The Argument from Necessary Existence

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

Basically, what I am saying is; existence is necessary.

To find out what is meant by necessary (in this context), along with the concept of contingency, please visit this thread...particularly the OP.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38217

This argument, in my opinion, bridges the gap between 3 theistic arguments..

1. Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. Modal Ontological Argument
3. Argument from Contingency

So here we go..

P1. It is impossible for literally nothing to exist

Conclusion: Therefore, existence is necessary

Based on the truth value of P1

P2: Only an uncaused cause can exist necessarily

P3. The universe is not an uncaused cause

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe does not exist necessarily

P4. Since the universe does not exist necessarily, the universe is dependent upon external factors for exist existence

P5. Only an uncaused cause can be the origins/source of a contingently existing universe (a universe which began to exist).

Conclusion: Therefore, God caused the universe to exist
--------------------

Justification for P1: Based upon..

1. The argument from the impossibility of infinite regression: I presented an argument against infinite regression in the following thread…and if there is any refutation of this argument, then I haven’t seen it yet.

For more on this, please see the following thread...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38228

2. The impossibility of things popping into being, uncaused, out of nothing: Things do not pop in to being, uncaused, out of nothing. There are no pre-deterministic factors of “nothing”, which will allow any X thing to spring into existence and nothing else (for those who appeal to quantum physics). Out of nothing, nothing comes.

We will call the above two statements “the main 2”.

----------------

Now, whether or not you are a theist or atheist, neither world view is rational if it is dependent upon either of the above two being true.

Since both possibilities are negated, then it follows that something (X) had to have existed eternally, while not violating either of the above 2 possibilities. X had to have always existed, due to the necessity of its own nature. Since X must have always existed, and is not dependent upon anything external from itself for its existence, we will call this X an uncaused cause (which is a term that will be used interchangeably with X) throughout this discourse.

Justification of P3: If X is uncaused, then X exists necessarily (which logically follows).

Conclusion: The universe is contingent, as it does not exist due to the necessity of its own nature. Why is that the case? Because the universe is all physical reality (space, time, energy, matter; STEM). STEM cannot exist without violating the main two.

Since it is impossible for the main two to be violated, it follows that the universe cannot exist necessarily (in all possible worlds), and cannot be an uncaused cause.

Justification of P4: Since the universe is contingent (based on P4), the universe owes its existence to that which is necessary, which is X (an uncaused cause). The universe cannot be used as an explanation given to explain the origins of its own domain, therefore, it owes its existence to external factors, which brings us back to X (an uncaused cause).

Justification of P5: The uncaused cause is, as proven, to exist necessarily without violation of the main 2. Since all STEM is contingent, then STEM owes its existence to that which is necessary (an uncaused cause). Since the uncaused cause is the source of all STEM, the uncaused cause can not itself be the product of STEM.

The uncaused cause had the power and will to create STEM ex nihilo…and any entity with a will to commit an act, must possess that of consciousness. The power that the uncaused cause possessed, is far beyond power within physical reality. The uncaused cause must have existed outside of time, and initiated time with the moment of creation.

The uncaused cause is what we call, God.

BTW, I made some changes to the way the argument is formatted. Hopefully, it came out smooth.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Sir the God of the Bible as concept already is imagined as having favorites(Israelites), helping some(Israelites) at the expense of others(Amalek).
I can imagine a being more greater the this anthropomorphic God of the Bible. For starters being really all loving( (=All humans are equal objects of God's unconditional love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and thus to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him).
“Equally All loving” is perfection, a maximally greater property.
Therefore God of the Bible cannot be MGB.

A few things to say about this..

1. In essence, what you are saying is; "The God of the Bible doesn't meet my standard of goodness", which is a very subjective statement to make. On an atheist/agnostic perspective, attitudes towards morality and right/wrong are just like attitudes pertaining to which toppings on pizza will make the better pie. It is a matter of opinion.

When you say/imply that God doesn't meet your standard of goodness, you are presupposing a standard of goodness by which you are judging God, and why is your standard any better/greater than God's, or anyone elses'?

Answer: it isn't.

2. The argument is geared towards theism, in general...and not Christian theism, specifically.

So fine, dismiss the Christian God for whatever reasons you have...you are still far past atheism (based on the strength of the argument). So, your atheist/naturalistic worldview is defeated regardless.

3. Yeah, God favored the Israelites so much that he was about to destroy the entire nation and would have done so (all things equal), if it weren't for the pleading of Moses.

And Biblically speaking, God had no problem spanking the Israelites as he saw fit.

Q: Why it’s a non-sequitur?
Asserting it is does not cut it.
Saying so does not make it so.
If one chooses simplicity as great making property it follows because one is simpler then 3.
So the Triune god of the Bible is a complication not needed. Therefore MGB is not God of the Bible.

"If one chooses simplicity as a great making property".

Well, no one I know is choosing simplicity as a great making property...therefore, any points behind a position which no one is holds, is a red herring.

Not only that, but it is also subjective, because what is simple to you may not be simple to me (and vice versa).

And not only that, but it doesn't necessarily follow than one is simpler than 3...because as I stated prior, there is nothing that 3 MGB's can do, that one MGB can't do.

So, we have a subjective, red herring, non sequitur of a counter-argument.

1. 5 greater then 6 was a typo. You did not suspected it so?

I didn't peep that. I was more focused on what you meant than what you actually said.

2. Some people prefer to have multiple lovers and wives.
For some polygamy is better.
So complexity might be the greater making attribute. Which leads to Christianity being false.
This outlines another defect of this argument.
The subjective mechanism of choice of what makes an MGB, what is a perfection.
Once you say: MGB you are in trouble because “great” involves a qualitive description.

I fail to see the sense being made. No offense.

Positing a God outside the universe is a complication conform your logic not needed. Its much simpler to say( Occam's razor) the universe just is.

It isn't much simpler, because to say the universe just is, would violate the implications of the main 2...and you cannot logically do that while at the same time keeping things "simple".

The universe(everything in totality that exists) thing can serve as its own explanation(Eternalism) in a B theory of time where there is no such thing as temporal becoming and temporal lapse of time.
Every moment of time, all there is just exists at once: tenselessly.

Fine, the only problem is; the argument against infinite regress doesn't depend on a particular view of time..it only dependent upon the fact that each event which takes place within time can be numbered, and the total amount of events within time would equal infinity even under Eternalism.

The B theory of time doesn't prevent me from counting, does it?

The absurdities discussed by al-Ghazali do not arise. No infinite regress time problem.
The passage of time is a subjective illusion of human consciousness. Temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.

I just counted to 10. Is that a subjective illusion of my consciousness? Yes or no? Be careful how you answer that.

It was an analogy sir.
We can have imaginary concepts, abstract notions of perfections and they could not exist in reality(universe) although they exist in the imaginary world of our minds.

You cannot conceive that which is impossible. If you can conceive/imagine it, then there is a possible world at which the conception is actualized.

There is no possible world at which a person can be 5'7 and 7'8 at the same time...it is not possible, so you cannot imagine it, can you? No, you can't.

That is the point. However, if you WERE able to imagine it, then there is a possible world where it could be actualized.

As example provided.
They(these perfection) could exist maybe in a another possible worlds.

That is kinda my point.

You cannot just assert its possible to exist without knowing it is so just because one has imagined a concept.

Here is a challenge; name something (an idea) that is logically impossible, yet you can successfully imagine it being true.

If you cannot do that, then my point is proven and no further discussion is necessary.

Assertions do not make truth. One has to show this.
Also one would need maybe to be omniscient and maybe even MGB in order to know if MGB imagined is possible to exist in the first place in reality.

I can certainly conceive of a MGB as defined in the argument.

Let’s not ignore it though:

I can too define God as MGB into non-existence using my own assertion:

-Maximally Visible and Maximally Proven are perfections, maximally great attributes. (it's greater to be Maximally Visible then Partially Visible or Invisible; to be Maximally Proven then Partially Proven or Unproven;
Humans prefer Maximally Visible donuts then partially Visible or Invisible donuts. Humans prefer Maximally Proven things then Partially Proven or Unproven things). I refuse to respond to this until I have an attorney present.

My argument goes like this:

Logical deduction by reduction ad absurdum:

P1. God is MGB. MGB contains all perfections, maximally great attributes. Therefore Maximally Visible, Maximally Proven are checked too.
P2. People who have a genuine disbelief in MGB existence, exist.(Logical contradiction)
C1: Therefore God-MGB does not exists.

Your argument is flawed sir.

Sure, God has the power to "maximally" prove himself, however, he isn't required to maximally prove himself.

All that is required is for the MGB to have the power to do so, which, according to the argument, he does...but it does not follow that having the maximal power to do so must also entail a maximal will to do so.

So, yet another non sequitur. You just can't help yourself with those, can you?

[We_Are_VENOM]

That's the same non sequitur as before. Fill in the gaps for me.

1) If nothingness then no potentiality of something.

Gap filled: Based on this condition^ nothing could possibly ever come into existence. That condition won't allow for the existence of anything...no god(s), no universes, no NOTHING.

...
n) therefore something (X) had to have existed eternally.

So, the story must "begin" with something that was always here (X), and this X thing doesn't owe its existence to anything outside itself...which makes its existence necessary.

n+1) X exists in all possible worlds.

And if X's existence is necessary, it must be necessary in all possible world's, because all necessary truths must be true in all possible worlds. That is the nature of what it means to be necessarily true, as opposed to contingently true (true in some possible worlds, but not all).

[alexxcJRO]

A few things to say about this..

1. In essence, what you are saying is; "The God of the Bible doesn't meet my standard of goodness", which is a very subjective statement to make. On an atheist/agnostic perspective, attitudes towards morality and right/wrong are just like attitudes pertaining to which toppings on pizza will make the better pie. It is a matter of opinion.

When you say/imply that God doesn't meet your standard of goodness, you are presupposing a standard of goodness by which you are judging God, and why is your standard any better/greater than God's, or anyone elses'?

Answer: it isn't.

Its just a logical analysis of concepts irrelevant of objective morality vs subjective morality debate.
God of the Bible it’s not omnibenevolent-all loving according to some parts of the Bible.
"All humans are equal objects of God's unconditional love" its greater concept then "God that has favorites".
I think that all would agree its greater if all children are equal objects of a parent's unconditional love then a parent having favorites.
How can a perfectly good being be perfect if it is not omnibenevolent-all loving. That would entail imperfection.
Also God being omniscient would know humans(genetically, behaviorally) nation wide are equal and would be a contradiction for a an omniscient being to be but omnibenevolent-all loving or equally indifferent.

2. The argument is geared towards theism, in general...and not Christian theism, specifically.

So fine, dismiss the Christian God for whatever reasons you have...you are still far past atheism (based on the strength of the argument). So, your atheist/naturalistic worldview is defeated regardless.

I went with the logic of MGB and saw where the logic leads.

3. Yeah, God favored the Israelites so much that he was about to destroy the entire nation and would have done so (all things equal), if it weren't for the pleading of Moses.

And Biblically speaking, God had no problem spanking the Israelites as he saw fit.

It’s clear God of the bible had favorites among humans: the Israelites. He helped the Israelites at the expanse of others. That’s clear sign of not omnibenevolence-all lovingness. (=All humans are equal objects of God's unconditional love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and thus to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him)

"If one chooses simplicity as a great making property".

Well, no one I know is choosing simplicity as a great making property...therefore, any points behind a position which no one is holds, is a red herring.

Not only that, but it is also subjective, because what is simple to you may not be simple to me (and vice versa).

And not only that, but it doesn't necessarily follow than one is simpler than 3...because as I stated prior, there is nothing that 3 MGB's can do, that one MGB can't do.

So, we have a subjective, red herring, non sequitur of a counter-argument.

Don’t understand your logic.
I used both simplicity as a choice and complexity as a choice for greatness. I used both versions in my logical analysis.
Both have lead using logic to a MGB not being compatible with Christianity.
Unitarian God or the Omni version of a Hive mind-Swarm Intelligence.

I fail to see the sense being made. No offense.

I pointed out that the “greater” term entails subjectivity. So one can use it in a bias way to conjure all kind of preferred gods.
Its not about an objective way of finding things about reality but a way to define a certain god into existence.
That’s dishonest and fallacious.

It isn't much simpler, because to say the universe just is, would violate the implications of the main 2...and you cannot logically do that while at the same time keeping things "simple".
But I can in a B theory of time.

A 4 block space time universe it everlasting in a timeless manner.
The two problems you outlined go away.

Fine, the only problem is; the argument against infinite regress doesn't depend on a particular view of time..it only dependent upon the fact that each event which takes place within time can be numbered, and the total amount of events within time would equal infinity even under Eternalism.

The B theory of time doesn't prevent me from counting, does it?
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.

I just counted to 10. Is that a subjective illusion of my consciousness? Yes or no? Be careful how you answer that.

In a B theory of time there is no such thing as temporal becoming and temporal lapse of time so one its not force to count anything. You don’t need to get anywhere by counting moments of time.
Every moment of time, all of them just exist all at once: tenselessly.
There is a Venom at t1 and another Venom at t2 and so on…. All moments of time involving Venom exist all at once. They are all actual not potential.
Eternalism is kind of the best ontological account of temporal existence in line with special and general relativity.
As Hawking said the universe would be self contained and timeless, it wouldn’t be something that becomes, it would just be.

You cannot conceive that which is impossible. If you can conceive/imagine it, then there is a possible world at which the conception is actualized.

There is no possible world at which a person can be 5'7 and 7'8 at the same time...it is not possible, so you cannot imagine it, can you? No, you can't.

That is the point. However, if you WERE able to imagine it, then there is a possible world where it could be actualized.
That is kinda my point.
Here is a challenge; name something (an idea) that is logically impossible, yet you can successfully imagine it being true.

If you cannot do that, then my point is proven and no further discussion is necessary.

I can certainly conceive of a MGB as defined in the argument.

Sir the examples I provided prove one can imagine a concept that cannot exist in the universe for example.
Maybe those concepts can be actual in a possible world but you cannot assert this without having the knowledge of being so.
It does not follow because I can imagine something it can exist in reality or in a possible world.
Maybe its impossible for perfect circles, perfect squares, perfectly plastic bodies, perfectly black bodies, perfect fluids, perfect gases to actually exist in any possible world.
Possible word entails that which is possible.

Sure, God has the power to "maximally" prove himself, however, he isn't required to maximally prove himself.

All that is required is for the MGB to have the power to do so, which, according to the argument, he does...but it does not follow that having the maximal power to do so must also entail a maximal will to do so.

So, yet another non sequitur. You just can't help yourself with those, can you?

Straw-man.
I did not said God has the power to "maximally" prove himself and therefore God should be maximally visible and proven.
I said : Maximally Visible and Maximally Proven are perfections, maximally great attributes. it's greater to be Maximally Visible then Partially Visible or Invisible; to be Maximally Proven then Partially Proven or Unproven.
Please read careful.
God is MGB. MGB contains all perfections, maximally great attributes. Therefore Maximally Visible, Maximally Proven are checked too.

[otseng]

You just can't help yourself with those, can you?

Moderator Comment

Please do not make personal comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Its just a logical analysis of concepts irrelevant of objective morality vs subjective morality debate.

Oh, my bad. I didn't know this was debate regarding objective morality vs subjective morality.

I must of missed that part, despite being the creator of the thread where the subject of the debate is clear as the blue sky.

God of the Bible it’s not omnibenevolent-all loving according to some parts of the Bible.

Again, you are telling me what God isn't (according to omnibenvolence) and I am asking you who made your standard of morality the authority as to what true benevolence should entail.

"All humans are equal objects of God's unconditional love" its greater concept then "God that has favorites".

I think that all would agree its greater if all children are equal objects of a parent's unconditional love then a parent having favorites.

LOL. God sent his only begotten to be a sacrifice for the sins of mankind...his "Son" was his favorite, and look what he gave up (his son) for the world.



Not trying to hear you, sir.

How can a perfectly good being be perfect if it is not omnibenevolent-all loving. That would entail imperfection.

Again, be careful with the benevolence talk (because of the hole you insist on digging for yourself)....because obviously your definition of "good" differs from that of the Almighty.

Also God being omniscient would know humans(genetically, behaviorally) nation wide are equal and would be a contradiction for a an omniscient being to be but omnibenevolent-all loving or equally indifferent.

?

I went with the logic of MGB and saw where the logic leads.

Oh...go back and retrace your steps.

It’s clear God of the bible had favorites among humans: the Israelites. He helped the Israelites at the expanse of others. That’s clear sign of not omnibenevolence-all lovingness. (=All humans are equal objects of God's unconditional love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and thus to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him)

God sacrificed his own son for the benefit of mankind. That, my friend, is love.

Don’t understand your logic.
I used both simplicity as a choice and complexity as a choice for greatness. I used both versions in my logical analysis.
Both have lead using logic to a MGB not being compatible with Christianity.
Unitarian God or the Omni version of a Hive mind-Swarm Intelligence.

Again, simplicity is subjective.

I pointed out that the “greater” term entails subjectivity. So one can use it in a bias way to conjure all kind of preferred gods.
Its not about an objective way of finding things about reality but a way to define a certain god into existence.
That’s dishonest and fallacious.

I already pointed out the folly in your attempted counter-arguments...and you were relying on complete subjectivity in all of them.

But I can in a B theory of time.

A 4 block space time universe it everlasting in a timeless manner.
The two problems you outlined go away.

In a B theory of time there is no such thing as temporal becoming and temporal lapse of time so one its not force to count anything. You don’t need to get anywhere by counting moments of time.
Every moment of time, all of them just exist all at once: tenselessly.
There is a Venom at t1 and another Venom at t2 and so on…. All moments of time involving Venom exist all at once. They are all actual not potential.

Ok, lets take this slow...

Question: In, lets say, 1847...on B-theory of time, did Venom exist?

Yes or no?

Sir the examples I provided prove one can imagine a concept that cannot exist in the universe for example.

Maybe those concepts can be actual in a possible world but you cannot assert this without having the knowledge of being so.

That is the point, the thought of it being actual in another possible world, the thought in itself makes it possible..the thought itself makes it a possible world.

Can you think of a squared circle? No, because there is no possible world at which a squared circle can exist. Logical absurdities cannot be conceived.

It does not follow because I can imagine something it can exist in reality or in a possible world.

I will offer the challenge again; name something (an idea) that is logically impossible, yet you can successfully imagine it being true.

You glossed over it the last time and I reckon you wouldn't have, if you could meet the challenge.

If you cannot imagine it, then it follows that it isn't possible. Because if it were possible, you WOULD be able to imagine it, as that is how sentience operates...we only deal with possible realities, our brains cannot even conceive impossible ideas.

I did not said God has the power to "maximally" prove himself and therefore God should be maximally visible and proven.
I said : Maximally Visible and Maximally Proven are perfections, maximally great attributes. it's greater to be Maximally Visible then Partially Visible or Invisible; to be Maximally Proven then Partially Proven or Unproven.
Please read careful.
God is MGB. MGB contains all perfections, maximally great attributes. Therefore Maximally Visible, Maximally Proven are checked too.

Well first of all, when you say "it is greater to be Maximally Visible.." and such, you are using the original version of the ontological argument (St. Anslem's version), which is not the argument I am using with Plantiga's modal version of the same argument.

So your counter-argument is a straw man.

Second, as I tried to point out before...sure, maximal visibility is a perfection, and a MGB can certainly become maximally visible, if he decides to do so. So the fact that he can, but he won't, is not a strike against the MGB.

So your point is moot.

Your refutations have failed, is what I am trying to say.

[alexxcJRO]

Again, you are telling me what God isn't (according to omnibenvolence) and I am asking you who made your standard of morality the authority as to what true benevolence should entail.

LOL. God sent his only begotten to be a sacrifice for the sins of mankind...his "Son" was his favorite, and look what he gave up (his son) for the world.



Not trying to hear you, sir.
Again, be careful with the benevolence talk (because of the hole you insist on digging for yourself)....because obviously your definition of "good" differs from that of the Almighty.

?
Oh...go back and retrace your steps.
God sacrificed his own son for the benefit of mankind. That, my friend, is love.

You are all over the place and vague. Please be clear.

Q: Are you saying God of the bible is not omnibenevolent-all loving(=All humans are equal objects of God's unconditional love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and thus to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him)?

Again, simplicity is subjective.
I already pointed out the folly in your attempted counter-arguments...and you were relying on complete subjectivity in all of them.

But sir this is a flaw for your argumentation. You’re the one using MGB. So you are arguing against your self.

I just went with it for the sake for argumentation.
Sir I used both simplicity and complexity. So you can’t say I choose something.
Q: What other line of reasoning is there?
Please enlighten me.

Ok, lets take this slow...

Question: In, lets say, 1847...on B-theory of time, did Venom exist?

Yes or no?

All moments of time exist tenselessly at the same time.
There are both pieces on this 4 dimensional block of time where Venom exists and pieces where Venom does not exist.

That is the point, the thought of it being actual in another possible world, the thought in itself makes it possible..the thought itself makes it a possible world.

Can you think of a squared circle? No, because there is no possible world at which a squared circle can exist. Logical absurdities cannot be conceived.
I will offer the challenge again; name something (an idea) that is logically impossible, yet you can successfully imagine it being true.

You glossed over it the last time and I reckon you wouldn't have, if you could meet the challenge.

If you cannot imagine it, then it follows that it isn't possible. Because if it were possible, you WOULD be able to imagine it, as that is how sentience operates...we only deal with possible realities, our brains cannot even conceive impossible ideas.

Nonsense.

P1. I can conceive a concept PG: perfect gas in my mind.
P2. PG is impossible/not possible to exist in our actual world.
P3. It is possible to conceive a concept that is impossible/not possible to exist in a possible world while it’s possible to exist in our mind. (from P1 and P2)
C. Therefore conceiving a concept does not necessarily entail possibility of existence of the concept in a possible world.(from P3)

Your own reasoning and this argument reasoning can be used against it:
It defeats it self. Your defeating yourself. Funny.

P1. Its not possible to have the property of existence. (Kant objection)
P2. The property of necessary existence entails having the property of existence.
P3. Its not possible to have the property of necessary existence. (from P1 and P2)
P4. By definition MGB is a being that has the property of necessary existence.
P5. Its not possible that MGB exits. (from P3 and P4)
C. Therefore MGB does not exits. (from P5)

P1. I can conceive a world where nothing exits(philosophical nothingness).
P2. If such a world is possible, then a MGB does not exist in some possible world.
P3. If a MGB does not exist in some possible world, then by definition it does not exist in any possible world.
P4. If a MGB does not exist in any possible world, then the MGB does not exist in the actual world.
C: Because such a world is possible(according to Venom logic conceivement necessarily entails possibility of existence) MGB does no exists.

Well first of all, when you say "it is greater to be Maximally Visible.." and such, you are using the original version of the ontological argument (St. Anslem's version), which is not the argument I am using with Plantiga's modal version of the same argument.

So your counter-argument is a straw man.

Second, as I tried to point out before...sure, maximal visibility is a perfection, and a MGB can certainly become maximally visible, if he decides to do so. So the fact that he can, but he won't, is not a strike against the MGB.

So your point is moot.

Your refutations have failed, is what I am trying to say.

Sir your using the MGB concept and you have attached some perfections as attributes to this being.
So my point stands.
I can do the same as you.
You define God into existence using Maximally Great Attributes and perfections subjectively.
I can define God into non-existence using Maximally Great Attributes and perfections subjectively.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You are all over the place and vague. Please be clear.

Um, the question I asked (which you ignored) is very clear.

I will ask again; who made your standard of morality the authority as to what true benevolence should entail....a standard by which you judge God's actions or lack therefof?

Q: Are you saying God of the bible is not omnibenevolent-all loving(=All humans are equal objects of God's unconditional love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and thus to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him)?

I'm not answering any more questions until mines get answered.

But sir this is a flaw for your argumentation. You’re the one using MGB. So you are arguing against your self.

I just went with it for the sake for argumentation.
Sir I used both simplicity and complexity. So you can’t say I choose something.
Q: What other line of reasoning is there?
Please enlighten me.

I fail to see how the subjectivity which plagues your argument, has anything to do with the validity of the MOA.

All moments of time exist tenselessly at the same time.
There are both pieces on this 4 dimensional block of time where Venom exists and pieces where Venom does not exist.

Then Venom would exist, and not exist at the same time, which is absurd.

A proposition cannot be true and not true at the same time and in the same context (law of noncontradiction).

Second, as I mentioned previously, every single event in history would be part of an infinite "set", which is also absurd. You cant "possess" an infinite number of things.

Because if you place a natural number on every event in history, and subtract all of the odd numbered events (an infinite amount), you would STILL have an infinite number of even numbered events.

This has the same illogical effect of the Hilbert's Hotel paradox.

Where infinity-infinity = infinity.

Makes no sense.

Nonsense.
P1. I can conceive a concept PG: perfect gas in my mind.
P2. PG is impossible/not possible to exist in our actual world.
P3. It is possible to conceive a concept that is impossible/not possible to exist in a possible world while it’s possible to exist in our mind. (from P1 and P2)
C. Therefore conceiving a concept does not necessarily entail possibility of existence of the concept in a possible world.(from P3)

Your own reasoning and this argument reasoning can be used against it:
It defeats it self. Your defeating yourself. Funny.

Well first of all, you are so quick to come up with a refutation of the MOA, that you didn't bother to define your concepts. I don't know what "perfect gas" even means.

P1. Its not possible to have the property of existence. (Kant objection)
P2. The property of necessary existence entails having the property of existence.
P3. Its not possible to have the property of necessary existence. (from P1 and P2)
P4. By definition MGB is a being that has the property of necessary existence.
P5. Its not possible that MGB exits. (from P3 and P4)
C. Therefore MGB does not exits. (from P5)

Straw man. Kant raised this objection to the original version of the OA, which is not argument that I am advocating.

Second, your argument is flawed anyway, as it has five premises and can't even get past P1 without unraveling.

"P1. Its not possible to have the property of existence."

Whether or not X's existence has/is a property is irrelevant to whether or not X exists.

I exist.

Is my existence a "property" of my being? Maybe, maybe not.

If existence is property of my being...so what, I still exist.

And if existence isn't a property of my being, so what, I still exist.

I possess a state of being, regardless of whether the term "property" is attached to my existence or not.

So the argument is on the long list of flawed arguments and analogies on your part.

Very unfortunate, but very true.

But hey, look at the bright side; the education I am providing is free of charge.

P1. I can conceive a possible world where nothing exits(philosophical nothingness).

Wait a minute here...again, lets describe our concepts. When you conceive of philosophical nothingness, what does it look like??

*sets trap*

P2. If such a world is possible(according to Venom logic it is already possible because conceivement necessarily entails possibility of existence), then a MGB does not exist in some possible world.
P3. If a MGB does not exist in some possible world, then by definition it does not exist in any possible world.
P4. If a MGB does not exist in any possible world, then the MGB does not exist in the actual world.
C: MGB does no exists.

Well, the trap has already been set. There is some cheese over there *points to above question*.

Go ahead, help yourself to some cheese, it is over there ^^^^^^^^^^

Sir your using the MGB concept and you have attached some perfections as attributes to this being.
So my point stands.
I can do the same as you.

You define God into existence using Maximally Great Attributes and perfections subjectively.
I can define God into non-existence using Maximally Great Attributes and perfections subjectively.

Ok, so please enlighten me on the subjectivity of the following statement..

"God is omnipotent, meaning God can do anything that is logically possible".

Where is the subjectivity?

[alexxcJRO]

Um, the question I asked (which you ignored) is very clear.

I will ask again; who made your standard of morality the authority as to what true benevolence should entail....a standard by which you judge God's actions or lack therefof?
I'm not answering any more questions until mines get answered.

No sir. Is all about logic sir.
“Religious perspectives[edit]
The theological justification stems from God's aseity: the non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God.[citation needed] For if he was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence.[9] Hence, omnibenevolence is a requisite of perfect being theology.[10]
Theologians in the Wesleyan tradition (see Thomas Jay Oord) argue that omnibenevolence is God's primary attribute.[citation needed] Some Hyper-Calvinist interpretations reject omnibenevolence.[citation needed] For example, the Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for its expression of this stance.
Christian apologist William Lane Craig argues that Islam does not hold to the idea of omnibenevolence.[11]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence

William Lane Craig rejects Islam on grounds that it does not entail omnibenevolence, ergo cannot be MGB or compatible with perfect being theology.

Please answer:
Q: Are you saying God of the bible is not omnibenevolent-all loving(=All humans are equal objects of God's unconditional love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and thus to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him)?

I fail to see how the subjectivity which plagues your argument, has anything to do with the validity of the MOA.

We are talking about MGB.
You doing this:
Venom:
“God, at least in the Christian tradition, has been defined as..

Omnipotent: All powerful
Ominicient: All knowing
Omnipresent: Active and in control everywhere at all times
Eternal: Having no beginning, or end, not depending on anything for its existence. An existence which is..necessary (which means under no circumstance can it cease existing).

For sake of the argument, we call this being a Maximally Great Being (MGB).
Now, the question is; does such a being exists or not?? Which brings forth the argument..”

Q: Sir you are using the concept MGB so the subjectiveness is plaguing your argument, no?

Because “great” is a qualitive adjective.
You are deeming what is a perfection. What is a great making attribute. Ergo subjectiveness.
I did not choose anything I went with both paths: simplicity and complexity.

Q: What other line of reasoning is there?
Please enlighten me.

Then Venom would exist, and not exist at the same time, which is absurd.

A proposition cannot be true and not true at the same time and in the same context (law of noncontradiction).

The law of non-contradiction is not broken.
Your usage of tense verbiage betrays your flawed reasoning.
Venom does not exist and not exist at the same time.
Venom exists in specific piece of block of time and does not exist in different piece of block of time.




If I have a block of bread and in one piece of the bread there is a raisin and in other piece of bread the same raisin does not exist.
Q: Did I break the law of non-contradiction?

Second, as I mentioned previously, every single event in history would be part of an infinite "set", which is also absurd. You cant "possess" an infinite number of things.

Because if you place a natural number on every event in history, and subtract all of the odd numbered events (an infinite amount), you would STILL have an infinite number of even numbered events.

This has the same illogical effect of the Hilbert's Hotel paradox.

Where infinity-infinity = infinity.

Makes no sense.

Nobody said anything about the size of the block.

Here you might listen to W.L. Craig.
He explain B theory clearly.
He says he assumes A theory for Kalam.

Well first of all, you are so quick to come up with a refutation of the MOA, that you didn't bother to define your concepts. I don't know what "perfect gas" even means.

I already did. First reply to you on this thread.
"The physicist designates as a perfectly rigid body, one that "is not deformed by forces applied to it." He uses the concept in the full awareness that this is a fictitious body, that no such body exists in nature. The concept is an ideal construct.[10]

A perfectly plastic body is one that is deformed infinitely at a constant load corresponding to the body's limit of plasticity: this is a physical model, not a body observed in nature.[10]

A perfectly black body would be one that absorbed completely, radiation falling upon it — that is, a body with a coefficient of absorption equal to unity.[10]

A crystal is perfect when its physically equivalent walls are equally developed; it has a perfect structure when it answers the requirements of spatial symmetry and is free of structural defects, dislocation, lacunae and other flaws.[10]

A perfect fluid is one that is incompressible and non-viscous — this, again, is an ideal fluid that does not exist in nature.[10]

A perfect gas is one whose molecules do not interact with each other and which have no volume of their own. Such a gas is fictitious, just as are perfectly solid, perfectly rigid, perfectly plastic and perfectly black bodies. They are termed "perfect" in the strict (non-metaphorical) sense of the word.

These are all concepts that are necessary in physics, insofar as they are limiting, ideal, fictitious ” insofar as they set the extreme which nature may at the most approach.[10]"

Straw man. Kant raised this objection to the original version of the OA, which is not argument that I am advocating.

Second, your argument is flawed anyway, as it has five premises and can't even get past P1 without unraveling.

"P1. Its not possible to have the property of existence."

Whether or not X's existence has/is a property is irrelevant to whether or not X exists.

I exist.

Is my existence a "property" of my being? Maybe, maybe not.

If existence is property of my being...so what, I still exist.

And if existence isn't a property of my being, so what, I still exist.

I possess a state of being, regardless of whether the term "property" is attached to my existence or not.

So the argument is on the long list of flawed arguments and analogies on your part.

Very unfortunate, but very true.

But hey, look at the bright side; the education I am providing is free of charge.

Sir you used necessary existence as predicate.
Which implies existence as a predicate.
Kant objection applies.

Q: Are you saying existence and non-existence can be predicates?

Wait a minute here...again, lets describe our concepts. When you conceive of philosophical nothingness, what does it look like??

*sets trap*
Well, the trap has already been set. There is some cheese over there *points to above question*.

Go ahead, help yourself to some cheese, it is over there ^^^^^^^^^^

Philosophical nothingness is true nothingness then is exactly that, nothing, no time, no space, no energy, no intelligence, no thoughts just nothing, antonym of something as in somethingness.

Ok, so please enlighten me on the subjectivity of the following statement..

"God is omnipotent, meaning God can do anything that is logically possible".

Where is the subjectivity?

Venom:
“God, at least in the Christian tradition, has been defined as..

Omnipotent: All powerful
Ominicient: All knowing
Omnipresent: Active and in control everywhere at all times
Eternal: Having no beginning, or end, not depending on anything for its existence. An existence which is..necessary (which means under no circumstance can it cease existing).

For sake of the argument, we call this being a Maximally Great Being (MGB).
Now, the question is; does such a being exists or not?? Which brings forth the argument..”

You are defining God into existence.
I can do the same. Defining God into non-existence.

Maximally Visible and Maximally Proven are perfections, maximally great attributes. (it's greater to be Maximally Visible then Partially Visible or Invisible; to be Maximally Proven then Partially Proven or Unproven;

P1. God is MGB. MGB contains all perfections, maximally great attributes. Therefore Maximally Visible, Maximally Proven are checked too.
P2. People who have a genuine disbelief in MGB existence, exist.

C: Therefore God-MGB does not exists.

[Bust Nak]

Gap filled: Based on this condition^ nothing could possibly ever come into existence. That condition won't allow for the existence of anything...no god(s), no universes, no NOTHING.

So, the story must "begin" with something that was always here (X), and this X thing doesn't owe its existence to anything outside itself...which makes its existence necessary.

The gap is still there, fill it in for me:
1) That condition of "nothingness" does not allow for the existence of god(s), nor universes, nor anything else.
...
n) Therefore therefore something (X) had to have existed eternally.

And if X's existence is necessary [doesn't owe its existence to anything outside itself], it must be necessary in all possible world's, because all necessary truths must be true in all possible worlds.

That's a equivocation fallacy. "Necessary" as in uncaused/not dependent on something else and "necessary" as in necessary truths are not equivalent. Consider brute facts, they are "necessary" because they are not explained by some other facts, yet not "necessary" because they need not be true in every possible world.

[We_Are_VENOM]

The gap is still there, fill it in for me:
1) That condition of "nothingness" does not allow for the existence of god(s), nor universes, nor anything else.
...
n) Therefore therefore something (X) had to have existed eternally.

It would be nice if you actually addressed what I said...if you dont agree with my explanation, then articulate why.

Otherwise, I will just repeat my statement since you offered nothing new but instead regurgitated what you previously said.

I will say again; Gap filled: Based on this condition^ nothing could possibly ever come into existence. That condition won't allow for the existence of anything...no god(s), no universes, no NOTHING.

So, the story must "begin" with something that was always here (X), and this X thing doesn't owe its existence to anything outside itself...which makes its existence necessary.

Unless I see a legitimate defeater of that, then it stands...as far as im concerned.

That's a equivocation fallacy. "Necessary" as in uncaused/not dependent on something else and "necessary" as in necessary truths are not equivalent.

Necessary existence: an existence that is true (exists) in all possible worlds.

Necessary truth: A proposition that is true in all possible worlds.

A necessary existence is a necessary truth. They share the same frequency.

Consider brute facts, they are "necessary" because they are not explained by some other facts, yet not "necessary" because they need not be true in every possible world.

Yeah, tell me something I dont know. Those "brute facts" are contingent truths, which were already acknowledged and distinguished from necessary truths in the argument.