To deny theism is to deny a necessary entity — Hallucinogen
I believe describing existence as a series of entities and events is inaccurate. That is based on my own observations and my understanding of physics. — T Clark
One can believe in some necessary thing without believing that this thing is God. Theism does not have exclusive ownership of necessity. — Michael
"B and if not A then not B" does not entail "necessarily A".
B ∧ (¬A → ¬B) ⊭ □A — Michael
For my part, it is merely a matter of being skeptical towards the idea that the theist that I happen to be talking to knows what he is talking about in matters theistic. Is there some reason to think that you are in a position to speak for what all people mean by "deny theism"? — wonderer1
The only way X is unchangeable in relation to every other changing Z (i.e. non-necessary Z) is that X itself is simultaneously X & not-X, — 180 Proof
Therefore, unless you restrict your descriptions to only refer to theistically-derived entities, — AmadeusD
Some form of deism, even, could go through. — AmadeusD
Define theism and define God, please. — Hallucinogen
given that all non-contingent entities are necessarily omnipotent and eternal — Hallucinogen
If not-A entails (B and (not-B)), then A is entailed. Is that what you're saying isn't the case?
Is B here the proposition that the universe has an nth term? And A is the proposition that there's a non-contingent entity in the universe's series of terms? — Hallucinogen
(2) For all series, having no 1st term implies having no nth term.
Which is why the thread is titled "Atheism about a necessary being". — Hallucinogen
So what? "Mathematical relationships" are mere abstractions (i.e. tautologies – truth, not "being") and not events, forces, facts or things.I could point out that eternal mathematical relationships (e.g., Pythagoras' theorem) don't change as everything else changes ... — Hallucinogen
Alright, could you provide more detail? — Hallucinogen
Do you want to explain why you think this? — Hallucinogen
It's restricted to denial of a necessary entity, because that's where the contradiction i — Hallucinogen
IN fact, my point about deism was exactly this. You can be atheist, but deist. And so you would be able to accept a non-contingent entity. It doesn't provide relevance to the claim, or the objection, which are at odds here.I don't see how you could have deism without the concept of a non-contingent entity. — Hallucinogen
However, if space and time are in a circular loop, an eternal return, within the wheel of time or a part of the Big Bounce, then no term can be said to be either the 1st or the nth. — RussellA
What do you mean by "existence" in P1. — tim wood
"Series" is an abstract term; do you mean the Universe is an abstract term? — tim wood
What is a series of entities? — tim wood
What is a series of events? — tim wood
If we take 'entity' to mean any solid identifiable object, that would theoretically have been a sub-microscopic infinitely hot, dense ball of matter that blew itself up. — Vera Mont
and then you add consciousness and agency and it becomes totally absurd — Vera Mont
If we take 'entity' to mean a self-aware organism, there must have been a first one of those, long ago, on some planet of some galaxy. In that case, all of its progeny depended on its having existed, but they don't preclude other organic life arising and becoming self-aware on any number of other planets, in any number of galaxies, and they didn't depend on that one first one, regardless of their chronological order, and none are 'contingent'. — Vera Mont
No imaginary spirits, gods or djinns are necessary. — Vera Mont
(1) Existence is not a series (of anything) — SophistiCat
(3) The universe does not have numbered "terms" — SophistiCat
Term: A linguistic expression used to denote objects. — Encyclopedia of Math
(5) Does not follow — SophistiCat
Atheism involves not believing in or the denial of an omni potent, eternal creator as defined in theism. Atheism is not about a necassary being just becuase that is an attribute of the omnipotent eternal creator (as defined by theism). — DingoJones
Just like my poem
about my dog is not a poem about a german shepard even though a german shepard and a husky are both dogs. — DingoJones
by what means?identifiable — Hallucinogen
would rather presuppose the existence of Pythagoras, who also wasn't the firstPythagoras' theorem — Hallucinogen
or else blowing itself up that way and turning into the universe was the beginning of physics, after which everything thus created had to behave according its rulesbecause it blowing itself up, as you put it, depends on a pre-existing law of physics that entails that it behaves that way. — Hallucinogen
According to the internet, there are something like 10^80 particles in the universe. Starting from zero, they've been moving outward and bouncing off each other for 14 billion years. Show me a series of entities and events in that. — T Clark
OK, the particles = the objects denoted by the terms. "Starting from zero" = beginning of the sequence. "Moving outward and bouncing off each other" = the transformations of the sequence. — Hallucinogen
The ontology of causation and contingency don't depend on our epistemology about them, or keeping track of them. — Hallucinogen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.