(August 18, 2015 at 8:02 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 14, 2015 at 5:23 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: K~.....But I'm not holding my breath just in case.

You know, Randy said he'll get around to it....Some 2 months ago -_-

I did? Sorry...

Yep. You said you'd do it but you don't want to have too many threads active at once. So if you have any time, feel free to do it anytime here.

Speaking of which....anybody seen Kingpin? ._.

(August 14, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: I've asked this from several people multiple times, and never got an answer. Needles to say my curiosity remains unsatisfied.

So would any of you, nice, pretty, tasty god fearing men and women be so kind and present to me, step by step, your line of reasoning in going through this progression:

First cause
V
deistic deity
V
Theistic god
V
abrahamic god
V
your particular abrahamic god
V
your particular denomination's god
V
your personal version of this god

Really, really pretty please? ._.

(I realize that the last two may be the same thing depending on the circumstances, so feel free to merge them if you like)

I'm going to cover this rather quickly. We determine that God must exist primarily by reason and logic. The first cause of which you speak is just one of the many ways that human reason can come to understand that God must exist. If true, then the question of whether that God is deistic or theistic depends on Him; theists believe (based in part upon recorded history and in part upon their own experience) that God has revealed Himself and is, therefore, theistic by definition.

So, here is the brief overview:

1. First Cause.
Peter Kreeft says, "The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. We have to become complex and clever in order to doubt or dispute it. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is. [Source]

Since the "first cause" is defined as God, and ALL monotheists worship the one Creator, the rest of this is somewhat superfluous. But we can move on to

2. Deistic deity.
By definition, that which causes or brings all other things into existence is God; thus, if there is a first cause, then we have arrived at deism which is defined as "belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe." [Source.]

The great monotheistic religions of the world believe that God has stepped into history as recorded in their sacred scriptures; hence, we arrive at

3. Theistic god
By definition, theism is "belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures." [Source.]

For three of the world's religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, this interaction began to accelerate with Abraham, and this brings us to:

4. Abrahamic god
Abraham was the father of Isaac (Israel) and Ishmael. From these two sons, Judaism and Islam are descended. And within the context of Judaism, the messianic promise of God led to fulfillment in Jesus, founder of Christianity.

5. Your particular denomination's god
I am a Catholic, and all Catholics worship the same God as the Jews and Muslims as noted above. However, Jews, Christians and Muslims ascribe and/or emphasize different attributes to this God; for example, Christians understand that God is a trinity of persons whereas Jews and Muslims do not.

6. Your personal version of this god
I do not believe that I have a "personal version" of God that differs radically from that of the Catholic Church, the majority of Christian denominations or the Jews and Muslims. However, I would need to know more about Muslim theology to be sure.

I suspect this is not the answer you were looking for...if not, maybe if you re-formulated the question, I could come closer.

(August 18, 2015 at 8:39 am)Randy Carson Wrote: 1. First Cause.
Peter Kreeft says, "The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. We have to become complex and clever in order to doubt or dispute it. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is. [Source]

Since the "first cause" is defined as God, and ALL monotheists worship the one Creator, the rest of this is somewhat superfluous. But we can move on to

Woah woah woah. Hold the phone mate.

The first cause is in no way defined as god. The first cause is the creator of the universe immune to infinite regress. That's as much as you can get from the cosmological argument.

Why does it need to be even conscious?
Why is it impossible for the universe to be created by something that wasn't?

This is one of the fundamental flaws with using Kalam for the existence of god. In this argument you define god as not having a beginning, when anywhere else this is neither his only nor most identifying characteristic. Kalam only supports something not needing a cause that triggers the beginning of the universe. Calling it god is a non sequitur, it does not follow.

You establish something as the creator, and then slap a 'and we can call that creator god' at the end. Yes, we can call that many things and it COULD be many things, but why is it necessarily even a deity, let alone your particular one?

(August 18, 2015 at 8:05 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(August 18, 2015 at 8:02 am)Randy Carson Wrote: I did? Sorry...

Yep. You said you'd do it but you don't want to have too many threads active at once. So if you have any time, feel free to do it anytime here.

Speaking of which....anybody seen Kingpin? ._.

Sorry vic, was gone for a few days with family stuff.  I'm back now!

Here's my response:

First cause:  Everything physical no matter how you slice it can only get the explanation for its existence outside itself.  Causation is either self-caused, uncaused or caused by another.  Self-caused is self defeating.  So the first cause must be something that is uncaused and non-physical.

Deism:  An always existing (uncaused) spirit that brought in to existence all things.  I find the first cause premise to be logical, so getting to Deism is a natural step.

Theism:  This is where some cannot make the logical leap.  There three major monotheistic religions in the world.  Islam, Judaism and Christianity.  For me the leap revolves around the person of Jesus Christ, his fulfillment of messianic prophecy, his death and resurrection in history, the explosion of the early church and willingness of the disciples and apostles to die for the gospel message lends credence to its truth for me.

Abrahamic God:  See above

As far as my particular Abrahamic God, I would say that we don't all believe in a different God, but we all have differing viewpoints of God in how our personal lives have been affected by belief in Him.  

I am personally non-denominational, and actually have a lot of issues with "religion" in general and the approach the church takes on many issues.  Belief in God is a personal thing, a personal relationship and should stay as such.  

My personal version of this God is as I explained above, will be subjective to the personal experiences in my life.

Same question. Why does it need to be conscious?

And how exactly would Jesus make the connection? That doesn't make sense. What of Muhammad, John Smith, thousands of other prophets? They don't fill the logical gap between the first cause and a theistic god. You're doing the same thing Mystic did: approaching it in reverse. You're starting with Jesus and ending up with first cause. The logical order is exactly opposite. Through what process of elimination did you arrive at Jesus Christ, starting at first cause?

Thanks for answering btw, both of you.

(August 18, 2015 at 9:54 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Same question. Why does it need to be conscious?

And how exactly would Jesus make the connection? That doesn't make sense. What of Muhammad, John Smith, thousands of other prophets? They don't fill the logical gap between the first cause and a theistic god. You're doing the same thing Mystic did: approaching it in reverse. You're starting with Jesus and ending up with first cause. The logical order is exactly opposite. Through what process of elimination did you arrive at Jesus Christ, starting at first cause?

Thanks for answering btw, both of you.

Vic, you are right, at least in my case at approaching it from reverse.  I certainly started at Jesus and tested backwards for logical consistency and coherence.  I looked in to Islam and pantheism as well.  Muhammad was a mere man who when he was getting the revelation from Allah did not know what was happening and it was his wife Khadijah who took him to her Christian cousin Waraqah who claimed it Gabriel revealing this to Muhammad.  Islam borrowed many things from Judaism and Christianity and refer to Deut. 18:18 as the prophecy of Muhammad.  Jesus on the other hand did not claim to be a messenger or receiving revelation from God.  He claimed to be God.  He performed miracles, forgave sin, paid the ultimate price and rose again.  Far different from Muhammad.  But if you don't accept any of those things happening in Jesus life, or even that he existed at all I can understand the difficulty in leaping.  

Every religion in the world if you remove its founder or the leader of its movement, it could continue on, with the exception of Christianity.  If you remove Christ, from Christian, you are left with IAN and Ian can't help you.  

Christianity has a uniqueness in it.  In every other religion, you pay the price for your mistakes.  In Islam, your good deeds must outweigh your bad and you must follow the Five pillars.  In Hinduism every birth is a rebirth paying for the previous life until you achieve moksha.  In Christianity, Christ pays for all mankind's mistakes and one simply has to accept the gift of salvation by grace.

(August 18, 2015 at 9:54 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Same question. Why does it need to be conscious?

For me this one is logical.  Because consciousness as we understand is an outworking or byproduct of an intelligent mind and the world is intelligible (can be understood and has order and laws) then the first cause must be an intelligent mind and therefore conscious.  Only intelligent minds with conscious can bring forth ordered, purposeful complexity.

(August 18, 2015 at 9:54 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Same question. Why does it need to be conscious?

And how exactly would Jesus make the connection? That doesn't make sense. What of Muhammad, John Smith, thousands of other prophets? They don't fill the logical gap between the first cause and a theistic god. You're doing the same thing Mystic did: approaching it in reverse. You're starting with Jesus and ending up with first cause. The logical order is exactly opposite. Through what process of elimination did you arrive at Jesus Christ, starting at first cause?

Thanks for answering btw, both of you.

Good question.
Why does the first cause need to be very much like a human mind and can be understood in terms analogies to human mind? The lack of a real answer to this question is the reason why I'm an atheist.

(August 18, 2015 at 10:23 am)lkingpinl Wrote:

(August 18, 2015 at 9:54 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Same question. Why does it need to be conscious?

For me this one is logical.  Because consciousness as we understand is an outworking or byproduct of an intelligent mind and the world is intelligible (can be understood and has order and laws) then the first cause must be an intelligent mind and therefore conscious.  Only intelligent minds with conscious can bring forth ordered, purposeful complexity.

Machines can product complexity. Why not something like a computer?

(August 18, 2015 at 10:33 am)Pizza Wrote:

(August 18, 2015 at 10:23 am)lkingpinl Wrote: For me this one is logical.  Because consciousness as we understand is an outworking or byproduct of an intelligent mind and the world is intelligible (can be understood and has order and laws) then the first cause must be an intelligent mind and therefore conscious.  Only intelligent minds with conscious can bring forth ordered, purposeful complexity.

Machines can product complexity. Why not something like a computer?

And do computers/machines arise by natural unguided processes to produce the complexity?  No they are designed by intelligent minds to do so.