Irrefutable series part 1: An Argument For the Existence Of An Intelligent Cause Revised

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Just repeating your previous point will not validate that answer. All you are doing now is saying that you are right and I am wrong.

Clearly that is not true.

The point is physical reality is moving from potentiality to actuality, and a necessary act of existence does not.

If you wish to challenge the idea that a necessary act of reality does not change (which if you really knew what you were doing you would have done so in the first place) then by all means challenge it. But to assert that i haven’t given an argument for my position is just being dishonest.

Where have I said that you have given no argument? You are simply asserting that your argument is right and that mine is wrong.

We both agree - obviously, that reality is a movement from one state to another. If you want to insist that that is better described by moving from potential to actuality, then be my guest. Whichever way it is described, the process is cleary promoted and guided by nature. That’s your necessary-being.

 

[IWantGod]

An infinite loop does not have a begining. It makes no sense to ask why.

It is meaningless to ask if it has a temporal beginning. But one still needs to justify the belief that it necessarily exists and does not depend on something else for it’s existence. It is not meaningless to ask why in that sense. Why is there something rather than nothing at all.

 

[IWantGod]

You are simply asserting that your argument is right and that mine is wrong.

I have given an argument for why your argument is wrong, and you haven’t addressed it.

 

[IWantGod]

If you want to insist that that is better described by moving from potential to actuality

That’s precisely what it is.

 

[IWantGod]

That’s your necessary-being.

A necessary act of reality does not move from potentiality to actuality. That’s why you are wrong. There is no assertion here.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

An infinite loop does not have a begining. It makes no sense to ask why.

It is meaningless to ask if it has a temporal beginning. But one still needs to justify the belief that it necessarily exists and does not depend on something else for it’s existence. It is not meaningless to ask why in that sense. Why is there something rather than nothing at all.

It’s still a different discussion.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

That’s your necessary-being.

A necessary act of reality does not move from potentiality to actuality. That’s why you are wrong. There is no assertion here.

So here we get to the nitty gritty. Reality does move from potential to actual. Nature being the governing force. It therefore cannot be described as a necessary act in the sense that you want to use it in the system as I perceive it.

Apples and oranges.

You need to discuss your argument with someone who already agrees with you.

 

[IWantGod]

Reality does move from potential to actual.

Physical reality does yes.

Nature being the governing force.

Call it what you want, we are still talking about something that is moving from potentiality to actuality.

It therefore cannot be described as a necessary act

Correct. Therefore physical reality is not a necessary being and requires a cause for it’s existence. You have already seen my argument for why i think there must be a necessary act of reality.

Accept it or ignore it, that is up to you.

 

[Bradskii]

Therefore physical reality is not a necessary being and requires a cause. You have already seen my argument for why i think there must be a necessary act of reality.

It doesn’t require a cause. It requires something which enables it to move from potential to actual. Hydrogen isn’t caused to transition to helium. It just needs a situation which enables it to do so under certain conditions. It does so naturally.

And nature fulfills that requirement.

 

[IWantGod]

It doesn’t require a cause.

A necessary act of reality does not change. Physical reality does change. Therefore physical reality is not a necessary act of existence. That which is not a necessary act of existence does not exist in virtue of it’s own nature, otherwise it would necessarily exist because it is it’s nature to exist. Therefore it requires a cause for it’s existence.

All this talk of nature being a governing force and descriptions of physical transitions as an explanation for why change is occurring is besides the point and is only useful for confusing the issue.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

It doesn’t require a cause.

A necessary act of reality does not change. Physical reality does change.

Hey, let’s reverse the equation:

Physical reality does change. Therefore it can be described as a necessary act.

So what is the enabler that allows this? Well, it’s an integral part of the system and we call it ‘nature’.

 

[IWantGod]

Hey, let’s reverse the equation:

Revise it all you want, it doesn’t help your cause.

Physical reality does change. Therefore it can be described as a necessary act.

That a thing necessarily exists compared to the idea that it is the nature of physical reality to change are two different concepts, and it doesn’t help your case.

A necessary act of reality does not change. Physical reality does change. Therefore physical reality is not a necessary act of existence. That which is not a necessary act of existence does not exist in virtue of it’s own nature, otherwise it would necessarily exist because it is it’s nature to exist. Therefore it requires a cause for it’s existence.

 

[Bradskii]

A necessary act of reality does not change. Physical reality does change. Therefore physical reality is not a necessary act of existence.

Physical reality does change. A necessary act of reality does not change. Therefore physical reality is not a necessary act.

 

[AlNg]

I don’t think so.

You have no theological authority to dictate.

Do you believe that this is a quote from the LORD:
“if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I thought to do to them. “ Jer 18: 8
Did the LORD say this or not? Yes or No?