Creator of God

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 06:27 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;131068 wrote:
This is a quote from C.S. Lewis from the same book Mere Christianity that I quoted in the other thread:



I once read quite a bit of C.S. Lewis, including that one. Theism isn't a silly position. But then neither is atheism. Either can be justified from a pragmatic standpoint. But so can agnosticism. (By the way, I'm not saying you are coming from a pragmatic viewpoint at all. It's just I don't the proof/persuasion necessary for consensus on either side. Largely a leap of faith/interpretation of experience?)
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 08:36 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;131177 wrote:
I may say God is good, and you may say God is not, very true, but God, like the art in question, is there nonetheless


True, god "could" be there but at the same time god could be a flying pink elephant too. The part I keep trying to point out you accept and then immediately erase it or something from your thought or thinking and rebuke on it. I mean absolutely no offense, but sometimes it seems like I am having a conversation with a four year old. I know I probably shouldn't have said that, but I guess it was necessary for this point of this particular topic.

Amperage;131177 wrote:

Why should one expect the definition of God to be as clear-cut as the colors of paint? Oh, Ok, now I see what your saying. I agree that there is no agreed upon definition of God. (lol I agree we haven't agreed.) However agreeing upon a definition is quite different from discounting the idea altogether.


Since we can't agree it points out something fundamental about the idea of god. Either he exists in the state that what ever you think god to be, that is exactly what god is. So if I think god is a flying pink elephant then god is a flying pink elephant. But if you argue that god is not a flying pink elephant then how could he not be and be at the same time?

Amperage;131177 wrote:

Well I just said for the most part because I can't account for everyone everywhere. Why doesn't the entire scientific community agree about the origin of the universe? These questions are difficult to tackle.


Fair enough. Difficult definitely, but impossible? No. However; I feel answering the question if god exists is impossible.

Amperage;131177 wrote:

Is science really progressive? Has the nature of the universe changed with our progression? I should think not. What has changed is our own understanding. In the same way God has not changed but our understanding of Him has. As we learn more the picture becomes more clear. Or as sometimes is the case with science, one step forward can mean two steps back. But each arena is attempting to better understand something.


Yes good point, well made, but it really was not my meaning behind progressive. Since you made a good point here, I won't stuff it up with recanting my previous argument.

Amperage;131177 wrote:

Not exactly. Just as the Ptolemaic system of planet movements wasn't wrong, they just didn't have the whole picture. People have always served God, they just didn't always have the correct/whole pictures. It's doubtful we have the whole picture now.


Yeah, the whole picture. What if the whole picture reveals that there never was a god, it just seemed to look like there was? I guess the best way to put it is, it's dark, you think you see someone in the shadows ahead of you, but once you get there, you see it was only a bush in the shape of a person's silhouette.

Amperage;131177 wrote:

About as well as science is sure of its latest discovery. I could be wrong I grant this, however, in matters of God, IMO, it is about what's in our hearts. And in my heart I believe I am serving God. If God turns out to be different than my conception then so be it. I served Him as well as could be expected.


How do you know you are serving him? Or doing what the service he would want you to be doing? How do you know he isn't annoyed that you are doing something he didn't want you to do? Would you be receiving some kind of punishment? If you are, what is the punishment?

Amperage;131177 wrote:

In the words of Fr. Frederick C. Copleston, "To say that one has not found it is one thing; to say that one should not look for it seems to me rather dogmatic." Be it your friend that you were playing hide-and-go-seek with or be it God


I was wondering if you were going to get my little story or not. The point I was trying to make wasn't so much about trying to find god, but instead that everyone you ask has a different answer for you. These different answers are contrary to what our every day experience does for us. We don't have to wake up every day and relearn everything from scratch.

The reason is because there is information that is reliable. Like language, you don't need to relearn it every day to be able to utilize it. This is because we are relying on the information we have acquired to be accepted by others. If no one did that then we would have to relearn language every day. It would be like changing word meanings on a dailly basis. Language would fall apart.

My point is, with the god idea, there is no foundation for it, so every day you have to relearn what god is because as you already pointed out, it is progressive.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 09:33 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;131266 wrote:
True, god "could" be there but at the same time god could be a flying pink elephant too. The part I keep trying to point out you accept and then immediately erase it or something from your thought or thinking and rebuke on it. I mean absolutely no offense, but sometimes it seems like I am having a conversation with a four year old. I know I probably shouldn't have said that, but I guess it was necessary for this point of this particular topic.
Well I'm sorry that I am annoying you, it's certainly not my intent. And I'm honestly not trying to be dismissive or something like that; from my perspective I'm having to scratch and claw just to keep you dismissing me. I feel I rarely am able to make a dent. If you would just admit to a certain plausibility behind anything I've said it would certainly go along way. I have, on many occasions, granted this same respect to you.

Krumple;131266 wrote:
Since we can't agree it points out something fundamental about the idea of god. Either he exists in the state that what ever you think god to be, that is exactly what god is. So if I think god is a flying pink elephant then god is a flying pink elephant. But if you argue that god is not a flying pink elephant then how could he not be and be at the same time?
Not to be dismissive but what it points out to me is that the concept is every bit as difficult, and IMO more-so, as quantum theory or any other complex aspect of life.

I don't typically try to argue about what God is or is not in that sense. He may very well be a flying pink elephant, but that is beside the point. The point of contention(for now) is not what God is but if God is.

Krumple;131266 wrote:
Fair enough. Difficult definitely, but impossible? No. However; I feel answering the question if god exists is impossible.
To me, this is saying we should not even try which I cannot accept.

Krumple;131266 wrote:
Yeah, the whole picture. What if the whole picture reveals that there never was a god, it just seemed to look like there was? I guess the best way to put it is, it's dark, you think you see someone in the shadows ahead of you, but once you get there, you see it was only a bush in the shape of a person's silhouette.
Well then I will, at that time, realize I was in error, however, I feel at this time, that I have sufficient reason to believe God does exist. If it turns out I was wrong and there is no God, I would have still lived the life of my choosing and a life worth living, for in the absence of God life itself is devoid of any ultimate meaning or ultimate purpose. It matters not that I even lived at all.

Krumple;131266 wrote:
How do you know you are serving him? Or doing what the service he would want you to be doing? How do you know he isn't annoyed that you are doing something he didn't want you to do? Would you be receiving some kind of punishment? If you are, what is the punishment?
I know because I know. How does anyone know that they know? I feel His presence in my life. Prayer, reflection, and discussion with others I feel are on the same path are the tools I use to know I'm doing God's will. Because when I am living outside of God's will I feel His conviction.

Krumple;131266 wrote:
I was wondering if you were going to get my little story or not. The point I was trying to make wasn't so much about trying to find god, but instead that everyone you ask has a different answer for you. These different answers are contrary to what our every day experience does for us. We don't have to wake up every day and relearn everything from scratch.

The reason is because there is information that is reliable. Like language, you don't need to relearn it every day to be able to utilize it. This is because we are relying on the information we have acquired to be accepted by others. If no one did that then we would have to relearn language every day. It would be like changing word meanings on a dailly basis. Language would fall apart.

My point is, with the god idea, there is no foundation for it, so every day you have to relearn what god is because as you already pointed out, it is progressive.
First in terms of your re-learning analogy, it's not so much relearning with God as it is ALWAYS being on the cutting edge. We are always breaking new ground. Dusting off something that was previously clouded.

As to your point, I think there is this notion that someone MUST have the right answer for there to be an answer. Christians certainly think they have it as do the Muslims, the Jews, the Zulu tribe of Africa, etc. etc. etc.

IMO God is far too big for this. Every nation, neigh, every individual brings their own subjective-ness to the table. No one lives in my head but me, and no one lives in your head but you. We all go through this life experiencing all this "stuff" and yet the reality is no one can be me but me and no one can be you but you. As much as we feel connected to others we are eternally isolated within the confines of who we are and what has made us as such.

God as I stated earlier can be seen as the infinite corridor in the finite direction. I honestly am glad to see there is not a unified theory of God. God means different things to different people and yet is still God. When I read posts from 1CellOfMany, Fil. Albuquerque, or jeeprs or a myriad of others on this forum I honestly have never seen anything that I didn't think sounded like the God I know. We each focus as a particular truth. I believe the whole "Tao of oneness thing" (lol now I probably just sound retarded because I'm not sure if I'm talking about the right thing or not), or the everything is God and a part of God or those who believe in a single consciousness or any the hundreds of notions out there, they all sound like God to me. I love reading about these other religions because for me it helps me learn something about my God(God) that I didn't previously consider, or at least see things from a perspective about God that I didn't consider.

The bottom line is I fully expect God to be different to different people. These difference do not mean God isn't there it just means He reaches people differently. Different people discover different truths about God. God meets different needs. etc. etc.

I hope any of that makes sense to you. Because at least in the moment as I was fleshing it out it seemed to to me.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 10:48 pm
@no1author,
"I met a man in the park today who said he had come from the future. In 2012, he warned me, aliens would invade disguised as Gods and angels. 'What a show they gave us! Our scientific instruments were bewildered. Most of us believed again in the supernatural. We worshiped them. They did not harm us. A few continued to doubt and resent. Man had just invented his first time machine in 2011. A human hadn't tried it yet. Well, the Agnostic Front stole this time machine to send me back.' "
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 11:50 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;131275 wrote:
for in the absence of God life itself is devoid of any ultimate meaning or ultimate purpose. It matters not that I even lived at all


I give myself purpose. I make my life meaningful. I don't need God.

Here's three ways I'm better off without God:

1. I value my time. If I think I have eternity to visit with my loved ones, the moments I spend with them now aren't as rare.

2. The problem of evil and suffering is solved. The reason why suffering seems so random is because it is random. That explains why there are two month old babies dying of painful bone cancer.

3. I get credit for my moral actions. When I'm generous, it's because I want to be generous. I'm not simply following rules, hoping to get an eternal pat on the back. When I keep my promises it's because I want to be honorable, not because I'm worried about "sin".
 
Amperage
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 12:22 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;131307 wrote:
I give myself purpose. I make my life meaningful. I don't need God.
While I understand why you say that here why I disagree.(This really isn't the scope of the thread either but whatever)

giving yourself purpose or meaning doesn't ultimately matter. It may help you sleep at night but there is no ultimate meaning. You live. You die. It wouldn't matter if you, I , or mankind as a whole ever existed at all. If all that matters is the right here and now, then nothing matters. Nothing means anything, nothing carries any ultimate consequence. Nothing lasts.

IMO this devalues life more than anything. Should you decide to live a life eradicating Jews or one of charity, compassion, and care for the less fortunate there is no difference it means nothing but what you assign to it. Stalin did his thing and who can blame him? He lived his life as full as he could.

Night Ripper;131307 wrote:
1. I value my time. If I think I have eternity to visit with my loved ones, the moments I spend with them now aren't as rare.
It's great that you value your time, but what does it matter? You spend your time how you see fit and at the end of the day it meant nothing. For me, I cherish every moment for what it is. For to live is Christ and to die is gain. Each moment I have the amazing opportunity to proclaim the good news, to love, TO LIVE.

Night Ripper;131307 wrote:
2. The problem of evil and suffering is solved. The reason why suffering seems so random is because it is random. That explains why there are two month old babies dying of painful bone cancer.
For you a baby is murdered and that's it. A woman get's raped and that's it. It's pointless. For the theist, he knows these things have meaning, there is a purpose. All is not for not. Light will prevail over the darkness. The sun will rise. God is in control.

Night Ripper;131307 wrote:
3. I get credit for my moral actions. When I'm generous, it's because I want to be generous. I'm not simply following rules, hoping to get an eternal pat on the back. When I keep my promises it's because I want to be honorable, not because I'm worried about "sin".
Get credit from whom? Morality only gets the value you arbitrarily decide to place on it. It makes no difference either way. You are headed the same place whether you live as Stalin or Mother Teresa. You have nothing grounding your morality.
Believe me followers of God are not worried about sin, they do out of love. The life they lead is not their own, but God living through them. Do they slip up? Of course. But when one lives a life for God there is no worry or fear that enters the mind, quite the opposite actually. They tend to focus on doing because they want to, it just so happens what one begins to want is what is right by god. that was righteousness is, doing right by God. Not out of obligation but love and desire. When one's morals are objectively grounded in God, one is not just submitting to the whims of their own subjectivity.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 10:08 am
@Amperage,
Amperage;131315 wrote:
It wouldn't matter if you, I , or mankind as a whole ever existed at all.


It also wouldn't matter if God never existed. Who would be there to complain? The existence of God doesn't add meaning.

Amperage;131315 wrote:
Each moment I have the amazing opportunity to proclaim the good news, to love, TO LIVE.


I love. I live. You haven't shown me anything I'm missing.

Amperage;131315 wrote:
For you a baby is murdered and that's it. A woman get's raped and that's it. It's pointless. For the theist, he knows these things have meaning, there is a purpose. All is not for not. Light will prevail over the darkness. The sun will rise. God is in control.


God is in control but babies die of painful bone cancer? Then your idea of God is rather feeble. If I personally had the power to prevent my child from having bone cancer, I would. God has that power but doesn't bother using it? For me, it makes sense because it's random. For you, the fact that God lets babies suffer takes some explaining.

Amperage;131315 wrote:
Get credit from whom? Morality only gets the value you arbitrarily decide to place on it. It makes no difference either way. You are headed the same place whether you live as Stalin or Mother Teresa. You have nothing grounding your morality.


I have a conscience. Maybe you only care about being a good person if you're going to get a reward in the afterlife but I don't think that even counts as being a truly a moral person. A moral person doesn't need to be bribed or threatened into doing the right thing. The reason why I don't want to be a mass murderer isn't because I want to go to heaven or because I'm scared of hell. It's because I don't want to be a mass murderer. You're right that nothing's stopping me. That's why the fact that I'm a good person means so much more. I didn't have to be a good person but I did it anyways.

Let me make it simpler, who's more generous, the person that gives away everything he owns and then has nothing left, or the person that gives away everything and then gets a palace as a reward.

If you knew you were getting a palace then you would be stupid NOT to give away everything.
 
Lily
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 01:35 pm
@no1author,
no1author;130664 wrote:
A question to the theists:
Who or what was the creator of god?

If you tell me god just existed since ever, ill just say the universe etc. Existed since ever. So please dont use that argument, thanks.

God has to either come from nothing, or always have existed. But maybe you could say time is the creator of God, since God has existed since the time started.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 02:07 pm
@Night Ripper,
I do not really wish to continue this debate Night Ripper but if you would like to continue it may be best to start a new thread or not.

Frankly, if I were an atheist view I would simply accept this, "yes, life has no meaning beyond what I decide to give it", and this would not bother me. It seems to be a cold hard fact that the universe was here before us and it will be here after us. We are but a droplet in a cosmic ocean.

Night Ripper;131397 wrote:
It also wouldn't matter if God never existed. Who would be there to complain? The existence of God doesn't add meaning.
The problem with this is that God is a necessary being. Necessary beings must and cannot not exist. While every component of the universe is a contingent thing meaning it does not contain within itself the complete reason for its existence. For example, I am contingent upon my parents and so forth.

God is the meaning to existence.

Night Ripper;131397 wrote:
I love. I live. You haven't shown me anything I'm missing.
well obviously you do. I was, in that statement, trying to correct this notion that believers are some how not valuing every moment because quite the opposite is true.

What your missing is the ultimate purpose. Apart from God all one can do is live as one sees fit. One sacrifices self-interest for the sake of social coherence, but for what?
One simply assigns one's own meaning to life, but what I'm saying is there is no objective meaning. This is why it's trivial. The meaning one gives ones self simply makes no difference.

Night Ripper;131397 wrote:
God is in control but babies die of painful bone cancer? Then your idea of God is rather feeble. If I personally had the power to prevent my child from having bone cancer, I would. God has that power but doesn't bother using it? For me, it makes sense because it's random. For you, the fact that God lets babies suffer takes some explaining.
Yes, every act has a higher purpose. There is meaning in everything. In life. If you want to maintain the bad stuff "is random" then you must also maintain the same about the good and life in general.

Night Ripper;131397 wrote:
I have a conscience. Maybe you only care about being a good person if you're going to get a reward in the afterlife but I don't think that even counts as being a truly a moral person. A moral person doesn't need to be bribed or threatened into doing the right thing. The reason why I don't want to be a mass murderer isn't because I want to go to heaven or because I'm scared of hell. It's because I don't want to be a mass murderer. You're right that nothing's stopping me. That's why the fact that I'm a good person means so much more. I didn't have to be a good person but I did it anyways.

Let me make it simpler, who's more generous, the person that gives away everything he owns and then has nothing left, or the person that gives away everything and then gets a palace as a reward.

If you knew you were getting a palace then you would be stupid NOT to give away everything.
I know you read what I wrote so I guess I will simply re-iterate it here. Believers do not do things(typically. They certainty ought never) because of the reward in afterlife, they do things out of a love and want to. Belief in God is not about fear but about freedom.

Yes, the reason you don't want to be a mass murderer is because you don't want to, but if you did so what? You do what the whims of your desires would have you do or what you must for the sake of social coherence. I'm not saying you can't love people or anything like that or be a good person, I'm simply saying it's meaningless beyond your own feelings towards it. There is nothing objective about it or grounding it.

In terms of the palace analogy I should ask if you understand how love works. Since I know you do I will get to my point. It's not about some thing in the afterlife, it's about living God's purpose in the here and now. It's about the meaning that God brings to life. It's about grounding ones-self in the OBJECTIVE rather than the SUBJECTIVE. Without an Objective basis then life is objectively meaningless.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 03:55 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;131508 wrote:
The problem with this is that God is a necessary being. Necessary beings must and cannot not exist.


There's no such thing as a necessary being. Anything that exists, exists contingently.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 03:58 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;131539 wrote:
There's no such thing as a necessary being. Anything that exists, exists contingently.
In other words you're saying there is an infinite series of contingent things?
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 04:03 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;131540 wrote:
In other words you're saying there is an infinite series of contingent things?


Finite or infinite, it's all contingent and random.

Let me ask you this, let's say there is a reason why God has to exist necessarily. How do you explain the existence of this necessary reason? Don't you have to have a reason for the reason and so on, an infinite series of reasons?

I think at some point you have to say that some things exist for no reason at all, the universe, God or even the reason why God must exist. I think contingency is inescapable.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 04:12 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;131544 wrote:
Finite or infinite, it's all contingent and random.
The problem with this is that a finite series of contingent things or an infinite series of contingent things is as unable to cause itself as one contingent thing is unable to cause itself. To explain existence at all you must get to something which is not contingent but is transcendent and necessary.

Night Ripper;131544 wrote:
Let me ask you this, let's say there is a reason why God has to exist necessarily. How do you explain the existence of this necessary reason? Don't you have to have a reason for the reason and so on, an infinite series of reasons?

I think at some point you have to say that some things exist for no reason at all, the universe, God or even the reason why God must exist. I think contingency is inescapable.
Well I think you misunderstand what it means to be transcendent, necessary being as opposed to a contingent being. To not be contingent, God, must, within Himself, be the complete reason for His existence.

We must, to come to a complete reason for a contingent thing, come to something which is not contingent. But contains within itself the reason for its existence.

Once we reach that being or thing we stop since it is reason for itself. Thus it does not make sense to ask what is the reason for God because the reason for God is contained within God Himself.

---------- Post added 02-23-2010 at 04:23 PM ----------

The only way I see around needing God is for the universe itself to be necessary. And if that is your contention then fine. But if that is your contention you would have to prove that the universe itself is eternal and cannot not exist.

This would firstly be spitting in the face of modern science which, on the whole, accepts that the universe began to exist.

Secondly, scientifically there is no reason or rule which would indicate there must be something rather than nothing. In other words, one would need to prove there is a logical contradiction to the idea of the the universe not existing. To which there seems to be no proof.

Science itself is carried out on the presupposition that it is logical to investigate nature in looking for the cause of events. Things are either caused or they are not, if they are then they are contingent if they're not then they are necessary. But, as we've stated, EVERY component of the universe is contingent and there is no universe w/o its components; it would follow then that universe has a cause.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 04:41 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;131549 wrote:
The problem with this is that a finite series of contingent things or an infinite series of contingent things is as unable to cause itself as one contingent thing is able to cause itself.


Or it can just happen without a cause.

Amperage;131549 wrote:
We must, to come to a complete reason for a contingent thing, come to something which is not contingent. But contains within itself the reason for its existence.


To do that you would need to show that if God didn't exist then that would result in a contradiction. The problem is, that can't be done. Existence isn't predicated like that. Deductive arguments can't show that something must exist. You're looking for tautology that proves the existence of something but tautologies don't say anything meaningful about the world e.g. "it will either rain or not rain tomorrow". That's true but also tells you nothing about the weather tomorrow.

Amperage;131549 wrote:
The only way I see around needing God is for the universe itself to be necessary.


No, the existence of the universe is contingent and without cause. It exists for no reason at all. Are you going to say that's impossible? If so, what argument can you give for that?
 
Amperage
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 04:56 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;131561 wrote:
Or it can just happen without a cause.
Please explain to me something which has begun to exist without cause. Science does not work this way nor does anything. There is sense in looking for causes to things because things have causes, contingent things that is.



Night Ripper;131561 wrote:
To do that you would need to show that if God didn't exist then that would result in a contradiction. The problem is, that can't be done. Existence isn't predicated like that. Deductive arguments can't show that something must exist. You're looking for tautology that proves the existence of something but tautologies don't say anything meaningful about the world e.g. "it will either rain or not rain tomorrow". That's true but also tells you nothing about the weather tomorrow.
God cannot not exist because He is a necessary being. If He were not, He would need a cause and we would simply be forced to continue further down the line. The point is that we cannot proceed to infinity in any sense with contingent beings because as I stated this does not explain anything just continues shifting the problem. An infinite series of contingent things is as unable to cause itself as a single contingent thing. Therefore we must reach something which is necessary if we wish to explain existence at all.



Night Ripper;131561 wrote:
No, the existence of the universe is contingent and without cause. It exists for no reason at all. Are you going to say that's impossible? If so, what argument can you give for that?
I don't see how you can claim the existence of the universe is contingent AND yet say it has no cause. Contingency implies cause or reason. Contingency means the object in question cannot fully explain itself by itself. That it is dependent upon something else.

The minute you can show me an event which has occurred in time which has no cause(without saying, 'the universe' because that is the very object in question) I will consider it possible.

It it my contention that the only logical view for an atheist to hold is that the universe is necessary or is eternal and cannot not exist. That is to say it is logically impossible for there to be nothing as opposed to the universe we find ourselves in. However this seems to not follow. At least not as intuitively as say the idea of a square circle. I see no clear cut contradiction in asking why is there something rather than nothing. At least nothing explicit.

However, you contend that the universe is indeed contingent but that it has not cause which I find quite curious. I would hope that you will expound upon this further.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 05:09 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;131567 wrote:
Please explain to me something which has begun to exist without cause. Science does not work this way nor does anything. There is sense in looking for causes to things because things have causes, contingent things that is.

God cannot not exist because He is a necessary being. If He were not, He would need a cause and we would simply be forced to continue further down the line. The point is that we cannot proceed to infinity in any sense with contingent beings because as I stated this does not explain anything just continues shifting the problem. An infinite series of contingent things is as unable to cause itself as a single contingent thing. Therefore we must reach something which is necessary if we wish to explain existence at all.

I don't see how you can claim the existence of the universe is contingent AND yet say it has no cause. Contingency implies cause or reason. Contingency means the object in question cannot fully explain itself by itself. That it is dependent upon something else.


Contingent - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Quote:
Main Entry:
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈtin-jənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin contingent-, contingens, present participle of contingere to have contact with, befall, from com- + tangere to touch - more at tangent
Date: 14th century
1 : likely but not certain to happen : possible
2 : not logically necessary; especially : empirical
3 a : happening by chance or unforeseen causes b : subject to chance or unseen effects : unpredictable c : intended for use in circumstances not completely foreseen
4 : dependent on or conditioned by something else <payment is contingent on fulfillment of certain conditions>
5 : not necessitated : determined by free choice
synonyms see accidental
- adverb




Amperage;131567 wrote:
It it my contention that the only logical view for an atheist to hold is that the universe is necessary or is eternal and cannot not exist. That is to say it is logically impossible for there to be nothing as opposed to the something that is. However this seems to not follow. At least not as intuitively as say the idea of a square circle.

It it my contention that the only logical view for an atheist to hold is that the universe is necessary or is eternal and cannot not exist. That is to say it is logically impossible for there to be nothing as opposed to the something that is. However this seems to not follow. At least not as intuitively as say the idea of a square circle. I see no clear cut contradiction in asking why is there something rather than nothing. At least nothing explicit.

However, you contend that the universe is indeed contingent but that it has not cause which I find quite curious. I would hope that you will expound upon this further.


Well, that's not the case. I think the universe is completely random, without any causes at all.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 05:14 pm
@Night Ripper,
#4 seems to be the definition in context with the notion of "contingent being".

Contingent being definition by Babylon's free dictionary
Quote:
Definition of Contingent being



Theological and Philosophical Biography and Dictionary
Contingent being
Something that does not exist in and of itself but depends for its existence upon some other being.
It is by the recognized philosophical use of the term "contingent being" that I take use of the word 'contingent'

Night Ripper;131570 wrote:
Well, that's not the case. I think the universe is completely random, without any causes at all.
I will not press the issue further, my last request will be to give me an example of anything else in existence which is contingent and without cause
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 05:21 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;131573 wrote:
I will not press the issue further, my last request will be to give me an example of anything else in existence which is contingent and without cause


Everything is contingent and without cause. That's what I've been saying. Can you prove that anything is caused? I can tell you right now that you cannot because it's not a testable hypothesis. How can you tell if something happened because it was caused or because it happened without cause? Either way it happened and causes cannot be observed.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 07:22 pm
@no1author,
Good stuff on the Causality issue:

Quote:

In the Preface to the Prolegomena Kant considers the supposed science of metaphysics. He states that "no event has occurred that could have been more decisive for the fate of this science than the attack made upon it by David Hume" and goes on to say that "Hume proceeded primarily from a single but important concept of metaphysics, namely, that of the connection of cause and effectProlegomenatrial with Hume's problematic concept (his crux metaphysicorum), namely

Kant and Hume on Causality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 
awoelt
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 05:08 pm
@no1author,
he means that humans created religion and made up a g-d. basically he's saying he is but a concept of our creation and does not exist as a spirit(i believe he does)
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/03/2020 at 11:35:47