I suppose this is the other side of the coin from all our recent talk of "something rather than nothing."
The standard apologetic conception is that God is the only "thing" (I know it is not strictly proper to say that God counts a thing) that exists necessarily. It is not possible that God not exist.
Everything else in the universe only exists because God confers existence upon it.
I'll assume that the idea of something existing necessarily is a coherent one since at least it seems pretty conceivable. But why can't we just take the property of necessary existence and say that it applies to the universe as a whole (or alternately, to the quantum foam or the original singularity or the multiverse or whatever we want to talk about cosmologically)?
I know I've read William Lane Craig's argument about this somewhere, but I lost that book.
The standard apologetic conception is that God is the only "thing" (I know it is not strictly proper to say that God counts a thing) that exists necessarily. It is not possible that God not exist.
Everything else in the universe only exists because God confers existence upon it.
I'll assume that the idea of something existing necessarily is a coherent one since at least it seems pretty conceivable. But why can't we just take the property of necessary existence and say that it applies to the universe as a whole (or alternately, to the quantum foam or the original singularity or the multiverse or whatever we want to talk about cosmologically)?
I know I've read William Lane Craig's argument about this somewhere, but I lost that book.
Comment