As I will say it is reasonable to believe in a non contingent or necessary being is. — Rank Amateur

Old post: The Bare Necessities

1. anything necessary in general holds for all possible worlds
2. possible worlds are consistent, non-contradictory
3. a really simple world without sentience, green, soccer games, even coffee ☕, does not derive a contradiction and is therefore possible
4. anything necessary would also have to hold for such simple worlds
5. sentience, green, soccer games, even coffee ☕, etc, are not necessary
6. if your deity is defined as sentient, then your deity is not necessary
7. if your deity is defined as necessary, then your deity is not sentient

Swinburne concurs:

All explanation, consists in trying to find something simple and ultimate on which everything else depends. And I think that by rational inference what we can get to that’s simple and ultimate is God. But it’s not logically necessary that there should be a God. The supposition ‘there is no God’ contains no contradiction. — Richard Swinburne (2009)

The latter, 7, would be a rather impoverished definition if you ask me.
(Besides, if we have to resort to defining, then that in itself is suspect, not dismissible as such, but suspect. After all, we don't define things into existence, which is known as word magic.)

Just FYI, I'm unhappy about the coffee ☕ thing above. Not sure what to do about it. Can we make coffee ☕ necessary?

in mine above, a non contingent or necessary being is one who's existence is not contingent on anything, and is necessary for the existence of everything else.

In "the old post" above, you make the point that contingent things are not necessary- I agree.

No argument with Mr. Swinburne, I have never said that atheism is not a reasonable position. My only assertion was theism is also reasonable.

Odd though, because people with Harry's other Fundamentalist beliefs and tendencies would typically have a lot to say about describing and defining their deity, and would take any opportunity to do so. — Michael Ossipoff

It's odd because you've conflated my post with some other belief and put words in my mouth that I never said.

Harry likewise believes in the antrhopmorphic notion of creation, further distancing him from anyone that I agree with. — Michael Ossipoff

But I said that they are indescribable and undefinable, so how do you know I was talking about some anthropomorphic notion of creation? Again, you go and put words in my mouth because you just don't want to face the fact that your own arguments are nonsensical. That is the whole point of the "Humpalumps". Haven't you gone and done the same thing you have accused me of doing - of rejecting your own notion and definition of what a "Humpalump" is, not mine? If I never define "Humpalumps" for you, then you only ever reject your own notion of what a Humpalump is. Do you see the problem with your position now?

Another possibility is that we are both talking about the same thing, but we are just using different terms to refer to that thing. What some would call a "god" or "humpalumps", I would use the term, "reality" or "universe" to refer to it.

It is you that has limited your possibilities, not I. I am willing to accept any explanation that makes sense. You are only willing to accept one - that there is something that YOU call a "god" that exists. I accept all other possibilities except that one. So who is the one that is really unacceptable of possible truths? You are.

Also claiming that something is indescribable or undefinable is basically saying that it doesn't exist. If something like that could exist, then it would be pointless to discuss it. What effect could it have on the world, or on what we can observe? If it has a causal relationship with the universe (it can observe us and has knowledge of us), then it has definable and describable qualities. If not, then who cares about it? There could be so many other indescribable and undefinable possibilities that aren't a "god".

I take your word for that, and accept the situation as you describe it: To the best of your knowledge, all the Theisms that you know of are ones for which you aren't aware of evidence. ...and for which you likewise aren't aware of any other justification for faith. — Michael Ossipoff

How do you know that other people's beliefs in something indescribable and undefinable is a "theism"? You have a big problem of putting your words in other people's mouths.

Speaking for myself, and with exception, most of the theist positions on the board can be summarized into theism is reasonable, and not that atheism is not reasonable. Mine, and their arguments, have not been directed to move anyone from atheism to theism. Just to defend the reasonability of our position.

The converse is not the case. The atheist position seems to be a very aggressive position against the reasonability of theism. However in a quick look back, most seem to think this is some sort of a given, I don't believe any have actually made the argument.

So in an attempt to escape the do loop, I invite any atheist argument, with factual propositions that end with a conclusion of either:

Therefore it is a fact that God is not,
Or
Therefore it is not a reasonable position that God is not.

And in the spirit of philosophy, keep your opinion and your sarcasm to yourself, and make an argument.

Therefore it is a fact that God is not — Rank Amateur

Well there is the god is dead argument:
- Entropy increases with time
- When entropy gets too high, you die
- Universe is 14 billion years old
- 14 billion years of entropy means god must be dead
- 'Therefore it is a fact that God is not'

A counter argument is a timeless god. Such a god might still die due to the 2nd law but would die outside of time, thus such a God is both dead and alive at the same time from the perspective of humans.

- 14 billion years of entropy mean god must be dead — Devans99

A proposition that begs the question

The 2nd law is fundamental and it relates just to change. All change increase Entropy. Does not matter if you are timeless or in a different universe, the 2nd law still applies.

requires another proposition that God is subject to any natural law. Which I challenge as not factual.

The 2nd law is more than just a natural law; its just a common sense proposition that it applies everywhere and to everything.

But I agree with you, God could somehow dodge the 2nd law. Maybe he can create energy to re-organise himself somehow. So the 'god is dead' argument has holes.

agree

Significantly, this at least highlights the fact that God, like any other thing, changes, and if it changes then it has no static or essential nature. If it were static then it would in no way be animate or alive. Lacking an essential nature, it’s just another part of what is, or, depending on how you look at the whole, nothing at all.

It's only fair that everyone get's the chance to discover God, and not those who are lucky to posses certain qualities. Is God unfair? — Purple Pond

No one that I have ever met claims there is only one way to know God. Most theists grasp God intuitively, not as the result of deduction. How people teach others about God is a matter of personal aptitude and preference. For good or ill, their methods have no bearing on whether or not God is fair.

So you have intelligent and rational people accepting the existence of God by the mere fact they possess the qualities of being intelligent and rational. But what about those people who don't possess those qualities and are not smart enough to understand and accept theistic arguments — Purple Pond

Everyone can understand the prime mover; its simple.

Its easy to argue that god (if he exists) must be benevolent. So I think people argue for his existence because he is benevolent. A universe with a benevolent god is probably going to be better than a godless universe. By extension, humans seem happier if they think a benevolent god does/might exist, so the search for proof of god is a worthwhile human endeavour...

Why would God be anything like us, or care whether we argued for it's existence? — Marchesk

Basic facts of life like the difference between right and wrong are shared by all logical entities. Its natural for Logical entities will tend to exhibit some empathy with each other. At the core, humans maybe just very simple versions of God...

, it's really not so much about a/theism as it's about general necessity.

I'll hypothesize that the only general necessity is consistency.
As shown, not sentience, green, soccer games, coffee ☕, etc.
But maybe that's not so surprising, since that's where we started out, modal logic being an extension of ordinary logic.

So, if you go ahead and define something as necessary in general, then that something may turn out to simply be consistency.
Kind of anti-climaxic if we were looking for something special.

There are many ways of knowing God e.g.
- Rational argument
- Observing supernatural signs (which surpass mundane rationalisation)
- Just feeling it
- Divine inspiration

Maybe more ... So, rational argumentation is just one way of knowing God, not the only way as you seem to be making out.

I believe the reason for knowing God at all, is that he was a hidden treasure and desired to be known.

not sure if that was comment or argument.

Since terms are important, I will define non-contingent or necessary as a being whose existence is not contingent on another's existence and whose existence is necessary for every thing else to exist.

, I'm going by the formal definitions. The formalities are in that other thread. Starts with ordinary logic (consistency), then extends with necessary and possible, and so on.
Say, in general, all that's necessary is consistency. Not sentience, for example. Which may rule out deities, depending on what those deities are supposed to be.
(I think Meillassoux argued similarly about contingency and necessity, except that was on a different angle altogether.)
Anyway, you can't necessitate deities into existence by such definitions; those definitions has then already implicitly defined your deities as something else.

”Odd though, because people with Harry's other Fundamentalist beliefs and tendencies would typically have a lot to say about describing and defining their deity, and would take any opportunity to do so.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
It's odd because you've conflated my post with some other belief
[/quote]
.
Yes, for some reason I thought that Harry was attempting a sloppy analogy with Theism :D
.

and put words in my mouth that I never said.

.
Incorrect. I was referring to what Harry said.
.
Harry asserted and claimed. That’s done by evangelistic Fundamentalists, but not by anyone that I agree with.
.
And one thing that Harry asserted was “creation”, by his Humpalumps. Creation is an anthropmorophic notion that Harry asserts, but which I wouldn’t suggest.
.
All I said in the passage that Harry quoted was that the people exhibiting Harry’s Fundamentalist inclinations, typically are only too willing to define and describe their deity. That’s what I said was “odd”.
.

”Harry likewise believes in the antrhopmorphic notion of creation, further distancing him from anyone that I agree with.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
But I said that they are indescribable and undefinable, so how do you know I was talking about some anthropomorphic notion of creation?

.
Creation is an anthropomorphic notion. Though you say Humpalumps are undefinable and indescribable, you give them an anthropomorphic described and defined role. That’s a bit too much description and definition for something indescribable and undefinable.
.

Again, you go and put words in my mouth

.
I referred to what you said.
.

because you just don't want to face the fact that your own arguments are nonsensical.

.
Vague. Only Harry knows what arguments he’s referring to.
.

That is the whole point of the "Humpalumps". Haven't you gone and done the same thing you have accused me of doing - of rejecting your own notion and definition of what a "Humpalump" is, not mine?

.
What definition from me is Harry referring to? Only he knows.
.

If I never define "Humpalumps" for you, then you only ever reject your own notion of what a Humpalump is. Do you see the problem with your position now?

.
If you provide no information about what “Humpalump” refers to, there’d be no basis on which to reject the notion of it. If you merely say that there are Humpalumps, and won’t say what you mean by “Humpalump”, then no, I wouldn’t deny that there are Humpalumps.
.
I might reply that I have no particular reason to believe in your undefined and undescribed Humpalumps. But, without knowing what you mean by “Humpalump”, I won’t comment on whether or not there are Humpalumps or whether or not you should believe in them.
.
If you asserted to me that Humpalumps created the universe then it would be reasonable for me to ask how you support that assertion.
.

Another possibility is that we are both talking about the same thing, but we are just using different terms to refer to that thing. What some would call a "god" or "humpalumps", I would use the term, "reality" or "universe" to refer to it.

.
Suit yourself. For you, “God” refers to this physical universe. No one should argue with or criticize your definitions. You can call the universe “Humpalump” too, and I have no objection, because it’s none of my business.
.

It is you that has limited your possibilities, not I.

.
I must admit that I have no idea what you’re talking about.
.

I am willing to accept any explanation that makes sense.

.
How very commendable. No one would fault you for that. And I’ve repeatedly said that you shouldn’t believe anything that you don’t know of reason to believe.
.

You are only willing to accept one - that there is something that YOU call a "god" that exists.

.
I don’t usually use the word “God”, unless replying to someone who has, because of that word’s anthropomorphic connotation. So no, I don’t “call something” “God”.
.
What I will say here—and I say very little in this thread about my beliefs, because, here, that would amount to argumentation, proselytization or preaching—is that there’s a core belief, of the other Theists, that I agree with, and that’s why I designate myself a Theist, though I don’t share denominational, doctrinal, dogmatic, allegorical or anthropomorphic beliefs that some (but not all) Theists express.
.
…not that I make a secret of my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them, which can be found in other threads throughout these forums.
.
But I re-emphasize that I don’t assert any beliefs, here or anywhere, or make any claims about Theism vs Atheism, here or anywhere.
.
In fact, I don’t make any assertion or claim about the matter of Theism vs Atheism. That’s your issue, not mine.
.
I’ve repeatedly said that I don’t know what the word “exist” is supposed to mean. I avoid using it.
.
So I have no idea what you’re referring to in the above quote.
.

I accept all other possibilities except that one. So who is the one that is really unacceptable [He means “unaccepting] of possible truths? You are.

.
No one here would say that you should believe what you don’t know of reason to believe.
.

Also claiming that something is indescribable or undefinable is basically saying that it doesn't exist.

.
I don’t know what you mean by “exist”.
.
I don’t make any claims about Theism vs Atheism. But I do question your apparent belief that all is describable and definable. …your belief that words are universally applicable. …your sureness that reality is completely describable.
.
When someone makes that silly claim, I remind them that no finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words.
.
I sometimes invite them to write down a complete description of their experience of the smell of mint, or of pretty much any experience.
.

If something like that could exist, then it would be pointless to discuss it.

.
Is that why you discuss it so much?
.

What effect could it have on the world, or on what we can observe?

.
Harry, I recommend that you study engineering, or maybe physics. But philosophy isn’t for you.
.
What effect would what have on the world, or on what we can observe? I’ve neither defined anything for you, nor made any Theist claim here.
.
Yes I’d need to define whatever I claim, but I haven’t claimed anything about God here.
.

If it has a causal relationship with the universe (it can observe us and has knowledge of us), then it has definable and describable qualities. If not, then who cares about it? There could be so many other indescribable and undefinable possibilities that aren't a "god".

.
I encourage Harry to not believe anything that he doesn’t know of reason to believe.
.
Let me guess: Is Harry a firm believer in Materialism? …a believer in the brute-fact of an objectively existent and objectively real (whatever that would mean) physical universe that is the fundamental reality, and is all of reality, and is the metaphysically-prior basis on which all else “supervenes”?
.
But Harry isn’t a believer :D
.
Michael Ossipoff

. Again not sure if that is comment or argument. I think I am allowed to use my definition of necessary being, when I use it. If it is in conflict with another definition, that is outside my argument.

If however, you are making an argument I don't see or understand, my apology. If that is so, I invite you to restate your propositions and conclusions and I will do my amateur best.

How do you know that other people's beliefs in something indescribable and undefinable is a "theism"? — Harry Hindu

If they, by their own language and word-use, express beliefs about God, I call it Theism. If they express beliefs that they call Theism, then I call it by what they call it.

Michael Ossipoff

How about this? To the best of my knowledge, all theisms of which I have examined enough to reach the conclusion that they're lacking evidence strong enough to warrant belief are indeed lacking evidence strong enough to warrant belief.

Now it's on you to either present an exception, that is, present a case of theism with evidence strong enough to warrant belief, or, alternatively, accept the situation as it is. — S

The point being that, under the assumption that there's an exception of which I'm not aware, and of which you are aware, it's on you to present it, not on me to refute all possible variations of theism. If Harry has claimed what you have said he has claimed, then yes, I agree with you that he has that burden, but not otherwise.

You should be able to quote him saying that, if he has said what you claim. — S

So you want me to study and go through all possible Theisms for you, to show you that there's one that you can't refute. I realize the difficult situation you have, wanting to challenge all Theists to your issue-argument, but not being able to communicate with every one of them. ...and not being able to get answers from all of them even if you could communcate with them.

Of course you could argue as follows: If any Theist wants to argue about your issue, then surely he or she would do so at some public forum, and you'd have found it (because you've looked hard for it).

So then, any Theist who doesn't have arguments at the many forums you've searched, can be regarded as not arguing in opposition to you, and you only have to refute the Theists whose arguments you've found.

Fine. Go for it. As far as I'm concerned: congratulations! I declare you the winner of your issue/argument, by default, because I don't regard Theism is a matter of assertion, argument, debate or proof, and I'm not interested in your issue. It's your issue, not mine.

Michael Ossipoff

t it's open to debate. I am not fully convinced of physicalism, but nor am I convinced that you can justifiably write it off. I don't believe that you're capable of demonstrating a counterexample; that is, that there exists something which is not physical, or does not supervene on the physical. — S

I didn't say I could disprove Materialism. I merely said that it is or has and needs a brute-fact. ...and that a brute-fact is unnecessary in the describable realm, because there's a describable metaphysics that neither has nor needs a brute fact or assumption.

Michael Ossipoff

Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. — The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy — S

Suit yourself. I prefer to say "Materialism", because someone once objected to me that "Physicalism" is the name of a philosophy-of-mind position, not a metaphysical position.

Michael Ossipoff

Okie dokie. Anyway, I have bad news for you. If reincarnation follows from the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that you've been describing here, then, off the bat, there must be something wrong with the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that you've've been describing here, because reincarnation is just a fiction. — S

...on S.'s authority :D

Michael Ossipoff

Let me guess: Is Harry a firm believer in Materialism? …a believer in the brute-fact of an objectively existent and objectively real (whatever that would mean) physical universe that is the fundamental reality, and is all of reality, and is the metaphysically-prior basis on which all else “supervenes”? — Michael Ossipoff

No. You have a bad habit of doing the things that you accuse others of doing. I have never mentioned materialism nor used the term physical.

Of course you don't want to explain your beliefs because that would expose them to criticism.

By not being able to define what you believe implies that you don't believe anything, or at least anything substantive or worth discussing.

Weak. That sums up your participation in this thread.

a non contingent or necessary being is one who's existence is not contingent on anything, and is necessary for the existence of everything else. — Rank Amateur

This is the idea used in an argumentum a contingentia mundi. This argument supposes too much, and seems to be associated with a similar argument, namely the ontological argument--the position that ideas of perfection or totality or omniscience, truth, etc. designate, because humans seemingly cannot be the root of these ideas, because humans are seemingly imperfect, not all-knowing, total, etc., the necessary existence of such a thing in reality representing that existent capable of delivering us to a reference of knowing ourselves. And these qualities must refer to God, for there would be no other alternative... This is a very unsettling argument. The argument referring to the contingency of the world upon a supposedly necessitated existent 'per the faculty of reason' has simply had the soil shaken out of its roots and tossed aside to decay.

it wasn't an argument it was the definition I used.

To be clear, yet again, if one wants to make an argument that atheism is a reasonable position, I agree.

If however one wants to make an argument that it is a fact that God is not, or that theism is not reasonable, I would invite the argument.

Ill give it a shot. What god are we talking about, and what theism would you mean here..any belief in god or gods? Do I get to pick one and show it is unreasonable or do you have something specific in mind?

”Let me guess: Is Harry a firm believer in Materialism? …a believer in the brute-fact of an objectively existent and objectively real (whatever that would mean) physical universe that is the fundamental reality, and is all of reality, and is the metaphysically-prior basis on which all else “supervenes”? ” — Michael Ossipoff
.
No. You have a bad habit of doing the things that you accuse others of doing. I have never mentioned materialism nor used the term physical.

.
That’s why I asked. A glance at the passage that you quoted will show that it was a question, not an assumption or statement.
.

Of course you don't want to explain your beliefs because that would expose them to criticism.

.
As I’ve explained to you many times, my impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them are all over these forums, in various threads.
.

By not being able to define what you believe…

.
I’ve stated my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them throughout these forums, in various threads.
.

…implies that you don't believe anything, or at least anything substantive or worth discussing.

.
I don’t regard it as a matter for assertion, argument, debate or proof. I’m not going to argue the matter with you. That’s why I don’t go into the matter here, though I did in various other threads at the various forums here.
.
What “it implies” is that I have no interest in arguing with you about your issue. If you want an argument, then congratulations! You win your argument by default. The Theism vs Atheism issue is your issue, not mine.
.
Michael Ossipoff