A simplified argument from motion

[punkforchrist]

I’d like to hear everyone’s thoughts on this to see if this version of the argument has any merit. First off, I like the argument from motion because I think of it as a minimalist version of the cosmological argument (as opposed to the kalam version, which rests the premise that there cannot be an infinite series of past events). The formulation I’m working with goes like this:

1. If there is no Prime Mover, then all things exist in potentiality.
2. Not all things exist in potentiality.
3. Therefore, there must be a Prime Mover.

“Prime Mover” in this syllogism simply refers to “that being by which all potential beings arise”. It is also synonymous with “Pure Actuality”.

I think premise (1) is obvious, since if there is nothing purely actual, then all things that exist must be potential.

The support of premise (2) is transcendental. If all things exist in potentiality, then all things must be changing; for potential beings can both be and not-be, and are transferred from potentiality to degrees of actuality. For example, a potentially hot piece of wood is made actually hot by a hot fire. But if all things are changing, then that too must be changing, which is self-contradictory. Hence, at least one thing must be purely actual, and therefore, there must be a Prime Mover.

Further, it would appear that a number of attributes follow from this. The Prime Mover must be eternal, since if there was ever a moment in which it came into being, then it would be potential. It must also be one, because if there were more than one Prime Mover, then there would be distinctions between them. But since distinctions entail limitations, and limitations potentiality, then the Prime Mover must be one.

I also believe a good case can be made that the Prime Mover must be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. For there are varying degrees of potentiality with respect to each. A human being, for instance, is more knowledgeable than a koala bear. This means that the knowledge of a human is more potent than that of a koala bear. Now, since something purely actual is nothing other than maximal potent, then the Prime Mover must be maximally powerful, intelligent, and good. This, of course, matches our definition of God, and monotheism at that.

I think this argument is sound, but I’d like to hear some feedback in order to strengthen the proof, if at all possible.

 

[Mirdath]

It’s still subject to the same problems the standard PM argument is – but your use of the term ‘potentiality’ is a little confusing.

Answer to 1: this isn’t a problem unless you can prove that the universe is necessarily bounded and that there is at least one Thing existing outside it. All things exist in potentiality or flux? Sure, why not?

Answer to 2: unless you are a die-hard Platonist, the proposition ‘all things change’ is not, in fact, a thing. And since that would appear to be the only constant (other than death and taxes), if we are not Platonists, we need not care.

Answer to 3: you just got a little clumsy with the wording here. Even if one accepts 1 and 2, 3 does not necessarily follow. You’ll need to either reword it or prove that the existence of the Prime Mover is the only condition whereby not all things exist in potentiality.

Now, even if I wave away those objections (and I’m sure more are possible, but it’s late and I’m tired), there’s still two major, major sticking points.

The first is omnibenevolence – it just doesn’t work out. Eternal existence, yes; omnipotence, yes; omniscience, yes; omnipresence, yes. Those are certainly attributes of any possible supreme Being. But nobody as yet has really come up with a satisfactory answer to Erasmus on benevolence.

If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he would not suffer evil to befall anything; one or the other’s gotta give. Since omnipotence must be an attribute of supremacy, that has to stay.

Sure, you can say ‘God allows evil because he loves us and wants us to choose to love him in return’; however, that flies completely in the face of Catholic ethical teaching, which states that one may never do evil (and since God is omnipotent and omnipresent, by allowing evil he is complicit in it) so good may come of it. Or does God get to ride roughshod over the moral laws his followers say he came up with in the first place?

The second issue is anthropocentrism. You claim that your argument points to the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus, but nowhere does it show that the Prime Mover is necessarily at all interested in humanity even as much as a child may be interested in an ant farm received for Christmas. You make no attempt to prove that we are at all important to or beloved of the Prime Mover.

Even if one overlooks all the possible objections to your argument for the existence of the Prime Mover, you still have a long, long way to go before that PM looks anything like the God Christians follow.

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi Mirdath,

Thanks for the response.

Answer to 1: this isn’t a problem unless you can prove that the universe is necessarily bounded and that there is at least one Thing existing outside it. All things exist in potentiality or flux? Sure, why not?

I don’t see how this is an objection to premise (1). All (1) says is that: “If there is no Prime Mover, then all things exist in potentiality.”

Mirdath:

Answer to 2: unless you are a die-hard Platonist, the proposition ‘all things change’ is not, in fact, a thing. And since that would appear to be the only constant (other than death and taxes), if we are not Platonists, we need not care.

Again, I don’t see how this is actually an objection. Sure, there are some similarities to Platonism (as well as Aristotelianism), but that doesn’t diminish the force of the premise. Are you willing to say that all things are changing? If so, what is your definition of “thing”?

Mirdath:

Answer to 3: you just got a little clumsy with the wording here. Even if one accepts 1 and 2, 3 does not necessarily follow. You’ll need to either reword it or prove that the existence of the Prime Mover is the only condition whereby not all things exist in potentiality.

Well, with this I was saying that “Prime Mover” is synonymous with “Pure Actuality”. Folks influenced by Eastern philosophies might call this “Supreme Reality”.

Mirdath:

If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he would not suffer evil to befall anything; one or the other’s gotta give. Since omnipotence must be an attribute of supremacy, that has to stay.

On this, you’re appealing to the problem of evil. Assuming that there is no logical inconsistency with the co-existence of God and evil (incidently, evil is defined by Aquinas as a privation rather than as something that positively exists), is this still a difficulty?

Mirdath:

The second issue is anthropocentrism. You claim that your argument points to the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus, but nowhere does it show that the Prime Mover is necessarily at all interested in humanity even as much as a child may be interested in an ant farm received for Christmas. You make no attempt to prove that we are at all important to or beloved of the Prime Mover.

I don’t believe that the argument from motion demonstrates the truth of any particular brand of theism. On its own merit, all the argument proves is the existence of some vague deistic God. God, on this account, may or may not be personal. Of course, as a Christian, I do believe that God is personal and that He raised Jesus from the dead. But a case can only be made for this by appealing to cumulative evidences. Thanks for bringing that up, though. It does help to clarify things.

Mirdath:

Even if one overlooks all the possible objections to your argument for the existence of the Prime Mover, you still have a long, long way to go before that PM looks anything like the God Christians follow.

Indeed.

 

[jfallaw]

…wha? man i need to go back to school to follow this thread! really wish i did understand- where can i learn more?

 

[freesoulhope]

All things exist in potentiality or flux? Sure, why not?

Why Not!!!
Give me one reason why we should think that this is true? All the evidence is pointing the other way.

 

[freesoulhope]

Answer to 2: unless you are a die-hard Platonist, the proposition ‘all things change’ is not, in fact, a thing. And since that would appear to be the only constant (other than death and taxes), if we are not Platonists, we need not care.

So…let me get this straight…?

What you basically saying is, unless one likes the colour yellow; one need not agree, or care, that the colour is in fact, with out doubt, yellow? :doh2:

Answer to 3: you just got a little clumsy with the wording here. Even if one accepts 1 and 2, 3 does not necessarily follow. You’ll need to either reword it or prove that the existence of the Prime Mover is the only condition whereby not all things exist in potentiality.

1. Anything that “begins” to exist, needs a cuase.
2. The universe began to exists.
3. Time, space and energy began to exist; therefore, the universe ultimately needs a **First Cuase **or Prime Mover.
4. If you agree with the first 3 premisses, then it necessarily follows that such a cuase would have to trancend the nature of our universe. If this is true, then such a cuase can not be “caused”; since it itself is the cause of time, space, and energy.
5. A “natural cause” cannot possibly exist before the existence of nature; therefore we cannot depend on natural explanations for the existence of our universe.
6. The only other possible means of causation we know of, other then a blind Natural cuase, is the “will of mind and intention”.
7. Therefore the universe was caused by a ultimate Mind and Will.

Its either this, or you can believe that the world poped out of nothing; its up to you.

Now, even if I wave away those objections

Good move!!

The first is omnibenevolence – it just doesn’t work out. Eternal existence, yes; omnipotence, yes; omniscience, yes; omnipresence, yes. Those are certainly attributes of any possible supreme Being. But nobody as yet has really come up with a satisfactory answer to Erasmus on benevolence. you still have a long, long way to go before that PM looks anything like the God Christians follow.

This objection to the existence of God; is not really relevent to the concept of a prime mover. This an objection to the goodness of God. This is for another thread. I will see you there.

 

[Mirdath]

Thanks for the response.

Most welcome. It’s always fun to see a new try at it

I don’t see how this is an objection to premise (1). All (1) says is that: “If there is no Prime Mover, then all things exist in potentiality.”

Thing is, you’re assuming that it can’t be so. Show that the statement ‘all things may exist in potentiality’ must be false – then you’ll have something to stand on.

Again, I don’t see how this is actually an objection. Sure, there are some similarities to Platonism (as well as Aristotelianism), but that doesn’t diminish the force of the premise. Are you willing to say that all things are changing? If so, what is your definition of “thing”?

If we take a strictly materialist or empirical perspective, all things are constantly in flux – saith Werner Heisenberg, you can know either position or momentum, but not both. In order to get past that, you must show that something other than the purely physical exists. And since that’s what you’re trying to do in the first place, it’s kinda barking up the wrong tree.

Well, with this I was saying that “Prime Mover” is synonymous with “Pure Actuality”. Folks influenced by Eastern philosophies might call this “Supreme Reality”.

My quibble there isn’t so much with definitions as it is with a clumsily constructed syllogism. Your two premises, even if accepted at face value, do not exclude other possible answers.

Here’s a similar one:

1. All Greeks are mortal.
2. Not all people are Greek.
3. I, not being Greek, am immortal.

On this, you’re appealing to the problem of evil. Assuming that there is no logical inconsistency with the co-existence of God and evil (incidently, evil is defined by Aquinas as a privation rather than as something that positively exists), is this still a difficulty?

Yes – and yes, I’m familiar with Aquinas on Evil. However, the problem of evil is pretty much unbeatable: if God is omnibenevolent, he could not be complicit in evil; and if God is omnipotent, he is complicit in everything, the Thomistic concept of evil notwithstanding. I do not say ‘God does not exist’; but if there is a supreme being, I do not think benevolence is one of its attributes.

I don’t believe that the argument from motion demonstrates the truth of any particular brand of theism. On its own merit, all the argument proves is the existence of some vague deistic God. God, on this account, may or may not be personal. Of course, as a Christian, I do believe that God is personal and that He raised Jesus from the dead. But a case can only be made for this by appealing to cumulative evidences. Thanks for bringing that up, though. It does help to clarify things.

No serious arguments do. The only thing they can try to show is that there’s Something Out There. I personally think it a futile exercise; a supreme being must obviously be more supreme than mere logic and sense!

freesoulhope:

Why Not!!!
Give me one reason why we should think that this is true? All the evidence is pointing the other way.

I’m not trying to prove anything here Show me why!

What you basically saying is, unless one likes the colour yellow; one need not agree, or care, that the colour is in fact, with out doubt, yellow?

No. What I am saying is that that particular part of the argument is built on a foundation whose very existence is in doubt – to wit, Plato’s Heaven. What good is that? It’s an argument that only a Platonist would buy in the first place, and most of us are not Platonists.

Its either this, or you can believe that the world poped out of nothing; its up to you.

Quoting the standard hole-riddled Prime Mover argument in a thread about the new and improved one? I don’t see what you’re getting at.

 

[freesoulhope]

I personally think it’s a futile exercise; a supreme being must obviously be more supreme than mere logic and sense!

This is your “belief” which you use to support your agnosticism.

If you choose to rest on the mundane premise that you can never know, then of coarse you will never know!! This is simply because you assume, without any evidence, the futility of trying to find out. Absolute scepticism usually involves some kind of favoritism; in you case, you favor atheism more then theism, even though you choose in principle to be agnostic.I do not believe that you look at the issue objectively, otherwise you would at least admit that the logical arguements for theism, are by far more rational then the arguements for atheism, even if it does not compell you to convert to any particulor faith system. Your comment, that i have quoted above, contradicts why you come to this forum; and flys in the face of what you accused plato of doing. Which makes me think that you’re a buga-boo. This is the only obvious truth I can see from your quote.

Continued…

 

[freesoulhope]

We can’t know everything about God, but we can know that the Universe, and everything in it, began to exist. God’s supremacy, with out a doubt, deprives us of privileged information, which otherwise, could only be know through Special revelation; and people, through out history, have evidently claimed to have received this information. This at least opens up the possibility that God has in fact communicated with us, and has a special relationship with us—even though there is a lot of false prophets out there. So yes, knowing is difficult, but not impossible; it takes dedication, but this doesn’t mean that one cannot use his or her reasoning powers, to at least prove that some kind of being exists; despite being ignorant of any special intentions on God’s part. One way of doing this is showing that, although science is good at explaining how natural processes work, natural explanations on the other hand, fall infinitely short of providing a good explanation for why anything should exists in the first place. If time, space and matter began to exist, and had a cause, then such a cause cannot possibly be natural. Good Science will show you, that there is no natural cause to our universe.

Some scientists have expressed there frustration with the Big Bang theory because it cuts of the chain of causation and leaves no natural explanation; where as before, they could simply believe that the universe existed forever—despite the immediate contradictions which arise with causation. Now there is no excuse or rock to hide behind; that’s why some scientists conjure up flawed theories, based on there naturalistic belief systems, which can never be observed or proved—partly because they rest on flawed illogical assumptions. Neither do these theories ultimately explain where everything came from no matter how much they try to complicate things and add more of something then there actually is. There wouldn’t be much of a problem for naturalists, if they could prove to us that something logically existed beyond the physical universe, by pointing to something either in or about our universe; then at the very least, they would have some philosophical ground to play on. But they don’t. This is because the universe doesn’t reveal to us that anything can naturally exist beyond a singularity. We should see some evidence, if something “naturally caused” the universe. But we don’t. However, there is one other option available, which fits facts better. If there is any cause at all, then such a cause would have to be more powerful and completely transcendent of the natural order----which includes time, space, energy and matter.

We cannot know empirically about a being that transcends time and space; but we can know rationally and logically that such being, has to exist; if the universe is going to make any rational sense. The reason that there is such a thing as philosophy and science; is so we can make the best sense of the unknown. No matter what you believe, you have to have faith some where along the line; considering that all concepts lack absolute proof.

Good Science has shown us to a reasonable degree that the universe began to exists, and therefore it’s only reasonable to assume that there must be more then the universe in existence and that existence itself is more then the universe. We can see that an ultimate reality exist in reference to our universe; because the universe cannot simply begin to exist, with out a cause. Its simple common sense, that there must be an ultimate reality, an ultimate reason for why there is anything. There are naturalistic ideas such as an infinite regress, which provides us with a superficial solution for existence, but at the same time, it deprives us of a sufficient “terminator” to the deeper problem of causation. God being transcendent of time space and matter; provides a sufficient terminator, since God is not caused and is ultimate reality; plus God is the only terminator available. None of the naturalistic explanations provide a terminator which is logically consistent or non-contradictory to the natural laws of physics.

The only being that could possibly exist without a universe, is a transcendent being. We can know some of Gods attributes, by simply knowing that time began to exist; as science shows. If God exists he necessarily transcends the universe. The Singularity demands that God has to be immaterial, spaceless, timeless, and must have intelligent will. If you think that you can show us otherwise; then show us. Simply making statements about what you would like to believe is 1: annoying, and 2: a show of your unwillingness to shed your agnosticism.

 

[freesoulhope]

Here’s a similar one:

1. All Greeks are mortal.
2. Not all people are Greek.
3. I, not being Greek, am immortal.

I agree; this here what you have written, is not reasonable. However, I’m not sure how it relates to the original arguement. I fear you have created a charicature.

Yes – and yes, I’m familiar with Aquinas on Evil. However, the problem of evil is pretty much unbeatable:

According to whom? The problem of evil is a very difficult problem to solve, not because we know better, but because we are not in the position to understand.

God being perfectly good; does not mean that God must create a perfect world. An imperfect world, doesn’t necessarily point to God being responsible for the evils in it.

It is perfectly good that human being should exist; this is why we exist.

It is perfectly good that human beings should have freewill, since slavery is not perfect; this is why we have freewill.

It is perfectly good that an imperfect creature should be given the best chances of being perfect. We cannot know what world will give us that best chance, or what the best chance is, and therefore we are not in a position to judge. Arrogance is an imperfection.

It’s perfectly good that we should be personal individuals; because God is a personal individual and individuality is compatible with freedom and the free giving of love to another individual.

It is not good that man should be without God, because God is perfectly good, and that is why man suffers without him. But that’s not because God chose to make us suffer, but because we chose to be against God, and those who are against God are against the perfect Good; so how in Gods name can humanity and its children, experience the perfect good apart from God? Joy, pleasure, and other good things are a privilege. Gods love is unconditional, but human love is conditional, and that is why we receive things conditionally. If God is perfect love, then how can one freely receive heaven, if man is in rebellion against perfect Joy? Saturating ones mind with emotional conflict and concentrating on all the evil things that happen to us can deceive us and become a barrier to the truth. These are the effects of human evil, not God. Emotion, free of healthy reasoning, faith, and a good understanding of God, can distort reality to be something other then it is. Its quite simple to grasp once we rise above the distorting effects we impose on are selves, and concentrate on the logical aspects of Gods nature and are “responsibility” to God—rather then our selves.

It is perfectly good that we should have the freedom to turn away from the greater good which is God, and do evil if we so choose, because it necessarily follows that personal living beings with free will become selfish if they turn away from love; and that is why we see evil in the world.

We are given a finite period of time, in which we are aloud to develop are selves and make a choice. People may choose evil and cause much evil in the world and suffering; but it is still compatible with the perfect good, because it is good that man should be with God in heaven. There are flaws, suffering, ignorance and evil in the world, not because of God, but because people have chosen to live imperfectly, and so the world is shaped according to what we freely choose. We live in this particular universe, because it is the best possible universe for imperfect creatures. And that is good, because it is what imperfect creatures naturally, freely, and unavoidably bring upon themselves, because of there pride, selfishness, and imperfection. That is not to say that things can’t be better, and that man cannot transcend in to a better world; but man must be in perfect union with God in order to achieve it. Once that happens, God will create a better world; it says in the bible that this world will be destroyed; and a new heaven and earth will be created.

You said at the beginning of your post; that God transcends are ability to comprehend. I believe this is true in some cases; and can be true when it comes to the problem of evil. It could be that God is indifferent to our suffering, or his reasons could simply transcend you comprehension. If this is the case then God would have to communicate through special revelation in a way that he knows would produce the best results—because this is good even if one, in lacking understanding and comprehension, doesn’t perceive it that way.

I guess what it comes down to in the end is this Question…

“Is man too proud to put faith in Gods Love”

standard hole-riddled Prime Mover argument

You can try and disprove my arguement, rather then make mere statements of provacation.

 

[Mirdath]

This is your “belief” which you use to support your agnosticism.

Are you saying you worship a a deity who is a slave to mere logic? One who must fulfill lowly human expectations of knowability? How omnipotent! How transcendent! How supreme!

Absolute scepticism usually involves some kind of favoritism; in you case, you favor atheism more then theism, even though you choose in principle to be agnostic.

Indeed. I think God unlikely, but I cannot say for sure.

I do not believe that you look at the issue objectively, otherwise you would at least admit that the logical arguements for theism, are by far more rational then the arguements for atheism, even if it does not compell you to convert to any particulor faith system.

The ‘arguments for atheism’, at least atheism of the sensible variety, are not arguments but ‘oh, okay, prove it’. Burden of proof lies on the positive – in this case, the theist who asserts that there is a God.

Your comment, that i have quoted above, contradicts why you come to this forum; and flys in the face of what you accused plato of doing. Which makes me think that you’re a buga-boo. This is the only obvious truth I can see from your quote.

If you don’t like me, that’s what the ‘ignore’ button is for. No need to try to offend me personally.

 

[punkforchrist]

Thing is, you’re assuming that it can’t be so. Show that the statement ‘all things may exist in potentiality’ must be false – then you’ll have something to stand on.

That’s what the second premise attempts to do, but the first premise is almost tautological. If there is nothing purely actual, then it follows by necessity that all things are potential.

Mirdath:

If we take a strictly materialist or empirical perspective, all things are constantly in flux – saith Werner Heisenberg, you can know either position or momentum, but not both. In order to get past that, you must show that something other than the purely physical exists. And since that’s what you’re trying to do in the first place, it’s kinda barking up the wrong tree.

I think there are a lot of problems with empiricism, and with the verificationist principle in particular. How do we know all things that exist are physical? Because everything we observe is physical. How do we know that in order for something to exist it must be physical? Because in order for something to exist it must be observable, and only physical things are observable.

The verificationist principle, as seen above, is circular. In fact, the claim, “all things must be empirically observable”, is itself not empircally observable, so the principle does not stand under its own standards.

Mirdath:

My quibble there isn’t so much with definitions as it is with a clumsily constructed syllogism. Your two premises, even if accepted at face value, do not exclude other possible answers.

Here’s a similar one:

1. All Greeks are mortal.
2. Not all people are Greek.
3. I, not being Greek, am immortal.

Let’s take a close look at each syllogism. Your example can be formalized further with modal logic:

1. G → M
2. ~G
3. ~G → M

This argument, as you correctly point out, is invalid. The truth of the premises does not make the conclusion necessarily true. However, the argument in the OP is this:

1. If there is no Prime Mover, then all things exist in potentiality.
2. Not all things exist in potentiality.
3. Therefore, there must be a Prime Mover.

We can further reduce this argument like this:

1. ~A → P
2. ~P
3. A

Notice in your example that the second premise entailed the negation of the first subject; whereas in the proof of the Prime Mover, the second premise entails the negation of the consequent. If not all things exist in potentiality, then there must be something purely actual. By the transitive axiom, we know that a Prime Mover must exist, since by definition, the Prime Mover is pure actuality.

Yes – and yes, I’m familiar with Aquinas on Evil. However, the problem of evil is pretty much unbeatable: if God is omnibenevolent, he could not be complicit in evil; and if God is omnipotent, he is complicit in everything, the Thomistic concept of evil notwithstanding. I do not say ‘God does not exist’; but if there is a supreme being, I do not think benevolence is one of its attributes.

When you say “complicit”, do you mean that God is active in the reality of evil, or simply that He allows it?

I hope we can delve further into this. Thanks again.

 

[punkforchrist]

The above should have read:

1. G → M
2. ~G
3. ~G → ~M

 

[Mirdath]

That’s what the second premise attempts to do, but the first premise is almost tautological. If there is nothing purely actual, then it follows by necessity that all things are potential.

Again, your terminology is making this a little confusing. By ‘purely actual’ you mean static, and by ‘potential’ you mean dynamic or changing, yes? Using those terms might help out a bit

Premise 1 is a tautology, yes, although disguised. You’re also leaving yourself open to the question ‘can there be two static things?’. Interestingly enough, Christianity itself provides an example, as the Trinity is three distinct Persons. The fact that they share one divine nature is immaterial – they are three.

And the second premise doesn’t show that there must be at least one static thing; it simply asserts that that’s the way it is without offering any substantiation.

I think there are a lot of problems with empiricism, and with the verificationist principle in particular. How do we know all things that exist are physical? Because everything we observe is physical. How do we know that in order for something to exist it must be physical? Because in order for something to exist it must be observable, and only physical things are observable.

There’s a reason it’s called ‘supernatural’ Can anything which is defined as ‘beyond nature’ exist in a naturally meaningful sense of the term?

The verificationist principle, as seen above, is circular. In fact, the claim, “all things must be empirically observable”, is itself not empircally observable, so the principle does not stand under its own standards.

Once again, you’re asserting that a Statement is a Thing, without showing that it is so.

1. ~A → P
2. ~P
3. A

Notice in your example that the second premise entailed the negation of the first subject; whereas in the proof of the Prime Mover, the second premise entails the negation of the consequent. If not all things exist in potentiality, then there must be something purely actual. By the transitive axiom, we know that a Prime Mover must exist, since by definition, the Prime Mover is pure actuality.

Yeah, they’re different, but you missed the similarity: not all people are necessarily Greek, and the way you phrased your argument not all static things are necessarily Prime Movers.

When you say “complicit”, do you mean that God is active in the reality of evil, or simply that He allows it?

Isaiah 45:7 is an interesting verse: I form the light, and create the darkness, I make well-being and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things.

Yes, if God created all things and has ultimate power over them, he is actively complicit in them. Evil and imperfection would not exist without God having created them.

 

[freesoulhope]

Are you saying you worship a deity who is a slave to mere logic?

Not a slave to logic; but the foundation and giver of Logic. God is the reason why a thing is logical.

If God created us to be in a loving union with him, then he will reveal himself in a way he deems perfectly appropriate. Whether or not you believe he does this, is a matter of opinion and perspective, not logical evidence. As far as the universe is concerned, if there is something more then the universe, then we will see inconsistencies and contradictions when we try to explain the totality of things according to the universe. For example, the natural laws of physics and forces explain the development of the universe very well; however natural laws do not and cannot explain the existence of natural laws and why they behave as they do; and if one attempts to explain them, one will either be met with a brick wall, or a transcendence of natural law. The fact that the next link in the cosmic chain leads us necessarily to a transcendence of natural reality is very important.

If the universe began to exists, then we have a good hint that the natural laws of physical objects or other, cannot possibly be the cause of the universe, and so any cause that exists will have to conform to the conditions we are left with if imagine that there were no universe. If there is no nature, time, space, energy or matter; then we can know, to a confident degree that the cause is not natural and therefore must transcend nature. We can also know that such a cause, having no natural body, would be spaceless and timeless. Also, such an entity would have no cause, since it is not subject or slave to the duration of time. A natural-cause needs the passage of time to be in effect. No Universe, No effect. The only other form of causation we know of, other then a natural-cause, is a Mind and Will.

If we have no point of reference or special revelation, then we cannot know God. But we do have a point of reference—the Universe—and we have the special revelation of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is Gods word, and the universe is Gods foot-print. Mere human reason can know a foot-print, and mere human reason can work-out what kind of being the foot-print belongs to.
After that its 2 and 2, and the rest is reasonable faith. That’s all one needs.

The ‘arguments for atheism’, at least atheism of the sensible variety, are not arguments but ‘oh, okay, prove it’…

To a degree, which is logically possible, it seems to me that the Theists on this forum have met that challenge and are still waiting for the Atheist to present a logical basis for being committed naturalists—considering that the universe began to exist.

Burden of proof lies on the positive – in this case, the theist who asserts that there is a God.

Like many others on this forum, I have met that burden of proof time and time again. It’s usually the case the we agree to disagree. However, the Atheist’s failure to see that God exists is not because the Theist lacks good defense and proofs; it is because the Atheist fails to address the reality and consequence of Naturalism. Very few Atheists disbelieve in God on the premise that naturalism is logical. The burden of proof has merits in some circumstances; but sometimes it is used as a rock to hide behind; excusing ones self from the responsibility of explanation. It’s often abused.

Atheism isn’t always just a disbelief or lack of belief. It’s true that a child has no beliefs higher then the concepts revealed to them by society as they grow up; but if and when they do reject a belief system, it is because they believe in something else. People do not give up on believing when they stop believing in God. If you become an atheist by choice and understanding, you must accept as a consequence, the belief of naturalism. If naturalism is true, then it necessarily follows that nature is the only reality that exists and that everything we see is a natural phenomena, including the emergence of rational mind. If I can show you that the reality of naturalism is flawed, inconsistent and contradictory, then the only reason one is going to continue being an atheism, is for emotional reasons and ones dedication to disbelief; however, lacking any other concept which explains the totality of things, one may be innocent of irrational faith. But If I show you that not only is naturalism flawed as an explanation, but that nature points to the supernatural; then in my eyes there is no excuse.

 

[freesoulhope]

If you don’t like me, that’s what the ‘ignore’ button is for. No need to try to offend me personally.

I’m sorry for being offensive; but when people fail to address the arguments presented by my self, it might surprise you, if I think that you don’t like me, or that I am being ignored. But I do apologize for my wrong doing.

peace.

 

[freesoulhope]

Yes, if God created all things and has ultimate power over them, he is actively complicit in them. Evil and imperfection would not exist without God having created them.

If man did not choose evil, there would only be good.

 

[Mirdath]

Not a slave to logic; but the foundation and giver of Logic. God is the reason why a thing is logical.

But is he not greater than logic? Can he not disregard or transcend his creation? If not, he is enslaved by his own designs – I could never believe in such a naive, blind deity.

For example, the natural laws of physics and forces explain the development of the universe very well; however natural laws do not and cannot explain the existence of natural laws and why they behave as they do; and if one attempts to explain them, one will either be met with a brick wall, or a transcendence of natural law. The fact that the next link in the cosmic chain leads us necessarily to a transcendence of natural reality is very important.

Then demonstrate this ‘fact’. Let’s take gravity as a starting point: it is a function of mass. Mass, in turn, is an attribute of being. Neither of these steps so far have required the invocation of the divine to explain them, even though they may have taken time to traverse. Why should I not expect the next explanation, if there is one, to be similarly perfectly natural? There is no indication that this series of explanations is approaching a super-reality.

If the universe began to exists, then we have a good hint that the natural laws of physical objects or other, cannot possibly be the cause of the universe, and so any cause that exists will have to conform to the conditions we are left with if imagine that there were no universe. If there is no nature, time, space, energy or matter; then we can know, to a confident degree that the cause is not natural and therefore must transcend nature.

Lots of ifs there. I do agree that if there is a beginning, it came about through something that isn’t reality as we know it; however, that doesn’t translate to God.

We can also know that such a cause, having no natural body, would be spaceless and timeless. Also, such an entity would have no cause, since it is not subject or slave to the duration of time. A natural-cause needs the passage of time to be in effect. No Universe, No effect. The only other form of causation we know of, other then a natural-cause, is a Mind and Will.

Two quibbles: ‘that we know of’ and the assumption that Mind is supernatural.

To a degree, which is logically possible, it seems to me that the Theists on this forum have met that challenge and are still waiting for the Atheist to present a logical basis for being committed naturalists—considering that the universe began to exist.

It does not seem so from the fence. Theists have presented various arguments – cosmological, teleological, ontological, and a host of less intellectually honest ‘proofs’ – and not a one of them but could strain spaghetti.

We’ve butted heads over proofs before: you know my objections. I have yet to see them answered, and I still question the sincerity of a thing that calls itself faith but must try to prop itself up through logic. If you would trust in the unseen, do so – but have the integrity to admit it’s invisible!

But If I show you that not only is naturalism flawed as an explanation, but that nature points to the supernatural; then in my eyes there is no excuse.

Then do so, if you please – unless you think I have a better shot at heaven by remaining sincere but ignorant

If man did not choose evil, there would only be good.

Last I checked, the Prince of Darkness was distinctly not human. According to the Bible, Evil was before people ever were.

 

[freesoulhope]

Can he not disregard or transcend his creation? .

He can disregard us if he wants, and he necesarily trancends his creation; but if he wants to be known, then i see no reason why an all powerfull deity cannot choose ways of doing that through means which he deems appropiate. If God could not communicate to his creation, it would seem to me that this kind of God is weak, since he created us. I fail to understand why you think that Gods trancendence would mean that he cannot comunicate with his own creation? Or why his comunicating, or us knowing that God was present, would limit Gods trancedence? How can you know this to be true, if in fact nothing can be known about God? I don’t think you understand what it means to be a transendent God. I agree that nothing can be known about God except by means that God himself puts in place; but i reject the idea that it is “impossible” for us to know, since there is no logical reason or reference point which justifys your concept.

I think you believe this, only because you wish not to know God.

If not, he is enslaved by his own designs – I could never believe in such a naive, blind deity…

Neither could i; but this statement alone does nothing to disprove anything i said. God is greater then his creation, but i see no reason why God cannot give us some kind of knowledge of his existence.
If i see a foot print, i know somebodys been there. Reason alone cannot prove emprically the existence of God, but it points strongly in his direction. In any case, faith is most definetly more important then reason; but its healthy to have a reasonable faith.

Then demonstrate this ‘fact’. Let’s take gravity as a starting point: it is a function of mass. Mass, in turn, is an attribute of being.
Neither of these steps so far have required the invocation of the divine to explain them, even though they may have taken time to traverse. .

Thats because these things are all taking place in time. I would not expect you to envoke a supernatural explanation for what can be explained naturally. Yes, gravity may well be a function of mass, but this doesn’t explain why the rational laws, which gorven such a reality, exists. A computor programer can represent a blue balloon, using 5 zeros and 3 ones. The five zeros and 3 ones might well explain part of the process by which the blue balloon appears on your computor screen, but it cannot explain the blue balloon; Just like the law physics cannot explain why the Laws of physical bodies ultimately exist. The laws of physics explains natural processes; how they work, what they do, and whats happens when they change; but it doesnt explain why they ultimately exist. One can understand why and how Nature works, but one cannot know from nature why Nature is Nature, and not something else. If you attemped to explain Nature; you are forced to look else-where.

A very large expanding pink elephant could of poped into exist; instead we find this universe; and not just any old weird iirational reality. Why is the universe so ordered structured and logically rational in its causation? what kind of reality do we exist in that can bring forth rational personal living beings who have free will, and can love in a world of blind forces and physical laws, and speak of morals? One must take life for granted or have some thing lose, to think that anything less then God is responsible for this reality. There are Laws; so is there a law Giver?..Well, since it is impossible for natural Laws to explain where rational-natural-laws came from in the first place; then there is reasonable grounds to believe that the evidence is found in a transcendent being. Why? Because if a natural body begins to exist, but is deprived of a natural cause due to circumstance, then logically, it shouldn’t exist; but the universe and all its forces and laws do exist, and yet cannot be explained naturally. Therefore we have to go beyond nature into a situation which cannot blindly bring forth anything through the natural order; theres no reason to think that it can, and every reason that it can’t. Such a cuase must therefore have a personal will.

that doesn’t translate to God…

You have failed to explain why. If there is no natural cause; then God is necessarily the only other option.

 

[freesoulhope]

Two quibbles: ‘that we know of’;.

Theres no reason to think or hypothesize that there is anything else. There is a reason to think that there may be a God, which has been presented, whether you agree with it or not. If there is no natural-cause to the universe—which is highly likely considering the scientific evidence—then there is every reason to have a reasonable faith in God.

and the assumption that Mind is supernatural…

Are you claiming that the personal will is controlled by blind forces? This is the only possibility i see, if you think that the personal will is physical. There is no reason why we should have a personal freewill if are thoughts are ultimatley caused by chemical reactions in the brain. We either freely cause the chemical reactions in are brains thourgh our own personal will, or the brain blindly controlls the will of the body. It does not appear to me, that i am being controlled by blind chemical reactions in the brain. I am not just a bag of atoms; i am a bag of atoms **with ** a personal will. The evidence appears to point to the reality that my personal will is more the sum of its parts.

Plus, there is no real reason to think, that mind is dependent on matter unless you think that nature is the only reality availible. A “personal rational will” which is united to a physical Body, living inside a blind universe, is subject to some elements of cuasation because we have a human body; but it does not necessarily follow that a mind needs a body to exist or that those forces have absolute authority over the personal and rational will of a human being; and if one admits that the worlds beginning to exist points to reality beyond are own, I can see no good reason to think that a personal will cannot exist.

I still question the sincerity of a thing that calls itself faith but must try to prop itself up through logic.

Do you think reasonable faith is offensive for some reason?

Then do so, if you please – unless you think I have a better shot at heaven by remaining sincere but ignorant .

I don’t think that it is in your intentions to know God, so i wouldn’t expect you to agree with anything. Apart from the few attempts at making a real arguement, i see mostly blind statements fluanting and boasting themselves as refutations.

Last I checked, the Prince of Darkness was distinctly not human. According to the Bible, Evil was before people ever were.

Evil exists, because some one freely chooses to be in rebellion against the greater good; thats what the bible teaches. The potential for evil necessarily exists in the ability to freely choose; but this does not take away the good of God; it is good that man is free to choose; however, he is also free to bare the concequence.