Your time upon this earth is ending...

[Cottontop3000]

The day of thy reckoning is at hand. You WILL die the death:

"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."

Dune - Frank Herbert

 

[geeser]

However, when the five rational proofs of the existance of God are presented

I cant wait to see this, go ahead, show us these proofs.
james randi will give a million and I'd be your dog.
it only take one instant of a thing, to prove that a thing exist.

 

[Cottontop3000]

Because God gave me the proof that he's inquiring about. And to that, he responds by calling me imaginative/delusional/lying. Which I think is worse than saying someone is wrong/mistaken. And soooooo...if he already wants to believe that there is no possible proof, then why in the hell is he inquiring of it????? Hmm....

Okay. Because I think we all would like to know, 100%, for sure. Because we think it is unfair of an omni-God to choose some and not others, if he exists. What proof did He give you, by the way?

 

[Lawdog]

Here are the five proofs.......

 

[Cottontop3000]

Here is the first proof:

Monastery of St. Paul

There is nothing there Lawdog.

 

[Lawdog]

Here is THE First Proof)

Everthing in Nature is changing, even things that seem permanent. only God does not change

THE FIRST WAY: Everything in the world changes. Aquinas' argument here needs to be understood against the background of Aristotle's discussion of astronomy. Aristotle argued that planetary motion which caused the seasons to change required an unmoved mover who would maintain the order of things. Aquinas used this notion to speak of the sustaining work of God. Thus without God the heavens and the earth would not exist. [The phrase in bold presumes that the potential for something to become something else cannot be actualised in itself. This has been challenged by certain modern day evolutionary theorists (E.g. Richard Dawkins), who seek to present a materialist view of the physical realm which does not require any external agent (E.g. God)), and the law of the conservation of energy which states that the amount of energy in the world is constant (therefore questioning the 'input' of any external agent.]

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved must itself be moved, then this also needs to be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover, seeing as subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.


Here is the next proof:

It is a creature that does not exist, (at least as far as we know).



Things exist in the world but they need not. There was a time before certain things existed and there will be a time when they no longer exist. There must also have been a time when nothing existed. Objects have contingent existence (they can or cannot exist) but only God has necessary existence (God must exist). Thus if God did not exist nothing else would exist.

Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing.Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. (Aquinas)

[The text in bold assumes that God created the world ex nihilo (out-of-nothing). This could be challenged by some cosmologists today who would argue that although there was no form to matter before the 'Big-Bang' there was still matter. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing.

 

[Lawdog]

The next proof:

The evils and sorrows of THIS WORLD are a result of Our Sins.

The notion of cause and effect means you cannot have the latter (effect) without the former (cause - here called efficient cause (which refers to that which brings another thing into existence or causes something to change)). There cannot be an endless regression of cause and effect thus there must be a first cause which is God.

The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, or intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.


[The phrase in bold shows how there would be nothing if there was not an original cause of everything and, as far as Aquinas is concerned, challenges the notion that the physical realm is infinite (i.e. has always existed). The philosopher Leibniz also reflected on the origin of the physical realm and famously discussed why there was something (i.e. a physical realm - matter, life, a world, a universe etc.), rather than nothing.]

 

[Cottontop3000]

You're calling these proofs?

 

[Lawdog]

Here is a fourth proof: The order of perfection.

Ancient Coptic Monastery of St. Paul in Egypt

Traditionally in Coptic monasteries, the highest story is dedicated to the archangel Michael, but since he is already the titular saint of the large church in the center of the monastery, here the third floor has a chapel dedicated to the Holy Virgin, which is roofed with a wooden cupola. There are also cells for the monks on this level of the tower.

Monks live dedicated to the life of perfection.

We can see in the world degrees of perfection and goodness. We know these degrees because we can compare them with the maximum in any genus (genus = group of things). As humans have the capacity for both good and bad deeds they cannot be the source of all goodness. Therefore, the maximum in the genus of morality must be God (the most perfect being), who is the 'first cause', or source, of all goodness and perfection.

microscopic protezoans, many celled, sensitive animals, fish etc, higher animals, rational animal (Man), priests, monks, angels, saints, Virgin Mary, God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But more and less are predicated of different things according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest, and, consequently, something which is most being, for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being... Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus, as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things, as is said in the same book. Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.


Here is the Fifth Proof:

Everything created is designed with a purpose in mind

Nature points to the notion of order in that things seem to have an innate sense of purpose (design?). We know that nothing that has purpose does so without the aid of a 'guiding hand' (E.g. an archer shooting an arrow at a target) thus everything in nature is directed to its goal by God. [Aquinas' formation of the Design Argument here is slightly different from the traditional view as presented, for example, by William Paley (see Paley's Watch). Aquinas agrees that there is order and purpose in the world but adds to this that inanimate objects (E.g. Planets), could not have ordered themselves, lacking the intelligence to do so, and so have been ordered by a Being with intelligence who could (which would be God).]

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

 

[Lawdog]

those are the five proofs

 

[Raithere]

Okay, you changed the whole thing around on me while I was replying.
I'll post again when I finish replying to the altered version.

~Raithere

 

[Lawdog]

I think that you should meditate longer on the Five Proofs, as your criticism are not really reasoned well. On your central points I reply:

the heirarchy of Being is measured the ability to take in new levels of information, not by reproductive success.

1) you accuse the proofs of circular reasoning, but the one who designed the proofs was a master of Logic, more profound than any logician today.

2) Quantum physics is barely able to explain itself, the weight of proof falls on that theory, not on the theists.

3) God created Time, he is outside of Time, He is uncreated.

I read the arguments and found them rather wanting and spacious. I am done for today. I recommend you think harder on these things.

 

[superluminal]

Lawdog,

Your proofs are fool-proof. Get it?

I think that you should meditate longer on the Five Proofs, as they are not proofs by any concievable definition. On your central points I reply:

loadacrap.

 

[geeser]

Here is THE First Proof)
the five reasons for god

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved must itself be moved, then this also needs to be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity,

but by this logic it must continue ad infinitum. for me there is no such despair in the idea of the infinite.

because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover, seeing as subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand.

but lets say you eventually arrive at a begining, then there must by this logic again be an end therefore it cannot be a god as your god is without end.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

no you think it could be a god not everyone,
this is not a proof just an hypothesise.
it seems your asking us to accept that this deity exists from infinity to infinity, And this then means that it all comes down to the same thing in the end.
But let us suppose for a moment that we agree with this specious argument. By what possible leap of mental gymnastics do we suppose that the Christian god is the First mover? I see no logical necessity for reaching such a conclusion. Perhaps, rather, we could have the Devil, old Lucifer himself, as First mover? There are certainly sufficient grounds for backing his candidature for the post of god. After all the world is shot through with evil and it would be entirely reasonable to suppose the First mover is, ipso facto, itself evil. That is. if we really could define evil!
There is not the slightest logical necessity why we should put the Christian god or any other godling down as First mover. All we may safely say is that we do not know the First mover, if there has to be such. To derive the conclusion from such logical debate that there is a god back there at the beginning is an impossibility.

 

[Raithere]

Okay, we'll look at this again:

The first thing to note is that your' first and third proofs really only use a single logical argument (the second is closely related but different enough that I'll address it separately). Whether you term it "prime mover", or "first cause" you're still describing the same argument. For simplicity, let's call it the first cause argument. There are several problems with this argument:

It assumes that our notions of causality always apply. This is refuted by observations on the quantum level where everyday causality does not apply. Where effect can precede cause and objects can move from one point to another without crossing the space between.

It assumes that time is infinite. According to relativity matter, space, and time are aspects of the same thing. Therefore, time did not exist prior to the existence of the Universe. This invalidates the problem of infinite regression. Actually, the refutation is somewhat unnecessary because the answer of God doesn't resolve the problem anyway.

The assignment of the attribute "uncaused cause" is arbitrary. You have not established that God/Jehovah and only God may possess the attribute. Nor have you established that only God is exempt from requiring a cause. You just assigned it at whim. We may just as logically postulate that there are many gods that are uncaused. Or, more simply, we may assign the attribute to the Universe itself.

Everthing in Nature is changing, even things that seem permanent. only God does not change.

An interesting aside but have you considered the consequences of this assertion? Thought and action require change. If God does not change then he is inert, incapable of thought or action.

Second Proof:

Objects have contingent existence (they can or cannot exist) but only God has necessary existence (God must exist).

Both of your premises here are fallacious:

Your first premise, that objects have contingent existence, is erroneous. Nothing we can perceive is essentially contingent. Everything in the Universe is made of energy, which is permanent. It never disappears, it only changes form. The only thing that is contingent therefore is form.

Your second premise commits the fallacy of circular reasoning. It includes your conclusion. God has necessary existence, therefore God exists.

Here is a fourth proof: The order of perfection.

Goodness is a value judgment not an implicit attribute. It may not even be a constant depending upon the situation (not enough water is bad but too much is also bad). It is not derived from another source but determined by one's beliefs and one's ethics. Change the beliefs, change the values, and you change the order. Therefore to establish that an "order of perfection" even exists one must first establish that there is a single set of ethics by which an order can be established. You have not done so.

microscopic protezoans, many celled, sensitive animals, fish etc, higher animals, rational animal (Man), priests, monks, angels, saints, Virgin Mary, God.

Your hierarchy is arbitrary. If we examine these things from a standpoint of reproductive success, for instance, you would reverse the order.

Here is the Fifth Proof:

Nature points to the notion of order in that things seem to have an innate sense of purpose (design?).

"Seem to" does not suffice. This becomes yet another circular argument. You have ascribed purpose and then look for the author of intent. First you must establish that "things" do indeed have purpose.

The order expressed in the Universe is simply defined by the laws of energy and the fundamental forces. That is all that is required. No additional 'governance' is needed. No matter the level of study no additional mysterious animating principle has been found. Several centuries of physics has made this abundantly clear. From the motion of the stars, to a protein folding within a cell thing operate the way they do due to certain fundamental principles and there is not an iota of evidence to support the notion that they are being controlled by some invisible intelligence.

~Raithere

 

[Cottontop3000]

"The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again......There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time."

Robert Jordan, author of The Wheel of Time series.

 

[geeser]

I was going to continue, however raithere excellent rebutals.
excellent.

 

[Raithere]

I think that you should meditate longer on the Five Proofs, as your criticism are not really reasoned well. On your central points I reply:

I rewrote mine after you rewrote yours. But there's really no reason for me to "meditate" on this old stuff. The only question is how thoroughly I should bother addressing arguments that have long since been contested.

the heirarchy of Being is measured the ability to take in new levels of information, not by reproductive success.

You haven't demonstrated that this is the only way to establish a hierarchy of being or that it's somehow significant.

Also, have you measured/compared this ability in monks, saints, the vigin mary, and God? Or are you assuming you know their properties?

you accuse the proofs of circular reasoning, but the one who designed the proofs was a master of Logic, more profound than any logician today.

It is what it is. Aquinas had the misfortune of operating under mistaken premises. In any case, this now is an appeal to authority and thus fallicious in it's own right.

Quantum physics is barely able to explain itself, the weight of proof falls on that theory, not on the theists.

The proof is in the facts, not the theory. Observation confirms that our common conception of causality does not apply on the quantum level.

God created Time, he is outside of Time, He is uncreated.

If God exists outside of time then God is incapable of action.

~Raithere

 

[Yorda]

Observation confirms that our common conception of causality does not apply on the quantum level.

And there are no reasons to question the observation itself? You know, it's the observation which doesn't work on quantum level.

 

[Raithere]

And there are no reasons to question the observation itself? You know, it's the observation which doesn't work on quantum level.

Observation still works. You just can't observe something without affecting it.

~Raithere