So, you’re claiming that, by definition, a ‘necessary being’ cannot exist?
No, not by definition. That is your type of con-game, not mine. The definition of “possible worlds” and the concept of “necessary” and “contingent” existence say nothing about the actual existence of a being who (what) is “necessary”.
The definition of “contingent being” is something that exists in some, but not all possible worlds.
The definition of “necessary being” is something that exists in all possible worlds.
The definition of “possible world” is a state of affairs which does not contain a contradiction.
That is all. God is never mentioned.
Then I gave the algorithm to find if a necessary being exists or not.
Then I gave the proof that there are at least two possible worlds, which have nothing in common, so there cannot be a necessary being.
The “necessary” being is not defined out of existence, the proof only shows that it is just an empty concept without referents in the real world.
That ‘proof’ works… but only if you can prove that the definition of a ‘world’ (i.e., a universe, I’d presume), encompasses only the physical elements of that world.
No, the proof works, period. It does not assume anything about the structure of the possible world. The proposition: “a state of affairs which does not contain a contradiction” says nothing about physical existence. It does not exclude non-physical existence (of which we have examples in concepts), it does not exclude even the concept of God. It only stipulates the lack of contradictions.
It is you, who tried to “smuggle in” God by somehow stipulating that the concept of “possible world” must include God. You are the one who tries to “define God into existence”.
Actually, the possible world might not even have any physical elements at all. It does not have to be something that we might call “universe”. It is just a state of affairs. A possible state of affairs might be one where there is “God”, sitting in the middle of a “no-space”, “no-time” kind of a black hole - like the one “what supposed to have existed” before the famous “let there be light” command. Then there could be another one, where the only actual entity is what you call “Satan”. Neither one of these are logically impossible, so they are possible worlds… and have nothing in common.
Since God – by definition – is not part of the physical world, all you’ve done is prove that you can’t prove God by excluding Him from the domain of your experiment. We agree: if you ignore God, you cannot prove He exists!
Nonsense. I do not “ignore” God I am willing to contemplate God as a hypothesis.
Here is the point. If there would be a necessary being, then you might start to argue that this necessary being is “God”. In the definition of “possible world” there is no mention of God, neither included nor excluded. God is supposed to the “rabbit” pulled out of the “top hat” of the magician as the final attraction of the show.
You do again the unacceptable: you wish to incorporate God in the concept of “possible world”. In other words: “you try to define God into existence”. There are only two ways to prove God’s existence. One is to pray to God to manifest himself to everyone in the world, submit to some question-and-answer sessions, present physical evidence for his power and knowledge. Not like to succeed knowing that God is notoriously camera-shy.
The other one is to start with some well know feature of the physical world, for which not only there is no natural explanation, there never will a natural explanation - ever! That would point to a “supernatural” cause. There are three problems with this attempt. How could you show that for some natural event there cannot be a natural explanation. “Omniscience”, anyone? The second one is: "how can you prove that this entity is the Christian God? The third one is: “on what ground would this be considered an explanation”? What you could say is “an known and unknowable entity made it somehow happen in an inexplicable way”. Would THAT be an explanation?
Furthermore, you guys like to add some off-the-wall (mostly nonsensical) properties to God, and if someone questions the validity of those assumptions, your “reply” is: “but that is NOT the God we talk about!”. God must have all those attributes, since we DEFINE God as such. God must exist, since our definition includes that “God is a necessary Being, someone who cannot non-exist”. God must be “infinitely good, since we declare that ‘God is Love’ and that MAKES God infinitely good.” And so on, ad nauseam.
As for the four possible approaches:
A causes B,
B causes A,
A and B are both caused by an external entity, and
A and B are independent, and their one-to-one correspondence is just an incredibly lucky break.
You cannot present a “fifth” one and could not do it in the past - because there is none. But I cut you some slack. If you think you can do that, go ahead, make my day. But don’t try to con me by saying: “I already did… go and dig it out”.
). As such, since it is a collection of all “moments,” it is not irrational that God would be able to experience those “moments” that contain the universe, and those that do not.
