So are you a functional member of a religious community? — baker

Not at the moment. You?

Not at the moment. You? — Jan Ardena

There you go. So you're no better than the atheists you bitch about.

Never claimed to be.

Yet you bitch about them. Makes you a really bonafide person in matters of knowledge of God.

I don’t “bitch” about atheists
I just tell it like it is

I don’t “bitch” about atheists
I just tell it like it is — Jan Ardena

No, your just giving your view. A view of a non-committed theist.

How is it possible to be a “non-committed” theist?
Are you a theist?

(trying to catch up here...)

Did anything come of this...? Seems to have gone off-track.

Topic: Necessity and god



I am trying to get the description of the topic clarified (for me)...

God is supposed to be a necessary being. — Banno

1) Is this a hypothesis or an assumption?
2) In what sense and why is god necessary?

Something is necessary if it is true in every possible world. — Banno

3) What are the possible worlds?
4) Why do we need to talk about other worlds, from the moment that the existence of a god has not been even proven --beyond doubt or at least as a commonly accepted truth-- in our own world? Or has it?

Perhaps a resuscitation rather than a reincarnation.

@Bartricks comments distracted me into consideration of paraconsistent logic, so it remains to return to this thread in an attempt to see if they can be applied in a coherent fashion to god.

What happens to the necessity of god if one reject explosion? If one takes

not to be true?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11437/inconsistent-mathematics/
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11395/a-counterexample-to-modus-ponens
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11363/a-question-concerning-formal-modal-logic

Especially

One potential problem in my way of thinking about logic is that it ought not be possible to give an account of god (without such limitation on divine omnipotence). If logic is just grammar, then god not being able to perform contradictions is outlawed simply because if god did do something that was apparently a contradiction, then the response would be to re-formulate the apparent contradiction so that it no longer was a contradiction.

Now exactly what that might look like remains hidden.

One way for me to knut through it would be to give consideration to claimed paradoxes - the Trinity, for example, and to ask what it would really be like for an individual to have three essences, or whatever the explanation is. — Banno

Does paraconsistent logic give us a way to unbind god from logic?

1) Is this a hypothesis or an assumption?
An assumption for the purposes of a reductio ad absurdum.

2) In what sense and why is god necessary?
That is the question to be addressed in this thread.

3) What are the possible worlds?
Mere conjectures. Kripke used them to secure a formal analysis of modal logic. They provide our best way to deal with "what if..."

4) Why do we need to talk about other worlds...
You don't. You do not need to be here. But if you are going to talk about god being necessary, you might consider the consequence.

Does paraconsistent logic give us a way to unbind god from logic? — Banno

In theory; it might. But, in practice it seems like people need to tie the existence of god to some part of their reality. It's why we keep getting new forms of creationism updated every few years. Because in practice theist have trouble imagining a world without a god being necessary for making it. You aren't a declared theist, so you can imagine a world without a god being necessary. The logic is regular consistent based on a belief in god.

I think a god experience emerges from the world, so I don't hold god as being necessary.

Or the obvious answer I suppose. If ever an alternative system of logic were needed to cope with
with a matter; it would probably be the necessity of god, from an atheist position, under the supposition of an idealist model depicting the many worlds hypothesis, then this may be it. Stack anything high enough you'll need a taller crane.

2) In what sense and why is god necessary?
That is the question to be addressed in this thread. — Banno

Showing ‘God’ as Not Necessity
(Outline)

The fields form and exhaust reality,
As partless, continuous—there’s no Space!
Reality maintains itself in place
As the net of objects interacting.

Copernicus’ revolution’s complete;
External entities aren’t required
To hold the universe; God’s not needed,
Nor any background; there is no Outside.

Nor is there the ‘now’ all over the place.
GR’s relational nature extends
To Time as well—the ‘flow’ of time is not
An ultimate aspect of reality.

All is Relational: no entity
Exists independently of anything;
There are no intrinsic properties,
Just features in relation to what’s else.

Interactions and events (not things) are
Quantum entangled with such others else;
Impermanence pertains all the way through—
What Nagarjuna means by Emptiness.

There are no fundamental substances,
No permanences, no bird’s-eye view
Of All, no Foundation to Everything,
Plus no infinite regress ne’er completed.

The fields are not from anything—causeless!
Or ‘not from anything’ is of lawless
‘Nothing’, which can’t ever form to remain.
There is no reason, then, to existence.

Hope’s Necessary ‘God’ vanishes!
This realization of Impermanence,
No Absolutes, and Emptiness,
Is Nirvana, though coincidently.

"If there is no God, everything is permitted."

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky

SP

How is it possible to be a “non-committed” theist? — Jan Ardena

You're one, per your own admission:

So are you a functional member of a religious community?
— baker

Not at the moment. — Jan Ardena