This eliminates the need for the ‘Who created God?’, question: God is/Necessary v Contingent
An article referencing edited website articles for an entry on academia.edu on September 25, 2022
Referenced from archives
Necessary & Contingent (Brief From PhD)
An infinite eternal God can be understood as the first cause, therefore not requiring a cause.
Karl Barth explains within The Doctrine of Creation that the essence of God himself is eternal, he is before time, above time and after time. Barth (1932-1968: 67).
Note: This eliminates the need for the ‘Who created God?’, question. God is.
God’s essence is eternal and necessary (logically must exist), and the finite universe is temporal and contingent (not necessary). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 191 Volume 1). God as a necessary being is therefore the cause of contingent creation.
Frame reasons God is the creator and the Lord of the beginning of history. This occurs within his eternal plans. Frame (2002: 389).
Within this view God is the implied first cause that exists necessarily prior to everything else. Pojman (1996: 596).
Frame reasons God is the creator and the Lord of the beginning of history. This occurs within his eternal plans. Frame (2002: 389).
Within this view God is the implied first cause that exists necessarily prior to everything else. Pojman (1996: 596).
The necessary is good
1. The necessary must exist.
2. God is necessary.
3. God's plans are necessary.
4. The contingent exist.
5. The necessary supersedes the contingent.
6. Human beings are contingent.
7. Human being's plans are contingent.
8. Human being's needs are contingent.
Therefore, the suffering of the contingent is permissible.
I am not stating that God by nature had to create anything, or anything finite. God does have significant free will within divine nature. His plans reflect nature. I am stating that God's plans must occur and therefore are necessary.
It could be stated that it is a weaker sense of necessity in point 3 than points 1 and 2.
Note, I am not using syllogism as arguments.
Bibliographical reference
Necessary v. Contingent
1. The necessary must exist.
2. God is necessary.
3. God's plans are necessary.
4. The contingent exist.
5. The necessary supersedes the contingent.
6. Human beings are contingent.
7. Human being's plans are contingent.
8. Human being's needs are contingent.
Therefore, the suffering of the contingent is permissible.
I am not stating that God by nature had to create anything, or anything finite. God does have significant free will within divine nature. His plans reflect nature. I am stating that God's plans must occur and therefore are necessary.
It could be stated that it is a weaker sense of necessity in point 3 than points 1 and 2.
1. The necessary must exist.
2. God is necessary
2. God is necessary
I would view 1,2 as within absolute necessity.
Open Edition Journals: Philosophia Scientia What is Absolute Necessity? Bob Hale 16/2/2012
Open Edition Journals: Philosophia Scientia What is Absolute Necessity? Bob Hale 16/2/2012
Cited
Absolute necessity might be defined as truth at absolutely all possible worlds without restriction. But we should be able to explain it without invoking possible worlds.
By my definition 1,2 are necessary in all possible worlds.
3. God's plans are necessary.
This could be explained as relative necessity.
Cited
The standard account defines each kind of relative necessity by means of a necessitated or strict conditional, whose antecedent is a propositional constant for the body of assumptions relative to which the consequent is asserted to be necessary.
The relative necessity of (3) has as antecedent the absolute necessity of (1,2).
Further, God, within his infinite, eternal nature, would only be morally obligated to keep his revealed word, as in promises, in regard to contingent, human beings. These are documented in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament within a theistic, Christian worldview.
1. The necessary must exist.
2. God is necessary.
The necessary is good.
---
1. The necessary must exist.
2. God is necessary.
3. The necessary is good.
Therefore, God is good.
Bob Hale, “What is Absolute Necessity?”, Philosophia Scientiæ, 16-2 | 2012, 117-148.
Electronic reference
Bob Hale, “What is Absolute Necessity?”, Philosophia Scientiæ [Online], 16-2 | 2012, Online since 01 October 2015, connection on 26 September 2022. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/philosophiascientiae/743; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/philosophiascientiae.743
Necessary v Sufficient
Necessary versus Sufficient conditions Philosopher Blackburn explains... 'If p is a necessary condition of q, then q cannot be true unless p is true. If p is a sufficient condition of q, then given that p is true, q is so as well.' (73).
Blackburn provides the example: Steering well is a necessary condition of driving well... (73). But it is not sufficient, as one can steer well, but be an overall bad driver. (73). Perhaps, one steers very well, but is overly occupied by texting while driving. (My add, and not my practice) This concept from Blackburn with the use of symbolic logic, provides a level of complexity, yet consistent and logical at the same time. But providing a true example provides another level of difficulty.
A solid/true example Infinite attributes (a) are a necessary condition of infinite nature (b). Infinite attributes (a) are a necessary condition of infinite nature (b), then infinite nature (b) cannot be true unless infinite attributes (a) are true. If infinite attributes (a) are a sufficient condition of infinite nature (b), then given that infinite attributes (a) are true, then infinite nature (b) is so as well.
BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of the Word of God: Volume 1, Part One, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.
BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of Creation: Volumes 1 and 3, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.
BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of God: Volume 2, First Half -Volume, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.
BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of Creation: Volumes 1 and 3, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.
BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of God: Volume 2, First Half -Volume, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium.
FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium.
FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
