Before God...

Post Reply New Topic

This is a very different question, I am sorry I did not see it in the OP. For myself, the answer 'God necessarily is' certainly does not answer the 'why' question at all. It provides the logical terminus to contingency and we have good reason to think that God, if he exists at all does so from brute necessity. When I probe the 'why' question the answer certainly is unsatisfactory, we may not be able to understand it, but that does not mean we cannot try. For myself, I like the view put forward by Richard Swinburne in 'The Intrinsic Probability of Theism'; he puts forward two sorts of necessary existence for God. The first, that God exists, because he must, that if he exists in one time, he therefor by definition ought to exist in all times. His other option is that God exists, because aside from his initial necessity, at all points after he exists contingently upon his continual choice to do so; that God furnishes himself with a purpose to continue existing. Both views are logically coherent and have their defenders and I am not sure which option I would pick.

@jackmt

I think the quotes in your post above are a bit messed up.

Is this directed to me? What quotes? How? Or is this just another ad hominem?

This is a very different question, I am sorry I did not see it in the OP. For myself, the answer 'God necessarily is' certainly does not answer the 'why' question at all. It provides the logical terminus to contingency and we have good reason to think that God, if he exists at all does so from brute necessity. When I probe the 'why' question the answer certainly is unsatisfactory, we may not be able to understand it, but that does not mean we cannot try. For myself, I like the view put forward by Richard Swinburne in 'The Intrinsic Probability of Theism'; he puts forward two sorts of necessary existence for God. The first, that God exists, because he must, that if he exists in one time, he therefor by definition ought to exist in all times. His other option is that God exists, because aside from his initial necessity, at all points after he exists contingently upon his continual choice to do so; that God furnishes himself with a purpose to continue existing. Both views are logically coherent and have their defenders and I am not sure which option I would pick.

I withdraw

The statement in your post above says '91 wrote' but I did not write it, it is actually from vigilans. I am not attacking you or taking issue with your comment, my point was purely procedural and I am just pointing out that the 'quote' bars in your post are inaccurate. My apologies if this was not immediately clear.

Before God there was the universe and everything in it, everyone going about there business, information being processed until it finally became self-aware and said let there be light. Endlessly repeating process. What's interesting is, while I learned this on an acid trip, it fits Roger Penrose's beautifully elegant idea that when the universe has reached maximum entropy after billions and billions of years it effectively becomes a point because without matter space loses dimension. As the last proton decays into energy, the big bang happens. Very very clever.

Before God there was the universe and everything in it, everyone going about there business, information being processed until it finally became self-aware and said let there be light. Endlessly repeating process. What's interesting is, while I learned this on an acid trip, it fits Roger Penrose's beautifully elegant idea that when the universe has reached maximum entropy after billions and billions of years it effectively becomes a point because without matter space loses dimension. As the last proton decays into energy, the big bang happens. Very very clever.

The fault would be mine then, for not being more apparent in my OP. Ultimately I just do not see a guiding intellect as a necessary element to existence. In some ways I see this as a form of solipsism. All of these metaphysical propositions about the nature of God and existence are interesting, but I do not see them as more satisfying then a scientific explanation that is subject to change; furthermore it is clearly outside the realm of science as I can think of no way to actually test and observe whether there is a God or not. Anecdotes can be made but proving a guiding intelligence is behind it all seems to be something that absolutely has to be taken on faith

I should have titled this thread "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around..."