For Those Who Are Skeptical About God's Existence

[itinerant1]

The bible was written by men, not god.

An erroneous position dogmatically asserted by the atheist.

Josephus was not a contemporary, and to say the accounts were sparse would be an understatement.

You do not show that you are familiar with any 1st century A.D. extra-biblical sources about Christianity, not that they are needed.

I doubt any scientist would find his “proof” compelling

Your uninformed assumption is designed to discount something you know nothing about. That’s not a very objective or open-minded position you are sporting.

You have offered nothing? Evidence, lets see it please.

The bottom line here is that I have offered you the opportunity to dispute Aristotelian demonstrations for the existence of God. Obviously, you cannot do it, and you are not even willing to try.

One cannot offer evidence when you refuse to engage in a genuine argument about the existence of God.

So, I will leave the matter here with you as refusing to engage in argument or to seriously consider the evidence for the existence of God.

Score by default:
Aristotle = 1
AlbertBall = 0

 

[itinerant1]

“solid edifice of evidence”???

Do you mean, statements of believers? Or do you mean, physical evidence?

I mean no more than what I said in an earlier post. The agnostic and the atheist suffer from a seriously logical error when they think their questioning of Judeo-Christian beliefs seriously questions the existence of God. That is, suppose the major theistic religions of the world are wrong, that in no way disproves the existence of a supreme being since a God very different from the one conceived by religion may still exist.

The compelling nature of this simple logic seems to escape the skeptic.

So, the other option is to consider demonstrations from reason for the existence of God. So far, there is no one here with the courage to accept the challenge.

 

[larkin31]

I mean no more than what I said in an earlier post. The agnostic and the atheist suffer from a seriously logical error when they think their questioning of Judeo-Christian beliefs seriously questions the existence of God. That is, suppose the major theistic religions of the world are wrong, that in no way disproves the existence of a supreme being since a God very different from the one conceived by religion may still exist.

Who here questioned the existence of God? You made your claims and hung them out there in the blue.

So, the other option is to consider demonstrations from reason for the existence of God. So far, there is no one here with the courage to accept the challenge.

Pick me! I fully accept the challenge. Lay out any logical argument you like, and I will respond. I would guess any number of persons would enjoy responding. So, pony up already!

 

[itinerant1]

Who here questioned the existence of God? You made your claims and hung them out there in the blue.

That is highly unusual comment to make in a thread titled “Re: For Those Who Are Skeptical About God’s Existence” where the existence of God has been questioned by atheists and agnostics.

Whatever the explanation may be for the above comment, we can begin with the first argument from motion:

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality.

Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself.

Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand.

Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing—and this all men know as God.

 

[AlbertBall]

The bottom line here is that I have offered you the opportunity to dispute Aristotelian demonstrations for the existence of God. Obviously, you cannot do it, and you are not even willing to try.

One cannot offer evidence when you refuse to engage in a genuine argument about the existence of God.

So, I will leave the matter here with you as refusing to engage in argument or to seriously consider the evidence for the existence of God.

Score by default:
Aristotle = 1
AlbertBall = 0

LOL ok, please present this great verifiable evidence to me, if i can’t verify it IT IS MEANINGLESS!

 

[larkin31]

That is highly unusual comment to make in a thread titled “Re: For Those Who Are Skeptical About God’s Existence” where the existence of God has been questioned by atheists and agnostics.

Whatever the explanation may be for the above comment, we can begin with the first argument from motion:

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality.

Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself.

Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand.

Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing—and this all men know as God.

There is no logical requirement that time ever was nil. You are simply rejecting the possibility of infinity for time.

 

[AlbertBall]

That is highly unusual comment to make in a thread titled “Re: For Those Who Are Skeptical About God’s Existence” where the existence of God has been questioned by atheists and agnostics.

Whatever the explanation may be for the above comment, we can begin with the first argument from motion:

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality.

Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself.

Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand.

Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing—and this all men know as God.

How have you verified that the laws of our universe, in this case cause and effect, apply to that which is out-with our universe? How have you verified that there is not a natural uncaused cause out-with our universe? How have you verified that our universe is not infinite, and in an infinite series of expansions and contractions of which we can only see back to start of the latest expansion.

In fact how have you verified ANYTHING that is outside our universe, considering we have know we to know ANYTHING about that which is outside our universe! In short your plainest truth is utterly meaningless, next.

 

[itinerant1]

There is no logical requirement that time ever was nil. You are simply rejecting the possibility of infinity for time.

You are giving a response that represents the popular misinterpretation of the argument from motion. The argument presumes an eternal universe, one that has always existed. In other words, cosmological theories about a finite or infinite universe do not affect the legitimacy of the argument.

 

[larkin31]

You are giving a response that represents the popular misinterpretation of the argument from motion. The argument presumes an eternal universe, one that has always existed. In other words, cosmological theories about a finite or infinite universe do not affect the legitimacy of the argument.

I am not misinterpreting. There is required, logically, no “beginning” in time.

Also, assuming that the universe is ALL and is and has been FOREVER (nor reason to assume otherwise), it has no “mover”. Aristotle’s premise does not apply to reality of our universe.

This “Prime Mover” is a figment of artificial logic applied to a universe reality that Aristotle could not imagine. He simply saw everything in boxes, one inside the other.

 

[itinerant1]

How have you verified that the laws of our universe, in this case cause and effect, apply to that which is out-with our universe? How have you verified that there is not a natural uncaused cause out-with our universe?

I will show later on, that the idea of a natural un-caused cause is both an impossibility and a contradiction in terms.

How have you verified that our universe is not infinite, and in an infinite series of expansions and contractions of which we can only see back to start of the latest expansion.

Science has ruled out the hypothesis of an an infinite series of expansions based on an application of the laws of thermodynamics. I won’t present the scientific argument here because an infinite series, even if it were physically possible, has no bearing whatsoever on the demonstration from motion.

In fact how have you verified ANYTHING that is outside our universe, considering we have know we to know ANYTHING about that which is outside our universe! In short your plainest truth is utterly meaningless, next.

The universe, for the purpose of my argument is taken for “all that exists” naturally, whatever that “all” may be. So, there can be nothing beyond the universe or the totality of existing things.

Furthermore, yours is an argument from ignorance, in that it is based on what we surely do not know and that which has not been verified in any way whatsoever, while my argument is based on what we do know.

 

[itinerant1]

I am not misinterpreting. There is required, logically, no “beginning” in time.

Also, assuming that the universe is ALL and is and has been FOREVER (nor reason to assume otherwise), it has no “mover”. Aristotle’s premise does not apply to reality of our universe.

This “Prime Mover” is a figment of artificial logic applied to a universe reality that Aristotle could not imagine. He simply saw everything in boxes, one inside the other.

You clearly do not understand the argument. Aristotle’s universe has no beginning. It always existed. In fact, the ancient views of history, in most or all civilizations, was that it was cyclical and without beginning.

It was the unique Judeo-Christian view time had a beginning, and that history is lineal rather than cyclical. Aquinas argued that though time has a beginning, there is nothing logically contradictory about a universe that has always existed, but that universe would still be dependent on a First Mover.

The error is to look at the argument from motion on a “horizontal” level, as if the argument is to be applied backwards in time and must fail because the universe always existed. However, the argument, as everyone knows who has actually studied Aristotle and Aquinas, is viewing motion on a realistic “vertical” point in time, while assuming the eternal “pre-existence” of the universe.

In sum here, you have not presented a legitimate criticism of the argument from motion. At best your argument is a straw-man fallacy because you misrepresented the argument, and then you heap scorn on your mis-represented version.

 

[larkin31]

You clearly do not understand the argument. Aristotle’s universe has no beginning. It always existed. In fact, the ancient views of history, in most or all civilizations, was that it was cyclical and without beginning.

It was the unique Judeo-Christian view time had a beginning, and that history is lineal rather than cyclical. Aquinas argued that though time has a beginning, there is nothing logically contradictory about a universe that has always existed, but that universe would still be dependent on a First Mover.

The error is to look at the argument from motion on a “horizontal” level, as if the argument is to be applied backwards in time and must fail because the universe always existed. However, the argument, as everyone knows who has actually studied Aristotle and Aquinas, is viewing motion on a realistic “vertical” point in time, while assuming the eternal “pre-existence” of the universe.

In sum here, you have not presented a legitimate criticism of the argument from motion. At best your argument is a straw-man fallacy because you misrepresented the argument, and then you heap scorn on your mis-represented version.

You have not responded to the second half of what I wrote, where I made a second objection. Are you conceding that point?

 

[itinerant1]

You have not responded to the second half of what I wrote, where I made a second objection. Are you conceding that point?

What specifically do you think merits a response?

 

[AlbertBall]

Furthermore, yours is an argument from ignorance, in that it is based on what we surely do not know and that which has not been verified in any way whatsoever, while my argument is based on what we do know.

Errrrrrrrr no, an argument from ignorance would be “we do not know how this happened, therefore goddidit”

Which is POLAR from “we do not have any verifiable evidence, therefore we can not yet from any meaningful conclusions”

 

[itinerant1]

Errrrrrrrr no, an argument from ignorance would be “we do not know how this happened, therefore goddidit”

Which is POLAR from “we do not have any verifiable evidence, therefore we can not yet from any meaningful conclusions”

By an argument from ignorance I did not intend a reference to the logical fallacy of informal logic by that name. I should have used different terms. That is, you are arguing from “what ifs” such as what if the laws of nature do not hold outside the universe, and other such meaningless speculations. One cannot logically argue against what is known from what is not known or by asserting what is self-contradictory and an impossibility such as your idea of a natural un-caused caused.

When all is said and done, you have not presented a counter-argument to the argument from motion. And so far, the argument stands as a proof for the existence of God.

All attempted counter responses in this thread have been totally irrelevant to the argument from motion.

 

[larkin31]

…All attempted counter responses in this thread have been totally irrelevant to the argument from motion.

Not true.

 

[StrawberryJam]

By an argument from ignorance I did not intend a reference to the logical fallacy of informal logic by that name. I should have used different terms. That is, you are arguing from “what ifs” such as what if the laws of nature do not hold outside the universe, and other such meaningless speculations. One cannot logically argue against what is known from what is not known or by asserting what is self-contradictory and an impossibility such as your idea of a natural un-caused caused.

When all is said and done, you have not presented a counter-argument to the argument from motion. And so far, the argument stands as a proof for the existence of God.

All attempted counter responses in this thread have been totally irrelevant to the argument from motion.

You are arguing for a God to fill in the unknown. While your speculation has a possibility of being true, it is not very probable. It is closer to very very unlikely.

You must realize that even you deal with “what ifs” everyday.

Your mistrust of the scientific community and reliance on Early Church Fathers, who’s morals have since changed in your faith community. Sad that reality is before you…

As I said in another thread, it seems appropriate to mention again.

The White Queen and Alice - Through the Looking Glass talk about belief.

Alice says she can’t believe in impossible things. The Queen replies, “I dare say you haven’t had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it half an hour a day. Why sometimes, I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

I am Alice. I can not, nor will allow someone with a title to tell me how many impossible things I must believe upon the threat of hell.

I am sorry, but my integrity does not allow for it.

 

[itinerant1]

You are arguing for a God to fill in the unknown. While your speculation has a possibility of being true, it is not very probable. It is closer to very very unlikely.

The argument is a simple demonstration to account for motion. One cannot logically or meaningfully counter a demonstration with “it is not very probable” or “It is closer to very very unlikely.” You have not presented any kind of logical counter-argument. The demonstration does not call for anyone’s personal feelings about it.

Oh where has the rigor gone these days?

 

[itinerant1]

You are arguing for a God to fill in the unknown. While your speculation has a possibility of being true, it is not very probable. It is closer to very very unlikely.

You must realize that even you deal with “what ifs” everyday.

Your mistrust of the scientific community and reliance on Early Church Fathers, who’s morals have since changed in your faith community. Sad that reality is before you…

As I said in another thread, it seems appropriate to mention again.

The White Queen and Alice - Through the Looking Glass talk about belief.

Alice says she can’t believe in impossible things. The Queen replies, “I dare say you haven’t had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it half an hour a day. Why sometimes, I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

I am Alice. I can not, nor will allow someone with a title to tell me how many impossible things I must believe upon the threat of hell.

I am sorry, but my integrity does not allow for it.

As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you are talking about, or to whom you think you are talking to, or anything else. In other words, your post makes no sense at all to me.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The argument is a simple demonstration to account for motion. One cannot logically or meaningfully counter a demonstration with “it is not very probable” or “It is closer to very very unlikely.” You have not presented any kind of logical counter-argument. The demonstration does not call for anyone’s personal feelings about it.

Oh where has the rigor gone these days?

You are looking for dogma to calm your inability (all of our inabilities) to answer the question you seem to think needs to have an answer without enough factual data.

Is there anything wrong with admitting you don’t have an answer to everything?

Is it better to admit you do not know, than to pretend you do?