Without presenting an exhaustive argument, any composition of parts requires an external explanation. For a being to be the cause of its own composition in any such way it would have to exist prior to its own existence, which is non-sensical. If a part is instead responsible for the arrangement of the whole, then the part is more fundamental than the whole and is itself a cause of the whole. For something to be the First Cause, it must not in itself be caused by anything else. Any attributes or properties that require an extrinsic cause or reason cannot belong to the First Cause. This is demonstrable by reductio. If the First Cause is composed of parts, the First Cause requires an extrinsic cause for the arrangement. If the First Cause requires a cause, it is not the First Cause. But that is absurd, and what we were considering as the First Cause must therefore not be the First Cause. All of this is encompassed in the idea of Divine Simplicity. All of these arguments are very specific to avoid arbitrary claims and special pleading. IWesrock:
How so? Why can’t God have a noodly appendage if he wants? Why put limits on God like that?
The Bible could have used tentacle metaphors in addition to human metaphors or eagle metaphors or what have you. It doesn’t change the fact that these are basically anthropomorphisms and that the First Cause is not a flying noodle thing, or a bird, or a man, but instead exists (insofar as the word “exists” can be applied to it) without parts or extension through space or change, that it is Subsistent Existence in itself.
There can be a logical conclusion, not a demonstration, to X, but why can’t that X be multiple things that started at X? They are all, as a group, the first cause. Because what ever started the deity off can be argued to start off multiple what-evers.
Logical conclusion, not a demonstration.
Disagree - again, (logical conclusion, not a demonstration)something could have the power to start off a universe, but not have the power to control or interact with it or it self annihilated to create the universe as well as far as I understand it.
Disagree (logical conclusion, not a demonstration) - it just needs to demonstrate that it knows more than we do. For example: if all we can understand about reality is to the precision of 4 decimal places and person A comes along and can understand reality to 6 decimal places and person B comes along to know reality to 10 decimal places. The humans can’t tell if person A or person B actually knows everything or if they just know more than we do. This is how we could fall for a superior technologically advanced race as a deity.
Disagree (logical conclusion, not a demonstration) - perfect and good are subjective terms. I want to know its reference point for what is perfect and what is good. IE: your deity is good or is there a good the deity is referencing, so we can bypass the deity and learn the good for ourselves.
Okay, why does faith please it? I assume this is about a relationship right? It looks for people that are faith based minded types as a quality of personality that it desires for the people it wants a relationship with. Like how I need to know that the people in my life are not psychotic. I don’t see how having faith is a good quality to have though since the theists have defined faith as the belief in things with no evidence and/or reasons. That is how I would define gullibility. I want to earn the love and affection from people that have the ability to hold me to a standard that I need to live up to. So if I fail that, I deserve to loose their respect and relationship because I failed at being the better version of myself.
Can you explain this more? I don’t know what you mean by spirit to move people.
Okay, sounds nice.
What did we do to “fall” other than just being human? I don’t agree that people are born broken. We have the ability to become broken or keep striving to improve. No one lives a perfect life because we don’t know everything about the event or the people we are with. But if we ignore those experiences of how we failed people and keep doing bad things, then we are a failed person. It may not be our fault for the bad environment we were put in, but it is our responsibility to do something positive with that.
I don’t need or want eternal life. That reward doesn’t work for my motivations to do good or follow anyone.
Do you know if Aquinas for example associated his prime mover with anything whatsoever other than the god in which he already believed?Bradskii:
Those arguments rule out the possibility that it’s a flying noodly thing, invisible unicorn, etc…
But yes, the demonstrations are for monotheism in general, not Christianity in particular. One would need good reasons to support getting from monotheism to Christianity. No doubt about that. Though you write as if that was never addressed by the likes of Aquinas or others.
You don’t seem to have heard the arguments for oneness, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, or perfectly good, so it seems odd to simply say that arguments you’ve never heard don’t conclude to it being God.
A reasoned argument starting from a given working by logical necessity to a conclusion is a demonstration.Wesrock:
There can be a logical conclusion, not a demonstration,
The arguments aren’t based on the start of the universe but on any current instance of something being composite, having an potential actualized, etc… Going back to the start of the universe is completely unnecessary. The demonstrations are all based on a First Cause being required for all current and continuing action. The idea that there was a First Cause that then stopped causing and let things run on its own is ruled out by the arguments I have in mind.Wesrock:
Disagree - again, (logical conclusion, not a demonstration)something could have the power to start off a universe, but not have the power to control or interact with it or it self annihilated to create the universe as well as far as I understand it.
Always being there before does not imply that it will stay forever after a point.
Do you think I actually made an argument for omniscience? I didn’t. I said there is one. I didn’t make one.Wesrock:
Disagree (logical conclusion, not a demonstration) - it just needs to demonstrate that it knows more than we do. For example: if all we can understand about reality is to the precision of 4 decimal places and person A comes along and can understand reality to 6 decimal places and person B comes along to know reality to 10 decimal places. The humans can’t tell if person A or person B actually knows everything or if they just know more than we do. This is how we could fall for a superior technologically advanced race as a deity.
The arguments I have in mind clearly define what is meant by perfectly and good, too. Again, I didn’t actually make any of these arguments here. I simply said that there are demonstrations out there that the First Cause must have these attributes.Wesrock:
perfect and good are subjective terms. I want to know its reference point for what is perfect and what is good. IE: your deity is good or is there a good the deity is referencing, so we can bypass the deity and learn the good for ourselves.
Yeah I don’t brush up on those arguments from other people. Apologetics and ontology bores me to tears, so I just have conversations with people to see what they have to present and go with that.
Okay didn’t know you took that position.
Okay lets explore this. What are your points on this. That’s what I understand so far.
I guess I did since you listed it. I was just responding to each point you listed out.
Okay, I don’t understand why these should be ascribed that way then. Isn’t perfect and good subjective to the person applying them? Or are you talking about the idea of a perfect circle. That is not subjective to the person applying it. The idea of perfect love, is subjective to each person though.
He did compare and contrast Christianity with other major belief systems, such as Islam, and explain why Christianity was better supported. I certainly understand bias, but him being Christian does not in itself make his arguments on that wrong.Wesrock:
Do you know if Aquinas for example associated his prime mover with anything whatsoever other than the god in which he already believed?Bradskii:
Those arguments rule out the possibility that it’s a flying noodly thing, invisible unicorn, etc…
But yes, the demonstrations are for monotheism in general, not Christianity in particular. One would need good reasons to support getting from monotheism to Christianity. No doubt about that. Though you write as if that was never addressed by the likes of Aquinas or others.
Well… if I’m not particularly troubled by that, is it a bad thing? Was there a more clever rebuke there that went over my head (as occasionally occurs)?
It’s that God is whom we want Him to be. He is a reflection of ourselves. He is made in our image.Bradskii:
Well… if I’m not particularly troubled by that, is it a bad thing? Was there a more clever rebuke there that went over my head (as occasionally occurs)?
Joe believes the world is flat, so he starts developing arguments which prove that. He then compares those arguments with those of the spherical world proponents and explains why the flat earth ones are better supported.
Q. “The existence of God and some at least of His attributes are revealed” How so?
Q. If faith is belief without evidence or reasons, …How do you determine who is right?
Indeed. ‘Nauru’ is actually a Polynesian word meaning ‘the state of disregard for the well being of political refugees’. As in: ‘The current elected government in Australia are completely nauru’.
He is not an “it”, but a person. He is pleased that we walk by faith because faith sees the Spirit, which is good, kind, compassionate, loving, hopefull, merciful, bold, wise, etc. The Father created us to know Him and follow Him. Flesh and blood (our intellect and mind) cannot see Him. Our mind is created and to be used, but not to be a moral guide.
To compel someone to action.
We betrayed God. We disobeyed the perfect Spirit, whom gave and sustained our life. Are you familiar with Adam and Eve?
Not sure I believe you here. If you truly dont want eternal life, you must not love life. Maybe you dont… i dont know.
That conveniently avoids saying anything about Global Warming example.
You can’t make an improvement here. What, are you going to compare how “best method” and “candidate method” measure truth? How are you going to find out the right answers in a way that could beat the “best method”?
So, you want the excuses like “Beliefs can’t be chosen.” and “Beliefs are inevitably based on evidence.” to excuse you but not them.
No.
I guess we have.
You know who proposed the “Big Bang” theory and the accelerating universe, right?