDF) Understanding Brute Facts - ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226230044_Understanding_Brute_Facts
Barnes claims that the unification theory cannot do justice to the notion of being a brute fact, because it implies that brute facts are gaps in our understanding of ...
im-skeptical said…
final cause of the universe is God's purpose
- Very good, Joe. Note that this is very different from what you said: "when you start from first thing it's first cause. When you start with us and work back it's final cause because it's the final thing in the series. Either way it's the same origin, those are the same thing."

you are just harping on some bs fingernail to make look like you know some thinr butyou don't it's ot a poimt dispeoces or changesmy arguen,t
- I made the point that you are conflating two different kinds of necessity. That was the basis of your argument, and it's wrong.

that is insubordinate to answer, There are two major differences most philosophers assume. some assume it is something the cause of which is unknown other assume no purpose.
- You miss the point, Joe. An existential brute fact is something that exists without an explanation (in the form of a cause) and without necessity (in the sense that your God is seen as necessary). This IS a logical possibility, regardless of your religious-based denials.

utter bull shit. Only some philosophers use the definition you gave if you would actually think for once you would see it basically works as a prelude forthe two assumptions I made.
- I don't understand this. You said my statement (about the rejection of brute facts) was bullshit, and then you said you agree with it? (And I think you do agree with it.)

It can't crate from necessity or from a hither law that governs it, then it would be contingent. Thus it's creative act must be a free act of will. Hast makes it God
- That's religious bullshit, Joe. Nature is what it is. That's a brute fact.

this jibes with your definition there may be nothing w/o cause but there are things thr cause of which we cannot know, that was my other definition
- Whether we know the cause is not the point. It is a question of whether there is no cause for certain things. And despite your denials, that IS a logical possibility.

well you get a fat red A or you woulds in 6th grade but real thinkers read the who;e body of thought and forge their own definitions. Besides you didn't get it get that definition from Westernmost or from Flew I'm you used a popular dictionary
- And you get a fat red F for not knowing basic philosophical concepts. Go back to school, kid.

Barnes claims that the unification theory cannot do justice to the notion of being a brute fact, because it implies that brute facts are gaps in our understanding of ...
- This is not a question of epistemology. The issue is not whether we fail to understand. It is a question of whether something can be neither necessary nor caused. If so, then it is an existential brute fact. The existence of virtual particles is a brute fact, because they fit that definition.
Joefinal cause of the universe is God's purpose


- Very good, Joe. Note that this is very different from what you said: "when you start from first thing it's first cause. When you start with us and work back it's final cause because it's the final thing in the series. Either way it's the same origin, those are the same thing."

No it's exactly in line with what i said you need to use your little Brandi and think about things not just look at surface. What I said puts God at the end of the chain,God is actually at both ends, the finality of creation and the origin of creation. But final cause is still the cause of the universe. It's the origin point we trace back to. Then they distinguish between God and God's purpose I don't draw that distinction.

Another thing about these definition they are operational so they need to be adapted to my meaning because they deal with my argument.

you are just harping on some bs fingernail to make look like you know some thinr butyou don't it's ot a poimt dispeoces or changesmy arguen,t


- I made the point that you are conflating two different kinds of necessity. That was the basis of your argument, and it's wrong.

If you made that point you made it badly it's unclear I did not get that. now tell me where the two kinds are and why they can't be used as I have used them?



that is insubordinate to answer, There are two major differences most philosophers assume. some assume it is something the cause of which is unknown other assume no purpose.


- You miss the point, Joe. An existential brute fact is something that exists without an explanation (in the form of a cause) and without necessity (in the sense that your God is seen as necessary). This IS a logical possibility, regardless of your religious-based denials.

that's one o the two concepts I just talked about Nothing there inconsistent with my arguer, The fact that there may be existential brute facts does not prove that the universe come to be without God,it jut means some aspects of the universe are unknown, you must link those EBF's to creation to pull that argument



utter bull shit. Only some philosophers use the definition you gave if you would actually think for once you would see it basically works as a prelude forthe two assumptions I made.

- I don't understand this. You said my statement (about the rejection of brute facts) was bullshit, and then you said you agree with it? (And I think you do agree with it.)

It can't crate from necessity or from a hither law that governs it, then it would be contingent. Thus it's creative act must be a free act of will. Hast makes it God
- That's religious bullshit, Joe. Nature is what it is. That's a brute fact.


the way you use it to Coulter my argument is bs

this jibes with your definition there may be nothing w/o cause but there are things thr cause of which we cannot know, that was my other definition

- Whether we know the cause is not the point. It is a question of whether there is no cause for certain things. And despite your denials, that IS a logical possibility.

well you get a fat red A or you woulds in 6th grade but real thinkers read the who;e body of thought and forge their own definitions. Besides you didn't get it get that definition from Westernmost or from Flew I'm you used a popular dictionary

- And you get a fat red F for not knowing basic philosophical concepts. Go back to school, kid.

Joe: Barnes claims that the unification theory cannot do justice to the notion of being a brute fact, because it implies that brute facts are gaps in our understanding of ...




- This is not a question of epistemology.

yes it is


The issue is not whether we fail to understand. It is a question of whether something can be neither necessary nor caused. If so, then it is an existential brute fact. The existence of virtual particles is a brute fact, because they fit that definition.

No product of nature can be uncased. As I said there are two different notions of Bf neuter of them the universe doesn't need a cause.the two are (a) no scientific understanding of the cause of a given object, x.

(b) says there may be items that serve no purpose and do not exist as a result of a preconceived plan.I atheism is right the whole universe fits b. But the this is not enough to wreck my argument, for one thing just saying there could be items in b is not proof that they are there, saying that without God the universe is in item b does not prove there is no God.
im-skeptical said…
yes it is [a question of epistemology]
- You are not listening to my argument. I am only talking about what the logical possibilities are. Only if you deny one of the logical possibilities does it become a question of epistemology. But that's not the issue. In this instance, I am talking about the logical possibility (namely that something could be neither necessary nor caused) that you deny. My argument is not that this must be the case. It is merely that it is a logical (as distinguished from physical or metaphysical) possibility. To deny that is to reveal your lack of understanding of logic. This is just basic logical theory, which you obviously never studied.

No product of nature can be uncased. As I said there are two different notions of Bf neuter of them the universe doesn't need a cause.the two are (a) no scientific understanding of the cause of a given object, x.
- That's NOT consistent with the definition of a brute fact. We all recognize that there are things for which we don't know the cause. We do not call those things brute facts.

(b) says there may be items that serve no purpose and do not exist as a result of a preconceived plan.
- The definition of 'brute fact' has nothing to do with 'purpose'. Look it up.

I atheism is right the whole universe fits b. But the this is not enough to wreck my argument, for one thing just saying there could be items in b is not proof that they are there, saying that without God the universe is in item b does not prove there is no God.
- Joe, how many times do I have to tell you that NOBODY (least of all myself) is trying to prove that God doesn't exist. If you can't acknowledge simple logical realities, then you are not in a position to argue about proofs. Your problem that your one-dimensional mind mind is so stuck on God belief, you don't even acknowledge any other possibilities, and you then are unable to effectively argue against those possibilities.
yes it is [a question of epistemology]
- You are not listening to my argument. I am only talking about what the logical possibilities are. Only if you deny one of the logical possibilities does it become a question of epistemology. But that's not the issue. In this instance, I am talking about the logical possibility (namely that something could be neither necessary nor caused) that you deny. My argument is not that this must be the case. It is merely that it is a logical (as distinguished from physical or metaphysical) possibility. To deny that is to reveal your lack of understanding of logic. This is just basic logical theory, which you obviously never studied.

Alvin Plantinga to me in Private email. 2011: "Everything is either necessary or contingent there is no other possibility." You don't have any philosopher saying BF is the third alternative here.' If you think so then cite him or her

No product of nature can be uncaused. As I said there are two different notions of Bf neuter of them the universe doesn't need a cause.the two are (a) no scientific understanding of the cause of a given object, x.

- That's NOT consistent with the definition of a brute fact. We all recognize that there are things for which we don't know the cause. We do not call those things brute facts.

(b) says there may be items that serve no purpose and do not exist as a result of a preconceived plan.


- The definition of 'brute fact' has nothing to do with 'purpose'. Look it up.


you are just going by the one and not the other, I said two definitions,if one said the world needs no explanation it just is, that;a brute fact bet you would agree but thst it is the same as saying it has no purpose.

"In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is a fact that has no explanation. More narrowly, brute facts may instead be defined as those facts which cannot be explained (as opposed to simply having no explanation). To reject the existence of brute facts is to think that everything can be explained.
Brute fact - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact"


I atheism is right the whole universe fits b. But the this is not enough to wreck my argument, for one thing just saying there could be items in b is not proof that they are there, saying that without God the universe is in item b does not prove there is no God.


- Joe, how many times do I have to tell you that NOBODY (least of all myself) is trying to prove that God doesn't exist.

pull your head out of your ass an think a philosopher you moron

If you can't acknowledge simple logical realities, then you are not in a position to argue about proofs. Your problem that your one-dimensional mind mind is so stuck on God belief, you don't even acknowledge any other possibilities, and you then are unable to effectively argue against those possibilities.

stop wasting my time you philosophicaly illiterate pedestrian

2/22/2019 11:05:00 AM
im-skeptical said…
"Everything is either necessary or contingent there is no other possibility."
- That is the religionist party line. You and other religionists have no choice but to deny the possibility of something that is logically possible, because if you admit it, that undermines theistic arguments.

you are just going by the one and not the other, I said two definitions,if one said the world needs no explanation it just is, that;a brute fact bet you would agree but thst it is the same as saying it has no purpose.
- I still haven't seen any definition of 'brute fact' that mentions 'purpose' as part of the definition. In fact, you can go to the IEP and search for references to 'brute fact'. There are many mentions of it, and they generally accept notion the certain things are brute facts. I couldn't find any argument there that brute facts don't exist. That is nothing but a religionist idea.

pull your head out of your ass an think a philosopher you moron
- Joe, you are constantly saying things like "That doesn't disprove God." I keep telling you that nobody is trying to disprove God. Most philosophers agree that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. But YOU keep harping about proof. You are the one who needs to pull your head out of your ass and start thinking more like a philosopher.

stop wasting my time you philosophicaly illiterate pedestrian
- You can try to keep up the pretense, but we have already seen that you don't understand basic philosophical concepts (like final cause, for example). You happily latch onto certain theistic philosophers, and you lap up every word they say without really understanding it. As for secular philosophers, we have seen again and again that you have no clue about their ideas and arguments. Your knowledge of philosophy in general is pathetic.

im-skeptical said...
"Everything is either necessary or contingent there is no other possibility."


- That is the religionist party line. You and other religionists have no choice but to deny the possibility of something that is logically possible, because if you admit it, that undermines theistic arguments.

the propaganda of the God hater, Look at he rabid irrationality,I quote a major major thinker who tells me personally what's what this unknown iterate know nothing knows better, he never has proof he never quotes facts he never quotes authority he never proves his statements,it all just propaganda,

this is closed

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Scientifically Documented Miracles

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

The Meaning of the Manger