To deny theism is to deny a necessary entity — Hallucinogen

One can believe in some necessary thing without believing that this thing is God. Theism does not have exclusive ownership of necessity.

Perhaps the necessary entity is a physical singularity of infinite density that underwent a rapid expansion known as the Big Bang. The atheist can accept this.

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

Alright, could you provide more detail?

One can believe in some necessary thing without believing that this thing is God. Theism does not have exclusive ownership of necessity. — Michael

Which is why the thread is titled "Atheism about a necessary being".
And in the heading of the argument itself I'm making it clear that it's about rejecting a non-contingent entity.
Aside from that, given that all non-contingent entities are necessarily omnipotent and eternal, to reject a necessary entity already rejects the majority of God concepts, since it rejects the concept of an eternal creator. All that's left to dispute over is omnibenevolence and omniscience.

"B and if not A then not B" does not entail "necessarily A".

B ∧ (¬A → ¬B) ⊭ □A — Michael

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?

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

Define theism and define God, please.

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

Yeah I don't understand that inference. Is this about metaphysical necessity only, or also logical necessity?
I could point out that eternal mathematical relationships (e.g., Pythagoras' theorem) don't change as everything else changes, how does that imply that those mathematical relationships are simultaneously both themselves and not themselves? I could do the same with logical tautologies like the PNC.

Huh, never knew about the guy. I think I have a much better argument then his here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1

I go along very similar lines, but go a bit deeper then him. He gets stuck at infinite series, I do not.

Therefore, unless you restrict your descriptions to only refer to theistically-derived entities, — AmadeusD

It's restricted to denial of a necessary entity, because that's where the contradiction is.

Some form of deism, even, could go through. — AmadeusD

I don't see how you could have deism without the concept of a non-contingent entity.

Define theism and define God, please. — Hallucinogen

To me it seems much more practical to work with the definitions used by an individual theist I am discussing the subject with. (If nothing else, it reduces time wasted on straw men.) I suspect any dictionary will provide definitions I would find acceptable for starting a discussion, but if the subject under discussion is your theism, then you providing your definitions makes more sense.

given that all non-contingent entities are necessarily omnipotent and eternal — Hallucinogen

That's not a given.

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

The example of the Presidents explains what I mean in simple terms.

You conflate "A is required for B" and "A is necessary". The former does not entail the latter.

(2) For all series, having no 1st term implies having no nth term.

This premise is patently false, and is the denial, implicitly, that the concept of infinity is coherent. Viz., you are getting this argument to work by denying that infinity, in principle, is internally coherent.

Let's take set theory as an example: an infinite set has no first member but has a infinite amount of members such that wherever we start enumerating, n, there is a n+1, n+2, etc. and n-1, n-2, etc.

The fact that an infinite set has no last nor first element, does not mean that it does not have an nth member. There's nothing internally incoherent with the idea of an infinite series of causal events (for example).

By denying "an nth term", you are denying that an infinite set has any members.

Which is why the thread is titled "Atheism about a necessary being". — Hallucinogen

Why use the word 'atheism' at all, instead of just saying 'not believing there is some necessary thing is a contradiction'?

Atheism isn't a general term for not believing something...

Above I have asked the OP to start to define his terms. He hasn't done it. I submit for general consideration that his statements, lacking clarity - and perhaps willfully so - are without sense.

hear hear. I second the motion.

:up:

I could point out that eternal mathematical relationships (e.g., Pythagoras' theorem) don't change as everything else changes ... — Hallucinogen

So what? "Mathematical relationships" are mere abstractions (i.e. tautologies – truth, not "being") and not events, forces, facts or things.

Alright, could you provide more detail? — Hallucinogen

To vastly oversimplify... 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.

:cool:

Do you want to explain why you think this? — Hallucinogen

(1) Existence is not a series (of anything)
(3) The universe does not have numbered "terms"
(5) Does not follow

It's restricted to denial of a necessary entity, because that's where the contradiction i — Hallucinogen

Then it doesn't, directly, address a-theism. A-theism is russian-dolled into what you're talking about, but is not what you're trying to find a contradiction in. One must an atheist, plus some other ontological belief to come to the contradiction you're implying. It doesn't arise from atheism alone. You can be an atheist and not deny a non-contingent entity at all.

I don't see how you could have deism without the concept of a non-contingent entity. — 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 should also point out: I am not taken by the use of atheism here. Atheism is, etymologically, and practically-speaking "best" understood as only non-assent to theistic doctrine. It is not a negative belief (i.e a belief in the absence of anything). It is just hte non-uptake of a particular range of beliefs. So, take that on board when reading my comments as its possible you're seeing a corner I simply am not in.

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

When you say if space and time are in a circular loop, you mean that the events are in a loop, right? I'm just asking because space might loop in on itself, but that wouldn't mean that time does or that events do.

Even if you have events going in a loop, it doesn't imply that no entity is non-contingent, because the laws the events obey, (e.g., that they go in a loop, that momentum is conserved, universal constants, etc) are non-contingent with respect to the events. Unless you have a reason why those things are also contingent?

The metaphysical problem with your scenario though, is that if past events are contingent on future events, then this either implies that the past event doesn't come into existence (because its future dependency doesn't exist) or it just does away with the idea of contingency. If the past event doesn't come into existence because it is contingent on some future event is in a "loop" with, then neither events exist and there is no loop.

What do you mean by "existence" in P1. — tim wood

The perceptual aggregate, all observables across space and time.

"Series" is an abstract term; do you mean the Universe is an abstract term? — tim wood

The objects within the universe are the terms and the functions/natural laws of the universe can be abstracted as the formula of a series.

What is a series of entities? — tim wood

By entity, I mean the dictionary definition, and by series, I mean a sequence of transformations in space or in abstraction.

What is a series of events? — tim wood

By event, I mean a transformation of an object in space.

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

Not really, for 2 reasons. Firstly "entity" doesn't imply "solid" or even "object". The standard definition is something with an identifiable existence. That could easily be something abstract, like Pythagoras' theorem. Secondly, the state of matter at the beginning of the universe wasn't necessary, because it blowing itself up, as you put it, depends on a pre-existing law of physics that entails that it behaves that way. Depency = contingent. Contingent = non-necessary.

and then you add consciousness and agency and it becomes totally absurd — Vera Mont

We're not necessarily doing that in this argument. It's an argument against denial of / disbelief in a necessary entity. But anyway, why do you think it's absurd?

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

I don't really know what to say in response to this because it's not required by the argument. I'm not arguing some organism on some planet is necessary. Of course all organic life is contingent because all of it depends on prior events.

No imaginary spirits, gods or djinns are necessary. — Vera Mont

God as conceived by classical theism and monotheism is metaphysically necessary, it's required in what "God" means.

(1) Existence is not a series (of anything) — SophistiCat

OK, so you don't think existence consists of a sequence of events or transformations. It's difficult to respond to this because it seems observably self-apparent to me.

(3) The universe does not have numbered "terms" — SophistiCat

Term: A linguistic expression used to denote objects. — Encyclopedia of Math

So you think it's false that the universe contains objects that we can denote? And "numbered" in turn just denotes ordered transformations.

(5) Does not follow — SophistiCat

Why doesn't it? You said that all the premises were false, so why is (2) false?

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

Metaphysically necessary means that everything is contingent on it, which makes it omnipotent. A metaphysically necessary entity is non-contingent, which means it is eternal. Denying or disbelieving in those of those means rationally having the same attitude toward metaphysical necessity because they are mutually inclusive.

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

No, it is not just like that. The concept of a German Shepherd neither implies, nor is mutually inclusive with, your specific dog.

identifiable — Hallucinogen

by what means?

Pythagoras' theorem — Hallucinogen

would rather presuppose the existence of Pythagoras, who also wasn't the first

because it blowing itself up, as you put it, depends on a pre-existing law of physics that entails that it behaves that way. — 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 rules
So there's your first/last/all entities.

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.

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

Ok, so there are maybe (10^80)^80 sequences all interacting with each other. Or maybe ((10^80)^80)^80. And there is no one except maybe a hypothetical "necessary being" could keep track of even one of those sequences for more than a few steps. There comes a point where causation, or contingency, loses meaning.

The ontology of causation and contingency don't depend on our epistemology about them, or keeping track of them.

The ontology of causation and contingency don't depend on our epistemology about them, or keeping track of them. — Hallucinogen

In our previous exchange, you claimed your initial premise is justified "...by distinguishing events and observing entities..." How many of those ((10^80)^80)^80 interactions have you observed? How many do you have to have observed for your premise to be justified?