Atheism about a necessary being entails a contradiction
A world which lacks a necessary (non-contingent) entity entails a contradiction.
(1) Existence is a series of entities and events.
(2) For all series, having no 1st term implies having no nth term.
(3) The universe has an nth term.
(4) If all entities are contingent, then theres no necessary (non-contingent) entity.
(5) If theres no non-contingent entity, then the universe is an infinite series with no 1st term (definition of an infinite regress).
(6) If theres no non-contingent entity, the universe is an infinite regress with an nth term.
(7) If theres no non-contingent entity, through substitution of (2) into (6), the universe is a series with an nth term and no nth term [contradiction].
Argument written by Adam Summerfield.
(1) Existence is a series of entities and events.
(2) For all series, having no 1st term implies having no nth term.
(3) The universe has an nth term.
(4) If all entities are contingent, then theres no necessary (non-contingent) entity.
(5) If theres no non-contingent entity, then the universe is an infinite series with no 1st term (definition of an infinite regress).
(6) If theres no non-contingent entity, the universe is an infinite regress with an nth term.
(7) If theres no non-contingent entity, through substitution of (2) into (6), the universe is a series with an nth term and no nth term [contradiction].
Argument written by Adam Summerfield.
Comments (96)
There is no first (or last) number on the real number line.
There is no first (or last) point on the circumference of a circle.
There are no edges to the surface of a sphere or an infinite plane.
Also a "necessary being" is a contradiction in terms insofar as for it to be "necessary" means that "being" is unchangeable (i.e. both being and not-being simultaneously). Ergo non-necessary being is necessary (re: PNC) as the entailed negation of the concept of "necessary being".
Lastly, atheism denotes rejection of theism (i.e. theistic conceptions) but not any nontheisms (e.g. animism ... pandeism, acosmism).
I haven't acknowledged any 'entities', necessary or otherwise. I was going along with your criteria for the sake of argument.
And, afaic, atheism is unbelief in deities, not entities. I'm not an atheist about any specific proposition of your choosing; I'm an atheist by virtue of disbelieving in all deities. Quoting Hallucinogen
Possibly in some realms of the imagination; not in my reality.
Where?
Quoting tim wood
Could you explain each?
Quoting tim wood
What defines a circle is the formula for a circle. An observable circle is composed of finite points, but they are all observed simultaneously, they aren't in a sequence in the sense of one point depending on the previous point.
They're all contingent on the value of unity, the set as a whole and the series formula. That would be the "first" term.
Quoting 180 Proof
Why is this entailed?
Quoting 180 Proof
The point is that denial of a necessary entity entails a contradiction.
Do you want to explain why you think this?
You said
Quoting Vera Mont
"Was" typically means you're acknowledging it existed.
Quoting Vera Mont
A deity fits the definition of an entity.
Quoting Vera Mont
The deities of monotheism and deism are all metaphysically necessary entities, so disbelief in all deities entails disbelief in those metaphysically necessary entities.
Quoting Vera Mont
In objective reality, something that is non-contingent is eternal because it doesn't depend on outside conditions, and it is omnipotent because everything else is contingent on it.
"Your" reality just means your imagination, so it's irrelevant what's true in your reality.
No, the point is that your contradiction has nothing to do with atheism. Even if one concedes a necessary entity (note it doesn't have to be an entity at all.) you still have said nothing about a contradiction in atheism.
180 Proof even said it plainly but you still missed the point entirely.
You have to deal with this:
Quoting 180 Proof
Because it renders everything else in your argument powerless.
I was humouring you. But, okay: a first entity existed.
If we take 'entity' to mean any solid identifiable object, that would theoretically have been a sub-microscopic infinitely hot, dense ball of matter that blew itself up. Sounds ridiculous enough on its own, and then you add consciousness and agency and it becomes totally absurd. I could never believe in such a thing.
If we take 'entity' to mean a self-aware organism, there must have been a first one of those, long ago, on some planet of some galaxy. In that case, all of its progeny depended on its having existed, but they don't preclude other organic life arising and becoming self-aware on any number of other planets, in any number of galaxies, and they didn't depend on that one first one, regardless of their chronological order, and none are 'contingent'.
Quoting Hallucinogen
No imaginary spirits, gods or djinns are necessary. Belief is optional.
That is an assumption - an unsupported supposition.
Quoting Hallucinogen
You seem to be claiming, without stating explicitly or providing support, that existence in a series of events implies contingency, i.e. causation.
IFF "a necessary entity" is not itself a contradiction in terms, which it is as I've pointed out.
???
Atheism involves disbelief in, and/or denial of, a necessary being, because metaphysical necessity is a defining feature of an omnipotent, eternal creator.
Quoting DingoJones
And you read my response to it, hopefully? To deny theism is to deny a necessary entity, which entails a contradiction. Rejecting theism but not nontheism doesn't mean not rejecting theism... it's still rejecting theism. Get it?
Did you read the earlier part of my response to you? I asked why a necessary being is a contradiction in terms. I'm denying that it entails both being and non-being. That's what I want you to explain.
No, it's not an assumption. It's a description made possible by distinguishing events and observing entities appear and disappear as conditions change.
Quoting T Clark
Contingency. Contingency isn't the same as causation.
This is exactly why, as 180 noted twice, you have a problem. Rejecting theism does not entail rejection nontheisms. Therefore, unless you restrict your descriptions to only refer to theistically-derived entities, it doesn't go through at all. Some form of deism, even, could go through.
For my part, it is merely a matter of being skeptical towards the idea that the theist that I happen to be talking to knows what he is talking about in matters theistic. Is there some reason to think that you are in a position to speak for what all people mean by "deny theism"?
Quoting Hallucinogen
I believe describing existence as a series of entities and events is inaccurate. That is based on my own observations and my understanding of physics.
Quoting 180 Proof
Whatever else is meant by (ontologically) "necessary", this modality also implies unchangeable. The only way X is unchangeable in relation to every other changing Z (i.e. non-necessary Z) is that X itself is simultaneously X & not-X, or always in a state of all of its possible relations/modes; thus, self-contradictory.
Apologies I musta hit a wrong button. I meant to address Hall.
I believe you are mistaken. Atheism involves not believing in or the denial of an omni potent, eternal creator as defined in theism. Atheism is not about a necassary being just becuase that is an attribute of the omnipotent eternal creator (as defined by theism). Just like my poem
about my dog is not a poem about a german shepard even though a german shepard and a husky are both dogs. If I had a husky, or a poem about it.
Quoting Hallucinogen
Its not though. A necassary entity, on its own, has nothing to do with atheism. Sorry to say sir, but you are trying to use language to smuggle in your argument here. Though often overused I believe the term is strawmanning. Your argument is based on a strawman atheism.
However, if space and time are in a circular loop, an eternal return, within the wheel of time or a part of the Big Bounce, then no term can be said to be either the 1st or the nth.
In that event, premises 1) and 2) are OK, but premise 3) wouldn't apply.
"B and if not A then not B" does not entail "necessarily A".
B ? (¬A ? ¬B) ? ?A
As an example, a 46th President of the United States requires a 1st President of the United States, but a 1st President of the United States is not necessary.
>then you're not an atheist about a necessary entity
And this quote proves what I'm saying - you're confusing 'atheism' about personal gods with some other claim that atheists generally don't make. It seems you've made atheism into something it isn't in order to construct this argument.
It's like saying 'atheism is wrong, because there's fruit. See, look at this fruit. If you believe this fruit exists, then you're not an atheist about fruit". Atheism *isn't about fruit* you goof.
One can believe in some necessary thing without believing that this thing is God. Theism does not have exclusive ownership of necessity.
Perhaps the necessary entity is a physical singularity of infinite density that underwent a rapid expansion known as the Big Bang. The atheist can accept this.
Alright, could you provide more detail?
Which is why the thread is titled "Atheism about a necessary being".
And in the heading of the argument itself I'm making it clear that it's about rejecting a non-contingent entity.
Aside from that, given that all non-contingent entities are necessarily omnipotent and eternal, to reject a necessary entity already rejects the majority of God concepts, since it rejects the concept of an eternal creator. All that's left to dispute over is omnibenevolence and omniscience.
If not-A entails (B and (not-B)), then A is entailed. Is that what you're saying isn't the case?
Is B here the proposition that the universe has an nth term? And A is the proposition that there's a non-contingent entity in the universe's series of terms?
Define theism and define God, please.
Yeah I don't understand that inference. Is this about metaphysical necessity only, or also logical necessity?
I could point out that eternal mathematical relationships (e.g., Pythagoras' theorem) don't change as everything else changes, how does that imply that those mathematical relationships are simultaneously both themselves and not themselves? I could do the same with logical tautologies like the PNC.
I go along very similar lines, but go a bit deeper then him. He gets stuck at infinite series, I do not.
It's restricted to denial of a necessary entity, because that's where the contradiction is.
Quoting AmadeusD
I don't see how you could have deism without the concept of a non-contingent entity.
To me it seems much more practical to work with the definitions used by an individual theist I am discussing the subject with. (If nothing else, it reduces time wasted on straw men.) I suspect any dictionary will provide definitions I would find acceptable for starting a discussion, but if the subject under discussion is your theism, then you providing your definitions makes more sense.
That's not a given.
The example of the Presidents explains what I mean in simple terms.
You conflate "A is required for B" and "A is necessary". The former does not entail the latter.
This premise is patently false, and is the denial, implicitly, that the concept of infinity is coherent. Viz., you are getting this argument to work by denying that infinity, in principle, is internally coherent.
Let's take set theory as an example: an infinite set has no first member but has a infinite amount of members such that wherever we start enumerating, n, there is a n+1, n+2, etc. and n-1, n-2, etc.
The fact that an infinite set has no last nor first element, does not mean that it does not have an nth member. There's nothing internally incoherent with the idea of an infinite series of causal events (for example).
By denying "an nth term", you are denying that an infinite set has any members.
Why use the word 'atheism' at all, instead of just saying 'not believing there is some necessary thing is a contradiction'?
Atheism isn't a general term for not believing something...
Quoting Hallucinogen
So what? "Mathematical relationships" are mere abstractions (i.e. tautologies truth, not "being") and not events, forces, facts or things.
To vastly oversimplify... According to the internet, there are something like 10^80 particles in the universe. Starting from zero, they've been moving outward and bouncing off each other for 14 billion years. Show me a series of entities and events in that.
(1) Existence is not a series (of anything)
(3) The universe does not have numbered "terms"
(5) Does not follow
Then it doesn't, directly, address a-theism. A-theism is russian-dolled into what you're talking about, but is not what you're trying to find a contradiction in. One must an atheist, plus some other ontological belief to come to the contradiction you're implying. It doesn't arise from atheism alone. You can be an atheist and not deny a non-contingent entity at all.
Quoting Hallucinogen
IN fact, my point about deism was exactly this. You can be atheist, but deist. And so you would be able to accept a non-contingent entity. It doesn't provide relevance to the claim, or the objection, which are at odds here.
I should also point out: I am not taken by the use of atheism here. Atheism is, etymologically, and practically-speaking "best" understood as only non-assent to theistic doctrine. It is not a negative belief (i.e a belief in the absence of anything). It is just hte non-uptake of a particular range of beliefs. So, take that on board when reading my comments as its possible you're seeing a corner I simply am not in.
When you say if space and time are in a circular loop, you mean that the events are in a loop, right? I'm just asking because space might loop in on itself, but that wouldn't mean that time does or that events do.
Even if you have events going in a loop, it doesn't imply that no entity is non-contingent, because the laws the events obey, (e.g., that they go in a loop, that momentum is conserved, universal constants, etc) are non-contingent with respect to the events. Unless you have a reason why those things are also contingent?
The metaphysical problem with your scenario though, is that if past events are contingent on future events, then this either implies that the past event doesn't come into existence (because its future dependency doesn't exist) or it just does away with the idea of contingency. If the past event doesn't come into existence because it is contingent on some future event is in a "loop" with, then neither events exist and there is no loop.
The perceptual aggregate, all observables across space and time.
Quoting tim wood
The objects within the universe are the terms and the functions/natural laws of the universe can be abstracted as the formula of a series.
Quoting tim wood
By entity, I mean the dictionary definition, and by series, I mean a sequence of transformations in space or in abstraction.
Quoting tim wood
By event, I mean a transformation of an object in space.
Not really, for 2 reasons. Firstly "entity" doesn't imply "solid" or even "object". The standard definition is something with an identifiable existence. That could easily be something abstract, like Pythagoras' theorem. Secondly, the state of matter at the beginning of the universe wasn't necessary, because it blowing itself up, as you put it, depends on a pre-existing law of physics that entails that it behaves that way. Depency = contingent. Contingent = non-necessary.
Quoting Vera Mont
We're not necessarily doing that in this argument. It's an argument against denial of / disbelief in a necessary entity. But anyway, why do you think it's absurd?
Quoting Vera Mont
I don't really know what to say in response to this because it's not required by the argument. I'm not arguing some organism on some planet is necessary. Of course all organic life is contingent because all of it depends on prior events.
Quoting Vera Mont
God as conceived by classical theism and monotheism is metaphysically necessary, it's required in what "God" means.
OK, so you don't think existence consists of a sequence of events or transformations. It's difficult to respond to this because it seems observably self-apparent to me.
Quoting SophistiCat
Quoting Encyclopedia of Math
So you think it's false that the universe contains objects that we can denote? And "numbered" in turn just denotes ordered transformations.
Quoting SophistiCat
Why doesn't it? You said that all the premises were false, so why is (2) false?
Metaphysically necessary means that everything is contingent on it, which makes it omnipotent. A metaphysically necessary entity is non-contingent, which means it is eternal. Denying or disbelieving in those of those means rationally having the same attitude toward metaphysical necessity because they are mutually inclusive.
Quoting DingoJones
No, it is not just like that. The concept of a German Shepherd neither implies, nor is mutually inclusive with, your specific dog.
by what means?
Quoting Hallucinogen
would rather presuppose the existence of Pythagoras, who also wasn't the first
Quoting Hallucinogen
or else blowing itself up that way and turning into the universe was the beginning of physics, after which everything thus created had to behave according its rules
So there's your first/last/all entities.
OK, the particles = the objects denoted by the terms. "Starting from zero" = beginning of the sequence. "Moving outward and bouncing off each other" = the transformations of the sequence.
Ok, so there are maybe (10^80)^80 sequences all interacting with each other. Or maybe ((10^80)^80)^80. And there is no one except maybe a hypothetical "necessary being" could keep track of even one of those sequences for more than a few steps. There comes a point where causation, or contingency, loses meaning.
In our previous exchange, you claimed your initial premise is justified "...by distinguishing events and observing entities..." How many of those ((10^80)^80)^80 interactions have you observed? How many do you have to have observed for your premise to be justified?
None of that is definitive of atheism. Atheism is the rejection of theism.
No sense in repeating ourselves. I think youre missing a logical fallacy that you are making as indicated below. Im sure it has a name.
Quoting Hallucinogen
The logical fallacy you are making is just like that.
Obviously your intended point isnt going to be fallacious, you just committed the act while making your point.
Maybe its a poor analogy, thankfully what I said above (my previously quote and response in this message) applies regardless.
Youre just not talking about atheism.
The OP presupposes that it's unnecessary to explain to people that metaphysical necessity is a property required of God. Acknowledging a necessary entity implies acknowledgement of something omnipotent and eternal, so contrary to your claim, necessary entities and God are very much alike.
Quoting flannel jesus
The descriptions of God offered by Abrahamic religions and Hinduism are all descriptions of a necessary entity. And atheism is more than what you've described it as, because it denies the existence of all God concepts, in connection to a specific religion or not.
Quoting flannel jesus
Denying the personal God concept is denying a necessary being, which is why atheists oppose the contingency argument and presuppositionalism, whenever they're presented. Most atheists understand that conceding the conclusion of the contingency argument signs them onto much of what is meant by theism.
Every case of atheism about a personal God is a case of atheism about a necessary being, because the definition of God is inclusive of metaphysical necessity:
Quoting Merriam Webster
If it doesn't have metaphysical necessity, then it isn't supreme or ultimate. The same goes for any definition that mentions ruling nature, a creator, or being omnipotent.
Quoting flannel jesus
Atheism is a term for not believing or denying some God concept, which is how I've used it. And that's how it's used in philosophy, since philosophers distinguish between local atheism (denial of/disbelief in some specific god) and global atheism.
Why is it?
Quoting Bob Ross
That's not implied by my premises.
Quoting Bob Ross
Also no.
Quoting Bob Ross
My argument addresses an infinite regress, not infinite sets in general.
An infinite series has a first term, but not a last term.
Quoting Bob Ross
I'm not arguing that there is. I'm arguing that there's a contradiction in the idea of an infinite regress of causal events.
Quoting DingoJones
:Period. :100:
@Hallucingen's OP is nonsense.
The Cosmological Argument is that the Universe is only composed of contingent events, but as a contingent event is not a sufficient cause of itself, a necessary being must exist outside such a Universe.
This argument applies to a linear Universe, where future event B is contingent on past event A.
However, in a cyclic Universe, such as proposed by the Big Bounce, there is no past and future. Event B is contingent on event A, but event A was contingent on event B, meaning that event B is contingent upon itself.
In a linear Universe, as a contingent event is not a sufficient cause of itself, there must be a necessary cause outside the contingent event itself, such as a God.
However, in a cyclic world, as an event is not contingent on anything outside of itself, an event is a sufficient cause to itself and needs no necessary cause outside of itself, such as a God.
IE, in a cyclic Universe, as a future event is not contingent on a past event, the existence of a future event is not dependent on the existence of a past event.
:up: :up:
OK, then I stand by what I said earlier:
Quoting Hallucinogen
That's based on dictionary definitions of "God" and "theism", along with the consideration that these discussions don't focus on the ontological status of polytheistic worldviews.
The only being that exists in every possible world is the oxymoron.
I didn't actually say "justified". I said it's not an assumption, it's a description made possible by those distinctions and observations. If I were to explain the justification, I'd say it's because there's a correspondence between the series formula and the events being distinguished.
Quoting T Clark
I don't know.
Quoting T Clark
Just one.
Something's eternal if it isn't dependent on conditions. Contingency means to have a condtional dependency, so a non-contingent entity is eternal.
Something's omnipotent if everything stands in dependency to it. Everything in a contingent series is dependent on the non-contingent member of the series, so it is omnipotent.
Quoting Michael
The example of the Presidents doesn't answer my question. The 1st President is contingent because it is an nth term of the universe, and it is necessary for there to be a 2nd President. It's just not metaphysically necessary.
Quoting Michael
If B is any nth term, then the former does entail the latter.
That's what justification means in this context - empirical evidence. You're just playing with words.
Quoting Hallucinogen
Sorry, no, that's not how it works. It's clear your premise is nothing but a "seems to me" proposition, i.e. an unjustified assumption.
Justification doesn't solely consist of empirical evidence, why do you think that? It can consist solely of a priori axioms and rules of inference, or a combination of both, but never of only empirical evidence.
Quoting T Clark
Why not?
Quoting T Clark
You're resorting to straw-manning, because I never said that.
Nuff said.
Do you think you can be an atheist and believe in an omnipotent and eternal non-contingent entity? Because those properties are mutually inclusive with non-contingency.
Quoting AmadeusD
Doesn't make sense. Atheism is the denial or lack of belief in the existence of God. Deism is belief in God that doesn't intervene. Not intervening isn't the same as not existing.
Quoting AmadeusD
That's agnosticism.
We haven't even gotten into "how it works".
Banno (Jul 5, 2021)
Banno (Jul 7, 2021)
jorndoe (Jul 6, 2021)
jorndoe (Jul 2, 2024)
Thanks.
No, not quite. Deism is belief in a pervasive force of creation. Some resort to the Gaia version of this when they want to personalize it, but it has not personality, the way a 'God' does.\\\
Quoting Hallucinogen
No. This has been gone over so many times, it's really disappointing that you're throwing this line out. Agnosticism is the position that we can't know whether or not God exists. Atheism is the abstinence from belief in a God or Gods. Atheism is more of a non-position. This might be why what you're saying makes little sense, as it may not applicable to the terms you're using.
Quoting Hallucinogen
If it's not a theistic one, then by the lack of definitional restriction, yes, you could. Seems highly unlikely, but sure. But, given your take on atheism and deism, it seems perhaps you want to define it out, on your terms. Fine. Doesn't work for me, in those terms.
The argument I presented uses first-order logic, in which "contingent" and "necessary" are predicates.
I don't see why claims that are confined to modal logic would act as a constraint on what I'm able to prove. Philosophers have been talking about necessity before modal logic was formalized, so it's not obvious to me why your comment is contrary to my post. But assuming that we are limited to modal logic, and that it entails what you claim, do you mean to claim that only logical necessity exists but metaphysical necessity doesn't?
Quoting jorndoe
OK, so you're dumping the links to 4 comments in front of me. Am I supposed to read through each of them with the benefit of the doubt that they're truthful, and work out what it is in each that you think supports your reply to my argument?
Can't you just write out the reasons why you think the only necessity in modal logic is logic itself, and why this undermines the case I argued?
The main statement among those comments I'd dispute is this one:
Quoting jorndoe
I could just say that any possible world that is intelligible to us obeys the rules of cognition that our world obeys, so simply identifying anything intelligible about such hypothetical worlds entails they require mental structure. Hence, there's no possible worlds in which a grounding in mental structure isn't implied.
The sources I found agree with the way I defined deism.
Quoting Merriam Webster
Quoting Oxford Reference
Quoting Cambridge Dictionary
Quoting Stanford Encyclopedia Philosophy
Wikipedia says a deist God is not necessarily impersonal.
Quoting Wikipedia
Quoting AmadeusD
Almost every source I've looked at gives both the definition I gave and the one you've given. Typically they say that an agnostic is someone who believes that ultimate reality/God is unknown or unknowable. So there's widespread ambiguity on whether it means one or the other or both.
But I regard including "unknowable" in the definition to be problematic, because it means the definition of agnosticism about God now deviates from what the broader meaning of agnostic is. For example:
Quoting Merriam Webster
Quoting Dictionary.com
And the definition of agnostic that you're giving is a major commitment to knowing about reality. It states that reality cannot furnish knowledge or proof about its ultimate nature. That's a very shaky claim with complex entailments. As such, defining agnostic in that way makes it unlike how agnostic is used in the broader sense, to not have a commitment to some belief.
Quoting AmadeusD
What I was asking you is if you think that belief in an omnipotent and eternal non-contingent entity is a theistic belief. So it sounds like you think some further critera is where the fault lines are between theism and atheism. Is that the belief that the necessary entity in question is omniscient as well as eternal and omnipotent?
Quoting AmadeusD
Oh, but why? An omnipotent and eternal non-contingent entity is either inherently theistic or not, why would it be unlikely that an atheist would believe in such?
Some typical responses ...
"But God is the creator of any of the possible worlds", which departs from modal logic (and commits petitio principii anyway).
"But it's not logical necessity, it's metaphysical necessity", which roughly does the same by introducing a sufficiently vague/vacant phrase to head off to wherever (just about anywhere), whereas the logic is what we use to reason/deduce things.
A possible world is a self-consistent entirety; possible worlds, W, maintain standard logic.
possibly p (holds for some consistent world): ?p ? ?w?W p
necessarily p (holds for all consistent worlds): ?p ? ?w?W p
To round up the common subjunctive modalities, contingent and impossible can be set out from those.
Quoting Hallucinogen
... and possible aren't the same; the latter is fairly concise above.
(As an aside, whatever "eternal" means, atemporal mind is incoherent (2022Nov11, 2024Sep22), atemporal living is nonsense.)
Oddly enough perhaps, "God is necessary" turns out to be a definition of "God", it's not an observation or a deduction, so "God" is now at the mercy of the definition if you will. (Also note, we're no longer talking down-to-Earth modalities like "water is necessary for the rain", "toddlers have to drink regularly", ...)
Quoting Hallucinogen
to not knowing. It's not a commitment anymore than thinking you could know is. And that's, essentially, present in all other takes (deism, theism, atheism). So, can't really argue with the premise, but the idea that this somehow weakens the position is not right on my view.
Quoting Hallucinogen
This is how Atheism is used in the 'broader sense'. This is quite well-established by the multitude of arguments about it between the leading theists and atheists from the late 90s to today. 'misuse' of the words, according to those who adopt them, is the central problem in discussions of this sort. I am trying my best to avoid the ambiguity you find to be helpful here. I realise several pages of several threads have gone over this in the last year, and I stand by my takes with full confidence there. The words need to be clear, and there is a clear, non-overlapping way to use them without ambiguity. The etymology would lend itself to those uses.
Quoting Hallucinogen
I answered what you asked. What you've said here is just a slightly more elaborate version of hte same question. Your conception of 'theism' is wrong, on my account, and doesn't capture what 'theism' represents. It would also capture deism. So, if hte entity you're talking about is something more akin to the 'New Age' conceptions - "the force of love", "the creative power of hte universe" etc... It is, definitionally, eternal and all-powerful, but is not at all theistic. So, there's no contradiction here that I'm able to ascertain.
Quoting Hallucinogen
The bold doesn't bear on the non-bold here, at all, in any way. The reason an atheist is hardly taken to believe in a deistic God (of some kind - make it super-vague if that helps) is that an atheist is far more likely to be thinking rationally and wanting evidence instead of settling for an inference in comparison to a theist, or deist who (as I understand) must be making a rather large leap to their conclusion, no matter how far rationality got them. And that's all that can support deistic or theistic beliefs, imo (well, I say inference - I do also mean 'inference from intuition' or something similar - one's deeply-felt passions can infer something is hte case, but only infer on no other evidence).
I don't understand how it shows that the argument in my OP is non-ampliative because it doesn't appear to address it.
Quoting jorndoe
But why is departing from modal logic an issue? I did ask this before.
Quoting jorndoe
Not necessarily, the example you've given doesn't make it clear what the reason for the claim is. You need more than just the claim itself to show that's the fallacy being committed. When that very claim is made on the basis of Aquinas' original argument, it commits no petitio principii.
Quoting jorndoe
Why do you think it's vague? It's just the negation of contingent, which in the argument is the predicate of being dependent on conditions. What's vague about that?
Quoting jorndoe
The claim of metaphysical necessity is concluded on the basis of logic.
Quoting jorndoe
And "entirety" needs to include whatever it is that distributes over all possible worlds, which is what is metaphysically necessary.
Quoting jorndoe
That was implied when I said
Quoting Hallucinogen
Quoting jorndoe
But your reasoning still isn't very explicit in the posts you're linking to. It appears you're saying intelligence is a process, which has to be temporal, and minds have intelligence, so minds are also temporal. Even if I were to agree with the premises I don't think it follows. Stuff in space is mathematical, but that doesn't mean mathematics is temporal. The set that contains the elements doesn't necessarily have the same properties the elements have.
Quoting jorndoe
The claim is that there's a necessary entity, and that's deduced in the argument. Whether or not you call it God is going to depend on other reasons.
Something is eternal if it exists forever. Something is omnipotent if it can do anything. The one does not entail the other. And neither entails nor is entailed by necessity.
And I also suspect there's more to your "necessary being" than just being eternal and omnipotent. Is it conscious with a will of its own? Or is it just some mindless thing that maintains and shapes the material world, perhaps the hypothetical single force that unites electromagnetism, the strong force, the weak force, and gravity? An atheist can accept this latter thing.
Quoting Hallucinogen
A 2nd President does not entail that a 1st President is metaphysically necessary. A 2nd term of the universe does not entail that a 1st term of the universe is metaphysically necessary.
Perhaps the 1st term of the universe was an accident, and because of that accident there was also a 2nd term, a 3rd term, and so on. Those 2nd and 3rd terms do not retroactively entail that the 1st term wasn't an accident.
Quoting Michael
Something exists forever if it isn't dependent on conditions.
Quoting Hallucinogen
Quoting Michael
Something can do anything if everything is dependent on it.
Quoting Michael
If everything contingent depends on it, then it isn't in a contingency relation to anything else, and it doesn't depend on conditions.
Quoting Michael
My text that you're responding to disproves this, and simply giving synonyms for "eternal" and "omnipotent" isn't a rebuttal.
Quoting Michael
In my view it is, but my view doesn't change the fact that most God concepts are omnipotent and eternal.
Quoting Michael
They can, yet most atheists don't accept the contingency argument.
Quoting Michael
Because a 1st President is contingent.
Quoting Michael
That's false, a 1st term of the universe isn't contingent. And if you view "terms" as all being dependent on the series formula, then this isn't consequential as it means the series formula is non-contingent because it trivially redefines the formula as the 1st term.
Quoting Michael
Accidents are contingent, so the non-contingent component of the series can't be an accident.
You're begging the question. Here are two scenarios:
1. A 1st term is necessary. A 2nd and 3rd term follow.
2. A 1st term is contingent. A 2nd and 3rd term follow.
Given that a 2nd and 3rd term exist in both scenarios you cannot use the existence of a 2nd and 3rd term to prove that the 1st term is necessary. This is the fallacy that your argument commits.
Quoting Hallucinogen
Even if some X is necessary and even if this X is "omnipotent" and eternal it does not follow that this X is God. You are introducing properties unrelated to your argument.
As an atheist I could accept that there is some impersonal force e.g. the union of electromagnetism, the strong force, the weak force, and gravity that necessarily exists. I could even accept that this impersonal force is "omnipotent" and eternal. But it ain't God.
Quoting Hallucinogen
These are non sequiturs.
And you are, again, equivocating. That a 2nd term depends on a 1st term to have existed does not entail that the 1st term must still exist. A clock must have been made by a clockmaker, but the clock doesn't cease to exist after the clockmaker dies.
Your conclusion, that there is a God that necessarily exists, simply isn't proven by the claim that causation is not an infinite regress.
No, I'm not. You're trying to equivocate between a series of presidents and the series of existence as a whole.
Quoting Michael
Take another look at the argument in the OP. The 1st term of existence (which is being used synonymously with "the universe", i.e., reality as a whole) isn't contingent. Contingent means it's dependent on a condition prior to it; there isn't anything prior to what is first.
Quoting Michael
Your second scenario is false because the first term isn't contingent when all entities are considered, only when entities within some partial context are, like a series of presidents.
Quoting Michael
I didn't say it does.
Quoting Michael
It was you that introduced them, not me.
Quoting Michael
Quoting Michael
Then you wouldn't be an atheist about a necessary entity and you wouldn't commit the contradiction.
I am explaining that "if some A is the nth term then some B must have been the 1st term" does not entail "the 1st term necessarily exists (and is omnipotent)".
It doesn't make a difference what A and B are. The logic is a non sequitur whether we are talking about Presidential terms or "the series of existence as a whole".
Quoting Hallucinogen
You are misusing the term "atheist". An atheist is someone who believes that no deities exist.
:up:
No, because to claim that reality can't furnish a proof of God is a knowledge claim.
Quoting AmadeusD
No, to knowing that God is unknowable. That's a knowledge claim.
Quoting AmadeusD
It is, because for an agnostic to think God is unknowable is to place constraints on reality and on what we can know. For an agnostic to only think God's existence is unknown is to remain skeptical and uncommited about whether knowledge is constrained in such a manner.
Quoting AmadeusD
I thought you were arguing that atheism is only denial of a personal God?
Even if I agree to this (it's how I used it in the thread title), it doesn't mean that it's not how agnostic is used in the broader sense, so my point would still stand. Accepting a broad sense of the term atheism doesn't displace the broad sense of the term agnostic, especially because the latter is accepted by dictionaries.
Quoting AmadeusD
My account of theism is belief in an omnipotent, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent entity. A necessary entity is all of those things, but I grant that you can be an atheist who believes in a necessary entity just by denying that it entails those characteristics. I have spoken with very few atheists who acknowledge an omnipotent, eternal entity, most argue vehemently against such a claim. So your concept of theism is different to mine?
Quoting AmadeusD
Deism is a variant of theism: it's belief in a God. The non-intervention of that God doesn't change this, it's still belief in the existence of a God.
Quoting Hallucinogen
Quoting AmadeusD
?
If belief in an omnipotent and eternal non-contingent entity entails theism, then no atheist would believe it, by definition. It wouldn't just be "unlikely". If in an omnipotent and eternal non-contingent entity doesn't entail theism, then an atheist could believe in it. So the bold is actually quite decisive in bearing on the non-bold.
Quoting AmadeusD
OK, multiple things. Firstly, I don't agree. But second, why would an atheist be "more likely" to be thinking rationally and wanting evidence than a deist? I asked why an atheist would be unlikely to believe in an omnipotent and eternal non-contingent entity, but you've answered by just shifting the claim onto an atheist being more likely to be rational, but why is that the case? Thirdly, why is making an inference separate from thinking rationally? As far as I can see, all thinking involves making inferences, and using inference is ubiquitous when it comes to judgments about evidence.
The argument at the beginning of the thread doesn't claim that's how it's entailed. You've decided to base your critique on removing premises from the argument.
Hence, why your first comment was unclear to me.
Quoting Hallucinogen
You didn't answer these questions, instead, you chose to double-down on simplifying the argument into absurdity.
Quoting Michael
So, going back to what I wrote in the argument. The entailment to what you've described as "the 1st term necessarily exists" is provided by the impossibility of all entities being contingent, given that, (2) for all series, having no 1st term implies having no nth term, and (3) the universe has an nth term. If it's the 1st term then it isn't contingent on anything, because there's no term prior for it to depend on.
Youre equivocating.
That something exists without having being caused to exist by something else does not entail that this thing necessarily exists, and it certainly doesnt entail that this thing is eternal and omnipotent.
The universe is the product of an initial singularity and inflation. This initial singularity may have come into existence by accident/chance, and even if its existence was necessary it certainly isnt anything like God.
I didn't describe anything "without having being caused", I've been describing an entity which is non-contingent. Causation isn't contingency. And yes, it does entail it necessarily exists, because lacking contingency means lacking dependency, in which case that thing can't fail to exist.
Quoting Michael
False. I'll re-post what I wrote to you earlier.
Something's eternal if it isn't dependent on conditions. Contingency means to have a condtional dependency, so a non-contingent entity is eternal.
Something's omnipotent if everything stands in dependency to it. Everything in a contingent series is dependent on the non-contingent member of the series, so it is omnipotent.
Your earlier reply was inadequate, you gave synonyms for "eternal" and "omnipotent" as if they contradict the above; they don't.
Quoting Michael
Then it wouldn't be non-contingent/necessary. Accidents are contingent, they obey laws of physics and they only occur under certain conditions.
Quoting Michael
The term "God" makes no sense without metaphysical necessity. If it's dependent on something outside of itself, it's not God.
Quoting Michael
Prove it.
Quoting Michael
I didn't say that it does.
Quoting Michael
Not analogous to the argument. The 1st term of existence is metaphysically necessary, it doesn't depend on conditions, so it doesn't go out of existence (it's eternal).
Quoting Michael
Still not getting the argument right. My conclusion is that a necessary entity exists. The reasons I'd call that God aren't in the argument. And I didn't say it's proven by the claim that causation is not an infinite regress, it's proven by the contradiction inherent to an infinite regress of contingent entities.