5 ms·

There's an interesting philosophical line of thought that distinguishes between things that are necessary and things that are contingent. A necessary thing mus

by jawns 7y ago

There's an interesting philosophical line of thought that distinguishes between things that are necessary and things that are contingent. A necessary thing must exist; it can't not exist. A contingent thing may exist, or it may not. In the classical definition of God, he has no beginning or end. He was not created by some other force. He exists necessarily. He just _is_. In fact, many theists describe God using terms such as "being itself" or "pure is-ness". Even the Hebrew name for God -- I AM -- makes references to this. And if God is necessary and uncreated, it gets around the question of, "Well, who created God?" But I've heard people point out that if you can say that God just is, without having been created, then why not say that the universe just is, without having been created? I think the answer to that question lies in this distinction between necessary and contingent things. Theists who have a classical conception of God would argue that God is necessary, but the universe is contingent. If you're interested in the philosophy behind this, here's an interesting resource: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

galaxyLogic 7y ago
Why is God a necessary thing?
- lliamander 7y ago
  A valid question, and not one that in my opinion (even though I am a theist) that has an argument that is both clear and compelling (look up various Ontological arguments to see the gamut). I think it is enough to say the following things: 1. The universe clearly exists, but it is also clear that it doesn't have to exist (i.e. the universe is contingent) 2. Therefore, there must be some thing that exists, and exists of necessity, to explain the existence of the universe 3. The existence of necessary truths such as logic and mathematics are not sufficient to explain the existence of the universe, so therefore there must be something else, which could act as both the sufficient and necessary cause of the universe. We can call this thing God, but by that we don't commit ourselves to any particular religion. At most that gets us the God of deism.
  - bobthechef 7y ago
    > We can call this thing God, but by that we don't commit ourselves to any particular religion. At most that gets us the God of deism. Not so. The deist God is more of a Cartesian/Paleyian watchmaker, not the God of the philosophers classically understood. The God of the philosophers is very much in line with the Judeo-Christian God (not everything can be inferred through unaided reason, but much of it can). And God as "I am" ("ehyeh asher ehyeh") is precisely not a thing ipsum esse subsistens, or that who's essence it is to exist, and by which all things are. However, it precedes things and in doing so puts a stop to the infinite regress of having to appeal to still further things to explain the existence of things (which cannot work because we aren't trying to a chain of causes but the cause of their existence in the here and now). Response to mythrwy: If existence were a property, then it would follow that things precede their own existence, which it absurd. And as I've written above, things cannot account for their own existence, thus you must posit existence as distinct from the things that are by virtue of it. You must appeal to a causal non-thing to account for things and thus depend on that cause for their own being in the here and now.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      > Not so. The deist God is more of a Cartesian/Paleyian watchmaker, not the God of the philosophers classically understood. The God of the philosophers is very much in line with the Judeo-Christian God (not everything can be inferred through unaided reason, but much of it can). And God as "I am" ("ehyeh asher ehyeh") is precisely not a thing ipsum esse subsistens, or that who's essence it is to exist, and by which all things are. However, it precedes things and in doing so puts a stop to the infinite regress of having to appeal to still further things to explain the existence of things (which cannot work because we aren't trying to a chain of causes but the cause of their existence in the here and now). I'm not sure I follow the distinction you are making. In any case, my point is that this ontological train of reasoning does not get us all the way to specific religious commitments, although we might argue that some religions are more compatible with this line of reasoning than others.
    - mythrwy 7y ago
      Response to bobthechef: If nothing can account for its own existence, how then do we come to the concept of God? If every existence must have a preceding cause, and the thread were followed long enough, ultimately there could be no prime cause unless cause were cyclical, a loop so to speak. In the case it's not cyclical but linear at some point "cause" ceases to exist and existence is an intrinsic property of the object, ("the thing without cause"). Why then should we suppose that point is some abstract level above the manifest universe? In other words, if we accept "God" (i.e objects can be without cause) then we have accepted that there need not necessarily be a proceeding cause to existence and the universe is as good a starting place as any.
- bobthechef 7y ago
  First, God is not a thing, so let's rephrase that as God is logically and metaphysically necessary. Consider a person poking a stone around with a staff. The stone moves only insofar as the staff moves it and the staff moves only insofar as the person moves the staff. Thus, the stone moves only insofar as the person moves it. Analogously, the existence of things, here and now and at any moment, must have a cause that is causing it to be here and now or at any moment. The cause of the existence of something here and now must be other than the thing itself because a thing cannot account for its own existence. If a thing could account for its own existence, then it would need to be identical with existence. But if a thing were identical with existence, then only it could exist and nothing but it. Furthermore, no change would be possible because if a thing is its own existence, then any change could only lead from existence to something that isn't existence, i.e., non-existence. So existence precedes things and things exist here and now because it is, like the person pushing the staff, causing them to be. We call this cause of existence God and if anything exists it necessary follows that there is a foundational cause and that is God.
  - galaxyLogic 7y ago
    You can call it "God", meaning the above is your definition of "God". But I think that is highly misleading because the word "God" is used in the Bible and it speaks about a very specific type of thing, not defined like you define it but as something which created everything in 7 days, spoke to Moses etc. Using the same term "God" as Bible, Book of Mormon, Koran and other books do but with a different "definition" is highly confusing and misleading. You should call the "cause of existence" simply "Cause of Existence". If you need a shorter way to refer to it a good one would be "CoE", not "God". Why use the same name as Bible unless you are saying you are talking about the same thing that Bible is, the thing that spoke to Moses?
  - checkyoursudo 7y ago
    Only things exist.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- 92543927 7y ago
  Following Goedel: God is necessary, because God is defined as the most capable and most good. For the most good, capable of existence, to not exist, is bad. So either God is bad, not capable, or a necessary existent thing. But binary Truth is so Platonic. I believe there are universes in our multiverse of possible universes where there is an entity that is better than the best entity possible in our universe (no, I do not think that God can bend the laws of Physics and make an immovable object). Also, God is a gradient, since He manifests in people and nature. God as a force of external Good, may be nearly non-existent in times of human war. Nature is more abundant in some places than others. Finally, more Jungian psychological: It does not matter whether God exists or not exists, what matters is that we keep talking about God. And humans keep modeling the Universe including a God entity. Therefor God is a necessary outcome of human cognitive modeling. We do not have direct access to the physical universe, only to our mental world models, the ontology question becomes irrelevant, what remains is the models. And there, a category error seems plausible: The most capable of Gods, would be capable of evil too, superseding the only-good God. Just like its human modelers are. Just like the old Testament God was good for the chosen people, but evil to the innocent firstborn children of opposing tribes.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  Having traversed from being raised vaguely christian, through atheism, back to a form of what I suppose could be called pantheism, I see the truth of the statement but find it difficult to explain without also explaining a mountain of pre-requisites, if only to negotiate terminology for concepts you may already be aware of, so that the actual answer can be conveyed. Never the less, I will make an attempt at simplified statement of it: God must necessarily exist because you, the thing that sits behind your eyes and experiences the world, exist. If you feel that this is a naive statement, as you likely do, then it is because we lack sufficient shared context attached to the words. However, I am confident that if you spend enough time thinking about the nature of the world, and of yourself, you will come to the same conclusion, though you may use different words to describe it.

by jawns 7y ago

galaxyLogic 7y ago

Why is God a necessary thing?

lliamander 7y ago
A valid question, and not one that in my opinion (even though I am a theist) that has an argument that is both clear and compelling (look up various Ontological arguments to see the gamut). I think it is enough to say the following things: 1. The universe clearly exists, but it is also clear that it doesn't have to exist (i.e. the universe is contingent) 2. Therefore, there must be some thing that exists, and exists of necessity, to explain the existence of the universe 3. The existence of necessary truths such as logic and mathematics are not sufficient to explain the existence of the universe, so therefore there must be something else, which could act as both the sufficient and necessary cause of the universe. We can call this thing God, but by that we don't commit ourselves to any particular religion. At most that gets us the God of deism.
- bobthechef 7y ago
  > We can call this thing God, but by that we don't commit ourselves to any particular religion. At most that gets us the God of deism. Not so. The deist God is more of a Cartesian/Paleyian watchmaker, not the God of the philosophers classically understood. The God of the philosophers is very much in line with the Judeo-Christian God (not everything can be inferred through unaided reason, but much of it can). And God as "I am" ("ehyeh asher ehyeh") is precisely not a thing ipsum esse subsistens, or that who's essence it is to exist, and by which all things are. However, it precedes things and in doing so puts a stop to the infinite regress of having to appeal to still further things to explain the existence of things (which cannot work because we aren't trying to a chain of causes but the cause of their existence in the here and now). Response to mythrwy: If existence were a property, then it would follow that things precede their own existence, which it absurd. And as I've written above, things cannot account for their own existence, thus you must posit existence as distinct from the things that are by virtue of it. You must appeal to a causal non-thing to account for things and thus depend on that cause for their own being in the here and now.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    > Not so. The deist God is more of a Cartesian/Paleyian watchmaker, not the God of the philosophers classically understood. The God of the philosophers is very much in line with the Judeo-Christian God (not everything can be inferred through unaided reason, but much of it can). And God as "I am" ("ehyeh asher ehyeh") is precisely not a thing ipsum esse subsistens, or that who's essence it is to exist, and by which all things are. However, it precedes things and in doing so puts a stop to the infinite regress of having to appeal to still further things to explain the existence of things (which cannot work because we aren't trying to a chain of causes but the cause of their existence in the here and now). I'm not sure I follow the distinction you are making. In any case, my point is that this ontological train of reasoning does not get us all the way to specific religious commitments, although we might argue that some religions are more compatible with this line of reasoning than others.
  - mythrwy 7y ago
    Response to bobthechef: If nothing can account for its own existence, how then do we come to the concept of God? If every existence must have a preceding cause, and the thread were followed long enough, ultimately there could be no prime cause unless cause were cyclical, a loop so to speak. In the case it's not cyclical but linear at some point "cause" ceases to exist and existence is an intrinsic property of the object, ("the thing without cause"). Why then should we suppose that point is some abstract level above the manifest universe? In other words, if we accept "God" (i.e objects can be without cause) then we have accepted that there need not necessarily be a proceeding cause to existence and the universe is as good a starting place as any.
bobthechef 7y ago
First, God is not a thing, so let's rephrase that as God is logically and metaphysically necessary. Consider a person poking a stone around with a staff. The stone moves only insofar as the staff moves it and the staff moves only insofar as the person moves the staff. Thus, the stone moves only insofar as the person moves it. Analogously, the existence of things, here and now and at any moment, must have a cause that is causing it to be here and now or at any moment. The cause of the existence of something here and now must be other than the thing itself because a thing cannot account for its own existence. If a thing could account for its own existence, then it would need to be identical with existence. But if a thing were identical with existence, then only it could exist and nothing but it. Furthermore, no change would be possible because if a thing is its own existence, then any change could only lead from existence to something that isn't existence, i.e., non-existence. So existence precedes things and things exist here and now because it is, like the person pushing the staff, causing them to be. We call this cause of existence God and if anything exists it necessary follows that there is a foundational cause and that is God.
- galaxyLogic 7y ago
  You can call it "God", meaning the above is your definition of "God". But I think that is highly misleading because the word "God" is used in the Bible and it speaks about a very specific type of thing, not defined like you define it but as something which created everything in 7 days, spoke to Moses etc. Using the same term "God" as Bible, Book of Mormon, Koran and other books do but with a different "definition" is highly confusing and misleading. You should call the "cause of existence" simply "Cause of Existence". If you need a shorter way to refer to it a good one would be "CoE", not "God". Why use the same name as Bible unless you are saying you are talking about the same thing that Bible is, the thing that spoke to Moses?
- checkyoursudo 7y ago
  Only things exist.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
92543927 7y ago
Following Goedel: God is necessary, because God is defined as the most capable and most good. For the most good, capable of existence, to not exist, is bad. So either God is bad, not capable, or a necessary existent thing. But binary Truth is so Platonic. I believe there are universes in our multiverse of possible universes where there is an entity that is better than the best entity possible in our universe (no, I do not think that God can bend the laws of Physics and make an immovable object). Also, God is a gradient, since He manifests in people and nature. God as a force of external Good, may be nearly non-existent in times of human war. Nature is more abundant in some places than others. Finally, more Jungian psychological: It does not matter whether God exists or not exists, what matters is that we keep talking about God. And humans keep modeling the Universe including a God entity. Therefor God is a necessary outcome of human cognitive modeling. We do not have direct access to the physical universe, only to our mental world models, the ontology question becomes irrelevant, what remains is the models. And there, a category error seems plausible: The most capable of Gods, would be capable of evil too, superseding the only-good God. Just like its human modelers are. Just like the old Testament God was good for the chosen people, but evil to the innocent firstborn children of opposing tribes.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
Having traversed from being raised vaguely christian, through atheism, back to a form of what I suppose could be called pantheism, I see the truth of the statement but find it difficult to explain without also explaining a mountain of pre-requisites, if only to negotiate terminology for concepts you may already be aware of, so that the actual answer can be conveyed. Never the less, I will make an attempt at simplified statement of it: God must necessarily exist because you, the thing that sits behind your eyes and experiences the world, exist. If you feel that this is a naive statement, as you likely do, then it is because we lack sufficient shared context attached to the words. However, I am confident that if you spend enough time thinking about the nature of the world, and of yourself, you will come to the same conclusion, though you may use different words to describe it.