L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I do it for the sake of members here and for readers from the outside that may not follow philosophical reasoning very well.
Linus2nd
- Status
Linus2nd
K
KingCoil
Guest
Dear readers here, I will just post again a message which I used to display for some days continually in my transmission in this thread.
So, if you have any reaction, please just reply to any point in the text below:
quote ]
Welcome to this thread, please read post 1 and post 101, for a proper orientation to the thread. Thanks. * See below for the reproduction of posts 1 and 101. ]*
I plan to put this notice at the top of every post I write, so that folks can get to know what the thread is all about; please be guided accordingly.
KingCoil
Thanks, Linus2 for your post.
KingCoil
So, if you have any reaction, please just reply to any point in the text below:
quote ]
Welcome to this thread, please read post 1 and post 101, for a proper orientation to the thread. Thanks. * See below for the reproduction of posts 1 and 101. ]*
I plan to put this notice at the top of every post I write, so that folks can get to know what the thread is all about; please be guided accordingly.
KingCoil
ANNEX
QUOTE=KingCoil;11889096 ]
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 1
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 2
/quote ]
QUOTE=KingCoil;11913065 ]
Well. let’s go back to the topic of this thread.
Here are the snapshots of my division of human certainty and my argument for the inferential certainty of God’s existence.
Part 1 division of human certainty
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11893837&postcount=25
Part 2 argument for God
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11900782&postcount=55
/QUOTE ]
/quote ]
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 1
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 2
/quote ]
QUOTE=KingCoil;11913065 ]
Apr 19, '14, 3:41 pm #101
Well. let’s go back to the topic of this thread.
Here are the snapshots of my division of human certainty and my argument for the inferential certainty of God’s existence.
Part 1 division of human certainty
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11893837&postcount=25
Part 2 argument for God
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11900782&postcount=55
/QUOTE ]
/quote ]
Thanks, Linus2 for your post.
KingCoil
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
But your argument is based on the assumption that the universe has a beginning. As Thomas Aquinas said, if it were proveable that the universe had a beginning, it would be relatively easy to prove the existence of God. However he was not convinced that it was possible to prove the universe had an existence. Therefore he designed his Five Ways which do not depend on the idea that the universe had a beginning. He also said, we know the universe had a beginning but only because God has revealed this to us.
Linus2nd
Y
ynotzap
Guest
King Coil: Linus 2 is right. No l of your presentation is self-evident and correct
No. 2 is an assumption prove it No.3 show logic and proof No.4 its a theory, who initiated the Big Bang, if there was one. No.5 again why? No 6 prove it. No.7 prove it, theory No.8 Conclusion- non sequitur.
Let me illustrate: The cause and effect argument, based on self-evident principles. When you are in the metaphysical thought you will be dealing with self evident principles. they shine by their own light, the light of reason.
If we go from cause to effect through a series of events we experience a real phenomenon in our daily lives. Logically if we go from effect to cause backwards, we will eventually come to the first cause. Now the first cause,either caused itself, or it didn’t If it didn’t .then it would not be the first cause. If it was the first cause, then it caused it self to exist. If it causes itself to exist, then existence must be its nature. Human experience shows we had a beginning, if we had a beginning then the first cause must be an uncaused cause, this uncaused cause is who we call God, and that we didn’t always exist, we had a beginning. I hope this helps you to know what is involved in proving God exists by rational argument. In inferential thinking you start with a known fact,God exists then you state your reasons drawn from logic and facts to show how you reached your conclusion. It must be logical, and self-evident There is the deductive method starting from facts and logic to reach your conclusion that God exists As you know we can’t start with a divinely revealed truth. It must be approached from human reason, and we can only go so far. We show our faith is reasonable. I admire your efforts, but we all need guidance, we are human and fallible, a fact some seem to have trouble acknowledging.
No. 2 is an assumption prove it No.3 show logic and proof No.4 its a theory, who initiated the Big Bang, if there was one. No.5 again why? No 6 prove it. No.7 prove it, theory No.8 Conclusion- non sequitur.
Let me illustrate: The cause and effect argument, based on self-evident principles. When you are in the metaphysical thought you will be dealing with self evident principles. they shine by their own light, the light of reason.
If we go from cause to effect through a series of events we experience a real phenomenon in our daily lives. Logically if we go from effect to cause backwards, we will eventually come to the first cause. Now the first cause,either caused itself, or it didn’t If it didn’t .then it would not be the first cause. If it was the first cause, then it caused it self to exist. If it causes itself to exist, then existence must be its nature. Human experience shows we had a beginning, if we had a beginning then the first cause must be an uncaused cause, this uncaused cause is who we call God, and that we didn’t always exist, we had a beginning. I hope this helps you to know what is involved in proving God exists by rational argument. In inferential thinking you start with a known fact,God exists then you state your reasons drawn from logic and facts to show how you reached your conclusion. It must be logical, and self-evident There is the deductive method starting from facts and logic to reach your conclusion that God exists As you know we can’t start with a divinely revealed truth. It must be approached from human reason, and we can only go so far. We show our faith is reasonable. I admire your efforts, but we all need guidance, we are human and fallible, a fact some seem to have trouble acknowledging.
K
KingCoil
Guest
QUOTE=ynotzap;12054585 ]
King Coil: Linus 2 is right. No l of your presentation is self-evident and correct
No. 2 is an assumption prove it No.3 show logic and proof No.4 its a theory, who initiated the Big Bang, if there was one. No.5 again why? No 6 prove it. No.7 prove it, theory No.8 Conclusion- non sequitur.
Dear ynotzap, please just choose one or two consecutive items in the argument below to comment on, so that we will not be overloaded as to get lost.
Originally posted by KingCoil ]
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11900782&postcount=55
Apr 15, '14, 2:23 pm
So, let me show you how we arrive at the inferential certainty of God’s existence:
I prefer that you do not use the term self-evident because atheists do not accept any statement described as self-evident, owing to its being a case of begging the question; use instead this term, experientially certain – then you can show how the statement can be validated by describing how humans experience it, so it is a fact.
Take up at most at one time only two items consecutive ones of my argument above, so that we will not find ourselves lost.
KingCoil
King Coil: Linus 2 is right. No l of your presentation is self-evident and correct
No. 2 is an assumption prove it No.3 show logic and proof No.4 its a theory, who initiated the Big Bang, if there was one. No.5 again why? No 6 prove it. No.7 prove it, theory No.8 Conclusion- non sequitur.
- etc., very long paragraph ]
Dear ynotzap, please just choose one or two consecutive items in the argument below to comment on, so that we will not be overloaded as to get lost.
Originally posted by KingCoil ]
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11900782&postcount=55
Apr 15, '14, 2:23 pm
#55
So, let me show you how we arrive at the inferential certainty of God’s existence:
1. The universe exists.
2. In the universe everything in it has a beginning.
3. Wherefore everything in the universe has need of a cause to bring it to existence.
4. Next, scientists tell us the universe as a whole has a beginning.
5. Wherefore the whole universe as one item has need of a cause to bring it to existence.
6. Let us go into the universe to observe and examine everything and come to conclusion that everything in it has a beginning: so everything in the universe has a cause.
7. For the universe as a whole and as one item, scientists tell us it has a beginning: so the universe as a whole and as one item has a cause.
8. Conclusion: we have inferential certainty of the existence of the cause of the universe as one whole, one item, and also everything in the universe that makes up the composition of the universe, and we identify the cause of the universe as corresponding to the concept of God in the Christian faith, namely, as the creator of the universe.
That is the argument from the concept of God to the existence of God by way of inference from the logic and the facts: that everything with a beginning has a cause (the logic) and the facts that everything making up the universe does have a beginning, and scientists tell us the whole universe has a beginning.
/quote ]
2. In the universe everything in it has a beginning.
3. Wherefore everything in the universe has need of a cause to bring it to existence.
4. Next, scientists tell us the universe as a whole has a beginning.
5. Wherefore the whole universe as one item has need of a cause to bring it to existence.
6. Let us go into the universe to observe and examine everything and come to conclusion that everything in it has a beginning: so everything in the universe has a cause.
7. For the universe as a whole and as one item, scientists tell us it has a beginning: so the universe as a whole and as one item has a cause.
8. Conclusion: we have inferential certainty of the existence of the cause of the universe as one whole, one item, and also everything in the universe that makes up the composition of the universe, and we identify the cause of the universe as corresponding to the concept of God in the Christian faith, namely, as the creator of the universe.
That is the argument from the concept of God to the existence of God by way of inference from the logic and the facts: that everything with a beginning has a cause (the logic) and the facts that everything making up the universe does have a beginning, and scientists tell us the whole universe has a beginning.
/quote ]
I prefer that you do not use the term self-evident because atheists do not accept any statement described as self-evident, owing to its being a case of begging the question; use instead this term, experientially certain – then you can show how the statement can be validated by describing how humans experience it, so it is a fact.
Take up at most at one time only two items consecutive ones of my argument above, so that we will not find ourselves lost.
KingCoil
Y
ynotzap
Guest
the universe exists evident by the senses( the material universe)
In the universe everything has a beginning, prove it, the premise is an assumption. you made suppose as and atheist I deny it, prove to me to me that everything has a beginning, I think the world created itself. and always existed.
In the universe everything has a beginning, prove it, the premise is an assumption. you made suppose as and atheist I deny it, prove to me to me that everything has a beginning, I think the world created itself. and always existed.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
addition: Inferential certainty is not a certainty of the senses, but a certainty of the mind by the use of proper logic The logic: If the material universe didn’t exist we could not sense it’(in spite of your adverse reaction: by logic it is self evident, but I will refrain as much as I can from its use but not when I deem it necessary) By the way an optical illusion or a mirage (not real) are sensed by the senses, how do we differentiate them from the real world.? Are the senses reliable? Some questions an atheist might ask, can you answer?
K
KingCoil
Guest
Thanks, ynotzap, for your reply.
quote=KingCoil ]
quote=ynotzap_A ]
To argument lines #1 and #2 above ]
the universe exists evident by the senses( the material universe)
In the universe everything has a beginning, prove it, the premise is an assumption. you made suppose as and atheist I deny it, prove to me to me that everything has a beginning, I think the world created itself. and always existed.
/quote ]
quote=ynotzat_B ]
addition: Inferential certainty is not a certainty of the senses, but a certainty of the mind by the use of proper logic The logic: If the material universe didn’t exist we could not sense it’(in spite of your adverse reaction: by logic it is self evident, but I will refrain as much as I can from its use but not when I deem it necessary) By the way an optical illusion or a mirage (not real) are sensed by the senses, how do we differentiate them from the real world.? Are the senses reliable? Some questions an atheist might ask, can you answer?
/quote ]
I will answer ynotzap_B first.
So, what is your point, that inferential certainty is not certainty?
You keep asking questions, but you should have a point, not questions.
Now, to ynotzap_A.
My statements:
1. The universe exists.
2. In the universe everything in it has a beginning.
Your rebuttal:
the universe exists evident by the senses( the material universe)
In the universe everything has a beginning, prove it, the premise is an assumption. you made suppose as and atheist I deny it, prove to me to me that everything has a beginning, I think the world created itself. and always existed.
You say, “I think the world created itself. and always existed.”
That is impossible, because it is against logic, for if the universe has to create itself then it already exists, or as you put it, it “always existed.” Can you get that? If you cannot get that, then I guess it is impossible for you to talk sense with folks who do know what is logic.
Now, how do I prove that the universe has a beginning? I have the word of scientists.
You see, ynotzap, you have to always keep to intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, and that is impossible with you if you do not acquire the discipline of systematic thinking, never neglecting logic and facts as you employ your intelligence.
And also most importantly, when you write you must also adopt some organized system.
KIngCoil
quote=KingCoil ]
Code:
1. The universe exists.
2. In the universe everything in it has a beginning.
3. Wherefore everything in the universe has need of a cause to bring it to existence.
4. Next, scientists tell us the universe as a whole has a beginning.
5. Wherefore the whole universe as one item has need of a cause to bring it to existence.
6. Let us go into the universe to observe and examine everything and come to conclusion that everything in it has a beginning: so everything in the universe has a cause.
7. For the universe as a whole and as one item, scientists tell us it has a beginning: so the universe as a whole and as one item has a cause.
8. Conclusion: we have inferential certainty of the existence of the cause of the universe as one whole, one item, and also everything in the universe that makes up the composition of the universe, and we identify the cause of the universe as corresponding to the concept of God in the Christian faith, namely, as the creator of the universe.
That is the argument from the concept of God to the existence of God by way of inference from the logic and the facts: that everything with a beginning has a cause (the logic) and the facts that everything making up the universe does have a beginning, and scientists tell us the whole universe has a beginning.
/quote ]To argument lines #1 and #2 above ]
the universe exists evident by the senses( the material universe)
In the universe everything has a beginning, prove it, the premise is an assumption. you made suppose as and atheist I deny it, prove to me to me that everything has a beginning, I think the world created itself. and always existed.
/quote ]
quote=ynotzat_B ]
addition: Inferential certainty is not a certainty of the senses, but a certainty of the mind by the use of proper logic The logic: If the material universe didn’t exist we could not sense it’(in spite of your adverse reaction: by logic it is self evident, but I will refrain as much as I can from its use but not when I deem it necessary) By the way an optical illusion or a mirage (not real) are sensed by the senses, how do we differentiate them from the real world.? Are the senses reliable? Some questions an atheist might ask, can you answer?
/quote ]
I will answer ynotzap_B first.
So, what is your point, that inferential certainty is not certainty?
You keep asking questions, but you should have a point, not questions.
Now, to ynotzap_A.
My statements:
1. The universe exists.
2. In the universe everything in it has a beginning.
Your rebuttal:
the universe exists evident by the senses( the material universe)
In the universe everything has a beginning, prove it, the premise is an assumption. you made suppose as and atheist I deny it, prove to me to me that everything has a beginning, I think the world created itself. and always existed.
You say, “I think the world created itself. and always existed.”
That is impossible, because it is against logic, for if the universe has to create itself then it already exists, or as you put it, it “always existed.” Can you get that? If you cannot get that, then I guess it is impossible for you to talk sense with folks who do know what is logic.
Now, how do I prove that the universe has a beginning? I have the word of scientists.
You see, ynotzap, you have to always keep to intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, and that is impossible with you if you do not acquire the discipline of systematic thinking, never neglecting logic and facts as you employ your intelligence.
And also most importantly, when you write you must also adopt some organized system.
KIngCoil
Y
ynotzap
Guest
You are having trouble in interpreting or understanding what I am stating: Inferential certainty is a process of the mind not of material universe, the point is that its the logic that should be of major concern once the evidence of the senses is established, and you fail to answer questions I submitted as an atheist waiting for your answer. The statement was, and refer to the post " Prove that the Universe has a beginning" to an atheist who believes the Universe created itself, I can make it no plainer And I made it as direct and as simple as I could following your suggestions. I even brought the idea of the possiblility that the atheist could question the accuracy of the senses, by the real example of mirage etc. No answers. Just problems in keeping your mind on target. Establish the accuracy of you premise "the Universe had a beginning, prove it. If you can’t, that’s O.K., if you can I’m waiting. If you can’t then your premise is an assumption and no proof
I address the forum am I hard to understand, or unclear in my statement? King coil thinks that I don’t know what I’m talking about, it is frustrating to keep him on target, yet he accuses me of not understanding. Do you think he is right. I think that I am in line with the thinking of St. Thomas and the Church, you be the judge.
I address the forum am I hard to understand, or unclear in my statement? King coil thinks that I don’t know what I’m talking about, it is frustrating to keep him on target, yet he accuses me of not understanding. Do you think he is right. I think that I am in line with the thinking of St. Thomas and the Church, you be the judge.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
How is it against logic for the universe to create itself, thats the answer you fail to give I already gave you the answer in a previous illustration. NO cheating and looking at the answer. I took the place of the atheist, and the atheist’s stqtements are not mine You make some contradictory statements.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
Y
ynotzap
Guest
As I often stated it before, a self evident principle, “You can’t give what you do not have” and if we try frustration is the result, and it’s unfair to demand it. So I won’t expect it or demand it.
I
Ignatius
Guest
If you’re talking to someone who is a materialist (i.e. someone who only believes in what can be seen, heard or measured) try New Proofs fo the existence of God: Contributions from contemporary physics and science by Dr. Robert Spitzer.
BTW, the odds, based on Physics alone, are 10^1023 that God Exists, a virtual certainty.
O
oldcelt
Guest
That a god exists may be a virtual certainty, but whose version? That is the point where things have always gotten sticky. I seriously doubt that science will ever be able to give us that answer.
So, for all intents and purposes, we find ourselves back at faith.
K
KingCoil
Guest
Thanks, Ignatius, Oldcelt, for your participation here.
QUOTE=Ignatius;12059162 ]
If you’re talking to someone who is a materialist (i.e. someone who only believes in what can be seen, heard or measured) try New Proofs fo the existence of God: Contributions from contemporary physics and science by Dr. Robert Spitzer.
BTW, the odds, based on Physics alone, are 10^1023 that God Exists, a virtual certainty.
/QUOTE ]
I concur with your ideas above, that is what I observe time and again, a lot of posters here who are fervent Catholics are not doing philosophy here but Catholic theology.
QUOTE=oldcelt;12059656 ]
That a god exists may be a virtual certainty, but whose version? That is the point where things have always gotten sticky. I seriously doubt that science will ever be able to give us that answer.
So, for all intents and purposes, we find ourselves back at faith.
/QUOTE ]
I have said it already nth times here that God in my threads here is the creator of the universe, that is also the dogma of the Catholic Church according to as the Catholic Church is an advocate of Gen. 1:1 and Apostles’ Creed verse 1.
In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Gen. 1:1
I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth. Apostles’ Creed verse 1
I am acting here as a sincere atheist with an open mind to do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, to engage with theists to settle on the issue whether God exists or not, and I am NOT going to be doing any kind of theology, but plain philosophy that is founded upon intelligent thinking on logic and facts.
So, those two lines one from Genesis and the other from the Apostles’s Creed are not taken as divine revelation, but only as human conclusions from ancient peoples who did do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
KingCoil
QUOTE=Ignatius;12059162 ]
If you’re talking to someone who is a materialist (i.e. someone who only believes in what can be seen, heard or measured) try New Proofs fo the existence of God: Contributions from contemporary physics and science by Dr. Robert Spitzer.
BTW, the odds, based on Physics alone, are 10^1023 that God Exists, a virtual certainty.
/QUOTE ]
I concur with your ideas above, that is what I observe time and again, a lot of posters here who are fervent Catholics are not doing philosophy here but Catholic theology.
QUOTE=oldcelt;12059656 ]
That a god exists may be a virtual certainty, but whose version? That is the point where things have always gotten sticky. I seriously doubt that science will ever be able to give us that answer.
So, for all intents and purposes, we find ourselves back at faith.
/QUOTE ]
I have said it already nth times here that God in my threads here is the creator of the universe, that is also the dogma of the Catholic Church according to as the Catholic Church is an advocate of Gen. 1:1 and Apostles’ Creed verse 1.
In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Gen. 1:1
I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth. Apostles’ Creed verse 1
I am acting here as a sincere atheist with an open mind to do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, to engage with theists to settle on the issue whether God exists or not, and I am NOT going to be doing any kind of theology, but plain philosophy that is founded upon intelligent thinking on logic and facts.
So, those two lines one from Genesis and the other from the Apostles’s Creed are not taken as divine revelation, but only as human conclusions from ancient peoples who did do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
KingCoil
K
KingCoil
Guest
Thanks for your continued presence here, ynotzap.
QUOTE=ynotzap;12059060 ]
How is it against logic for the universe to create itself, thats the answer you fail to give I already gave you the answer in a previous illustration. NO cheating and looking at the answer. I took the place of the atheist, and the atheist’s stqtements are not mine You make some contradictory statements.
/QUOTE ]
I submit this is a very good question for us to settle first, that the universe creating itself is against logic, the statement.
Did you not say,
http://i59.tinypic.com/9vbio5.jpg
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12055223&postcount=393
QUOTE=ynotzap;12055223 ]
the universe exists evident by the senses( the material universe)
In the universe everything has a beginning, prove it, the premise is an assumption. you made suppose as and atheist I deny it, prove to me to me that everything has a beginning, I think the world created itself. and always existed.
/QUOTE ]
And didn’t I explain to you already why it is against logic?
QUOTE=KingCoil;12058448 ]
…]
Your rebuttal:
the universe exists evident by the senses( the material universe)
In the universe everything has a beginning, prove it, the premise is an assumption. you made suppose as and atheist I deny it, prove to me to me that everything has a beginning, I think the world created itself. and always existed.
You say, “I think the world created itself. and always existed.”
That is impossible, because it is against logic, for if the universe has to create itself then it already exists, or as you put it, it “always existed.” Can you get that? If you cannot get that, then I guess it is impossible for you to talk sense with folks who do know what is logic.
Now, how do I prove that the universe has a beginning? I have the word of scientists.
You see, ynotzap, you have to always keep to intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, and that is impossible with you if you do not acquire the discipline of systematic thinking, never neglecting logic and facts as you employ your intelligence.
And also most importantly, when you write you must also adopt some organized system.
/QUOTE ]
So, anyway, tell me what is an example of a statement against logic, if that from you is not one?
KingCoil
QUOTE=ynotzap;12059060 ]
How is it against logic for the universe to create itself, thats the answer you fail to give I already gave you the answer in a previous illustration. NO cheating and looking at the answer. I took the place of the atheist, and the atheist’s stqtements are not mine You make some contradictory statements.
/QUOTE ]
I submit this is a very good question for us to settle first, that the universe creating itself is against logic, the statement.
Did you not say,
http://i59.tinypic.com/9vbio5.jpg
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12055223&postcount=393
QUOTE=ynotzap;12055223 ]
the universe exists evident by the senses( the material universe)
In the universe everything has a beginning, prove it, the premise is an assumption. you made suppose as and atheist I deny it, prove to me to me that everything has a beginning, I think the world created itself. and always existed.
/QUOTE ]
And didn’t I explain to you already why it is against logic?
QUOTE=KingCoil;12058448 ]
…]
Your rebuttal:
the universe exists evident by the senses( the material universe)
In the universe everything has a beginning, prove it, the premise is an assumption. you made suppose as and atheist I deny it, prove to me to me that everything has a beginning, I think the world created itself. and always existed.
You say, “I think the world created itself. and always existed.”
That is impossible, because it is against logic, for if the universe has to create itself then it already exists, or as you put it, it “always existed.” Can you get that? If you cannot get that, then I guess it is impossible for you to talk sense with folks who do know what is logic.
Now, how do I prove that the universe has a beginning? I have the word of scientists.
You see, ynotzap, you have to always keep to intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, and that is impossible with you if you do not acquire the discipline of systematic thinking, never neglecting logic and facts as you employ your intelligence.
And also most importantly, when you write you must also adopt some organized system.
/QUOTE ]
So, anyway, tell me what is an example of a statement against logic, if that from you is not one?
KingCoil
Y
ynotzap
Guest
Quote King coil:
Thats impossible, because it is against logic for if the universe has to create itself then it already existed, or as you say( I add this is not my statement, but I acting as an atheist- keep on target)
How is this against logic, show me why?
Your statement: the universe has a beginning.
My answer: a proof: If the universe had a beginning, it would be caused by a first cause, every thing has a cause in the universe (cause and effect truth gotten from human experience)
The first cause to be the first cause has to be an uncaused cause, because if it was caused it would not be the first cause. The first cause is called the (Primal Cause)
For the primal cause to exist, it would have to have existence as it’s nature, and always existed, infinite. we call the First Cause the Primal Cause, or the Uncaused Cause. God
Creation is finite, not infinite You failed in your reasoning, you did mention truths, but you failed to explain them, I guess you figure because by admitting a known truth, by its inference (implicit and not explicit)was proof enough, and its not you have to be explicit.
To use your own words " Can you get that, if you can not get that, then it guess it is impossible for you to make sense with folks who do know what is logic (your own words convict you)
Thats impossible, because it is against logic for if the universe has to create itself then it already existed, or as you say( I add this is not my statement, but I acting as an atheist- keep on target)
How is this against logic, show me why?
Your statement: the universe has a beginning.
My answer: a proof: If the universe had a beginning, it would be caused by a first cause, every thing has a cause in the universe (cause and effect truth gotten from human experience)
The first cause to be the first cause has to be an uncaused cause, because if it was caused it would not be the first cause. The first cause is called the (Primal Cause)
For the primal cause to exist, it would have to have existence as it’s nature, and always existed, infinite. we call the First Cause the Primal Cause, or the Uncaused Cause. God
Creation is finite, not infinite You failed in your reasoning, you did mention truths, but you failed to explain them, I guess you figure because by admitting a known truth, by its inference (implicit and not explicit)was proof enough, and its not you have to be explicit.
To use your own words " Can you get that, if you can not get that, then it guess it is impossible for you to make sense with folks who do know what is logic (your own words convict you)
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
The Existence of God as demonstrated by St. Thomas in Ente et Essentia
Linus2nd
- Now, whatever belongs to a thing is either caused by the principles of its nature, as the ability to laugh in man, or comes to it from some extrinsic principle, as light in the air from the influence of the sun. But it cannot be that the existence of a thing is caused by the form or quiddity of that thing ─ I say caused as by an efficient cause ─ because then something would be its own cause, and would bring itself into existence, which is impossible. It is therefore necessary that every such thing, the existence of which is other than its nature, have its existence from some other thing. And because every thing which exists by virtue of another is led back, as to its first cause, to that which exists by virtue of itself, it is necessary that there be some thing which is the cause of the existence of all things because it is existence alone. Otherwise, there would be an infinite regress among causes, since every thing which is not existence alone has a cause of its existence, as has been said. It is clear, therefore, that an intelligence is form and existence, and that it has existence from the First Being, which is existence alone. And this is the First Cause, which is God. ( Paragraph 80 )
Linus2nd
K
KingCoil
Guest
I already told you nth times, science tells us the universe has a beginning.
What proof do you want, proof that consists in talking but nothing of objective reality?
You see, ynotzap, you are talking in your mind and wanting me also to talk with you in our each other’s mind.
That is all mind talking to mind.
Afterwards we have to go to objective reality to find the objects or situations actually existing and operating, in objective reality independent of our minds or our talking minds.
I guess unless you want to rebut the finding of science, it is no longer productive to talk to you, because you have resorted to repeating, proof proof proof proof proof…
It is like Zeno insisting that we prove to him that the hare can overtake the tortoise, when every space that the hare covers there is still a part existing between him and the tortoise no matter how short,
But that is all in the mind of Zeno, because in objective reality any animal A that runs faster than another animal B will eventually overtake the latter, even if animal B was given a headstart by animal A.
So, at least we must now go to science and see whether science really tells us that the universe has a beginning.
In your next post here, I invite you to pass to the realm of science.
Isn’t science to be taken as proof that things are existing and operating, and its sister discipline technology has utilized to contrive all manners of machines to make our life easier and enrich it?
Dear readers here, ynotzap will not come down to science, he will again talk in the realm of his mind, proof proof proof proof proof…
Dear ynotzap, please, no more talking all in your mind, get down to objective reality which is the realm of science, you are getting overly unreasonable owing to your stubbornness against seeing the light.
Dear readers here, he will again demand proof proof proof proof proof proof proof proof…
Oh, I almost forget, you want to see how when something is already existing it is against logic to say as you do (and yes we are both talking as atheists) that it created itself?
Can’t you see it? As it already exists then there is no need for it already existing to create itself; perhaps you should talk about how it can or does change itself.
You seem to want to be a fanatical atheist, but I am acting as a sincerely rational atheist with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
One of the giveaway signs of fanaticism is to repeat again and again forever one’s irrational stubborn demand against objective reality, shouting: proof proof proof proof proof proof proof proof…
It’s like a foolish child insisting that he is not naked i.e. without any piece of clothing, shouting “I am all dressed up,” when everyone else dressed up is telling him to see the difference between himself and them, and pointing that out to him by putting a mirror in front of him and themselves everyone else, and even taking photos of them all where he is the lone character without a piece of clothing on his body.
Well, readers here, let us all sit back, and await, observe ynotzap’s next post.
KingCoil
K
KingCoil
Guest
You see, Linus2, you seem to be immune to the idea that when you talk with atheists you must do without bringing in Catholic authorities, in particular writers of the say 1000 years back antiquity; atheists do not give a -]heck/-] care to any authorities, they want to hear from you your very own intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, coined in your very own wording.
But that is what you want to do, just talk to your fellow fervent Catholics; it just so happens that I assume atheists do come to this board because it is into philosophy and not Catholic theology from medieval writers and divine revelation.
I am at this point acting as a sincere atheist with an open mind to inquire into the possibility of theists doing intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, in regard to the issue God or no God.
Now, ynotzap says that he is also into acting as an atheist, but the difference between his brand of being an atheist and mine is that he is into extreme fanatical atheism, which consists in shouting and yelling: no proof no proof no proof… and will not be accessible to talk reason on logic and facts; while my brand of atheism is founded on logic and facts as I do intelligent thinking.
KingCoil
- Status