A simple mind which is not contaminated with inspiration from Satan would not doubt the necessity of Allah. Philosophers who are close friends of Satan would doubt, and hence this issue is very popular in the study of Philosophy of religion. Here are few communication on the topic, starting from a post by Terry, and follow-up by Helen and my comments afterwards.
by Terry Weldin-Frisch - Wednesday, 2 May 2007, 08:57 PM
I start with the caveat that I’m not sure I caught all the nuances of the arguments but I think this will give us a start. I hope we can work together toward some sort of consensus on a definition of necessity but frankly, I’m not holding my breath. By the way, I’m attaching a power point presentation I found by Daniel von Wachter discussing the same information in his paper recommended by Mawson. I thought this might be of interest to some of you.
Apparently, there is an important distinction to be made when it comes to the question Mawson asks on (67) “In what sense of necessity do theists regard God’s existence as necessary?” Mawson goes on to discuss metaphysical necessity as God “…not depending for his existence in any sense on anything, not being able not to exist.” So going back to Mawson’s opening question, “In what sense of necessity do theists regard God’s existence as necessary?” it appears that he is saying they tend to answer in one of two ways, either logical necessity or metaphysical necessity, but that in the majority it is the latter. Therefore, throw your hat in with the majority!
A note on distinctions here may be important to shedding light on which strategy a theist might want to choose in terms of defining necessity versus say, a logical positivist. In Daniel von Wachter’s article recommended by Mawson, The Necessity of God’s Existence, von Wachter discusses the historical background to logical necessity based on the work of logical positivists such as Schlick and Ayer. For them logical necessity became synonymous with analytic (a priori) statements such as “Bachelors are unmarried”. This type of statement turns out to be true by definition and further, the predicate is ‘contained’ in the subject. So, for a philosopher of religion after logical positivism, it was thought one could just say “God exists” is analytic and be done with it. However, this turned out to be quite contentious because in this case “exists” is not contained in the word God in the way that “unmarried” is contained in bachelor. Further, to say “God does not exist” would be as contradictory as to say “Socrates is a married bachelor.” So, von Wachter posits that although logical necessity is not an acceptable position for theist to inhabit, synthetic necessity (SN) is. For him, SN is the sort of argument that goes something like “SN obtains where a statement of the form “Necessarily p” (or “It cannot be that so-and-so”) is true and neither it, nor p, is analytic. For example, “Nothing can be green and red all over” is presumably a case of SN if the concept of being not red is not contained in the concept of being green. “Necessarily, bachelors are unmarried”, on the other hand, is not a case of synthetic necessity because it is analytic that bachelors are unmarried. “God exists necessarily” is a case of synthetic necessity if, given that God exists and that “God exists” is not analytic, it is true to say that God exists necessarily.” (518).
It appears then, from a theistic perspective, we might want to start this discussion by stating that the definition of necessity we are willing to entertain is not the definition understood by logical necessity where “God exists” is understood as an analytic statement and if analytic, says nothing about God. Rather, it would be a better position for theist to start by asserting that “God exists” is not analytic but rather is synthetic in the sense that if God exists, it is true to say that God exists necessarily.
Well, this is a first stab so let's just refine it from here.
by Helen Tinkler - Wednesday, 2 May 2007, 10:37 PM
I really like the simplicity of the equation God exists (is) = He is necessary, though I suppose some might say wasps also exist and there is not much in the way of a necessity there. What I find very difficult to empathise with is the total lack of any projection of human emotion into what we believe to be fundamnetal to a relationship with God. Words, words, words but no emotion at all! When looked at closely aren't most "necessities" simply wants, desires and wishes? But in terms God, isn't he so necessary becasue he is a precondition to life on earth? Humans need life sustaining elements. If we accept God as creator, omnipotent and omniscient, then he created all those elements. Therefore he must be the fundamental necessity to the creation and continuance of life. If he is not omnipotent, he may not be the creator and if he is not omniscient then he may not know all that we need to survive perhaps. Our reliance upon him is necessary because it is totally dependent without which life would end.
by Abdul Baqi Sharaf - Thursday, 3 May 2007, 06:51 PM
I think I will agree with both of you and I would think that Terry was focusing on logical necessary and being -just- bound with formal logic made Helen find it dry and demanded 'getting out' of the boundary of 'logic' and enter into the world of 'emotion', and I think the argument of Helen's emotion was correct and would have created another form of necessary (which I bet the atheist philosophers whould never agree) and I mean "Emotional Necessary"..
However, if we want to restrict ourselves within the realm of "traditional" philosophy and want to keep "emotions" away still I would think that the "Existence of God" should extend to include all other necessities and not only logical -be it synthetic or analytic- and metaphysical..
thus it might be bold to claim that the existence of God is physically, metaphysically, mathematically, morally, emotionally and logically necessary..
how should I then justify this strong claim?
Physical Laws necessitates that any physically existing thing which started to exist must have something or someone which caused it to exist. A building can not erect itself, nor can it exist without someone built it.
Physical laws explains that any object is necessarily holds into it’s position through some kind of “gravity” from a higher (and more powerful) object. Thus we all are “in-place” because of the “gravity” attraction that makes us stay firm of earth. Similarly, moon is in it’s place because the earth makes it get attracted to it and thus orbit it. Similarly the earth (and moon) are in their orbit, because another greater start (which is Sun) holds it in place. If we start to extrapolate, then we must end at an omnipotent being who necessarily “stop” this series by being the “holder” of all other objects in their position and who necessarily needs no external (and bigger and more powerful) force to hold him in place. Thus God is physically necessary.
Mathematical necessity deals with numbers and arithmetic. A fact that mankind shares and history supports that a country (or community) can not be reigned by two kings. There has to be one. Two kings in a country necessitates in a perpetual dispute between the two. There has to be only one king, so no one would dispute and question his authority. If this universe is considered to be a territory where many organs function under systematic laws, then pure mathematical necessity requires to have only One governing king behind it, and that is God.
If Metaphysical necessity requires to have a cause behind the existence of a being that was brought into existence after being non-existent, then it is necessary that this cause can not be caused by some other prior cause, and this cause is eternal and he is God.
When people indulge into immoral activities of injustice, rape, murder, etc and the criminal goes unpunished. Or when a hardworking noble person suffers and the lazy advances, then morally it is necessary that the criminal gets the punishment and the hard worker gets the reward. The reality of our world shows, however, that this is not the case. There are many incidence where the criminal remains undetected and there are so many cases that a hardworking sincere person spends much harder time than someone who stays in luxury albeit he is an idle and insincere person. Moral necessity, thus, necessitates that there exists a God who is omniscience and omnipotent who sets a judgment day where the un-noticed and unpunished criminal gets punishment and the un-rewarded hard worker gets reward.
Logical necessity seems to be analytic facts, where the truth of the fact is embedded inside the proposition and the proposition alone –with some analysis- will reveal it’s necessary. Thus the word bachelor has the fact embedded with it which means “not married”. If this is the case then, God being “creator” has the fact embedded within it that says “he created the universe”. If someone creates such a complicated universe must (necessarily) be: very knowledgeable (omniscience) and very powerful (omnipotent).
Even if we move from analytic sentence to synthetic sentence, then God must also exist, and it seems this existence (through analytics) is far more stronger. This becomes the case if we consider the formal modal grammatical rule as follows:
necessary (P) <-> not (possible) not (P)
if P is the statement "God exists”, then (1) means “ God exists if and only if it is not possible that God does not exist”. Thus it is important to show that the proposition “God does not exist” is not possible. To do that, I think bringing all other necessity types that I mentioned above (like mathematical, moral, physical, and metaphysical) will bring enough analytical support for the statement (1). Thus I think God is also logically necessary.
Based on the above discussions, I would say:
DEFINITION: Necessity (of God) can be best defined as the strongest form of necessity which spans multiple types of necessity, from being physically necessary as any creation must need a creator and that creators can not sustain without continuous support “and holding” from the creator (like the earth which supports the moon beings in it’s orbit). The existence of God is also metaphysically necessary for if the universe is considered as coming into existence from being non-existent, then there must be a cause who is not caused by others. Also the God is morally necessary as reward and punishment for the hardworker and the criminal is morally necessary of an omniscient and omnipotent God. Above all, God is also Emotionally necessary in the fact that religious experience show that the peace of mind which the religious practitioners get is necessarity indicative.
by Terry Weldin-Frisch - Thursday, 3 May 2007, 09:04 PM
Hello Abdul. As I was reading your thoughtful response I was struck by your observation:
necessery (P) <-> not (possible) not (P)
if P is the statement "God exists”, then (1) means “ God exists if and only if it is not possible that God does not exist”. Thus it is important to show that the proposition “God does not exist” is not possible. To do that, I think bringing all other necessity types that I mentioned above (like mathematical, moral, physical, and metaphysical) will bring enough analytical support for the statement (1). Thus I think God is also logically necessary.
As I read your response about aggregating all of your necessary types to make the argument that God is logically necessary I was reminded of a paper I wrote some time ago that was reviewing the various arguments for the existence of God. One argument that I found particularly interesting was an inductive argument by Richard Swinburne where he was using an aggregation of several arguments for the existence of God (arguments that have been around for a long time) and attempting to get the reader to conclude that the probability of God's existence is at least > 1/2. Well, I guess his argument isn't an argument from necessity like yours, but your approach to the problem of necessity reminded me of this idea of aggregation and I wanted to share it with you. Now, I need to think more about what you had to say before I can really comment on whether we are getting to some sort of consensus as a group.
by Abdul Baqi Sharaf - Friday, 4 May 2007, 03:22 PM
Hello Terry;
probably I have already said my thoughts in the previous post, and now I will give you the lead to synthesize the ideas into a neat and clean definition..
As I have indicated earlier, I second Anselm in claiming that the existence of God must be of the strongest form..and this claim requires that the necessity associated with it must be of the strongest form as well..if that is the case, then I would think that the traditional metaphysical necessity for the existence of God is a weak one and not sufficient alone..there has to be more than just metaphysical type..and hence, I tried to justify the necessity of God -in addition to metaphysical- the other types like physical, moral and logical...
But, as I can see Terry, your are probably considering the logical necessity only, and probably you may want to justify that by being a philosopher...but I would here want to emphasize that the majority of mankind are not philosophers and that if the subject of philosphers are the general mass, then their argument should also suit the understanding of the general mass as well, and to that end, I think -seconding Helen- other necessities -like physical and moral- also need to be brought into picture..
Abdul
Filter
No comments...
Write Comment
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
Please don't use comments to plug your web site.. Such material will be removed
Indeed, We have sent down for you (O mankind) a Book, (the Qur'ân) in which there is your reminder (and Honor). Will you not then understand? [Quran al-Anbiay (21):10]
By the way, I’m attaching a power point presentation I found by Daniel von Wachter discussing the same information in his paper recommended by Mawson. I thought this might be of interest to some of you.
Philo-Hikmah Vs Philosophy