S
Sonic
Guest
If your concept of “God” is governed by the laws of nature and identity, then you’ve just given us some parameters to analyze.
So, what exactly are your parameters for the concept of “God”?
- Status
So, what exactly are your parameters for the concept of “God”?
E
Eucharisted
Guest
You certainly would be slapped, because neither nothing nor something nor water nor wine are variables or numbers! Furthermore, you got the math all wrong.
God didn’t change nothing into something. He simple created something. That is what we mean when we say He created out of nothing; He used no precious matter, not outside help, no special means: He simply created and it was; He simply spoke and it was created. Now, obviously, you are well aware of the developement of the Universe: how the stars formed, how the animals evolved, how a human being is born, grows, than dies, and decomposes, etc. Obviously God did not create the Universe at its maturity, just as He did not create the consummate of His creation - man - at maturity. Rather, He created all things on a journey, from beginning to end, and only at the end of time will the Universe and those who lived in the Creator be consummated, for, those who disobey the laws which He created and wish to set themselves apart from Him did not do what they were created for, whereby they will reap destruction, just as they sowed the seeds of their destruction through sin and vice and wickedness. You yourself are well aware of this by your knowledge of right and wrong: right is rewarded and wrong is punished.
As for changing water into wine, it is a miracle. If you want to know what a miracle is, this article gives a good explanation: newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm If you have any questions about what the article says, feel free to ask away. I assume you seek the truth, so I bid you good fortunate on your journey.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
I’m sorry, but all of this metaphysical jargon doesn’t make anything clearer. In plain English, can you tell me how creating matter, while using no existing materials to do so, isn’t logically contradictory? It would be the equivalent of writing a chemical equation that begins with no reactants and ends with a product. Any chemistry teacher would have to flunk you within the first few weeks of the course if you insisted that such a process is possible and wrote such equations on assignments.
You misunderstand. See, Tony and I have a history: He claims that God is omnipotent but is limited by certain laws, and I remind him that God supposedly performed miracles, which are, by definition, inexplicable (they are inexplicable because they’re logically contradictory). I am simply arguing that, if Christian doctrine is true, then God must be omnipotent in the sense that he can perform even logically contradictory actions. It seems that Tony will never release this convenient defense against the problem of evil, however. This is my third attempt, and he’s sidestepped every direct question thus far.
While I think you’re missing the point, I have to point out that chemical equations use materials in place of numbers and variables.
You can rephrase it however you like, but God + 0 is still God, it’s not “God+0=God+Universe” The first quantity does not equal the latter quantity. Simply subtract “God” from both sides and the equation will read “0=Universe” This is obviously a violation of the identity property.
Thanks for the link.
S
shoewindow3000
Guest
This book is on an entirely different matter altogether.
If there was ever an Inquisition against people who believe in God in the future, I wouldn’t be surprised if Richard Dawkins was the man in charge.
The only real difference between a* militant atheist* and a militant Islamist is that the latter is willing to die!
He talks a big game now, but Richard Dawkins will go the way of Anthony Flew when he gets near the end of his life…
M
Matthias123
Guest
You might get some more jargon.
Being itself is a composite of the act of existence and essence. So as far as I can tell, in order to move matter per se from non-being to being, all that needs to happen is the essence of matter (which is immaterial) needs to be created, and it needs to share in an act of existing. Now essence is not part of the Divine substance so this would need to be created out of nothing and the formal cause would be the Divine Intellect.Sorry I can’t do it without the jargon
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Isn’t the OP about the will to sustain one’s own life? An urge is a feeling, I don’t think a single cell feels anything. Feelings require more complex structures. So an urge can only have developped after life had reached a certain complexity stage. Therefore the sustaining, the reproduction is a “built-in” feature, the urge added more effectiveness later.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I’m not sure an urge is a feeling but one thing is certain: the "simplest"living cell is immensely complex and no one can explain the basis of what Henri Bergson called the “elan vital”.
chalcogen.infim.ro/Preoteasa.pdf
A
AnAtheist
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
It requires an act of faith in the power of science to believe that the urge to live will eventually be explained scientifically. It also presupposes the belief that life has an **entirely **physical basis. There are no obvious reasons for making these assumptions…
S
shoewindow3000
Guest
When I started this thread, I used the word “desire.”
Obviously, cells don’t “desire.” When I say that all forms of life “desire” to exist, I used the word for lack of a better word.
(Just like when we say that electrons in an atom “prefer” to be alone; it doesn’t imply that they are actually alive; it is just used for lack of a better word.)
Obviously, cells don’t “desire.” When I say that all forms of life “desire” to exist, I used the word for lack of a better word.
(Just like when we say that electrons in an atom “prefer” to be alone; it doesn’t imply that they are actually alive; it is just used for lack of a better word.)
H
hansard
Guest
Hi. I didn’t read the whole thread, but I note with interest that the OP posed his supposedly deep question to a limited group of people (atheists). Why was that? Do you think you’ll get a more satisfying response from atheists than from Christians, agnostics, eastern mystics or any other group?
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Oh but there is, it is the history of human progress in knowledge. Every little thing we learned over the last 100.000 years points to an entirely physical basis of everything.
T
tonyrey
Guest
What about truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, joy, equality, personality, integrity, purpose, friendship, creativity, originality, love…? Can you explain every aspect of existence - and even existence itself - in terms of physical processes? Give us **one **good reason to suppose that everything has a physical basis…
T
tonyrey
Guest
Tt is presumptuous to assert that creation ex nihilo is absolutely impossible. It implies insight into the ultimate nature of reality. It also implies that the physical universe has always existed, that matter is eternal, an infinite regress of entities… How would you justify those assumptions?
Your equations are arbitrary. Nothing is **transformed **into something. Water is transformed into wine. Nothing does not co-exist with something, nor does the water **co-exist **with the wine. “nothing ->something” and “water → wine” are more appropriate symbols…
A
AnAtheist
Guest
When I hit you very hard with a physical hammer on your physical head and damage your physical brain, all your goodness, joy, personality etc. is gone.
Our personalities and characters can be altered by physical means, that is a very good reason to suppose that they have a physical basis.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
We could, of course, say the same for a good number of things. The assumption that objects exist is one such thing, the existence of other consciousnesses another, and so on. But it seems reasonable to conclude that if there was a time when only God existed, he would be the only thing to exist forever onward. We can’t start with God and end up with less or more according to the law of identity.
Actually, I’m giving your religion, for the sake of argument, some credit here. I’ll grant for this discussion that God exists, but that he is able to perform logically contradictory actions if he’s performed the actions the Church claims. I’m not trying to discredit the “miracles” of God in this discussion, I’m trying to show you that your defense of evil is inconsistent with what God’s done as per the Church. He hasn’t demonstrated any limitations in the Bible or in Dogma, so why assume he has become limited since then?
Strictly speaking, no metaphysical argument can be proven to be sound, so no one can justify their assumptions. There can be validity, but no proven soundness.
Okay, let’s do it your way: “nothing yields something.” Does this prevent the contradiction from occuring? Nay.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
How? Like everything in metaphysics, these are arbitrary statements. Unlike some other metaphysical assumptions, however, this doesn’t even have sensory data to back it up.You might get some more jargon.
Can you verify the existence of essence?
J
john_doran
Guest
precisely which logical contradictions has the church claimed that god has performed?
don’t look now, but you’re making a metaphysical claim…
and, “strictly speaking”, no argument of any kind can be proven sound in this way: all arguments in every epistemic discipline rest on axiomatic foundations that are simply assumed.
what of interest do you think follows from that?
J
john_doran
Guest
ok, i get it now…
but this is a strange definition of “miracle”, and certainly not one that i accept - why should anyone believe that miracles are logically contradictory? what’s illogical about a supernatural agent intervening in the processes of the world?
this doesn’t make any sense to me: how does one thing creating another thing violate the principle “A=A”? how is anything any less self-identical if god creates matter from no pre-existent substrate? god is still identical with himself, and the newly created unievrse is identical with itself…
i don’t get it,
T
tonyrey
Guest
Apparently gone. You can smash a guitar into smithereens but the guitarist remains unscathed. You can destroy the brain but how do you know the mind ceases to exist? Have you ever seen a mind? Or a thought? Or a decision? Where are they located?
Can you turn a good person into an evil person by physical means? Do you believe in free will? How can that be changed by physical means?
- Status