Evidence that God Exists

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Doesn’t logic do that? I haven’t read this whole thread, but why don’t you accept the quinquae viae?

Go back read the thread. I believe all five arguments have been addressed.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

There may be a bunch of typos. My keyboard is messed up and will not be fixed for a couple of days.

I understand this is from a while back, but–:

…“We may never have the evidence?”
Whoa. Are you saying that there is something outside of our knowledge that did ,obviously, occurr?–(the creation of the universe)?
You denounce the mystery of the Trinity as being a “cop-out”, and then you relate the creation of the universe with that exact word.

They are two different types of mystery. The Trinity is a mystery not just because there is not yet enough evidence, but because it cannot be explained how it does not violate basic principles of logic.

I’m not sure if you have heard this argument presented before, but the universe is full of causes. One causes leads to the cause of another, that cause causes another causes, ect, ect (similar to a domino effect). But, what started all of these causes? An uncaused cause, perhaps? Well, where’d the uncause cause come from–another uncaused cause? Then where’d that one come from? That would be impossible, as that would be redundant into infinity. And a caused cause could not have caused the uncaused cause, because that would equate to another slew of causes, caused by…what?. So, the only logical conclusion is that there was an uncaused cause, independent of any other outside influence that initiated causes, and in turn, the universe. We–Christians–call this great uncaused cause, God.

None this provides evidence that God exists. At best, all it does it is show a gap in scientific knowledge.

 

[john_doran]

They are two different types of mystery. The Trinity is a mystery not just because there is not yet enough evidence, but because it cannot be explained how it does not violate basic principles of logic.

how so? exactly which logical principles are violated by the doctrine of the trinity?
Ammonius Saccus:

Please go back and read the thread. The First Cause argument has been addressed.

i’d love to get in on this, but i also have neither the time nor the inclination to go and find what was said in this thread about the first cause argument…

can you summarize your problems with it?

thanks,

• jd

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

how so? exactly which logical principles are violated by the doctrine of the trinity?

That identity is a transitive relation.

rep.routledge.com/LOGIN?sessionid=b2b589ce10b81c914d17a64ec78a005e&authstatuscode=400

i’d love to get in on this, but i also have neither the time nor the inclination to go and find what was said in this thread about the first cause argument…

can you summarize your problems with it?

thanks,

• jd

I have already addressed the First Cause argument numerous times in this thread. I have no desire to do it again.

You can look at some of the objections on this:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

 

[john_doran]

That identity is a transitive relation.

not sure what you’re trying to get at with this - that link is dead for me.

anyway, i’ll go with what you said earlier:
Ammonius Saccus:

A further point.

While the idea of a God can be shown to be logically possible, the idea of the Christian God (at least most popular versions including the Catholic version) is logically impossible. The idea of the Trinity is a logical impossiblity. To accept the the Trinity one has to reject basic logic.

1+1+1=3

If A = B
and B = C
then A = C

these are simply statements of formal entailments. they will have practical effect only when the variables (i.e. the A’s, B’s, C’s, and 1’s) are given value.

in other words, you are making the claim that it is impossible to formulate a logically valid statement of/argument for the trinity - namely that there can be one being that is composed of three persons.

however, it is a fairly straightforward matter to do so, using your very own syllogisms:

“person + person + person = 3 persons”

and

“if the father is the same being as the son, and the son is the same being as the holy spirit, then the father is the same being as the holy spirit.”

both of these pieces of reasoning are formally valid, and are consistent with the doctrine of the holy trinity; thus your claim of invalidity straightforwardly fails.

what you ***need ***to do is demonstrate that “being” and “personhood” are such that more than one of the latter cannot constitute one and the same of the former.
Ammonius Saccus:

I have already addressed the First Cause argument numerous times in this thread. I have no desire to do it again.

You can look at some of the objections on this:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

ok. i reviewed the whole thread, and the only other mention of the first cause argument i could find was one of your posts linking to the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. again.

linking to essays without further elaboration is not to engage in discussion - it is simply to parrot; i mean, how do i know that you actually understand the various cosmolgical arguments themselves, let alone the objections to them?

if you would care to discuss the issue, please let me know what it is you find problematic about the theist’s reasoning. in your own words.

to kick-start the process, here’s a basic statement of the kalam cosmological argument:

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause;
2. the universe began to exist;
3. therefore, the univevrse has a cause.

let me know your thoughts.

thanks,

• jd

 

[Disciple87]

The Holy Trinity is this, The Father (word) The Son (word made flesh), The Holy Spirit (presence of God the Father.) They are all one. You have to look pass logic, it has no bearing where God is. We don’t understand God becasue we try to use debate and reason ect. You can’t know God by this. God is of the spirit, so you must listen in spirit. When going to a movie do you close your eyes and put ear muffs on? When the movie ends others you are with will talk about the movie but you won’t know anything about it. You have to listen with your spirit and heart when it comes to God, not what you see or hear unless it is the word of God and your spirit is opened.

So what are you looking for? Do you want to see something? Hear something? You need to take off your spirit muffs and open your heart, then you will hear and see. Not from your ears or eyes, but from the spirit where the truth comes from.

---

“In the first book, Theophilus, I dealt with all that Jesus did and taught until the day he was taken up, after giving instructions through the holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself alive to them by many proofs after he had suffered, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.”

 

[john_doran]

The evidence points to them being processes in the brain. Nobody has ever presented any evidence that the soul actually exists. If you have such evidence, please present it.

1. if human beings are exhaustively biophysical, then they will be entirely determined by biophysical covering laws. but anything that is determined cannot have free will. but human beings have free will. therefore human beings are not exhaustively biophysical, and must therefore have some immaterial component that is the source of their ability to choose freely. we call this the soul.
2. we are acquainted with abstract objects (e.g. sets, propositions, properties, etc.). abstract objects are immaterial. but a material object cannot be acquainted with immaterial objects. therefore there is some immaterial principle of intellection in human beings. we call this the soul.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause;
2. the universe began to exist;
3. therefore, the univevrse has a cause.

How do you know the universe began to exist? Nobody knows what happened before just after the Big Bang.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Tou have to look pass logic, it has no bearing where God is. We don’t understand God becasue we try to use debate and reason ect.

If yu are not ging to use logic, how can we say anything about God? How can we use language without logic?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

but human beings have free will.

What definition of free will are you using? What is your evidence that humans have this form of free will?

 

[john_doran]

How do you know the universe began to exist? Nobody knows what happened before just after the Big Bang.

well, our best cosmological models include a beginning - where t=0.

that having been said, we know that there cannot have been an actually infinite number of moments prior to this one, since (A) an actual infinite cannot exist; and (B) an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition.

and if there cannot have been an infinite amount of time preceding this point, there must have been a finite time. which means that there universe had a beginning.

 

[Disciple87]

What I mean is, trying to explain God to someone who only uses logic, science physical proof, ect. I know we need logic to speak. You can’t share logic with someone if they are speaking a different language you can’not understand.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

abstract objects are immaterial. but a material object cannot be acquainted with immaterial objects.

Why can’t a material being have knowledge of immaterial concepts?

 

[john_doran]

What definition of free will are you using?

a choice is free if there is at least one other possible world that is identical to the one in which the choice is made up to the time of the choice, but in which a different choice is made.

that is to say, a choice is free if nothing determines the choice except the choosing.
Ammonius Saccus:

What is your evidence that humans have this form of free will?

there are not “types” of free will - the will is free or it isn’t.

and insofar as it is possible to have evidence for something like this, i would say that it lies in the fact that humans are morally responsible for their actions, which they could not be unless they were free to do other than they do.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

and insofar as it is possible to have evidence for something like this, i would say that it lies in the fact that humans are morally responsible for their actions, which they could not be unless they were free to do other than they do.

In this construction moral responsibility flows from free will, free will does not flow from moral responsibility.

 

[john_doran]

Why can’t a material being have knowledge of immaterial concepts?

for the same reason you can’t hear the color red or taste middle c: divergent sensory modalities.

in other words, how can a material object interact with an object that possesses an entirely different mode of existence? i mean, if we’re the biological machines that materialism declares us to be, what is stimulating the neurons in my brain when i interact with the number “one”, or the shape “square”?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

well, our best cosmological models include a beginning - where t=0.

that having been said, we know that there cannot have been an actually infinite number of moments prior to this one, since (A) an actual infinite cannot exist; and (B) an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition.

and if there cannot have been an infinite amount of time preceding this point, there must have been a finite time. which means that there universe had a beginning.

Time cannot even be described as a concept at the singularity. All the laws break down before we can get back to the singularity. Again, nobody knows what happened before just after the Big Bang or what before even means in this context.

 

[john_doran]

In this construction moral responsibility flows from free will, free will does not flow from moral responsibility.

sure, as a matter of ontology.

but the logic is thus:

moral responsibility iff free will;
moral responsibility;
ergo, free will.

 

[john_doran]

Time cannot even be described as a concept at the singularity.

not true.
Ammonius Saccus:

All the laws break down before we can get back to the singularity.

all physical laws.
Ammonius Saccus:

Again, nobody knows what happened before just after the Big Bang or what before even means in this context.

no one knows what happened physically at the initial singularity, sure. but so what? everyone knows what it means to talk about a first point in time, and, in fact, that is the language used not only by philosophers, but also scientists.

but what does not knowing what happened at t=0 have to do with the fact that there was, in fact, a t=0?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

sure, as a matter of ontology.

but the logic is thus:

moral responsiblity iff free will;
moral responsibility;
ergo, free will.

A if B
A
Therefore B

You really don’t see a problem with this logic?