8 Steps To The Existence Of God

[JDaniel]

I agree that if something is not clear in the discussion, it is best to ask questions in order to increase understanding. If the original points are not understood, then there can’t be a discussion and there can’t be any worthwhile arguments against it – since the arguments would be based on a lack of understanding.

reggie:

That’s all well and good, providing your debate partner is actually debating honestly. The problem that I see here is that certain non-theist debaters are arguing dishonestly. When a subject or, object, in order “A” is refuted by crossing over to order “B”, that is a straw man. When it is done day in and day out, it is completely dishonest. If I were to give you all of the proofs for the fact that the ruler that I am holding is 12 inches long exactly, and you counter with, “No it’s not: it’s blue,” it begins to become absurd.

Anyway, we all appreciate you’re stepping in to ameliorate.

jd

 

[liquidpele]

Can we place that idea back into a real thing? Or, do we only imagine that we are dividing something up like that?

Can we type it out in the full lifetimes of a chain of people typing “.3’s” on the same keyboard until everything in the universe succumbs to entropy?

I’m only guessing, mind you, but, this view of so-called infinity would probably end in an odd number, right? How would we be sure? If we divided all of the “3’s” by their indivisible units, the “1”, would we have 3 infinities? Can 3 “infinities” co-exist? Can 3 extensible infinities coexist? Can they co-exist as real boxes?

How long would it take me to “observe” the aforementioned “infinity” in the form you have described? An infinitely long time? If I started at birth and ended at death, would I view all of the “…3’s”?

If we converted all of these “…3’s” into extensible exigencies, would there be any room left for an observer? If we kept dividing by tenths, hundredths, thousandths, at what point would we be unable to “observe” what we were dividing because we ran out of technology to be able to observe them?

If the particles of this division were extensible, would they move? Where would they move? Relative to what would they move? What would cause them to move? The solar winds maybe? If there was any room for solar winds, would we have an actual infinity of extensible pieces of a real, existing number 1?

Can you see the contradiction in your statement?
jd

I think you are being unfair there. He did say obviously you could not complete the equation… it sounded like his point was that infinity exists in nature and could be thought about, not that it could be observed in the way you specified.

If you would like another example, I give you infinity: O
The circle has no end… just round and round. In this way, infinite is not a distance or a number, it’s more like a colour. Either one of the object’s attributes is infinity, or it’s not. That is the way I like thinking about it anyway.

 

[MindOverMatter]

In this way, infinite is not a distance or a number

Then you don’t agree that there is an infinite past, correct?

 

[liquidpele]

Then you don’t agree that there is an infinite past, correct?

The answer is “I don’t know”… it seems the most logical and the most preposterous at the same time doesn’t it? Given how little we know about the universe, I’d say anything is speculation.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The answer is “I don’t know”… it seems the most logical and the most preposterous at the same time doesn’t it? Given how little we know about the universe, I’d say anything is speculation.

Even that which has been discovered by scientific interpretation?

 

[JDaniel]

An absolute nothing is not a being. If there were an absolute nothing, then it would be true that there was absolutely nothing, but there can be no such thing as truth if there is absolutely nothing. Nothing is nothing. Hence there is an internal contradiction when one pairs the words “absolute” with “nothing”. In fact one can never speak truthfully or positively of “nothing” except in reference to “being”. I can say that i have nothing, such as no money for example; but “being”, as the subject “i”, will always precede the meaningful use of the word nothing, which is the predicate. Thus nothing is not real. Thus there is a being that is “most real”, an absolute being, a necessary being, a perfect being, which transcends all of that which begins to exist, change, or is contingent upon existence. Thus such a being is existence by nature of being, and every contingent being is in fact receiving its existence from this necessary being. Absolute being is ultimate truth and at the same time the root and creator of all contingent truths.

I agree. “Nothing”, as a pronoun or noun, is a pure abstraction, usurped into existence by the unscrupulous. In the sense you have used it, it means “no things” = the negation of “things” by abstraction from multiplicity or singularity. When one says that there is nothing, he means: earlier, there was a space, room, container, etc., containing a bunch of “things”. Now, the space, room, container, etc., is empty. Someone has removed all of the things and left us with nothing.

jd

 

[j1akey]

JDaniel:

Can you see the contradiction in your statement?

Actually it looks like to me you had to use alot of big words, some of which don’t really make any sense, to tell me that a mathematical “proof” that we all learned when we were in grade school contradicts itself? It’s just math, a simple demonstration dude. Geez. No one gets worked up like that over math.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I agree. “Nothing”, as a pronoun or noun, is a pure abstraction, usurped into existence by the unscrupulous. In the sense you have used it, it means “no things” = the negation of “things” by abstraction from multiplicity or singularity. When one says that there is nothing, he means: earlier, there was a space, room, container, etc., containing a bunch of “things”. Now, the space, room, container, etc., is empty. Someone has removed all of the things and left us with nothing.

jd

Thanks for the back up. Personally i think an arguement like this ought to convince somebody of the existence of an ultimate, perfect, absolute being and cause, quite easily. Perhaps i have forgotten how hard it was for me when i first began learning this stuff.

Thanks.

 

[JDaniel]

I think you are being unfair there. He did say obviously you could not complete the equation… it sounded like his point was that infinity exists in nature and could be thought about, not that it could be observed in the way you specified.

But reality insists that an infinity cannot exist in nature. It can only exist in our minds as an idea. Otherwise, where would it exist - in a finite universe?

If you would like another example, I give you infinity: O

Infinity is either thought of as an imaginary number, or “zero.” But, they’re both the same!

The circle has no end… just round and round. In this way, infinite is not a distance or a number, it’s more like a colour. Either one of the object’s attributes is infinity, or it’s not. That is the way I like thinking about it anyway.

So, if you run around a soccer field, in a circle, to a point just slightly past your starting point, you have run an infinite distance? I like to see someone tell that to a coach!

I love ya Pele!

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Actually it looks like to me you had to use alot of big words, some of which don’t really make any sense, to tell me that a mathematical “proof” that we all learned when we were in grade school contradicts itself? It’s just math, a simple demonstration dude. Geez. No one gets worked up like that over math.

Sorry. I am reacting to the idiocy of others. You just got in the way. It’s sort of like me telling the police officer that that tree just jumped out onto the road and ran into my front end!

Besides, I’m sick! (Although, not sicko yet.

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

7. The first cause cannot be an accidental physical cause, since accidents require the potentiality to gain in space/time. Absolute Existence transcends all space/time, and thus all potentiality.

8. If a first cause cannot be an accidental cause in space/time, then there is only one other possibility. The first cause has a perfect, transcendent and personal will.

This is what i understand to be God.

7. Basically; the first cause cannot be an accident, or a random event, since out of nothing comes nothing. It has been demonstrated that there must be an absolute being. Therefore, by definition, such a being cannot be caused, since this would render such a being a mere production of existence rather then a being that is existence. The first cause must be absolute-existence.

8. There are two types of causes. There are those which are purely natural, and there are those which are intelligent. Proofs 1 to 6, have made a contribution in showing us that all natural possibilities have been excluded by logical inference and necessity. The only other possibility left is an intelligent cause. This means that “absolute existence”, doesn’t just exist, but it is also, by its very nature of being, expressing its reality. In other words, it has an eternal and personal will to create.

Another way of viewing this would be to realize that a possibility doesn’t become actual just because it is possible. In order for the first cause to be intelligible in relation to a universe that unravels, changes, develops, and behaves according to very particular laws, we must posit the existence of a personal will that actualizes contingent possibilities.

 

[j1akey]

Sorry. I am reacting to the idiocy of others. You just got in the way. It’s sort of like me telling the police officer that that tree just jumped out onto the road and ran into my front end!

It’s all good, we all do it

 

[Oreoracle]

You acted like you wanted me to come to this thread to see your argument, so here I am.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing, for potentiality is a product of being.

2. Potentiality is not an actual being.

I agree.

3.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To start with, I think it would be good if you spelled out exactly what you mean by things like potentiality, actual beings, and absolute beings.

I also think you need to elaborate on almost all of your steps. You make a number of claims in your argument without giving reasons to think those claims are true. That’s fine if the truth of it is obvious, but there are some that don’t seem correct, and there are others that are just too ambiguous. You might want to start by giving reasons why we should reject the possibility of an infinite past.

its not so much to reject it as it simply doesnt matter if we have an infinite past or not. its a non-issue and here is why.

every contingent being is only a possibility until it has a cause to exist, a contingent being that does not exist and is merely possible cannot act to cause another possible contingent being to exist because it does not exist itself. thus, the need for a first cause to the existence of any chain of contingent beings.

ergo, even an infinite past doesnt preclude the need for a first cause

 

[TheWhim]

But I will now state proof 4 in more simpler terms.

Well, this is really awkward. It’s not that I wouldn’t have followed your ideas so far. You leave my objection unaddressed. It’s in post #13, by the way. Here’s a non-comprehensive extract just to call attention to it again:

But BEING, once for all, is a mere monistic fancy of the mind. There is no BEING, but there is an innumberable throng of ever changing beings, mutually influencing each other causally. Paul is preceded by potentiality and well can be so, because what preceded him, say, the sperm and the egg, were also(existent, being). And thus the chain goes back and back… Of course, I think an infinite regress is impossible because today could never have happened if possible it were.

As I go on, I explain why there’s a contradiction in the argument. Anyone could refute your argument, MoM, right from the start by claiming that there is no such thing as change since everything is mere stale being(say, energy, matter or whatever). PunkforChrist has pointed this out. The argument relies on our experience of things, differentiated things. Therefore, I believe in the course of the argument a position is taken that is explicitly discarded at the beginning of it.

Firstly, I cannot see how logic compels one to accept the following proposition(thus coined by reggieM):

An infinite set of changing beings is a contingent being in itself.

And, secondly, I claim if such an outlook on matters is taken, anyone may propose that the set of things is really one being after all(matter, whatever) and change non-existent, and thus no ground is left for the argument at all to build on.

These are my objections. If there’s anything about them that hasn’t struck your comprehension yet, please let me know that I might explain more fully.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, this is really awkward. It’s not that I wouldn’t have followed your ideas so far. You leave my objection unaddressed. It’s in post #13, by the way. Here’s a non-comprehensive extract just to call attention to it again:

As I go on, I explain why there’s a contradiction in the argument. Anyone could refute your argument, MoM, right from the start by claiming that there is no such thing as change since everything is mere stale being(say, energy, matter or whatever). PunkforChrist has pointed this out. The argument relies on our experience of things, differentiated things. Therefore, I believe in the course of the argument a position is taken that is explicitly discarded at the beginning of it.

Firstly, I cannot see how logic compels one to accept the following proposition(thus coined by reggieM):

And, secondly, I claim if such an outlook on matters is taken, anyone may propose that the set of things is really one being after all(matter, whatever) and change non-existent, and thus no ground is left for the argument at all to build on.

These are my objections. If there’s anything about them that hasn’t struck your comprehension yet, please let me know that I might explain more fully.

how do i know that there is change without trusting my senses? cogito ergo sum, but there is an internally identifiable order to ones cogitation, there is a “first thought” associated with my being. i know therefore that “change” does exist, i have evidence then without ever using my senses or relied on anything external to my knowledge of my own existence.

as to

An infinite set of changing beings is a contingent being in itself.

change indicates the possibility that a beings non-existence is possible . it is not logically necessary and is therefore contingent because it might not have been.

And, secondly, I claim if such an outlook on matters is taken, anyone may propose that the set of things is really one being after all(matter, whatever) and change non-existent, and thus no ground is left for the argument at all to build on.

here i know that there are bounds to my existence, there is a “first” thought in the order of my existence, an example of my experience seperating me from at least one other being, the necessary being to explain my contingent existence. from this example i can draw the conclusion that there are other differentiated beings.

so, i need nothing other than my existence to go all the way to a transcendental first cause.

 

[MindOverMatter]

how do i know that there is change without trusting my senses? cogito ergo sum, but there is an internally identifiable order to ones cogitation, there is a “first thought” associated with my being. i know therefore that “change” does exist, i have evidence then without ever using my senses or relied on anything external to my knowledge of my own existence.
.

You have improved young Jedi.
I can feel it. The metaphysical force is strong with you.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You have improved young Jedi.
I can feel it. The metaphysical force is strong with you.

i finally got banned from that forum for a couple weeks, i pinned down a few of the moderators on first cause, after 800 plus posts in the thread. i got them to admit first cause inadvertantly twice and when they changed arguments i wouldnt let them off the hook. they wanted to “formalize” arguments and give them to a philosophy professor, instead of admitting they were wrong on a number line objection. so i offered to debate any expert on the subject they wished, and then i was banned the next morning. apparently those particular atheists can only handle debates they can win by dogpiling or repetitious mockery. when one must actually reason, they dont have the chops.

 

[reggieM]

…apparently those particular atheists can only handle debates they can win by dogpiling or repetitious mockery.

It strikes me that there is a lot of mockery coming out of some atheists. That only confirms that atheism is a negation. It cannot promote the discovery of new knowledge or new insights about reality and its meaning (as itself - as atheism). It exists to deny something.

I’m carrying this idea over from another thread so please excuse the off-topic-ness of it, but something like the Darwin Fish is an example of the negativity of atheism. Wtihin the very logo promoting atheistic thought there is the mockery of Christianity (the fish) and of Christians (those who post the subtle image of the fish).

A small, non-essential point, but I see it confirmed many times that there is a lot of ridicule and mockery as a substituion for reasoned arguments.

(I’m not talking about anyone on this thread.)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It strikes me that there is a lot of mockery coming out of some atheists. That only confirms that atheism is a negation. It cannot promote the discovery of new knowledge or new insights about reality and its meaning (as itself - as atheism). It exists to deny something.

I’m carrying this idea over from another thread so please excuse the off-topic-ness of it, but something like the Darwin Fish is an example of the negativity of atheism. Wtihin the very logo promoting atheistic thought there is the mockery of Christianity (the fish) and of Christians (those who post the subtle image of the fish).

I would agree with this evaluation of atheism, although it doesn’t carry over to agnosticism (when agnosticism is real, and not a pose). The problem is this: denying something emphasizes it. I think of Madonna’s music videos in the 1980s; her hatred of Catholicism was obviously part and parcel to a kind of love, and the videos communicated a great deal about the glory of Catholicism, despite themselves. Vitriol is the product of a magnetic force – a magnet can attract or repel, but it *defines *experience.

When you say not-God, you are yet emphasizing the importance of God. In order to send a pure message about atheism, you cannot be an atheist – you must rather be completely casual about the existence or nonexistence of God.