Bible Humper

Hello there, Philip.

I realise that this is what your idea is, my point regarding this idea is that if there are concepts which exist necessarily such as 1+1=2, and it is these concepts on which the laws of physics which govern the universe are based, then what use is Yahweh?

Acknowledging that there are concepts that are not divinely created doesn't seem to give him anything to do, much less a necessity of existing.

Why? You have already acknowledged that Yahweh wasn't needed to make 1+1=2, and everything is ultimately reducible to this concept and other concepts which constitute the limits of the "space of possibilities".

Well, I hope you will be patient with a guy who hasn't ever taken a philosophy class and so is not familiar with the terms used to describe these concepts. In the context in which I wrote that, and my use of quotation marks, I feel my meaning is clear even if my terminology is imprecise.

But if the question "why?" is asked repeatedly in response to all answers, eventually you get to this point. If Yahweh wasn't needed for these natural laws, there is something more fundamental than he is ("outranks him").

Since all other natural laws work within these parameters which you believe exist without Yahweh's intervention, there is nothing for him to do! What use is a deity concept that lacks evidence and doesn't solve any questions? Yahweh seems totally superfluous.

But if these parameters are necessary for natural and supernatural laws in the first place, what is the reason to look for supernature in the first place? I simply can't think of a role for supernature here.

OK, since these parameters exist without Yahweh, and all natural laws lie within these parameters, there seems to be no need for a deity in order to explain anything and justify the statement "Yahweh necessarily exists".

Ahh, but if the concepts upon which our universe is based exist necessarily, then our universe exists necessarily without any need for help from deities.


I don't see any need for Yahweh in the ideas expressed here.

Olorin

For anyone, that person's nature allows him/her to do things, and limits him/her as well. As soon as something is required of someone that oversteps these limits, the thing that is required becomes an illogical scenario. This is what happens with God: his attribute of omnibenevolence limits his actions to good. He cannot do evil. But since evil is not catered for by his nature, it is illogical to expect that God can perform evil acts. Likewise, with omniscience (which the majority of people that I have spoken to hold as "all-knowledge"), acquiring knowledge that God already possesses is an illogical scenario. Exactly. Once you take God's omnibenevolence into account (and how it negates certain abilities), you are left with a pool of abilities that can be performed. But you also have that eternal attribute of God, which limits the pool even more (God cannot kill himself, or bring about the state of affairs in which he does not exist). But, limiting factors are not solely derived from attributes. Take for instance the doctrine of free will (choice). Since God is claimed to have given us the ability to choose, he now cannot force us to do something. Another logically possible act (on its own), yet combined with God's nature, it is illogical. And the list goes on -- Christians like to tell you what their deity is like...

Then there is me. Take my nature, my limits, into account, and what am I left with? Everything that can be done by me. The former is incomplete. Is God claimed as being omnipotent and omnibenevolent and nothing else?

The latter seems general, but it is just a different way to phrase the following: "being able to do anything that is consistent with the complete nature of the being, excluding those things that are inconsistent".

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Taffy Lewis:

"But having 'the power to bring about any logically possible state of affairs consistent with perfect goodness' is certainly not equivalent to 'being able to do whatever it is one can do'. As I've said, the latter is too general."

Do you regard the former as a suitable definition for the word "omnipotent"?

Philip Osborne

I realise that this is what your idea is, my point regarding this idea is that if there are concepts which exist necessarily such as 1+1=2, and it is these concepts on which the laws of physics which govern the universe are based, then what use is Yahweh?

God is needed to create everything else, of course. It is obvious that the whole of reality is not constituted only by physical laws and abstract objects. "Necessary existence" does not mean God is necessary to create the universe; it means that it is simply impossible, under any circumstance, for God not to exist. God might have chosen not to create the universe, but He would still have necessary existence.

It can also plausibly be maintained that the laws of nature are not sufficient for bringing about the actual world. We cannot say "Why did the [insert theory on why the universe exists] happen?" and answer the question with "The law of conservation did it," or "The law of gravity did it." Scientific explanations are never merely a reference to a natural law; they must refer to some law and some contingent state of affairs. For example, to answer the question "Why did this ball fall to the ground?" I must not only include the law of gravity in my explanation but also the state of affairs in which the ball was in air prior it hitting the ground, as well as the fact that the ball is the kind of object that could be affected by the law of gravity, that the Earth is the type of object that could bring about sufficient gravity for the ball to fall on its surface, etc.

Why? You have already acknowledged that Yahweh wasn't needed to make 1+1=2, and everything is ultimately reducible to this concept and other concepts which constitute the limits of the "space of possibilities".

I have not admitted, nor even implied, that all of reality is completely reducible to abstract objects. Abstract objects, according to popular interpretation, cannot stand in causal relations, and so cannot explain the existence of contingent (possibly non-existent) beings.

If Yahweh wasn't needed for these natural laws, there is something more fundamental than he is ("outranks him").

Suppose the natural laws necessarily exist. Then, God was not needed to create these laws, but it is also true that the laws were not needed for God to exist. Both can exist necessarily, and there is no need for one to be more fundamental in any sense than the other. It just happens to be the case that God is an object of worship, whereas natural laws are not.

OK, since these parameters exist without Yahweh, and all natural laws lie within these parameters, there seems to be no need for a deity in order to explain anything and justify the statement "Yahweh necessarily exists".

As I said earlier in this post, the statement "God exists necessarily" does not need to be justified in terms of God explaining some natural phenomenon.

Ahh, but if the concepts upon which our universe is based exist necessarily, then our universe exists necessarily without any need for help from deities.

This inference is incorrect. The concept "unicorn" exists, but this does not imply that any unicorns actually exist.

Sincerely,

Philip

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Philip Osborne ]</p>

Bible Humper

Hello Philip,

God is needed to create everything else, of course.

What else is there?

If the actual parameters of the logically possible didn't need the deity, nothing within those parameters required him either. As far as the physicists know, of course, is there something they haven't considered?

This is just one way of expressing presupposition, Yahweh no more necessarily exists than does the Hindu pantheon.

I have never heard of whatever it is you are referring to here, the reason I think there is something I'm missing is that you are a catholic and this seems like a creationist angle.

Please elaborate.

We have already established that the deity wasn't needed in order for there to be the parameters of the logically possible within which all natural laws conform. Unless someone can demonstrate a reason why I shouldn't conclude that there is some particular aspect of the parameters within which all natural laws conform which makes it a foregone conclusion that there will indeed be laws of some sort within those parameters, I'll wait for the verdict from the physicists.

The answer to the question of "why did the universe happen?" has not yet been answered, but I should point out that in trillions of uses by billions of believers, the "God in the gaps" argument has the embarrassing distinction of not having been right a single time when the mystery of the phenomenon in question was at last unraveled.

The fact that science does not yet have an answer is in no way evidence of Yahweh.

Well, I'll leave the question of abstract objects in causal relations to the guys in the phiosophy forum who can explain themselves with equations that look like excerpts from one of OooOoOoo's posts.

True, but evidence of the natural laws is ubiquitous whereas the world awaits the very first piece of evidence for the existence of Yahweh.

You are right, but the problem is that since there is no empirical evidence for Yahweh, he is completely superfluous as far as we know.

It might be that instead of Yahweh, the Hindu pantheon is logically necessary and sooner or later it will be proven.

Since any deity who we might hypothesize to exist necessarily has apparently decided not to make it's presence obvious, for whatever reason, a universe with no gods, one god, or a million gods are all indistinguishable from one another so until new evidence is forthcoming, Occam's razor applies.

Of course it does! We have already established that the deity wasn't needed in order for there to be the parameters of the logically possible within which all natural laws conform, so what is left for him?


I agree, instead of actually identifying the concepts I was talking about I wrote "concepts". <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

The same idea I wanted to express is up above in this post now anyway.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]</p>

Philip Osborne

What else is there?

If the actual parameters of the logically possible didn't need the deity, nothing within those parameters required him either. As far as the physicists know, of course, is there something they haven't considered?

Everything that exists in the actual world is "what else there is." The space of the possible subsumes things like "possibly p" or "possibly q." It does not include statements such as "actually q" in the sense that what is actual is not wholly reducible to the notion of what is possible. The space of possibilities cannot be used as a comprehensive explanation for why things do the things they do. I should also note that it is not just natural laws which conform to the space of possibilities; EVERYTHING has to conform to that space.

This is just one way of expressing presupposition, Yahweh no more necessarily exists than does the Hindu pantheon.

Of course this assertion needs a more elaborate defense. However, to provide that here would be off-topic.

The point is that even if we acknowledge that abstract objects and natural laws were not created by God, there are still plenty of avenues for cosmological arguments to take. For instance, a cosmological argument could take the aggregate of all existing contingent entities and ask for a cause and/or explanation of why they exist. The question of whether or not such an argument is sound is irrelevant; the point is that a cosmological argument need not conclude that "God created natural laws" or "God created abstract objects" in order to conclude that God exists.

This will probably be my last post in this thread, since my time is limited.

Sincerely,

Philip

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Philip Osborne ]</p>