From Necessary Entity to Christian God.

[Dicky Underpants]

Filling in the stages of argument by which this is achieved - anyone like to try?

I know that conceding there is a necessary being in the first place is based on some pretty shaky reasoning (for me, and no doubt for quite a few others). But if the possibility could be conceded, how does one progress through all the possibilities to arrive at such a specific conclusion from all the theistic options available? I will cite just one which is the worst of all scenarios - the possibility that we are just here for the amusement of some megalomaniac tyrant who created us, without any hint of love at all. There obviously would have to be some possibility of love and beauty in the original mixture, otherwise the whole show would have long extinguished itself (it has of course been touch and go sometimes, as it seems to be right now).
Yet all the main world religions seem to have concluded that the supreme being is ultimately good, though with some remarkably different takes on what exactly 'good' is supposed to be. Far easier to sum up these matters of theodicy by dispensing with the idea of a necessary being all together. The vast panorama of evolution, filled with horror and pain, and on several occasions, near mass extinctions, are better explained by neo-Darwinian theses, than theological ideas, for me at least.

[Nearly Sane]

It makes as much sense to me as getting from ghosts to Caspar

[ProfessorDavey]

Filling in the stages of argument by which this is achieved - anyone like to try?

I know that conceding there is a necessary being in the first place is based on some pretty shaky reasoning (for me, and no doubt for quite a few others). But if the possibility could be conceded, how does one progress through all the possibilities to arrive at such a specific conclusion from all the theistic options available? I will cite just one which is the worst of all scenarios - the possibility that we are just here for the amusement of some megalomaniac tyrant who created us, without any hint of love at all. There obviously would have to be some possibility of love and beauty in the original mixture, otherwise the whole show would have long extinguished itself (it has of course been touch and go sometimes, as it seems to be right now).
Yet all the main world religions seem to have concluded that the supreme being is ultimately good, though with some remarkably different takes on what exactly 'good' is supposed to be. Far easier to sum up these matters of theodicy by dispensing with the idea of a necessary being all together. The vast panorama of evolution, filled with horror and pain, and on several occasions, near mass extinctions, are better explained by neo-Darwinian theses, than theological ideas, for me at least.

Describing this as a necessary 'being' rather than a necessary 'entity' is already biased in terminology as be consider 'beings' to have certain attributes that 'entities' may not.

So firstly, and most obviously, the notion that there is something that is necessary and not contingent is not based on evidence and indeed there are plenty of plausible explanations that do not posit a necessary thing.

Secondly even if there is something necessary, why should this be a 'being' rather than an 'entity', with all the presumptions of attributes that are embedded in the notion of a being.

But even if we accept there is a necessary 'being' then would it be plausible that this being effectively is described (by humans) as basically being a super-human. The problem for those making this argument is that the christian god is exactly the kind of deity that humans would 'make up', particularly if they were doing so at a time when our understanding of the extent (both time and space) was incredibly limited and humans (wrongly) considered that the earth and human-kind were some kind of fulcrum around which the rest of the cosmos revolved.

So on this final point the question that christian theists need to ask is why would Jesus and the christian god have the slightest relevance to the vast, vast majority of the cosmos and for the vast, vast majority of the time this cosmos has been around (virtually all of which do not include humans). If not (and I would strongly argue the christian god as described has no relevance to virtually all of the cosmos as it is achingly anthropocentric) then back to the drawing board for you folks.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Atheist Gentlemen,

Please! Please, I need more information, Megalomanic tyrant ? ghost to caspar ? and basically a super human ?

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Atheist Gentlemen,

Please! Please, I need more information, Megalomanic tyrant ? ghost to caspar ? and basically a super human ?

Gonnagle.

My point was that it seems an entirely pointless approach. it's like saying if we assume ghosts exist, then can we derive Caspar the friendly ghost from that. I think kmaking assumptions that you don't know how to provide evidence for is an utter waste of time.

[Stranger]

Dear Atheist Gentlemen,

As you continue to not say what you think 'God' refers to, who the hell are these 'Atheists' of which you speak....?

And why the capitalisation, is there some club or organisation whose members you are addressing?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger than Fiction,

Since you will not have a discussion about what is the best attributes of being human, why should I try to answer your question, now away and take a chill pill, Meditation is great for calming the fevered soul

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Atheist Gentlemen,

Please! Please, I need more information, Megalomanic tyrant ? ghost to caspar ? and basically a super human ?

Gonnagle.

But I'd say that it would be for theists to explain what their 'God' is: what its characteristics are, and by what means they have confirmed these so that those of us who are not yet theists can check their workings.

As it stands, one reason why I am an atheist is that the term 'God', and all the Christian stuff that is part of that package: souls, salvation, saviour/Jesus, miracles, resurrection etc, I just can't take at all seriously since there is nothing to make me think any of it is remotely credible.

I understand that some people accept these things as being 'true' is a matter of religious faith, but I don't think that faith alone is sufficient grounds to take Christianity seriously.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gordon, old Chum,

Since it is you asking, let me try to answer one of your questions with a question, the question of miracles.

Do you think our Lord Jesus Christ was the only one performing miracles at the time, the short answer is no, miracle workers were two a penny.

But please remember who is typing this post, I am a Christian because of the man, not his miracles.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Describing this as a necessary 'being' rather than a necessary 'entity' is already biased in terminology as be consider 'beings' to have certain attributes that 'entities' may not.

I think the only thing claimed as a property that makes it into a being of the definition you are using is that it has volition and knows what it's doing but eliminating consciousness still leaves us with something not conducive to atheism

So firstly, and most obviously, the notion that there is something that is necessary and not contingent is not based on evidence

Firstly, so what? It is based on the argument from contingency, contingency which is evidenced a plenty. A contingent thing that needs no cause is an absurdity so those who say the universe is necessary or that it is something qithout volition are closer than those advocating a non contingent contingent

and indeed there are plenty of plausible explanations that do not posit a necessary thing.

They are not without difficulties and you have already presented an absurdity

Secondly even if there is something necessary, why should this be a 'being' rather than an 'entity', with all the presumptions of attributes that are embedded in the notion of a being.

But even if we accept there is a necessary 'being' then would it be plausible that this being effectively is described (by humans) as basically being a super-human. The problem for those making this argument is that the christian god is exactly the kind of deity that humans would 'make up', particularly if they were doing so at a time when our understanding of the extent (both time and space) was incredibly limited and humans (wrongly) considered that the earth and human-kind were some kind of fulcrum around which the rest of the cosmos revolved.

So on this final point the question that christian theists need to ask is why would Jesus and the christian god have the slightest relevance to the vast, vast majority of the cosmos and for the vast, vast majority of the time this cosmos has been around (virtually all of which do not include humans). If not (and I would strongly argue the christian god as described has no relevance to virtually all of the cosmos as it is achingly anthropocentric) then back to the drawing board for you folks.

You are suggesting that God creates a being, the human or other beings which are conscious with attributes God doesn't know of. That makes him less than prime reason and shows one hasn't grasped the implication of necessary being.

The aloof God position seems to be based on a "What counts is size in this man's universe" How ridiculous. God could incarnate as Jesus and do countless other things any where in the universe at, for him, the same time.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon, old Chum,

Since it is you asking, let me try to answer one of your questions with a question, the question of miracles.

Do you think our Lord Jesus Christ was the only one performing miracles at the time, the short answer is no, miracle workers were two a penny.

But please remember who is typing this post, I am a Christian because of the man, not his miracles.

Gonnagle.

I don't think that these claimed miracles are in any sense 'true': dead people tend to stay dead, and one of the fundamental claims of Christianity is that Jesus 'rose from the dead': propaganda for Jesus, perhaps?

 I don't believe that claim is remotely true, and it is telling to me that no matter how often I ask this particular question I get no meaningful reply: which is how Christians have excluded the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT?

I think that miracle claims are fantastical nonsense no matter who they are ascribed to and whether they involve walking on water or riding flying horses.

[Stranger]

Dear Stranger than Fiction,

I've actually considered changing my screen name to that.   

Since you will not have a discussion about what is the best attributes of being human, why should I try to answer your question...

We did have a discussion, and I still can't really see how, or why, we should rank human virtues. Nor have you explained the relevance.

...now away and take a chill pill, Meditation is great for calming the fevered soul

Mind reader too? Is there no end to your talents!? People who are cagey about their beliefs, who then try to criticise 'atheists' are just comical as far as I'm concerned. Just having a little fun...
 

[Stranger]

I think the only thing claimed as a property that makes it into a being of the definition you are using is that it has volition and knows what it's doing but eliminating consciousness still leaves us with something not conducive to atheism

Baseless assertion.

Firstly, so what? It is based on the argument from contingency...

...which you are (apparently) completely unable to turn into anything remotely logical or self-consistent.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the only thing claimed as a property that makes it into a being of the definition you are using is that it has volition and knows what it's doing but eliminating consciousness still leaves us with something not conducive to atheism

And there you have the problem in a nutshell. Surely the only criteria for something necessary is a cosmic sense is that it cannot not exist. Why on earth should it be conscious or know what it is doing (which is effectively the same) - that is effectively and disingenuously leading the debate towards the notion of god. And also falls foul of Occam as it adds an additional unnecessary step (consciousness) when all that is needed is something that cannot not exist.

So just for the sake of arguments, lets look at energy as the necessary entity - doesn't seem unreasonable as energy if considered not to be able to be created or destroyed but can change from one form to another. Also it is difficult to see how the universe can exist without energy. So for the sake of arguments, does energy meet your criteria of having 'volition and knows what it's doing' - of course it doesn't - it is energy. It may be absolutely required for something to have consciousness but it has no consciousness of its own. So you'd reject it (as your blinkered view means the answer must be god) as it isn't a necessary 'being'. But that would, of course, be nonsense as it, arguably, has all the attributes to be necessary.

[ProfessorDavey]

Firstly, so what? It is based on the argument from contingency, contingency which is evidenced a plenty.

No it doesn't - it has pretty well no evidence to support it. Indeed it is only used to then argue a get out cause of its illogicality (infinite regress) as a (very poor) argument for god.

The point about the argument from contingency is that it takes a very anthropocentric view of looking at time as humans perceive it, rather than how it actually is. Once you consider time to be neither constant nor unidirectional then the whole notion of contingency crumbles to dust.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Baseless assertion.

It's based on definitions.

...which you are (apparently) completely unable to turn into anything remotely logical or self-consistent.

What is hard about "All contingent things are contingent on other things". Your stubborn arrogance seems to be preventing you from accepting definitions.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are suggesting that God creates a being, the human or other beings which are conscious with attributes God doesn't know of. That makes him less than prime reason and shows one hasn't grasped the implication of necessary being.

No - I'm suggesting that humans (and specifically humans living in a particular time and place) create a god specifically imbued with the characteristic that are important to them, but in super-sized form. Despite the fact that human attributes have virtually no relevance in a cosmic scale, as they are only features of one species on one planet - therefore being features relevant in 0.000000 ..... 000001% of cosmic space and 0.0002% of cosmic time.

The christian god (and indeed pretty well all gods purported to exist) are exactly what you'd expect humans to make up. Bit like asking a child to draw an alien and almost certainly they'll take human-like features and expand them - so a figure will 8 arms and a thousand eyes and be evil/good/super intelligent etc etc despite the fact that arms and eyes, being evil/good/super intelligent might have actually no value or relevance for an alien existing in a totally 'alien' environment in another part of the universe.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's based on definitions.

But it is based on definitions that are skewed towards an outcome you want in an unnecessary and biased manner.

The only relevant thing in a definition about something being necessary is that it is ... err ... necessary for something else to exist. In other words it cannot fail to have existed. To add in consciousness or having 'volition and knows what it's doing' is completely irrelevant and ... err ... unnecessary (see what I did there) to a discussion about whether things are necessary or not.

[Nearly Sane]

It's based on definitions.What is hard about "All contingent things are contingent on other things". Your stubborn arrogance seems to be preventing you from accepting definitions.

https://youtu.be/qJAVP7jP0bI?si=nfDmuNJP9dpAKC66

[Stranger]

It's based on definitions.

Whose definitions of what?

What is hard about "All contingent things are contingent on other things".

Nothing. It's just that you continually collapse into a heap of silly contradiction and illogical drivel, when you try to describe the logic of a 'necessary entity'. I've never seen anybody make proper sense of it. One person (not here) actually admitted that the only reason he thought it must is exist was because he couldn't think of anything else...

[Dicky Underpants]

I think the only thing claimed as a property that makes it into a being of the definition you are using is that it has volition and knows what it's doing but eliminating consciousness still leaves us with something not conducive to atheismFirstly, so what? It is based on the argument from contingency, contingency which is evidenced a plenty. A contingent thing that needs no cause is an absurdity so those who say the universe is necessary or that it is something qithout volition are closer than those advocating a non contingent contingent They are not without difficulties and you have already presented an absurdityYou are suggesting that God creates a being, the human or other beings which are conscious with attributes God doesn't know of. That makes him less than prime reason and shows one hasn't grasped the implication of necessary being.

Hello Vlad. You may have guessed that the question was primarily directed to you. Now NS thinks the whole question is pointless; nonetheless you seem to have managed to leap from one premiss to the other. Of course, we know that the original impetus in your life came from a profound conversion experience, so in a sense you must have worked backwards. Likewise Aquinas, who may be was simply brought up in the faith and sought philosophical justification for it (don't know his biographical details). Nonetheless, you have connected your experience with these philosophical investigations, and there must be some process of continual ratiocination to connect the original premiss with your present religious conviction - Christianity, and not only that but Anglicanism (which has as much to do with the sex life of Henry VIII as anything else). So, how does the original premiss lead to the final faith position?
 (Typing with one finger on mobile, so not too fluent in expression here)

[Gonnagle]

Hello Vlad. You may have guessed that the question was primarily directed to you. Now NS thinks the whole question is pointless; nonetheless you seem to have managed to leap from one premiss to the other. Of course, we know that the original impetus in your life came from a profound conversion experience, so in a sense you must have worked backwards. Likewise Aquinas, who may be was simply brought up in the faith and sought philosophical justification for it (don't know his biographical details). Nonetheless, you have connected your experience with these philosophical investigations, and there must be some process of continual ratiocination to connect the original premiss with your present religious conviction - Christianity, and not only that but Anglicanism (which has as much to do with the sex life of Henry VIII as anything else). So, how does the original premiss lead to the final faith position?
 (Typing with one finger on mobile, so not too fluent in expression here)

Dear Dicky,

Yep! have to agree, you starting the Thread was totally pointless.

Gonnagle.

[Dicky Underpants]

Dear Dicky,

Yep! have to agree, you starting the Thread was totally pointless.

Gonnagle.

The pointlessness was and is the interminable argument about whether there is a  necessary being/entity or not - a matter which has been thrashed to death here for years, including those years when you were absent. The matter always ends up vanishing up its own arse, and since it really can't be convincingly demonstrated, it will continue to vanish up its own arse. I thought I might add at least a little salsa to the arse gravy.

Have you decided on the nature of your 'necessary being' yet, and how you got to believe what you do - or are you just going to continue playing the strange melodies of your native woodnotes wild?

[Dicky Underpants]

No - I'm suggesting that humans (and specifically humans living in a particular time and place) create a god specifically imbued with the characteristic that are important to them, but in super-sized form. Despite the fact that human attributes have virtually no relevance in a cosmic scale, as they are only features of one species on one planet - therefore being features relevant in 0.000000 ..... 000001% of cosmic space and 0.0002% of cosmic time.

The christian god (and indeed pretty well all gods purported to exist) are exactly what you'd expect humans to make up. Bit like asking a child to draw an alien and almost certainly they'll take human-like features and expand them - so a figure will 8 arms and a thousand eyes and be evil/good/super intelligent etc etc despite the fact that arms and eyes, being evil/good/super intelligent might have actually no value or relevance for an alien existing in a totally 'alien' environment in another part of the universe.

This makes good sense, and only involves the comparison of knowing what humans actually do and have done since they were capable of imaginative thought. What Vlad is asking people to believe is that we can extrapolate from the phrase 'necessary being/entity' that it must have certain qualities, and as you rightly point out, this goes way beyond requirements of Occam's Razor. How could any of us begin to delineate the essential qualities of that unknown power, let alone state that it must possess them? However, we do know certain supposed consequences of its supposed creative capacity - that the world is full of unimaginable suffering, and has been through the millennia - life working its tortured way through millions of years of evolution, with many a false start ("Oops! Silly me" says N.B. - "got that a bit wrong, have to go in a different direction").
And all to produce the crowning glory of the evolutionary process - Homo Sapiens (especially the Chosen Ones). As you say, pathetically anthropocentric.

[Dicky Underpants]

My point was that it seems an entirely pointless approach. it's like saying if we assume ghosts exist, then can we derive Caspar the friendly ghost from that. I think kmaking assumptions that you don't know how to provide evidence for is an utter waste of time.

Gor blimey, guv'nor! That would mean that most of the verbiage on this forum should be ditched. Christianity exists, Caspar the friendly ghost does not. Conversations in thousands of posts here have been about whether the philosophical arguments for a necessary being/entity* are sound  - I don't think they are, as many here don't, and that's where the real pointlessness lies. But that's the starting point - and beyond that the vast range of religious beliefs of humankind, which may have certain features in common, but nothing that suggests they might all originate in the same 'necessary being'.

*Professor D prefers the word 'entity' - this would seem to suggest conversations of this subtlety could only take place in English (or such languages that might be able to make that specific distinction) Maybe God is an Englishman, but drawing attention to this does certainly indicate the limitations of language, especially when attempting to delineate the characteristics of hypothetical entities/beings.