The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Best argument

What is the reason that God cannot exist contingently? The only argument I have encountered which attempts to argue for the necessary existence of God is Anselm’s, which goes as follows:

Define “God” as “That than which a greater cannot be thought.”

  1. Suppose that God does not exist.
  2. But if so, then I can think of something greater than God, namely such a Being who also exists.
  3. Therefore in order for God to be “That than which a greater cannot be thought”, He must exist.

Most philosophers believe that Anselm’s agument is faulty. They think the same argument could prove the existence of a perfect island.

To prove that God must exist necessarily, it would be necessary to show that other explanations of present reality, exempli gratia, evolution of all kinds, including astral evolution, are faulty. Indeed, I think that can be argued, but the majority of scientists have not been convinced.

Paidion: What is the reason that God cannot exist contingently?

Tom: Hi Paidion!

Well, let’s suppose God exists contingently then try to explain it. If God exists contingently, then either (a) God has always existed but may pass out of existence, or (b) God began to exist (or came into existence) and may also pass out of existence. Only what exists necessarily never began to exist and never can pass out of existence.

If we go with (a) then we think God has always existed but may pass out of existence. Aristotle shows why what always has existed always will exist and cannot, by definition, pass out of existence. It’s extremely if not impossible to make sense of God’s having always existed with the possibility of passing out of existence. But I’m all ears if you have a defense of this Paidion.

That leaves (b), namely, God has not always existed but he began to exist (or came into existence), and consequently may pass out of existence. This begs the question of what accounts for God’s coming into existence. Was he created? By what or whom? Did he just pop into existence uncaused without any explanation?

Paidion: The only argument I have encountered which attempts to argue for the necessary existence of God is Anselm’s…

Tom: The necessary existence of God (that God is uncreated and without beginning) is straight up Orthodox theism. I mean, it’s been the bread and butter of the Fathers and Christian thinkers regarding God through the entire history of the Church. Atheists deny that he exists at all, yes. But no Christian thinker I’m aware of thinks God was either created or that God didn’t exist and then came into existence without cause or explantion whatsoever. Anselm is the first to offer any kind of logical expression of the ontological argument per se. But he’s not the first to believe that God exists necessarily.

Anselm works out two very different versions of the ontological argument his Proslogion (the weaker version in ch. 2 and the stronger in ch. 3 and also in his Replies to Gaunilo). The weaker version was successfully defeated (by Kant and Hume and others). None try to defend it today. But the stronger (modal) version is still alive and well…and has nothing to do with proving the exitence of a perfect island.

Tom

John Hick in Philosophy of Religion 1963 by Prentice-Hall Inc., remarked:

“The most typical philosophical objection raised against this reasoning [God as a necessary being] in recent years is that the idea of a “necessary being” is unintelligible. It is said that only propositions, not things, can be logically necessary, and that it is a misuse of language to speak of a logically necessary being.”

The second version of the argument is as follows:

For something can be thought of as existing, which cannot be thought of as not existing, and this is greater than that which can be thought of as not existing. Thus, if that than which a greater cannot be thought can be thought of as not existing, this very thing than which a greater cannot be thought is not that than which a greater cannot be thought. But this is contradictory. So then, there truly is a being than which a greater cannot be thought — so truly that it cannot even be thought of as not existing.

I don’t think we can correctly affirm that this version is still alive and well today. Even in the 18th century, Immanuel Kant challenged the concept that existence belongs analytically to the concept of God, that it is a predicate which something can either have or lack.

Bertrand Russell in his analysis of the word “exists” showed that although “exists” is grammatically a predicate, logically it performs a different function. When we utter the sentence, “Cows exist”, we mean, “There are Xs such that X is a cow”. This translation makes it clear that to say that cows exist is not to attribute a particular quality, that of existence, to cows, but it is to assert that there are objects on the earth to which the description summarized by the word “cow” applies.

How do you know that some things exist necessarily? Maybe the first thing to exist was the universe, and it exists contingently – i.e., it might not have existed. How the universe evolved consciousness is another story, of course.

Btw…I’m sure that Hartshorne doesn’t plainly say that existence and necessity are synonymous. But substituting one for the other seems to be part of that ‘verbal sleight of hand’ I mentioned earlier. He knows that he can’t just say ‘Since God exists, he must exist’, so he makes ‘is necessary’ equal to ‘exists’ behind the scenes, without anyone realizing what has happened (and he probably doesn’t even realize it himself).

What would be swell is for those interested to kick this around slowly, plodding through it a step at a time. I’ve found that there is much disagreement because of misunderstanding. The concepts of ‘necessity’ and ‘contingency’ are notoriously slippery, and there’s ‘causation’ and ‘being’ and ‘existence’.

For example, Paidion quotes Hick:

“It is said”? By whom? Never mind that, but what’s being said FIRST about God is not that he’s a logical necessity (thought Hartshorne gets to that–but not first), but that he’s a metaphsyical necessity, i.e., he EXISTS necessarily. And no philosopher I know of argues that the very concept of “necessary existence” is unintelligible…well, besides Hick. I’d love to have him name a handful or so who make such an argument.

Paidion: I don’t think we can correctly affirm that this version is still alive and well today.

Tom: Oh, it is. It’s out there…books, journals, conference discussions, papers. It’s very much alive and well.

Paidion: Even in the 18th century, Immanuel Kant challenged the concept that existence belongs analytically to the concept of God, that it is a predicate which something can either have or lack.

Tom: The modal ontological arugment was never considered by Kant. Hartshorne concedes that “existence” is not a predicate. Kant was right. BUT the modal verion of the argument doesn’t require that existence be a predicate. Though ‘existence’ may not be a predicate, ‘necessity’ and ‘contingency’ certainly are predicates. It’s an entirely different argument.

Boxer: I’m sure that Hartshorne doesn’t plainly say that existence and necessity are synonymous. But substituting one for the other…

Tom: But CH doesn’t substitute ‘existence’ for ‘necessity’…ever. His entire argument stands upon the distinction between the two as well as the distinction between what exists necessarily and what exists contingently.

Boxer: How do you know that some things exist necessarily? Maybe the first thing to exist was the universe, and it exists contingently – i.e., it might not have existed.

Tom: Something exists necessarily because the proposition that *all things exist contingently *is unintelligible. With due respect to Hawking and others who think things can spring contingently into existence absolutely uncaused or uncreated, the notion is bad thinking at best, irresponsible at worst. And Hawking, if truth be told, as he says (and I’m paragrasing), “if you like you can substiute the laws of physics for God,” for the laws of physics account for the creation of the universe, may not in fact believe EVERYTHING is contingent. He has to pre-posit the laws to make his argument, i.e., you’d have to argue that the laws exist in the absence of any universe at all to appear TO those laws as governing the coming into being OF the universe. But laws are abstractions (as are propositions), so the cannot exist in the absolute absence of all concreta or concrete reality. Abstractions are just that, abstractions FROM concreta, they are the work of some mind. So the notion that you could have abstract laws (or propositions) existing necessarily apart from any accompanying necessary concrete entities that ground the laws in question is illconceived. Hawking is a mathmeticians, not a philosopher. But then again, I’m neither! Ha! But I know better than to ask a math teacher for a professional opinion on philosophy.

Anyhow, I think the order and rationality that ground concepts like causation cannot be dispensed without undermining the meaningfulness of rational thought and discourse itself. Nothing comes from nothing, as Parmenides from the 5th century BC wisely said. But I understand that Hick, Paidion, Boxer and Jeff believe that some things CAN come from nothing, that existence can spring sponteaneously, uncaused, from absolute nothingness. If we’re looking for an unintelligible idea, this would be it.

Tom

No. Hick and Paidion do not necessarily believe that something can arise from nothing. Hick was simply referring to the position which questions God as a necessary being. This I am also questioning and trying to understand. This does not mean that I hold that God does not necessarily exist.

Furthermore some things do not necessarily come into being at all. They do not “arise” from anything. I am sure you believe this to be the case with God. For many centuries, and even in our day, many, including some Christians do not believe that the Universe itself had any beginning within time. Many who believe that God created the Universe believe that He did so atemporally — so that there was never a TIME at which the Universe did not exist. These thinkers, for example, Paul Helm, also believe that God Himself did not exist before time, simply because there was no “before”, and thus there was no time at which He could exist.

Well, physically speaking the 4th dimension of Time can only apply when a 3dimensional ‘thing’ is brought into existence to be applicable in the 4th dimension.

If time, the 4th dimension, requires that at least three other dimensions exists either previously or simultaneously (as is most likely the case) - then it stands to reason that before a 3 dimensional Creation exists, the 4th dimension of Time through which it passes its course cannot exist. Thus, there would be possible a “before 4th dimension” (before time) if the 3 dimensional ‘thing’ upon which the 4th dimension depends on for existence is a finite thing that must be brought into being first for time to likewise begin.

The proof for the 4th dimension of time requiring 3 other dimensions cohesively I would propose is so.

A -1 dimension = a line
B- 2 dimensions = a square
C- 3 dimensions = a cube
D- 4 dimensions = a cube running through time

If it requires a cohesive expression of ABCD in order to make a functioning 4 dimensional object (time existent), and if the existence of D depends on ABC then it stands to reason that you cannot have time without three previous, or simultaneous dimensions.

Another proof would be that if you removed C, or any of the other variables in order to bring about ABD, you’d still only end up with a 3 dimensional object, instead of a 4 dimensional object. Hence it would prove only to moot the whole point as it would revert back to a 4th dimensionless 3d object without the dimension of time involved.

Hence, I believe, in order to have time you must have 3dimensional existence simultaneously or previous to the 4th dimension’s existence.

That means that if God is not a being bound by time nor dimension - then he is capable of existing in the “before”. Though I would not say that necessarily must be so, or that the universe or “The something” is incapable of existing infinitely, I do not know. But I’d also imagine that “The Something” of which the Universe is a part of (Panentheistically speaking) is not too much of a stretch to call “God”.

But it ultimately seems to be true that nothing breeds nothing. Anything that might look as though “something” were arising out of “nothing” would most likely be a case of “something arising out of something we don’t know about, or aren’t observing, or aren’t able to observe”.

Logically speaking, Something just can’t arise out of Nothing. No matter how far you go back, there is no point of which;

“In the Beginning…Nothing created the strings, which made the sub-atomic particle, which made the atom, which made the acid, which made the amphibian, which made the ape, which made the Adam, which made the A-bomb, which made the Apocolypse, which made the Earth go boom.” You ever fall back to a Something, which produced yet another Something into being, even if it be unseen. Evolutionarily speaking, the ape had to come from somewhere, and the amphibian which made the ape had to come out of somewhere, and the acids which made the amphibian had to come out of somewhere…and on and on it goes. Unless, Creation Ex Nihilo by Nihilo is a thing to be taught in schools.

My conclusion has been that there must always be an “irreducible root” - or a “irreducible something”.

This something is either, sentient (and hence call it God) or else it is not sentient, but if it is not sentient then it must be a collection of every necessary variable for probability and chance to bring forth the “Golden Thread of Existence” (as I call it, that is, this functioning universe which can spring forth sentient life) - and in that case you get three lines of thought.

A. *The Something is Sentient. Call it God. *

B. The something is a non-sentient collection of necessary variables which contain all the necessary ingredients to bring forth sentient existence.
*
B.a - If that Something has the necessary variable ingredients to bring forth sentient life into the universe - it must contain the necessary ingredients to spring forth sentience into the very collection of variables; making the collection of variables sentient - The Something becomes Sentient, Call it God. *

Ultimately, it is in my opinion, since Nothing breeds Nothing. That there is a choice regarding an irreducible “Something” from which all of “Something else” sprang. It is a choice between A. The Something is Sentient, or B. The Something contains every necessary variable by which the “Golden Thread of Existence” and Sentience may by chance arise. Yet, ever so even B. contains the possibility of A. Because the collection of variables, by chance, may become sentient due to the very variables being played with by chance and probability that are necessary for bringing about sentience in the first place.

And another speculation - is that if in the case of B. if it be true, is going through infinite reiterations (multi-verses) to bring forth that one universe (ours) where the Golden Thread of Existence has been spun - then it is an inevitable and assured fact of logic that sentience would arise in the collection of variables.

If sentience (or sentience in the collection of variables) requires variables “x, y, z, 2” in a sequence of “2, y, z, x” then probability and chance running at infinite capacity and choosing infinitely each sequence of variables in a collection of “1, a, v, y, 3, n, p, 6, z, 4, x, 7, 2” then at some point you will get the proper sequence of the proper variables “2, y, z, x” arising in the collection, and The Something will assuredly become sentient; especially if you add in exponentiality to the whole ordeal.

The Irreducible Root - The Something; either is God, can become God, or will assuredly become God.

If any of that makes sense. My logic can be flawed, and may certainly be so. But it is my speculation at any rate. :slight_smile:

Good stuff, Lefein :slight_smile:

If there exist an infinite number of universes, an infinite number of them would contain beings which we would find indistinguishable from God. One of these would be the greatest, the Lord Most High. (If two were equally great, they would be identical.)

If there’s only one universe, we’re stuck explaining the anthropic principle.

Sorry Paidion. Along with your reference to Kant and Russell your Hick quote seemed to flow in the same direction. That was confusing given what I know about Hick, but I try not to be surprised by him. Hehe.

So…we agree: Nothing comes from nothing.

So IF something exists, then in order to avoid an infinite regress we posit a necessarily existing first cause. True, we can say that what exists (impersonal matter/energy) is that which exists necessarily (Hawking?), but how much does that explain?

My point in all this has been: One must posit a necessarily existing SOMETHING that accounts for the existence of all the comes into being contingently. And for atheists arguing that God is not that something, they must argue his existing is, strictly speaking, impossible–he necessarily does not exist, and then posit a necessarily existing something else. God is not the sort of being who may meaningfully be said to exist contingently. And to the extent that atheists concede the possibility that God exists, they concede his actual existence.

Tom

Along with my previous reference - the following resonates with me as well (I must read the Everrit book referenced in it). This is from
futureofthebook.org/mitchell … wkins.html

By definition, God is completely beyond human understanding. Therefore, we cannot possibly know whether God is possible or impossible. Therefore, we cannot possibly know if God exists.

Everitt: When considered generally and impartially, this famous ontological proof is really a most delightful farce.

Tom: Gotta smile at that one! Comedian AND philosopher. Wow.

Boxer: By definition, God is completely beyond human understanding. Therefore, we cannot possibly know whether God is possible or impossible. Therefore, we cannot possibly know if God exists.

Tom: God by definition is completely beyond human understanding? Whose definition would that be?

Tom

God’s.

What, did he tell you? Where’d you come by this definition?

Tom

No. Believe it or not, I was just joking.

But speaking of definitions, what is the definition of the God that Hartshorne proves exists via his ontological argument? Besides being ‘necessary’ and ‘possible’, what other attributes does this entity possess?

Just so I’m following ya … hehe …

Were you jokking about your saying that “by definition God is completely beyond human understanding” or about saying this definition is God’s?

If we think God is completely (utterly, absolutely) beyond our understanding, then there’s nothing to be gained by our talking about him. Every claim about God would be as likely to be true as to be false. To say of God that he is pure evil would just as likely be true as to say that God is love and goodness, since nothing we say about God can touch or grasp the truth about that which is absolutely unknowable. What in or about God would ground the truth or falsity of competing claims about God if that which God is is utterly and completely unknowable?

The right thing to do about such an entity would be to cease all dscussion about him. What can we say about that which is beyond all understanding? Indeed, why would a peson be on this board discussing God if she thought this about God?

But maybe you mean something else by God’s being “completely beyond human understanding” or were just kidding about the the that God is beyond all understanding. Sorry if I’m mistaking your meaning!

Tom

I just wanted to put a thought in here on the notion of time. As physics understands it, time seems to be a relative construct based on the perspective of an observer or observers. I remember being in a physics lecture and our professor was talking about the speed of light, and why faster than light speed travel was pure science fiction. He said that we measure light years as the length of time that it would take an object moving at the speed of light to get from point A to point B in the universe from the perspective of an outside observer; however, from the perspective of the object that is actually moving at the speed of light, it takes no time at all to go from point A to point B. This is because an “object” moving at the speed of light intersects all points in the universe simultaneously.

So, when we say “God exists outside of time”, I think this is what we are referring to. It would appear that we have a physics explanation for how God can be omnipresent, as well as for all practical purposes, “outside of time”(or at the very least, unconstrained by it). In a sense, we could say that God created time by creating “outside” observers to observe its passage…
Apparently time, as well as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

1. What do you consider to be the best (most convincing) argument for the existence of God?

DNA. And that’s just something small in the grand scheme of all creation.

2. Why do you find this argument convincing?

If all the molecules and enzymes that make nucleotides were together, the possibility of these nucleotides being arranged in the right sequence would be 1 in 41,000. The probability of the coincidental formation of the code in ONE average protein in human DNA is 1 over 1 followed by 600 zeros. That number is beyond astronomical - meaning that the probability of it just showing up is dang low if not impossible.

3. What refutations have you considered, and why do you not find them convincing?

The only refutation I’ve ever heard is that it just happened and science just disproved that. Someone smarter than the creation had to do it. I guess that would be what humans call God.