A necessary being that has always existed. How do you know? Do you have evidence for this?
If I define the universe as, ‘everything’, then does God become a subset of the universe? If the universe is everything, then multiverses would also become a subset of the universe.
If that is the case, then do you think the universe becomes ‘necessary’?
If you allow for God to have always existed, then could we not allow that the universe has always existed?
You appear to indicate the possibility of this when you refer to “… or multiverse even if time is past infinite.” If so, then God cannot be ‘ontically prior’.
If God has always existed and the universe has always existed, then God could not have created the universe.
Firstly, amongst your ‘ultimate set of facts’, you have not demonstrated that God is a fact. If the universe has always existed – which we are unable to prove or disprove – then God is not ‘metaphysically necessary’. The ‘ontic bedrock’ becomes the things which make up the universe. The difference is that we can demonstrate that such things exist.
I asked you, ”How do you know? Do you have evidence for this?” You have not let me know. So your ‘God is metaphysically necessary’ is not demonstrable and is thus simply an assertion.
I didn’t mention ‘non-physical’. If the universe is everything and God is a subset of the universe, then I need you to tell me if God is a thing. If you think that God is not a thing, then I would like you to tell me, in that context, what God is.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘non-standard’. The universe has frequently been described as ‘everything that exists’.
‘Does God exist’? I said nothing about ‘that part of it that refers to God’.
If the universe is defined as ‘everything’ or ‘everything that exists’ – which is certainly not non-standard
...then that leaves you to demonstrate that God exists. And that God is a thing. In either case, the universe is necessary and God becomes a subset of the universe. But the difference is that we are both able to demonstrate that the universe exists.
...if the universe includes everything, and God is a thing, then do you accept that God cannot be ‘ontically prior’?
Your attempt at an analogy refers to particles within the universe and, therefore, a subset of the universe. If it is not temporal then what is it? If you assert that God exists outside of time – whatever that means – and I assert that the universe exists in time and outside of time, then God is still a subset of the universe if God is a thing.
You are free to believe your claim, but do you think that provides a sound enough argument for me to believe that?
Why do you have to resort to such contortions?Part of your own definition of God is that he “always existed“. Does ‘always’ mean infinite time or not?
I don’t need to quibble in any case. If you want to use ‘always’ instead of ‘infinite’, then that is fine by me. I will then claim that the universe could have always existed.
Of course not, because they are unable to demonstrate God’s existence and they have to find a hidden spot for him/her/it somewhere.
I asked you to demonstrate that God exists. You tried these three statements:1) God is metaphysically necessary.2) God is the ontic bedrock [OB] of reality.3) Thus, God is a necessary being that always existedRegarding the first of those statements; that is not a demonstration in any shape or form. It is an assertion with no evidence, particularly since you have not demonstrated God’s ‘ontic priority’. According to the first sentence of the Stanford Encyclopaedia, “It is not easy to say what metaphysics is.” You betcha. So each time you use the term, you had better be prepared to explain how the term has improved your argument because, to me, it has not done so.
You then asserted that “God is the ontic bedrock of reality”. That is not a demonstration of anything. It is your perception. Your belief. Nothing more.
It is also, incidentally, a tautology; you are referring to the real bedrock of reality. Which really doesn’t say much.
Your third is a further reminder that you believe that God has always existed. No demonstration, no explanation of how you know.
How is this anything more than word salad? You have not explained ‘non-physical referent’. You have provided no example.
You have tried to explain what fundamental means – as if that is of some significance – and you have referred to God as a fundamental object. But that is, once more, simply an assertion.
So please tell me more about how you think God is a non-physical thing. Yes, I can provide an example; God as a figment of your imagination.
I notice that, once more, you didn’t have the decency to remind me.
Is this the level of discussion to which we are reduced?
If you know anything useful about your God, then why has He not arranged the galaxies in such a way?
You are wriggling and you know it.
The universe contains thoughts, dreams and emotions. It contains space. It contains spacetime. I would like you to tell me what you think it does not contain.
And ‘God’ is not, in itself, an answer. Is there a realm outside of the universe? If so, can you describe it?
There is absolutely no equivocation. ‘Non-physical referents’ and even ‘things’ with ‘inferred existence’ exist within the confines of the universe. If you think they are elsewhere, then tell me where.
Platonism is the view that there exist such things as abstract objects — where an abstract object is an object that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental.
I am trying really hard but I am floundering.
You have already mentioned existence as the referent but now you have claimed the same thing for God. Which, as far as I can see, means that you are stating, as a claim which you have not justified, that God equals existence or the other way round because another word means “I am”. . . The other (?) properties of God are very much tied to his ‘nature of existing’ (unexplained) which as I said is a required state of affairs.
If you think that such an assemblage of words amounts to any sort of ‘explanation’, let alone ‘demonstration’ or ‘evidence’, then we are so far apart that there is no point in us continuing. You have demonstrated my reluctance to accept such unjustified assertions.
It's a Goldilocks ontic bedrock since it lacks the simplicity of nothingness (which as a contingent brute fact it could fail to exist) or the extreme details such as Sean Carroll's Wave Function ontology which includes our discussion as part of this ontic bedrock. ..In case of Sean Carroll's ontology it is not a Goldilock's ontology at all since as part of that ontology we are "now" having this discussion -- and not just once but an infinite times right "now" and an infinite times "in the past" and an infinite times "in the future." See here. I don't think this view is at all tenable. But, in fairness to Sean, naturalism cannot provide a good solution as to why any "just so" brute fact exists.
In the interview Carroll mentions the possibility of an evolving wave function (more than once) and nothing about infinite repeats either (not in this interview). You have to get into more details about what he proposes as you are misrepresenting him here. He has a very specific set of explanatory hypotheses of how SOA's might have evolved.
Sean believes in eternal inflation and Everett's many worlds. He's also a B-theorist. Hence, eternal inflation suggests that there are an infinite number of regions where the parameters of our universe and everything happening "now" are being repeated an infinite number of times and will be repeated an infinite number of times in the future. He has stated an infinite past cosmology but it's not clear if he still believes that. However, there are also an infinite number of Everett copies of us in every universe as well. And, as a B-theorist he believes that there is no tensed view of these events so the universal wave function has these features as just one all-encompassing "now." Your next post is part of this "now" or ontic bedrock. There's no cause or reason for it. Just like the infinite copies of "you" existing in the B-timeline they are all going to say the same thing (well, a larger infinite number might say something different but an infinite number will say the same things). This is all for no reason or cause.
What you have just done was to impose your understanding of some other views and merged it with what you think his views might be and not necessarily conveying all of his views accurately. You could be attacking a straw man.
^ That whole caboodle is not his view. Full stop. And let me not divert the current discussion any further.