OAA & PhilosoB debate the existence of god commentary thread

[jdawg70]

Regarding 'god',  it is commonly agreed, as a matter of definition, that if god were to exist, he would exist necessarily. If god did not exist necessarily, then his existence would be explained by an external source. Thus, god would be dependent on something else greater than himself for existence. This new explanation would then be god.

Notice that this is not defining god into existence, it is simply setting a definition by which we can understand what is meant when we say 'god' just as we do with, say, unicorns.

You're not so much defining god into existence.  You're replacing the word 'unexplained' with the word 'god'.

[Anfauglir]

1. Everything that exists has any explanation, either in an external source or in the necessary of its nature

So before you move to your second premise, presumably you need to be able to prove that the universe could NOT exist without that explanation being a necessary part of its own nature?  I couldn't see that laid out anywhere in your answer, perhaps you could point me to it?

[Anfauglir]

Why can the universe not itself be the reason for its existence?  Clearly SOME things must exist without a previous thing being there to cause them (aka god), so why not the universe?

I appreciate the fact that you have understood the need for a necessarily existing explanation. However, a necessarily existing universe has philosophical and scientific difficulties. Briefly, increasing scientific discoveries continue to confirm that the universe is not eternal but had a definite beginning, and thus cannot be a necessarily existing entity......

And?  When we are talking about "explanation for existence", we are talking a How, not a Why (to be simplistic).  The fact that the universe could be cyclical, or even spontaneously self-creating, both acceptably answer the How of the "reason" for its existence. 

We have evidence at quantum level that particles can and do spontaneously generate.  Unless your position is that those particles are (a) all gods in embryo, or (b) all specifically generated by god (and in both cases I would need to see evidence), then we have precedent that "things just appear".

And if "things just appear", I have no issue with that being the necessary explanation of the universe, with a thing "just appearing" in nothingness and (due to the lack of constraints it would experience inside this universe) immediately starting to expand.

[Black Dwarf]

Why can the universe not itself be the reason for its existence?  Clearly SOME things must exist without a previous thing being there to cause them (aka god), so why not the universe?

I appreciate the fact that you have understood the need for a necessarily existing explanation. However, a necessarily existing universe has philosophical and scientific difficulties. Briefly, increasing scientific discoveries continue to confirm that the universe is not eternal but had a definite beginning, and thus cannot be a necessarily existing entity......

And?  When we are talking about "explanation for existence", we are talking a How, not a Why (to be simplistic).  The fact that the universe could be cyclical, or even spontaneously self-creating, both acceptably answer the How of the "reason" for its existence. 

Hi everyone. It is important to distinguish between a universe being cyclical from here on says nothing about whether there was a start to those cycles. Because the universe (all contiguous physical reality?) is potentially infinite in the future does not thereby mean it is actually infinite in the past, i.e. it does not thereby mean it didn't have an absolute beginning.

As for being spontaneously self-creating, that would seem to be the so-called "taxi cab" fallacy, i.e. just dismissing something when you no longer have need of it, i.e. dismissing causation when it becomes a hinderance, yet still hanging onto the idea of causation for everything else.

We have evidence at quantum level that particles can and do spontaneously generate.  Unless your position is that those particles are (a) all gods in embryo, or (b) all specifically generated by god (and in both cases I would need to see evidence), then we have precedent that "things just appear".

And if "things just appear", I have no issue with that being the necessary explanation of the universe, with a thing "just appearing" in nothingness and (due to the lack of constraints it would experience inside this universe) immediately starting to expand.

But they don't appear out of nothing.

[Anfauglir]

We have evidence at quantum level that particles can and do spontaneously generate.  Unless your position is that those particles are (a) all gods in embryo, or (b) all specifically generated by god (and in both cases I would need to see evidence), then we have precedent that "things just appear".

And if "things just appear", I have no issue with that being the necessary explanation of the universe, with a thing "just appearing" in nothingness and (due to the lack of constraints it would experience inside this universe) immediately starting to expand.

But they don't appear out of nothing.

Then by all means enlighten me.  How exactly do they generate?  What aspect of that generation makes it clear that they can generate only in an existing universe, and not in a non-universe state?

These particles, BTW, render moot your "taxi-cab" argument, as they DO render causation moot - or so it seems.  But perhaps you will explain how quantum generation does NOT defeat causation for me?

[Ataraxia]

As for being spontaneously self-creating, that would seem to be the so-called "taxi cab" fallacy, i.e. just dismissing something when you no longer have need of it, i.e. dismissing causation when it becomes a hinderance, yet still hanging onto the idea of causation for everything else.

This sounds awfully familiar. Let's replace "spontaneously self-creating" with "necessary" and you can apply it directly to PhilosoB's argument. Thanks for highlighting this.