James R:
Which religious-esque pronouncement of mine?
Opening post.
What observable faults? What data which shows failure at the extreme macroscopic?
Larger universe than expected from the Big Bang model. 90 percent of the mass missing. No known explanation for the heterogenous mass concentration of the universe. Some discrepancies in redshift and quasers being too young.
That's a non-problem. Nothing in relativity says that spacetime cannot expand faster than the speed of light.
1. Space time is a "substance" which is energetic in nature. Energy propogates at a maximum of C.
2. There is no known way for spacetime to expand past C. Nor is this experimentally verifiable.
Enterprise-D:
Why? Empirical verification can simply mean undeniable sight of existence. Why can't an infinite being be perceived? You assume omnipotence requires infinity.
Ask yourself whether you can see the end of an infinite line. If you can't, then you see why God is empricially unobservable. There is no way to prove any of his attribute sby reference to the senses.
This was also not in regards to omnipotence, but to omnipresence and existence.
Conversational: maybe an omnipotent being is infinite. An omnipotent being however can limit its appearance.
No infinite being can limits its appearance. This is an absurdity. This would require a limitation of that which has no limits to constrict.
It's a flaw, therefore hardly a complete or logical argument. Since is is incomplete and/or illogical, it hardly holds as "proof".
The flaw is in its lack of simplicity compared to another argument, not in the argument itself. ONe would ideally want to be able tos ummarize an argument for God without extensive lines of argument. This cannot be provided by a system that address the Primve Mover correctly.
Omnipotence is not "setting everything in motion". Where did you pull that definition from? Omnipotence is having the ability to accomplish anything. Why however does that mean that an omnipotent being STARTED anything.
As LightGigantic has pointed out: If there is other power in the universe, then one is not omnipotent. Omnipotence requires complete and utter power belonging to oneself.
Moreover, it is certainly an act of omnipotence to set -everything- in motion. This requires infinite exertion.
Proof of possibility (of ID) is not proof of reality.
It places on a rational level of discussion.
It casts reasonable doubt, since by definition darwin's theory is independent of any "supreme guidance" thereby proving that ID isn't the 'absolute' solution. Bear in mind that ID is another name for creationism with a few sciency sounding words thrown in.
Actually, there is nothing in Darwinian evolution that requires independence from supreme guidance whatsoever. Just that is the most reasonable thing to suspect, as there is no positive evidence for a watcher.
All contingent things are necessarily more complicated than a necessary thing, because they require the existence of perhaps an infinite variety of other things, as well as no firm basis for their existence. To discuss a contingent thing one must address empirical evidence, whereas a necessary thing is capable of being known a priori.
Apologies. Then why bother to even try to substantiate these irrelevant and waterless arguments?
Philosophical rigour and a respect for great thinkers, both Atheists and Theists, alike. Also, some of the definitions of God certainly apply to existence as a whole. Any reasonable ontology and metaphysics requires such considerations.
That's why it is not offered as factual.
At times, they sure seem to be "jumping the gun".
Huge assumptions. Major assumptions. Massive assumptions. Unjustifiable assumptions. Assumptions with far reaching ramifications.
I agree. But it is a valid argument -if- the Euthypro argument can be dealt with.
"a thing cannot exist without its source". So when old people die, their children die too? When a car's factory shuts down, does the car disappear? When a given amount of Na and Cl are combined, would the resulting salt be instantly destroyed because the Na and Cl no longer exist as elements? Will this post disappear when I log off and get back to work?
Amend it to read "a thing cannot exist without its source's existence at the time of the causal event which created it."
The ontological argument is bunk. It requires assumption, and too much human perception and (bad) judgement.
Actually, it requires no assumption whatsoever. It is a pure a priori proof of God, which makes it so appealing because it requires nothing but necessity to discuss.
For example, why do these humans think they are hopped up enough that they can even conceive the "greatest" being" ever?
Easily: Logical extremes. For nistance, omnipresence is a matter of an infinite scope of existence.
And who says the "greatest being" ever can't expire or cease somehow?
The greatest being would have to be necessary, which means eternal.
And why would the "greatest being" even bother to create any bioligical entities for the sole purpose of worshipping it...a need to stroke an ego is definitely NOT one of the properties I would ascribe to the "greatest being" ever conceived.
That isn't an attribute of God - that is an attribute of Judeo-Christianity. In essence, worship is not here being discussed.
1a. all of these "metaphysical" systems seem to be methods of trying to fit paranormal and the unexplained into everyday logic. Or else why bother to invent the word "metaphysical"
Metaphysics has nothing to do with the paranormal or supernatural. Those are parapsychological considerations. Metaphysics means "after physics". It stems from a work by an untitled Aristotle which was catalogued at Alexandria after physics, hence, "metaphysics". It has since become a discipline of philosophic study which includes theology, ontology, and first principles.
Dualism is the metaphysical proposition that there exists two substances: The mental and the material. Descartes is probably the most well known dualist.
