Maybe, but that's beside the point, for if I turn out to be a necessary existent then I would lack a power. I currently believe - perhaps mistakenly - that it is possible for me not to exist and that I myself have the power to bring it about that I do not exist. If I am mistaken, then I have less power than I thought I did. And it will make no difference if it is pointed out that it it is by the laws of logic that I am unable to take myself out of existence, for it was the fact - whether necessary or not - that I am unable to do it that impoverishes my power.

Again your first premise is false because if God can do anything even if logically impossible,therefore He can create a being that's immune to God therefore God won't be able to destroy that being.

I mean, imagine a tree falls on me and pins me to the ground. Well, that's cost me some abilities - I now can't get up. If Baraa comes up to me and points out that this tree is on as a matter of necessity and that I am actually omnipotent because I can do all things logically possible and it just so happens that freeing myself from the tree is not logically possible, I would say that he was being very silly indeed.

Again your first premise is false because if God can do anything even if logically impossible,therefore He can create a being that's immune to God therefore God won't be able to destroy that being. — BARAA

No, God can create such a creature. But if he did, he wouldn't be God anymore.

God can divest himself of omnipotence if he so wishes. He wouldn't be omnipotent unless that were so.

You're making the mistake I mentioned sometime earlier - you're thinking that if John is a bachelor, then John lacks the ability to have a wife.

You need to read closely and and word-by-word your own paragraph. It is strong where you think it weak, and weak where you seek strength, compounded by your not thinking it through, and given your current biases, unable to think it through. A way to start is to ask yourself what, exactly, you think some of the words you use mean. E.g.:

if logic doesn't apply to God therefore there is no argument in the world that can be made to prove He is real — BARAA

What "real" do you have in mind? You being born in the age of science want everything to be "soluble" in some scientific methodology. And not everything is.

So you're actually saying that if infinite regress is impossible so has to be a necessary existent — BARAA

No, that is not equivalent to what I said. What I said was that a necessary existent is no more impossible than infinite regress. "impossible" oughtn't to be defined as the thing we wish to exclude. It is as reasonable that the universe is eternal as it is that it is necessary. And there are other options to boot (e.g. randomness).

In fact, Avicenna's point of this proof was to prove that one or more necessary beings have to exist so yes I agree with you,this proof alone doesn't prove the uniqueness (oneness) of that being.... — BARAA

:up:

I get that you're after a particular conclusion but there are multiple to this line of reasoning. Infinite regress is one. A cyclic but non-repeating chain is another (e.g. big bounce). A truly periodic chain is a third. Regress to a stationary state a fourth (some inflaton models). A necessary first cause a fifth. An unnecessary but non-contingent first cause a sixth (e.g. quantum shizzle). All possible first causes is a variation of necessary first cause that eliminates the need for a particular cause to be chosen (multiverse). And let's not forget that time is a continuous variable: even a finite history has an infinite number of events (consider the solution to Zeno's paradox). And then there's relativity, which allows for a finite history in our reference frame but a potentially infinite proper history of anything in it.

All of the above are consistent with causality.

No, God can create such a creature. But if he did, he wouldn't be God anymore. — Bartricks

I'm sorry.... here's another argument:
You say that God can't be necessary because if He is necessary he won't be able to take Himself out of existence but you've forgotten that it's only said that He won't be able to do so because it's just """"'''logically""""""'''' impossible for the necessary being to be able to destroy Himself but if you believe God is above logic in the first place then there's no good reason for avoiding believing He is necessary,in other words,you can still believe that God is necessary but still can break the logical law that prevents Him from destroying himself.....so your very first premise that stated
That if God is necessary then he doesn't exist is totally unjustified when you believe that God can break logic.

I think you're making the same mistake, that is you're conflating having an ability with exercising it. I can do X, does not mean I 'am' doing X.

God is not subject to the laws of logic, for they're his laws. As Kant said, "there's nothing higher than Reason". Quite right. But there's nothing higher than God too. So Reason and God must be the same and the laws of logic, being the laws of Reason, are God's laws. And being God's laws, they do not bind him. So, he can do absolutely anything, including things that the laws of logic forbid.

But God uses the laws of logic to tell us how things are with his creation and with him. You, no doubt, see the laws of logic as curious cosmic forces. But they're not - that is a category error - they are communication mechanisms. They're ways God tells us about how things are, and tells us how to behave. The law of non-contradiction, for instance, tells us that no true proposition is also false. It's telling us something - telling us something about the world.

How, then, can God tells us that there are no necessary existences? All things are possible with God, so we can't, just by recognizing that alone, come to any conclusion one way or the other on the matter. But if we listen to our reason, our reason tells us that if God can do anything, then he can destroy anything that exists. And our reason tells us as well that if everything that exists can be destroyed, then everything that exists exists contingently. And if everything that exists exists contingently, then there are no necessary existences. There: that's God telling us, by means of his language, the language of reason, that there are, in fact, no necessary existences.

Now of course, because all things are possible with God, it is possible for God to be a necessary existent 'and' for God to be able to destroy himself. But that possibility makes no sense to us, right? It is rebarbative to our reason. That is, our reason - God's communication mechanism - tells us "that makes no sense!!". Again, how else could God convey to us how things actually are, as opposed to how they could be?

God, then, is not bound by anything and could make reality any way he wanted. But then there's how things actually are with reality. And logic is how God tells us about it. He's not using logic to tell us about how things 'could' be - for they can be anyway as all things are possible with God - but rather to tell us how things actually are. For reality is where we actually live.

Laws of logic do not bind him, because they're not forces in any way shape or form (logic is not a strange kind of gravity or glue). They are communications from God, addressed to us. And they tell us, in part anyway, how things are with reality. They describe how it will behave, and tell us as well how we are to behave in it (those laws being 'normative' - that is, they prescribe rather than describe). But they do not place any restrictions on God. They are simply God's way of telling us about his creation.

Excuse me!...
You seem to forget what your premise really was....your premise stated that God can't be necessary because if so He won't be able to destroy Himself (assuming God has to be able to break logic)....but if we really assume that God can break logic therefore the premise is false... because it stated that He wouldn't be able to destroy Himself if He was necessary while in fact He would still be able to break the logic law that prevents Him from destroying Himself if He chooses so.......as shown.....the premise is negated.

Forget me - my position is consistent, and I've now explained to you at length how it is consistent, and explained what function the laws of logic perform.

But forget me and focus on yourself. Which premise in this argument do 'you' deny:

1. God can do anything, including destroy anything
2. If all things are destructible, no things are necessary existences.
3. Therefore, if God exists no things are necessary existences.

It's 1, yes? And you deny it because you are using the word 'God' to mean 'necessary existent' and not 'omnipotent, omniscience, omnibenevolent person' yes? (And you use 'absolute' to mean this as well). These are abuses of the word God, of course, but you are free to use a word how you like.

So, once more, and just to be clear, when you say "God exists" you're not talking about the God that jesus and the Koran are talking about, and you're not talking about the God whose existence philosophers puzzle over. You're just talking about a necessary existence. And you're just insisting one exists. And insisting one exists on the basis of an unsound argument.

No doubt you will once more insist that you mean an 'omnipotent being', but that by 'omnipotent' you mean 'bound by logic'.

All I can do when it comes to that is try and find as many ways of driving home how weak such a being would be, and how ludicrous it would be to judge such a creature 'all powerful'.

For instance, it seems to me that you are arguing fallaciously. That is, I think you - you - are defying the laws of logic. You are drawing conclusions that you are not entitled to draw and making leaps that you are not entitled to make. No doubt you think it is I who is doing that. Doesn't matter, the point stands. One of us, perhaps both of us, are defying logic here, in this thread. At least one of us is drawing conclusions that logic forbids us from drawing.

That, on your definition of omnipotence, is something God cannot do. So you it turns out, are more powerful than your God, at least in some respects!! You can defy logic, but God cannot. How ludicrous is that? You and I can do what your God cannot!

This just underlines how ridiculous it is to define omnipotence in terms of logical possibility. You end up with a creature who can do barely anything. And to label such a person 'omnipotent' just shows that when you use omnipotent you are not using it to denote a being who is so powerful he can do anything, but a horribly constrained creature who can do barely anything. Label it God if you want, but it isn't the God the rest of us are talking about and wondering at the existence of.

Okay that's it.....if omnipotence is being able to do anything even if illogical therefore God can not be omnipotent if this what the word omnipotence means.....and if you want to know which premise I'm denying.... it's the one which states that God must be omnipotent (being able to do anything weather logical or not).

Right, so you're not talking about God at all. By 'God' you mean 'a necessary existent' and not someone who can do anything. I think it's fair if I put inverted commas around 'God' when it refers to what you're talking about, as it certainly isn't the meaning anyone else attaches to the term.

You've provided no sound argument for thinking any necessary existent exists. Avicenna's argument fails for reasons I've explained. He wrongly assumes that if something exists contingently, then it has a cause of its existence (and conversely, that if something exists of necessity, then it doesn't have a cause of its existence). Such assumptions are demonstrably false. So the argument fails.

But anyway, back to the necessary existence that you've labelled 'God'. This being cannot defy logic (unlike you and I) and cannot take himself out of existence (unlike you and I). Of course, you're operating with quite the wrong idea about what laws of logic are - you are thinking of them as cosmic forces, when in fact they are instructions (hence why we can defy them). But putting that gigantic error to oneside for the sake of argument: this logical straightjacket that you've put 'God' in (and that we're not in, or not in to the same extent).....who made it? Did 'God' make it and then put himself in it? Or did someone else make it and put 'God' in it? Or was it a necessarily existing straightjacket that 'God' simply finds himself in?

It seems to me whichever answer you give, you will either end up with my view or else a view about 'God' that is further and further away from the being the rest of us are talking about. For if you say that 'God' himself made the straightjacket, then 'God' was my God prior to his doing so. That is, prior to making it - prior to weaving logic - your 'God' could do anything, and was thus God proper. Alternatively, if you say that someone else made it, or that it existed of necessity, then 'God' in addition to being straightjacketed in ways that none of us are, also did not create something, namely the straightjacket.

And in fact, if you think the straightjacket exists of necessity - and I really don't see how you can't without giving up and adopting my view (for if you think someone else made the straightjacket, then that person would be God proper) - then you have even less reason to think that 'God' exists of necessity.
For the law of parsimony tells you not to multiply kinds of entity beyond what's necessary. And although we do not need to posit necessary existents to explain contingent existents, you think we do....but we only need to posit one, don't we? I mean, that's why you posit the one 'God'. But now we've discovered that the logical straightjacket in which you insist 'God' resides must - must - exist of necessity. So now it turns out that the straightjacket - which is not 'God' - is the necessary existent that must be posited to explain all else. Thus it now turns out that your 'God' doesn't exist of necessity, only the straightjacket that you put him in does. This poor creature that you are calling 'God' doesn't exist of necessity, didn't create the universe he finds himself in, and he can do barely anything! I don't see how your view differs, then, from atheism given that an atheist who nevertheless thinks there exists a nice bloke who doesn't have much power is now someone who holds a view no different from yours.

He wrongly assumes that if something exists contingently, then it has a cause of its existence (and conversely, that if something exists of necessity, then it doesn't have a cause of its existence). Such assumptions are demonstrably false. So the argument fails. — Bartricks

I have NO comment......

The debate really has to stop after this quote...and don't ask me why....have fun!

Please make us a favor by not replying.

Sorry, but no. You are free, of course, to ignore this reply. But you quoted me and then said "I have NO comment.." which implies that you think that what I said in that quote was beyond the logical pale or something. Which it isn't - what I said was demonstrably true.

If something exists of necessity, does it therefore lack a cause? No. Imagine causal determinism is true. Well, if causal determinism is true then everything that happens was necessitated - it had to happen given the past and the laws of nature. Well, assume that both the past and the laws of nature are necessary. Now everything that happens could not not have happened. And that means that everything that has come into being exists of necessity. Yet they've been caused, yes?

Now, if you want you can draw a distinction between different sorts of necessity. But that won't help you where saving Avicenna's argument is concerned, it's just a bit of label juggling. All you'll end up doing is drawing a distinction between those things that exist of necessity and have been caused to exist, and those things that exist of necessity and have not been caused to exist. Yet what you actually need to do is show how 'existing without a cause' 'entails' that the thing in question exists of necessity. You cannot do that by any amount of re-labelling.

So the idea of something existing of necessity and the idea of something existing uncaused are not the same idea. You think you are because Avicenna thinks they are, yes? That's not evidence that they are.

And we can go the other way as well. Existing 'contingently' does not entail that the thing must have a cause.

We know, by the light of reason, that if anything has been caused to exist, then there must exist at least one thing that has not been caused to exist. That argument - an argument that makes no mention of contingency or necessity - is sufficient to establish the existence of an un-caused existent, and unmoved mover. Yet because that argument makes no mention of contingency or necessity, whether the un-caused existent exists of necessity or contingently is left open. That argument therefore does not permit you validly to conclude that there exists a necessary existent.

And if God provably exists - and he does - then we have in God a positive counterexample. For God exits and can do anything. And as I've argued extensively above - and you've said nothing to suggest there is anything wrong with the arguments, you've just reiterated your position - if God can do anything, then God can destroy himself. So, God exists, God has not been caused to exist, and God can destroy himself - and thus exists contingently.

I labour these points because so many contemporary theists insist that God exists of necessity and insist that God is restricted by logic. These ideas are preposterous. They have no basis in reason and upon a bit of reflection one can surely see that a God who is restricted by logic is not a god at all, but someone of remarkably stunted powers.

1) contingent things exist. — BARAA

I have no understanding of what you could possibly mean. Contingent means "pending on the outcome of independent events". This 1) is incomprehensible and therefore a false assumption or premis.

the chain does not need a starting point. The proof does not state it, but it assumes that everyone will agree that it has a starting point necessarily. Well, it does not.

This is a conceptual ability to see with your mind's eye if an inifinite chain can exist. My uncle can't see that. He often argues with me, and says, "But Little Grasshopper, everything started all at once and there was nothing before it" or something similar. I always respond, "That is not necessarily true", and he starts again. I asked him respectfully to shut his flippin' clapper, because he don't know sheet. I did not say that, I told him this is a hurdle of differences in our respective ability to conceptualize, and therefore kindly not to bring this up ever again. Which he understood, and kindly has obliged.

A classic islamic proof of the existence of the necessary existent is Avicenna's proof that's called the proof of the truthful, it goes as the following:

1) contingent things exist.
2) a contingent existent needs an external cause to exist and if its cause is also contingent, it will also need a cause and so on.
3) the chain of contingent things either has a starting point or it doesn't have one.
4) if the chain has a starting point, that stating point will be the contingent thing that isn't caused by another contingent thing, therefore it will need an external cause that's not a member of the chain of contingent things, or in other words, an external necessary existent has to exist in this case.
5) if the chain has no starting point, it still has to be either necessary or contingent.
6) the chain is made up of each single one of its members, in other words, the existence of members causes the chain to exist, therefore the chain is can not be necessary.
7) since every member of the chain is contingent and the chain itself is contingent, therefore the chain needs an external cause to exist and that cause is neither the chain itself nor a member of it.
8) an external necessary existent has to exist.

What's your response? — BARAA

First, what is a 'thing'? I know this seems somewhat pedantic but are there really such different or distinct 'things' in reality that have dependency on others? Is reality such a plurality or is it rather monistic?

Second, what is a 'cause'? You need to define what it means for there to be causation.

Third, all I seem to see are experiences that may happen to have related natures to previous experiences as of current or in future circumstances. They change and certain changes can be experienced or seemingly brought about by the exertion of 'will' over your sensorial parts.

or that questioning the existence of ourselves is somehow illogical !! — BARAA

In some philosophy’s and ways of life this is the case. Some would argue that to exist doesn’t hinge on whether you understand why or how - in the same way as you were not asked permission nor did you require knowledge or understanding to be born.

One doesn’t need to learn instincts or reflexes... they - as far as we are concerned - are there developmentally at the start of life and we cannot prevent our knee from jerking when the doctor taps it with a hammer or to not remove our hand from a flame without thinking or understanding why we did it. What we know about our existence is learned through experience but it’s key to recognise that that its a retrospective process - through education - looking back on history, memory, observing past events, it requires memory. However, A baby having next to no life experience will eat, will cry, will sleep and breathe. It doesn’t need to know how to exist it just does because it’s closer to the hardwired drive to exist, to survive.

I’m not suggesting that ignoring big questions is wrong or Illogical or that not having curiosity of any kind as to the questions posed by life is a bad thing, I’m simply saying it’s not as necessary as western society in specific would lead one to believe.

Depending on your views and lifestyle you may live as an animal does and leave everything to nature and natural selection or you can strive to understand scientifically and take nature into your own hands but in either case you will always have two things for certain; the fact that you will always have suffering, and you will always find ways to avoid it either spiritually, or pragmatically.

I couldn’t tell you which is more logical - to Desiré knowledge to take control, or to be controlled but trust in nature’s process.

Taoism describes a flow to life. You can try to define it in any one of millions of ways but the property of the Tao is that it cannot ever be reduced to one thing. It cannot be defined. It will always provide more questions than there are answers. Whether we choose to answer them or not is up to us. But what is more fulfilling is to decide what way to be that is going to satisfy you, that is going to give your life direction.

So as for logic to question ourselves is highly logical to one person and not at all relevant to another. There are many logics and all are worthy. Art has its own creative logic but it will not bow down to the scientific logic because though science is extremely utilitarian it lacks soul or this imaginative almost instinctual logic.

Even if we decide what is logical and what is irrational the irrational is equally as important. For without the irrational you cannot have anything rational. You cannot have pi- without irrationality and pi constructs the circle, it is critical to unifying the linear and the cyclical, to geometry and maths which are arguably highly logical pursuits.

Energy if it pervades the entire universe and underpins all processes both physical and mental ... constructs one logical pursuit as well as all counter arguments (which could be equally logical as in paradoxes or more logical or less) no less they are all results of energetic change and the processing of information. Logic is what you are conditioned to accept as such. Ask an ancient human if they believe in magic and they will say yes - because at that point in time it was the most logical explanation . If spiritual healing was not useful they would not do it just as if modern medicine wasn’t useful we would give up on it.