Jamie_L

I understand this concept. But another hypothesis is that the universe is "metaphysically necessary". This leads back to the question of doulbe standard: why is it so hard for most people to accept an uncaused (or self-caused) universe, but easy to accept an uncaused or self-caused god?

I'm not trying to argue against God here. I'm wondering more about people. It seems we have two sets of near identical questions. One set bugs people so much they must turn to God. The other set these same people don't care about.

Jamie

Jack the Bodiless

Anselm has no argument: his "principle" is merely a tautology that uses the alleged omnimax properties of God for emphasis.

"If God exists, then he MUST exist".

However, this does not affect the case of God's non-existence. If God does NOT exist, then God does not actually possess the omnimax properties that make his existence necessary.

Claiming that God is "logically necessary" doesn't make it so.

Philip Osborne

"Anselm has no argument: his 'principle' is merely a tautology that uses the alleged omnimax properties of God for emphasis."

The principle is a tautology, but we only need to ask the question "Why does God exist?" if we hypothetically assume that God does exist (i.e. "If God existed, then why would God exist?"). And Anselm's principle seems to provide the answer; if God existed, His existence would be necessary.

"Claiming that God is "logically necessary" doesn't make it so."

I'm not saying otherwise; what I am saying is that if theism is true, then God exists necessarily, which means that theism doesn't have to answer the question "Why does God exist?" with a seperate causal explanation for God's existence.

"I understand this concept. But another hypothesis is that the universe is "metaphysically necessary". This leads back to the question of doulbe standard: why is it so hard for most people to accept an uncaused (or self-caused) universe, but easy to accept an uncaused or self-caused god?"

I don't know a great deal about modern cosmology, but I think it can at least be said that possibly, the universe is caused. Assuming that causes do not necessitate their effects, we find that it is possible for something not to necessitate the existence of the universe. This "something" is that possible cause of the universe." But if something is necessary, every possible fact there could be would necessitate it. Since this is not true of the universe, it follows that the universe does not exist necessarily.

-Philip

Jack the Bodiless

But, again, Anselm's principle is not an argument: merely a recitation of a specific point of dogma.

Theists have not demonstrated that a godless Universe is impossible. Given the possibility of a Universe that can exist and function without God, there is no particular reason to assume that God is logically necessary even if God does indeed exist.

Anselm is choosing to believe that his God is a logically necessary being. He has chosen to define his God as a logically necessary being.

However, the issue does not go away. If Anselm's God must exist for the Universe to exist, then what is the reason WHY this God-dependent Universe must exist?
This can also be applied to God:

I don't know a great deal about modern theology, but I think it can at least be said that possibly, God is caused. Assuming that causes do not necessitate their effects, we find that it is possible for something not to necessitate the existence of God. This "something" is that possible cause of God. But if something is necessary, every possible fact there could be would necessitate it. Since this is not true of God, it follows that God does not exist necessarily.

Jack the Bodiless

Hey, I've just realized that I have disproved Anselm's principle!

Let's just tidy that up a little.

P1. It is possible that there is no God.
P2. We observe that the Universe exists.

C1. It is possible for the Universe to exist without God.
C2. God is not necessary for the Universe to exist.
C3. God cannot be a logically-necessary being.

This looks solid to me. Theists may disagree with Premise 1, but to refute it they must prove that a godless Universe is absolutely impossible. The very possibility of a godless Universe, however remote, is sufficient to destroy any claim that God is a logically necessary being.

WJ

Jack!

....show's you how much deductive logic works!

He said/she said.

What next? It amazes me how ignorant some atheists are about logic! Almost as bad as some theists!!!

Jack the Bodiless

...Do you have a specific point to make, or are you simply rejecting my argument because you don't like the conclusion?

Of course, the counter-assertion that "God exists in all possible worlds" leads directly into the howling void of Christian Presuppositionalism. Thereby losing the argument by default.

Abandon Reason, All Ye Who Enter Here.

WJ

Hi jack!

I must say thank you for some sense of 'reasonableness'. To answer your question, I think you attempted to use a form of deduction via a loose syllogism, which of course, does not answer the [your]original intent behind the [your]conclusion.

For instance I can certainly try one:

1. Most all humans experience the emotion called love.
2. Love is an emotion as derived from God.
3. Therefore, most humans know of God.

Now I could easily supplant the devil or 'evil' in place of God. Would it make it true or false? If it makes it false, how do we determine what is considered evil? And, how do we verify these assumptions?

Rhetorical questions I know, but you get the drift. If I remember your syllogism, the idea is basically the same.

Now with respect to logically necessity in the face of the inference that God was the first causal agent, how are you putting that into a syllogism?

Again, let me try one:

1. To explain cosmological existence, all events have a causal agent called God.
2. God is a necessary being who within himself contains the reasons for his own existence.
3. Therefore, the necessity of God's existence is needed to explain that all events must have a cause.


Now if that is not sound I'm sure we can move some words around to get our point across. However, is 1 even true? Is it analytic apriori? How do we verify the assertions that 1. is even true?

Don't we need something more to verify the basic assertions behind each other's propostions?

Walrus

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Philip Osborne

"However, the issue does not go away. If Anselm's God must exist for the Universe to exist, then what is the reason WHY this God-dependent Universe must exist?"

The God-dependant universe exists because God instantiates it in virtue of His omnipotence. He creates the universe as a free act. I'm not sure what the problem here is, unless one has a problem with the concept of omnipotence or divine causation, which does not seem to be the thrust of your objection.

"I don't know a great deal about modern theology, but I think it can at least be said that possibly, God is caused."

I don't think it is held by any modern theologian that God's existence is possibly caused. Thomists will certainly find this unacceptable, and even theists who reject Anselm's principle will still insist that God's existence cannot be caused.

"It is possible that there is no God."

This argument is question-begging, because this premiss alone entails that God does not exist necessarily. In fact, no great interaction is required to tell that this proposition is logically equivalent to the statement "God does not exist necessarily." There is no need to make reference to the universe.

Just as the most remote possibility of God's non-existence entails the necessary non-existence of God, the most remote possibility of God's existence entails the necessity of His existence. On the basis of your argument, there is no reason to choose one over the other. Your atheistic ontological argument stumbles over the same problem that theistic versions stumble over.

-Philip

Jack the Bodiless

My objection stems from the title of this thread: "Why don't "The Big Questions" apply to God?". If the answer to "why are we here" is "God", then the questions don't stop there. WHY did God "create the Universe as a free act", and WHY is there a God to do this at all?

Saying that God is "necessary" does not answer the question. The existence of a Ford Cougar implies the existence of a Ford car plant to manufacture it: in fact, the existence of the car plant is necessary, given the existence of the Ford Cougar. But if I ask "why does the Ford car company exist", then the answer "here is a Ford Cougar, therefore the company MUST exist" is NOT a satisfactory answer to the question!
They may not like it, but I can still SAY it. "God's existence is possibly caused": there, I've said it again. But these are the same people who object to an uncaused Universe and insist that God is required as the cause. It is hypocritical to use the First Cause argument for God and then insist that God requires no cause. This is another example of not applying the "Big Question" to God.
No, I am saying that God may or may not exist. The most remote possibility of God's non-existence does not entail the necessary non-existence of God, merely that God is not a logically necessary being. Similarly, the possibility of his existence says nothing more profound than "maybe God exists".

The problem stems from the attempt by Christian theists to "define themselves correct". SOMETHING is necessary for the Universe to exist: if that "something" is given the label "God", then it is trivially true to say that God exists, and that God MUST exist (but even this does not answer the Big Question of WHY this "something" exists). But the word "God" is also used to describe a mythical intelligent entity with specific magical powers. If I use the phrase "my bathplug" to describe the "necessary something", and also "the rubber plug in my bathtub", then my bathplug is a logically necessary being: my bathplug is God, by definition.