For Those Who Are Skeptical About God's Existence

[itinerant1]

Because you are making assertions about that which is unknown. In other words you are just making it up. Just because we do not know something does not mean you are justified in making up unsupported assertions to fill the gaps. If you can’t see why this is clearly irrational, then there is not much we can do to help.

You arbitrarily limit the power and scope of hunman reason. Your position is anti-rational. I am not making an assertion about “that which is unknown”, I am making an assertion about that which we can know. We can know, and with certitude, that motion and efficient causes have an ultimate source.

 

[itinerant1]

Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

 

[itinerant1]

Third Argument: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence–which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

 

[AlbertBall]

You arbitrarily limit the power and scope of hunman reason. Your position is anti-rational. I am not making an assertion about “that which is unknown”, I am making an assertion about that which we can know. We can know, and with certitude, that motion and efficient causes have an ultimate source.

Nope, we know nothing about that which predates the inflation of space-time. You can claim you do, but you clearly do not.

 

[larkin31]

You arbitrarily limit the power and scope of hunman reason. Your position is anti-rational. I am not making an assertion about “that which is unknown”, I am making an assertion about that which we can know. We can know, and with certitude, that motion and efficient causes have an ultimate source.

No one cares what you believe.

But when you call this “proven,” expect some flak. Neither a “prime mover” nor a “god” is proven in any way (logically or empirically).

The entire problem is in your premise that ALL things must have a cause. There is no “reason” nor any empirical evidence that this is true. I provided you a clear example of something known that has yet to be given a “cause”. In fact, there are those that say that energy can neither be made nor destroyed. You tell me to abandon this “entanglement,” but it is no entanglement for me. It simply demonstrates that your premise is false, like most absolute premises are, and it is set up in order to bring about the conclusion you seek. Furthermore, you likely will exempt your “prime mover” from the same causation requirement, seeing space and time as a line rather than, say, as a perpetual loop (for example). It’s perhaps the fault of your mind that you can’t see the possibility of eternity for material existence of space/time.

But to suggest that something is “proven” about a God or 'prime mover" is simply silly.

 

[larkin31]

Third Argument: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence–which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

yeah

see above

 

[itinerant1]

Nope, we know nothing about that which predates the inflation of space-time. You can claim you do, but you clearly do not.

Your response is yet another strawman fallacy, or rather your repetition of the same strawman fallacy. Predating the inflation of space-time is totally irrelevant to the argument. That is still your “horizontal” thinking back in time. Such considerations are not pertinent to the argument. The argument does not move back in time. It stays in the present moment, as I have repeatedly emphasized.

Again, the argument makes no claim about predating the inflation of space-time, or even going back in time at all. So, where did your idea come from?

 

[itinerant1]

No one cares what you believe.

But when you call this “proven,” expect some flak. Neither a “prime mover” nor a “god” is proven in any way (logically or empirically).

The entire problem is in your premise that ALL things must have a cause. There is no “reason” nor any empirical evidence that this is true. I provided you a clear example of something known that has yet to be given a “cause”. In fact, there are those that say that energy can neither be made nor destroyed. You tell me to abandon this “entanglement,” but it is no entanglement for me. It simply demonstrates that your premise is false, like most absolute premises are, and it is set up in order to bring about the conclusion you seek. Furthermore, you likely will exempt your “prime mover” from the same causation requirement, seeing space and time as a line rather than, say, as a perpetual loop (for example). It’s perhaps the fault of your mind that you can’t see the possibility of eternity for material existence of space/time.

But to suggest that something is “proven” about a God or 'prime mover" is simply silly.

You must have a blind spot because I have repeatedly stated that the arguments presume an eternally existing universe, yet you say “you can’t see the possibility of eternity for material existence of space/time.” Very strange!

In other words, you are not responding to the argument I presented. Your response is for some other argument, somewhere in outer space, but not the arguments I posted. Hence, you get to share the “Strawman Fallacy Award” along with AlbertBall.

 

[larkin31]

You must have a blind spot because I have repeatedly stated that the arguments presume an eternally existing universe, yet you say “you can’t see the possibility of eternity for material existence of space/time.” Very strange!

In other words, you are not responding to the argument I presented. Your response is for some other argument, somewhere in outer space, but not the arguments I posted. Hence, you get to share the “Strawman Fallacy Award” along with AlbertBall.

well ok. we agree on the possibility of energy existing forever

 

[itinerant1]

well ok. we agree on the possibility of energy existing forever

By way of further clarification, I previously stated that there is no logical contradiction in assuming that the universe has an eternal existence. The arguments I posted assume an eternally existing universe. Personally, I believe the universe has a temporal beginning, but that belief is not a part of or a requirement of the arguments.

Therefore, even under the asumption that the universe has an eternal existence, the universe does not reveal itself as being self-sufficient, or that it does not require an ultimate explanation as to motion or change, sufficient cause, and so on, all according to the reasons stated in the arguments.

Hence, the arguments must be addressed as to there logical and ontological steps within the assumption of an eternally existing universe. That is, an eternally existing universe still requires, according to the arguments, an ultimate explanation for motion, and so on.

The scientific position of a finite universe originating with the Big Bang replaced the steady-state conception of an infinite universe. However, both scientific views involve a “horizontal” view of time, which is not a limitation or condition of the arguments posted. Hence, either scientific view is not truly relevant to the import of the arguments.

 

[itinerant1]

It has been stated in this thread that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Regardless of the merits of the statement, such assertions have no direct bearing on the present arguments.

Marxist regimes towed the part line in maintaining the eternity of matter in accordance with Engels’ *Anti-Duhring. *To the contrary was the position of Clausius and Thompson (Lord Kelvin), the creators of thermodynamics, according to which the universe was running down. Also, one should consider the deteriorating activites of radioactivity in relation to the idea that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed.

This is just a side-note, as none of these cosiderations, regarding either view, have any direct consequence for the cosmological arguments.

 

[AlbertBall]

Forget this dude, his arguments have been destroyed, we can all read it. Time for us all to move on .

 

[larkin31]

onward I have moved, sans prime mover

 

[Bob4BVM]

Forget this dude, his arguments have been destroyed, we can all read it. Time for us all to move on .

Maybe so from the scientific point of view.
Please apply that to personal experience.
How do you explain away personal experience ?
I am still waiting for ONE agnostic or athiest to help me there.
Zero replies to that.

What am I talking about ?
Posts 232- 237.
I think the line went dead back there…

 

[larkin31]

Maybe so from the scientific point of view.
Please apply that to personal experience.
How do you explain away personal experience ?
I am still waiting for ONE agnostic or athiest to help me there.
Zero replies to that.

What am I talking about ?
Posts 232- 237.
I think the line went dead back there…

we all saw your posts.

your subjective experiences are yours to hold and to believe in

what else is there to say about it?

 

[itinerant1]

Forget this dude, his arguments have been destroyed, we can all read it. Time for us all to move on .

Move on, indeed, rather than present a single relevant counter-argument. I am surprised, though I probably should not be, that you are content with your strawman responses.

 

[AlbertBall]

Move on, indeed, rather than present a single relevant counter-argument. I am surprised, though I probably should not be, that you are content with your strawman responses.

There is only one person on this forum whom cannot see through your position. Guess who that is lol ???

 

[Bob4BVM]

we all saw your posts.

your subjective experiences are yours to hold

and to believe in

what else is there to say about it?

Yes , you are exactly right, they are mine.

Strange as it sounds, (even to me!) it is no longer a matter of belief. I Know.

What else to say ?
This:
They can also be your experiences, you can experience God in your life if you want to .
The catch-22 is that this thing is only knowable thru…you guessed it- personal experience.
Unbelieveable as I know this sounds to you, all you have to do is Ask Him.
He is there, and He can enter your life in a real way if you want Him to.
But that’s a big IF.
Jesus stands by the door and knocks, but there is no latch on His side of the door…

Though He loves everyone, He will never force our own love for Him. Yeah He wants our love, but forced love is slavery, not love. The athiest will say " give me proof of God ! "
Do you see why He will not do that unless we let Him know that we sincerely want to know Him ?
If the proof comes first, what choice have we–our free will to love or not is compromised. As many have said here- ‘give me proof & I will believe’. He’s not gonna do that because he respects our free will to that degree.

So, how do you ask ? If my experience is any measure, even the most feeble HONEST request will do. He will take the slightest invitation from a person to enter a life with His Truth. When that happens, Heaven truly DOES rejoice. I can tell you from my own faith history, the sense of freedom the person will experience when that happens is beautiful and overwhelming.

Please, just answer me this thought Larkin:
If you knew for sure God was there, would you want Him to be part of your life , would you choose to love Him, or just ignore Him and still go about your life as if He was a myth ?

If you knew for sure, what would you do ?
Thanks.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Yes , you are exactly right, they are mine.

Strange as it sounds, (even to me!) it is no longer a matter of belief. I Know.

What else to say ?
This:
They can also be your experiences, you can experience God in your life if you want to .
The catch-22 is that this thing is only knowable thru…you guessed it- personal experience.
Unbelieveable as I know this sounds to you, all you have to do is Ask Him.
He is there, and He can enter your life in a real way if you want Him to.
But that’s a big IF.
Jesus stands by the door and knocks, but there is no latch on His side of the door…

Though He loves everyone, He will never force our own love for Him. Yeah He wants our love, but forced love is slavery, not love. The athiest will say " give me proof of God ! "
Do you see why He will not do that unless we let Him know that we sincerely want to know Him ?
If the proof comes first, what choice have we–our free will to love or not is compromised. As many have said here- ‘give me proof & I will believe’. He’s not gonna do that because he respects our free will to that degree.

So, how do you ask ? If my experience is any measure, even the most feeble HONEST request will do. He will take the slightest invitation from a person to enter a life with His Truth. When that happens, Heaven truly DOES rejoice. I can tell you from my own faith history, the sense of freedom the person will experience when that happens is beautiful and overwhelming.

Please, just answer me this thought Larkin:
If you knew for sure God was there, would you want Him to be part of your life , would you choose to love Him, or just ignore Him and still go about your life as if He was a myth ?

If you knew for sure, what would you do ?
Thanks.

Jesus stands by the door and knocks? Um, I thought the verses implied that the one who is and should be knocking is the one who asks the question of God’s existance?

Knock, and it shall be opened to you…

I’ve done more than knock. Maybe I need to read about “Our Lady of Knock”? Because I really have done about all any person can do.

 

[itinerant1]

Yes , you are exactly right, they are mine.

Strange as it sounds, (even to me!) it is no longer a matter of belief. I Know.

What else to say ?
This:
They can also be your experiences, you can experience God in your life if you want to .
The catch-22 is that this thing is only knowable thru…you guessed it- personal experience.
Unbelieveable as I know this sounds to you, all you have to do is Ask Him.
He is there, and He can enter your life in a real way if you want Him to.
But that’s a big IF.
Jesus stands by the door and knocks, but there is no latch on His side of the door…

Though He loves everyone, He will never force our own love for Him. Yeah He wants our love, but forced love is slavery, not love. The athiest will say " give me proof of God ! "
Do you see why He will not do that unless we let Him know that we sincerely want to know Him ?
If the proof comes first, what choice have we–our free will to love or not is compromised. As many have said here- ‘give me proof & I will believe’. He’s not gonna do that because he respects our free will to that degree.

So, how do you ask ? If my experience is any measure, even the most feeble HONEST request will do. He will take the slightest invitation from a person to enter a life with His Truth. When that happens, Heaven truly DOES rejoice. I can tell you from my own faith history, the sense of freedom the person will experience when that happens is beautiful and overwhelming.

Please, just answer me this thought Larkin:
If you knew for sure God was there, would you want Him to be part of your life , would you choose to love Him, or just ignore Him and still go about your life as if He was a myth ?

If you knew for sure, what would you do ?
Thanks.

I submit that if a person wants to be atheistic it’s his God-given right to be an atheist.