From God's inexistence it follows God's existence

[Mike_O]

John Mortell:

Thanks; actually, I wrote it. It’s from a paper I wrote for a philosophy club expanding on Aquinas’s proofs of the Uncaused Cause. (Later on I even try to connect the PM’s knowledge, will, and power with the concepts of the Trinity ). I have a bunch of rough notes on my website (www.members.aol.com/cmor923905/ ), but they are not very organized; be warned that this is all a work in progress. The actual paper I wrote is structured better and makes more sense, but I haven’t put it up on the internet yet. Feel free to use anything I’ve used so far.

Well that is a fantastic paper. Very nice work.

God bless.

 

[James_Kanatous]

John Mortell:

You see life as meaningless? Ouch. As for the rest of that post, Apolonio took the words out of my mouth.

I see life as being insignificant, and that is exactly why I try to make the most of it, because when it is all over I want to know that at least I lived my life to the fullest; that at least I experienced and learned all that I could. For instance, if life had significance, then even the most pathetic ingrate would have value and a meaning within the cosmos. No, that cannot be. The universe is too damn big. I look upon such men with remorseless contempt, because they are wasting what little time they have doing nothing prolific. If my life had significance, then I would not need to accomplish anything; I could literally be a beach bum, and I would still be significant. Do you see the absurdity? Do you see how unrealistic that is? Take away significance and replace it with responsibility. This is honestly how I feel.

Your life is pointless and when you die it will be as if you never existed. What should you do, since your life is meaningless? Make the most of it, I say! Be adventurous. Climb a mountain. Travel the world. Converse with people. Run a marathon. Save a life. Have a threesome. Write a book. Do something! Your time is running out. . . .
John Mortell:

Please inform me of a better possibility. Time is the measure of change, after all; a series of actions and reactions. Everything that occurs happens in reaction to something else. Ultimately there must be a beginning action to start off this chain of events.

You’re missing the punch line. Do you really think that you can understand the universe, as a whole, with your finite, human psychology? Do you have any idea how naive that would be? Everything we know of is finite. Everything. Why do you think we think of things causally? Why do you think it intuitively makes sense to us that everything should have a beginning, and why do you think that it would not make sense to us if everything did not have a beginning?

Think of the infinitude of the universe not as illogical, but as paradoxical. The ultimate reality is paradoxical, however, you wouldn’t necessarily call that illogical would you? Of course not. Think of the infinitude of the universe as something that is true, yet cannot be reasoned nor imagined. There really is no other alternative. The theory of the unmoved mover is nonsensical, for you cannot think of the unmoved mover as a something because it is a nothing. And, something coming from nothing is irrefutably illogical.
John Mortell:

Philo, I agree with you that creation cannot result from nothing. That is why an Uncaused Cause is so very necessary.

Exactly, there must be something infinite; there must be something unmoved. And, it is called the universe.

 

[Apolonio]

James: Experience makes our judgement reliable.

Response:
I don’t understand how you get that sentence from evolution though.

James:Walking’ towards truth is a product of our cognition, most obviously. This is known through experience. Where does cognition come from? Hundreds of thousands of years of natural evolution, I believe. There’s nothing ‘spiritual’ about it.

Response:
“Thousands of years of natural evolution”?!? But I’m sure you believe “surivial of the fittest”. How do you get “truth” from survival of the fittest? Your cognitive faculties are unreliable if we accept your worldview. C.S. Lewis put it this way…how can you know naturalism is true if your mind/brain is made up of unintelligible chemicals? Let’s take R for the reliability of our cognitive faculties. N for naturalism and E for evolution. Plantinga suggest that P(R/N&E) is low. In fact, N&E is a defeater of P. See:

homestead.com/philofreligion/files/alspaper.htm

 

[John_Mortell]

Thanks Mike O.

You’re missing the punch line. Do you really think that you can understand the universe, as a whole, with your finite, human psychology? Do you have any idea how naive that would be?

James. This coming from a person who claims for certain that God is nothingness? Let me repeat myself: If there is a better possibility, I would like to hear an example.

If you cannot do this, stop calling yourself an atheist and admit you’re an agnostic.

Everything we know of is finite. Everything. Why do you think we think of things causally? Why do you think it intuitively makes sense to us that everything should have a beginning, and why do you think that it would not make sense to us if everything did not have a beginning?

For all the trust you place in logic, you sure seem to ditch it when arguments prove an inconvenience to you. The concept of time is a basic rule of logic: it is just the measure of change. As I said, everything that occurs happens in reaction to something else. Action Z occurred because Action Y happened. Action Y happened because Action X happened. Etc. I’m not making this up, this is a law of science. If you put the Universe on ‘rewind’, you would be able to see a whole timeline of actions activating other actions. This regression cannot go on infinitely, my friend; such is illogical, unscientific, and is based more on personal preference than reality. Ultimately there must be a ‘step one.’

For instance, if life had significance, then even the most pathetic ingrate would have value and a meaning within the cosmos. No, that cannot be. The universe is too damn big. I look upon such men with remorseless contempt, because they are wasting what little time they have doing nothing prolific.

In the grand scheme of things we are all pathetic ingrates, James. That can be a blessing rather than a curse, if only you accepted the concept of humility. How about it, James? A mindset of humility and mercy rather than that of remorseless contempt? Which do you think leads to a more fulfilling life?

If my life had significance, then I would not need to accomplish anything;

You misunderstand. It is because life has significance that we accomplish anything.

 

[John_Mortell]

Take away significance and replace it with responsibility. This is honestly how I feel.

Responsibility only exists because life is significant.

Your life is pointless and when you die it will be as if you never existed. What should you do, since your life is meaningless? Make the most of it, I say! Be adventurous. Climb a mountain. Travel the world. Converse with people. Run a marathon. Save a life. Have a threesome. Write a book. Do something!

None of these will matter in the long run if we return to nothingness, as you say. And yet, you are so against the idea that someone would spend their meaningless time believing in God. If nothing matters in the long run, why this anger at how people choose to live their lives?

You remind me of a quote by C.S. Lewis. To paraphrase: “When I was an atheist I didn’t believe in God. I was also angry at God for not existing.”

Your time is running out. . . .

As is yours. Pascal’s wager. You have nothing to lose and much to gain.

The ultimate reality is paradoxical, however, you wouldn’t necessarily call that illogical would you?

Please explain to me specifically how the ultimate reality is paradoxical. A paradox is by definition illogical. James, instead of just writing away my proofs of the Prime Mover by saying that it’s beyond comprehension, please TELL ME point by point how the theory of the Uncaused Cause does not work.

You are obviously trying to gain something by visiting these forums. If you seek any truth, stop burying your head in the ground and start a real discussion.

There really is no other alternative. The theory of the unmoved mover is nonsensical, for you cannot think of the unmoved mover as a something because it is a nothing.

I just did.

And, something coming from nothing is irrefutably illogical.

Yes, yes, yes! I told you, I agree with this point. We both believe that an infinity exists. The difference between us is that you call this infinity “the Universe” while I call this infinity “God.” Btw, the Prime Mover is the Infinite Universe you have been harping about. But for now you don’t want to admit all that goes along with believing this, and that is a shame.

No matter what you may think about this topic, God both loves you and wants you to live a more fulfilling life. The invitation for a more fulfilling life is always open. Think about it.

 

[James_Kanatous]

I’d respond with a sound refutation, if I honeslty felt that your comments warranted an adequate response that would go appreciated. I’m just not interested enough to criticize you. Think what you will of me, however, there are just certain things that do not interest me much, namely, the repetitive ignorance of a christian thinker. At times I’ll attempt to intellectually challenge the psychologically primitive and self-delusioned man, however, such attempts are too often futile. I ask myself, “How important is this to me? What will I gain?” I don’t know. . . . Perhaps if you would sincerely like to debate, we can do so informally through the private message system; I’ve lost all interest in this particular forum.

 

[Origen]

James Kanatous:

It is, however, more logical to say the universe and time are infinite.

Just because you can imagine infinity does not mean it is a valid construct having any correspondence in the real world.

Have you ever seen those clever mathematical games whereby one can prove that 1 = 2? These apparent paradoxes occur because primitive axioms of mathematics are violated, usually having to do with limits approaching 0 or infinity in the denominator of one step in the argument. One can’t just use zero and infinity in arguments the same way as one can use finite numeric quantities.

One could empty 1/2 of a glass of water, then 1/2 of the remaining, onwards in an infinite sequence, and yet never empty the glass. But don’t fool yourself; it’s just a word puzzle. The thought experiment violates experience because clearly we CAN pour out a glass of water. The paradox tells us that something is wrong, to wit, infinity is a linguistic construct but can’t be used like other mathematical objects in propositions in the sense of being a possible state of affairs in the world.

Similarly, one can imagine an infinite chain of dominos, but if such were a possible state of affairs in the world, it would be impossible for any particular domino to fall in a finite amount of time. But this conflicts with what we see in real life. Thus, something is wrong here too, to wit, the construct of an infinite causal chain is a linguistic, symbolic entity only, and can’t be used to describe the world in the same way that other mathematical entities are.

Just as the mental conception of being able to pour out a glass by halves (infinite divisibility) is stopped in its tracks by the existence of indivisible material particles, so too the supposition of an infinite causal chain reveals an analogous real limit, the being and presence of a first cause.

That infinite divisibility and infinite causality are purely linguistic, symbolic constructs is discussed in a subtle and profound way in Wittgenstein’s “private language argument” in the Philosophical Investigations.

 

[John_Mortell]

I’d respond with a sound refutation, if I honeslty felt that your comments warranted an adequate response that would go appreciated. I’m just not interested enough to criticize you. Think what you will of me, however, there are just certain things that do not interest me much, namely, the repetitive ignorance of a christian thinker. At times I’ll attempt to intellectually challenge the psychologically primitive and self-delusioned man, however, such attempts are too often futile.

If you say so… Do you really have to act so dramatic, James? Calm down a bit.

Perhaps if you would sincerely like to debate, we can do so informally through the private message system;

Ok.

 

[Mike_O]

James Kanatous:

I’d respond with a sound refutation, if I honeslty felt that your comments warranted an adequate response that would go appreciated. I’m just not interested enough to criticize you. Think what you will of me, however, there are just certain things that do not interest me much, namely, the repetitive ignorance of a christian thinker. At times I’ll attempt to intellectually challenge the psychologically primitive and self-delusioned man, however, such attempts are too often futile. I ask myself, “How important is this to me? What will I gain?” I don’t know. . . . Perhaps if you would sincerely like to debate, we can do so informally through the private message system; I’ve lost all interest in this particular forum.

You say you’ve “lost interest” because you no longer have any valid point to make.

Your entire argument has collapsed around you, so your tactic involves backing out and appearing as though your intellect is simply superior to the level of debate.

Nice try, but that strategy is way too transparent.

 

[Sarpedon]

Experience makes our judgement reliable. Experience shapes our judgement into an art; into belief. Logic is a wonderful example, and so are the sciences. I know things. People know things. You know things, and this is because you, too, experience many things: here and there, at all times, everywhere.

‘Walking’ towards truth is a product of our cognition, most obviously. This is known through experience. Where does cognition come from? Hundreds of thousands of years of natural evolution, I believe. There’s nothing ‘spiritual’ about it.

(my emphasis)

Do you judge this to be true? If so, then you seem to be creating a circular argument.