[
Replying to DrNoGods in post #377]
I brought up ALL god concepts that humans have invented ... not just the "low" concepts (whatever that actually means). There have been thousands of them over time, from the human-like versions to those that are nonphysical of all kinds.
They are all the lower creature kind unless they are the God of classical theism, which is that God is existence itself. Any other god has parts and thus is a composited being. It is just saying, here is a person but without our limitations. We don't see this as God at all.
Here is a time stamped part of a video that will explain why other god concepts are not really God unless it is the God of classical theism, divine simplicity.
https://youtu.be/OvdGw8IbFng?t=1588
I started it here- To deny that God is simple or non-composit is implicitly to deny his uniqueness and ultimacy. Insofar as such a denial makes of God a mere instance of a genus, it reduces him to the status of a member of a pantheon of gods, and it does so even if we think of him as a unique member.
After all, the nature of a Zues or Odin would not change even if they became the sole occupants of Olympus or Asguard respectively.
Reading a description of this "law" (eg. from Here), it seems to apply primarily to "substances." Only some god concepts are a "substance" (a material thing) while others are not. Arguments for a "necessary being" fail to prove the "necessary" part of the problem beyond philosophical musings.
The Identity of Indiscernibles is a
principle of analytic ontology first explicitly formulated by Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz in his
Discourse on Metaphysics.
From your link, which is a good source, BTW. When the philosopher Leibniz talks of things this include metaphysical things. In metaphysics, there are things that exist and substances even. Metaphysical substances such as God. You are thinking of the word substance and things and stuff as it might be used in physics.
Science cannot prove necessity so what other field would you expect it to fall under besides philosophy?
The "necessary being" is existence itself? What properties could such a thing have (other than the fundamental one of existence)? Anything that exists ... exists by definition. So if multiple gods are proposed, each with different properties (again, there have been thousands), and all are claimed to exist, then what determines whether some do exist and some do not? It seems to boil down to simply whether or not someone believes in a particular god.
These composited creatures, that you are calling gods, might or might not exist. It has no baring on the topic of the God of classical theism, which I hold to. Nothing else is God. Everything else called God or gods is a composited being.
Exactly ... so the big hurdle to clear is showing that any god (or gods) is a "necessary being." That hurdle hasn't been cleared yet apart from philosophical arguments that aren't conclusive.
I wouldn't word it that way. It is not to show that any god is a necessary being, but to show that a necessary being makes more since than any alternatives. What alternative do you hold to? For example, concerning the question why does anything exist at all, because there is something eternal or because spontaneous existence?
What do you think change is exactly? What position do you hold? Whatever position you hold, there will be logical consequences.
Many take the I do not care attitude. They just are not concerned with what reality is in itself. That is fine, but then they haven't any thing to offer those that accept a necessary being, unless they can demonstrate that the arguments for one is false. This hasn't been done. For example, with the modal arguments for necessary being, there seems to be a stand still among philosophers. Those that believe in metaphysical naturalism like Graham Oppy are happy to believe in spontaneous existence and thus are not persuaded by a necessary being as that leads to God.
So in the very least, it is extremely reasonable to believe in a necessary being, especially if the alternatives offered are things like spontaneous existence.
OK ... ignore the "lesser beings" and focus on the "necessary being", which you claim there is only one. What are the properties of this being? Where does it exist? What evidence is there that it does, in fact, exist?
It has no properties as properties would mean it is a metaphysically composited being. There are many arguments for it, such as the modal ontological arguments, or my argument from the best possible explanation of why there is anything at all, or the Aristotelean argument, which is discussed in a high way between Graham Oppy (atheist philosopher) and Ed Feser (Catholic Philosopher).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-80lQOlNOs&t=16s Here is one of their debates.
What it ended up boiling down to is if there can exist things that have existential inertia. Ed Feser argues as to why the defense for this view is circular. Oppy is content to believe that simples just spontaneously come to be and that they come to be with the power to exist in and of themselves. That is the alternative attack against Feser's argument.
I have no idea how an intelligent person can honestly be content with the idea of 1. spontaneous existence and 2. of a magical property of existential inertia.
God is self existent but this is not an arbitrary thing said of God as it is said of Oppy's simples. Oppy offers no reason as to why they ought to exist as such. But Feser's argument leads to a being that is purely actual, is existence itself. It must by its nature have existential inertia, but simples do not need to have this. They very well could have spontaneously come to exist without said power, but the purely actual being could not exist any other way other than having the power to self-exist. It is necessary to its very nature.
