Is God Designed?

[Jim B.]

My answer to your questions is that "nothing is made of nothing."

I understand what it means. I don't understand how it addresses any of the questions I asked. (Unless you're begging some crucial questions, as I suspect you might be.)

[JimL]

I understand what it means. I don't understand how it addresses any of the questions I asked. (Unless you're begging some crucial questions, as I suspect you might be.)

You asked what is the stuff of existence made of, it's not, it's eternal. Otherwise it would be made of nothing, created out of nothing, spoken into existence, but nothing comes from nothing. Ex Nihilo Nihil fit!

[Jim B.]

You asked what is the stuff of existence made of, it's not, it's eternal. Otherwise it would be made of nothing, created out of nothing, spoken into existence, but nothing comes from nothing. Ex Nihilo Nihil fit!

When I refer to "made of" I mean "composed of," not "caused by." If there is God He would not be a "thing" ie an existent beside other existents, so He would be "No Thing." He would be the eternal and necessary reason for things.

[JimL]

When I refer to "made of" I mean "composed of," not "caused by." If there is God He would not be a "thing" ie an existent beside other existents, so He would be "No Thing." He would be the eternal and necessary reason for things.

It, the substance, is made of, composed of, the same stuff this universe is composed of, which like your notion of god, is why it can be said to be eternal, and why, unlike your notion of god, it can be said that this universe didn't come from nothing.

[Jim B.]

It, the substance, is made of, composed of, the same stuff this universe is composed of, which like your notion of god, is why it can be said to be eternal, and why, unlike your notion of god, it can be said that this universe didn't come from nothing.

Your universe is merely a brute fact with no reason for its existence. It just is and has always been, a brute contingency. Essential to the concept of "God" for well over two millennia are aseity and necessity. "God" as in the concept, the Judeo-Christian concept, carries within Himself His own reason for being, unlike a physical universe. So a mere phyiscal universe did come from "nothing" ontologically or metaphysically speaking, unlike "God," even if it has been around for a infinite duration.

[JimL]

Your universe is merely a brute fact with no reason for its existence. It just is and has always been, a brute contingency. Essential to the concept of "God" for well over two millennia are aseity and necessity. "God" as in the concept, the Judeo-Christian concept, carries within Himself His own reason for being, unlike a physical universe. So a mere phyiscal universe did come from "nothing" ontologically or metaphysically speaking, unlike "God," even if it has been around for a infinite duration.

But either way, whether eternal god, or eternal universe, whichever it is would be a brute fact, and that being the case, neither would have a reason for being.

[Jim B.]

But either way, whether eternal god, or eternal universe, whichever it is would be a brute fact, and that being the case, neither would have a reason for being.

God would not be a brute fact - this would be due to necessity and aseity. Essential to the Judeo-Christian concept of "God" is that God HAS to be, and that He carries within Himself His own reason for being. The universe does not have to be. It merely happens to be.

[Jim B.]

But either way, whether eternal god, or eternal universe, whichever it is would be a brute fact, and that being the case, neither would have a reason for being.

God would not be a brute fact - this would be due to God's necessity and aseity. Essential to the Judeo-Christian concept of "God" is that God HAS to be, and that He carries within Himself His own reason for being. The universe does not have to be. It merely happens to be.

[JimL]

God would not be a brute fact - this would be due to God's necessity and aseity. Essential to the Judeo-Christian concept of "God" is that God HAS to be, and that He carries within Himself His own reason for being. The universe does not have to be. It merely happens to be.

I don't see the reason for that. It may be an essential belief to the Judeo-Christian concept of god, but neither an eternal universe nor an eternal god "would have to be" both the one and the other could just as well not be at all. The opposite would be true as well, if either the one or the other exists eternally, then they would obviously have had to exist. A brute fact.

[Jim B.]

I don't see the reason for that. It may be an essential belief to the Judeo-Christian concept of god, but neither an eternal universe nor an eternal god "would have to be" both the one and the other could just as well not be at all. The opposite would be true as well, if either the one or the other exists eternally, then they would obviously have had to exist. A brute fact.

It's the difference between "necessity" and "contingency." The one essential attribute of God is that he is "necessary," as in ontological necessity. If He exists, He carries the reason for His existence within Himself. "I am that I am." I am the fact that I am. My essence is to be. So God would not be brute. There's nothing about a physical universe that would be necessary or carry within itself its own reason for being. Even if that universe has existed for an infinite duration, its essence is not to exist.

[JimL]

It's the difference between "necessity" and "contingency." The one essential attribute of God is that he is "necessary," as in ontological necessity. If He exists, He carries the reason for His existence within Himself. "I am that I am." I am the fact that I am. My essence is to be. So God would not be brute. There's nothing about a physical universe that would be necessary or carry within itself its own reason for being. Even if that universe has existed for an infinite duration, its essence is not to exist.

I think that the above simply assumes the necessity of a "reason" for being. Any eternally existing thing "is that it is" or "is the fact that it is" or would imply "it's essence is to be". I think that "Necessity" is simply the brute fact that it does indeed exists. I don't see how "reason" for being need apply to the eternal.

[Jim B.]

I think that the above simply assumes the necessity of a "reason" for being. Any eternally existing thing "is that it is" or "is the fact that it is" or would imply "it's essence is to be". I think that "Necessity" is simply the brute fact that it does indeed exists. I don't see how "reason" for being need apply to the eternal.

Necessity and a reason for being are both implicit in the definition of "God" for millennia in the Abrahamic traditions and other traditions also. Those are ontological requirements of this concept called "God." This universe might not have existed or it might not have existed as it is today. There's nothing inherent in physical stuff that makes it necessarily existent or precisely the way that it is. Across all possible worlds, there's nothing about a physical universe that would require it to be exactly as it is right now or to be at all. But if there is a God, then God would be and would be exactly as He is across all possible worlds, IF he meets the definition of "God." If we discover a very powerful being who nevertheless is not necessary and who might not exist across all possible worlds, like a superhero or a Greek God, then that being would not fulfill the definition of "God," but would be A god.

[JimL]

Necessity and a reason for being are both implicit in the definition of "God" for millennia in the Abrahamic traditions and other traditions also. Those are ontological requirements of this concept called "God." This universe might not have existed or it might not have existed as it is today. There's nothing inherent in physical stuff that makes it necessarily existent or precisely the way that it is. Across all possible worlds, there's nothing about a physical universe that would require it to be exactly as it is right now or to be at all. But if there is a God, then God would be and would be exactly as He is across all possible worlds, IF he meets the definition of "God." If we discover a very powerful being who nevertheless is not necessary and who might not exist across all possible worlds, like a superhero or a Greek God, then that being would not fulfill the definition of "God," but would be A god.

Yes, but the so called ontological requirements of this concept we call god are just that, requirements of a concept we call god. The concept is just a concept. But nothing that exists eternally has anything to do with the fact that it exists, that it exists would just be a brute fact and so would it's reason, if indeed it has a reason for being, be a brute fact. No?

But, at any rate, why should we assume that the eternal has a reason for being anyway?

[Leonhard]

So, what is god made of, nothing?

God is pure actuality, He is existence. Asking what he's made of makes about as much sense as asking how many bricks you need in the number 2.

[Leonhard]

But, at any rate, why should we assume that the eternal has a reason for being anyway?

That is not an assumption, all classical theistic arguments argue by logical demonstration that God exists.