Disproofs of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. You keep saying you've established that infinities are a problem, William Lane Craig conveniently has an unspecified problem with infinities, but so far as I can see the only issue arising from infinity that has been posited was someone trying to treat infinity as a real number rather than a concept and wondering why arithmetic didn't work.

That's only an issue for you because you have a blind spot for an infinite timeframe where issues of contingency and necessity have no meaning.

It's infinite - it didn't 'pop out' of anything, there as no 'thing' from which it could pop out, and no time at which it didn't exist for it to 'pop' into or out of.

And all because the Lady Gentleman loves Milk Tray the 'infinity problem'.

O.

Even if infinities were no problem contingency without necessity is a logical problem of megatitanic proportions.

[jeremyp]

God is the necessary entity. That has been said several times.

That doesn't work as a definition. The Universe might be the necessary entity but we don't usually mean the Universe when we talk about God. Furthermore, there is no reason why the creator of this Universe (if such a creator exists) should not be contingent on some other object.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do read posts - thanks Vlad. That you don't like or understand my response doesn't mean I haven't read the post.

Defining god as the necessary entity for the universe is entirely meaningless as it really tells us nothing about god at all - and indeed could lead to the conclusion that god is simply energy, or the unifying theory of relativity. That would, of course, crush your notion of the loving judeochristian god into dust. I don't believe that is your intention, so defining god in this manner is merely a (not very subtle) trick to try and argue that god exists, and by inference you mean the judeochristian god.

It tells us that she is a necessary entity from which a description can be derived as to his properties.

If energy is the necessary entity that has huge implications not least for energy  that I can tell from the replies on this thread have not been contemplated.

[ProfessorDavey]

That doesn't work as a definition. The Universe might be the necessary entity but we don't usually mean the Universe when we talk about God. Furthermore, there is no reason why the creator of this Universe (if such a creator exists) should not be contingent on some other object.

My point exactly - if your definition of god goes no further than the necessary entity then all sorts of things become candidates for god, most of which don't come close to the standard definitions of god or gods, which typically require some kind of supernatural or divine elements. And if the the definition of god goes no further than the necessary entity then the notions of a personal and beneficent god are entirely irrelevant.

[ProfessorDavey]

If energy is the necessary entity that has huge implications not least for energy  that I can tell from the replies on this thread have not been contemplated.

For the sake of arguments - if energy is the necessary entity does this mean that god is simply energy and energy is god.

If so this kinds of rides roughshod through the notions of religion, worship etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That doesn't work as a definition. The Universe might be the necessary entity but we don't usually mean the Universe when we talk about God. Furthermore, there is no reason why the creator of this Universe (if such a creator exists) should not be contingent on some other object.

That doesn't work as a definition. The Universe might be the necessary entity but we don't usually mean the Universe when we talk about God. Furthermore, there is no reason why the creator of this Universe (if such a creator exists) should not be contingent on some other object.

Sorry Jeremy you have said that the universe is the necessary entity. You have said that contingent things are not the universe.
Can I check. Do you mean that contingent things are not part of the universe or that they are merely part of the universe?

[Outrider]

Even if infinities were no problem contingency without necessity is a logical problem of megatitanic proportions.

If you do not realise how illogical contingency without necessity is even after the explanations provided then I’m not sure anyone here can help you.

Only within a finite time-frame - infinite age means that concept of an origin is meaningless, as therefore is the nature of that origin.

If there is something that doesn’t need or doesn’t have an external explanation then that is what is called a necessary entity.

No, 'necessary' is about whether it had to exist or not - there's nothing, even in an infinite reality, which requires it to have existed, we have no idea if it's possible for reality not to exist.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For the sake of arguments - if energy is the necessary entity does this mean that god is simply energy and energy is god.

If so this kinds of rides roughshod through the notions of religion, worship etc.

It means that energy has a few more properties that are not found in contingent things.
Thinking of which there are things which disqualify energy from being the necessary entity.

For information though, there are theologies which have energy as a necessary entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My point exactly - if your definition of god goes no further than the necessary entity then all sorts of things become candidates for god, most of which don't come close to the standard definitions of god or gods, which typically require some kind of supernatural or divine elements. And if the the definition of god goes no further than the necessary entity then the notions of a personal and beneficent god are entirely irrelevant.

There are god candidates?!? Name a few, please.

[Roses]

There are god candidates?!? Name a few, please.

Me for one!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Only within a finite time-frame - infinite age means that concept of an origin is meaningless, as therefore is the nature of that origin.

No it’s been demonstrated how an infinite contingent universe of temporary particles can be has been and been created from a quantum foam.

We cannot go back now and pretend that cannot be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, 'necessary' is about whether it had to exist or not - there's nothing, even in an infinite reality, which requires it to have existed, we have no idea if it's possible for reality not to exist.

O.

Nothing external which requires it to exist.
I think you are misreading the term necessary to exist.
All that means since basically all this is known as the argument from contingency is for X to exist Y is necessary.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Me for one!

Seconded.

[Stranger]

It means that energy has a few more properties that are not found in contingent things.

Energy obviously isn't the necessary entity because it isn't an entity at all, it's a property. However, what are the properties required for something necessary?

So you can ignore it for the fourth time (at least) if I suggested the space-time manifold is necessary, would that make it "God" - what extra properties would it need?

Thinking of which there are things which disqualify energy from being the necessary entity.

Wow! Vlad's said something sensible!

For information though, there are theologies which have energy as a necessary entity.

They are wrong (at least with respect the the scientific definition of energy).

[Stranger]

No it’s been demonstrated how an infinite contingent universe of temporary particles can be has been and been created from a quantum foam.

Gibberish.

[ProfessorDavey]

There are god candidates?!? Name a few, please.

Upthread I have, for the sake of arguments, proposed:
Energy
Unifying relativity theory

If these are determined to be necessary for the universe to exist, then surely by your own definition these are god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Energy obviously isn't the necessary entity because it isn't an entity at all, it's a property. However, what are the properties required for something necessary?

I like that........it’s Prof Davey’s suggestion and I even put that there are several disqualifications stopping that being the case and yet this guy homes in on me. Why? Because Davey is an atheist
.aaaan aaaatheist. I ask you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Upthread I have, for the sake of arguments, proposed:
Energy
Unifying relativity theory

If these are determined to be necessary for the universe to exist, then surely by your own definition these are god.

Never talk to strangers! he has proposed energy again..... Never......... come quickly and tear his suggestion apart........Never talk?........Never talk? .........are you there never talk?

[ProfessorDavey]

No, 'necessary' is about whether it had to exist or not - there's nothing, even in an infinite reality, which requires it to have existed, we have no idea if it's possible for reality not to exist.

Exactly - the notion of necessary is conditional on other elements - so a necessary element for the universe is only necessary if the universe exists. Were the universe not to exist, then it would clearly not be necessary.

[Stranger]

I like that........it’s Prof Davey’s suggestion and I even put that there are several disqualifications stopping that being the case and yet this guy homes in on me. Why? Because Davey is an atheist
.aaaan aaaatheist. I ask you.

I've already had the argument with Davey.

I note you've ignored my questions and my suggestion (for the fourth time, at least).

[jeremyp]

Sorry Jeremy you have said that the universe is the necessary entity. You have said that contingent things are not the universe.
Can I check. Do you mean that contingent things are not part of the universe or that they are merely part of the universe?

Is that meant to be a reply to the post you quoted? It doesn't address the point at all.

[ProfessorDavey]

Never talk to strangers! he has proposed energy again..... Never......... come quickly and tear his suggestion apart........Never talk?........Never talk? .........are you there never talk?

We are discussing hypotheticals here - I clearly said 'for the sake of arguments'. Would you like to address the issue please - were energy or unifying relativity to be determined to be necessary for the universe to exist (therefore being a necessary entity) would you accept that these are, therefore, god?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And lo, to avoid the Uncreated Creator they created the Uncreated Created......and saw it was illogical but not God.

[Stranger]

And lo, to avoid the Uncreated Creator they created the Uncreated Created......and saw it was illogical but not God.

More gibberish.

You're still studiously ignoring the actual points being made here. Yet again: the space-time manifold doesn't obviously depend on anything else for its existence, so, if it were necessary, would that make it "God"? Would it need extra properties? If so, what are they?

How can we tell if anything is necessary?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exactly - the notion of necessary is conditional on other elements - so a necessary element for the universe is only necessary if the universe exists. Were the universe not to exist, then it would clearly not be necessary.

Utterbollocks. You are saying that that which is necessary is only necessary because that which is contingent on it exists.

That is arse about face.

That’s like saying without me my mum and dad wouldn’t exist.