The existence of the universe or multiple universes is not a synthetic necessity. “Gods” that are not omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent cannot exist out of synthetic necessity, but the existence of an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent God can. Anything that falls short of being omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent would create an infinite regress of events .The universe is finite, cannot exist out of synthetic necessity and would create an infinite regress. Thus, the universe begs the question of what caused it whereas synthetic necessities do not. So I would say it makes perfect sense to suppose that something more complex than the universe can exist and that it is likely.
Well, first of all, an infinite regression isn't an issue, because the only reason the Christian God fixes this problem is because they slap the label "eternal" on it, I could do the same for a Universe, and call the problem 'solved'. Also, explain synthetic necessity, because I've never heard of it, even after looking it up, there's nearly nothing about it. Actually, there is nothing about the exact term "synthetic necessity", I'm wondering if you just artificially amalgamated epistemological necessity and semantical synthetics... Also, you have not proven that it's "likely" even if your argument is true, just that it avoids infinite regression by defining itself to be free of the problem, which you could do with any other explanation. The thing is, literally any lesser being/event with the capability of creating a Universe is a more likely creator, by virtue of Occam's razor.
Don't bend; don't water it down; don't try to make it logical; don't edit your own soul according to the fashion. Rather, follow your most intense obsessions mercilessly.
Not quite yet, as I want to understand where you stand on this, and based off what I have heard you say in the past.
In the past, I have heard you say you believe your religious beliefs are the one true way, and that everyone should adhere to them since it is the "best" lifestyle to live under.
Since you are now saying that we should just not try to convince each other and leave each other alone, that says to me that you simply don't want people to talk about any of this in particular, so your views can stay unquestioned and in your eyes "right". The combination of these two speaks of an individual who wants to silence dissent or quiet questioning. The former of you saying "lets not try to question each other" is fine by itself. That's live and let live. However, combined with your stance you have expressed in the past changes that completely.
There is a difference between live and let live, and live but not want to let live. The latter of which is, in my view and quite a few others, not ok.
That said, if your view is that you genuinely do not want others of other views to not change what they do, how they live, and what they believe, then I will let this be and stop the discussion. The reason I bring this up is because I very strongly view the concept of religion as something that is purely individual and should not and can not extend beyond the self. To start applying it to others beyond you is profoundly unfair and illogical.
Dear friend, I said my opinion, I meant what I said, stop generating other meanings as if there's anything I'd hide, I'm straight froward, that's it.
I think I'm clear enough
I don't like to repeat my words
Isn't it annoying?
Umm I'm sure you'll understand it and have an opinion of your own
You'd either support the idea or not
I suggest not getting obsessed with it
Because as you know the world makes sense, so does whatever the truth is
So don't worry, all I'm trying to say is that
It's up to you
I had said my opinion, I can explain if you want
Otherwise you're totally free :)
Godel's proof is only one form of evidence involving mathematics.
Hans Kuhn in his biographical "what I believe" discussed how he had found certain proofs more or less believable or valid over time but he'd never doubted the existence of God.
His mathematical proof was to with infinity and mathematical principles like that, I'm not exactly learned enough to understand it, he had a total of five proofs I think, the one I remember was about the comprehension of beauty, in music or other mediums, its something which would appear to be hard wired into humanity and yet it serves no purpose in terms of survival, adaptation or evolution.
The thing is though, I'm not so worried about God non-existence, I think that's impossible but what's much more worrying a prospect is that God exists but has no conception of or relationship to humanity what so ever.
If God exists and is as far removed from human beings as human beings are from single cell organisms, which in terms of complexity its not illogical to suppose, then perhaps the relationship is the same, I never think of single cell organisms and I cant relate to them in any meaningful way etc.
Then there is the possible, grimdark I think, possibility, that God was in search of man, that there was a period of serious engagement with mankind which progressed from the particular, one tribe, one people, to the universal, the whole of humankind, but then terminated following one to many confirmations that humankind would never reciprocate the search.
That this is grim dark for me, and the worst possibility, probably reflects my own religious tradition, as it incorporates hope of the most proactively outreaching version of God, more in earnest than the Jewish or other abrahamic theist creedos in the search for man, didnt just search for man but became man, experienced some of the worst things any man could as a consequence of the divinely ordained cosmic order. How would it be possible for God to have a greater insight into humankind than that?
Honestly, God's existence/non-existence is not something I agonize over anymore. I am more interested in finding ways to plug into the world, and feel connected. Whether that feeling IS God, or a cognitive illusion, or just gas, I'm happy to feel and experience unity with all living things.
Well, first of all, an infinite regression isn't an issue, because the only reason the Christian God fixes this problem is because they slap the label "eternal" on it, I could do the same for a Universe, and call the problem 'solved'.
There’s more to it than that. Aside from the fact that the universe has been proven to have a definite beginning and is expanding leading to a definite end it is material. We know material things have a life cycle. Also the concept of a non-created God was ascribed those qualities long before it became convenient. The fact of the matter is anything that makes a claim to exists prior to the existence of the universe would need these qualities in light of what we know about the nature of the universe.
Originally Posted by Obsidius
Also, explain synthetic necessity, because I've never heard of it, even after looking it up, there's nearly nothing about it. Actually, there is nothing about the exact term "synthetic necessity", I'm wondering if you just artificially amalgamated epistemological necessity and semantical synthetics...
6 . Synthetic necessity obtains where a statement of the form “Necessarily p” (or “It cannot be that so-and-so”) is true and neither it, nor p, is analytic. For example, “Nothing can be green and red all over” is presumably a case of synthetic necessity if the concept of being not red is not contained in the concept of being green. “Necessarily, bachelors are unmarried”, on the other hand, is not a case of synthetic necessity because it is analytic that bachelors are unmarried.7-The Necessity of God’s Existence 1 Daniel von Wachter
Originally Posted by Obsidius
Also, you have not proven that it's "likely" even if your argument is true, just that it avoids infinite regression by defining itself to be free of the problem, which you could do with any other explanation.
Already addressed this
Originally Posted by Obsidius
The thing is, literally any lesser being/event with the capability of creating a Universe is a more likely creator, by virtue of Occam's razor.
Occam's razor the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. I’d like to know what assumptions about the concept of God need to be made that a supposed Universe without God are not. We are not talking about a specific God or doctrine just the concept of a God that is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.
"Re-examine all that you have been told... dismiss that which insults your soul."_Walt Whitman