God Argument: from cosmological Dependence

Image result for creation of nebula



1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances.
3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existnece there is no actual explanation of causes
4. Therefore, there exists at least one  eternal thing
5. The  one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things
6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God."
7. Therefore God exists.


My Official Definition of terms

eternal: Timeless, uncased,  

dependent: Caused or in some way determined or brought about




Dependence us not limited 1x1 causation but circumstances and make the phenomena pendent upon  upon those circumstances,








Comments

im-skeptical said…
First, thank you for illustrating the problem that I pointed out in the other thread. Now they you have defined your terms, we can see that any assertion of necessity is unjustified, according to the the argument you have laid out. In other words, statement 4 in your previous argument DID gratuitously insert a new definition in mid-stream, and that's equivocation.

Let me now turn my attention to this version of the argument.
- I don't accept statement 2, because I know that there are uncaused things in this world. However, I will let it pass for the sake of this discussion.
- Statement 5 asserts just one eternal thing. There is no logical reason it couldn't be more than one.
- Statement 6 begs the question. Why couldn't this eternal thing be devoid of any will? Why couldn't it simply cause things without having any intention or knowledge of what it is doing?
Joe Hinman said…
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances.
3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existnece there is no actual explanation of causes
4. Therefore, there exists at least one eternal thing
5. The one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things
6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God."
7. Therefore God exists.






First, thank you for illustrating the problem that I pointed out in the other thread. Now they you have defined your terms, we can see that any assertion of necessity is unjustified, according to the the argument you have laid out.

you are truly blind Skep. Your reaction to this argument proves my other argument is right. You are just reacting to buzz words and not understanding the concepts. Necessary things are eternal because they can't cease to exist and they are uncased. So they can't start or stop, that's eternal but because I use one word and not Tehran you think you won something, You don't understand the concepts,




In other words, statement 4 in your previous argument DID gratuitously insert a new definition in mid-stream, and that's equivocation.

No you don't understand the issues. Necessity and contingency are the only two choices, if it is not contingent then it's necessary. But that's not important now this is a different argument



Let me now turn my attention to this version of the argument.

try


- I don't accept statement 2, because I know that there are uncaused things in this world. However, I will let it pass for the sake of this discussion.

2 does not require that all things in the world be caused, but says "2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances." You get two choices.


- Statement 5 asserts just one eternal thing. There is no logical reason it couldn't be more than one.


I may change the argument to say at least one, If there are more than one God atheism is still wrong,


- Statement 6 begs the question. Why couldn't this eternal thing be devoid of any will? Why couldn't it simply cause things without having any intention or knowledge of what it is doing?


6:"Any eternally existing cause of all things" that's the only requirement it makes so where do you get all the other stuff?
im-skeptical said…
you are truly blind Skep. Your reaction to this argument proves my other argument is right. You are just reacting to buzz words and not understanding the concepts. Necessary things are eternal because they can't cease to exist and they are uncased. So they can't start or stop, that's eternal but because I use one word and not Tehran you think you won something, You don't understand the concepts
- I thought I was getting somewhere with you. I was wrong. Your definition says nothing about necessity, and your new argument says nothing about necessity. Your previous argument asserts necessity without any basis except for the fact that you believe it for religious reasons.

No you don't understand the issues. Necessity and contingency are the only two choices, if it is not contingent then it's necessary. But that's not important now this is a different argument
- Not according to the definition you talked about. You said it was defined in causal terms.

2 does not require that all things in the world be caused, but says "2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances." You get two choices.
- I was talking about things in the world - not things that created the world. In your own words, there is an "eternally existing cause of all things". Presumably that means all things in the world. Don't be so damn cheeky.

I may change the argument to say at least one, If there are more than one God atheism is still wrong,
- And if there is anything that exists eternally that is not God (as you now seem to acknowledge the logical possibility), then YOU are wrong.

6:"Any eternally existing cause of all things" that's the only requirement it makes so where do you get all the other stuff?
- How about the part of that statement where you call it God?
Joe Hinman said…
you are truly blind Skep. Your reaction to this argument proves my other argument is right. You are just reacting to buzz words and not understanding the concepts. Necessary things are eternal because they can't cease to exist and they are uncased. So they can't start or stop, that's eternal but because I use one word and not Tehran you think you won something, You don't understand the concepts



- I thought I was getting somewhere with you. I was wrong. Your definition says nothing about necessity, and your new argument says nothing about necessity. Your previous argument asserts necessity without any basis except for the fact that you believe it for religious reasons.

you are not the teacher.I have been working on this stuff longer than you have I went further in school than you did, I have studied a huge body of work you know nothing about, you have virtually no reading in the arguments. I even discoverer the chart of four ontologically possible categories in 1981, when did yo discover it?

-and your new argument says nothing about necessity.

doesn't HAVE TO THAT;S MY POINT!!!


JoeNo you don't understand the issues. Necessity and contingency are the only two choices, if it is not contingent then it's necessary. But that's not important now this is a different argument


- Not according to the definition you talked about. You said it was defined in causal terms.

I also said the causal aspect is part of the larger definition. here is the link to the post I made discussing the takeaway from our discussion on N/c.

https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2019/03/causal-necessitycontingency-is-marker.html

the point:There seem to be two definitions of N/c: (1) based upon the dependence of an existent upon some prior condition or cause, or (2) N = That which cannot cease or fail to exist, c=that which case cease or fail.I am arguing these are the same one is a maker for the other,[the causal argument is a marker for the broadly logical M/c]

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: 2 does not require that all things in the world be caused, but says "2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances." You get two choices.


- I was talking about things in the world - not things that created the world. In your own words, there is an "eternally existing cause of all things". Presumably that means all things in the world. Don't be so damn cheeky.

No I mean all things, God is being itself. all things in the world are included of course

Joe:I may change the argument to say at least one, If there are more than one God atheism is still wrong,


- And if there is anything that exists eternally that is not God (as you now seem to acknowledge the logical possibility), then YOU are wrong.


that's false. stepdads upon what you mean by "things." There may be impersonal things such as abstractions, I will argue or God as the ground of all being and thus the one eternally necessary aspect of existence. That precludes other gods It does not preclude abstractions.

6:"Any eternally existing cause of all things" that's the only requirement it makes so where do you get all the other stuff?

- How about the part of that statement where you call it God?

6: Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God." Operative phrase there is "cause of all things." Mathematics may be an eternally existing abstraction but it is not the cause of all things. In fact now that I reminded in the past I have concluded if God is universal mind then abstractions or probably originate in that mind
im-skeptical said…
you are not the teacher.I have been working on this stuff longer than you have I went further in school than you did, I have studied a huge body of work you know nothing about, you have virtually no reading in the arguments. I even discoverer the chart of four ontologically possible categories in 1981, when did yo discover it?
- Before you assume the role of teacher, you need to go back to school and learn some of the basics of philosophy. You are unable to distinguish between what is logically possible and what is metaphysically possible. Don't try to pretend that you understand this concept, when you very clearly don't.

doesn't HAVE TO THAT;S MY POINT!!!
- And MY point is that you are basing your argument on a conflation of two different concepts.

here is the link to the post I made discussing the takeaway from our discussion on N/c.
- In that article, you admit that there are two different ways to understand the question of necessity/contingency. You also admit that logical necessity is not the same as metaphysical necessity. But then you go on to make the same mistake of conflating them, and pretending they are one and the same. They aren't the same. That's what I've been trying to tell you. But you just don't get it. You can quote words from some article you found on the internet, but you don't understand what it says. The "teacher" gets an F.

No I mean all things, God is being itself. all things in the world are included of course
- You contradict yourself. If God is one of the things in the world, than God cannot be the creator of all things, unless you want to claim that God created himself.

I will argue or God as the ground of all being and thus the one eternally necessary aspect of existence.
- The necessity of your God is entirely dependent on the metaphysics that you believe. There ARE other logical possibilities. From a strictly logical perspective, God is possible but not necessary.

Mathematics may be an eternally existing abstraction but it is not the cause of all things. In fact now that I reminded in the past I have concluded if God is universal mind then abstractions or probably originate in that mind
- You are side-tracking from the argument.
Joe Hinman said…
you are not the teacher.I have been working on this stuff longer than you have I went further in school than you did, I have studied a huge body of work you know nothing about, you have virtually no reading in the arguments. I even discoverer the chart of four ontologically possible categories in 1981, when did yo discover it?


- Before you assume the role of teacher, you need to go back to school and learn some of the basics of philosophy. You are unable to distinguish between what is logically possible and what is metaphysically possible. Don't try to pretend that you understand this concept, when you very clearly don't.

Ignoramous, you think that because you don't know what broadly logical necessity is. That;s a term Platinga uses it is not the same as ordinary logically necessity.broadly logical necessity is the same as Metaphysical necessity.




you are not the teacher.I have been working on this stuff longer than you have I went further in school than you did, I have studied a huge body of work you know nothing about, you have virtually no reading in the arguments. I even discoverer the chart of four ontologically possible categories in 1981, when did yo discover it?


- Before you assume the role of teacher, you need to go back to school and learn some of the basics of philosophy. You are unable to distinguish between what is logically possible and what is metaphysically possible. Don't try to pretend that you understand this concept, when you very clearly don't.

doesn't HAVE TO THAT;S MY POINT!!!


- And MY point is that you are basing your argument on a conflation of two different concepts.

Just anther example of your ignorance,

Joe: here is the link to the post I made discussing the takeaway from our discussion on N/c.


- In that article, you admit that there are two different ways to understand the question of necessity/contingency. You also admit that logical necessity is not the same as metaphysical necessity. But then you go on to make the same mistake of conflating them, and pretending they are one and the same.


you don;t get that there is a difference between broadly logical necessity and logical necessity, BROADLY LOGICAL NECESSITY = metaphysical necessity,here is what said

"This seems to create a dichotomy for some atheists in that they try to juxtapose two kinds of contingency against one another; There are Types of necessity and contingency but the distinction between broadly logical or "Metaphysical" necessity and the causal type reflected in my CA is not one of them, These two types were shown by Hartshorne to be united,. The causal form of contingency is a marker for the broadly logical or metaphysical. This is my own idea.

Necessity is that which cannot cease or fail to exist; that for which one could contradict to speak of such things. Thus contingency is that which can cease or fail to exist.But it seems that ceasing and failing are bound up with causes and circumstances of existence in the natural world, Thus we can think of causality an an ontological marker spellimg out for us the nature of contingency in the natural world,. After all anything that depends for its existence upon a prior condition (even an ontologically prior condition that is not temporally prior) is contingent because it could cease or fail to exist, thus it;s contingency is marked by it;s causality."

Joe Hinman said…
They aren't the same. That's what I've been trying to tell you. But you just don't get it. You can quote words from some article you found on the internet, but you don't understand what it says. The "teacher" gets an F.

you are going to embarrass yourself further if I have get a bunch of quotes to prove it. the piece I wrote explicates it so you din't read it all did you?

JoeNo I mean all things, God is being itself. all things in the world are included of course

- You contradict yourself. If God is one of the things in the world, than God cannot be the creator of all things, unless you want to claim that God created himself.

God is not a thing in the world ordered among creation. He is present in the world because he is present every were as the Eastern Orthodox say God is present through his energies no this essence,


I will argue for God as the ground of all being and thus the one eternally necessary aspect of existence.


- The necessity of your God is entirely dependent on the metaphysics that you believe.


that's nonense

There ARE other logical possibilities. From a strictly logical perspective, God is possible but not necessary.


you are confused about the nature of necessity the term does not mean God has to exist,it means he is not dependent upon anything else,, can;t cease or fail to exist,

I did not use those terms in my Argentine so they have nothing to do with this argument,



Mathematics may be an eternally existing abstraction but it is not the cause of all things. In fact now that I reminded in the past I have concluded if God is universal mind then abstractions or probably originate in that mind


Joe Hinman said…
- You are side-tracking from the argument.


what does that mean? That;s not a thing,

doesn't HAVE TO THAT;S MY POINT!!! doesn't have to say it's necessary


- And MY point is that you are basing your argument on a conflation of two different concepts.

here is the link to the post I made discussing the takeaway from our discussion on N/c.



- In that article, you admit that there are two different ways to understand the question of necessity/contingency. You also admit that logical necessity is not the same as metaphysical necessity.

you didn't read it you didn't follow what you did read,


But then you go on to make the same mistake of conflating them, and pretending they are one and the same. They aren't the same. That's what I've been trying to tell you. But you just don't get it. You can quote words from some article you found on the internet, but you don't understand what it says. The "teacher" gets an F.

teachers give the grades you get the F because you are too stupid to get it that Logical necessity and broadly local necessity are different things.

No I mean all things, God is being itself. all things in the world are included of course


- You contradict yourself. If God is one of the things in the world, than God cannot be the creator of all things, unless you want to claim that God created himself.

tisk tisk, [shaking my head] you are just follow an argent that has any complexity at all. God is not a thing in the world we have to distinguish between things in the world and presence in the world. God is present in the world because he is omni present but is not numbered among things in creation God is not a thing he;s an aspect of being being itself. It might help to think of God as analogous to laws of physics, we can't say the laws of physics are numbered among things in creation,

Joe: I will argue or God as the ground of all being and thus the one eternally necessary aspect of existence.


- The necessity of your God is entirely dependent on the metaphysics that you believe.
There ARE other logical possibilities. From a strictly logical perspective, God is possible but not necessary.

God is not merely a possibility possibilities are contingency God is either nearness or impossible.

I am not going to talk about necessity and contingency if you try to keep that up i;ll close it, this is about dependence argumemt so don;t mention those again,
im-skeptical said…
Ignoramous, you think that because you don't know what broadly logical necessity is. That;s a term Platinga uses it is not the same as ordinary logically necessity.broadly logical necessity is the same as Metaphysical necessity.
- Nice attempt to save face, but you failed. Plantinga understands the difference between logical and metaphysical possibility (he refers to metaphysical necessity as "broadly logical necessity"). You don't have a clue.

Just anther example of your ignorance
- That's a poor attempt to save face.

you don;t get that there is a difference between broadly logical necessity and logical necessity, BROADLY LOGICAL NECESSITY = metaphysical necessity,here is what said
- You are the one who's conflating them in your argument. Let's not forget the fact that I introduced the discussion of logical vs. metaphysical when it became clear that you don't understand it. As I said before, you can quote from articles you find on the internet, but you don't understand it.

you are going to embarrass yourself further if I have get a bunch of quotes to prove it. the piece I wrote explicates it so you din't read it all did you?
- You can write a thousand articles. It doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

God is not a thing in the world ordered among creation. He is present in the world because he is present every were as the Eastern Orthodox say God is present through his energies no this essence
- That's what you say. So what?

that's nonense [The necessity of your God is entirely dependent on the metaphysics that you believe]
- It may be nonsense if one rejects logical possibility (and all metaphysical understanding except yours).

you are confused about the nature of necessity the term does not mean God has to exist,it means he is not dependent upon anything else,, can;t cease or fail to exist
- Can't fail to exist under your metaphysical view. But you prove once again that you don't have a clue about logical possibility.

you didn't read it you didn't follow what you did read
- You make no sense. You don't understand basic philosophical concepts.

blah, blah, blah ...

I am not going to talk about necessity and contingency if you try to keep that up i;ll close it, this is about dependence argumemt so don;t mention those again
- Close it. The more we talk about these things, the more you reveal your ignorance of philosophical concepts. You call yourself a "teacher". You tout your many years of experience. As far as I can tell, you never took a course in philosophy. You don't know any of the basics. You may have read some books about theistic philosophy, and you pick up some of the terminology they use, but you don't understand them. You are nothing but a sophist.
Joe Hinman said…
Megnoramous, you think that because you don't know what broadly logical necessity is. That;s a term Platinga uses it is not the same as ordinary logically necessity.broadly logical necessity is the same as Metaphysical necessity.

sorry about name calling,

- Nice attempt to save face, but you failed. Plantinga understands the difference between logical and metaphysical possibility (he refers to metaphysical necessity as "broadly logical necessity"). You don't have a clue.


I already said that I said exactly that, I said it every time, see you are NOT reading my answers,as usual.

quoting from the post I made Monday first look at the title:
"Causal Necessity/Contingency is a Marker for Broadly Logical N/c."

ffrom first paragraph: "There seem to be two definitions of N/c: (1) based upon the dependence of an existent upon some prior condition or cause, or (2) N = That which cannot cease or fail to exist, c=that which case cease or fail.I am arguing these are the same one is a maker for the other,"

"There are Types of necessity and contingency but the distinction between broadly logical or "Metaphysical" necessity and the causal type reflected in my CA is not one of them, These two types were shown by Hartshorne to be united,. The causal form of contingency is a marker for the broadly logical or metaphysical. "

this thread the final paragraph of ny second post: "the point:There seem to be two definitions of N/c: (1) based upon the dependence of an existent upon some prior condition or cause, or (2) N = That which cannot cease or fail to exist, c=that which case cease or fail.I am arguing these are the same one is a maker for the other,[the causal argument is a marker for the broadly logical N/c"

From my fourth post in this thread tell you that Plantinga says it: "Ignoramous, you think that because you don't know what broadly logical necessity is. That;s a term Platinga uses it is not the same as ordinary logically necessity.broadly logical necessity is the same as Metaphysical necessity."

You don't have the slightest idea what's going on in this discussion. I told you I was not going to talk about N/c anymore.



you contradicted your previous position



Joe Hinman said…

Just anther example of your ignorance


- That's a poor attempt to save face.

I didn't lose face I've beaten you in every exchange,

Joeyou don;t get that there is a difference between broadly logical necessity and logical necessity, BROADLY LOGICAL NECESSITY = metaphysical necessity,here is what said

add this to the list above,!!!!!!!!!


- You are the one who's conflating them in your argument. Let's not forget the fact that I introduced the discussion of logical vs. metaphysical when it became clear that you don't understand it. As I said before, you can quote from articles you find on the internet, but you don't understand it.

you are truly not competent! Not only did I intruder the stimulation but you argued against it!


you are going to embarrass yourself further if I have get a bunch of quotes to prove it. the piece I wrote explicates it so you din't read it all did you?


- You can write a thousand articles. It doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

are you really that stupid? the arithmetic proves you are spotting my position,


God is not a thing in the world ordered among creation. He is present in the world because he is present every were as the Eastern Orthodox say God is present through his energies no this essence


- That's what you say. So what?

so it contradicts your ignorant position

that's nonense [The necessity of your God is entirely dependent on the metaphysics that you believe]

that's extremely stupid that's like saying God is Continent because he depends upon me talking abouit him/


- It may be nonsense if one rejects logical possibility (and all metaphysical understanding except yours).

what the hell does that mean,It seems to say if I hold a different view from yours it makes me narrow minded

you are confused about the nature of necessity the term does not mean God has to exist,it means he is not dependent upon anything else,, can;t cease or fail to exist

I don't kowtow where you get that trerm but it;s a fancy way of saying "continent,"


- Can't fail to exist under your metaphysical view. But you prove once again that you don't have a clue about logical possibility.

you didn't read it you didn't follow what you did read
- You make no sense. You don't understand basic philosophical concepts.

blah, blah, blah ...


ok you are o full of horse shit, you

I am not going to talk about necessity and contingency if you try to keep that up i;ll close it, this is about dependence argumemt so don;t mention those again


- Close it.

ok you are banned, You clearly just wasting my time you are so t stupid. you have no idea what you are talking bodysuit.

The more we talk about these things, the more you reveal your ignorance of philosophical concepts. You call yourself a "teacher".


You don;t even know what position you are defining,


You tout your many years of experience. As far as I can tell, you never took a course in philosophy. You don't know any of the basics. You may have read some books about theistic philosophy, and you pick up some of the terminology they use, but you don't understand them. You are nothing but a sophist.


We are not talking about the basics, we are talking about things over the head of someone who only knows the basics like you. Because I say things you don;t understand you get upset. you are rally upset because you know I;'m way head of your understanding that destroys your world view,

don't come back know nothing

Popular posts from this blog

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

More evidence for the Historical Truth of David and Goliath

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Is Science one Gene away From Defeating Religion?

Cosmological Argument: from contingency

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

Distinguishing between moral ontology and moral epistemology