What is the need for God?

[bahman]

Another issue is whether you mean 'universe' or The Universe [in caps].
Often God is ultimately associated with the creation of The-Whole-Universe which is not empirically possible.

I mean a universe that is possible. I don't think that our universe is the only one. Our universe exists as an objective idea too. It is objectively real.

Whatever is objectively real must be capable of being justified empirically and philosophically. It is the same of whatever that is possible to be real.

Whatever that is possible is represented by two categories, i.e.

• 1. Can be empirically justified and thought
  2. Can be thought only

Everything that is logically possible could be real. The point that I am trying to make is that nothing is not a thing so it cannot persist to exist since you have no time in nothing, therefore we could have nothing to something if something is logically possible.

Whether there are one, two or multiple universes they are subjected to human definition, otherwise whose else?
In all cases, if these universes are to be objectively real, then they must be able to be justified empirically and philosophically.

The universe, of course, was possible.

If a thing can be thought only but without any empirical elements and cannot be justified empirically, it is merely a thought and cannot possibly be real.

I don't think so.

[bahman]

Eternity can only mean a discriptive of NOW. And now is all that is ever known.

No. Eternity means a duration that has no beginning or end. Now is just an instant.

A duration has a time limit. A duration is not a time without beginning or end. Time is an artifical conceptual imposition upon the blank screen of being which is always NOW this instant. Right NOW there is only this instantaneous NOW

I didn't say the bold part. I said eternity is a duration without beginning or end.

[Skepdick]

I also meant square circle is not possible in Euclidian geometry.

OK, but it is possible in non-Euclidian geometries.

Which is what I said...

If something is logically impossible, you can always construct a new logic in which the 'impossible' becomes possible.

[bahman]

I also meant square circle is not possible in Euclidian geometry.

OK, but it is possible in non-Euclidian geometries.

Which is what I said...

If something is logically impossible, you can always construct a new logic in which the 'impossible' becomes possible.

You need to prove that there is no idea which is logically impossible. If you could have done that then all ideas are logically possible. Like one apple is two apples. Can you imagine a state of affair that is similar to last example?

[bahman]

Sorry, that I missed to reply to your message.

"God as Unnecessary is Proof for Existence"

I don't think so.

thread.

What do you mean?

Necessity, or rather lack of, is not a proof for existence.

Necessity for existence implies existence.

[Skepdick]

You need to prove that there is no idea which is logically impossible.

I don't know what you mean by 'logically impossible'. What are your criteria for possibility/impossibility?

If you could have done that then all ideas are logically possible.

That's exactly what I am saying! Logic has no rules - humans dictate the rules (and limits) of logic.

Like one apple is two apples. Can you imagine a state of affair that is similar to last example?

You mean like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox

[bahman]

You need to prove that there is no idea which is logically impossible.

I don't know what you mean by 'logically impossible'. What are your criteria for possibility/impossibility?

By possible I mean a thing at least exist in a world. By impossible I mean that a thing cannot exist in any world. I gave you an example of the square circle and you told me that that is possible in a specific world.

If you could have done that then all ideas are logically possible.

That's exactly what I am saying! Logic has no rules - humans dictate the rules (and limits) of logic.

Ok. That is interesting. Now my argument is even shorter. Everything is possible. Therefore, there is no need for God.

Like one apple is two apples. Can you imagine a state of affair that is similar to last example?

You mean like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox

Are you saying that there is a reality that 1=2?

[Eodnhoj7]

Sorry, that I missed to reply to your message.

"God as Unnecessary is Proof for Existence"

I don't think so.

thread.

What do you mean?

I said read... "God as unnecessary is Proof for existence" thread

Necessity, or rather lack of, is not a proof for existence.

Necessity for existence implies existence.

Implication is probabilistic thus 99.9 percent of the time "necessity for existence requires existence" shows that .1 percent of the time it does not require it.

A real simple example:

Is it necessary to have plastic to build a house? Yet plastic exists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It cannot be both raining and not-raining outside at exactly the same spot [same sense] i.e. pari-passu.

You mean Schrödinger's cat cannot be both dead and alive at the same time? A photon cannot be both a particle and a wave at the same time?

Again....

Either you value empiricism over logic, or you value logic over empiricism. Choose your values.

Maybe you value empiricism on Mondays and Wednesdays, and logic on Tuesdays and Fridays? I don't know...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism

If same time, but not in the same sense [perspective, context].

[Veritas Aequitas]

I mean a universe that is possible. I don't think that our universe is the only one. Our universe exists as an objective idea too. It is objectively real.

Whatever is objectively real must be capable of being justified empirically and philosophically. It is the same of whatever that is possible to be real.

Whatever that is possible is represented by two categories, i.e.

• 1. Can be empirically justified and thought
  2. Can be thought only

Everything that is logically possible could be real. The point that I am trying to make is that nothing is not a thing so it cannot persist to exist since you have no time in nothing, therefore we could have nothing to something if something is logically possible.

Whether there are one, two or multiple universes they are subjected to human definition, otherwise whose else?
In all cases, if these universes are to be objectively real, then they must be able to be justified empirically and philosophically.

The universe, of course, was possible.

If a thing can be thought only but without any empirical elements and cannot be justified empirically, it is merely a thought and cannot possibly be real.

I don't think so.

bahman: Everything that is logically possible could be real.

Surely you are aware of the basic rule in logic, i.e. difference between 'logical' and 'sound'.
What is logically possible [proper syllogism] may not be sound.

[Skepdick]

By possible I mean a thing at least exist in a world. By impossible I mean that a thing cannot exist in any world. I gave you an example of the square circle and you told me that that is possible in a specific world.

Yes. In two different worlds with two different sets of laws - different things could exist.

Exactly why I said 'Rules maketh logic'. A logical system/universe is defined by its rules.

Ok. That is interesting. Now my argument is even shorter. Everything is possible. Therefore, there is no need for God.

Why not this?

Everything is possible. Even God.

Are you saying that there is a reality that 1=2?

In an over-simplified way and for a specific meaning of "=" - yes.

This is why we need to calibrate the rules/limitations of our logics, with the rules/limitations of our universe. e.g physics.

[Skepdick]

If same time, but not in the same sense [perspective, context].

Strictly speaking - there is only one context. It's called "The Universe". There is only one perspective.

I think it's the first trick they teach in Philosophy 101 to avoid contradicting oneself. Drawing a distinction - creating a new context.

And in this case - this is the certainty/uncertainty distinction in epistemology.

There is reality (to a classic logician): the cat is either dead, or alive but not both.
There is what we know about reality: the cat is both dead and alive - superposition.

[bahman]

Whatever is objectively real must be capable of being justified empirically and philosophically. It is the same of whatever that is possible to be real.

Whatever that is possible is represented by two categories, i.e.

• 1. Can be empirically justified and thought
  2. Can be thought only

Everything that is logically possible could be real. The point that I am trying to make is that nothing is not a thing so it cannot persist to exist since you have no time in nothing, therefore we could have nothing to something if something is logically possible.

Whether there are one, two or multiple universes they are subjected to human definition, otherwise whose else?
In all cases, if these universes are to be objectively real, then they must be able to be justified empirically and philosophically.

The universe, of course, was possible.

If a thing can be thought only but without any empirical elements and cannot be justified empirically, it is merely a thought and cannot possibly be real.

I don't think so.

bahman: Everything that is logically possible could be real.

Surely you are aware of the basic rule in logic, i.e. difference between 'logical' and 'sound'.
What is logically possible [proper syllogism] may not be sound.

Yes, I know the difference. Why my argument does not sound?

[bahman]

Why not this?

Everything is possible. Even God.

I didn't say that God is impossible. I said that there is no need for God. I agree with you that God is possible too.

[Skepdick]

I didn't say that God is impossible. I said that there is no need for God. I agree with you that God is possible too.

I don't even know what that means. There is no 'need' for humans either, yet here we are...