How is God logically and ontologically necessary?

[thegrons]

I sometimes have a short-circuit and lose track of my thoughts (the beauty of aging). Can someone explain to me how God is logically necessary and ontologically necessary? I will write what I believe and please tell me where I am wrong or what I lack in my understanding.

1. God is ontologically necessary because if anything exists it owes it existence to something else since it contingently exists or it is eternal and has the power of self existence. (This might be more logical than ontological?) Second argument: ex nihilo nihil fit - something cannot come from nothing; this seems more ontological but can only be defended from intuition (which is very strong) but it too has a logical element in that if something pops into existence from nothing the creature is its own creator and we (have P and -P).

Am I missing something in the need for a necessary being who has the power of self existence?

1. God is logically necessary because if we observe the universe, we cannot deny that everything has a cause and effect relationship (even if we cannot know the intrinsic causes) and if the universe has no beginning point in the chain of causality; then no effect could ever actualize because infinity cannot be trans-versed. So we see God as a regress stopper and again a creator who transcends the universe, an uncaused cause (which doesn’t violate the law of cause and effect as an uncaused effect would) who set the universe in motion. Secondly for the universe to create itself would be self-creation (P and -P) so here are two logical aspects of logical necessary being. But this seems almost identical with my definition of an ontological necessary being so I know I must be missing something? Does Aristotle’s views of eternity not having potential (movement) play into this or is that antiquated philosophy?
2. I know that uncaused causes are logically possible and some scientists claim to see electrons vanishing and disappearing (which could be simply their movement is not detectable), but what logical arguments or ontological arguments would I use to debate the eternal universe argument that the atheist uses? Would it resemble “self-creation” in that if any part of the universe were to be responsible for creating it or sustaining itself this would be self-creation? Or could someone attribute the properties of eternal existence and movement to the universe to defend an eternal universe? I would think this is impossible because if something is eternal it cannot exist in the material realm since everything material is contingent…or could they argue that matter cannot be destroyed and therefore is eternal?

I am trying to avoid the use of any appeal to science because physicists seem to not care about logic these days and will posit any theory that avoids running into God so I would like to meet their arguments on the basis of logic and ontology. Is it ontologically and logically possible to have an eternal universe? If so would this require uncaused causes and therefore present chaos (though we would find order in it a la taxonomy) or would they still have to admit to an immaterial aspect of the universe that is self existent (aka God)?

How could I tidy these two definitions of logical and ontological necessity?

Thanks,

John
PS This thread is not posted for debate but rather learning.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Is it ontologically and logically possible to have an eternal universe? If so would this require uncaused causes and therefore present chaos (though we would find order in it a la taxonomy) or would they still have to admit to an immaterial aspect of the universe that is self existent (aka God)?

I am not clear what you mean by “eternal.” I would understand that word as synonymous with “timeless.” However, since material reality has a causal and, therefore, sequential structure, time would seem an integral element to the space-time continuum we know as the universe.

If you mean by “eternal,” the universe infinitely existing through past time, the standard argument against that possibility is that it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite so we could never have arrived at the present, since the presence would have been preceded by an infinite interval of time. Therefore, the universe (as in space-time), logically, had to have had a beginning in order for present time to obtain.

 

[thegrons]

Thanks Peter yes eternal in the sense of timelessness, I have heard some argue that an actual infinite is possible and that we can transverse infinity. They will often use the set of negative integers, though this is conceptual and I don’t think it is subject to causality; but this doesn’t stop wikipedia and others from citing it as and ensample. Secondly my question would be this: Thomas argued that if the material universe is infinite, then all matter would hav e “worn down” long ago. But isn’t it true that matter is impossible to destroy and it merely changes through entropy so that the same amount of matter is constant in the universe? Couldn’t someone argue and I think they do that the universe merely changes over time, it expands and contracts, so that it is eternally changing and since matter cannot be destroyed it is eternal and timeless? I agree with your statements that material reality is temporal, contingent (modally) but can we prove a causal chain back to God anymore than the atheist can prove the universe is eternal and didn’t require an initial cause?

Thanks for the response,