Christianity in a nutshell

dmiclock
Theist
dmiclock's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2006-12-11
User is offlineOffline
Christianity in a nutshell

Hello All,

I wanted to thank you all for the opportunity to partake in some of the discussions recently, and I would be remiss if I didn't take an opportunity to spread God's Word. So I ask you to please lend me your eyes and your mind for just a few minutes and read below:

God created this universe and everything in it, including each one of us. Because He wanted to, and He could.

We were created with free will, a conscience that convicts us, and the law written on each of our hearts.

We were created to seek Him and reach out for Him - though He is not far from any of us.

Sin entered the world via our free will, and as such so did death, dissease, aging, etc..

God hates sin.

God is Just, and as such must punish those who break His laws.

God Loves all of us, even though we're all sinners.

When we choose to sin, we reject God and show contempt for all He has given us.

God calls us to repent from our sins and put our trust in Him. This means more and more, we strive to sin less and less.
As a result we become better people, not perfect people.

Jesus came to preach the Gospel, and take the punishment that each one of us deserves for our sins.
The wages of sin is death.

Christianity is different in the respect that all other religions are "Work Righteous" meaning that the more good things one does, the better the chances he/she goes to heaven. We get heaven not because we're good people, but because we're wretched sinners who accept the fact that our sins are paid in full for through the blood of Jesus.

It may not make sense to yo, and you may not like it, but....
Have a Merry Christmas.

All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
How odd, Michael, that you

How odd, Michael, that you object to Pikachu mentioning the self-evident nature of the universe.  Perhaps you'd like to recant your mention of the self-evident nature of god?

Also, would you mind addressing my point that if Christiantiy were a product of natural reason that people would come to it without being taught?

Also, would you mind addressing my point that you have contradicted yourself in describing god as both having limits and not having limits?

Also, I don't think you understand what "begging the question" is.  Would you mind clarifying for me what you think it is, and then applying that definition to your statement: God, as the cause of all other existences, is the necessary existence for the universe.

Thanks.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

StMichael wrote:
[........]Existence does not assume time at all.[........]
Ohhh realy ?

Definitions:
God – The Conscious First Cause (TCFC)
Conscious(ness) – (at the lowest level) The Ability To Make Decisions
The First Cause (TFC) – The Force That Started Time By Causing The First Change
A Decision - The Action Of Changing Ones Mind From Undecided To Decided

Axioms:
All Changes Occur In Time – Change Requires Time
Something Which Is Caused Can't Be Required By That Which Causes It
Nothing which Exists Can Be Both A And Not A
That Which Exists Without Time Can’t Change

Assumptions:
TFC exists – Time has a beginning, whether it is infinite and has no end or is finite and will come to an end is irrelevant to the question at hand

The Proof:
P1 - A Decision Is A Change Of Ones Mind From Undecided To Decided
P2 - Consciousness Is The Ability To Make A Decision
C3 – Consciousness Is The Ability To Change One’s Own Mind And Thus One’s Own Self

P3 – Consciousness Is The Ability To Change One’s Own Mind And Thus One’s Own Self
P4 – God is Conscious
C5 – God Has The Ability To Change

P6 – TFC Caused Time
P7 - Something Which Is Caused Can't Be Required By That Which Causes It
C8 – TFC Exists Without Time

P8 – TFC Exists Without Time
P9 - That Which Exists Without Time Can’t Change
C10 – TFC Can’t Change

P10 - TFC Can’t Change
P11 – God Is TFC
C12 – God Can’t Change

P12 – God Can’t Change
P5 – God Has The Ability To Change
C13 – God Has The Ability To Change And Is Unable To Change

P13 – God Has The Ability To Change And Is Unable To Change
P14 - Nothing which Exists Can Be Both A And Not A
C15 – God Doesn’t Exist




Common Rebuttals And Why They Fail

God Transcends Logic
Which Is Just A Fancy Way Of Saying God Is Illogical And Can’t Exist

God Isn’t Conscious
Why Worship Something That Can’t Even Know You Exist

God Isn’t TFC
Why Worship A Fellow Caused Being

TFC Doesn’t Exist or Time Has Always Existed
Infinite Causal Regression has been disproved
That leaves us with Finite Looping Time
Which Means All Of Time Has Always Existed
Thus Nothing Could Have Been Created
No Creation = No Creator

Change Doesn’t Require Time
Change Does Require Time Go Look It Up

God Doesn’t Need To Change To Make The Conscious Decision To Create Time
If God Doesn’t Change When Making A Decision Then No Decision Was Really Made

Our Time Is An Offshoot Of God’s Time
Then The Real First Cause Of Our Time Is TFC Of God’s Time

God Transcends Time or God Contains Time
If God is Always aware of every Moment of Time Then All Of Time Has Always Existed
Thus Nothing Could Have Been Created
No Creation = No Creator

God’s Time Is Separate From Our Time
If there is a dimension of Time that can interact with our Time then it is part of our Time
Up/Down, Left/Right, Front/Back are not separate
Because they interact they are part of the same Space
If we discover a parallel universe it will be part of our Space
If there is a Separate Time then it can’t effect us or our Time
If it can’t effect or Cause our Time then it doesn’t make God possible

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: How odd, Michael,

Quote:

How odd, Michael, that you object to Pikachu mentioning the self-evident nature of the universe.  Perhaps you'd like to recant your mention of the self-evident nature of god?

God is not self-evident. He is naturally discoverable. There is a difference.

Quote:

Also, would you mind addressing my point that if Christiantiy were a product of natural reason that people would come to it without being taught?

It is not per se a product of natural reason. The Christian religion presumes certain points before articles of faith. These presumptions are provable according to natural reason. Thus, in a sense, many could arrive at a knowledge of God, ect. without Christianity at all. In fact, people do.

Quote:

Also, would you mind addressing my point that you have contradicted yourself in describing god as both having limits and not having limits?

God does not have limits in that His being is unlimited. However, it would be contradictory to say that God can will non-being (a contradictory thing) because such a thing would contradict God's essence. So, God is not really limited in this, but it is a condition of His unlimited being.

He doesn't have a true 'limit' properly speaking, but only indirectly as to will a contradiction would be to act against being, against Himself, which is impossible.

Quote:

Also, I don't think you understand what "begging the question" is.  Would you mind clarifying for me what you think it is, and then applying that definition to your statement: God, as the cause of all other existences, is the necessary existence for the universe.

To beg the question is to assume the conclusion in the premise. My statement does not beg the question because it is not intended as a premise (that God, as the cause of all things, is a necessary cause). I place the conversation in context:
Quote:

 

If god is outside time then he's outside space = outside the universe:

P1. The universe is all there is, by definition.
P2. There can be nothing "outside" of the universe, because of (1).
P3. The theistic God is "outside" of the universe.
C1. Thus, He cannot exist.

 

 

This is an unproven assumption that the universe is all there is 'by definition,' as likewise that there can be nothing outside of the universe. How do you substantiate this premise? God, as the cause of all other existences, is the necessary existence for the universe. You basically, in fact, assume that God does not exist to prove that He does not exist (which is incorrect).

I think it is clear that I am referring to this merely in so far as I am saying that God is defined as the cause of all things.

Further, you never answer the fact that your argument does beg the question in that it assumes that the universe does not include God, as well as that nothing can exist outside of the universe in order to prove that God is not the cause of the universe. It is circular.

Quote:

Definitions:
God – The Conscious First Cause (TCFC)
Conscious(ness) – (at the lowest level) The Ability To Make Decisions
The First Cause (TFC) – The Force That Started Time By Causing The First Change
A Decision - The Action Of Changing Ones Mind From Undecided To Decided

I hesitate to call God the first concious cause. He is necessarily only the first cause.

Quote:

Axioms:
All Changes Occur In Time – Change Requires Time
Something Which Is Caused Can't Be Required By That Which Causes It
Nothing which Exists Can Be Both A And Not A
That Which Exists Without Time Can’t Change

Looking at these quickly, I believe no error is here.

Quote:

Assumptions:
TFC exists – Time has a beginning, whether it is infinite and has no end or is finite and will come to an end is irrelevant to the question at hand

The Proof:
P1 - A Decision Is A Change Of Ones Mind From Undecided To Decided
P2 - Consciousness Is The Ability To Make A Decision
C3 – Consciousness Is The Ability To Change One’s Own Mind And Thus One’s Own Self

I would disagree with the first premise that a decision necessarily implies a change. I would even find the second premise faulty, as I do not believe it to be entirely accurate.

Quote:

P3 – Consciousness Is The Ability To Change One’s Own Mind And Thus One’s Own Self
P4 – God is Conscious
C5 – God Has The Ability To Change

Only assuming that (1) conciousness necessarily implies a change of being, and (2) that God is a rational being in exactly the same way we are (univocally).

Quote:

P6 – TFC Caused Time
P7 - Something Which Is Caused Can't Be Required By That Which Causes It
C8 – TFC Exists Without Time

P8 – TFC Exists Without Time
P9 - That Which Exists Without Time Can’t Change
C10 – TFC Can’t Change

These follow fine. But God is the first cause. Disregard your definition of conciousness and my proof of God follows. We do not know God's essence a priori, but only as  the first cause (hence, it is fallacious to assume that the mode of God's conciousness implies change; in fact, your own argument would show simply that God's mode of conciousness would necessitate a lack of change).

Quote:
P10 - TFC Can’t Change
P11 – God Is TFC
C12 – God Can’t Change

P12 – God Can’t Change
P5 – God Has The Ability To Change
C13 – God Has The Ability To Change And Is Unable To Change

P13 – God Has The Ability To Change And Is Unable To Change
P14 - Nothing which Exists Can Be Both A And Not A
C15 – God Doesn’t Exist.

Because of the above, this fails.

Quote:

Common Rebuttals And Why They Fail

God Transcends Logic
Which Is Just A Fancy Way Of Saying God Is Illogical And Can’t Exist

Which I do not accept.

Quote:

God Isn’t Conscious
Why Worship Something That Can’t Even Know You Exist

Not the same as saying God is not concious in the way you define it.

Quote:

God Doesn’t Need To Change To Make The Conscious Decision To Create Time
If God Doesn’t Change When Making A Decision Then No Decision Was Really Made

This is precisely the issue. God's decisions happen from eternity and there is no deliberation. God is pure act without potency from the fact that He is the first cause.

Quote:

God Transcends Time or God Contains Time
If God is Always aware of every Moment of Time Then All Of Time Has Always Existed
Thus Nothing Could Have Been Created
No Creation = No Creator

These conclusions do not necessarily follow. It is irrelevant, but I thought I ought to point it out.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:God is

StMichael wrote:
God is pure act
Exactly, god suuuuuuuuuuuure really needs alot of time to act ! Therefore my argument is solid. Why should i repeat myself ?

Laughing out loud

StMichael wrote:
God is not concious
Why Worship Something That Can’t Even Know You Exist ?
StMichael wrote:
decision necessarily implies a change.

  1. The passing of judgment on an issue under consideration.
  2. The act of reaching a conclusion or making up one's mind.
  3. A conclusion or judgment reached or pronounced; a verdict.
  4. Firmness of character or action; determination.

StMichael wrote:
God does not have limits in that His being is unlimited.
An unlimited god needs an unlimited time. Smiling
STMichael wrote:
God's mode of conciousness would necessitate a lack of change
Even the lowest form of consciousness, the ability to make a decision, requires Time to change from undecided to decided.
StMichael wrote:
God is a rational being in exactly the same way we are (univocally).
All rational beings needs a material brain to think and have a mind.

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Exactly, god

Quote:
Exactly, god suuuuuuuuuuuure really needs alot of time to act ! Therefore my argument is solid. Why should i repeat myself ?

That is just being silly. God is actuality without any potency (for example, change or a material body).

Quote:

Why Worship Something That Can’t Even Know You Exist ?

God is not concious in the way you define it. You necessarily assume that conciousness implies time in making decision. Hence, your definition does not apply to God. But I would not maintain that God is not concious. He merely makes decisions eternally (in eternity); there is no deliberation or movement - He makes the decision from eternity and reaches the conclusion from all eternity. There is no movement or change called for.

 

Quote:

  1. The passing of judgment on an issue under consideration.
  2. The act of reaching a conclusion or making up one's mind.
  3. A conclusion or judgment reached or pronounced; a verdict.
  4. Firmness of character or action; determination.

Except that these all apply to created determination, which is not spoken of God.

Quote:
An unlimited god needs an unlimited time. Smiling 

That does not follow at all. A God who is unlimited acts constantly without deliberation. Also, He is necessarily not limited by time.


Quote:
The smallest change need time to make the initial Decision to create time thus precluding that possibility.

Only if you assume human or angelic determination. However, God is utterly simple and hence takes no time in making determinations.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

PS -Happy Solemnity of the Baptism of Our Lord!

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:God is

StMichael wrote:
God is actuality without any potency
Not powerful enough to create time ! Smiling
StMichael wrote:
God is not concious in the way you define it.
Than god is unconscious.!
StMichael wrote:
God is utterly simple and hence takes no time in making determinations.
Even computers need time to make the initial Decision to create time thus precluding that possibility.
StMichael wrote:
A God who is unlimited acts
Yes because god is PURE ACTION ! Superman needs ANIMATION ! Smiling
StMichael wrote:
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
Before Time God Didn’t Have Enough Time To Decide To Create Time

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Not powerful enough

Quote:

Not powerful enough to create time

God created time when He created things to exist in space that had minds.

Quote:

Than god is unconscious.!

Sure, go right ahead. But to say that I am not using the same definition of concious as you is not to say that God is not concious. Maybe we can say that God is intelligent instead, as this more clearly expresses the fact of the matter. God does not deliberate, but He wills from all eternity.

Quote:

Even computers need time to make the initial Decision to create time thus precluding that possibility.

This seems totally irrelevant. God is simple, no division. He has no difference between His deliberation and His action.

Quote:

Yes because god is PURE ACTION ! Superman needs ANIMATION !

I don't see the point with the Superman reference.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

PS - Are you not a native English speaker? Just curious.

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:God

StMichael wrote:
God created time when He created things to exist in space that had minds.
There was a point in time when god didn't have the time to create time
StMichael wrote:
God is intelligent
Than God did not create intelligence.
StMichael wrote:
God is simple
Simple as nothing. God is nothing.
StMichael wrote:
I don't see the point with the Superman reference.
Cartoons needs frame/time to do an action.
StMichael wrote:
He wills from all eternity.
God is the eternal slave of time.

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: StMichael

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
God created time when He created things to exist in space that had minds.

 

There was a point in time when god didn't have the time to create time

That would be utterly contradictory. If we merely begin with the knowledge that a first cause is necessary, time obviously does not apply.

Second, this phrase does not make sense.


[quote ] Than God did not create intelligence.

God is the cause of created intelligences and so resembles them as their exemplar. An effect bears some likeness to its cause, as a human intelligence bears resemblence to God's intelligence. However, they are not of the same type.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
God is simple

 

Simple as nothing. God is nothing.

Simple in the sense of no division, not as nothing. Simple designates a substance that exists, which is unified (or one).

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
I don't see the point with the Superman reference.

 

Cartoons needs frame/time to do an action.

Act is not necessarily bound to time. The first cause must act outside of time, logically speaking, if it were to cause the universe to exist.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
He wills from all eternity.

 

God is the eternal slave of time.

Again, that phrase doesn't make sense, nor does it address the issue.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That would be

Quote:
That would be utterly contradictory. If we merely begin with the knowledge that a first cause is necessary, time obviously does not apply.
Thinking is the act of one that thinks. Act is temporal.
Quote:
Second, this phrase does not make sense.
Of course it does, your the only one who dont want to admit that i hacked god's mind. :P
Quote:
Simple in the sense of no division, not as nothing. Simple designates a substance that exists, which is unified (or one).
No beginning & as no end = 0 x Infinity = 0
Quote:
The first cause must act outside of time,
Outside time is to have no time to do anything.

It's like saying, ''im outside the US. which means i am not in the US

Quote:
that phrase doesn't make sense
You just refuse to admit that god cannot create time.
Quote:
God is the cause of created intelligences.
Then something intelligent caused god's intelligence.

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Quote: That would

Quote:

Quote:
That would be utterly contradictory. If we merely begin with the knowledge that a first cause is necessary, time obviously does not apply.

 

Thinking is the act of one that thinks. Act is temporal.

Is act temporal? There is no reason that a cause (which is a variety of act) is temporal. A formal cause, which is the structure/idea/form of a thing, does not act necessarily in time. An efficent cause (the reason something exists in the particular way it does) does not necessarily act in time, but this is I think the main definition you give to act. The final cause of a thing (what its term/end is) does not act in time, as for example the end for a rock falling exists in time. The material cause of a thing (what constitutes a thing) is not temporal by necessity; the cause as matter of a rock is atemporal.

Quote:

Quote:
Second, this phrase does not make sense.

 

Of course it does, your the only one who dont want to admit that i hacked god's mind. Sticking out tongue 

If you "hacked" His mind, He must exist. Boo-ya!

Quote:

Quote:
Simple in the sense of no division, not as nothing. Simple designates a substance that exists, which is unified (or one).

 

No beginning & as no end = 0 x Infinity = 0

It does not equal 0 x Infinity. There is no reason it ought to. You don't justify the leap there. Besides, God's eternity is not really expressable in mathematical concepts, because He is outside of time as its cause.

Quote:

Quote:
The first cause must act outside of time,

 

Outside time is to have no time to do anything.

It's like saying, ''im outside the US. which means i am not in the US

Frankly, there is no continuity between these statements.

You are defining the terms as an assertion of why I am wrong. Justify how you mean these things. How do you arrive at the position that 'outside time is to have no time to do anything.' Further, your analogy likewise doesn't make sense as it does not prove anything contradictory about the first statement.

God is outside of time, but He acts from eternity. There is no division between one action or another. He acts always and continually because He is pure act.

Quote:

Quote:
that phrase doesn't make sense

 

You just refuse to admit that god cannot create time.

God creates time and I don't see what my statement has to do with it.

Quote:

Quote:
God is the cause of created intelligences.

 

Then something intelligent caused god's intelligence.

Why? There is no reason to suppose that. God is, by definition, the first cause. He has no ulterior cause and is necessary to posit any subsequent causes.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

PS - Anyone else is free to interject at any time.

 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
OK. I would like to

OK.

I would like to interject that this is just getting silly.

I've given up, because I cannot compete with your PhD level knowledge of astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and mathematics.  Since you clearly have very little desire to meet me on the only terms I'm familiar with, that being logic, I'm going to let you duke it out with the mathematician.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
If you wish, you are

If you wish, you are welcome to post something on a different track and I will answer it seperately. Or, you can message me and I can reply to it privately. I agree, however, that this is getting rather silly (and, possibly, useless).

 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Well, Michael, I mean no

Well, Michael, I mean no disrespect to you.  I was once a theist also, and believe me, I could run up one wall and down another avoiding the basic logic against theism.  Nevertheless, I fear we are at an impasse because you have repeately refused to address the fact that the ony possible means of acquiring knowledge is through reason.

The basic problem that I have with your position (and every other theist's!) is that for you to be correct, knowledge becomes an illogical concept.

Simply put, if faith (religious faith, i.e. belief in things despite their opposition to logic, for if they were logical, we would not need faith) is a valid means of aquiring data, then it becomes true that:

Acquiring knowledge can be accomplished by logic or illogic.

If this is true, then there exists no yardstick to guage whether or not faith or reason is the "correct" method for attaining knowledge in any situation.  If there is faith, then even that which is intuitive comes into question.

The standard answer to this argument is circular:

1. God exists

2. Without faith, belief in God is impossible

3. Because of (1), faith is valid.

4. Therefore, my beliefs are true.

5. Therefoe, God exists. 

Despite your ability to regurgitate a definition of "begging the question" I fear you are unable to apply it to faith, and so it might be that you are beyond persuasion.  This makes me sad, but I have known for many years that it is most often futile to try to help people who are as deeply indoctrinated as you.

 I honestly have little desire to continue to debate you, for I have no other points to make.  You knowingly reject reason, and any argument for reason I could make would be necessarily reasonable.

I can restate the same arguments again, but you'll dodge them again and restate your circular arguments.

So, I guess, unless another topic comes up, I have to tip my hat and say that I gave it a good try, but I fear you're a lost cause.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Well, Michael, I

Quote:

Well, Michael, I mean no disrespect to you.  I was once a theist also, and believe me, I could run up one wall and down another avoiding the basic logic against theism. 

What kind of theist? I assume a variety of Christian, yes? 

 

Quote:

Nevertheless, I fear we are at an impasse because you have repeately refused to address the fact that the ony possible means of acquiring knowledge is through reason.

I would disagree that that is my position. All human knowledge is in the mind, by definition. Maybe you misunderstood what I mean by "reason / natural reason" by which I mean "the mind's ability to discover truth without Revelation." The Christian/Catholic never abandons reason in the sense of the reasoning human mind and logic; "Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology." However, I would disagree that natural reason is the only method to arrive at truth. Further, faith is based on the foundation of natural reason, as "grace perfects nature." There are certain truths that are beyond our human ability to know naturally; God reveals these truths in order that we can attain salvation. We know by natural reason that our happiness consists in the Beatific Vision in heaven and likewise we know that we cannot attain this without God giving the gift. Thus, it becomes a logical conclusion that God would give it. Revelation gives us the specific revelation of how God grants His grace to us and how we can recieve God's grace, though we can know by natural reason that God's grace is necessary (because, by definition, our possession of eternal happiness is beyond the achievement of our nature without God).

Quote:

Simply put, if faith (religious faith, i.e. belief in things despite their opposition to logic, for if they were logical, we would not need faith) is a valid means of aquiring data, then it becomes true that:

True faith cannot ever be in contradiction either to logic or to truths we know by our natural reason. Nor have I ever claimed that they are.

 Regarding what the Catholic Church teaches, I quote the Catechism: "

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."[11] Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".[12]

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.[13]

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error". [14]"

Quote:

Acquiring knowledge can be accomplished by logic or illogic.

Faith only exists in a world that presumes logic. Faith uses logic just as much as natural reason does. They never contradict.

 

Quote:

If this is true, then there exists no yardstick to guage whether or not faith or reason is the "correct" method for attaining knowledge in any situation.  If there is faith, then even that which is intuitive comes into question.

I never claim faith to be intuitive knowledge.

Quote:

The standard answer to this argument is circular:

1. God exists

2. Without faith, belief in God is impossible

3. Because of (1), faith is valid.

4. Therefore, my beliefs are true.

5. Therefoe, God exists. 

 

Except that I never claim this.

I claim:

  1. We know that God exists, because the world necessarily needs a cause.
  2. We know by natural reason that our eternal happiness lies only in a knowledge of God (the Beatific Vision).
  3. We know by natural that the only way we can arrive at a knowledge of God as He is in Himself and to attain the Beatific Vision is to be given this by God Himself.
  4. We know by natural reason that God could give this grace to man.
  5. We find that Christ claimed to be God.
  6. We find that Christ substantiated His claim to be God with miracles that only God could do.
  7. We can logically conclude that Christ is God and that His claims are likewise from God.
  8. Christ's claims do not conflict with what we know naturally.
  9. Christ revealed that we can only attain salvation by His doctrine.
  10. We are thus led by these external proofs, assisted by the action of the Holy Spirit in our souls, to accept Christ's teaching and to be baptised as a member of His Church.
  11. Thus, we can attain salvation and eternal happiness.

While I do not prove each premise there, each is merely an outline of how faith occurs. It is never in conflict with reason.

I am not a fideist, nor do I reject reason. It would be false to believe that the Catholic Church does so. I encourage you not to abandon hope but to examine my claims.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
The argument from

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.

The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:

  • Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently explained, so it was not (or could not be) true.
  • Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.

An adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case - it is in fact simply lack of evidence, and nothing more.

 

It is a logical mistake (a variant of the Argument from Ignorance known as a God-of-the-gaps argument) to assert that because a phenomenon is unpredictable by current scientific theories, that a better scientific theory cannot be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for the phenomena in question; and that therefore, one must assert that the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of God.

Quote:
We know that God exists, because the world necessarily needs a cause.

Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis (How the world/universe came to be), another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven (God Exists).

Quote:
The Christian/Catholic never abandons reason in the sense of the reasoning human mind and logic;

True faith cannot ever be in contradiction either to logic or to truths we know by our natural reason.

Which poison do you pick, Michael? Does the church abandon reason? Or do you give up on your proof of God? I just demonstrated clearly that your first premise is a logical fallacy.

I know. You will claim that it is natural reason that leads us to believe that God exists. However, for that to be true, we must hold to a logical fallacy, which is not reasonable! It is UN-reasonable, i.e. NOT logic.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I've given you everything you need to see that your argument makes no sense, and you're going to hold to it, and simply assert that you are correct because you know you're correct because god told you you're correct.

Well, that's not logic, and I can't help you see that, so I've just got to throw in the towel.

Sorry.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
The first thing that needs

The first thing that needs to be said is that I was not offering my proof for God's existence, but merely stating that He is provable as the cause of the universe in the outline showing how one moves to faith.

Second, the existence of God can be proven five ways:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

   The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

   The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

   The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

   The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

PS - That would be Saint Thomas Aquinas speaking in the proofs. I copied them from the ST because I thought it better than rewriting them.

 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:

The first thing that needs to be said is that I was not offering my proof for God's existence, but merely stating that He is provable as the cause of the universe in the outline showing how one moves to faith.

Second, the existence of God can be proven five ways:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

nice copy and paste job you have done there:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

about halfway down the page.

God had no time to create time.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Saint Thomas Aquinas

Quote:
Saint Thomas Aquinas speaking in the proofs

God is defined as The Conscious First Cause - St. Thomas Acquinas

P01. Time is required for Change.
P02. A Decision is a Change.
P03. Decisions require Time.
P04. Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
P05. Consciousness requires Time.
P06. God is Conscious.
P07. God requires Time.
P08. God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
P09. God isn't the cause of Time.
P10. God isn't The First Cause.
P11. If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
C01. God doesn't exist.
Quote:
If you "hacked" His mind, He must exist. Boo-ya!

In your imagination. Laughing out loud

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
God is not defined as the

God is not defined as the first concious cause by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Do you accept as logically necessary that there is a first cause? That is all we are defining God as - the first cause. Conciousness is something we apply to God by analogy AFTER we establish His nature as cause, not as before. The reason is because we cannot know a priori God's essence and work out a proof from that; we can only work a posteriori (from an effect to cause), so that we can show from the fact that God is the first cause that He possesses conciousness/intelligence.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

PS - If you wish to maintain that Saint Thomas says that God is the first 'concious' cause, give a citation. Nowhere does he say that.

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: the proof for the

Quote:
the proof for the necessary existent cause of the universe is a proof for the existence of God which has been seemingly ignored.

Michael,

Your words used in the definitions of fallacies:

Argument from Ignorance

Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.

God is logically necessary (another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven) because real things exist (because there is a lack of evidence for a theory explaining the existence of real things.)

Begging the Question: An argument which begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way.

God, as the cause of all other existences (because god exists), is the necessary existence for the universe. (god is necessary)

...for all existing things to exist, there must be at least one necessarily existing cause of all things. (There is not another proven theory of why things exist) This argument is in my favor as it is the proof for God's existence. (Therefore, God exists - ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE)

As things exist, they require a necessarily existence to sustain/create them. It is clear that there are possible existences (the chair can cease to exist, as can my dog) and this requires a necessary cause.(Because there is not enough evidence for a theory of why existing things exist) Thus, God is logically necessary because real things exist. (Therefore, God exists - ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE)

It's there in front of you Michael. I'm not going to refute Aquinas because it's been done in great detail on other threads.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Im in agreement with

Im in agreement with the Hambydammit here.

The prime mover argument is from Aristotle's "Metaphysics'. Mover is a very, very bad and very misleading word. Move here means about anything including creating accidentals such as color or ability of animals to act alive and other qualities besides movement proper.

It is nothing like the word mover as most people seeing that word would imagine, Aristotle uses it in a very extended sense. Translaters of old used it in a technical sense now lost to common language.

Indeed it also applies to things like planets, comets, meteors and and similar meanings.
you might want to google turbulence, big bang. The big bang created turbulence as matter percipiated out as temperature dropped. No prime mover needed here for that type of mover.
Turbulence creaed all that sort of motion cosmologically speaking.

You may want to google for online Aristotle and check out his metaphysics and the prime mover argument from the horse's mouth so to speak. Its not what most people think it is. Aquinas simply expects his readers know Aristotle. Educated men he was writing for would have as Aristotle was a hot topic then.

Thomas Aquinas who used them as a way to "prove" that God exist. Unfortunately, all his arguments have two very significant drawbacks.

1. There are holes in them, so they aren't definite proofs that there is a God.

2. Even if there were no holes in them and one could establish that there is a God there is absolutely nothing in them that link such a God to the biblical God. The same proofs can be used by muslims to prove that Allah exist and the exactly the same proofs can be used by Hindu to prove that their gods exist.

For these two reasons any such proof is more or less futile. Anyone who were to prove that their particular God would have to first prove that there is a God and then he would have to prove that this God could be no other than his favorite God and not the God of some other religion. Most people who attempt to prove that God exist usually put a lot of work into step 1 and tries to make fairly good arguments (not without holes though) that there is a God and then just skip over step 2 as if it was "obviously" their particular God they had just attempted to prove.

Anyway, arguments against the existence of God as per your 3 points can be as follows:

1) The first cause argument fail due to the simple question: Who created God? Usually this argument goes back until "God" and say the chain start there, so God created the universe and we are all in the universe. However, If you claim that everything has to have a first cause then you cannot say that God is the first cause since something must have caused him. If you do make an exception for God and say that he just IS and does not need a cause then by the same token you could make exception for the step after it and say that the universe just IS.

Note that some people will here refer to "big bang" and say that it has been scientifically proven that the universe had a beginning. The problem with this is that if you allow for big bang then the part of the big bang theory is that there are many theories on exactly what caused the big bang and how it began. It therefore does not follow that the big bang proves that the universe was created and so need a cause while whatever created the universe does not need a cause.

Also, it is flatly not true that everything need a cause. For example radioactive material will - as far as we can tell - uncaused suddenly send off a neutron and other particles and change itself from one atom to another such as from Uran (U) to Lead (Pb). You might say that there is a cause there but we just don't know it. The problem with that is that it is similar to presuming that there must be an invisible elf pushing the planets so that they move. If we cannot see it, we cannot claim it was caused and so the basic premise that "everythign has to have a cause" is not true. They thought it was true in ancient times but today we are not so sure any more.

2) The law of order and complexity? What law is that? I consider myself knowledable in physics and I have never heard of such a law.

If you refer to Thomas Aquinas argument he essentially said that you have a ranking order in the world and the more similar something is to a human being the more perfect it is. However, humans aren't perfect so there must be something that is even more complex than humans. Angles and God were therefore placed above and so as there had to be a top of this pyramid he placed God. Yes, I know he didn't word his argument the way I do here but doing it this way shows the fallacy of the argument. Another related argument is that a simple thing cannot cause a complex thing. What does that mean? I can very well imagine simple things making very complex things. For example our brains have very simple brain cells called neurons. Each of these cells have a very simple working recipe:

a) Each cell is connected to other braincells. Some braincells are also connected to nerves which really are very simiilar to brain cells and other sensory inputs such as the nerve cells from eyes and ears. For a cell C let us call these connected cells C1, C2, ...
to Cn

b) Each cell is in one of two states, you can call these states 1 or 0 or A or B or on and off or up and down, doesn't matter, the point is that each cell can at any time be in one and only one of these two states so a given cell is either 1 or 0.

c) For cell C compute a weighted sum depending on the cells it is connected to:

S = W1 * C1 + W2 * C2 + W3 * C3 + ... + Wn * Cn

d) If S is greater than a threshold value T flip the state of the cell. If the cell C was 0 change it to 1 and if the state was 1 change it to 0.

Now, this computation is done through chemical workings of the cell but I hope you realize that this is very simple. In fact you can easily make a computer program that can simulate one single brain cell or several.

Yet, nobody has so far managed to make a true AI program that can simulate a human brain. So a simple cell can cause a complex brain to function. There are several such instances in the world where small basic things can create a huge complexity thereby proving that this so-called law of complexity is essentially bogus. It doesn't take lot of complexity to create a simple brain cell and yet when you combine them into a brain you get a very complex organ capable of thinking complex thoughts, reflecting over the complexity of the world and invent computers and all the other things we have today.

Now, if you say that a complex item such a watch need an even more complex being (human) to be created. This essentially ignore a few factors. One, we know how watches are made, we manufacture them in factories. We do not know how the universe was created, we have theories that give indications but we do not have solid knowledge. Also, while a watch is made fairly fast in modern mass production, the universe has taken billions of years to get where we are today. There are many things that can work to make complexity given enough time. For example the earliest life forms were simple and basic while later life forms become more complex. I am not saying that if you wait enough time a rolex will grow up from the earth but I am saying that complexity per se does not indicate that you have to have something even more complex.

Another blow to this argument is of course that it is essentially very similar to the first cause. So just like you can ask "who created God" to pick hole in the first cause argument so also can you ask "who created God?" to pick hole in this argument. If something must be vastly complex to create the universe then something even more vastly complex must exist to create God. Again, if you say that God just IS we are back with the same reasoning as to the first cause. We can just as easily say that the universe just IS. Again, big bang isn't really of much help against that argument since there are several theories surrounding what caused big bang and most of them leave little or no room for any God.

3) Every movement is the effect of a force. This is as someone already said not exactly correct. True, if some body is at rest and you then changes it to become a body that is moving, you must apply some force to the body. However, there are several problems here.

1. If a body was always moving then it doesn't need a force to continue to move. A body that is moving would instead need a force to change that movement. In every day, an item will usually stop moving due to friction but that is just another way to say that there are forces that stops the item from moving.

2. Some particles are such that you cannot stop them. A photon particle for example is always moving at the speed of light through whatever medium it is moving. You cannot apply any force to cause it to move faster or slower. The only thing that can modify the speed is to let it move through a different medium. For example if you let the photon move through vacuum it has the maximum speed known as c which is approx 300000 km per second. Whatever force you apply to the photon would not change its speed. It might change the frequency and wavelength of the wave associated with the photon (the color of the light) but not the speed.

So, some particles appear and move as soon as they appear. In fact ALL atoms move around. The temparature you measure is essentially a result of the movement the atoms is moving around a center point. The faster they move the warmer the thing appear to be. So, even that rock you see on the ground move around a little bit or all the atoms in it move around. If they did not that rock would have measured 0 K (kelvin) or -273 C (centigrades) and that is a theoretic bottom which has never been reached and I doubt you can ever reach it. You can only get closer and closer but not quite reach the value of 0 K.

So, it appears that it is moving that is the "natural" state of all things and so you do not need any force to cause the first movement as such. Of course, you do need force to case the rock to move. True, all the atoms in the rock is moving but the rock itself appear to stand still since they all move around an average point which appear fixed. If you apply force to the rock for example by kicking it or lifting it, you change that average point. The point here is that in the universe - and especially according to big bang theory - you do not need a first mover per se. The big bang theory indicates that everything is moving away from everything else since the universe began and so objects are moving. Later on some matter condensed into lumps which then grew bigger due to gravity until they became stars. Gravity is a force and can thus cause things to move, you do not need a first mover what you need is a force and gravity is a force that appear to be significant as soon as you have a lump big enough so that the gravity towards that lump is bigger than the gravity in other directions.

Also, for example in our solar system the earth is mainly controlled by the gravity of the sun since the sun is so much bigger than anything else. Yet, we are also influenced by the gravity of the moon because it is so close. Thus we have tidal water. The earth also rotates and wobbles in several directions and all those movements are added together to make up the total manner in which the earth moves. The earth's rotation is affected by the moon and the sun and even jupiter has some influence although it is hardly noticable since it is so far away.

All this is mainly caused by gravity so in a way you can say that the gravty is the first mover, but be aware that in the early universe it wasn't gravity that was significant. We know of 4 fundamental forces today, gravity, electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. All other forces in nature is essentially just one or more of these forces acting in a certain way. However, the nuclear forces only affect things very close - in the atomic nucleus and electromagnetic force only work if you have an uneven distribution of positive and negative charge so at long distances over electric neutral objects gravity is the only force that has any effect and that is why gravity is so important in cosmos today. Yet, in the early universe when distances where small gravity probably had very little if any significance. In the early universe you probably had the other forces playing significant roles and causing things to move so in that sense it probably was those that was the very first movers. You can lump those three together since in the early universe things was different and under those conditions those three forces turn out to be the same force.

Add to this the heisenbergs uncertainty principle that essentially say that the uncertainty over a measurement of a particle's speed and direction multiplied with the uncertainty over a measurement of the same particle's position must alwasy be greater or equal to a theoretical limit and combine this with chaos theory and you can see that even small insignificant movements in the early universe can result in big movements in today's universe without there being a need for a first mover.

Note that none of the above prove there is no God. The arguments you put forth was originally put forth to prove that there was a God and what I have argued against are those arguments and as such it only shows that those arguments does not prove there is a God.

To prove that there is no God you would first have to ask "which God?". One cannot prove there is no "generiic God" for the same reason you cannnot prove there are invisible elves right next to you. Specific Gods such as the christian God, Allah, Zeus, Jupiter etc is somewhat easier. Such Gods often have traits and if you can show that those traits doesn't make sense then you have a good argument that such a God cannot exist. True, many theologians will give you some rationale or reasoning why one might believe there is such a god - perhaps by redefining some words or reinterpreting some texts but all such reasoning and rationale usually raises more questions in turn.

Also, to conclude, I want to emphasize and repeat that even if you somehow managed to prove that those arguments showed that there was a God, you still haven't even gotten close to show that this God is a personal omnipotent omniscient benevolent God as the christian God as described in the Bible is assumed to be. That is a HUGE step which most people who attempt to prove God simply skip over and hope that people won't notice.

If I were to asked to prove that there is no christian God I would not use those 3 arguments above but would rather raise problems with attributes of this God

1. He is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent. Each of these are problematic in and of themselves as well as there are problems how a being can have 2 of these qualities and still create a world as we have today.

2. He is supposedly the source of absolute moral. What does it mean "absolute moral"? What is the content of this moral? For example, is slavery moral or immoral? If slavery is immoral, why didn't the bible say that you shouldn't own slaves? If slavery is moral according to God, isn't he then immoral compared with modern day man who generally thinks that slavery is wrong?

-Pikachu-

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Argument from

Quote:

Argument from Ignorance

Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.

I am not claiming that there is not enough evidence to prove that the universe was not created, so that it must have been created. I am claiming that the universe exists in a manner that is purely possible. A possible existence, by definition, cannot exist on its own. It must come into existence. As such, the universe requires a cause which is necessary (which cannot go out of or come into existence). God fulfills this requirement.

Quote:

God is logically necessary (another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven) because real things exist (because there is a lack of evidence for a theory explaining the existence of real things.)

It does not have to do with a theory for the existence of real things. The universe has objects in it which exist. Some cause must exist for their existence, because they are possible existences. Thus, a cause exists. This first cause which explains the existence of things is God.

Quote:

Begging the Question: An argument which begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way.

God, as the cause of all other existences (because god exists), is the necessary existence for the universe. (god is necessary)

This was merely a conclusion. Because God causes all other existences, His existence is the necessary cause for the universe (or else other things would not exist), as no other cause could be prior to Him (otherwise He would not be the first cause).

Quote:

...for all existing things to exist, there must be at least one necessarily existing cause of all things. (There is not another proven theory of why things exist) This argument is in my favor as it is the proof for God's existence. (Therefore, God exists - ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE)

It has nothing to do with the argument from ignorance. The existence of the universe requires a necessary cause. It has nothing do with a 'proven theory.' In fact, it merely posits that a 'theory'/origin/cause of the universe must exist, regardless of what it is. This is what we call God.

Quote:

It's there in front of you Michael. I'm not going to refute Aquinas because it's been done in great detail on other threads.

Aquinas' argument cannot be refuted because it is correct; I see no logical gaps or problems with it. Further, I have read most arguments against this proof and find them utterly non-convincing, possessing bad logic.

 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

Quote:
God is outside of time, but He acts from eternity. There is no division between one action or another. He acts always and continually because He is pure act.

No late fees for anything, and I mean EVER.
A better way to put it is that God never Acts because everything is already done.
StMichael wrote:
God is not defined as the first concious cause by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Do you accept as logically necessary that there is a first cause? That is all we are defining God as - the first cause. Conciousness is something we apply to God by analogy AFTER we establish His nature as cause, not as before. The reason is because we cannot know a priori God's essence and work out a proof from that; we can only work a posteriori (from an effect to cause), so that we can show from the fact that God is the first cause that He possesses conciousness/intelligence.

Such a god would have less consciousness than a rock. Smiling

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The prime mover

Quote:

The prime mover argument is from Aristotle's "Metaphysics'. Mover is a very, very bad and very misleading word. Move here means about anything including creating accidentals such as color or ability of animals to act alive and other qualities besides movement proper.

It is nothing like the word mover as most people seeing that word would imagine, Aristotle uses it in a very extended sense. Translaters of old used it in a technical sense now lost to common language.

Indeed it also applies to things like planets, comets, meteors and and similar meanings.
you might want to google turbulence, big bang. The big bang created turbulence as matter percipiated out as temperature dropped. No prime mover needed here for that type of mover.
Turbulence creaed all that sort of motion cosmologically speaking.

The Big Bang requires a cause. It has very little to do with the cause of material motion.

 Further, it is not purely the prime mover argument, as that is only Via 1. I have made mainly reference to Via 3 (or 2).

Quote:
 

Thomas Aquinas who used them as a way to "prove" that God exist. Unfortunately, all his arguments have two very significant drawbacks.

1. There are holes in them, so they aren't definite proofs that there is a God.

There is no argument justifying that there is.

Quote:

2. Even if there were no holes in them and one could establish that there is a God there is absolutely nothing in them that link such a God to the biblical God. The same proofs can be used by muslims to prove that Allah exist and the exactly the same proofs can be used by Hindu to prove that their gods exist.

This proof could not be used to substantiate Hinduism, as it necessitates one God (which the Hindus do not have). It might be argued to substantiate Islam, but that is irrelevant as it still logically requires a God. All I am proving here and for the purposes of this debate is that God exists. At the moment, we do not need to go further than that. I believe it is identifiable with Christianity, but really that identification involves an acceptance of Revelation on faith. The most I could show is that, by something of a process of elimination and checks to natural reason, almost all world religions except Christianity and Judaism are not in keeping with this God (that we know exists). It amounts to an elimination with probable proof, but Revelation is not proven by natural reason and is only accepted on faith.

Quote:

Anyway, arguments against the existence of God as per your 3 points can be as follows:

1) The first cause argument fail due to the simple question: Who created God? Usually this argument goes back until "God" and say the chain start there, so God created the universe and we are all in the universe. However, If you claim that everything has to have a first cause then you cannot say that God is the first cause since something must have caused him. If you do make an exception for God and say that he just IS and does not need a cause then by the same token you could make exception for the step after it and say that the universe just IS.

The whole point is that a first cause must exist. An infinity of causes is impossible, for then there would be no causes subsequently existing. A first cause, regardless of what it is, must exist (and we would point to this cause as God). If something caused 'X,' then 'X' is not the first cause, and hence not God. But a first cause must exist.

Quote:

Note that some people will here refer to "big bang" and say that it has been scientifically proven that the universe had a beginning. The problem with this is that if you allow for big bang then the part of the big bang theory is that there are many theories on exactly what caused the big bang and how it began. It therefore does not follow that the big bang proves that the universe was created and so need a cause while whatever created the universe does not need a cause.

The cause of the universe is not necessarily a material cause of movement. God is not just a motion machine in the sense of material motion. God causes the existence of things.

The Big Bang requires a cause, however, and that is all that is necessary to be said. Material causality does not even need to be spoken of, as God is logically prior to them.

Quote:

Also, it is flatly not true that everything need a cause. For example radioactive material will - as far as we can tell - uncaused suddenly send off a neutron and other particles and change itself from one atom to another such as from Uran (U) to Lead (Pb). You might say that there is a cause there but we just don't know it.

There are many types of cause. The atom must exist, in the first place, in order to be emitting radiation. The atom must thus have a cause. Also, the atom must be radioactive, which indicates that it acquired instability in some way. I am sure that there is a cause for the emission of radiation, but it is irrelevant to the proof.

Quote:
 

The problem with that is that it is similar to presuming that there must be an invisible elf pushing the planets so that they move. If we cannot see it, we cannot claim it was caused and so the basic premise that "everythign has to have a cause" is not true. They thought it was true in ancient times but today we are not so sure any more.

It is not. Everything must have a cause of some sort, otherwise it would not exist. Again, an infinite regress of absolute efficent causes is impossible.

Quote:

2) The law of order and complexity? What law is that? I consider myself knowledable in physics and I have never heard of such a law.

I meant that physical laws exist, indicating a lawliness to the universe. The fact that physical laws can exist proves that an ordering agent must exist.

 

Quote:

If you refer to Thomas Aquinas argument he essentially said that you have a ranking order in the world and the more similar something is to a human being the more perfect it is.

Aquinas says nothing of the sort. The degrees in which we can speak of something as more or less perfect than another indicates that an absolute standard which provides being to our standard must exist. It is different from what you are arguing against.

God is absolutely simple, though, as a matter of fact, not complex (for that would imply some sort of division).

 

Quote:
 

3) Every movement is the effect of a force. This is as someone already said not exactly correct. True, if some body is at rest and you then changes it to become a body that is moving, you must apply some force to the body. However, there are several problems here.

The motion spoken of in the proof is not force. Rather, Aristotelian motion indicates change. The most fundamental change necessary would be movement from non-being to being.

Quote:
 

To prove that there is no God you would first have to ask "which God?". One cannot prove there is no "generiic God" for the same reason you cannnot prove there are invisible elves right next to you. Specific Gods such as the christian God, Allah, Zeus, Jupiter etc is somewhat easier. Such Gods often have traits and if you can show that those traits doesn't make sense then you have a good argument that such a God cannot exist. True, many theologians will give you some rationale or reasoning why one might believe there is such a god - perhaps by redefining some words or reinterpreting some texts but all such reasoning and rationale usually raises more questions in turn.

What God is cannot be naturally defined except in relation to the cause of the universe. We have no a priori knowledge of what He is, and even by looking at a posteriori proofs we cannot prove more than that He exists, regardless of what He is.

We can only know what God is by Revelation, which requires faith.

Zeus and Jupiter, ect. are impossible because they contradict what we know of the nature of God by reason of Him being the cause of all things (that He is one, ect.).

Quote:

Also, to conclude, I want to emphasize and repeat that even if you somehow managed to prove that those arguments showed that there was a God, you still haven't even gotten close to show that this God is a personal omnipotent omniscient benevolent God as the christian God as described in the Bible is assumed to be. That is a HUGE step which most people who attempt to prove God simply skip over and hope that people won't notice.

It can be proven that this God is further omniscient, omnipotent, ect. but I wish to focus first on whether or not this proof is cogent (which I believe it to be).

Quote:

If I were to asked to prove that there is no christian God I would not use those 3 arguments above but would rather raise problems with attributes of this God

1. He is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent. Each of these are problematic in and of themselves as well as there are problems how a being can have 2 of these qualities and still create a world as we have today.

It is not. There is no reason why it would be.

Quote:

2. He is supposedly the source of absolute moral. What does it mean "absolute moral"? What is the content of this moral? For example, is slavery moral or immoral? If slavery is immoral, why didn't the bible say that you shouldn't own slaves? If slavery is moral according to God, isn't he then immoral compared with modern day man who generally thinks that slavery is wrong?

Absolute standards of morality are not contradictory. Morality might depend largely on intent and circumstance, but that does not mean that the disposition of the will and its objects cannot be classified as evil objectively (or good). Slavery is immoral, but its morality is a rather complicated example for many reasons (If you want, we can talk about it further).

In matters of the Bible, the Bible reveals what the natural law and eternal law is. Now, the morality of slavery is fairly clearly expressed in a few places, such as the Epistle to Philemon. The Bible indicates that slavery is a bad practice, but can be tolerated if it meets certain conditions (whereby we treat slaves in a manner that is moral, ect.). It can be talked about further, but it is rather a complex question.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

PS - I am not trying to avoid the question on slavery, I just have to do other things. If we want to discuss it in more detail, just say so. However, it seems we ought to focus more clearly on the first question of whether God exists before we move on.

 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The Big Bang

Quote:
The Big Bang requires a cause. It has very little to do with the cause of material motion.

The most I could show is that, by something of a process of elimination and checks to natural reason, almost all world religions except Christianity and Judaism are not in keeping with this God (that we know exists). It amounts to an elimination with probable proof, but Revelation is not proven by natural reason and is only accepted on faith.

The whole point is that a first cause must exist. An infinity of causes is impossible, for then there would be no causes subsequently existing. A first cause, regardless of what it is, must exist (and we would point to this cause as God). If something caused 'X,' then 'X' is not the first cause, and hence not God. But a first cause must exist.

The cause of the universe is not necessarily a material cause of movement. God is not just a motion machine in the sense of material motion. God causes the existence of things.

The Big Bang requires a cause, however, and that is all that is necessary to be said. Material causality does not even need to be spoken of, as God is logically prior to them.

There are many types of cause. The atom must exist, in the first place, in order to be emitting radiation. The atom must thus have a cause. Also, the atom must be radioactive, which indicates that it acquired instability in some way. I am sure that there is a cause for the emission of radiation, but it is irrelevant to the proof.

Everything must have a cause of some sort, otherwise it would not exist. Again, an infinite regress of absolute efficent causes is impossible.

The degrees in which we can speak of something as more or less perfect than another indicates that an absolute standard which provides being to our standard must exist. It is different from what you are arguing against.

God is absolutely simple, though, as a matter of fact, not complex (for that would imply some sort of division).

The motion spoken of in the proof is not force. Rather, Aristotelian motion indicates change. The most fundamental change necessary would be movement from non-being to being.

What God is cannot be naturally defined except in relation to the cause of the universe. We have no a priori knowledge of what He is, and even by looking at a posteriori proofs we cannot prove more than that He exists, regardless of what He is.

What a bunch of BS. If a first cause is required, why not the singularity? Do you need a magician that badly?

Quote:
We can only know what God is by Revelation, which requires faith.
Yeah to understand God first you have to believe in God. Thanks a bunch. The reality is, the FSM is the one true god and you have to believe in Him before you can see the truth of its existence and understand His Divine Nature.

Quote:
Zeus and Jupiter, ect. are impossible because they contradict what we know of the nature of God by reason of Him being the cause of all things (that He is one, ect.).
Stop spreading hellfire doctrines. The FSM is the cause of all things, your God is a fabrication.

Quote:
What God is cannot be naturally defined except in relation to the cause of the universe. We have no a priori knowledge of what He is, and even by looking at a posteriori proofs we cannot prove more than that He exists, regardless of what He is.

We can only know what God is by Revelation, which requires faith.

So, it is impossible to know anything about God unless we already know about God. Got it.

Quote:
Zeus and Jupiter, ect. are impossible because they contradict what we know of the nature of God by reason of Him being the cause of all things (that He is one, ect.).
So Zeus is not God because he is not God. Got it.

BTW - Zeus was never thought to be the cause of all things. He was merely a god; a child of the Titans.

God had no time to create time.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
You asked, not me, but you

You asked, not me, but you asked if I agreed that the universe needs a first cause.

No, I don't.  I think this is a special plead fallacy. I say as much here:

Refutation of the kalam argument.

 Shaun

 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:Aquinas'

StMichael wrote:
Aquinas' argument cannot be refuted because it is correct; I see no logical gaps or problems with it. Further, I have read most arguments against this proof and find them utterly non-convincing, possessing bad logic.
Since it seems pointless to debate that conclusion with you, for the sake of argument, let's just assume you're right and that the first cause argument is rock solid. Now use that to prove:

- god is sentient
- there is only 1 god
- god is omni^3
- god is personal
- god is all good
- there is an afterlife
- god cares about what we believe/do
- etc.

Even if we were to accept Aquinas' proofs of the existence of a god, that still says nothing at all about the nature of that "god", nor does it exclude something natural and unconscious from being "god" (superstrings for example). Such exercises do not give us any useful insights at all.
StMichael wrote:
God creates time and I don't see what my statement has to do with it.
Neither do I.
StMichael wrote:
Absolute standards of morality are not contradictory. Morality might depend largely on intent and circumstance, but that does not mean that the disposition of the will and its objects cannot be classified as evil objectively (or good). Slavery is immoral, but its morality is a rather complicated example for many reasons (If you want, we can talk about it further).

In matters of the Bible, the Bible reveals what the natural law and eternal law is. Now, the morality of slavery is fairly clearly expressed in a few places, such as the Epistle to Philemon. The Bible indicates that slavery is a bad practice, but can be tolerated if it meets certain conditions (whereby we treat slaves in a manner that is moral, ect.). It can be talked about further, but it is rather a complex question.
The one thing we do know about standards of morality is that the Bible is -- by the standards of an overwhelming majority -- a poor source. Stoning people to death for getting a divorce, or kids for talking back to their parents, are just a couple of the adhorent moral standards the Bible endorses.
Quote:
The Big Bang requires a cause. It has very little to do with the cause of material motion.

The most I could show is that, by something of a process of elimination and checks to natural reason, almost all world religions except Christianity and Judaism are not in keeping with this God (that we know exists). It amounts to an elimination with probable proof, but Revelation is not proven by natural reason and is only accepted on faith.

The whole point is that a first cause must exist. An infinity of causes is impossible, for then there would be no causes subsequently existing. A first cause, regardless of what it is, must exist (and we would point to this cause as God). If something caused 'X,' then 'X' is not the first cause, and hence not God. But a first cause must exist.

Look, first and foremost, you cannot posit the existence of a non-logical being and then use logic to "argue" that point. Either you work within the confines of logic, or you abandon it altogether - you can't have it both ways.

Secondly, look at the emphasized phrase. Here you shoot yourself in the foot because you're dismissing one theory based on the fact that the uncausable is impossible. Yet your bias prevents you from applying the same rules to the idea of God (since, the idea of a "first cause" implies no causes subsequently existing - by the way, I think you meant "previous to" - subsequent means something after the fact).

Thirdly, why is it so difficult for people to comprehend the concept of infinity? An infinity of causes may sound impossible to you, about as impossible as the idea of an uncaused "first cause" is to me. You can't claim that there was a "first cause" and then suggest everything since is caused, because you've already accepted the notion that there was no cause for the so-called "first cause". Using that line of reasoning, one could easily apply that to the universe. If you're willing to entertain the idea that God was not caused, then you equally have to entertain the idea that the universe may not have been caused.
Quote:
The Big Bang requires a cause, however, and that is all that is necessary to be said. Material causality does not even need to be spoken of, as God is logically prior to them.

As I said before, if you're willing to entertain that something does not require a cause (namely, God), then there's absolutely no reason not to apply the same idea to the universe itself, otherwise you're just being prejudiced.
Quote:
Everything must have a cause of some sort, otherwise it would not exist. Again, an infinite regress of absolute efficent causes is impossible.

If "everything must have a cause of some sort, otherwise it would not exists", then you agree that God does not exist, since you already admit that He wasn't "caused".
Quote:
What God is cannot be naturally defined except in relation to the cause of the universe. We have no a priori knowledge of what He is, and even by looking at a posteriori proofs we cannot prove more than that He exists, regardless of what He is.

We can only know what God is by Revelation, which requires faith.

And thus the crux of the matter becomes apparent: nothing of what you say is based in proven fact. Faith != fact.
Quote:
Zeus and Jupiter, ect. are impossible because they contradict what we know of the nature of God by reason of Him being the cause of all things (that He is one, ect.).

God is impossible because he contradicts what we know of the nature of the Invisible Pink Unicorn by reason of Her being the cause of all things (that She is one, etc.).
Quote:
Aquinas' argument cannot be refuted because it is correct; I see no logical gaps or problems with it. Further, I have read most arguments against this proof and find them utterly non-convincing, possessing bad logic.

Aquinas, arguments, is so overrated it's ridiculous.

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: What a bunch of BS.

Quote:

What a bunch of BS. If a first cause is required, why not the singularity? Do you need a magician that badly?

God is the name for the first cause. We merely posit that one is necessary. It cannot be a singularity because a singularity has potency and thus cannot be the cause prior to all other causes.

Quote:

Yeah to understand God first you have to believe in God. Thanks a bunch.

No, to believe that the God proven by natural reason is identical with the God of Christian Revelation can be said two ways. From natural reason's perspective, we cannot only speak of certain attributes flowing from His being (such that He is one, all powerful, ect.) but not of what He is. From faith, we know His essence (One God, Three Persons, ect.). The Christian religion identifies its God as the first cause. The first cause exists. Hence, God, according to Christians, exists. It can be said that faith enters in to the discussion, because the Christian posits things of its God which are not and cannot naturally be known (that He is Three in One, and became man, ect.). It does not beg the question.

 

Quote:

Quote:
Zeus and Jupiter, ect. are impossible because they contradict what we know of the nature of God by reason of Him being the cause of all things (that He is one, ect.).

 

Stop spreading hellfire doctrines. The FSM is the cause of all things, your God is a fabrication.

If the FSM was the first cause he could not be made of spaghetti. Hence, he is not God. The name we give to the first cause is God, we do not go the other way around because we cannot know what God's essence is by our natural reason. We can only posit that a first cause exists and has certain qualities. We call this being God.

Quote:

 

What God is cannot be naturally defined except in relation to the cause of the universe. We have no a priori knowledge of what He is, and even by looking at a posteriori proofs we cannot prove more than that He exists, regardless of what He is.

 

We can only know what God is by Revelation, which requires faith.

So, it is impossible to know anything about God unless we already know about God. Got it.

No, it is impossible to know God's essence without God telling you about Himself. We can know that God exists because we know that a first cause exists which we call God.

Quote:

Quote:
Zeus and Jupiter, ect. are impossible because they contradict what we know of the nature of God by reason of Him being the cause of all things (that He is one, ect.).

 

So Zeus is not God because he is not God. Got it.

BTW - Zeus was never thought to be the cause of all things. He was merely a god; a child of the Titans.

I pointed that out that Zeus was not a cause of all things, ect. In response, "Zeus" is not the first cause for precisely that reason; he is not a first cause, but a child of the Titans and king among the gods. In a certain sense, Zeus is God because the Christians commandeered the term of "deus" or "theos" from the Greek pagans to speak of God (the pagans of course meaning their divinities). The Christians and Jews use this term in the same general sense (a cause of the things of this world, the order of this world, governing this world, a being beyond nature as a causing agent). It was, in other words, an analogous use of "divinity."

 

 

 

 

In response to Shaun:

Before we begin, I do not accept the "kalam" argument. I accept the argument of Saint Thomas because it is clearer and less logically ambiguous. 

Quote:

The important term here is, of course, “actual infinite.”

On both sides, including the fact that an "actual infinite" in the techinical sense of the term is not what is indicated in the proof.

Second, the use of "time" is not in either Aristotle's or Aquinas' proof for the existence of God. It has nothing to do with the fact of when time began. It has to do with a necessary cause for existence in general, applying equally to temporal or even non temporal being.

In fact, Aristotle agreed, as well as Aquinas, that a potential infinity of both matter and time exists, though it is not actualized. The actual infinite cannot exist in natural bodies because a body's nature is, by definition, finite and quantifiable. For example, there can never be an object with an actually infinite surface area in existence. Even in the question of actual infinites apart from matter, no real infinity is possible because all things must be termed in order to be understood. Even the mathematical term "infinity" requires a limit to be set to infinity in order for it to even hypothetically exist. All numbers are, by definition, measured by some quantity; if there is no limit, it is not properly a number. This said, no actual infinity can exist either in physical or mental magnitudes. Potential divisions, however, obviously exist because matter or number can always be subdivided even though continuous (though it is not actually so divided).

Lastly, even though I discussed the topic of actual infinity, the actual infinity as a technical term in mathematics does not apply in the sense you are attempting to. The mathematicians are trying to use the idea that an infinity can be actually concieved as set. They are trying to show that it is a definite enough limit to consider it a set of numbers (which I would disagree with, nevertheless, as above). This has very little impact on the question of whether an infinite regress of causes is possible. An infinite regress is possible only accidentally, where we consider that my hand moves a dog which moves a rock, ect. ad infinitum. An actual infinite of causes is different because it posits that something can exist absolutely without limit, which is impossible. All subsequent causes cannot exist if no ultimate cause exists as their foundation.

Finally, the ultimate first cause must exist, regardless of what caused what. This is why, if something caused the cause, it is not the first cause and hence not God (who is defined philosophically as the first cause). God = "the first cause of all things"

The ontological argument does not apply as I do not advocate it.

 

Quote:

Since it seems pointless to debate that conclusion with you,

It is not pointless.

Quote:

 for the sake of argument, let's just assume you're right and that the first cause argument is rock solid. Now use that to prove:

- god is sentient
- there is only 1 god
- god is omni^3
- god is personal
- god is all good
- there is an afterlife
- god cares about what we believe/do
- etc.

 

Well, I cannot address all of those in one post because it would take quite a long time. First, let's talk about God.

 Assuming the first cause exists, the first cause must be purely act, without any potentiality. God is pure act because He, by definition to be God, cannot be caused by anything else. Potency is a lack, while actuality is the presence of being. In God, then, no potency exists because it would indicate that He is caused by something else.

 

Quote:

Even if we were to accept Aquinas' proofs of the existence of a god, that still says nothing at all about the nature of that "god", nor does it exclude something natural and unconscious from being "god" (superstrings for example). Such exercises do not give us any useful insights at all.

I believe it shall be clear why superstrings, or any material cause cannot fulfill the nature of first cause.

 

Quote:

The one thing we do know about standards of morality is that the Bible is -- by the standards of an overwhelming majority -- a poor source. Stoning people to death for getting a divorce, or kids for talking back to their parents, are just a couple of the adhorent moral standards the Bible endorses.
      I would believe this to be the consequence of shallow reading of Sacred Scripture. Also, what 'overwhelming majority' are you referring to? I would point out that most people in the world are Christian and many, if not most, of those outside Christianity tend to agree that the Bible possesses a morality which is perfectly acceptable (in fact, most peoples' response tends to be, "Jesus sounds like a good guy who taught nice things, but I don't believe that He is God.&quotEye-wink      I would point out, first, that nothing in the Old Testament would call for killing people for getting a divorce (as the Old Testament clearly indicates that a divorce is possible, if there is no remarriage), nor does it call for death for people who talk back to their parents. The Old Testament contains many things which are of allegorical meaning. Likewise, even of those things that are of literal meaning, such as a precept like "attack the Ammorites," a good deal in the Old Testament are merely temporary or are precepts indicating an intention/spiritual attitude to be adopted (where all precepts against various forms of idolatry indicate not "just" not disobeying these forms of idolatry, but of loving God above all things and rejecting anything outside of Him). The sense of these precepts in the Old Testament is much more variable than the New Testament, where the intent behind God's Law is clearly expressed (To love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself; the 10 commandments as the basic summary of this).

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I am sorry, I accidentally

I am sorry, I accidentally posted that before it was finished. I never included the talk about the various qualities of God.

However, the first/last point about Aquinas and whether it is impossible to debate me: I did not say that it was pointless to discuss it. I find it logically coherent and without flaw. If I did not, I obviously would not hold it to be true. If you want to prove that it is contains bad logic, go ahead; I just do not see any problems with it and believe that a critique of it would involve bad logic.

 

Quote:

Quote:
The Big Bang requires a cause. It has very little to do with the cause of material motion.

 

The most I could show is that, by something of a process of elimination and checks to natural reason, almost all world religions except Christianity and Judaism are not in keeping with this God (that we know exists). It amounts to an elimination with probable proof, but Revelation is not proven by natural reason and is only accepted on faith.

The whole point is that a first cause must exist. An infinity of causes is impossible, for then there would be no causes subsequently existing. A first cause, regardless of what it is, must exist (and we would point to this cause as God). If something caused 'X,' then 'X' is not the first cause, and hence not God. But a first cause must exist.

Look, first and foremost, you cannot posit the existence of a non-logical being and then use logic to "argue" that point. Either you work within the confines of logic, or you abandon it altogether - you can't have it both ways.

God is not illogical. He is the cause of logic only in the sense that, as being exists in Him, being cannot contradict itself (exist and not exist in the same way at the same time). God's existence is the "foundation" of logic, or, even better, is logic.

Quote:

Secondly, look at the emphasized phrase. Here you shoot yourself in the foot because you're dismissing one theory based on the fact that the uncausable is impossible. Yet your bias prevents you from applying the same rules to the idea of God (since, the idea of a "first cause" implies no causes subsequently existing - by the way, I think you meant "previous to" - subsequent means something after the fact).

Subsequent causes do exist: the things in the world. As they exist, there cannot be an infinite series of causes of them, for then they would cease to exist (in the order of efficent causality). All it proves is that a first cause must exist for there to be subsequent causes, as the infinity of causes cannot exist. We can consider this under the aspect of motion. There exist in the world things that are in motion. Now, what is moved is put into motion by another. Nothing can further be reduced from potency to act (which is motion) without having an actor acting upon it which is in actuality. Thus, wood is only set fire if it is in potency to the heat as being combustible and is only set on fire if a hot thing acts upon it. Something cannot be both actually and potentially in the same respect; thus, something is not both potentially hot and actually hot in the same respect. Whatever is in motion, then, must be put into motion by another and a self-moved mover is impossible. But this cannot go onto infinity because the moved gain movement only insofar as they are moved and hence no motion could exist. Therefore, there must exist an unmoved mover which we call God.

Quote:

Thirdly, why is it so difficult for people to comprehend the concept of infinity? An infinity of causes may sound impossible to you, about as impossible as the idea of an uncaused "first cause" is to me. You can't claim that there was a "first cause" and then suggest everything since is caused, because you've already accepted the notion that there was no cause for the so-called "first cause". Using that line of reasoning, one could easily apply that to the universe. If you're willing to entertain the idea that God was not caused, then you equally have to entertain the idea that the universe may not have been caused.

No, because the universe is in motion. There exists no "self-caused cause." God is not moved by another, even Himself, but is purely acting/moving. Without such a pure act, no motion/causality can happen.

Quote:
 

Quote:
The Big Bang requires a cause, however, and that is all that is necessary to be said. Material causality does not even need to be spoken of, as God is logically prior to them.

 

As I said before, if you're willing to entertain that something does not require a cause (namely, God), then there's absolutely no reason not to apply the same idea to the universe itself, otherwise you're just being prejudiced.

What is the first cause cannot have division in it, for division is a form of potency. However, the universe has division between bodies and even assuming it to be a singular body would possess a division between its form and matter, as well as because it was infinitely divisible, and because no body can be in motion without being set into motion (as the proof from motion proved). Even a spirit or mind by itself could not meet this criteria because it contains a division between its essence (what it is) and existence (how it is/it is). God has no such division and His essence and existence are identical. He is completely One, without any division at all.

Quote:

If "everything must have a cause of some sort, otherwise it would not exists", then you agree that God does not exist, since you already admit that He wasn't "caused".

I misspoke. I meant that it is not possible to create an efficent cause which is the cause of itself because such a thing would be logically prior to itself, which would be impossible. God is not the efficent cause of Himself as He is a pure cause.

 

Quote:

And thus the crux of the matter becomes apparent: nothing of what you say is based in proven fact. Faith != fact.

What God is in Himself can be known only by Revelation. His essence is unknowable naturally.

Quote:

God is impossible because he contradicts what we know of the nature of the Invisible Pink Unicorn by reason of Her being the cause of all things (that She is one, etc.).

Then the phrase "pink" and "unicorn" cease to have meaning (as the first cause cannot be either pink nor a unicorn) and you end up meaning the same thing when I say the word "God."  

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Look, imagine I posit that a

Imagine I posit that a SuperGod created God, since everything must have a cause. I can then state that the existence of my SuperGod cannot be subjected to logical proof because my SuperGod transcends logic. I am thus admitting that it is logically impossible to prove my SuperGod exists. However, since my SuperGod transcends logic, I can also claim that you cannot logically prove my SuperGod doesn't exist. I am comfortable knowing you haven't disproved me. The fact that I haven't proved anything myself doesn't make that comfort any less, well, comfortable.

One of the easiest ways for a believer to reassure themselves that their belief is justified is by placing their belief beyond criticism. Thus, when it becomes obvious that God's existence is logically impossible (or at least not logically provable), the only favorable recourse is to then posit that God transcends logic and thus applying logic is useless. That some ironically package this as logic is irrelevant.

We assume time began at the point the universe began. OK, so how does this prove a first cause? Why couldn't the universe just spontaneously pop into existence? After all, it is no less likely that the universe did just this than God. You can't deny infinity and then use it as an argument for first cause; think about it - if God created time, then before he created it, he must have existed infinitely since not having a concept of time, everything happens at once. But that's impossible, because without time, there is no such thing as "before". Therefore, if God created time, he must have created himself whilst doing so, which of course is absurd. Unless you admit that God existed infinitely which brings me back to the fact that you can't deny infinity when attempting to prove a first cause - why even does one need to posit a creator if one can already accept that something exists infinitely and thus just apply that same principle to the universe? The universe, in some sense existed infinitely because until the universe came about, there was no "before" (there being no time). And if the universe existed infinitely then there is no need to posit a first cause.

It's also logically impossible that everything needs a cause, and yet there be a first cause. It's a self-contradiction and therefore logically impossible.

However, I can't see why infinite regress is impossible. It is merely because the concept of infinite is hard for humans to grasp that we assume it's not possible. However, if we are to believe time began at the time of the universes birth, then, in some sense, the universe has existed infinitely.

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I will try to get around to

I will try to get around to answering this tomorrow or the next day. I apologize for the delay.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

And because my SuperGod isn't bound by logic, the following will be true:

    (P1) You have to believe in Jesus (follow him, worship him etc.) to be saved.
    (P2) I don't believe in Jesus (don't follow him, don't worship him etc.)
    -------------------------------------------
    (C) Therefore I will be saved (illogical conclusion from (P1) and (P2)
Checkmate.

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
First, there can be no

First, there can be no further cause of the first cause, otherwise that cause would really be the first cause. Hence, the only first cause can be the first cause. We refer to this first cause as God. Nothing can cause the first cause because it is by definition the first cause. Assuming there was a cause B which was caused by A, this cannot be the first cause (and hence, not the same as what the term "God" indicates). A would be the first cause.

Further, the first cause cannot exist "prior" to logic because logic would flow from the fact that it exists. Logic is based in the reality of being, and as the first cause provides the being of everything else, logic would be the "side-effect" of the fact that the first cause causes the being of all subsequent causes. Hence, the first cause cannot be "beyond" logic.

Further, to maintain a being outside being is a contradiction in terms and, hence, impossible according to the first rule of logic: non-contradiction. You committ the fallacy of stealing the concept if you say something like this.

Further, it would quickly become circular if you said that your god was beyond logic and could do all things without restriction. We would say, "What can he do, then?" and the only answer able to be given would be, "What he can do." It would become quickly circular.

Further, because God created the universe and is defined as a first cause, a likeness exists between what He has created and what He is. As every active power corresponds in its possible objects to the nature on which the active power is founded, we ought to ask what God's nature is. The first cause must be being without limitation, an uncaused cause. God is pure being without limitation. In this case, God can cause only those things that are like Himself, in that only those things possible as beings absolutely are able to be caused. Therefore, something beyond logic does not make sense, as it would imply a contradiction and would be a "non-being" beyond the scope of the first cause.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

It's only because you aren't paying any attention.

First, we observe around us things which influence other things, and we call that causation. To speak of causation, we have a few criteria:

  1. First, A caused B when they belong to the same space and are somewhat near to one another - that is, you can measure the distance between A and B. This presupposes space.

  2. Second, A has to happen before B or at the same time. This presupposes time.
  3. Third, A must have the potence to act on B. This presupposes the existence of both A and B.
  4. Fourth, A has to transfer energy on B.
  5. Fifth, logic must be presupposed. A must have a logical connection to B, it must be logically possible that A caused B.
If one of the criteria is unfullfilled, we don't speak of causation. So, we can't deduce from the fact that A can have an effect on B, that something that starts to exist has a cause. This is unsupported even if we assume that everything has a cause.

If B starts to exist, any A cannot be the cause of it. Because A cannot act on something that does not exist. When B does not exist, and comes to exist, it soes not exist in space nor time until it exists. From the point of view from B, at one moment it does not exist in time or space, so you cannot say that A is near B, nor that A is before B, nor that an existing A acts on B, nor that A transfers energy on B. Of course, this is possible from the moment on that B exists but not before.

To make it short, we cannot assume that A causes B to exist, because we presuppose the existence of B when we speak of causation. So to say that A caused B to exist is confused. And so we can't move from saying that an existing A acted on an existing B to: A acted on B and caused it to exist.

The opposite is true: Everything that starts to exist cannot have been caused.

But even if you deny that, you still cannot say that everything that starts to exist has a cause. Say that we have a chain of causes: A starts B to exist, B starts C to exist and so on. This chain can take three forms:
  1. Either, the chain is infinite, that is, it has no beginning. The whole chain is uncaused, because there cannot be a first cause. It is the fallacy of composition to assume that the whole chain is caused, and even if you assume that, you are simply prolonging the infnite chain, which does not make it better.
  2. Or, the chain has a beginning. In that case, the firt element of the chain is uncaused.
  3. Or, you have to assume the the chain is a circle: A caused B, B caused C, ... Z caused A. But this circle - though everything belonging to that circle is caused - is, as a whole, uncaused. To assume that it was caused brings you to the second option: That what caused the circle to exist has to be uncaused, or leads to an infinite chain of causes.
This list of possibilities is exhaustive. To show that the argument is false you have to find a fourth way which does not lead to the conclusion that something started uncaused. Good luck.

So, the best you can do if you assume a special-pleading way that existence could be caused is to come to: Not everything that starts to exist has a cause. And this renders the Kalam Cosmological Argument useless.

So, we have two strong arguments against the assumption that everything that starts to exist has a cause. This assumption is definitely false. If you want to stick with it you have to meet both of my objections.

And, once we have the argument refuted that everything that starts to exist has a cause, it does not pose a problem that with quantum mechanics you have something that starts to exist uncaused, because this is not ruled out, and my first argument makes it plausible that starting to exist may be never caused.

If actual infinities cannot exist, something started uncaused. If this is wrong, the whole chain of existence is uncaused. So either assumption does not gain anything.

Introducing god does not help you, because god has to be uncaused, so you're back at not everything that exists has to have a cause. From the first argument we can deduce that if the universe started to exist, god cannot have been the cause, so a creator of the universe cannot exist. If the chain of causation is infinite, a creator of the universe cannot exist. In every possible case a creator is ruled out, and that's why I'm a strong atheist concerning any creator-god.

If you refute my first argument (though I can't imagine how you would do that), you have a special-pleading way to assume that the universe must have been caused. And if you assume that everything has to have a special-pleading that caused it to exist, you must explain why this special-pleading way of causing to exist isn't true for god - he must have been caused himself, in a special way, or you still have to admit that not everything that exists has to have a cause (in this case, god). And because of that the argument still fails.

So instead of an argument for gods existence, here we have two strong arguments for the nonexistence of a creator-god. Ah, and for causation, we have another thing to presuppose: logic. But if logic fails, or wasn't involved in creation, the logic of the Kalam argument fails, too. Once you have broken the chain of logic, you can't deduce anything before this break in the chain logically. And if logic is defied when something starts to exist, than it cannot have been caused to exist, because without logic the assumption of a cause is illogical. And that is just the same as to say that something starts to exist uncaused.

-Pikachu-

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:   First, we observe

Quote:
 

First, we observe around us things which influence other things, and we call that causation. To speak of causation, we have a few criteria: First, A caused B when they belong to the same space and are somewhat near to one another - that is, you can measure the distance between A and B. This presupposes space.

Causation is most certainly not limited to space. A causes B in a proof. My disgruntled attitude is said to cause my other coworkers to be angry at me. These are real causes, but of different species than merely physical causes.

 

Quote:
 

 Second, A has to happen before B or at the same time. This presupposes time. 

A does not have to happen before B in time at all. B can merely be dependent upon A for its existence in which case all A needs to be is logically prior to B. This is why we can see cause following effect (in time) in quantum mechanics.

Quote:
 

Third, A must have the potence to act on B. This presupposes the existence of both A and B.

You mean "power" or "ability." Potency denotes a lack or absence of something. You mean that A must have the ability to act on B. This says nothing about B, except that it might be possible for A to act on B. But a possible existence of B is enough for A to act on B.

Quote:
 

Fourth, A has to transfer energy on B.

That depends what you mean. "Energy" in the sense that modern physics uses it is different from "act." In order for B to be in motion, A must act upon B, but not necessarily transfer physical energy to it. It could be said to "transfer energy" but only in a limited context where terms were clearly indicated. Further, I believe you mean a physical sense.

 

Quote:

Fifth, logic must be presupposed. A must have a logical connection to B, it must be logically possible that A caused B.

That is assumed and necessary.

Quote:
 

So, we can't deduce from the fact that A can have an effect on B, that something that starts to exist has a cause.

That is not what we are maintaining. We are maintaining that, from the fact that an infinity of efficent causes/movers cannot exist because no other motion could happen, it necessarily needs a first cause/mover which is unmoved. Everything in motion must be put into motion by another. No thing is found to move itself, or to be the efficent cause of itself (as this implies a contradiction). Hence, there must be an unmoved mover.

Quote:

This is unsupported even if we assume that everything has a cause. If B starts to exist, any A cannot be the cause of it. Because A cannot act on something that does not exist.

That depends what you mean by 'non-existent." If A causes B to exist, all this requires is that some notion of B might exist in A in order to act to bring B, which was only in potential, into actuality. An analogy: the sculptor does not need a statue in order to sculpt a statue. Rather, the sculptor has an idea of a statue, a possible existence, which he actualizes in the matter at hand. The state has a possible existence on which the sculptor acts. It would only be true that A could not act on B if B was simply non-existent.

 

Quote:

When B does not exist, and comes to exist, it soes not exist in space nor time until it exists. From the point of view from B, at one moment it does not exist in time or space, so you cannot say that A is near B, nor that A is before B, nor that an existing A acts on B, nor that A transfers energy on B.

A acts on B in order to provide the cause of its being, but that does not require a temporal priority, but only a logical one.

Quote:
  

The opposite is true: Everything that starts to exist cannot have been caused.

That phrase contradicts itself. If something came into being, it requires a cause. Otherwise, the thing would be eternal.  

Quote:

But even if you deny that, you still cannot say that everything that starts to exist has a cause. Say that we have a chain of causes: A starts B to exist, B starts C to exist and so on. This chain can take three forms: Either, the chain is infinite, that is, it has no beginning. The whole chain is uncaused, because there cannot be a first cause.

If it has no beginning, A could not cause B and hence the chain could have no subsequent causes (B,C,D,E...Z).

Quote:

It is the fallacy of composition to assume that the whole chain is caused, and even if you assume that, you are simply prolonging the infnite chain, which does not make it better.

Yes it does. If we place a beginning in logical priority, it provides the existence of the things in the chain. If no such cause exists, no effects exist further. We must merely assume some uncaused cause of the entire chain; it would only prolong the chain if the first cause was able to be caused by something else, and so on, ect.

Quote:
 

Or, the chain has a beginning. In that case, the firt element of the chain is uncaused.

Which is the necessary conclusion. The first cause is uncaused.

Quote:
 

Or, you have to assume the the chain is a circle: A caused B, B caused C, ... Z caused A. But this circle - though everything belonging to that circle is caused - is, as a whole, uncaused.

Which is impossible because no thing can be logically prior to itself (its cause), nor can a thing be moved by itself in the same way and same respect.

Quote:
 

To assume that it was caused brings you to the second option: That what caused the circle to exist has to be uncaused, or leads to an infinite chain of causes. This list of possibilities is exhaustive.

The first cause is uncaused by any other cause. It is in a state of pure act, without any potency. An infinite chain of efficent causes/movers is impossible.

Quote:
 

To show that the argument is false you have to find a fourth way which does not lead to the conclusion that something started uncaused.

The aim of our proof is precisely to show that there is one uncaused efficent cause.

Quote:
 

Good luck. So, the best you can do if you assume a special-pleading way that existence could be caused is to come to: Not everything that starts to exist has a cause. And this renders the Kalam Cosmological Argument useless.

Or, as you said, everything which only has possible existence (depends on another for its existence, or can pass out of existence, or which starts to exist) requires a necessary existing being in order to exist. God/the First Cause is the necessary cause of all subsequent dependent beings.

Further, I am not accepting Kalam.

Quote:

And, once we have the argument refuted that everything that starts to exist has a cause, it does not pose a problem that with quantum mechanics you have something that starts to exist uncaused, because this is not ruled out, and my first argument makes it plausible that starting to exist may be never caused.

Quantum mechanics does not posit no cause to things, but only that cause does not necessarily happen temporally (the only absolute priority necessary in cause is a logical priority).

Quote:
 

If actual infinities cannot exist, something started uncaused.

Yes, God. 

 

Quote:

If this is wrong, the whole chain of existence is uncaused.

No, because then it would not exist.

 

Quote:

Introducing god does not help you, because god has to be uncaused, so you're back at not everything that exists has to have a cause.

Dependent beings must have a cause, or those things in motion, so that only an uncaused causer, an unmoved mover, is necessary: this we call God.

 

Quote:

From the first argument we can deduce that if the universe started to exist, god cannot have been the cause, so a creator of the universe cannot exist.

Why not? If the universe started to exist, it would, by definition, be caused. If uncaused, it would be a contradiction to say that it "started" to exist. One uncaused cause is necessary: God.

Quote:

If the chain of causation is infinite, a creator of the universe cannot exist.

Effects cannot exist without their cause. If the chain had no prime cause, there would be no effects at all.

Quote:

 And if you assume that everything has to have a special-pleading that caused it to exist, you must explain why this special-pleading way of causing to exist isn't true for god - he must have been caused himself, in a special way, or you still have to admit that not everything that exists has to have a cause (in this case, god).

There is necessary to have one unmoved mover or uncaused efficent cause. This is God. He does not cause/move Himself, for He would then be logically prior to Himself (which is impossible), nor is He "in motion." God acts purely, without any action upon Him. "Everything that exists" does not have to have a cause. However, every thing "in motion" must have a mover and all dependent beings must depend, ultimately, on a necessary being. Further, there must be a prime efficent cause for the efficent causes we see to exist.

Ah, and for causation, we have another thing to presuppose: logic. But if logic fails, or wasn't involved in creation, the logic of the Kalam argument fails, too.

Except that we do not reject logic.

Quote:

And if logic is defied when something starts to exist, than it cannot have been caused to exist, because without logic the assumption of a cause is illogical. And that is just the same as to say that something starts to exist uncaused.

Logic follows necessarily as an attribute of being. For, the first proposition inherent in being itself is that being is not non-being. This first proposition is the foundation of logic. Logic = being. As God is the first cause and prime being on which all other beings depend, He is the supreme foundation of being on which logic depends (not as a cause, directly speaking as exterior to God, but indirectly as logic flows from His nature).

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael, why are you

StMichael wrote:
Yes, God.
Now let's take a close look on the major weakness of nearly all proofs for good. I use the first cause proof as an example:

(P1) Everything in existance has a cause.
(P2) It is not reasonable to assume an infinite chain of causes.
(C1) So there must have been a first cause.
(C2) This first cause we call god.

Now let us pretend for a moment that we accept the proof, that is, we don't take a look at the contradictions ((P1) contradicts (P2), (C1) contradicts (P1) and (P2) and so on). So we come to think that (C1) must be true.

What has been proven? That there must be a first cause. It is not proven what kind of first cause there has been. There are a lot of possibilities. Let's list a few of them:
  • One god has caused the universe to exist.
  • Two gods have caused the universe to exist.
  • Three gods (and so on, until we have an infinite number of gods) have created the universe.
  • Every of these gods could have been a material being.
  • Every god could have had limited power and limited knowledge.
  • Every god could have died in the process.
  • The creation of the universe could have been a side-effect of some other purpose (e. g. an accident), so no god cares for the universe.
  • One or more gods could have transformed themselves to the universe, this could even been an act of god-suicide.
  • A natural force could have been the first cause (e. g. a quantum fluctuation).
  • Everything of the above in some combination.
  • The universe could have been its own first cause.
  • Another universe could have been the cause of this universe.
  • A superior civilisation in another universe could have created this universe.
  • In the future, a civilisation could build a time machine and create the universe, simply because this is necessary.
  • At the end of time the universe could create a god that will be able to exist out of time and this god will create the universe, just because this god would otherwise destroy its own existence.
  • There could be a time-loop - at the end of time the universe will recreate itself and start all over, just because that will be necessary.
  • And so on ... (listing all possibilities would make this posting one of the longest postings on this board)
Going from (C1) to (C2) is just a non sequitur. It does not follow that the first cause has to be a god or something like that.

So far this proves only one thing: a lack of creativity on behalf of the theists. Because they believe that there is a god, they can't think of other first causes. There is simply no reason to assume that one special god has created the universe. Seems that believing in something harms your creativity.

In nearly every case (except for onological arguments which have problems of their own) these proofs prove too little. This is true for the design argument - there is no reason to suppose that the designer is a personal, non-material beeing, on the contrary, this could have been an impersonal force (and we have every reason to suppose this - e. g. evolution). If we take the theistic anthropic principle, there is no reason to assume that a god has fine-tuned the universe,anything could have done that instead.

Going from (C1) to (C2) in every "proof" is just a big, big leap in faith, not supported by anything. The sheer number of possibilities is just a sign of how unlikely a god is. Only a lack of creativity makes it possible to suppose that there is a god.

So even if this proof is perfect, I still see no reason to believe that the christian god has created the universe. I find it allways astonishing to see that theists overlook this major weakness in their kind of reasoning.

So I conclude that the proof even fails if we take its logic for granted. The proof tells us more about how erroneously theistic reasoning is. God is no explanation for the existence of the universe.

God had no time to create time.


Rambo
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-01-12
User is offlineOffline
StMichael, you keep

StMichael, you keep repeating the same shit over and over again. Why continuing arguing with the mathematicians ? The god of Christianity has been refuted since the age of the ancient philosophers.

How can you learn if you refuse to learn ?


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Now let's take a

Quote:

Now let's take a close look on the major weakness of nearly all proofs for good. I use the first cause proof as an example:

(P1) Everything in existance has a cause.
(P2) It is not reasonable to assume an infinite chain of causes.
(C1) So there must have been a first cause.
(C2) This first cause we call god.

Not to mention that P1 is false and not what I claim. God is in existence and does not have a cause. Tell me you have a higher opinion of me than that Smiling

I claim that something cannot be the efficent cause of its own being; God included. God is uncaused causer, without prior cause. He indeed must be because we cannot posit an infinite series of efficent causes, for then no subsequent efficent causes would exist. The same goes for motion - God is not "in motion" but all that which is "in motion" must be put into motion by a mover. This calls for an unmoved mover, not a self-moved mover. A self-moved mover would be a contradiction.

Quote:

What has been proven? That there must be a first cause. It is not proven what kind of first cause there has been. There are a lot of possibilities. Let's list a few of them:

Actually, the nature of it as first cause defines what it can and cannot be. It rules out most of these possibilites, as I previously discussed here or elsewhere.

Quote:

One god has caused the universe to exist.

This is the only possible answer because the first cause must be One. God cannot have any division in Him by matter, by number, by any thing at all (even between what He is and how He is). He must be One, without exception.

Quote:

  • Two gods have caused the universe to exist.
  • Three gods (and so on, until we have an infinite number of gods) have created the universe.

Which is impossible because each "God" would have the exact same "definition" or essence and hence they would all be the same thing (because they do not and cannot possess matter). Hence, there could only be one God.

Quote:

  • Every of these gods could have been a material being.

Cannot be material as this would imply potency. The First Cause cannot have ANY potency whatsoever, otherwise something would have caused it and it would not be the first cause.

Quote:

  • Every god could have had limited power and limited knowledge.

God would have to have both infinite power and knowledge. First, because something is knowable insofar as it is immaterial. God is immaterial for the reasons listed above. Hence, God has knowledge in the highest degree as He is most free from matter. Further, there are other proofs that can be offered that God knows in an infinite manner. God also must be purely powerful if He is pure act, because power denotes the ability to act upon something else. God must possess this, as He causes every other thing to exist, without limit.

  

Quote:

  • Every god could have died in the process.

The process...of what? Creation? God cannot die, as He has no material body (as proved above), and death can only occur in the dissolution of a material body.

Quote:
 

  • The creation of the universe could have been a side-effect of some other purpose (e. g. an accident), so no god cares for the universe.

No it could not. If we assume that there is a first cause, it must possess the characteristics I am speaking of from logical necessity. It cannot be a body for the reasons spoken of, nor could it be limited in any other sense. The First Cause would be the very act of existing, knowing itself and the universe and causing it to exist.

Quote:

  • One or more gods could have transformed themselves to the universe, this could even been an act of god-suicide.

How does this follow at all from my premises? If God is the first cause, He cannot commit suicide or destroy His being (as He is being itself).

Quote:

  • A natural force could have been the first cause (e. g. a quantum fluctuation).

Again, no it couldn't because the fluctuation is both material and is a possible existence, denoting a further necessary existence on which it depends; it is clear that it is possible because it begins and ceases to act - a fluctuation. Further, it depends very clearly on the nature of space/time to exist.

Quote:
 

  • The universe could have been its own first cause.

Impossible for the above reasons: nothing can cause itself in the same way and same respect, the first cause cannot be a body, the universe experiences generation, corruption, and is thus in motion (hence, dependent on a necessary mover, efficent cause, and necessarily existing being).

Quote:

  • Another universe could have been the cause of this universe.

But that does not mean that we would not eventually arrive at a first cause. It could have been, but that universe depended on something else, ect., back to the First Cause.

Quote:

  • A superior civilisation in another universe could have created this universe.

Maybe, but unlikely. False for the previous reason: the existence of the civilization and its universe would have to depend on something else, ect. back to the First Cause.

Quote:

  • In the future, a civilisation could build a time machine and create the universe, simply because this is necessary.

Nothing can be the cause of itself in the same way and same respect. Further, how? No human can create anything ex nihilo. The only way, then, would be to posit that matter existed from eternity and that man caused human life. But this is a seperate argument. Further, this eternally existing matter still requires an efficent cause. Lastly, we know the universe did not exist from eternity from science (at least, it contradicts all known evidence).

Quote:

  • At the end of time the universe could create a god that will be able to exist out of time and this god will create the universe, just because this god would otherwise destroy its own existence.

Man can create ex nihilo? Silly idea.

Quote:

  • There could be a time-loop - at the end of time the universe will recreate itself and start all over, just because that will be necessary.

No agent can be its own efficent cause, because it would be logically prior to itself. The same arguments can be repeated.

Quote:
 

Going from (C1) to (C2) is just a non sequitur. It does not follow that the first cause has to be a god or something like that.

It is the term we use to designate the cause of all things. We need to define what we mean by "divinity," where you seem to take it to mean something akin to "superhero," which is not what it meant even among pagans. It designates something as the ruler or creator of the natural universe.

 

Quote:
Seems that believing in something harms your creativity.

I am being accused of being too creative all the time. Anyway, it is an ad hominem.

Quote:

This is true for the design argument - there is no reason to suppose that the designer is a personal, non-material beeing, on the contrary, this could have been an impersonal force (and we have every reason to suppose this - e. g. evolution).

Design is not something I am advocation, nor the ontological argument, nor these other arguments. I believe that the universe is rationally ordered, but that is not the same thing as design, properly speaking in reference to the modern "design" theory.

Quote:

Going from (C1) to (C2) in every "proof" is just a big, big leap in faith, not supported by anything. The sheer number of possibilities is just a sign of how unlikely a god is. Only a lack of creativity makes it possible to suppose that there is a god.

First, even if we assume that there might be faith involved, but it is not a "leap" of faith at all. It is supported by perfectly acceptable natural conclusions about the First Cause. Second, I doubt that faith is required in this leap, because the First Cause can be designated God outside of having to associate it with Christianity/Judaism. Third, regardless, it proves that God exists. Fourth, the Christian religion just identifies its God with the First Cause - no leap needed. Fifth, by a process of elimination, the Christian God is the only one that both fits these criteria and claims to do so (which is equally important).

Quote:

So even if this proof is perfect, I still see no reason to believe that the christian god has created the universe. I find it allways astonishing to see that theists overlook this major weakness in their kind of reasoning.

The Christian God is defined as the First Cause. However, I point out that it proves God exists, regardless of which religion you have to associate such a God with (but, of course, this God must be one, all-powerful, all-knowing, ect.).

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:I claim

StMichael wrote:
I claim that something cannot be the efficent cause of its own being; God included. God is uncaused causer, without prior cause.
Since god cannot create itself than he's not the creator of all-things... this include intelligence. god did not create intelligence because he's already intelligent so i will claim that something intelligent have caused him.
StMichael wrote:
God is not "in motion".
Than he's not omnipotent.
StMichael wrote:
This calls for an unmoved mover, not a self-moved mover. A self-moved mover would be a contradiction.
So i use the law of non-contradiction against your god:

P1 – God Has The Ability To move And Is Unable To move

P2 - Nothing which Exists Can Be Both A And Not A

C1 – God Doesn’t Exist

If you deny this you deny logic and we are back to zero.

StMichael wrote:
Actually, the nature of it as first cause defines what it can and cannot be. It rules out most of these possibilites, as I previously discussed here or elsewhere.
Wrong. Things in nature are uncaused. Check Casimir effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
StMichael wrote:
The Christian God is defined as the First Cause. However, I point out that it proves God exists, regardless of which religion you have to associate such a God with (but, of course, this God must be one, all-powerful, all-knowing, ect.).
God creates all. God is omniscient, he knows all. When he contemplates creating the universe, he will know 13 billion years from now a man called Zelc will go to a McDomalds on June 17, 2004. Kmowing this, god must decide, do I all the universe I create to have this act done or not? Or maybe Zelc shoud visit Burger King? Since god knows from the point he creates a universe all you do and must make a decision to allow that universe in all its minuteness to be as it is with his approval of the smallest particulars, he in effect creates al particulars. Free will is impossible in a universe where god creates al and is omniscinet, he must make a personal decision to allow all that is, to be exactly the way it is by personal decision to create it that way. God is claimed to be creator of all, and omniscient. Dogmatically. The class of creator gods, that are omniscient and creators of all allow for no free will. But alledgedly are all good gods too. There then shoud be no moral evil, as all morally evil acts should be contemplated and decided on and allowed, or not, to exist. A god god could not allow and evil act. We have evil acts, this class of gods cannot exist. Allah, God almighty of the bible, Brahaman, Yahweh, cannot exist. Free will arguments are a joke. Augustine was a joke, Plantinga was a joke. Their dogmatic gods that are creators of all and omniscient, or omnipotent and out of time make free will impossible. Its all a moot argument with a creator god that is omniscient.
StMichael wrote:
First, even if we assume that there might be faith involved, but it is not a "leap" of faith at all. It is supported by perfectly acceptable natural conclusions about the First Cause. Second, I doubt that faith is required in this leap, because the First Cause can be designated God outside of having to associate it with Christianity/Judaism. Third, regardless, it proves that God exists. Fourth, the Christian religion just identifies its God with the First Cause - no leap needed. Fifth, by a process of elimination, the Christian God is the only one that both fits these criteria and claims to do so (which is equally important).
Faith is belief in something. To quote a certain american author "faith is believing in something you know ain't true".

Atheism is lack of belief - i.e. lack of faith. It cannot be faith.

Get your definitions straight.
.
Quote:
Which is impossible because each "God" would have the exact same "definition" or essence and hence they would all be the same thing (because they do not and cannot possess matter). Hence, there could only be one God.
My gods do not need equal definition My gods can easly be different. One can be male and the other female. And both had sex & caused the universe.
Quote:
Cannot be material as this would imply potency. The First Cause cannot have ANY potency whatsoever, otherwise something would have caused it and it would not be the first cause
How can god have a mind without a meterial brain ?
Quote:
God would have to have both infinite power and knowledge. First, because something is knowable insofar as it is immaterial. God is immaterial for the reasons listed above. Hence, God has knowledge in the highest degree as He is most free from matter. Further, there are other proofs that can be offered that God knows in an infinite manner. God also must be purely powerful if He is pure act, because power denotes the ability to act upon something else. God must possess this, as He causes every other thing to exist, without limit.
A god without a shape,/body without a limit cannot exist. Something without shape cannot have space.
Quote:
The process...of what? Creation? God cannot die, as He has no material body (as proved above), and death can only occur in the dissolution of a material body.
Than god is not omnipotent. He cannot blow himself up. Like the unliftable rock paradox.

Quote:
If we assume that there is a first cause, it must possess the characteristics I am speaking of from logical necessity. It cannot be a body for the reasons spoken of, nor could it be limited in any other sense. The First Cause would be the very act of existing, knowing itself and the universe and causing it to exist.
Part of the problem of gods that is often they are debunkable.

Omni-everything classes of gods that create everything soon debunk themselves with multiple
overlapping contradictions and ipossibilities. So much for OEC god class that included bible
gods and Allah et al.

Nature gods such as found in many religions do not explain rain, crops fertility herd
fertility and similar things. Science leaves no room for this sort of guff.

Myth cycle gods, gods of Rome, Egypt, Aztecs, Celts, Semites, Mayans,
either map on to failed nature gods or failed OEC class gods.

After the big gods are gone, we get down to stuff that doesn't matter even if you
accepted it.

What do fairies have to do with god? Or the universe or evolution,
or heaven and hell?

And that is cultural too, many Chinese worry about angry ghosts,
Icelanders still believe in fairies and Africans worry about spirits
controlled by wizards. Americans see Virgin Mary in screen doors.

You'd expect if this stuff was real it would have some sort of
general simularity from culture to culture.
Quote:
How does this follow at all from my premises? If God is the first cause, He cannot commit suicide or destroy His being (as He is being itself).
Then he's not omnipotent.

Quote:
Again, no it couldn't because the fluctuation is both material and is a possible existence, denoting a further necessary existence on which it depends; it is clear that it is possible because it begins and ceases to act - a fluctuation. Further, it depends very clearly on the nature of space/time to exist.
How about an immaterial energy caused the universe ? There is no need to postulate a god.

Quote:
Impossible for the above reasons: nothing can cause itself in the same way and same respect, the first cause cannot be a body, the universe experiences generation, corruption, and is thus in motion (hence, dependent on a necessary mover, efficent cause, and necessarily existing being).
Aristotle thought of god or the prime mover being outside of time,
which was an idea of Boethius and Augustine. If god is outside of time, he
has no past, no future, all is now. Boethius and Augustine are explicit here
on that.

It means though god created all, now, at once. It means no free will because
every atom of us in time and space was created by god at one shot.
Thus everything we do was created by god at the beginning.

This means all moral evil we do is god's doing, not ours.
Nobody caught that for 1600 years. God then is claimed to be all good
and creator of all, but he created all moral evil.
Contradiction.
The god so defined this way, supposedly from revelation, cannot exist.

Quote:
But that does not mean that we would not eventually arrive at a first cause. It could have been, but that universe depended on something else, ect., back to the First Cause.
That's a lot of maybes, and maybes do not a proof, make.

The Christians are wrong because God said so. The Christians consider the Book of Mormon a complete fabrication as far as being from God is concerned. Speaking of which, the Jewish Testament makes claims, and the Christian New testament makes claims - but the claims made by the Book of Mormon are accompanied, in the preface, by a notarized affidavit of testimony by three certified eyewitnesses and another notarized affidavit of testimony by eight witnesses.The Bible contains no such affidavits.

Quote:
Maybe, but unlikely. False for the previous reason: the existence of the civilization and its universe would have to depend on something else, ect. back to the First Cause.
So is god. he needs more than just intelligence he might also need batteries... alot of them Smiling

Quote:
Nothing can be the cause of itself in the same way and same respect. Further, how? No human can create anything ex nihilo. The only way, then, would be to posit that matter existed from eternity and that man caused human life. But this is a seperate argument. Further, this eternally existing matter still requires an efficent cause. Lastly, we know the universe did not exist from eternity from science (at least, it contradicts all known evidence).
Wrong. we know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

Quote:
Man can create ex nihilo? Silly idea.
God can create ex nihilo? Silly idea.

Quote:
No agent can be its own efficent cause, because it would be logically prior to itself. The same arguments can be repeated.
Would you still leave room for this first-cause God if we can show you that the idea of first cause originates from 1200 AD when people was clueless as to how the universe was and what made it tick and it was debunked already at that time and has been debunked since each time it has popped up its ugly head?

Would you still leave room for it, if we could show you that the idea of first cause is logically and physically non-sense and doesn't make sense either which way you turn it?

Problem with that is that you can say God can kill babies while remaining credibly all-loving. It's just logically and morally impossible.

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Since god cannot

Quote:

Since god cannot create itself than he's not the creator of all-things... this include intelligence. god did not create intelligence because he's already intelligent so i will claim that something intelligent have caused him.

God is the creator of all things which are external to Himself. We never claimed that God must create Himself.

God creates intelligences in things, but is Himself intelligent.

Further, you misunderstand how God is intelligent. God is intelligent as the cause of intelligence in things, and as their exemplar. God is not a created intelligence, by definition. The reason created things have intelligence is because it primarily exists in God.

This follows from God as being the Prime Mover, as His essence and existence are identical. God is.

Quote:

Than he's not omnipotent.

That does not follow from the premise.

Quote:

So i use the law of non-contradiction against your god:

P1 – God Has The Ability To move And Is Unable To move

P2 - Nothing which Exists Can Be Both A And Not A

C1 – God Doesn’t Exist

God is not in motion, but He moves other things. No contradiction is found. The only contradiction that can exist is when you superficially interpret the words and make a structure like the following: God moves and does not move. If the sense of the first word indicates God is "in motion" as a mover, and does not mover others, then this would be an open contradiction. But this is not is what meant, or what was indicated, so that proof fails.

Quote:

If you deny this you deny logic and we are back to zero.

 

I am pointing out the logical errors in the demonstration, not attacking logic itself.

Quote:

Wrong. Things in nature are uncaused. Check Casimir effect

First, the Casimir effect is not uncaused. It depends on the existence of space in order for there to be fluctuations in space. The nature of space is the efficent cause of the Casimir effect.

Second, no thing in movement is uncaused. If it possesses motion as a quality, it was put in motion by another and hence had an efficent cause (a mover).

Quote:

God creates all. God is omniscient, he knows all. ...Free will is impossible in a universe where god creates al and is omniscinet, he must make a personal decision to allow all that is, to be exactly the way it is by personal decision to create it that way. ...The class of creator gods, that are omniscient and creators of all allow for no free will.

God foreknows all future events and personal choices, but this does not necessitate that they are unfree. God's will is the source of our freedom. God wills absolutely and antecedently: absolutely, God wills every particular thing to happen the way it ought to happen and in this sense He wills that our free decisions can happen (in order for them to exist); antecedently, He wills that our evil moral decision ought not to happen, as He does not want us to sin. But these two wills are very different, and the first does not impose necessity upon the willed (other than the necessity that their wills are free, as their freedom depends on God willing them to be so).

Quote:

 ...There then shoud be no moral evil, as all morally evil acts should be contemplated and decided on and allowed, or not, to exist. A god god could not allow and evil act.

Again, God can allow moral evil as a consequence of free choice in human beings and angels. He wills in an absolute sense that all things are free, and only in an accidental way that each thing does not sin. His will that things do not sin is coterminous with His will that all things are free. God wills that all men do not sin freely.

Quote:

Faith is belief in something. To quote a certain american author "faith is believing in something you know ain't true".

Atheism is lack of belief - i.e. lack of faith. It cannot be faith.

Atheism is not a lack of belief in general. It is a lack of religious belief. I contend that many atheists have a blind faith in the truth of their own propositions. That is not to say that they believe in God. There are different senses of faith.

Quote:

My gods do not need equal definition My gods can easly be different. One can be male and the other female. And both had sex & caused the universe.

It has nothing to do with the concept of the gods that you have. If you identify your gods as the First Causes of the universe, they must possess the same attributes as a result. But, you may ask, why can there not be two identical "God"s? These would both have the same definition and, without matter to individuate, would be the same God.

Quote:

How can god have a mind without a meterial brain ?

Because minds are not the same as brains.

Quote:

A god without a shape,/body without a limit cannot exist. Something without shape cannot have space.

Things exist without bodies all the time. God cannot have a body because He is the First Cause and pure act. To be pure act, He cannot possess any potentiality, such as a body. So God neither exists in space, nor has bodily dimensions.

Quote:

Than god is not omnipotent. He cannot blow himself up. Like the unliftable rock paradox.

Again, omnipotence (the ability to do all things)only includes things that are absolutely possible (all things). God, as First Cause, cannot will Himself into nonexistence because it would be a contradiction. Further, He is not a body and cannot "blow Himself up."

Quote:

Omni-everything classes of gods that create everything soon debunk themselves with multiple
overlapping contradictions and ipossibilities.

You have yet to demonstrate such a contradiction and hence have proven nothing.

Quote:

You'd expect if this stuff was real it would have some sort of
general simularity from culture to culture.

It does have a similarity between cultures (all cultures seem to believe in ruling divinities of some form or another with general qualities that are above those of man), but this is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The First Cause is demonstrated to exist, and this is what we are calling God. Fairy tales, Icelandic myths, and Japanese ghosts are not the issue at hand. We are talking about philosophy and demonstrated logical necessities.

Quote:

How about an immaterial energy caused the universe ? There is no need to postulate a god.

God is, in a manner of speaking, an immaterial energy; God is pure act (act being a sense of energy). However, it would be wrong to identify this with physics and their energy (which indicates a material energy, the act of things in motion; this energy is action, but it is act dependent upon matter).

Quote:

 

It means though god created all, now, at once. It means no free will because
every atom of us in time and space was created by god at one shot.
Thus everything we do was created by god at the beginning.

Free will exists because, while God foreknows all things, He does not determine their outcome. He likewise preordains everything by His absolute will, but this merely has to do with sustaining the freedom of our will in the first place (which could not exist without God so ordaining). God wills that we freely choose, and wills all our actions happen as free.

God is the cause of moral evil only indirectly in tolerating it as a result of free will. In His will, simply, He does not will (and cannot will) evil.

Quote:

That's a lot of maybes, and maybes do not a proof, make.

It was a proof, not a set of probabilites.

Quote:

The Christians are wrong because God said so. The Christians consider the Book of Mormon a complete fabrication as far as being from God is concerned. Speaking of which, the Jewish Testament makes claims, and the Christian New testament makes claims - but the claims made by the Book of Mormon are accompanied, in the preface, by a notarized affidavit of testimony by three certified eyewitnesses and another notarized affidavit of testimony by eight witnesses.The Bible contains no such affidavits.

First, the affadavit does not indicate truth of the book (nor is that what the affadavits intend; they are declarations that the people in question encountered the 'golden plates' discovered by Joseph Smith). Second, the Mormons could be said to believe in the Bible; they have a different interpretation and they do not reject our Scriptures in their parallell revelations. Third, it would not be hard to find hordes of people in order to sign an affadavit that the Scriptures are true; but this is no proof of their truth, regardless. 

Quote:

So is god. he needs more than just intelligence he might also need batteries... alot of them

I don't get it. Why is God a robot? God cannot be if He is the First Cause. An more advanced civilization could have created ours, but God would likewise have to be their cause of existence as well as ours.

Quote:

Wrong. we know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

First, matter came into existence in the Big Bang. Second, matter can be destroyed; matter and energy cannot be destroyed. Third, this only applies inside the universe post-creation.

Quote:

God can create ex nihilo? Silly idea.

Your assertion, not mine. Demonstrate how man could create a universe ex nihilo. God can, by logical demonstration. Man cannot.

 

Quote:

Would you still leave room for this first-cause God if we can show you that the idea of first cause originates from 1200 AD when people was clueless as to how the universe was and what made it tick and it was debunked already at that time and has been debunked since each time it has popped up its ugly head? 

First, the concept of a first cause is from before Christ, not arbitrarily from 1200 AD.

Second, no scientific empirical evidence can contradict the metaphysical proof for God's existence because they are operating on different levels of "proving."

Third, science proves no such thing.

Quote:

Would you still leave room for it, if we could show you that the idea of first cause is logically and physically non-sense and doesn't make sense either which way you turn it?

The First Cause is not a physical thing, so it cannot be "physically non-sense," but it is not logically nonsense. You have yet to adequately demonstrate that. Don't count your chickens...

Quote:

Problem with that is that you can say God can kill babies while remaining credibly all-loving. It's just logically and morally impossible.

God does not kill babies. Humans do.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:God is the

StMichael wrote:
God is the creator of all things which are external to Himself. We never claimed that God must create Himself.

God creates intelligences in things, but is Himself intelligent.

Further, you misunderstand how God is intelligent. God is intelligent as the cause of intelligence in things, and as their exemplar. God is not a created intelligence, by definition. The reason created things have intelligence is because it primarily exists in God.

This follows from God as being the Prime Mover, as His essence and existence are identical. God is.

P1. God is intelligent.
P2. God is eternal.
P3. Intelligence is material.
P4. Everything material was created.
P5. Intelligence was created.
P6. Intelligence is not eternal.
C1. God is not eternal.
StMichael wrote:
God is not in motion, but He moves other things. No contradiction is found. The only contradiction that can exist is when you superficially interpret the words and make a structure like the following: God moves and does not move. If the sense of the first word indicates God is "in motion" as a mover, and does not mover others, then this would be an open contradiction. But this is not is what meant, or what was indicated, so that proof fails.
To move something else is to move yourself, because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, there can be no unmoved mover.
StMichael wrote:
First, the Casimir effect is not uncaused. It depends on the existence of space in order for there to be fluctuations in space. The nature of space is the efficent cause of the Casimir effect.
It is just plain not true that everything must have a cause. Quantum Physics (one of the most well supported - if not the most well supported - of theories) has disproved this by showing that Vacuum Fluctuations are caused by particle-antiparticle pairs popping into temporary existence without cause. This is not just weird theoretical stuff without evidence, either. The creation and existence of these temporary particles can be accurately measured and is responsible for both the Casimir Effect and Hawking Radiation.

Second, no thing in movement is uncaused. If it possesses motion as a quality, it was put in motion by another and hence had an efficent cause (a mover).

1) According to quantum physics, things can come from nothing. Look up virtual particles and/or the casimir effect.
2) It's entirely possible that the universe has a total energy of zero (because kinetic energy and potential energy cancel each other out), so this rather have been "nothing from nothing"

The BBT explains what happened a (very) short time after the "start" (if it even was a start), not the origin itself (compare to Abiogenesis and Evolution). The BBT also does not say that everything was contained in one point - only the observable universe. The universe as a whole may be infinite in size and has always been infinite. This question isn't settled yet (and maybe never will be settled).

There is an as yet undiscovered Elemental Energy Wave/Particle (EEP) that would seem to have to have certain characteristics through which it solves problems of particle physics, explains the sub-quantum environment, offers an explanation of gravity, defeats increasing entropy in the grander universe, explains what causes big bangs and the nature of the early moments of the big bang, allows for ultimate black holes (big crunches), and orchestrates the formation and destruction of quantum and atomic particles.

The Elemental Energy Wave/Particle will have to be the tiniest particle and smallest unit of energy with infinitesimal mass. I can imagine it pulsing between a particle state and a wave state in such a way that at one instant this tiniest patch of energy can be expressed as a particle and at the next instant that particle transforms into wave movement of that particle in a pulsing sequence.

If one could follow that specific tiny patch of energy it would appear to be a particle at point A, then wave movement of that particle, and back to a particle at point B. Thus the EEP takes the form of a particle at point A and point B and it takes the form of wave movement between point A and point B as it moves with angular momentum.

The EEP can carry various amounts of energy and can transmit that energy to objects that it interacts with (there are three basic ways that EEPs interact). The amount of energy is expressed by the length of the wave state. It seems backwards, but the amount of energy carried is inversely related to the length of the wave phase.

If all of the EEPs were at rest, and at identical energy levels and if they were separate and in their own space, i.e., fully disbursed throughout the universe in a fully disbursed state (no interaction with other EEPs) they would be in a state of equilibrium (impossible in nature but philosophically this state would represent the average density of the universe at an average temperature slightly above absolute zero and at a density of one EEP per cubic bogie-meter, my claim to fame, Smiling ). This assumes an infinite universe filled endlessly with matter and energy, i.e. in various EEP environments.

StMichael wrote:
Again, God can allow moral evil as a consequence of free choice in human beings and angels. He wills in an absolute sense that all things are free, and only in an accidental way that each thing does not sin. His will that things do not sin is coterminous with His will that all things are free. God wills that all men do not sin freely.

Religions tend to demand suppression of certain desires or actions that non-religious people, whether they believe or not, do not supress.

Ask yourself this question...why does the Catholic Church have so many child molestors on its payroll? The truth is that the Catholic Church does not attract molestors, per se, but the supression of one of the most powerful impulses in the human body leads the desire becoming overwhelming until the priest finds release with the most available target.

I have found that making things non-taboo makes them to be less of a desire for my own kids. Sure, they want ice cream and candy sometimes, but they don't live their lives for their next sugar fix like some kids I've known. They don't get it whenever they they want, either, but it isn't banned in our house so that they have to sneak around to get their ice cream from some guy on the corner. Sticking out tongue

By allowing more and attaching less shame to things, the allure of the forbidden is gone, and humans will commit less crimes. A lot of criminals are in a downward spiral due to the shame and loss of self-worth that comes with the religious stigma of sin.

It comes down to those two things. Sometimes, people just want to the wrong thing because of the adrenaline rush. Sometimes they get caught in the guilt framework set down by their religion. Less religion equals less crime in both cases. I grew up in church in the US. This is how people think whether they like to admit it or not.

StMichael wrote:
Atheism is not a lack of belief in general. It is a lack of religious belief. I contend that many atheists have a blind faith in the truth of their own propositions. That is not to say that they believe in God. There are different senses of faith.

http://www.answers.com/topic/atheism Im in the strong category of atheism. Which means ''I believe there is no god or gods''. The atheism that your speaking is the weak category. A baby is a weak atheist because they lack of knowledge of a god.
StMichael wrote:
It has nothing to do with the concept of the gods that you have. If you identify your gods as the First Causes of the universe, they must possess the same attributes as a result. But, you may ask, why can there not be two identical "God"s? These would both have the same definition and, without matter to individuate, would be the same God.

No, One can be the god of confusion and the other the god of clarity.
StMichael wrote:
Because minds are not the same as brains.

Without a brain you cannot have a mind. Otherwise a stone would be conscious.
StMichael wrote:
Things exist without bodies all the time. God cannot have a body because He is the First Cause and pure act. To be pure act, He cannot possess any potentiality, such as a body. So God neither exists in space, nor has bodily dimensions.

No shape, no time, no space, no dimension, no something. Such thing does not exist.
StMichael wrote:
Again, omnipotence (the ability to do all things)only includes things that are absolutely possible (all things). God, as First Cause, cannot will Himself into nonexistence because it would be a contradiction. Further, He is not a body and cannot "blow Himself up."

Omnipotence as alot of paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_Paradox
StMichael wrote:
You have yet to demonstrate such a contradiction and hence have proven nothing.

If god creates all and is omniscient or omnipotent, free will is impossible. Only a universe without gods of bible, quran and vedas can give you free will.
StMichael wrote:
It does have a similarity between cultures (all cultures seem to believe in ruling divinities of some form or another with general qualities that are above those of man), but this is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The First Cause is demonstrated to exist, and this is what we are calling God. Fairy tales, Icelandic myths, and Japanese ghosts are not the issue at hand. We are talking about philosophy and demonstrated logical necessities.
Culture is simply a set of social technologies that aid and frame human interaction. Some of the technologies work better than others, all are developed and refined over time, and people will borrow social technologies from other cultures all the time.
StMichael wrote:
God is, in a manner of speaking, an immaterial energy; God is pure act (act being a sense of energy). However, it would be wrong to identify this with physics and their energy (which indicates a material energy, the act of things in motion; this energy is action, but it is act dependent upon matter).

When we talk about material vs. immaterial we are talking about physical vs. non-physical correct? What is a material/physical object? Something that is located in space (some may want a stronger definition, but I think this is the least problematic). A property is something that is exemplified by some thing(s). This says nothing about whether or not it is physical.

What about the property of being intelligent or kind? Any example that we can think of and prove that it actually exists is in fact a material object. But why think that these can only apply to material objects? Surely there are abstract objects that have properties. The abstract object currently in my head has the properties of being pink and being an elephant. Are you committed to saying that there is a physical thing in my head (or outside of my head) that exemplify the properties of being pink and being an elephant? Or would you just deny that the concept exists or has properties? These would be very strange claims to defend.

So, I think we have every reason to think that properties do not apply to just physical objects. However, theists would not be happy with saying that god is just an abstract concept. Presumably they would want to say that there exists something immaterial that is mind-independent, some sort of immaterial substance. The debate is about whether that sort of immaterial substance exists and can have causal powers, not about whether something immaterial could have properties.

I agree that the issue of 'supernatural' versus 'natural' is a strange one. Perhaps we have to start with a proper defintion of 'natural'... My guess is that scientists would claim it has to be something measurable by scientific means, in which case if it turned out that claims about 'supernatural' phenomena were eventually testable, they would be deemed 'natural'.

StMichael wrote:
Free will exists because, while God foreknows all things, He does not determine their outcome. He likewise preordains everything by His absolute will, but this merely has to do with sustaining the freedom of our will in the first place (which could not exist without God so ordaining). God wills that we freely choose, and wills all our actions happen as free.

God is the cause of moral evil only indirectly in tolerating it as a result of free will. In His will, simply, He does not will (and cannot will) evil.


To have free will, the "will" so to speak must be independent of all else or free of all else.

If this "will" is free of everything else where does it reside? It cannot be to what is called the universe, so is "will" metaphysical in nature?

If it resides without the universe, the "will" is self evident, because any proof would be dependant on the physical world.

If "will" is dependent on the universe, then it is, afaik, subject to deterministic laws and thus not free, in fact "will" is a bad word, as there is no will only an universal machine running through the mill.


What you are talking about is the "experienced" experience of making choices, but no choices are made. So whether or not you are aware of this, it still makes for no free will.

StMichael wrote:
It was a proof, not a set of probabilites.

No evidence.
StMichael wrote:
First, the affadavit does not indicate truth of the book (nor is that what the affadavits intend; they are declarations that the people in question encountered the 'golden plates' discovered by Joseph Smith). Second, the Mormons could be said to believe in the Bible; they have a different interpretation and they do not reject our Scriptures in their parallell revelations. Third, it would not be hard to find hordes of people in order to sign an affadavit that the Scriptures are true; but this is no proof of their truth, regardless.
Sort of. mormons afterlife beliefs are anything but simple, but I'll try to summarize. Here's how to figure out where you'll end up:

1. Were you baptized into the mormons church while on earth? If so, go to 2. If not, go to 3.

2. How faithful a mormon were you? If you were an exemplary mormons who did your very best to follow God, go to 4. If you were kind of lazy and half-assed about it, go to 5. If you received a perfect knowledge of the truth of Mormonism and then turned against it because you're just eeeevil, go to 6.

3. Why didn't you join the mormon church? If it's because you thought Mormonism wasn't true, go to 7. If you figured it was true but decided not to join anyway, go to 8. If you never learned enough about Mormonism to make a decision, go to 9.

4. You go to Paradise. You stay here until the resurrection, and then you go to the Celestial Kingdom, which is pretty much like your standard Christian heaven. If you do really well in the CK, you can go on to become a GOD and create your own planets. Cool, huh?

5. You go to Paradise. You stay here until the resurrection, and then you go to the Terrestrial Kingdom. This is a lot like heaven, but not quite. Jesus is there, but his Dad isn't, and you'll never ever get to become a God yourself.

6. Congratulations, you're an official Son of Perdition, just like Cain and Judas! You go to HELL and suffer unspeakable agony for your sins. You stay in hell until the resurrection, and then you go to Outer Darkness for eternity. That's where Satan lives. It's not as bad as hell, but it still really sucks. You're completely cut off from the Gods and all decent people and have to hang out with Satan and (horror of horrors!) apostate Mormons.

7. You go to Spirit Prison, which is just what it sounds like. Not a torture chamber like hell, but a prison. It's a pretty gloomy place, and everyone seems unhappy and scared. Missionaries from Paradise come around to see if you've changed your mind about Mormonism now that you're dead. Have you? If you accept vicarious baptism (a mormon on earth will be baptized in your behalf), go to 5. If you stubbornly refuse to be assimilated, go to 8.

8. You go to HELL and suffer unspeakable agony for your sins. You stay in hell until the resurrection, and then you go to the Telestial Kingdom. It's pretty much like earth, except that everyone's immortal and there are no Mormons. God and Jesus are nowhere to be seen, but the Holy Spirit visits occasionally.

9. You go to Spirit Prison, which is just what it sounds like. Not a torture chamber like hell, but a prison. It's a pretty gloomy place, and everyone seems unhappy and scared. Missionaries from Paradise come and teach you all about Mormonism, since you didn't hear about it on earth. You are offered vicarious baptism (a mormon on earth will be baptized in your behalf). If you accept baptism, go to 4. If you decline, go to 8.

Hope that clears things up.

StMichael wrote:
I don't get it. Why is God a robot? God cannot be if He is the First Cause. An more advanced civilization could have created ours, but God would likewise have to be their cause of existence as well as ours.

Because your god can feel pain... emotions..ect wich means he's not perfect. Something perfect does not have emotions. A computer is errorless.. emotionless.
StMichael wrote:
First, matter came into existence in the Big Bang. Second, matter can be destroyed; matter and energy cannot be destroyed. Third, this only applies inside the universe post-creation.
The point is that a particle may have a beginning in that there was a time when it did not exist and then at a later time it did exist. However, this does not apply to the universe. There was no "when" when the universe did not exist. If the universe wasn't there, there wouldn't be any time and so there is no point in time when the universe did not exist. All points in time are points in time when the universe is already there. Therefore it is patently wrong to say that the universe has a beginning in the same sense that every thing in the universe has a beginning. The universe may have started off by a big bang but that wasn't a beginning in the same sense and since we are talking about two different meanings of the word "beginning" it simply does not follow that whatever you conclude based on one also follows for the other.
StMichael wrote:
Demonstrate how man could create a universe ex nihilo. God can, by logical demonstration. Man cannot.
There's no such thing of ex.nihilo. Can you imagine [nothing] ? Not untill your dead or in coma
StMichael wrote:
First, the concept of a first cause is from before Christ, not arbitrarily from 1200 AD.

Second, no scientific empirical evidence can contradict the metaphysical proof for God's existence because they are operating on different levels of "proving."

Third, science proves no such thing.


In some discussions with theists it appears there is often an insistence on their part to get you to agree that even if we don't believe in god, there is still a possibility that one exists, and that there is a possibility that one day I could believe in god.

But I emphasize that there is just no possibility that I could ever believe in a deity. Even if such a being suddenly appeared in front of me and asked, "Do you believe in me now?" My answer would still be, "No." In such a situation I wouldn't believe that this entity existed, I would know it. Belief (religious belief, at least) is a function of faith, the practice of holding something true even though there is no evidence to support it. In the absence of proof, for whatever other reason you persist to believe in the object of your belief. With a god, I could never believe in its existence; at best, I could only come to acknowledge it if it revealed itself through concrete, empirical evidence. I wouldn't want to believe, I'd want to know. Without evidence, the 'other' reasons--psychological, emotional, mystical, spiritual, and whatever else--that theists would use to support their belief are ones I simply don't find legitimate or persuasive in the least.

It's a very basic point to drive home. But if there are theists who don't understand why atheists (at least myself) would go so far as to say I could never believe in god, that is why.

StMichael wrote:
The First Cause is not a physical thing, so it cannot be "physically non-sense," but it is not logically nonsense. You have yet to adequately demonstrate that. Don't count your chickens...

If God is non-material in nature, then we can surmise that he's not physical, yet if he exists, then it must be intended that he is similar to a mental referent; however, this immaterial God purported to reside everywhere (yet invisible to boot) means that this non-material existence is somehow equivalent to spirit form (akin to a mental existent residing exterior to the mind)--also an unidentified and substantiated form.

Everything you mentioned (including the conceptual images in your head), is material. Intelligence is a property of a material brain or computer. Kindness is in the same category. Your mentally induced images exist as electronic impulses, much like the images and letters on your screen exist as binary code inside your computer. These impulses or codes are material.

Are you denying the existence of abstract objects? When I say I have the concept of a pink elephant you would claim that all that is there is a bunch of neurons firing? There is nothing more?

As I mentioned in my previous post, we end up applying most of these concepts to material objects, but there is no apparent reason to restrict them only to material objects. So, as I said, the theist would have to posit some sort of immaterial substance to attribute these properties to, otherwise there would be nothing to exemplify them. But the attribution of properties to abstract objects lends evidence to the fact that properties are not relegated to material objects.

StMichael wrote:
God does not kill babies. Humans do.
The bible tells us he killed many of them.

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: P1. God is

 

Quote:

P1. God is intelligent.
P2. God is eternal.
P3. Intelligence is material.
P4. Everything material was created.
P5. Intelligence was created.
P6. Intelligence is not eternal.
C1. God is not eternal.

There is no justification for P3, P5, or P6; but basically just P3.

Quote:

To move something else is to move yourself, because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, there can be no unmoved mover.

That only applies to physical motion. God is not a physical motion. Efficent causality does not require local motion.

Quote:

1) According to quantum physics, things can come from nothing. Look up virtual particles and/or the casimir effect.

The Casimir effect has to do with a force of attraction from quantum fluctuations, not from matter arising from nothing.

Second, virtual particles do not come from nothing, they come from space.

Quote:
 


2) It's entirely possible that the universe has a total energy of zero (because kinetic energy and potential energy cancel each other out), so this rather have been "nothing from nothing"

If you want to maintain that there is nothing, which is rather contradictory when you say that "nothing exists."

Quote:

The BBT explains what happened a (very) short time after the "start" (if it even was a start), not the origin itself (compare to Abiogenesis and Evolution). The BBT also does not say that everything was contained in one point - only the observable universe. The universe as a whole may be infinite in size and has always been infinite. This question isn't settled yet (and maybe never will be settled).

Actually, it includes all possible universes. Not just the "observable" universe, whatever that means.

Quote:
 

There is an as yet undiscovered Elemental Energy Wave/Particle (EEP) that would seem to have to have certain characteristics through which it solves problems of particle physics, explains the sub-quantum environment, offers an explanation of gravity, defeats increasing entropy in the grander universe, explains what causes big bangs and the nature of the early moments of the big bang, allows for ultimate black holes (big crunches), and orchestrates the formation and destruction of quantum and atomic particles.

You are posting quite alot on a pure bit of speculation. Even the controversial and hypothetically unprovable theory of superstrings does not claim that much.

Quote:

The Elemental Energy Wave/Particle will have to be the tiniest particle and smallest unit of energy with infinitesimal mass. I can imagine it pulsing between a particle state and a wave state in such a way that at one instant this tiniest patch of energy can be expressed as a particle and at the next instant that particle transforms into wave movement of that particle in a pulsing sequence.

We are putting a bit too much weight on pure speculation. Even if it is energy or a particle, it doesn't matter because it exists and requires an existing agent to keep/bring it into being.

Quote:

If all of the EEPs were at rest, and at identical energy levels and if they were separate and in their own space, i.e., fully disbursed throughout the universe in a fully disbursed state (no interaction with other EEPs) they would be in a state of equilibrium (impossible in nature but philosophically this state would represent the average density of the universe at an average temperature slightly above absolute zero and at a density of one EEP per cubic bogie-meter, my claim to fame, Smiling ). This assumes an infinite universe filled endlessly with matter and energy, i.e. in various EEP environments.

Yes, it must assume an infinite universe. However, it does not seem that an infinite universe exists. Regardless of whether one exists or not, it has no level at which it would clash with the argument for a First Cause.

Quote:

Religions tend to demand suppression of certain desires or actions that non-religious people, whether they believe or not, do not supress.

And?

Quote:

Ask yourself this question...why does the Catholic Church have so many child molestors on its payroll? The truth is that the Catholic Church does not attract molestors, per se, but the supression of one of the most powerful impulses in the human body leads the desire becoming overwhelming until the priest finds release with the most available target.

What does this have to do with anything? We are now on a tangent discussion with no relevance to the issue at hand.

There are physics professors who molest children. There must, then, be a desire that is squelched by physics that renders physics intrinsically untrue. Harvard alone has had more child molesters on its roll than most dioceses. 

Further, the Catholic Church does not suppress sexual urges. The Catholic priest/religious (monk, nun, sister, friar, ect.) expresses his sexuality in an appropriate context through his vows/promises. He forms appropriate friendships and social contacts.

Further, even if it did, who cares? It does not demand release. Intelligent people contol their desires constantly, suppressing them by use of their reason. If you have to go to the bathroom, you don't just crap all over yourself immediately. No, you control your desire and suppress the urges. Even married couples do not just go at it whenever they get the urge; they control their desires and exercise their marital rights in the appropriate contexts.

 Lastly, the Church does not condone such behavior. If it did, something might be able to be said. But just because Catholics themselves sin does not have any impact on the truth of its claims in general.

Quote:

 By allowing more and attaching less shame to things, the allure of the forbidden is gone, and humans will commit less crimes. A lot of criminals are in a downward spiral due to the shame and loss of self-worth that comes with the religious stigma of sin.

Phooey! This is bad logic. "Allow homicide to prevent homicide." There are certain things to which this applies, and certain things to which it does not. You paint everything the same color.

Further, there is no justification for your claim that "many criminals are in a downward spiral due to religious stigma and sin." If anything, a criminal ought to be encouraged to seek forgiveness and pursue a virtuous life. You might just as well say that he is in a downward spiral due to the stigma attached to such crime from the law; in that case, ought we to destroy law?

Quote:

Less religion equals less crime in both cases. I grew up in church in the US. This is how people think whether they like to admit it or not.

It has nothing to do with religion. There is further no unique reason for "religion" being the cause. Again, it is bad logic which paints many categories the same color.

Lastly, again, this is an irrelevant discussion which bears no weight directly upon the subject at hand.


Quote:

http://www.answers.com/topic/atheism Im in the strong category of atheism. Which means ''I believe there is no god or gods''. The atheism that your speaking is the weak category. A baby is a weak atheist because they lack of knowledge of a god.

 

Atheism has to do with a denial of religious belief. But that does not mean that they cannot have faith in a general sense. An atheist has faith in their friend when he tells him it is raining outside. An atheist can have faith in his own beliefs.

Quote:

No, One can be the god of confusion and the other the god of clarity.

 Again, this does not make sense in the argument. There can be no "god of clarity/confusion," because each god would be exactly the same "God." There can be no such thing as a "god of clarity/confusion" if each god is the First Cause.

 

Quote:
Without a brain you cannot have a mind. Otherwise a stone would be conscious.

Bad standard. A stone is not concious because it does not exercise the activity that goes with thought.

Further, to say a brain = a mind would indicate that a dog, a rat, a cockroach, a flea, all have minds.

Further, a mind is not the same thing as conciousness.

Further, this is not a necessary relationship described. There is no intrinsic reason a mind cannot exist without a body.

Further, it is provable that the mind is not dependent upon any material organ for its existence. The easiest proof is to look at the fact that sense data decreases in sensibility as the sensation becomes more intense, whereas an idea becomes more intelligible to the mind as it becomes more knowable. The mind is thus not a material organ.


Quote:

No shape, no time, no space, no dimension, no something. Such thing does not exist.

Your idea and your thoughts do not have space or dimension. Do they exist?

Further, it is arbitrary to say that an immaterial thing does not exist. Why not? There is no justification.

Quote:

Omnipotence as alot of paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_Paradox 

Offer your own reasons instead of merely referring somewhere else.

Further, omnipotence is defended there as well.

No argument here, so I need not respond further.

Quote:

If god creates all and is omniscient or omnipotent, free will is impossible. Only a universe without gods of bible, quran and vedas can give you free will.

In such a universe, nothing would exist. If things were argued to exist, I would argue that they must be materially determined and no free will was possible (because all action would be determined by matter's previous movement and all actions would basically be mathematically calculable; also, no meaning could be given to the concept "free&quotEye-wink.

God creates free will and ensures that it is free by His creation of it. No contradiction is found.

Quote:

Culture is simply a set of social technologies that aid and frame human interaction. Some of the technologies work better than others, all are developed and refined over time, and people will borrow social technologies from other cultures all the time.

Again, this is irrelevant and doesn't answer the question.

Quote:

When we talk about material vs. immaterial we are talking about physical vs. non-physical correct? What is a material/physical object? Something that is located in space (some may want a stronger definition, but I think this is the least problematic). A property is something that is exemplified by some thing(s). This says nothing about whether or not it is physical.

What about the property of being intelligent or kind? Any example that we can think of and prove that it actually exists is in fact a material object. But why think that these can only apply to material objects? Surely there are abstract objects that have properties. The abstract object currently in my head has the properties of being pink and being an elephant. Are you committed to saying that there is a physical thing in my head (or outside of my head) that exemplify the properties of being pink and being an elephant? Or would you just deny that the concept exists or has properties? These would be very strange claims to defend.

But the pink elephant does exist in your mind and without matter.

The concept of what it is "to know" is inherently immaterial and there is no reason to associate it with physical action. My process of knowing is by finding an idea "within" a physical object. But the knowing is beyond the material world.

Quote:

So, I think we have every reason to think that properties do not apply to just physical objects. However, theists would not be happy with saying that god is just an abstract concept. Presumably they would want to say that there exists something immaterial that is mind-independent, some sort of immaterial substance. The debate is about whether that sort of immaterial substance exists and can have causal powers, not about whether something immaterial could have properties.

We can know that God is a subsistent immaterial being from the Prime Mover argument. The Prime Mover must exist without matter. Further, the human mind can exist without matter as a subsistent immaterial substance (and this was shown above).

Quote:

I agree that the issue of 'supernatural' versus 'natural' is a strange one. Perhaps we have to start with a proper defintion of 'natural'... My guess is that scientists would claim it has to be something measurable by scientific means, in which case if it turned out that claims about 'supernatural' phenomena were eventually testable, they would be deemed 'natural'.

It depends on senses of the word "natural."

Quote:

To have free will, the "will" so to speak must be independent of all else or free of all else.

No, the will must merely be free of external violence. A will is free, for example, when it makes a decision based upon reasons (when I choose a fish sandwich over a chicken one), even though it does so with dependence on reasons.

Quote:

If this "will" is free of everything else where does it reside? It cannot be to what is called the universe, so is "will" metaphysical in nature?

You defined "free" in this way, not I. I think this is an absurdity of defining free will in this way.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
It was a proof, not a set of probabilites.

 

No evidence.

What?

Quote:

Sort of. mormons afterlife beliefs are anything but simple, but I'll try to summarize. Here's how to figure out where you'll end up:

Except that this does not answer anything I said. I do not believe Mormonism to be true, nor is there any reason why it is.

I said that affadavits could be produced by myself and affixed to the front of my Catechism that its contents were true, but that does nothing to prove they are true. In fact, there are certifications on the front of Catholic Bibles and Catechisms that they are in conformity with the Church's teaching ("imprimatur" and "nihil obstat" among other things). This does not mean that, for example, on seeing this, you immediately can accept the Scriptures or the Catechism as true. It depends on further evidence and authority beyond the certifications.

 

Quote:

Because your god can feel pain... emotions..ect wich means he's not perfect. Something perfect does not have emotions. A computer is errorless.. emotionless.

God, in fact, does not have emotions, nor does He feel pain. He is incorruptible. Sometimes, Christians speak of God as being sad about something (God is sad that you sinned, ect.), but it is an allegory or analogy.

Quote:

The point is that a particle may have a beginning in that there was a time when it did not exist and then at a later time it did exist.

Yes, and this text did not exist five minutes ago, either.

 

Quote:
However, this does not apply to the universe.

Then why did you bring it up?

Quote:
 

There was no "when" when the universe did not exist. If the universe wasn't there, there wouldn't be any time and so there is no point in time when the universe did not exist. All points in time are points in time when the universe is already there. Therefore it is patently wrong to say that the universe has a beginning in the same sense that every thing in the universe has a beginning.

That is correct. Christians do not claim that there was time outside of when God created the universe. The universe nevertheless had a beginning at/in a time.  

Quote:

There's no such thing of ex.nihilo. Can you imagine [nothing] ? Not untill your dead or in coma

Even then, you can never imagine nothingness. But that does not mean that God cannot create from nothing. He does not use preexisting matter, or preexisting space. There is nothing other than God, and then He creates the universe. He does not make nothing into something, absolutely. But where once only nothingness was, now exists something.

Quote:

But I emphasize that there is just no possibility that I could ever believe in a deity. Even if such a being suddenly appeared in front of me and asked, "Do you believe in me now?" My answer would still be, "No."

Smiling That's your problem, not mine.

Quote:
 

In such a situation I wouldn't believe that this entity existed, I would know it.

 And I am not claiming that you ought to accept that God exists based on faith. I am claiming that you ought to accept that God exists based on reason alone. You can know that God exists without faith, and it is knowledge.

Further, faith is a type of knowledge. It is not "anti-knowledge" (as such a thing cannot exist). Faith has justifications and reasons, but they are different than purely natural inquiry (like science or physics or philosophy). Faith believes that a proposition is true because God has revealed it (and God cannot decieve, nor can He be decieved). Faith accepts some thing as true because of the authority that reveals it is trustworthy. Thus, it has a rational justification.

Quote:

Belief (religious belief, at least) is a function of faith, the practice of holding something true even though there is no evidence to support it.

Again, that is not what "faith" is. 

 

Quote:

In the absence of proof, for whatever other reason you persist to believe in the object of your belief.

I do not believe that God exists, I know that He does by natural reason. I believe that God is Trinity (I do not know that by natural inquiry, nor can I discover it naturally speaking).  

Quote:

With a god, I could never believe in its existence; at best, I could only come to acknowledge it if it revealed itself through concrete, empirical evidence.

 

Thus, you can accept the proof I offered in the First Cause argument and God's existence is logically necessary to posit that the world exists. It is not faith at all.

Quote:

I wouldn't want to believe, I'd want to know. Without evidence, the 'other' reasons--psychological, emotional, mystical, spiritual, and whatever else--that theists would use to support their belief are ones I simply don't find legitimate or persuasive in the least.

My reasons are not emotional, nor psychological, nor mystical. I accept the existence of God because my reason demonstrates it (just as my reason demonstrates that three angles in a triangle must equal 180 degrees). Even in matters of faith, I do not base my faith in non-reason. Faith is a rational acceptance of things which are revealed by a greater authority. I believe that Christ was God because He performed works only God can do. Likewise, I believe what He taught because He is God (as I can rationally deduce from the former). In the same way, His Church teaches truth from God, because He (as God) promised that it would. Thus, rationally, I accept these positions without emotion or mysticism.


Quote:

If God is non-material in nature, then we can surmise that he's not physical, yet if he exists, then it must be intended that he is similar to a mental referent; however, this immaterial God purported to reside everywhere (yet invisible to boot) means that this non-material existence is somehow equivalent to spirit form (akin to a mental existent residing exterior to the mind)--also an unidentified and substantiated form.

Yes, God is a spirit. A seperated spiritual substance, like an angel or a human soul that exists seperate from the body. God is higher than these in an absolute sense, but He is still a spirit.

Quote:

Everything you mentioned (including the conceptual images in your head), is material. Intelligence is a property of a material brain or computer. Kindness is in the same category. Your mentally induced images exist as electronic impulses, much like the images and letters on your screen exist as binary code inside your computer. These impulses or codes are material.

We know by means of material images, but we know immaterial realites. Our knowledge of God discloses Him as a spiritually subsistent substance.

Quote:

Are you denying the existence of abstract objects? When I say I have the concept of a pink elephant you would claim that all that is there is a bunch of neurons firing? There is nothing more?

That is exactly what I am saying. Meaning and ideas exist apart from neurons. God exists apart from matter and is a subsistent spiritual being. We cannot know from effects what a spiritual substance is per se because it does not exist in matter. It can only be known as causing or effecting something in matter. This is the only way, by natural reason, that we can know about God - by His effects. This does not tell us much about what He is in Himself. This is what Revelation is: Revelation is God telling us what He is in Himself. But we can know that He exists and that He is One by our natural reason. We know that He is Three in One by what He has told us.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

PS -

Quote:

The bible tells us he killed many of them.

It does not. Show me some place where it does.

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:There is

StMichael wrote:
There is no justification for P3, P5, or P6; but basically just P3.
Than prove me that Intelligence is not material.
StMichael wrote:
God is not a physical motion. Efficent causality does not require local motion.
The "unmoved mover" is in motion relative to everything that is moving relative to it. And that is the only test we have for motion. Anything said to be in motion is only in motion relative to other things. By that test, the only test we have, the "unmoved mover" is also in motion.

Therefore, the First Mover argument is a non-starter.

StMichael wrote:
The Casimir effect has to do with a force of attraction from quantum fluctuations, not from matter arising from nothing.

Second, virtual particles do not come from nothing, they come from space.

Zero-point energy is the result of the fact that the vacuum can manifest virtual particles that then annihilate and are returned to the zero-energy state. Charge is not conjugate under uncertainty, so it must be conserved; if a positively charged virtual particle is created in this manner, then a negatively charged antiparticle must be created along with it; these annihilate and are re-absorbed, destroying the charge. These virtual phenomena are referred to as "vacuum fluctuations." It turns out that these fluctuations are actually important to quantum theories; they help explain the transmission of forces across macroscopic distances. I won't go into it, but bear in mind that there is a great deal of theoretical evidence that indicates that they actually exist, at least to the extent that anything one would refer to as "virtual" can be said to have existence.

This is possible because energy and time location are conjugate under uncertainty; in other words, it is uncertain that the vacuum will actually have truly zero energy if the time over which it is observed is short enough. As a result, the zero-point of the vacuum does not actually represent zero energy on average, but a point somewhat above true zero energy. This is the origin of the term, "zero-point energy."

Physicists thought that this might just be a mathematical artifact, or even be unphysical, until Hendrik Casimir, working at Philips Research Labs in the Netherlands discovered the Casimir Effect. In 1948, Casimir took two uncharged metal plates, placed them very close (a few atomic diameters) together in a vacuum, and used a strain gauge to show that there was an attractive force between them. The force is very small, but cannot be accounted for by any other means. Its magnitude was recently measured in 1997 by Steve K. Lamoreaux of Los Alamos National Laboratory, among others.

The effect occurs because the two plates exclude some wavelengths of virtual particles between them; the vacuum that surrounds them permits these wavelengths, and the waves exert a pressure on the plates that forces them together. An analogous effect can occur between ships at sea, when they are close together, because they exclude ocean waves of larger length than the space between the ships from that space; the ships are forced together by the waves that surround them on all other sides.

StMichael wrote:
If you want to maintain that there is nothing, which is rather contradictory when you say that "nothing exists."

Nothing exists, means, It is not the case that something exists.

(Nothing exists) <-> ~(Something exists)
Something exists <-> ~(Nothing exists)

Something exists, means, there is an x such that: x exists.
Something exists, means, Ex(x exists). (ExE!x)


x exists, is defined, there is some y such that: x is equal to y.
E!x =df Ey(x=y).


Something exists, means, Ex[Ey(x=y)].

Nothing exists, means, ~Ex[Ey(x=y)].

Because, (nothing exists) <-> ~(something exists).


But, ExEy(x=y) is a theorem.

Therefore ~ExEy(x=y) is a contradiction.

i.e. Nothing exists is a contradiction

StMichael wrote:
Actually, it includes all possible universes. Not just the "observable" universe, whatever that means.
X must exist in the universe, if X is outside the universe, it does not exist by definition.
StMichael wrote:
You are posting quite alot on a pure bit of speculation. Even the controversial and hypothetically unprovable theory of superstrings does not claim that much.
If the new "Braneworld" or "Ekpyrotic" Big Bang model, an outgrowth of the "M-Theory" spinoff of superstring theory, is correct the Universe is eternal in time and infinite in space. According to this model, The Universe has 12 demensions (one of time, the rest of space) containing an infinite number of parallel 11-demensional membranes, or 11-branes. Each 11-brane would be the universe of older superstring theories. These 11-branes can only interact with each other through gravity (the superstrings of the other forces are open-ended, and the ends of open-ended superstrings must be attached to a 11-brane; the graviton is a closed loop, so it can travel between 11-branes). Every few trillion years, two 11-brains with meet and bounce off each other, triggering a big bang in each 11-brane. The big bonus of the Braneworld theory is trillions of years of expansion between big bangs eliminates the need for the inflationary models that have been put in to traditional cosmologies, and eliminates the "what created the universe" question since the Braneworld universe is eternal.

Like I said, they are dual to one another: specifically, that means that one turns into another when viewed in a different regime. There are two dualities: T-duality and S-duality.

T-duality involves an exchange of "winding" modes around the small dimensions to be interchanged mathematically for quantized momentum modes in the dual theory, where the quantized unit is equivalent to one "winding." A corollary implication is that the theories are equivalent when the small dimension radius R in one theory is exchanged for the same dimension at 1/R. The Type IIA and IIB theories are dual to one another in this manner, and the Heterotic SO(32) theory is dual to the Heterotic E8xE8 theory.

S-duality is more subtle: it involves coupling constants. To make a long story short, the strong coupling constant behavior in one theory is equivalent to the weak constant behavior in another. In fact, the relationship is reciprocal, as it is in the T-duality. Type I string theory is dual to Heterotic SO(32) in this manner, and Type IIA is dual to itself.

So how are all of these related to supergravity? (For general information, supergravity was the immediate predecessor of superstrings as the leading candidate for a unified field theory of gravity and the other forces.) It turns out that eleven dimension supergravity is the strong coupling limit of a theory that can potentially unite all the other five theories as limits of various dimension sizes, coupling limits, and wrapping vs. momentum quantization regimes.

So what they're saying is that there's really only one theory, and the various string theories are all that theory in various limits. Some people are calling that theory "M-theory."

I really think you ought to read The Elegant Universe before you make statements in ridicule- it makes criticism a bit more plausible when you have actually taken the time to study the subject first.

StMichael wrote:
We are putting a bit too much weight on pure speculation. Even if it is energy or a particle, it doesn't matter because it exists and requires an existing agent to keep/bring it into being.
There are some theories about what the universe was like very early in its life. Some of those theories say that time came to exist in the big bang. If that's the case, then it doesn't make any sense to ask what was "before", because there is no before. But it also means the universe was not eternal. Bottom line, nobody knows exactly how the universe came into being, and if one doesn't know, then one ought to say one doesn't know, which is what cosmologists do say ultimately. They've got some ideas, but nothing that's certain.

But, because I don't know for certain how the universe came into existence does not mean that I don't have a pretty good idea about a few choice ways that it did not come into existence, and I can at least be reasonably certain that nobody else can claim authoritatively to know how it happened either. That's where the big problem comes in, when making the leap from "I don't know how the universe came into being." to "ah, but this ancient book has a story about it that seems likely." The problem is that the stories don't seem likely, they seem the opposite of likely.

The atheist isn't "changing the subject" when he asks "where did God come from." You pose the problem, "where did the universe come from, it must have had a cause." Why must it have had a cause? Because everything has a cause? And you posit for this cause something even more complicated than the universe, a being capable of creating the universe, but for this, you grant an exception to the rule that everything must have a cause? It's clear that if the universe has a beginning, then something does not require a cause. The assertion that the only possible such something is "God", whatever that is, is just that, an assertion. There's nothing to back it up. So it is really a fair question, what was the cause of this superbeing which is even more complex than the universe?

It is yet another huge leap from positing the existence of this very vague superbeing to the assertion that this being is the particular god described in any particular religion. How do you know so many details about this being? Eventually it all usually, and in the case of Christianity always, comes down to reliance on ancient documents written by primitive people trying to muddle through as best they coold.

StMichael wrote:
Yes, it must assume an infinite universe. However, it does not seem that an infinite universe exists. Regardless of whether one exists or not, it has no level at which it would clash with the argument for a First Cause.
Cyclic cause/effect is interesting but is synonymous with cyclic time. Spacetime could in principle have "closed timelike geodesics" but it places very tight restrictions over what can go on in them, as when D causes A, it does indeed have to be the same A you started with.

StMichael wrote:
And?
Here's the best description of infinite time that I can come up with.

1. Assume that time is infinite. IOW, eternity extends both ways from the present.

2. Any arbitrary moment in time can be called 'the present' by any being that exists at that moment.

3. Assume that a machine exists, as a structure of the universe, to count each of the 'presents'.

4. Any being in any 'present' will percieve the number of presents, either for the future or the past, that the machine produces to be infinite.

The OP assumes that there is a beginning of infinite time to begin counting from. But, if time is truly infinite, as shown by the ray diagram, then there is no beginning and no ending, so infinite numbers can surround any 'present' with no paradox.

If time has a beginning like this, .----->, then an infinite number could not be counted because there would always be a finite amount of time in the past.

I hope that's clear.

StMichael wrote:
What does this have to do with anything? We are now on a tangent discussion with no relevance to the issue at hand.

There are physics professors who molest children. There must, then, be a desire that is squelched by physics that renders physics intrinsically untrue. Harvard alone has had more child molesters on its roll than most dioceses.

Further, the Catholic Church does not suppress sexual urges. The Catholic priest/religious (monk, nun, sister, friar, ect.) expresses his sexuality in an appropriate context through his vows/promises. He forms appropriate friendships and social contacts.

Further, even if it did, who cares? It does not demand release. Intelligent people contol their desires constantly, suppressing them by use of their reason. If you have to go to the bathroom, you don't just crap all over yourself immediately. No, you control your desire and suppress the urges. Even married couples do not just go at it whenever they get the urge; they control their desires and exercise their marital rights in the appropriate contexts.

 Lastly, the Church does not condone such behavior. If it did, something might be able to be said. But just because Catholics themselves sin does not have any impact on the truth of its claims in general.

According to a survey: http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/

The survey concerned 2012 persons, among whom 1021 (50.7 %) declared that they were Catholics.

For what principal reason are you defining yourself as a Catholic :

Simply, I was born in a Catholic family : 55 %
I have faith : 21 %
It corresponds to values I am attached : 14 %
I am attached to the culture and the history of my country : 9 %
No answer : 1 %

Mass or religious office :
Once or twice a week : 8 %
Once or twice a month : 9 %
From time to time, at the great moments (Easter, Xmas) : 31 %
Only when there is a ceremony (baptism, marriage, burial) : 46 %
Never : 6 %

Do you pray ?
Everyday : 16 %
Once a week : 9 %
Once or twice a month : 2 %
From time to time : 26 %
Exceptionally : 17 %
Never : 29 %
No answer : 1 %

Have you a crucifix or a statue of the Virgin Mary ?
Yes 62 %, No 38 %

Have you a Bible ?
Yes 48 %, No 52 %

Do you know the Pater Noster ?
Yes 88 %, No 12 %

Do you know the “je vous salue Marie” (Prayer to Mary)
Yes 81 %, No 19 %

Do you know the name of the feast corresponding to the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles ?
Pentecost 33 %
Ascension 16 %
Assumption 14 %
Easter 9 %
No answer : 28 %

Do you think it is important for your children to receive a religious formation ?
Very important 19 %
Rather important 46 %
Rather not important 19 %
Not important at all : 14 %
No answer 2 %

What is your opinion about the RCC ?
Very good 8 %
Rather good 68 %
Rather bad 18 %
Very bad 3 %
No answer 3 %

What is your opinion about Benedict XVI ?
Very good 7 %
Rather good 64 %
Rather bad 15 %
Very bad 3 %
No answer 11 %

Do you believe that God exists ?
Yes, sure 26 %
Yes, probable 26 %
No, not probable 10 %
No, God does not exist 7 %
I do not know 30 %
No answer 1 %

Question for the 52 % who believe that God exists, how do you see God ?
As a force, an energy, a spirit : 79 %
As a God with whom I can have a personal relation : 18 %
No answer 3 %

According to you, what exists after death ?
Something, but I don’t know what : 53 %
Nothing : 26 %
Resurrection of the dead : 10 %
Reincarnation in another life on earth : 8 %
No answer 3 %

For each of the following propositions, can you tell us if you believe ?
Miracles 64 % (varies from 91 % to 45 %, according to the practice of prayer)
Resurrection of Christ 58 % (varies from 94 % to 40 %)
Virginity of Mary 39 % (varies from 72 % to 18 %)
Holy Trinity (one God in three persons) 37 % (varies from 90 % to 28 %)
The devil 33 % (varies from 52 % to 25 %)

With what opinion do you agree most ?
All religions have the same value 39 %
One can find truths in different religions, even if they have not the same value 50 %
Catholicism is the only true religion 9 %
None of the precedent opinions 2 %
No answer 2 %

My opinion is that 2/3 of these "Catholics" are really believers, and give an importance to their religion, the other 1/3 never pray, and are not very concerned.

And the knowledge of the dogmas of the religion is somewhat funny.

StMichael wrote:
Phooey! This is bad logic. "Allow homicide to prevent homicide." There are certain things to which this applies, and certain things to which it does not. You paint everything the same color.

Further, there is no justification for your claim that "many criminals are in a downward spiral due to religious stigma and sin." If anything, a criminal ought to be encouraged to seek forgiveness and pursue a virtuous life. You might just as well say that he is in a downward spiral due to the stigma attached to such crime from the law; in that case, ought we to destroy law?

The less hope people have maybe the best market for those that sell hope and promise eternal bliss in heaven? The faithmonglers see a market among the poor and criminal people. Even very rich people who are criminal sometimes goes to a church if they are in need of social forgiveness. Instead of being seen as the bad criminal they get recognized as the person who did the right thing and a good example to follow. He used to be a rich criminal but now he is a good christian the neighbour says. 

Jesus loves the sinner who repent they say triumphantly.

We atheists are sceptical, some of us think he is trying to take over and get rich again within a church instead. But some criminal maybe do change their attitude. Smiling

StMichael wrote:
It has nothing to do with religion. There is further no unique reason for "religion" being the cause. Again, it is bad logic which paints many categories the same color.

Lastly, again, this is an irrelevant discussion which bears no weight directly upon the subject at hand.

The Catholics were a late, mainly Roman, sect., who killed off, banished, and branded as heretics all of the early Christian sects.

There is no single unified early Christianity, it was a diverse spectrum of a wide variety of different beliefs, which the Catholics, by coming to power under Constantine, destroyed and constructed a fabricated history for themselves, and merged many of the existing Mithric and pagan doctrines of the Roman Empire into a large political structure, known as the Catholic Church.

The Protestants learned of this during the Renaissance, which is why they declared them un-Christian, its the whole basis of the claim that Catholics are not Christians.

Ironically, however, after learning that the Catholics had constructed this false religion the Protestants still basically held on to it anyway, believing somehow they could "get to the original roots", from the Catholic starting point, which is, of course, a futile exercise.

StMichael wrote:
Atheism has to do with a denial of religious belief. But that does not mean that they cannot have faith in a general sense. An atheist has faith in their friend when he tells him it is raining outside. An atheist can have faith in his own beliefs.
Im not this kind of atheist. I consider myself ''naturalist materialism''. I dont believe in supernatural/immaterial thingies. Some atheists do believe in those things such as chinese religions like Taoism or Buddhism... they dont worship gods, the just worship nature.
StMichael wrote:
Again, this does not make sense in the argument. There can be no "god of clarity/confusion," because each god would be exactly the same "God." There can be no such thing as a "god of clarity/confusion" if each god is the First Cause.
Maybe 2 eternal moons made of green cheese collide and caused the universe !
StMichael wrote:
Bad standard. A stone is not concious because it does not exercise the activity that goes with thought.

Further, to say a brain = a mind would indicate that a dog, a rat, a cockroach, a flea, all have minds.

Further, a mind is not the same thing as conciousness.

Further, this is not a necessary relationship described. There is no intrinsic reason a mind cannot exist without a body.

Further, it is provable that the mind is not dependent upon any material organ for its existence. The easiest proof is to look at the fact that sense data decreases in sensibility as the sensation becomes more intense, whereas an idea becomes more intelligible to the mind as it becomes more knowable. The mind is thus not a material organ.

It is a bit like saying that we can observe silicon chips, but not the software running on them. The software does therefore not belong to this physical world. But this would just be silly; we can ‘see’ the software running on silicon chip by measuring potential differences between points on its surface. With a few textbooks and some time, we can fully understand the program that created these potential differences. I do not think that anyone would argue the program is not in this physical world.

As I understand it (and I think I do understand it quite well) we can do exactly the same to a brain. We can measure potential differences within the brain as the bbrain functions. We observe predictable and repeatable patterns within it, and can pinpoint specific physical locations for memory, thought and actions. Or in other words, we can observe the software running.

I therefore fail to see what there about the mind that requires a non-physical or non naturalistic explanation. True, we do not have textbooks that fully explain the brains operation and I accept that the reverse engineering of this is incomplete. But recent progress has been impressive, and I do not see what the barriers are to a comprehensive physical explanation of the mind.

If mind is separate from brain, why is it that brain damage can alter one's personality? Hell, mere alcohol can affect your personality. We know it affects the brain. Okay so it messes with co-ordination and balance... but why should one's mind get drunk?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5f_oiaABS0

I happen to come across this video... It shows the relationship between the brain and the mind.

I did a search but could not find part 2,3 and 4.

Matter is an aspect, a percept, a concept in Mind... just like spacetime (our familiar realm).

If you don't insist that matter exists by virtue of having evolved... then why would you insist that Mind must have evolved in order to exist?

Everything comes in degrees.  Illusions are the constructs in mind that are not being explicitly shared (unlike the material world in spacetime).

Volition is by definition not materially mechanistic.  Evolution is only possible along a timeline, like that of matter/energy... and Mind is not inherently temporally bound (only subsets of it, some of the "time"Smiling).  So brains evolved... along with an increased capacity for the temporal expression/experiences of minds.

Via?  Via topdown direction from the mind to the brain to the arm to the hand that puts the bolts in the hydraulic assembly and the rivets in the skin of the airplane wing, for purposes conceived of and executed at mind's behest.

It's not man's consciousness that makes reality... but neither is man's consciousness separate from all else in reality.  I don't mind what else you'd like to call this overarching concept, but I am content for now with "Mind" as described by Planck. 

So maybe you don't deny that events occur that are inexplicable from a materialist stance.  Personally, I don't agree with "dualism" either... yet I observe the "apparent" distinction between mental and physical.  We often pull things apart to see how they're put together.  Free will is as obvious as my ability to keep my bodily impulses in check for later greater good as judged by my analytical mind.
 
No one preaches to "obvious"  (you sure like theistic terminology).  We just cannot always tell that what is obvious to us (like, "I have a mind&quotEye-wink is not necessarily obvious to others.

Balance is good (trite as it sounds).  While I'm addicted to science, the following really reaches me...

Sweet is the lore which Nature brings;
Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:--
We murder to dissect.

Enough of Science and of Art;
Close up those barren leaves;
Come forth, and bring with you a heart
That watches and receives.
 
Wordsworth

StMichael wrote:
Your idea and your thoughts do not have space or dimension. Do they exist?

Further, it is arbitrary to say that an immaterial thing does not exist. Why not? There is no justification.

1. The universe is composed of parts. The human being is also composed of parts. To say that the human being is for digestion because one of it's parts, the stomach is for digestion, stretches too far the quality of a part to the whole. I think that calling the universe aware because one of it's parts is aware commits the same falacy.

2. Intellegence is a quality of a specific organism that is in the universe. We do not consider a star, a planet, an asteroid intellegent just because humans are intellegent. A quality, such as intellegence should be applied to a specific entity as opposed to the entireity of the universe. At sometime in the future it might be possible that a significant part of the universe becomes aware through manipulation and design of intellegent beings, but that is a far off proposition. Then only generally would you say that the universe, referencing a large proportion as opposed to the entireity becomes intellegent.

3. Remember there are large portions of the brain, and the mind, that are specifically focused on the "self", others which are focused on ideas which are representative but not material. Certainly the self is a part of the universe, but since it exists as an idea as opposed to matter, it exists only as an affect of specific matter in the universe, ie the brain. Ideas are immaterial, however they are a result of material components. Certainly there is debate as to whether the neurological affects are the result of a standard material response, but I don't think that is your point. In fact I am a bit befuddled on the train of thought that includes point 3?

StMichael wrote:
Offer your own reasons instead of merely referring somewhere else.

Further, omnipotence is defended there as well.

No argument here, so I need not respond further.

Why should i explain my arguments to you if you refuse to learn ?

Epicurus's riddle goes like so:

Is God willing but not able to prevent evil?  If so, he's not omnipotent.
Is God able but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is God both able and willing?  Then from where comes evil?
Is God neither able nor willing?  Then why call him God?

I find this to be a particularly strong Atheist arguement.  The only arguement against it would be that "God has a plan for everything."  However, this arguement doesn't hold up due to the fact that the "plan" theory falls under the second line.

The Omnipotence Paradox goes like so:

Could God make a stone so large, even he couldn't lift it?  If so, lifting the stone is one thing he couldn't do, and therefore is not omnipotent.  If not, then creating such a stone is one thing he could not do.

StMichael wrote:
In such a universe, nothing would exist. If things were argued to exist, I would argue that they must be materially determined and no free will was possible (because all action would be determined by matter's previous movement and all actions would basically be mathematically calculable; also, no meaning could be given to the concept "free".

God creates free will and ensures that it is free by His creation of it. No contradiction is found.


If free will implies indeterminism, then unless determinism and indeterminism are both true, I daresay it does not allow free will. (Although, I don't know about 'free will', since I don't know what the distinction is between free will and "free will&quotEye-wink.

Free will – this is the issue you actually want me to approach.
It’s all right; I have no problem with it.

Determinism postulates uniqueness and unilinearity in the cause&effect mechanism.
In my opinion, this model contradicts the physical reality and ignores the laws of life.

Will has nothing to do with conscience. All living things endowed with a complex nervous system (humans included, but not only human beings) show will. Will stems from self-preservation, which implies both causality and teleology. No wonder Libet’s experiment shows that will forms before human beings are aware of it. Both evolutionary and physiologically, will precedes conscience.

One of determinists’ most frequent fallacies is to analyze free will as free + will. Will is the reaction to a need of self-preservation, while free-will reflects the manner in which this need is fulfilled. Free will (libre arbitre in French) is the human beings’ characteristic of making conscious choices, which they feel responsible for due to their ability to think about their own thinking.

StMichael wrote:
Again, this is irrelevant and doesn't answer the question.
Whatever...
StMichael wrote:
But the pink elephant does exist in your mind and without matter.

The concept of what it is "to know" is inherently immaterial and there is no reason to associate it with physical action. My process of knowing is by finding an idea "within" a physical object. But the knowing is beyond the material world.

Name one nonexistent thing.

To say that, for instance, unicorns do not exist, is, as as I thought we had agreed some while ago, that the concept of unicorn, has no referent. And, in general, when we say that X does not exist (or, for that matter, that X exists) we are not, despite grammatical appearances, talking about X (since when we say that X does not exist, there is no X to talk about) but, rather, talking about the concept X, and saying of that concept that it has no referent. So, when we say that unicorns do not exist, we are not saying that  something (a unicorn) does not exist, but we are saying that there is nothing that the concept unicorn, refers to. (There is a concept 'unicorn', but no unicorns). Just as to say that unicorns do exist would be to say that there is both the concept, 'unicorn', and unicorns as well.  So, the best that could be possibly meant by, "nonexistence exists" (and here, I am being charitable) is that there are concepts that have no referents. The concepts exist, but their alleged referents do not. But, as I said, I am being charitable by even allowing that "nonexistence exists" has even that meaning.


"Philosophy is a constant battle against the bewitchment of the intelligence by language".

StMichael wrote:
We can know that God is a subsistent immaterial being from the Prime Mover argument. The Prime Mover must exist without matter. Further, the human mind can exist without matter as a subsistent immaterial substance (and this was shown above).
I think that to deal with both the unmoved mover and first cause arguments, one only needs ask the ultimate debunking question: "What created God?" to expose the arguments for what they are: a textbook example of special pleading fallacy.
StMichael wrote:
It depends on senses of the word "natural."
A processes of material.
StMichael wrote:
No, the will must merely be free of external violence. A will is free, for example, when it makes a decision based upon reasons (when I choose a fish sandwich over a chicken one), even though it does so with dependence on reasons.
Taking it one step further, how can you be omniscient about the future and not know everything you're ever going to do? Next, how can you know everything you're ever going to do and ever make a decision to do something different?

If there were an omnimax god (which there isn't) it would be like a fly trapped in flowing amber: unable to do anything to change where it's going or what it's doing. Never once would it ever have had to make a decision. Once again, a ridiculous concept, and certainly something to be pitied for its impotence.
StMichael wrote:
You defined "free" in this way, not I. I think this is an absurdity of defining free will in this way.
Agent models are just fine for predicting the actions of others - just like point mass is just fine for predicting the motion of distant objects.

Start burrowing below the surface, however, and the whole thing falls apart. No matter how many billions of tons of rock you tunnel through, you get no closer to finding the tiny point containing all the mass of the entire planet. In fact, the further you dig, the less mass there is beneath you!

Same with the human mind. The self - some kind of overarching 'executive module' of he human mind - is a convenient fiction that makes it possible to model the actions of others. They 'act as though' they have one, which reduces the complexity of simulating them down to a manageable task.

We can thus imagine what people are thinking, what they'll do, and how to make them do what we want. It's a hell of a lot easier than modelling the complex inner working of their braiin, of which we have no information anyway - and the results are close enough for government work.

But the truth is, we just don't work that way. Different bit of our brains work independently, in parallel. Think about it for a second: if we had some inner executive module that told us what to think about, then we wouldn't need the rest of our brain to think it for us, because we'd already have done it.

What we think of as 'our decision' is pure ad-hockery: we commit to action something like a quarter of a second before we decide it - the mental process of decision actually boils down to creating an explanation for what we're actually doing.

This whole concept of 'free will' is just a misapplication of the agent model to interior processes:

P1: This agent acts on its own intent, rather than being coerced by other agents or the environment
P2: Formulating intent is an action.
C: Therefore, this agent formulates intent based on its own intent.

Hello, infinite regression.

I do X because
I want to do X because
I want to want to do X because
I want to want to want to do X because
I want to want to want to want to do X because
   ...

Think of the mind as a black box - input (senses/biochemistry/environment) goes in one end, and output (actions/behaviour/etc) comes out the other, and we completely ignore what happens inbetween.

There are, as far as I can see, three basic possibilities:

a) The output is a function of the input. This is the pure-deterministic model. We run around like ants: if we see X, we do Y. There may be a trillion interacting factors that make it impossible to exactly predict it all, but it all still boils down to clockwork made of meat. No free will here.

b) The output is completely chaotic. We buzz around like unprogrammed robots, acting completely at random, doing everything for no reason whatsoever. I doubt anyone would call that free will.

c) The output is invariant - somehow prerecorded or predestined. We're a tickle-me-elmo with a threescore-and-ten-year tape. Hm. No freedom there.

d) The output is a function of some completely hidden input. Our brain is just a radio receiver somehow tuned into a soul, or space aliens or Danny DeVito, and we're just a remote-controlled meat robot for it. Still doesn't sound very free to me, and it's just hiding the problem - our soul itself would have to be either a, b or c.

Now of course, things are rarely that simple - we're likely a combination of at least a and b. But none of these combinations have any 'free will' whatsoever, so none of them are going to get any more free.

We're software. Ridiculously complex, fascinating software with a trillion little quirks and bugs, constantly getting updated and rewritten, an almost impossible to predict to any degree of accuracy over any length of time. But software nonetheless - qualitatively no different from any other bot.

StMichael wrote:
What?
No evidence.
StMichael wrote:
Except that this does not answer anything I said. I do not believe Mormonism to be true, nor is there any reason why it is.

I said that affadavits could be produced by myself and affixed to the front of my Catechism that its contents were true, but that does nothing to prove they are true. In fact, there are certifications on the front of Catholic Bibles and Catechisms that they are in conformity with the Church's teaching ("imprimatur" and "nihil obstat" among other things). This does not mean that, for example, on seeing this, you immediately can accept the Scriptures or the Catechism as true. It depends on further evidence and authority beyond the certifications.

Hey kids, look what I found today!  Poster propaganda from Fascist Catholics during WWII

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b6/Churchdesecrationposter.JPG

An Italian poster from World War II using the image of Jesus to elicit support for the fascist cause from the largely Catholic population. The portrayal of an African-American US Army soldier desecrating a church fosters racist sentiment.

StMichael wrote:
God, in fact, does not have emotions, nor does He feel pain. He is incorruptible. Sometimes, Christians speak of God as being sad about something (God is sad that you sinned, ect.), but it is an allegory or analogy.
Is "heaven" a place where free will exists? If not, why call it "heaven"? Is it a place where suffering exists? If so, why call it "heaven"? According to most christian denominations it's possible for a serial killer/pedophile to "accept Jesus" and go to heaven. It's also possible for a good citizen who never causes harm to anyone else to go to hell just because he never "accepted Jesus".

If heaven exists and it's a place where free will exists but nobody suffers then you have your answer.

StMichael wrote:
Yes, and this text did not exist five minutes ago, either.
Everything is time. Smiling
StMichael wrote:
That is correct. Christians do not claim that there was time outside of when God created the universe. The universe nevertheless had a beginning at/in a time.
God exists outside of the Universe, and created it, and that's how it has a beginning.

So that means that things can exist outside of the Universe. Well, let's come up with a name that means "everything that exists". Let's call it, say, UniversePlus. So God exists inside of UniversePlus, the Universe exists inside UniversePlus, and everything else that exists is also inside of UniversePlus. Because God is inside of UniversePlus, and God doesn't have a beginning, UniversePlus must also have no beginning. So, we can take you earlier syllogism and slightly modify it to become:

1. A beginning-less UniversePlus requires an actually infinite number of things.
2. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
3. Therefore, a beginning-less UniversePlus cannot exist.

StMichael wrote:
Even then, you can never imagine nothingness. But that does not mean that God cannot create from nothing. He does not use preexisting matter, or preexisting space. There is nothing other than God, and then He creates the universe. He does not make nothing into something, absolutely. But where once only nothingness was, now exists something.
In short, there's no such thing as "nothing". There never has been and there never will be. Now, how someone then figure out that this god has managed to create the universe out of nothing (creation ex nihilo) when there never was any nihilo beats me.
StMichael wrote:
That's your problem, not mine.
Blah.
StMichael wrote:
And I am not claiming that you ought to accept that God exists based on faith. I am claiming that you ought to accept that God exists based on reason alone. You can know that God exists without faith, and it is knowledge.

Further, faith is a type of knowledge. It is not "anti-knowledge" (as such a thing cannot exist). Faith has justifications and reasons, but they are different than purely natural inquiry (like science or physics or philosophy). Faith believes that a proposition is true because God has revealed it (and God cannot decieve, nor can He be decieved). Faith accepts some thing as true because of the authority that reveals it is trustworthy. Thus, it has a rational justification.

I have a special book that explains a lot of things. Would you please believe in my special book? It says its true, and it will be true if you believe it. In fact, if you believe it enough, you will be able to fly and will become really rich and popular and be able to cure diseases. So its important to believe it, so please believe it. We need people who can fly and are rich and popular and can cure everybody who is sick.
StMichael wrote:
Again, that is not what "faith" is.
When calling others to task for accepting various testimonial sources as sources of information without evidence, it is important to keep in mind that unless we (all) do this, one can have no such thing as evidence for anything historical that one hasn’t seen for oneself (and even what one has “seen for oneself” will be greatly diminished without such acceptance).  To see this, think in terms of the beginnings of an individuals acquistion of history.  One is told certain things and one simply accepts them—say in elementary school or at home.  If one is disinclined to simply accept it without checking it (no child, at the beginning of his/her learning is so disinclined), against what source would one check it?  It can only be checked against some source or other that one will accept as authoritative without evidence.  If one does not simply acknowledge the source as authoritative, then there can be no epistemic gain in the (so-called) checking.  In fact it can’t be called checking, at all.  Moreover, one cannot at a basic level contend that it is the extent (assuming that it is extensive) of the supporting documents/sources that provides the needed epistemic weight.  Not unless one acknowledges that one is just accepting without evidence (on faith) that there wouldn’t be so many sources unless it were true (or accepting without evidence that the number of such sources makes it probable that it is true).   If one set out to check to see if the sources were severally accurate, how would one go about that?   When you find yourself inclined to refer to  the many different sources that attest to the presidency of George Washington, do you know that the many sources that you are personally aware of (if you are aware of many) do not all derive from a single source (earlier in history)?   “But they don’t all derive from a single source” you might say.  What do you know here and how do you know it?  If you are like most of us, you don't know anything about the history of the sources of information about George Washington.

If one means by “accepting on faith” something such as  “accepting without evidence”, then this does not in any epistemically significant way distinguish the way that many come to accept the various books of the Bible as authoritative from the way that people, in general, come to accept the various sources of, for example, non-religious history that they accept as authoritative.

StMichael wrote:
I do not believe that God exists,
WOW ! you denied god !
StMichael wrote:
I know that He does by natural reason. I believe that God is Trinity (I do not know that by natural inquiry, nor can I discover it naturally speaking).
The Trinity is logically inconsistent because as long as you can differentiate between the three "persons", they are not the same person, and if they are the same person, then you cannot differentiate between them. Identical entities have the same properties. If they differ in some property they are not identical. QED
StMichael wrote:
Thus, you can accept the proof I offered in the First Cause argument and God's existence is logically necessary to posit that the world exists. It is not faith at all.
You have show me no proof.

I already destroyed the argument. The ontological argument is circular (and therefore valid), but it does not prove anything. It assumes that God exists (being necessary and possible) in order to show that God exists.

Of course, and if it is possible that God does not exist, the argument shows that necessarily God does not exist.

One important aspect of the problem is this:

A necessary being either exists necessarily or it does not exist necessarily, meaning it is either necessary or impossible

(D.1) []G V []~G

(D.2) ~<>~G V ~<>G
If a necessary being does not exist in a possible world, then it does not exist in any possible world (since it has to exist in all possible worlds in order to be necessary).

If a necessary being exists in a possible world, then it exists in all possible worlds.

So, the only problem is what do we assume ?

1. That it is possible for God to exist? (There is a possible world where God exists) <>G <=> ~[]~G

2. That it is possible for God not to exist? (There is a possible world where God does not exist) <>~G <=> ~[]G

The trick is that (1) is equivalent with "God exists", by using the D.1 above: you deny the right term of the disjunction, and that means that God exists necessarily.

(2) is equivalent with "God does not exist", by using D.1 above: you deny the left term of the disjunction, and that means that necessarily God does not exist.

If you assume (1) you are Begging the Question by assuming God exists. If you assume (2) you are Begging the Question by assuming God does not exist.
Neither can be used to prove or disprove God's existence.

StMichael wrote:
My reasons are not emotional, nor psychological, nor mystical. I accept the existence of God because my reason demonstrates it (just as my reason demonstrates that three angles in a triangle must equal 180 degrees). Even in matters of faith, I do not base my faith in non-reason. Faith is a rational acceptance of things which are revealed by a greater authority. I believe that Christ was God because He performed works only God can do. Likewise, I believe what He taught because He is God (as I can rationally deduce from the former). In the same way, His Church teaches truth from God, because He (as God) promised that it would. Thus, rationally, I accept these positions without emotion or mysticism.
I understand how you feel. I think I would make an equally dishonest theist. So far your honesty seems above average for a theist discussing something which has religious ramifications.

I am reminded of times when I had felt angry or happy for some reason that turned out to be false. Reason itself is a cause of emotion. I am not often confronted with the idea that the emotion causes the reason which as I think of it is often true as well. People do things just because they are angry or happy or whatever.

When you have a certain emotion, do you generally just go with it or do you sometimes question its validity? When I know I'm imagining something and that thing causes emotion, that emotion may well be valid if that situation were to actually occur but it isn't really valid since that situation only occurred within my imagination.

Imagination seems to be our way of simulating our environment and how we would feel if we performed certain actions in certain situations. We can imagine situations that will not ever occur outside our imaginations (such as meeting Abe Lincoln or god). Those feelings though probably are our brains best guess at how we would feel.

When you pray or worship or whatnot, do you think that you are actually performing those actions to an actual god or do you understand that you are simulating those actions and the god in your imagination?

StMichael wrote:
Yes, God is a spirit. A seperated spiritual substance, like an angel or a human soul that exists seperate from the body. God is higher than these in an absolute sense, but He is still a spirit.
It's a combination of many things. Probably #1 is tradition--they believe it because other people believed it in the past. "Why did the tradition so consistently arise, and why does it persist/spread?" is a related question, and again I think there are a variety of reasons:

-The human tendency to anthropomorphize everything
-The interplay of the sense of wonder/the numinous, mystical experience, and wishful thinking
-The unimaginable nature of one's own death (try to imagine what it's like not to exist)
-The appearance of some animating property abandoning the body at death (i.e. the breath, from which the word "spirit" is derived)

That there is such a thing as spirits is quite an understandable misconception, even without thousands of years of tradition to back it up.

StMichael wrote:
We know by means of material images, but we know immaterial realites. Our knowledge of God discloses Him as a spiritually subsistent substance.
You know god ? then where's your evidence ?

This sounds like a daft question, but I am really curious about this point.

I look inside myself and know for certain that I cannot possibly be supernatural. It's all natural- bones, blood, brains, and bowels. I cannot fathom that I've got some kind of pixie-dust spirit ready to fly off the moment a truck hits me. After all, why can't I feel that spirit rattling around inside me NOW? This instant. Can Christians really and truly FEEL a spirit inside themselves when they are walking about?

I've noticed that when Christians speak of their supernatural spirit, it is always "outer" related. Their spirit is ready to commune with Jesus, to head off to heaven, and to do whatever it is that angels do- once it's released. But I can't say that I have ever heard from Christians in a non-theological way that they can feel what their spirit is doing from minute to minute. What is your spirit doing, say, when you are washing dishes? When sitting on the toilet? Could a Christian feel at that moment that they have a supernatural spirit doing something or other? What's it doing NOW?

Is there anyone here who has actually "felt" a spirit inside themselves? Not an outer directed one, but something IN there during their daily lives?

StMichael wrote:
That is exactly what I am saying. Meaning and ideas exist apart from neurons. God exists apart from matter and is a subsistent spiritual being. We cannot know from effects what a spiritual substance is per se because it does not exist in matter. It can only be known as causing or effecting something in matter. This is the only way, by natural reason, that we can know about God - by His effects. This does not tell us much about what He is in Himself. This is what Revelation is: Revelation is God telling us what He is in Himself. But we can know that He exists and that He is One by our natural reason. We know that He is Three in One by what He has told us.

Why should I believe that there is anything outside this physical universe, Overcomer? So far the evidence is becoming all too clear that religious experience is NOTHING but brain chemistry (NEXT)


StMichael wrote:
It does not. Show me some place where it does.

GE 6:5 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to flood the earth to eliminate mankind. All living things including plants, animals, women and innocent children are also exterminated. (Note: This is like burning down a populated house to rid it of mice.)
EX 12:30 The Lord kills all the first-born of Egypt and there is not a house where there is not at least one dead.
LE 26:22 "I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children."
LE 26:29, DT 28:53, JE 19:9, EZ 5:8-10 As a punishment, the Lord will cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and fathers and friends.
NU 25:9 24,000 people die in a plague from the Lord.
DT 2:33-34 The Israelites utterly destroy the men, women, and children of Sihon.
DT 3:6 The Israelites utterly destroy the men, women, and children of Og.
DT 20:13-14 "When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."
JS 6:21-27 With the Lord's approval, Joshua destroys the city of Jericho men, women, and children with the edge of the sword.
JS 8:22-25 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly smites the people of Ai, killing 12,000 men and women, so that there were none who escaped.
JS 10:10-27 With the help of the Lord, Joshua utterly destroys the Gibeonites.
JS 10:28 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Makkedah.
JS 10:30 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Libnahites.
JS 10:32-33 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Lachish.
JS 10:34-35 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Eglonites.
JS 10:36-37 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Hebronites.
JS 10:38-39 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Debirites.
JS 10:40 (A summary statement.) "So Joshua defeated the whole land ...; he left none remaining, but destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded."
2KI 2:23-24 Forty-two children are mauled and killed, presumably according to the will of God, for having jeered at a man of God.
EZ 9:4-6 The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women ...."
EZ 20:26 In order that he might horrify them, the Lord allowed the Israelites to defile themselves through, amongst other things, the sacrifice of their first-born children.
EZ 23:25, 47 God is going to slay the sons and daughters of those who were whores.
MT 10:21 "... the brother shall deliver up his brother to death, and the father his child, ... children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death."
...ect....ect
...ect....ect
...ect....ect

Are these also the "handiwork" of God?....

African sleeping sickness (African trypanosomiasis)
AIDS/HIV
Amebiasis
BSE ("mad cow disease&quotEye-wink and nvCJD
Campylobacter infections
Chickenpox (Varicella)
Cholera
Coccidioidomycosis
Cryptosporidiosis (Cryptosporidium infection)
Cyclosporiasis (Cyclospora infection)
Dengue fever
Diarrhea
Diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis
E. coli (Escherichia coli)
Encephalitis
Filariasis
Giardiasis (Giardia infection)
Hantavirus
Hepatitis
Histoplasmosis
Legionellosis
Leishmaniasis (Leishmania infection)
Leptospirosis
Lyme disease
Malaria
Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR)
Meningitis
Norovirus infection(Norwalk/Norwalk-like virus infection)
Onchocerciasis (river blindness)
Plague
Poliomyelitis
Rabies
Rickettsial Infections
Rotavirus
Salmonellosis (Salmonella infection)
SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome)
Scabies
Schistosomiasis
Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)
Shigellosis (Shigella infection)
Smallpox
Streptococcus pneumoniae (Pneumococcal) Disease
Tuberculosis (TB)
Typhoid fever
Typhus fevers (see rickettsial infections)
Varicella (chickenpox)
Vibrio parahaemolyticus
Viral hemorrhagic fevers (e.g., Ebola, Lassa, Marburg, Rift Valley)
West Nile virus
Yellow fever

clapping

God had no time to create time.


Sybarite
Posts: 20
Joined: 2006-12-10
User is offlineOffline
I would like to ask: Why is

I would like to ask:

Why is it unreasonable to have an infinite series of causal events? Everything I have seen has had a cause. Indeed, everything everyone has seen has had a cause. So... Why does there have to be something that hasn't been caused? 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I will get around to

I will get around to answering this in a short while. Time for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Smiling

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
What existed before this

What existed before this god (first mover, huggy bear, whatever one might call it) supposedly created the universe?

I would also like an explanation for the assertion that something can not come from nothing. What makes that statement any more truthful than something must come from nothing, or something always comes from nothing?

And I would likewise like an explanation for the assertion that everything that 'begins to exist' must have a cause. We know of nothing that 'begins to exist', except possibly particle/anti-particle pairs, which as far as we know, have no cause. To say that everything that begins to exist has a cause seems to be directly contrary to any evidence we presently have.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Than prove me that

Quote:
Than prove me that Intelligence is not material.
 My thoughts do not exist as matter. My ideas are universal. Matter is not universal. Whiteness exists in a white object, but whiteness is not identical with the white object. The same is true of number; one dog is not a different number from one apple. My knowing ability is the same way. It deals with immaterial things and hence is immaterial. However, it is not a material organ for the three reasons: it has the ability to know all material bodies (which, if it were material, could only know some types of bodies), it knows more intelligible things better (which is contrary with a material sense organ, which senses more intense sensations less), and lastly my intellect knows universals which are never found in matter. Thus, my intellect does not depend on matter for its existence.
Quote:
 The "unmoved mover" is in motion relative to everything that is moving relative to it. And that is the only test we have for motion. Anything said to be in motion is only in motion relative to other things. By that test, the only test we have, the "unmoved mover" is also in motion. Therefore, the First Mover argument is a non-starter.
 We are not speaking of local motion, where that is true.
Quote:
Zero-point energy is the result of …
I understand the idea of the Casimir effect. But it is not something arising from nothing. Space is an existence substance from which come the fluctuations. The nature of space/time causes these fluctuations. Something cannot come from nothing. Space is an existent “something.” 
Quote:
 StMichael wrote:If you want to maintain that there is nothing, which is rather contradictory when you say that "nothing exists." Nothing exists, means, It is not the case that something exists.(Nothing exists) <-> ~(Something exists)
Something exists <-> ~(Nothing exists)
Something exists, means, there is an x such that: x exists.
Something exists, means, Ex(x exists). (ExE!x)
x exists, is defined, there is some y such that: x is equal to y.
E!x =df Ey(x=y).
Something exists, means, Ex[Ey(x=y)].Nothing exists, means, ~Ex[Ey(x=y)].Because, (nothing exists) <-> ~(something exists).But, ExEy(x=y) is a theorem.Therefore ~ExEy(x=y) is a contradiction.i.e. Nothing exists is a contradiction 
Didn’t I just say that “nothing exists” is a contradiction? What is the point of writing the symbolic logic? YOU were the one who advocated that the something that exists is really not in existence. 
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Actually, it includes all possible universes. Not just the "observable" universe, whatever that means. X must exist in the universe, if X is outside the universe, it does not exist by definition.
Then why did YOU say that things could exist outside of the universe? It’s your point that you criticize, not mine! If you post something and don’t know what it says, don’t attack me as if I held your position. 
Quote:
If the new "Braneworld" or "Ekpyrotic" Big Bang model, an outgrowth of the "M-Theory" spinoff of superstring theory, is correct the Universe is eternal in time and infinite in space. According to this model, The Universe has 12 demensions (one of time, the rest of space) containing an infinite number of parallel 11-demensional membranes, or 11-branes. Each 11-brane would be the universe of older superstring theories. These 11-branes can only interact with each other through gravity (the superstrings of the other forces are open-ended, and the ends of open-ended superstrings must be attached to a 11-brane; the graviton is a closed loop, so it can travel between 11-branes). Every few trillion years, two 11-brains with meet and bounce off each other, triggering a big bang in each 11-brane. The big bonus of the Braneworld theory is trillions of years of expansion between big bangs eliminates the need for the inflationary models that have been put in to traditional cosmologies, and eliminates the "what created the universe" question since the Braneworld universe is eternal.Like I said, they are dual to one another: specifically, that means that one turns into another when viewed in a different regime. There are two dualities: T-duality and S-duality. T-duality involves an exchange of "winding" modes around the small dimensions to be interchanged mathematically for quantized momentum modes in the dual theory, where the quantized unit is equivalent to one "winding." A corollary implication is that the theories are equivalent when the small dimension radius R in one theory is exchanged for the same dimension at 1/R. The Type IIA and IIB theories are dual to one another in this manner, and the Heterotic SO(32) theory is dual to the Heterotic E8xE8 theory. S-duality is more subtle: it involves coupling constants. To make a long story short, the strong coupling constant behavior in one theory is equivalent to the weak constant behavior in another. In fact, the relationship is reciprocal, as it is in the T-duality. Type I string theory is dual to Heterotic SO(32) in this manner, and Type IIA is dual to itself. So how are all of these related to supergravity? (For general information, supergravity was the immediate predecessor of superstrings as the leading candidate for a unified field theory of gravity and the other forces.) It turns out that eleven dimension supergravity is the strong coupling limit of a theory that can potentially unite all the other five theories as limits of various dimension sizes, coupling limits, and wrapping vs. momentum quantization regimes. So what they're saying is that there's really only one theory, and the various string theories are all that theory in various limits. Some people are calling that theory "M-theory." I really think you ought to read The Elegant Universe before you make statements in ridicule- it makes criticism a bit more plausible when you have actually taken the time to study the subject first.
 Stop just quoting things aimlessly. Unless it contradicts my arguments, it is useless. I OWN the “Elegant Universe” by Brian Greene. In fact, I find it rather persuasive argument for the existence of God. But that is beside the point.M-theory has nothing in contradiction with a proof that God exists. First, this theory is highly speculative, as superstring theory is unproven (and, so far, there is no known way to verify its claims).Second, there is no way to prove the universe is eternal, or that it is not. Third, even an eternal universe would require God as the Prime Mover. The reason is because the universe still depends for its existence on a necessary being, a Prime Mover, a First Cause. It has nothing to do with temporal priority. God just needs to be logically prior to the universe. This, however, could happen that God created the universe from eternity, according to logical possibility (this would be contrary to Revelation, but that does not factor in here). There is no way to prove that the universe began to exist in time, or that it existed from eternity. However, this also does not prove that the universe is immutable. For the universe’s motions are still possible (they fade away and come into being; they do not constantly exist). It is an article of faith that the universe came to exist and it cannot be proven naturally that the universe came into existence whether in time or from eternity. But it does not negate the fact that God is logically prior to the universe and necessary for its existence.   
Quote:
 There are some theories about what the universe was like very early in its life. Some of those theories say that time came to exist in the big bang. If that's the case, then it doesn't make any sense to ask what was "before", because there is no before. But it also means the universe was not eternal. Bottom line, nobody knows exactly how the universe came into being, and if one doesn't know, then one ought to say one doesn't know, which is what cosmologists do say ultimately. They've got some ideas, but nothing that's certain.
I argue this above. But we do know that God is logically necessarily prior to the universe’s existence. 
Quote:
That's where the big problem comes in, when making the leap from "I don't know how the universe came into being." to "ah, but this ancient book has a story about it that seems likely." The problem is that the stories don't seem likely, they seem the opposite of likely.
 The Scriptures are not the source of our knowledge about the specifics of how the universe came about. They indicate merely the priority of God in logical order to the universe, that it is created, and they indicate (on faith) that the universe came into existence in time. We must admit that God exists as logically necessary for the universe to exist.    
Quote:
The atheist isn't "changing the subject" when he asks "where did God come from." You pose the problem, "where did the universe come from, it must have had a cause." Why must it have had a cause? Because everything has a cause?
I never made the claim that “everything” needs a cause. I made the claim that the universe needs a cause. There needs to be at least one cause that does not have a cause; this is my only point. God is the uncaused cause. The universe cannot suffice because it is in motion, it is not a necessary existence (because it has motion – everything in it changes and passes in and out of being), and it cannot be its own efficient cause. 
Quote:
And you posit for this cause something even more complicated than the universe, a being capable of creating the universe, but for this, you grant an exception to the rule that everything must have a cause? It's clear that if the universe has a beginning, then something does not require a cause. The assertion that the only possible such something is "God", whatever that is, is just that, an assertion. There's nothing to back it up. So it is really a fair question, what was the cause of this superbeing which is even more complex than the universe?
 God is a logical necessity for the universe’s existence. Further, God is not complex at all. God is not “complex” in the first sense because He possesses no parts or divisions at all. God is not hard to posit, in the second sense of “complicated,” because we know that His existence is necessary. 
Quote:
It is yet another huge leap from positing the existence of this very vague superbeing to the assertion that this being is the particular god described in any particular religion. How do you know so many details about this being? Eventually it all usually, and in the case of Christianity always, comes down to reliance on ancient documents written by primitive people trying to muddle through as best they coold.
We know what God is first by natural reason. We can ascertain, as I demonstrated elsewhere MANY times, that He is likewise omnipotent, omniscient, ect. Anything else that proceeds from what we know about God a priori cannot come from natural reason, because we cannot naturally know what God is in Himself from His effects. The source for this knowledge is Revelation – God has to tell us Himself. Christianity does not merely posit that the Old Testament tells us about God (which I would, of course, argue is true), but primarily posits that God became man in Palestine in ~1 AD. We get most knowledge of what God is in Himself from Christ (who was God). This is where we get the distinct truth beyond natural reason that God is Trinity. The Old Testament tends to tell mostly truths that are not beyond natural reason, in that it does not properly reveal a great deal. God’s revelation to man in the Old Testament is a promise of the Messiah, and gives prophecies about His coming and so forth. Other truths contained therein are expositions of the natural law or truths which would predispose people to Christ’s coming. The Gospels, on the other hand, tell us very directly about God as He is in Himself and of Christ, His only-begotten Son. It gives very clearly doctrine necessary for salvation and enables understanding of those things said in a hidden way in the Old Testament.It is not people muddling through things the best they could, nor were they “primitive” people. On a side note, I rather find such a highly dismissive attitude unjustified. People were not stupid because they were less advanced than us. People back then had just as much, or more, common sense than we do now. I never discount where the Greek or the Romans discovered truth. I never discount Hindus who discovered truth about the universe. I don’t discount atheists as stupid because they are “less advanced” than I am. People have a natural ability to discover the truth and people are not naturally stupid. It’s something akin to “ageism.” 
Quote:
Cyclic cause/effect is interesting but is synonymous with cyclic time. Spacetime could in principle have "closed timelike geodesics" but it places very tight restrictions over what can go on in them, as when D causes A, it does indeed have to be the same A you started with.
And?You still haven’t explained how this could contradict my argument. 
Quote:
 Here's the best description of infinite time that I can come up with.1. Assume that time is infinite. IOW, eternity extends both ways from the present.2. Any arbitrary moment in time can be called 'the present' by any being that exists at that moment.3. Assume that a machine exists, as a structure of the universe, to count each of the 'presents'.4. Any being in any 'present' will percieve the number of presents, either for the future or the past, that the machine produces to be infinite.The OP assumes that there is a beginning of infinite time to begin counting from. But, if time is truly infinite, as shown by the ray diagram, then there is no beginning and no ending, so infinite numbers can surround any 'present' with no paradox.If time has a beginning like this, .----->, then an infinite number could not be counted because there would always be a finite amount of time in the past.I hope that's clear.
And? Infinite time or an eternal universe does not contradict that God is logically necessary for its existence.
Quote:
My opinion is that 2/3 of these "Catholics" are really believers, and give an importance to their religion, the other 1/3 never pray, and are not very concerned. And the knowledge of the dogmas of the religion is somewhat funny.
And? What does this have to do with ANYTHING I SAID AT ALL? I know that there are bad Catholics; it is not news.  
Quote:
The less hope people have maybe the best market for those that sell hope and promise eternal bliss in heaven? The faithmonglers see a market among the poor and criminal people. Even very rich people who are criminal sometimes goes to a church if they are in need of social forgiveness. Instead of being seen as the bad criminal they get recognized as the person who did the right thing and a good example to follow. He used to be a rich criminal but now he is a good christian the neighbour says.  Jesus loves the sinner who repent they say triumphantly. We atheists are sceptical, some of us think he is trying to take over and get rich again within a church instead. But some criminal maybe do change their attitude.  
I dislike it when you play the sophist and turn around to advocate the exact opposite position. So now, religion is no longer dangerous because it makes people guilty. Rather, religion is dangerous because it makes people not guilty. Wow. But, in answer (b/c I’m a nice guy who takes objections seriously), what impact does that have on my religion if some people take advantage of others? I’m sure there are at least some atheist fare-mongers of different sorts. It’s not a unique argument. Also, God gave us brains to differentiate credible faith from incredible faith. Lastly, the amount of people like this seems highly overestimated. I tend to not suspect people’s motives, even while I believe they are wrong. People can be perfectly sincere in this regard.  
Quote:
 The Catholics were a late, mainly Roman, sect., who killed off, banished, and branded as heretics all of the early Christian sects.
All extant evidence points directly the OTHER way. Catholicism is the most ancient and orthodoxy the true Christianity. The Apostles themselves battled the heretics and schismatics in their time; the primitive Gnostics, for instance, were combated by Saint John the Apostle. The earliest saints, directly under the tutelage of the apostles themselves, (whose writings we possess) combated these heretics and schismatics in the same vehement terms. The heretics were divorced from any relation to the historical Christ and His Apostles; it was for this reason that Ignatius of Antioch relates that it is easy to tell which is the true Church from how related they are to the Apostles (by apostolic succession). Further, the Catholic Church was not late at all, for the same reasons.  
Quote:
There is no single unified early Christianity, it was a diverse spectrum of a wide variety of different beliefs, which the Catholics, by coming to power under Constantine, destroyed and constructed a fabricated history for themselves, and merged many of the existing Mithric and pagan doctrines of the Roman Empire into a large political structure, known as the Catholic Church.
HAHA! This is silly in a way that is beyond words. Read Euseubius’ History of the Church. While having been written on the advent of Constantine’s decree (Euseubius having lived before it was released), it is clear that the Christians of that time period were not oppressed by Constantine. The Christians, the Catholics, merely emerged from hiding. During the persecutions of the Romans, the Christians possessed the same beliefs as after the persecutions. Also, the Catholic Church assumed MANY pagan feast days or native devotions, so to speak, baptizing them (such as the December 25th date for Christmas – coming from a pagan holiday -, which was previously celebrated in the East on January 6th, which date is now Epiphany). It is not news. We, however, were not derived from Mithranism and we do not accept pagan religious doctrines. In the end of this discussion I point you to the Malankara Catholics, or the Thomas Christians. These were Christians in India who were evangelized by Saint Thomas the Apostle (“Doubting” Thomas). They existed for 16 centuries without interference from outside Christians. They never existed in the Roman Empire (I also point to the Ethiopian and Ge’ez Catholics, who also did not). However, when we discovered them, they believed identically what was believed in orthodox Catholicism in the West. In fact, they all initially accepted papal supremacy as true Christian doctrine (all initially joined into communion with the Pope; it was by a bad turn of events that some split off later, but most of this is being healed today; and even if they never accepted direct papal supremacy, they accepted everything else). They were not Gnostics, nor were they Protestants. They were Catholics. 
Quote:
The Protestants learned of this during the Renaissance, which is why they declared them un-Christian, its the whole basis of the claim that Catholics are not Christians. Ironically, however, after learning that the Catholics had constructed this false religion the Protestants still basically held on to it anyway, believing somehow they could "get to the original roots", from the Catholic starting point, which is, of course, a futile exercise.
While I don’t think the Protestants are right, I think you paint the picture falsely. The earliest Protestants thought the Church to be merely in a state of corruption, so that many of its doctrines or practices were accretions of a later age. Further, the Protestants were not stupid. They did not consider that the entire faith was corrupt, and so they held on to what they thought was “primitive” Christian doctrine. Most of what they held “primitive” Christian doctrine, however, was clearly contradicted by historical evidence (known less clearly at the time; indisputable now).  
Quote:
 Im not this kind of atheist. I consider myself ''naturalist materialism''. I dont believe in supernatural/immaterial thingies. Some atheists do believe in those things such as chinese religions like Taoism or Buddhism... they dont worship gods, the just worship nature.
Well, have fun rationally justifying your paganism/pantheism.  
Quote:
Maybe 2 eternal moons made of green cheese collide and caused the universe !
Again, not a first cause. A necessary being needs to exist for eternal moons to exist. 
Quote:
It is a bit like saying that we can observe silicon chips, but not the software running on them. The software does therefore not belong to this physical world. But this would just be silly; we can ‘see’ the software running on silicon chip by measuring potential differences between points on its surface. With a few textbooks and some time, we can fully understand the program that created these potential differences. I do not think that anyone would argue the program is not in this physical world.
The program does not exist in the chip. The program is information. The information only exists in the chip as the chip has signs which have information in relation to us. I would argue, however, that the program is in the physical world in the sense that the immaterial form of the program exists dependent upon the matter in order to exist. But the concept of the program is still immaterial, even if it depends on matter. 
Quote:
As I understand it (and I think I do understand it quite well) we can do exactly the same to a brain. We can measure potential differences within the brain as the bbrain functions. We observe predictable and repeatable patterns within it, and can pinpoint specific physical locations for memory, thought and actions. Or in other words, we can observe the software running.
Or not. The mind uses the brain, but is not necessarily dependent upon it. This is clear from the proofs I offered earlier. 
Quote:
I therefore fail to see what there about the mind that requires a non-physical or non naturalistic explanation. True, we do not have textbooks that fully explain the brains operation and I accept that the reverse engineering of this is incomplete. But recent progress has been impressive, and I do not see what the barriers are to a comprehensive physical explanation of the mind.If mind is separate from brain, why is it that brain damage can alter one's personality? Hell, mere alcohol can affect your personality. We know it affects the brain. Okay so it messes with co-ordination and balance... but why should one's mind get drunk?
 Catholics are not stupid; we know that people get drunk and that retarded people exist. The mind does not get drunk, the body does. The chemicals that exist in the brain are interfered with and the mind cannot use the body in the same way it did before. As material things are the objects of human thought, we must use them in order to think about something. So, if you hurt the means of knowledge, knowing is impeded.  
Quote:
Matter is an aspect, a percept, a concept in Mind... just like spacetime (our familiar realm).If you don't insist that matter exists by virtue of having evolved... then why would you insist that Mind must have evolved in order to exist?
 I never argued that the mind existed from evolution.Further, matter exists in the real world, apart from our concept of it. 
Quote:
 Volition is by definition not materially mechanistic.  Evolution is only possible along a timeline, like that of matter/energy... and Mind is not inherently temporally bound (only subsets of it, some of the "time" ).  So brains evolved... along with an increased capacity for the temporal expression/experiences of minds.
 This argument does not follow. 
Quote:
So maybe you don't deny that events occur that are inexplicable from a materialist stance.  Personally, I don't agree with "dualism" either... yet I observe the "apparent" distinction between mental and physical.  We often pull things apart to see how they're put together.  Free will is as obvious as my ability to keep my bodily impulses in check for later greater good as judged by my analytical mind.
 
No one preaches to "obvious"  (you sure like theistic terminology).  We just cannot always tell that what is obvious to us (like, "I have a mind" is not necessarily obvious to others.
 So we agree? 
Quote:
1. The universe is composed of parts. The human being is also composed of parts. To say that the human being is for digestion because one of it's parts, the stomach is for digestion, stretches too far the quality of a part to the whole. I think that calling the universe aware because one of it's parts is aware commits the same falacy.
And what does this have to do with anything?If you are referring to the mind, the mind is the substantial form of the human being. I am my action. The perfect whole involves matter, but my substantial form is just my soul. The mind is not just a part; my mind is me.
Quote:
 2. Intellegence is a quality of a specific organism that is in the universe. We do not consider a star, a planet, an asteroid intellegent just because humans are intellegent. A quality, such as intellegence should be applied to a specific entity as opposed to the entireity of the universe. At sometime in the future it might be possible that a significant part of the universe becomes aware through manipulation and design of intellegent beings, but that is a far off proposition. Then only generally would you say that the universe, referencing a large proportion as opposed to the entireity becomes intellegent.
 And? What does this have to do with anything?
Quote:
3. Remember there are large portions of the brain, and the mind, that are specifically focused on the "self", others which are focused on ideas which are representative but not material. Certainly the self is a part of the universe, but since it exists as an idea as opposed to matter, it exists only as an affect of specific matter in the universe, ie the brain. Ideas are immaterial, however they are a result of material components.
 The idea might be found in matter, but it exists in the mind in an immaterial manner. The mind itself and its process of understanding is immaterial (and hence does not need matter to exist) 
Quote:
Is God willing but not able to prevent evil?  If so, he's not omnipotent.
Is God able but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is God both able and willing?  Then from where comes evil?
Is God neither able nor willing?  Then why call him God?
 God is willing and able to prevent evil. He does not will evil in a primary sense. In a secondary sense, He wills free will and thus allows evil to exist to a limited extent. However, evil will eventually be destroyed in God’s wisdom. For now, God allows evil to exist to bring about a greater good. 
Quote:
The Omnipotence Paradox goes like so:

Could God make a stone so large, even he couldn't lift it?  If so, lifting the stone is one thing he couldn't do, and therefore is not omnipotent.  If not, then creating such a stone is one thing he could not do.
First, it depends on your definition of “lift.” As an immaterial entity, God cannot “lift” with arms and legs. God, I suppose, could make a rock and make it levitate. But this is irrelevant. In the end, this problem involves a contradiction. You are defining the terms: “Can God do something He cannot do.” It just sounds like “Can X = Y,” where the real question is: “Can X = ~X” which is of course impossible.  
Quote:
If free will implies indeterminism, then unless determinism and indeterminism are both true, I daresay it does not allow free will. (Although, I don't know about 'free will', since I don't know what the distinction is between free will and "free will" ….
And?Do we agree?God causes free will to exist (and hence all its decision), but does not negate free will’s ability to freely choose.  
Quote:
 Name one nonexistent thing.
How about a unicorn? Eye-wink 
Quote:
 To say that, for instance, unicorns do not exist, is, as as I thought we had agreed some while ago, that the concept of unicorn, has no referent. And, in general, when we say that X does not exist (or, for that matter, that X exists) we are not, despite grammatical appearances, talking about X (since when we say that X does not exist, there is no X to talk about) but, rather, talking about the concept X, and saying of that concept that it has no referent. So, when we say that unicorns do not exist, we are not saying that  something (a unicorn) does not exist, but we are saying that there is nothing that the concept unicorn, refers to. (There is a concept 'unicorn', but no unicorns). Just as to say that unicorns do exist would be to say that there is both the concept, 'unicorn', and unicorns as well.  So, the best that could be possibly meant by, "nonexistence exists" (and here, I am being charitable) is that there are concepts that have no referents. The concepts exist, but their alleged referents do not. But, as I said, I am being charitable by even allowing that "nonexistence exists" has even that meaning."Philosophy is a constant battle against the bewitchment of the intelligence by language".
And this is the definition of truth: conformity of the intellect to reality. Same thing.Nevertheless, I don’t see the relevance. 
Quote:
 I think that to deal with both the unmoved mover and first cause arguments, one only needs ask the ultimate debunking question: "What created God?" to expose the arguments for what they are: a textbook example of special pleading fallacy.
No cause is necessary or required. I am not arguing absolutely everything needs a cause. I am merely positing that there is required one cause without a further cause.
Quote:
A processes of material.
I think that is too limited a use of the word “natural.” What is the nature of thing? A nature is that which determines what a thing is. Its “quiddity,” to use the Aristotelian term. A natural action, for instance, would be an action proceeding from what it is properly; not accidental. A material thing’s natural action would be in keeping with its nature as a material entity. Unicorns act according to their unicorn natural when they act naturally. God is supernatural because He is above our nature, not because He is beyond His own nature. The term supernatural only designates “above” the natural. His power or knowledge, for example, is above ours (as possible in general, not just my knowledge), and hence “supernatural.”   
Quote:
Taking it one step further, how can you be omniscient about the future and not know everything you're ever going to do? Next, how can you know everything you're ever going to do and ever make a decision to do something different?If there were an omnimax god (which there isn't) it would be like a fly trapped in flowing amber: unable to do anything to change where it's going or what it's doing. Never once would it ever have had to make a decision. Once again, a ridiculous concept, and certainly something to be pitied for its impotence.
God just knows and acts eternally in a perfect manner. He does not exist in time, so there is no movement in His will. His will is eternally fixed in a perfect manner. God, in a manner of speaking, has already made/is constantly acting on all His “decisions.” There is no deliberation in God, because there is no need.  
Quote:
 The self - some kind of overarching 'executive module' of he human mind - is a convenient fiction that makes it possible to model the actions of others. They 'act as though' they have one, which reduces the complexity of simulating them down to a manageable task.
 I know that I am thinking. No problem. 
Quote:
We can thus imagine what people are thinking, what they'll do, and how to make them do what we want. It's a hell of a lot easier than modelling the complex inner working of their braiin, of which we have no information anyway - and the results are close enough for government work.
We might not know from our own minds what other people think. But that doesn’t mean that we cannot. That is what speech and body language indicates to us. 
Quote:
But the truth is, we just don't work that way. Different bit of our brains work independently, in parallel. Think about it for a second: if we had some inner executive module that told us what to think about, then we wouldn't need the rest of our brain to think it for us, because we'd already have done it.
It is not a self telling my mind to think. The mind is thinking happening. 
Quote:
 This whole concept of 'free will' is just a misapplication of the agent model to interior processes:P1: This agent acts on its own intent, rather than being coerced by other agents or the environment
P2: Formulating intent is an action.
C: Therefore, this agent formulates intent based on its own intent.
Free will indicates that the agent acts naturally, not violently. It indicates lack of external coercion. It does not affect internal “natural coercion.” My will moves my own will.  
Quote:
There are, as far as I can see, three basic possibilities: a) The output is a function of the input. This is the pure-deterministic model. We run around like ants: if we see X, we do Y. There may be a trillion interacting factors that make it impossible to exactly predict it all, but it all still boils down to clockwork made of meat. No free will here. b) The output is completely chaotic. We buzz around like unprogrammed robots, acting completely at random, doing everything for no reason whatsoever. I doubt anyone would call that free will.c) The output is invariant - somehow prerecorded or predestined. We're a tickle-me-elmo with a threescore-and-ten-year tape. Hm. No freedom there. d) The output is a function of some completely hidden input. Our brain is just a radio receiver somehow tuned into a soul, or space aliens or Danny DeVito, and we're just a remote-controlled meat robot for it. Still doesn't sound very free to me, and it's just hiding the problem - our soul itself would have to be either a, b or c. Now of course, things are rarely that simple - we're likely a combination of at least a and b. But none of these combinations have any 'free will' whatsoever, so none of them are going to get any more free. We're software. Ridiculously complex, fascinating software with a trillion little quirks and bugs, constantly getting updated and rewritten, an almost impossible to predict to any degree of accuracy over any length of time. But software nonetheless - qualitatively no different from any other bot.
You paint my argument as “d,” but I do not accept that we are merely robots operating according to mysterious souls. Except that there is a fifth option. The fifth option is this: the mind is the form of the body. I am a body and a soul together. My soul is the acting of my body. My mind can exist apart from my body, but it is not properly the whole “me.” My body is truly mine. It is “this” person who knows, not a universal soul, or something else. My mind knows by means of my senses. This is called hylomorphism. 
Quote:
 StMichael wrote:What? No evidence.
 No evidence for… what? My phrase initially was: But that does not mean that we would not eventually arrive at a first cause. It could have been, but that universe depended on something else, ect., back to the First Cause. “That's a lot of maybes, and maybes do not a proof, make.” The First Cause is logically necessary, regardless of whatever things come in the middle.  
Quote:
Hey kids, look what I found today!  Poster propaganda from Fascist Catholics during WWIIhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b6/Churchdesecrationposter.JPGAn Italian poster from World War II using the image of Jesus to elicit support for the fascist cause from the largely Catholic population. The portrayal of an African-American US Army soldier desecrating a church fosters racist sentiment.
And? This isn’t an argument, so I don’t know how to respond… 
Quote:
Is "heaven" a place where free will exists? If not, why call it "heaven"? Is it a place where suffering exists? If so, why call it "heaven"? According to most christian denominations it's possible for a serial killer/pedophile to "accept Jesus" and go to heaven. It's also possible for a good citizen who never causes harm to anyone else to go to hell just because he never "accepted Jesus".If heaven exists and it's a place where free will exists but nobody suffers then you have your answer.
 In heaven one has free will. But suffering cannot exist in heaven because heaven is the perfect possession of the Good. I’m not sure precisely what you are asking/saying. My answer to…what?  
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Yes, and this text did not exist five minutes ago, either. Everything is time.  
Ok… how does that point argue anything?  
Quote:
God exists outside of the Universe, and created it, and that's how it has a beginning.So that means that things can exist outside of the Universe. Well, let's come up with a name that means "everything that exists". Let's call it, say, UniversePlus. So God exists inside of UniversePlus, the Universe exists inside UniversePlus, and everything else that exists is also inside of UniversePlus. Because God is inside of UniversePlus, and God doesn't have a beginning, UniversePlus must also have no beginning. So, we can take you earlier syllogism and slightly modify it to become:1.               A beginning-less UniversePlus requires an actually infinite number of things.
2. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
3. Therefore, a beginning-less UniversePlus cannot exist.
  But this is not my argument. An actual infinite number of efficient causes cannot exist because then no effects would exist. It requires one uncaused cause. Further, I never claimed that I meant an infinite number of “things” but of efficient causes.Further, the last premise (UniversePlus has no beginning) is a logical fallacy. You illegitimately apply the part to the whole. The universe depends on God to begin to exist, but God does not begin to exist. 
Quote:
In short, there's no such thing as "nothing". There never has been and there never will be. Now, how someone then figure out that this god has managed to create the universe out of nothing (creation ex nihilo) when there never was any nihilo beats me.
 It merely indicates that God never used any pre-existing “thing” to create the universe out of. It does not mean that He made nothing something, again. I agree that “nothing” does not exist. StMichael wrote:And I am not claiming that you ought to accept that God exists based on faith. I am claiming that you ought to accept that God exists based on reason alone. You can know that God exists without faith, and it is knowledge. Further, faith is a type of knowledge. It is not "anti-knowledge" (as such a thing cannot exist). Faith has justifications and reasons, but they are different than purely natural inquiry (like science or physics or philosophy). Faith believes that a proposition is true because God has revealed it (and God cannot decieve, nor can He be decieved). Faith accepts some thing as true because of the authority that reveals it is trustworthy. Thus, it has a rational justification.I have a special book that explains a lot of things. Would you please believe in my special book? It says its true, and it will be true if you believe it. In fact, if you believe it enough, you will be able to fly and will become really rich and popular and be able to cure diseases. So its important to believe it, so please believe it. We need people who can fly and are rich and popular and can cure everybody who is sick.
 No, I would not because you offer no evidence that believing your book would make me fly. If, however, you began to fly and cure diseases, I would believe that, reasonably, I would fly and cure diseases if I believed your book.On a last note, this is an improper analogy on a lot of levels. We do not claim that people ought to believe the Scriptures because “it says its true and it will be true if you believe it.” We believe the Scriptures because God’s authority was made manifest through miracles and prophecies which attest to the truth of what is written in the Scriptures. Also, it has nothing to do with believing in the Scriptures enough – we never promise to all Catholics the ability to work miracles. It is a special gift of grace from God. Lastly, we never advocate that we need people who can work miracles. Miracles are a special thing God performs in certain instances; they are not ordinary and it would make no sense to advocate them because God does not solve all problems in the world by miracles.     
Quote:
When calling others to task for accepting various testimonial sources as sources of information without evidence,
The evidence is the miracles that Christ and His Church perform to show that they are from God. 
Quote:
it is important to keep in mind that unless we (all) do this, one can have no such thing as evidence for anything historical that one hasn’t seen for oneself (and even what one has “seen for oneself” will be greatly diminished without such acceptance).
Albert Einstein never existed. 
Quote:
If you are like most of us, you don't know anything about the history of the sources of information about George Washington.
Then it must follow, according to your logic, George Washington never existed. Faith happens all the time, as you yourself point out, but there is rational and irrational faith. Catholic religious faith is rational because it moves from evidence of God’s Revelation (miracles) to accepting the Revelation. It is not “blind” (which, however, is the case in Islam and some Protestantism).  
Quote:
If one means by “accepting on faith” something such as  “accepting without evidence”, then this does not in any epistemically significant way distinguish the way that many come to accept the various books of the Bible as authoritative from the way that people, in general, come to accept the various sources of, for example, non-religious history that they accept as authoritative.
Faith is not accepting without evidence. Faith is accepting that a proposition is true, on authority. The trustworthiness of the authority determines the certainty of the belief. With God, the belief is supremely credible and hence most certain knowledge. 
Quote:
 StMichael wrote:I do not believe that God exists, WOW ! you denied god ! 
Calm down. I mean in the sense that these two things correspond to different levels of knowledge. I can know that God exists by my natural reason, while I must believe in the Trinity (I actually could believe that God exists, but that is irrelevant).  
Quote:
StMichael wrote:I know that He does by natural reason. I believe that God is Trinity (I do not know that by natural inquiry, nor can I discover it naturally speaking). The Trinity is logically inconsistent because as long as you can differentiate between the three "persons", they are not the same person, and if they are the same person, then you cannot differentiate between them. Identical entities have the same properties. If they differ in some property they are not identical. QED
There are Three Persons in one God, not Three Persons in one person. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. It is a mystery beyond human comprehension, but that is not to say it is logically inconsistent. The procession of the Son from the Father, for example, is not procession in a material sense. It is like intellectual emanation of an word being spoken (which is how St. John refers to Christ). The word proceeds from the speaker, but remains with him. Or, for example, when we understand a thing, it unites us more closely to the thing being understood. This is the sort of procession that exists between the Persons in the Trinity, where as they proceed, they are most perfectly in union with one another. It does not imply a contradiction, but is a mystery in the manner of life in God; the manner of that life that exists in God is incomprehensible to us.  
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Thus, you can accept the proof I offered in the First Cause argument and God's existence is logically necessary to posit that the world exists. It is not faith at all. You have show me no proof.I already destroyed the argument. The ontological argument is circular (and therefore valid), but it does not prove anything. It assumes that God exists (being necessary and possible) in order to show that God exists.
Except that I never made the ontological argument. Ever.My argument from necessary and possible being does not assume God exists. Things exist in the world. These things are not necessarily existing because they change, going in and out of being. Hence, at least one necessary being exists. If there are more necessary beings, each would depend on another which was necessary to it. But this cannot go on into infinity because there cannot be an infinity of efficient causes. Hence, only one purely necessary being exists, which is God.  
Quote:
A necessary being either exists necessarily or it does not exist necessarily, meaning it is either necessary or impossible(D.1) []G V []~G(D.2) ~<>~G V ~<>G
If a necessary being does not exist in a possible world, then it does not exist in any possible world (since it has to exist in all possible worlds in order to be necessary).
If a necessary being exists in a possible world, then it exists in all possible worlds. So, the only problem is what do we assume ? 1. That it is possible for God to exist? (There is a possible world where God exists) <>G <=> ~[]~G2. That it is possible for God not to exist? (There is a possible world where God does not exist) <>~G <=> ~[]GThe trick is that (1) is equivalent with "God exists", by using the D.1 above: you deny the right term of the disjunction, and that means that God exists necessarily.(2) is equivalent with "God does not exist", by using D.1 above: you deny the left term of the disjunction, and that means that necessarily God does not exist.If you assume (1) you are Begging the Question by assuming God exists. If you assume (2) you are Begging the Question by assuming God does not exist.
Neither can be used to prove or disprove God's existence.
You assume possibility to mean “the absolute ability for a thing to be or not to be.” I mean possibility in the sense that a thing “may go out of existence, or come into existence – is not logically necessary.”The first step does not make sense either, as a necessary being only can exist necessarily; the only other choice is that it does not exist.The second part about possible worlds makes the error I pointed out above – possibility in the sense that the world’s existence is not necessary. The critique of (1) makes no sense. How does it beg the question to say that a necessary being necessarily exists? I agree this does not demonstrate that such a being exists, if that is what you mean. But I am not arguing the ontological argument. 
Quote:
 I understand how you feel. I think I would make an equally dishonest theist. So far your honesty seems above average for a theist discussing something which has religious ramifications.
Thank you, but I think you underestimate the average “theist.” Most probably don’t appear on this forum except the crazy ones (like myself J ) 
Quote:
 I am reminded of times when I had felt angry or happy for some reason that turned out to be false. Reason itself is a cause of emotion. I am not often confronted with the idea that the emotion causes the reason which as I think of it is often true as well. People do things just because they are angry or happy or whatever.When you have a certain emotion, do you generally just go with it or do you sometimes question its validity? When I know I'm imagining something and that thing causes emotion, that emotion may well be valid if that situation were to actually occur but it isn't really valid since that situation only occurred within my imagination.
This has to do with…what? My judgments are rational, not emotional. Emotion is part of being human, but not part of an argument based on logic.
Quote:
When you pray or worship or whatnot, do you think that you are actually performing those actions to an actual god or do you understand that you are simulating those actions and the god in your imagination?
I believe and understand that I am actually performing an act that does God honor. No real imagination involved.  
Quote:
 It's a combination of many things. Probably #1 is tradition--they believe it because other people believed it in the past. "Why did the tradition so consistently arise, and why does it persist/spread?" is a related question, and again I think there are a variety of reasons:-The human tendency to anthropomorphize everything
-The interplay of the sense of wonder/the numinous, mystical experience, and wishful thinking
-The unimaginable nature of one's own death (try to imagine what it's like not to exist)
-The appearance of some animating property abandoning the body at death (i.e. the breath, from which the word "spirit" is derived)
That there is such a thing as spirits is quite an understandable misconception, even without thousands of years of tradition to back it up.
????????????Where did this come from? Last time, you agreed that God is a spirit. Now we’re on the opposite track. We have already proven that God exists and that He does not have a body (and is hence a spirit). This is the same to say that He is a subsistent immaterial substance (like the human soul). 
Quote:
 You know god ? then where's your evidence ?This sounds like a daft question, but I am really curious about this point.
We know of Him from His nature as First Cause (on a natural level). If He is First Cause, He cannot have matter because matter is a type of potentiality/potency/limitation.  
Quote:
I look inside myself and know for certain that I cannot possibly be supernatural. It's all natural- bones, blood, brains, and bowels. I cannot fathom that I've got some kind of pixie-dust spirit ready to fly off the moment a truck hits me. After all, why can't I feel that spirit rattling around inside me NOW? This instant. Can Christians really and truly FEEL a spirit inside themselves when they are walking about?
 The mind is the same thing as the “soul” or the “spirit.” 
Quote:
 What is your spirit doing, say, when you are washing dishes? When sitting on the toilet? Could a Christian feel at that moment that they have a supernatural spirit doing something or other? What's it doing NOW?
Right now, I am thinking about your response. My spirit designates my thinking ability, and my body is typing with its fingers. My spirit is not extrinsic, but it is a very definite part of who I am. The reference to a spirit an extrinsic is merely a designation that the spirit continues to exist without the body.   
Quote:
Why should I believe that there is anything outside this physical universe, Overcomer? So far the evidence is becoming all too clear that religious experience is NOTHING but brain chemistry (NEXT)
Apparently gratuitous picture of the limbic system? And what is “Overcomer” supposed to mean?You agreed earlier that the brain is not equal to the mind. What are we talking about? It’s like talking with a schizophrenic who keeps switching between personalities. Stick to your original positions.   
Quote:
GE 6:5 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to flood the earth to eliminate mankind. All living things including plants, animals, women and innocent children are also exterminated. (Note: This is like burning down a populated house to rid it of mice.) ….”I point out that God controls death in general by His Providence. Every death that happens could be indirectly attributed to God. But this is not an argument against God’s moral character. He is the one who gives life and takes it away. Rules of murder just don’t apply because He is a different sort of agent. Death itself is not the intentional willing of God, for God does not desire death itself, but uses it to bring about a greater good.  
Quote:


Are these also the "handiwork" of God?.... 
 No. Not directly. God did not want death to come into the world. Original sin and human freedom chose evil and it brought with it the loss of grace and natural death. God uses death now that it exists to bring about a greater good.   

Quote:

What existed before this god (first mover, huggy bear, whatever one might call it) supposedly created the universe?
 Nothing. No need to be coy, either. Nothing existed before God because God is the cause of all other things. One must posit one purely necessary being. The necessary being has those characteristics by which we refer when we say, “God,” such as the cause of all things, omnipotence, ect. Further, Christians purely identify their God with this First/Ultimate Cause. 
Quote:
I would also like an explanation for the assertion that something can not come from nothing. What makes that statement any more truthful than something must come from nothing, or something always comes from nothing?
Show me pure nothingness and show me something that comes into existence without any existing thing beforehand. Space counts as a being; if it exists in space/time, it has preexisting being. 
Quote:
And I would likewise like an explanation for the assertion that everything that 'begins to exist' must have a cause. We know of nothing that 'begins to exist', except possibly particle/anti-particle pairs, which as far as we know, have no cause. To say that everything that begins to exist has a cause seems to be directly contrary to any evidence we presently have.
Everything that can go in and out of existence has a cause. The statue is a statue today, but it can cease to exist as a statue tomorrow. Thus, it depends on something else to bring it into existence. If there were only such “possible” (as in “not necessary”) existences, then, there was a time at which nothing would exist. Then there would be nothing existing now, but this is absurd. Hence, a necessarily existing being is necessary to posit that things exist now.  

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

 

PS - Please post shorter and more condense points so I can answer them. I repeated quite a lot in the above.

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
[quot StMichael


[quot

StMichael wrote:
Nothing. No need to be coy, either. Nothing existed before God because God is the cause of all other things. One must posit one purely necessary being. The necessary being has those characteristics by which we refer when we say, “God,” such as the cause of all things, omnipotence, ect. Further, Christians purely identify their God with this First/Ultimate Cause.

Yeah, thanks for all that, though it has nothing to do with why I asked that question. That's the problem with assumptions.

I ask what existed before god created the universe and you say "Nothing". Surely there was your god. God must have existed if he was to create. Being as that god is infinite would it not be that god created the universe from god, instead of ex nihilo? After all 'nothing' didn't exist, god did?

StMichael wrote:
Show me pure nothingness and show me something that comes into existence without any existing thing beforehand. Space counts as a being; if it exists in space/time, it has preexisting being.

Exactly my point. The same applies to nothing coming from nothing. Show me pure nothingness and show me nothing coming from it. The statement that 'something can not come from nothing' is a baseless assertion. There is no reason to believe this to be true.

StMichael wrote:
Everything that can go in and out of existence has a cause. The statue is a statue today, but it can cease to exist as a statue tomorrow. Thus, it depends on something else to bring it into existence. If there were only such “possible” (as in “not necessary”) existences, then, there was a time at which nothing would exist. Then there would be nothing existing now, but this is absurd. Hence, a necessarily existing being is necessary to posit that things exist now.

This is another baseless assertion. Show me something that can go in and out of existence that is caused or uncaused.

The statue can no longer be a statue, but the 'stuff' of the statue cannot cease to exist. Everything that exists within the universe has existed inside the universe for as long as the universe has existed. It may have changed form from time to time, but the 'stuff' itself has existed. There is nothing we know of that begins to exist in the way the universe would have had to have begun to exist that could lead us to the rational conclusion that the universe need to have been created. (the only thing that comes even close is the particles I referred to which are uncaused as far as anyone has yet determined).

The fact is that just because we believe these statements to apply within the universe, there is no rational reason to believe they apply to the universe itself. This whole first cause argument is based in statements that we have no good reason to believe are true.


“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Good question about what the

Good question about what the Universe was created from. I like how Robert Ingersoll put it  "Nothing, as a raw material is a decided failure." He went on to ask why he needed dust to create Adam and Adam's rib for Eve: "Did he run out of the original nothing he created the universe from?" :ROTF:

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team