Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-10-2016, 03:18 AM
Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
Hey atheists, maybe you can help me out again...

I'm planning on calling in to the Atheist Experience tonight and ask them the same question I asked here ("Do you believe no gods exist?"), but there is another gripe I have with them that I don't want to bring up if I don't have to. A couple months ago, I called in with a response to the "Who created God?" argument/question, and the segment concluded with Matt saying this:

----"If you are going to try to counter the first cause argument and give an argument for why God didn’t need a cause, the conclusion of that argument needs to be, 'Therefore, God does not require a cause'. The conclusion of that argument should not be 'God maybe requires a cause, maybe doesn’t.'"
For full context you can see the whole segment here. The quote is at 00:30:23.

Now, I think Matt may have misremembered the argument because the conclusion, in the Matt-redefined argument, was "Therefore, God may not be bound by time" or in other words, "God may not have a cause". My question is, isn't this the same thing as saying "God does not require a cause", such that the next step can be "Therefore, God does not require a cause"?

In trying to figure this out, I found this on the wikipedia page for modal logic:
----"It is not necessary that X" is logically equivalent to "It is possible that not X".
----"It is not possible that X" is logically equivalent to "It is necessary that not X".

It seems, then, that I can state my conclusion in the form, "It is possible that God does not have a cause (not X). Therefore, it is not necessary that God has a cause (X)". Am I mistaken?

Also, please don't bring up any other parts of the argument such as "How do you know God is outside of the universe?" until either you try to answer the above question or the question is resolved. I'm not going to respond to any such posts. Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 04:20 AM (This post was last modified: 16-10-2016 04:36 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
At work.

Am no great ponderer of philosophy so are you asking;

"It is possble that ('X') does not have a cause."

= [Therefore]

"It is not necessary that ('X') has a cause."


Consider

Please correct myself.

Also looking forwards to learning from others about the philosophy of the above question.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 04:29 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
OUCH!

(That was my head hurting.)

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 04:34 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 04:29 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  OUCH!

(That was my head hurting.)

You see why I ask! Huh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 04:43 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 04:20 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Am no great ponderer of philosophy so are you asking;

"It is possble that ('X') does not have a cause." = "Therefore, it is not nessary that ('X') has a cause."

It is technically correct but their is a difference in our usage of 'X'. In my question, 'X' represents a proposition such as "God does not have a cause". The 'X' you use is within the proposition itself and represents (I think?) any particular 'thing'. But if you insert 'God' in for your 'X', I think they are equivalent statements.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 05:18 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
At work.

Yes

Indeed, I simply replaced one word for/with one letter.

Thumbsup

Am still thinking about the question/sentence/etc.

Much cheers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 05:19 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
I am probably wrong about this but here goes.

If you see a ball rolling, it is not necessary for there to have been a person who kicked it.

This is not the same as saying there is no cause for this rolling ball.

In other words, a god is not necessary for a universe to exist, just as a person is not necessary for a ball to be rolling.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
16-10-2016, 06:00 AM (This post was last modified: 16-10-2016 06:05 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
At work.

In regards to the first part. "Is it possible that ('X') does not have a cause."

My answer to such is 'Yes'.

Consider this.

I, or some one on this forum or even some some where has a 'Slpetch'. It's a small, interestingly shaped object. Can be easily held in the palm of a hand. Pleasant to touch and hold. The fingers can easily rub around its shape or be absently fondled/manipulated while the mind ponders other things. It can have chord, string or chain added to it through gaps in its material.

So... some where in the future Science(ists) finally think they've cracked the problem of Time Travel.

By massaging a Higg's bosun just the right way some amount of matter can beat Einstein's light barrier and be whisked away!

In the course of setting up the experiment. One of the technicians has been the inheritor of the 'Slpetch'. They think the item has brought them good luck and, in a moment of whimsy, slip the small widget into the package. (Much like the small piece of art smuggled to the Moon. Look it up Smile )

Unfortunately. ... something seems to go wrong and, instead of receiving telemetry from the past. Humanity finds itself with yet another device which releases 'Explosive' amounts of energy.

Shrugging their shoulders, Science(tist) bottle the power and a grand new dawn begins for Human kind.

Unknown to all, however, is that the 'Slpetch' has survived the experiment and winds up an untold amount of time 'in the past'. Only to eventually be found, passed on and eventually be placed within an experiment. Sending it back in time etc.

So, again, yes I can imagine something that it is possible for/that 'Slpetch' ('X') does not have a cause.

Big Grin

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 06:15 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 05:19 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I am probably wrong about this but here goes.

If you see a ball rolling, it is not necessary for there to have been a person who kicked it.

This is not the same as saying there is no cause for this rolling ball.

In other words, a god is not necessary for a universe to exist, just as a person is not necessary for a ball to be rolling.

Consider It's an analogy, but I don't know if it's a good analogy. For a ball rolling, we know that all it needs is a force to set things in motion, which there are plenty of in the universe. We don't know of anything that can cause a universe, so we don't have any explanations for it. What that seems to mean is that any proposal is possible as long as it isn't illogical, goes against what we know. Which, if anything is possible, it seems none of them are necessary.

But is there any natural explanation that doesn't break our current understanding of reality? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 06:27 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 03:18 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  It seems, then, that I can state my conclusion in the form, "It is possible that God does not have a cause (not X). Therefore, it is not necessary that God has a cause (X)". Am I mistaken?

I'd say you are right but it is pointless. Arguments must be both valid and sound and if you can't demonstrate the premises then you don't have anything useful. The rules of logical inference help you move from one statement to a logically consistent statement but logical consistency does not equate to truth.

If it possible that unicorns are not blue, therefore it is not necessary that unicorns are blue.

If you can show that it IS possible that a god can exist without having a cause than it would be fair to say that it is not necessary that an existent god has a cause. Big whoop. You really do need to show that (a) the god exists and (b) no cause is needed.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: