Simple question?

Why can't there be more than one non-contingent being?

They are all outside of time, so there is no notion of "first" and they are all eternal. Any number of them could just "have been" forever. Any number of them could have created our universe, with any number of them staying on the sidelines or creating other universes.

One of my opinions is pretty simple - there does not have to be a god or gods, and if there is or are, they don't have to be the one or ones that are currently believed in.

I find the chain of evidence to be weak and paper-thin, and with holes in it.

Philosophical arguments and proofs are fine, for philosophical issues. I require more, for something that is supposed to be real, and exist outside of our minds. People can believe in a philosophy, and they can call it "real" but that does not give philosophy physical properties or allow them to act on or influence the world without us to carry it around.

That is why science has pretty much stopped trying to prove that god does or does not exist - it is a matter of philosophy which exists only within our own minds.

Quote: Dalex64

So please kindly remove popularity contests and whether or not we currently believe in something from your repertoire of proof that one god exists and another god does not.

They might be reasons for us to examine something more closely, but they are not evidence of anything, one way or the other.

Please remember we are not talking about proof but rather evidence. For this reason your last sentence is self-contradictory. Evidence is that which gives us reason to examine things more closely. You cannot say that the numbers of people holding to something gives us reason to examine it more closely and then in the same breath say it is not evidence of anything. If it was not evidence of anything than why would we want to look closer at it? If a million people say that this person committed the crime it does not make him guilty, but it does make him a person of interest, wouldn't you say?

Quote: FrGamble

When we see evil we are repulsed and when we see good we rejoice. This is not the reaction we should have if both these things were really just neutral amoral random occurrences.

This is a perfectly natural reaction if you consider natural selection and how we evolved to perpetuate our species by having things that are good for us as a species and society make us feel good, and bad things make us feel bad.

Quote: Dalex64

Why can't there be more than one non-contingent being?

They are all outside of time, so there is no notion of "first" and they are all eternal. Any number of them could just "have been" forever. Any number of them could have created our universe, with any number of them staying on the sidelines or creating other universes.

Mind blown! Okay I think putting aside the redundancy and unnecessary complications that multiple non-contingent beings cause I also think you run into a problem when talking about the infinite power, etc. of these non-contingent beings but maybe I should let Nareed address that difficulty with you.

Quote:

One of my opinions is pretty simple - there does not have to be a god or gods, and if there is or are, they don't have to be the one or ones that are currently believed in.

I find the chain of evidence to be weak and paper-thin, and with holes in it.

What is your chain of evidence that there is no God?

Quote:

Philosophical arguments and proofs are fine, for philosophical issues. I require more, for something that is supposed to be real, and exist outside of our minds. People can believe in a philosophy, and they can call it "real" but that does not give philosophy physical properties or allow them to act on or influence the world without us to carry it around.

That is why science has pretty much stopped trying to prove that god does or does not exist - it is a matter of philosophy which exists only within our own minds.

Science recognizes that it has not the ability to prove that God does or doesn't exist. We are dependent on philosophy for that. Much like Science itself is dependent on philosophy. The philosophy of the scientific method is not something that was discovered through an experiment but it is an idea. These ideas are more real than the physical actions or properties they inspire.

Quote: Dalex64

This is a perfectly natural reaction if you consider natural selection and how we evolved to perpetuate our species by having things that are good for us as a species and society make us feel good, and bad things make us feel bad.

The problem is some of the things we consider bad make us feel good and some of the things that make us feel bad we consider good. We have to have a better determining factor about whether something is good or bad than how it makes us feel. Something supernatural or above our nature allows us to truly evolve into the unique human beings we are that consider sacrifice for your country or kind selfless acts to your neighbor as good and selfish greed very bad.

Redundancy and unnecessary complication, while inconvenient, is not proof or disproof of an assertion.

It is your assertion that there is one being with infinite power. If there are two beings, and infinite power available, how much power does each being have? I think that is what Nareed was trying to say. What if these beings DON'T have infinite power, but instead have a LOT of power, an equal amount of power to each-other, and ENOUGH power to create and control a universe? Infinite is pretty big, and is bigger than is necessary to do the job. Of course, by placing these beings outside of time and making them exist forever, you make it necessary for there to be infinite power, in order for them to exist forever. So again, what is twice infinity or half infinity? If infinite power is available, an infinite number of beings can all wield it.

Why should I be expected to disprove your god, when you can not disprove the other gods? Your proof seems to be that the other gods don't agree with your philosophy on how you think things are.

The Catholic assertion isn't that there must have been some supernatural force to create the universe, it is that PLUS the assertion that it is what you think God is. That is two things that you have to prove.

If you can show me where we can look to see God, then we can look there and use "absence of evidence" to prove god doesn't exist. If there is nowhere to look, or no way to look, then you can not use evidence to disprove god. Now, this is very important: that does not prove that god exists!

Asking someone to disprove god with evidence - that is one of the reasons that Pastafarianism has become so popular. It embodies how you can look at something, declare it as evidence for something, and then shout "prove me wrong!"

Quote: FrGamble

The problem is some of the things we consider bad make us feel good and some of the things that make us feel bad we consider good. We have to have a better determining factor about whether something is good or bad than how it makes us feel. Something supernatural or above our nature allows us to truly evolve into the unique human beings we are that consider sacrifice for your country or kind selfless acts to your neighbor as good and selfish greed very bad.

Not everyone is the same, and if you again consider that evolution is the result of random mutations and positive reinforcement (successfulness) you will realize that there is more than one way to be successful. Evil and selfishness, community and altruism, and a mindless eating machines like sharks are all successful strategies.

There is good, evil, and none-of-the-above in the world because of random mutation and success as a survival strategy.

Quote: FrGamble

This is a biased, incorrect, and poor interpretation of the story of Job.

It's the only right interpretation, given the whole story.

I did forget to add if Jehovah loved Job so much he had him tortured, he must have adored Job's wife and children whom he had killed.

Quote: FrGamble

When we see evil we are repulsed and when we see good we rejoice. This is not the reaction we should have if both these things were really just neutral amoral random occurrences. We all feel very strongly that acts are moral and immoral and we reward and punish people based on this fundamental idea. I grant you that maybe this would be an easy solution to the problem of evil but a very unsatisfying and depressing one. The problem of evil is tough but having faith that no matter what evil we endure that a loving God will make it right and bring good from it is a far better solution for me.

Well, as soon as you add an intelligent sentient creature even a human, it's fair to ask why they inflict unnecessary pain or harm. If I catch my coat in a taxi door and am dragged down the street that is going to be bad for me. But it is not evil. If someone slams my coat in the door and purposely drags me down the street that is intentional harm. But they are both essentially the same action.

I question the second action when there is an intelligent being behind it, just as I question why a intelligent creator makes creatures he plans to destroy and absolves himself of responsibility all the while knowing what is going to happen from the beginning.

Quote:

I think there are some serious problems with your coherent theory here. The story of Christianity does not try to explain things that science at the time could not, its not about thunderbolts being Zeus' wrath or anything like that. It never attempts to be a scientific textbook. Secondly, the story of Christianity is all about freedom not control. An poor man from a poor hard working family becomes an preacher much to the chagrin of the ruling class of both the Jews and Romans. He preaches that every human person is loved by God, He cures lepers, eats dinner with tax collectors and prostitutes, He scolds those who are in power and claims that He is God who has become one of us to serve and not to be served. He washes the feet of His disciples and dies on the cross for our sins and three days later once again defies the powers that be, even death, by His Resurrection. The faith is spread through the poor and needy while it is persecuted by the authorities and even emperors, all who are powerless to stop it. Now it is the largest religion in the world and has spread through the world changing everything. It is the opposite message of keeping people in control it empowers them to see their inherent dignity as a human person and child of God and to never let anyone oppress or rob you of that fundamental truth. I think both you and Evenbob have to reexamine if Christinaity is really about keeping people in control.

Well, try not to get Evenbob's points and mine mixed up together.

I'm not inferring one reason for Christianity's or any other religion's success, but many possible reasons why it survives. But the point is the same, it has outcompeted other myths. Control could be one, but it's not the only reason any myth would survive over another.

And if you're trying to point out that no one would ever purposely do what Jesus is purported to do you probably haven't examined the strange and various things humans find rewarding. People run grueling ultra marathons. They put objects through their bodies and scar their skin. They fast and cleanse. They jump in artic temps waters for fun. And yup, they even do actions to help people who need such help, even atheists do it and get something out of it.
People go to dangerous countries risking their lives for different causes. That's what they find rewarding.

Quote:

Even if you did believe that with enough monkeys and enough time you could pump out the perfect entire works of Shakespeare (and you really should ask yourself if you really believe that and think about it). You still have to try to answer how those monkeys, paper, and typewriters got there in the first place. They didn't just materialize out of nothing, they don't have the power to create themselves, and they are not necessary beings.

I'll concede that a intelligent creator could have created the Big Bang, and the process of evolution. (in other words instead of Shakespeare he created millions of monkeys and all the typewriters)

But the process used obviously wasn't intended to reveal an intelligent creator. And the process, IMO, doesn't need one to explain why it works either.

BTW, yes I do believe it's possible, simply because it is possible to create small parts of Shakespeare. It's already been done randomly. And the result would actually look like the Universe in a rough analogy. Zillions of pages of typing that is not Shakespeare, but a small portion that was, among all those monkey typed pages.

EDIT - and if you want a central theme for my answers, it's why the Universe actually fits my model better than it does yours. I'm not going to claim that I'm right, just that there is very little hoop jumping needed to make it work.

Quote: FrGamble

That is true, but a blind person can be pretty sure someone or something exists can't he?

And you can bring up the non-sequitur as easily as you draw breath, it seems.

Quote:

Does the world being flat or round have a necessary and direct connection to YHWH in the same way a leprechaun has with his pot of gold?

Hell, yes. Consider:

You claim this guy, Jehovah, created the whole universe. Then we should expect him to know all planets are spheroids and not pancakes. For him to say otherwise indicates 1) ignorance of nature of the universe to match that of the primitives he's talking to or 2) the fact that these primitives wrote the books to begin with.

Of course, at the time plenty of people knew the world to be round (mistakenly thinking it a sphere rather than a spheroid, but given the tools available, that was very close). Strangely those who had a holy book to guide them persisted in the wrong interpretation of reality. You'd think the opposite would be so, as pagans had no direct line to the creator of the universe to learn better.

Quote:

Please remember that when we are talking about issues of faith you don't need irrefutable proof but what you do need is reasonable evidence that points us towards the probable assumption that it is more likely that God exists.

I need irrefutable proof. I have no use for faith.

Quote:

That being said this question you brought up does kind of have irrefutable logic behind the answer that there cannot be many gods.

Let me make this clear: I believe there are NO GODS AT ALL.

Quote:

Ironically you kind of alluded to the problem in some recent posts of yours that pointed out the impossibility of having two equally all-powerful gods. The law of identity makes it pretty clear that all-powerful means just that, that there is no one who can be more or equally powerful.

You're making several wrong assumptions here. First that I believe in any gods. I no more believe in Athena than I do in Jehovah. In fact, I find belief in either to be equally ludicrous.

Second, you assume all gods, as imagined by their creators, are equal. This is not so. No Greek god is all powerful (what with the Greeks and later the Romans being well versed on the state of the art of their time and all), and you'll find the same for most other deities in all other cultures. So simply saying no more than one all powerful god can exist, is as valid as disproving unicorns by saying invisible unicorns cannot exist.

So, I shall await your proof that Moloch, Ptah, Ahura Mazda, etc. are not real.

Quote:

Of course not, but they are closer to being correct than atheism so I can't wait to hear the irrefutable proof God does not exist.

Are they?

Well, do you mean it would be "closer to being correct" if I were to sacrifice children to Moloch?

Come, that has to be "closer to being correct" than my current practice of respecting the rights of all individuals, most emphatically including children.