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. — Hallucinogen
No, it is not just like that. The concept of a German Shepherd neither implies, nor is mutually inclusive with, your specific dog. — Hallucinogen
There's literally nothing in that argument that goes any way towards suggesting that the first "necessary" thing is anything like what we would call a God. — flannel jesus
Atheists aren't making the claim 'nothing is necessary', they're saying 'these deities in these books don't exist'. — flannel jesus
you're confusing 'atheism' about personal gods with some other claim that atheists generally don't make. — flannel jesus
If it doesn't have metaphysical necessity, then it isn't supreme or ultimate. The same goes for any definition that mentions ruling nature, a creator, or being omnipotent.God : the supreme or ultimate reality: — Merriam Webster
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... — flannel jesus
This premise is patently false — Bob Ross
and is the denial, implicitly, that the concept of infinity is coherent. — Bob Ross
you are getting this argument to work by denying that infinity, in principle, is internally coherent. — Bob Ross
The fact that an infinite set has no last nor first element — Bob Ross
There's nothing internally incoherent with the idea of an infinite series of causal events — Bob Ross
:Period. :100:Atheism is the rejection of theism. — DingoJones
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. — Hallucinogen
So the existing is existence? That's incoherent. Can you do better?What do you mean by "existence" in P1.
— tim wood
The perceptual aggregate, all observables across space and time. — Hallucinogen
At best this is a conceptual template, meaning that your arguments apply (at best) only to your concepts."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. — Hallucinogen
I find this definition of "entity": a thing with distinct and independent existence. By "series" and "sequence" do you mean ordered in some way, as perhaps before-after? By "transformation of an object in space" do you mean a change in an entity?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. — Hallucinogen
:up: :up:[Y]our arguments apply (at best) only to your concepts [ ... ] The discussion seems to be about an uncaused first cause, and that's an unbreakable oxymoron. As such you can only have it if you first grant it. But then you [@Hallucinogen] have proved exactly nothing. All this worked out millennia ago. If you're just working it out for yourself, some credit to you. But the argument has long been a dead letter. — tim wood
I suspect any dictionary will provide definitions I would find acceptable for starting a discussion — wonderer1
To deny theism is to deny a necessary entity, — Hallucinogen
That's based on dictionary definitions of "God" and "theism" — Hallucinogen
In our previous exchange, you claimed your initial premise is justified "...by distinguishing events and observing entities..." — T Clark
How many of those ((10^80)^80)^80 interactions have you observed? — T Clark
How many do you have to have observed for your premise to be justified? — T Clark
given that all non-contingent entities are necessarily omnipotent and eternal — Hallucinogen
That's not a given. — Michael
The example of the Presidents explains what I mean in simple terms. — Michael
You conflate "A is required for B" and "A is necessary". The former does not entail the latter. — Michael
it's a description made possible by those distinctions and observations. — Hallucinogen
How many do you have to have observed for your premise to be justified?
— T Clark
Just one. — Hallucinogen
That's what justification means in this context - empirical evidence. You're just playing with words. — T Clark
Sorry, no, that's not how it works — T Clark
It's clear your premise is nothing but a "seems to me" proposition, — T Clark
You can be an atheist and not deny a non-contingent entity at all. — AmadeusD
IN fact, my point about deism was exactly this. You can be atheist, but deist. — AmadeusD
Atheism is, etymologically, and practically-speaking "best" understood as only non-assent to theistic doctrine — AmadeusD
Sorry, no, that's not how it works. — T Clark
Doesn't make sense. Atheism is the denial or lack of belief in the existence of God. Deism is belief in God that doesn't intervene — Hallucinogen
That's agnosticism. — Hallucinogen
Do you think you can be an atheist and believe in an omnipotent and eternal non-contingent entity? — Hallucinogen
Hallucinogen, the only necessity in modal logic is logic itself. — jorndoe
• Banno (Jul 5, 2021)
• Banno (Jul 7, 2021)
• jorndoe (Jul 6, 2021)
• jorndoe (Jul 2, 2024) — jorndoe
Anyway, so, R3 is a possible world, a boring, barren, inert, lifeless world. No minds here, — jorndoe
No, not quite. Deism is belief in a pervasive force of creation. Some resort to the Gaia version of this when they want to personalize it, but it has not personality, the way a 'God' does. — AmadeusD
: a movement or system of thought advocating natural (see natural entry 1 sense 8b) religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe — Merriam Webster
Belief in a god who created the universe but does not govern worldly events, does not answer prayers, and has no direct involvement in human affairs. — Oxford Reference
the belief in a single god who created the world but does not act to influence events: — Cambridge Dictionary
Wikipedia says a deist God is not necessarily impersonal.spawned “deism”, the idea that God set the initial conditions of the universe and then left it to play out on its own — Stanford Encyclopedia Philosophy
Deism is the belief in the existence of God—often, but not necessarily, an impersonal and incomprehensible God who does not intervene in the universe after creating it, — Wikipedia
No. This has been gone over so many times, it's really disappointing that you're throwing this line out. Agnosticism is the position that we can't know whether or not God exists. — AmadeusD
a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something — Merriam Webster
2 a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3 a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality. — Dictionary.com
If it's not a theistic one, then by the lack of definitional restriction, yes, you could — AmadeusD
Seems highly unlikely, but sure. — AmadeusD
... and possible aren't the same; the latter is fairly concise above.intelligible — Hallucinogen
to knowing about reality. — Hallucinogen
s such, defining agnostic in that way makes it unlike how agnostic is used in the broader sense, to not have a commitment to some belief. — Hallucinogen
What I was asking you is — Hallucinogen
An omnipotent and eternal non-contingent entity is either inherently theistic or not, why would it be unlikely that an atheist would believe in such? — Hallucinogen
the first line in my comment just gives a brief summary while expressing the non-ampliativity. — jorndoe
"But God is the creator of any of the possible worlds", which departs from modal logic — jorndoe
(and commits petitio principii anyway) — jorndoe
"But it's not logical necessity, it's metaphysical necessity", which roughly does the same by introducing a sufficiently vague/vacant phrase — jorndoe
whereas the logic is what we use to reason/deduce things. — jorndoe
A possible world is a self-consistent entirety; — jorndoe
intelligible — Hallucinogen
... and possible aren't the same — jorndoe
that any possible world that is intelligible to us — Hallucinogen
(As an aside, whatever "eternal" means, atemporal mind is incoherent (2022Nov11, 2024Sep22), atemporal living is nonsense.) — jorndoe
"God is necessary" turns out to be a definition of "God", it's not an observation or a deduction, — jorndoe
Something's eternal if it isn't dependent on conditions. Contingency means to have a condtional dependency, so a non-contingent entity is eternal.
Something's omnipotent if everything stands in dependency to it. Everything in a contingent series is dependent on the non-contingent member of the series, so it is omnipotent. — Hallucinogen
The example of the Presidents doesn't answer my question. The 1st President is contingent because it is an nth term of the universe, and it is necessary for there to be a 2nd President. It's just not metaphysically necessary. — Hallucinogen
Something's eternal if it isn't dependent on conditions. — Hallucinogen
Something is eternal if it exists forever. — Michael
Something's omnipotent if everything stands in dependency to it. — Hallucinogen
Something is omnipotent if it can do anything. — Michael
The one does not entail the other. — Michael
And neither entails nor is entailed by necessity. — Michael
And I also suspect there's more to your "necessary being" than just being eternal and omnipotent. Is it conscious with a will of its own? — Michael
An atheist can accept this latter thing. — Michael
A 2nd President does not entail that a 1st President is metaphysically necessary. — Michael
A 2nd term of the universe does not entail that a 1st term of the universe is metaphysically necessary. — Michael
Perhaps the 1st term of the universe was an accident — Michael
That's false, a 1st term of the universe isn't contingent. — Hallucinogen
In my view it is, but my view doesn't change the fact that most God concepts are omnipotent and eternal. — Hallucinogen
Something can do anything if everything is dependent on it.
...
Something exists forever if it isn't dependent on conditions. — Hallucinogen
You're begging the question. Here are two scenarios: — Michael
2. A 1st term is contingent. A 2nd and 3rd term follow. — Michael
Given that a 2nd and 3rd term exist in both scenarios you cannot use the existence of a 2nd and 3rd term to prove that the 1st term is necessary. — Michael
Even if some X is necessary and even if this X is "omnipotent" and eternal it does not follow that this X is God. — Michael
You are introducing properties unrelated to your argument. — Michael
And I also suspect there's more to your "necessary being" than just being eternal and omnipotent. Is it conscious with a will of its own? — Michael
As an atheist I could accept that there is some impersonal force – e.g. the union of electromagnetism, the strong force, the weak force, and gravity – that necessarily exists. — Michael
No, I'm not. You're trying to equivocate between a series of presidents and the series of existence as a whole. — Hallucinogen
Then you wouldn't be an atheist about a necessary entity and you wouldn't commit the contradiction. — 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.