Version 2 of God argument 1

[Metacrock]

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





(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!













(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.


As Karl Popper said, empirical facts are facts which might not have been. Everything that belongs to space time is a contingent truth because it could have been otherwise, it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence going all the way back to the Big Bang, which is itself contingent upon something.(Antony Flew, Philosophical Dictionary New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 242.)

[Goat]

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





(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!













(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.


As Karl Popper said, empirical facts are facts which might not have been. Everything that belongs to space time is a contingent truth because it could have been otherwise, it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence going all the way back to the Big Bang, which is itself contingent upon something.(Antony Flew, Philosophical Dictionary New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 242.)

That sounds yet like another attempt to 'define' god into place. YOu can replace the word 'God' with anything you want, and it makes just as little sense.

[Metacrock]

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





(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!













(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.


As Karl Popper said, empirical facts are facts which might not have been. Everything that belongs to space time is a contingent truth because it could have been otherwise, it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence going all the way back to the Big Bang, which is itself contingent upon something.(Antony Flew, Philosophical Dictionary New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 242.)

That sounds yet like another attempt to 'define' god into place. YOu can replace the word 'God' with anything you want, and it makes just as little sense.

you need to re think your concept of "defining something into existence." you are sort of missing the point of logic in thinking that logic can't be used to prove things because its defining things into existence.

I answered this on the first go round

[Goat]

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





(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!













(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.


As Karl Popper said, empirical facts are facts which might not have been. Everything that belongs to space time is a contingent truth because it could have been otherwise, it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence going all the way back to the Big Bang, which is itself contingent upon something.(Antony Flew, Philosophical Dictionary New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 242.)

That sounds yet like another attempt to 'define' god into place. YOu can replace the word 'God' with anything you want, and it makes just as little sense.

you need to re think your concept of "defining something into existence." you are sort of missing the point of logic in thinking that logic can't be used to prove things because its defining things into existence.

I answered this on the first go round

Sounds to me that all you are doign is 'Random pieces of asserstions' therefore GOD.

Not only that, going from your random asserstions and then saying 'The initial condition is God' is just what I called 'defining GOd into existance' That is what
your corrolary is... 'whatever it is, that is god'. Which, in my opinion, makes God
meaningless.

Your correllary does not follow your assumptions. It is pulling a rabbit out of your hat, and calling it "GOD". That does not do God Justice at all.

[juliod]

I agree with goat, but let's start at the beginning.

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

Can you show that this premise is true, or at least likely to be true? Our current understanding of physics and origins is that this premise is false. There were no prior conditions before our universe began. No space, no time, no god, nothing for our universe to be contingent on. In fact, the concept of there being something "before" our universe is a nonsense, astrophysically speaking.

So you argument stops here unless you can show convincing evidence that statement 1 is at least very likely to be true.

DanZ

[Metacrock]

[quote="Metacrock










(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.


As Karl Popper said, empirical facts are facts which might not have been. Everything that belongs to space time is a contingent truth because it could have been otherwise, it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence going all the way back to the Big Bang, which is itself contingent upon something.(Antony Flew, Philosophical Dictionary New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 242.)

That sounds yet like another attempt to 'define' god into place. YOu can replace the word 'God' with anything you want, and it makes just as little sense.

you need to re think your concept of "defining something into existence." you are sort of missing the point of logic in thinking that logic can't be used to prove things because its defining things into existence.

I answered this on the first go round

Sounds to me that all you are doign is 'Random pieces of asserstions' therefore GOD.

Not only that, going from your random asserstions and then saying 'The initial condition is God' is just what I called 'defining GOd into existance' That is what
your corrolary is... 'whatever it is, that is god'. Which, in my opinion, makes God
meaningless.[/quote]



I show the basic necessary assumptions we should make about the origin of things.

then I show that set of charactoristics matches the classic concept of God.

there's nothign illoigcal about that. It's how arguments work. It's not emprical. you have to understand the distinction between empirical observation and deduction. but deductive logic is a valid form of truth findnig.

Your correllary does not follow your assumptions. It is pulling a rabbit out of your hat, and calling it "GOD". That does not do God Justice at all.

why don't you demontrate that becasue I show step for set how it does and I want you to show me how it does not?



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


Universe is contingent

(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).

the ultimate origin can't be contingent, therefore, there must be a necessity. so the universe can't cause itself or be cause by another universe.t hat's just as loigcal as it can be.


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


that just folows right out of what I just said, if the universe is contingent and a contingency can't be the origin, then the universe must have another origin that isn ot contignent. how could that be any more logical?



(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 says you can't have a naturalistic origin. can't be impersonal



(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.


this says if it can't be impersonal it must be personal. how could that be any more logical?
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!


this shows how these characteristics stack up to mean God is the origin. it's all right there logical as day follows night.

[juliod]

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


Universe is contingent

Have you given us any reason to think the universe is contingent? Or even likely to be contingent?

Repeating the claim does not support the claim.

DanZ

[MrWhy]

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

You yelled at me about this during the "prior" round on this subject, but when speculating about conditions outside space/time, it's difficult to use or accept time dependent words like "prior", "cause", "before", "beginning",

(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).

Can you explain why infinite contingencies cannot happen? Explain with words other than "logical nonsense". If the explanation involves something about infinity, then how is the logical nonsense of infinite regress different from an untimate orgin? They would both seem to be dancing in the state of infinity. How is "ultimate origin" different from an uncaused cause?

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

Why couldn't this be the proposed singularity.

(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 logic would seem to only apply after the BB?

(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.

Since you've introduced the, very reasonable, "we don't know" option, should we also consider that we don't know if the singularity point required a prior condition. You propose there was an ultimate origin with no prior condition, so why couldn't the singularity hypothesis be the point of untimate origin with no prior condition. If singularity is outside space/time then are we not outside the need for a cause? And while we are tossing around that, most powerful, "why" word, why must the ultimate orgin be an intelligent entity/force/god/? Evolution (if you believe in that sort of thing) demonstrates that simple, mindless processes can produce things that appear complex and intelligently designed. Couldn't a mindless process also produce the BB? [/quote]

(b)All naturalistic phenomena are empirically derived, thus they are contingent by their very nature.

As Karl Popper said, empirical facts are facts which might not have been. Everything that belongs to space time is a contingent truth because it could have been otherwise, it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence going all the way back to the Big Bang, which is itself contingent upon something.(Antony Flew, Philosophical Dictionary New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 242.)

Since we have no knowledge of the BB physics, How does anyone determine the BB was itself contingent upon something?

[Metacrock]

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


Universe is contingent

Have you given us any reason to think the universe is contingent? Or even likely to be contingent?

Repeating the claim does not support the claim.

DanZ

Yes, look at the 2 points listed a,b, at bottom.



(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.


As Karl Popper said, empirical facts are facts which might not have been. Everything that belongs to space time is a contingent truth because it could have been otherwise, it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence going all the way back to the Big Bang, which is itself contingent upon something.(Antony Flew, Philosophical Dictionary New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 242.)

[juliod]

(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.

This statement is nonsensical. If it means anything I can't figure out what.

(b)All naturalistic phenomena are empirically derived, thus they are contingent by their very nature.


As Karl Popper said, empirical facts are facts which might not have been. Everything that belongs to space time is a contingent truth because it could have been otherwise, it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence going all the way back to the Big Bang, which is itself contingent upon something.

This claim does not appear to be supported. Can you show that anything which is could have been otherwise?

DanZ