Then restate you argument in terms of the First Cause only. Using two different words for the same thing is a recipe for confusion.We use First Cause and G-d refer to the same being who is the act of existing.
You are falling back on silly semantic arguments.Here where you say “no entity” it means the same thing as “no thing” or “nothing”.
There isn’t a point to that, the argument wouldn’t change any.Then restate you argument in terms of the First Cause only. Using two different words for the same thing is a recipe for confusion.
You are falling back on silly semantic arguments.
- Half a loaf is better than nothing.
- Nothing is better than God.
- Therefore half a loaf is better than God.
Its a logical contradiction that makes an existent nothing a impossible, not a game of semantics. 1=0 is impossible everywhere that the axioms of logic hold.rossum
Then the argument still fails. The First Cause is dependent on 1) something else existing and 2) a beginning to the universe.There isn’t a point to that, the argument wouldn’t change any.
1 is a digit. 0 is a digit. digit = digit so 1 = 0. Simple. Wherever a digit is required either 1 or 0 can be used.Its a logical contradiction that makes an existent nothing a impossible, not a game of semantics. 1=0 is impossible everywhere that the axioms of logic hold.
I demonstrated that this statement is false using the universally accepted logical form of Proof by Contradiction. You have yet to offer a valid logical argument against the proof. Equivocation failed. So the proof never failed and your statement is still false. If you cannot refute the proof, then you have no choice but to accept it.Then the argument still fails. The First Cause is dependent on 1) something else existing and 2) a beginning to the universe.
I’m going to object to your claiming victory here.I demonstrated that this statement is false using the universally accepted logical form of Proof by Contradiction. You have yet to offer a valid logical argument against the proof. Equivocation failed. So the proof never failed and your statement is still false. If you cannot refute the proof, then you have no choice but to accept it.
Of course he doesn’t think the exact same way we do, but we have good reason to suspect that he does think somewhat like we do - the mind after all is the essence of the Imago Dei.Razredge:
If God does nothing else in precisely the same way that we mere humans do, why must he, then, think precisely like us? Think about it: He exists in a Now. For us the Now is so fleeting that it is shorter than the smallest span of ‘time’. But, what is an eternal now? That is the Now of infinite being. We can only intellectualize the idea with our wholly insufficient vocabulary and our exceedingly small minds.
That is a different meaning to the mathematical concept of ‘infinite’ that you are using, (ie. God having the greatest possible power imaginable etc.) so I can’t argue with you there. And mathematics and logic are transcendental, even God is bound by logic - for example He can’t create a rock so big even He cannot move it and so on.In the natural order, that is, in the arena of material, natural things, that is correct. There is no such thing as an actual infinity. But, now, you are limiting God by puny human concepts again. God is in the supernatural order. He is not limited by puny human concepts of mathematical infinity.
It was discussed in the Modern Genetics & Adam and Eve threadSuch as?
Your logic is faulty. If the universe has no beginning then there is no requirement for a First Cause and there is no place to put any First Cause. An eternal universe negates the requirement for a First Cause. There is no “First” in an eternal universe.I demonstrated that this statement is false using the universally accepted logical form of Proof by Contradiction.
Using the universally accepted technique of Proof by Contradiction, I demonstrated that First Cause is logically necessary and therefore not contingent on anything.Your logic is faulty. If the universe…
An eternal universe requires no cause. A First Cause logically contradicts an eternal universe.Using the universally accepted technique of Proof by Contradiction, I demonstrated that First Cause is logically necessary and therefore not contingent on anything.
Using the universally accepted logical method called Proof by Contradiction, I have demonstrated that First Cause is logically necessary. Thereby proving that First Cause is not contingent on anything at all. Not on any universes of any kind, eternal or not.An eternal universe requires no cause. A First Cause logically contradicts an eternal universe.
Unless you can offer a valid, formal logical refutation to the proof offered, your contention has been publicly proven wrong by a universally accepted method. You don’t have a basis to disagree because you cannot refute the proof.I suspect we are not going to agree on this.
We aren’t arguing about the origin of the universe. The point in contention is to the ontological status of First Cause.… “origin of the universe”…
I looked back in this thread to where you presented your argument.Using the universally accepted logical method called Proof by Contradiction, I have demonstrated that First Cause is logically necessary. Thereby proving that First Cause is not contingent on anything at all. Not on any universes of any kind, eternal or not.
Your error is in the second sentence. “In this case First Cause is the act of existing, the negation of which, the act of not existing, or nothing exists, is a logical contradiction which means it is an impossibility.”First Cause is logically necessary, meaning its negation presents a contradiction. In this case First Cause is the act of existing, the negation of which, the act of not existing, or nothing exists, is a logical contradiction which means it is an impossibility.
I have just refuted it on the basis of faulty logic, where you have moved from a particular to a universal without justification.Unless you can offer a valid, formal logical refutation to the proof offered, your contention has been publicly proven wrong by a universally accepted method. You don’t have a basis to disagree because you cannot refute the proof.
The “act of not existing” and “nothing exists” cannot exist so they cannot have properties that are universal or be particulars.…You have moved from “the act of not existing” to “nothing exists”. That is an error…You have moved from a particular to a universal. “The Pope is Catholic therefore everyone is Catholic,” is faulty logic. I have just refuted it on the basis of faulty logic, where you have moved from a particular to a universal without justification.
Do unicorns exist?The “act of not existing” and “nothing exists” cannot exist so they cannot have properties that are universal or be particulars.
You made a claim that First Cause is contingent. I disproved that statement with a formal logical proof by contradiction. The only acceptable refutation is a formal logical refutation. The proof cannot be countered with anything else. Any more than you can counter geometric proofs by persuasive conversation. So you either have a valid, formal refutation of the proof, or you do not. Given that you have yet to offer one, I can only conclude you do not have one. If you cannot refute the proof and cannot accept it, what does that mean?Do unicorns exist?
rossum
Which I have provided. You tried to assert ∃x:y => ∀x:y which is incorrect.The only acceptable refutation is a formal logical refutation.
“Nothing exists” and the “act of not existing” (x:y) are not entities that can have properties or be particulars. I pointed that out three posts ago. The existential operator here ∃ would mean that x,y exist. When clearly the “act of not existing” and “nothing exists” are things that cannot exist without logical contradiction.…∃x:y => ∀x:y which is incorrect.
Is a unicorn in the “act of not existing”? Is Jesus’ elder brother in the “act of not existing”? Many things are in the act of not existing.When clearly the “act of not existing” and “nothing exists” are things that cannot exist without logical contradiction.