The existence of an Absolute Intelligent First Cause has been proven to exist with absolute metaphysical certainty. So why are people still atheists?

[IWantGod]

Those who look for proofs are saying Christ crucified wasn’t enough, he died for us but that’s not sufficient. Which Paul says is rank foolishness, since:…

…whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. - Phil 3

"A second passage that speaks of God’s revelation through nature is Romans 1:18-21. Paul wrote.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of humanity who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that humans are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened (Romans 1:18-21)."

So is Paul a fool? I don’t mean any disrespect but i think you should learn to read scripture in its proper context.

 

[HarryStotle]

Those who look for proofs are saying Christ crucified wasn’t enough, he died for us but that’s not sufficient.

I guess this all depends upon what Paul is getting at when he says Christ crucified “wasn’t enough.”

Surely, you aren’t claiming that what Paul was getting at is that Christ crucified is “enough” to explain why the universe exists, or why God created living things and humanity, or why you are you and I am I?

Are you claiming that Christ crucified explains absolutely everything, the final and sufficient reason that anything exists at all.

Why don’t we simply give up trying to understand anything at all about the universe, how to organize ourselves politically on earth, how best to make moral judgements, throw out all learning and simply meditate on Christ crucified because that is sufficient.

Methinks you are confusing necessary and sufficient. Yes, it is absolutely necessary to understand why we are here to get a handle on why Christ was crucified, but I wouldn’t suppose Paul would claim everything else is just a big nothing burger.

Relatively speaking, it might be true that if we don’t get why Christ died for us, the rest is mere skubala, but what he might be insisting is that Christ’s crucifixion gives infinite significance and meaning to what otherwise would have the net worth of a rotting fish.

 

[inocente]

So is Paul a fool? I don’t mean any disrespect but i think you should learn to read scripture in its proper context.

Paul is making an a posteriori argument there. He would know that no a posteriori argument can prove anything. Since it is based on experience rather than pure logic. Exactly the same reason why all scientific knowledge is provisional.

“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile”. So, to help me learn from you, oh exulted master, do you think Paul would say you glorify God and giving thanks to him by using the label “Intelligent First Cause” or do you think he might say it’s futile to turn God into an hypothesis?

Which, may I remind you, we’re still waiting for?

I guess this all depends upon what Paul is getting at when he says Christ crucified “wasn’t enough.”

Surely, you aren’t claiming that what Paul was getting at is that Christ crucified is “enough” to explain why the universe exists, or why God created living things and humanity, or why you are you and I am I?

Are you claiming that Christ crucified explains absolutely everything, the final and sufficient reason that anything exists at all.

Why don’t we simply give up trying to understand anything at all about the universe, how to organize ourselves politically on earth, how best to make moral judgements, throw out all learning and simply meditate on Christ crucified because that is sufficient.

Methinks you are confusing necessary and sufficient. Yes, it is absolutely necessary to understand why we are here to get a handle on why Christ was crucified, but I wouldn’t suppose Paul would claim everything else is just a big nothing burger.

Relatively speaking, it might be true that if we don’t get why Christ died for us, the rest is mere skubala, but what he might be insisting is that Christ’s crucifixion gives infinite significance and meaning to what otherwise would have the net worth of a rotting fish.

You forgot Paul asks "Where is the wise person? He asks “Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”.

“For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him”. You can have all your proofs and all your knowledge and all your wisdom, and great, much better than ignorance. Very much agreed.

But, Paul says, with all of that, “the world through its wisdom did not know him”.

 

[IWantGod]

1. Out of absolute nothingness comes nothing

2. Something evidently exists. The denial of the first claim results in a Reductio ad Absurdum. So it cannot be the case that there was a point where all things didn’t exist. Therefore something necessarily exists.

 

[inocente]

I’m thinking you’re writing your argument on the hoof.

But note, God is not a thing. There can be absolute no-thing-ness with or without God, since God is not a thing and therefore makes no difference to no-thing-ness.

 

[IWantGod]

Paul is making an a posteriori argument there. He would know that no a posteriori argument can prove anything

Which is why he said…

his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that humans are without excuse.

In other-words we have knowledge or can achieve knowledge from which we cannot excuse ourselves. It is clearly evident that Paul is saying we can know God’s existence through reason and for that very reason we have no excuse.

I’m sorry, you made an error and now you are trying tell us that Paul knows something to the contrary so that you can bask in the glory of your fideism.

It stands to reason that Paul would not have bothered saying that at all if we couldn’t truly reason to and truly know the existence of God through reason. He wouldn’t have said that we have no excuse otherwise.

His statement is clear and your interpretation is unsound.

 

[IWantGod]

1. Out of absolute nothingness comes nothing
2. Beings exist. The denial of the first premise results in a Reductio ad Absurdum. So it cannot be the case that there was a point where all all beings didn’t exist. Therefore some being necessarily exists.

 

[HarryStotle]

Paul is making an a posteriori argument there.

Yup.

He would know that no a posteriori argument can prove anything.

Well, now YOU are making an a priori argument that “no a posteriori argument can prove anything,” which you cannot know for certain without assuming it a priori.

Since it is based on experience rather than pure logic.
Exactly the same reason why all scientific knowledge is provisional.

How can we know for certain that experience can never be sufficient to prove something without merely assuming that it can’t. Perhaps an experience or set of them can be sufficient, there is no way to know that purely by past experiences, i.e., a posteriori .

You might insist that, but you can’t prove it merely by experience. That is precisely your contention, so unless you want to undermine your whole argument, you need to retract the “can never” implication of your statement.

“For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him”. You can have all your proofs and all your knowledge and all your wisdom, and great, much better than ignorance. Very much agreed.

But, Paul says, with all of that, “the world through its wisdom did not know him”.

Clearly, Paul says that the wisdom of the world “did not know him”, he doesn’t say, “The world through its wisdom CAN NEVER know him.” That would be your addition to Paul’s words.

Given that revelation and revelatory experiences have been part of the human experience, i.e., Christ’s crucifixion happened as part of human history and certain facts obtained, perhaps it is now, after the fact, possible to argue from human wisdom, based upon historical premises to the implications of what the crucifixion entails about God, his nature and his existence.

Since it is based on experience rather than pure logic.
Exactly the same reason why all scientific knowledge is provisional.

If all scientific knowledge IS currently provisional (an a posteriori claim), that does not entail all scientific knowledge is necessarily provisional nor that it will necessarily remain provisional forever. That would make your claim about human knowledge an a priori one.

Care to provide an infallible proof for that?

 

[MPat]

The existence of an Absolute Intelligent First Cause has been proven to exist with absolute metaphysical certainty. So why are people still atheists. Are Atheists irrational?

Strictly speaking, yes, there is a sense in which they are irrational.

But that is not unexpected. For example, it has also been proved that 0.9999… = 1 with absolute certainty. It does not mean that everyone is persuaded.

And those mathematical proofs are very simple (at least proofs of Gods existence are not that easy for everyone to understand).

But it is easy to see that “0.9999…” and “1” look differently. And that is the only evidence many people care about.

Oh, well, even in this case, “blessed are those who believe [proof] without seeing”. For they will be right.

And if it is easy to be unpersuaded by proof in that case, likewise, it is easy to fail to “see” God. And thus all proofs are ignored.

And it is even easier to ignore the strongest proofs when one has some reason to want the contrary conclusion. And many do want that God wouldn’t exist. Or that God’s existence would be unprovable.

What proof is this? The world eagerly awaits.

How about the proof that “the world eagerly awaits” first?

 

[rossum]

So you will concede that the “material universe of science,” (I.e., all matter, space-time and energy) that comprises the STEM universe began at a determinable moment in the past …

Very probably, yes, given that the definition of “moment” might be difficult, depending on exactly how time worked at the instant of the Big Bang – there is more than one possibility currently being examined.

… and had to have been caused by a non-temporal, immaterial, non-spatial and eternal cause, (I.e., the underlying foundation of the ATE universe)?

Taking those points in order:

• Non-temporal? Possibly, possibly not, as I indicated above.
• Immaterial? In what sense? Since energy and matter are interconvertible then I doubt if the multiverse is a zero energy entity. Hawking’s argument applies to the STEM universe, not the multiverse.
• Non-spatial? Some cosmological theories start with eleven dimensions, not four. In the sense of “more than three” then yes, non-spatial. In the sense of zero dimensions, then no.
• Eternal? Again, how do you measure “eternal” when we are not sure of time? There is no requirement for the cause to be eternal; Leonardo da Vinci caused the Mona Lisa, and he is dead, though his painting still exists. You will have to provide more evidence on this point.

rossum

 

[inocente]

inocente:

Paul is making an a posteriori argument there. He would know that no a posteriori argument can prove anything

Which is why he said…

his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that humans are without excuse.

In other-words we have knowledge or can achieve knowledge from which we cannot excuse ourselves. It is clearly evident that Paul is saying we can know God’s existence through reason and for that very reason we have no excuse.

I’m sorry, you made an error and now you are trying tell us that Paul knows something to the contrary so that you can bask in the glory of your fideism.

It stands to reason that Paul would not have bothered saying that at all if we couldn’t truly reason to and truly know the existence of God through reason. He wouldn’t have said that we have no excuse otherwise.

His statement is clear and your interpretation is unsound.

You brought up the passage in the context of proof and you’ve now agreed Paul isn’t trying to give a proof.

Now, consider. You alleged I don’t know how to read scripture, now you accuse me of fideism. Yet you don’t know me from Adam. Which implies you jump to conclusions on insufficient evidence, and are having trouble arguing your corner without ad hominem. You’ve far too many “tells” to bluff successfully at poker dude, it’s way too easy to read you.

It stands to reason that Paul would not have bothered saying that at all if we couldn’t truly reason to and truly know the existence of God through reason. He wouldn’t have said that we have no excuse otherwise.

His statement is clear and your interpretation is unsound.

Paul says “God’s invisible qualities…have been clearly seen”. The invisible is seen - he’s making a play on words, meaning the invisible can be inferred from observation. Not deduction, as in proof. Inference, as in science.

 

[inocente]

1. Out of absolute nothingness comes nothing
2. Beings exist. The denial of the first premise results in a Reductio ad Absurdum. So it cannot be the case that there was a point where all all beings didn’t exist. Therefore some being necessarily exists.

1. Out of absolute nothingness comes nothing
2. Donuts exist. The denial of the first premise results in a Reductio ad Absurdum. So it cannot be the case that there was a point where donuts didn’t exist. Therefore some donut necessarily exists.

 

[IWantGod]

Donuts exist. The denial of the first premise results in a Reductio ad Absurdum. So it cannot be the case that there was a point where donuts didn’t exist. Therefore some donut necessarily exists.

Accept i never argued that any particular being necessarily exists. I said some being necessarily exist since out of absolutely nothing nothing comes.

You’re not very good at this.

 

[inocente]

Well, now YOU are making an a priori argument that “no a posteriori argument can prove anything,” which you cannot know for certain without assuming it a priori.

Nope, no assumptions. It’s simply that you cannot deduce from previous observations that it’s logically necessary for the Sun to rise tomorrow. You can assume it will, with high probability, but you cannot logically prove it will.

How can we know for certain that experience can never be sufficient to prove something without merely assuming that it can’t. Perhaps an experience or set of them can be sufficient, there is no way to know that purely by past experiences, i.e., a posteriori .

You might insist that, but you can’t prove it merely by experience. That is precisely your contention, so unless you want to undermine your whole argument, you need to retract the “can never” implication of your statement.

I’m thinking you could read up on deductive reasoning compared to Inductive reasoning.

Clearly, Paul says that the wisdom of the world “did not know him”, he doesn’t say, “The world through its wisdom CAN NEVER know him.” That would be your addition to Paul’s words.

Paul is making a very obvious statement, not sure how come you can’t see it.

Do you need a proof that your wife exists? No. Why? you know her. Would a proof that your wife exists help you know her any better? Would it help you love her better? Would you rather have a theory or a wife? Could a theory replace her? No, that’s foolishness.

No theory (Paul says) could ever replace Christ crucified. Can you love a theory? Can a theory give you salvation? Can a theory die for you?

If all scientific knowledge IS currently provisional (an a posteriori claim), that does not entail all scientific knowledge is necessarily provisional nor that it will necessarily remain provisional forever. That would make your claim about human knowledge an a priori one.

Care to provide an infallible proof for that?

As I say, read up on deduction vs. Induction and you’ll understand the proof.

 

[IWantGod]

You brought up the passage in the context of proof and you’ve now agreed Paul isn’t trying to give a proof.

I fail to understand what you are getting at. Paul clearly means that we can know of God’s existence through reason.

 

[inocente]

Accept i never argued that any particular being necessarily exists. I said some being necessarily exist since out of absolutely nothing nothing comes.

I never said any particular donuts exist.

You’re not very good at this.

Try writing your posts without any ad hominems. You wouldn’t be bullying if we were face to face (trust me you would not).

I fail to understand what you are getting at. Paul clearly means that we can know of God’s existence through reason.

Paul always reasons. And he’s not trying for a proof.

Strictly speaking, yes, there is a sense in which they are irrational.

But that is not unexpected. For example, it has also been proved that 0.9999… = 1 with absolute certainty. It does not mean that everyone is persuaded.

For the unconvinced…

How about the proof that “the world eagerly awaits” first?

Romans 8:19

 

[IWantGod]

Try writing your posts without any ad hominems. You wouldn’t be bullying if we were face to face (trust me you would not).

Try writing without producing straw-men, then i might think you take philosophy seriously. And i am sorry but your rebuttals are not very good. They are just caricatures which suggests that you don’t take the conversation seriously…

 

[IWantGod]

You can deny it all you want but my argument holds true.

"A second passage that speaks of God’s revelation through nature is Romans 1:18-21. Paul wrote.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of humanity who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that humans are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened (Romans 1:18-21)."

 

[inocente]

Even after asking you twice to stop with the ad hominems, you keep on.

My ride’s here, I have to go now. I was hoping to see your OP promised absolute certain proof today. Promises, promises, eh? Maybe tomorrow. Or maybe you decided to go with Romans 1 and give up all that absolute intelligent first cause stuff. Probably the wise thing to do. Or maybe another day of insults to cover your retreat. One can hardly contain one’s excitement

 

[IWantGod]

Goodbye and Godbless