(May 10, 2016 at 7:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(May 10, 2016 at 7:20 pm)SteveII Wrote: I believe logic, mathematics, and abstract objects (like numbers) are not physical objects and are not a result of the physical universe.  I am not a Platonist and do not think that they are real things that exist necessarily. However, where did they come from? Would they exist in all possible worlds? On theism, it is not logical that these things exist separate from God's existence. So I believe they are properly based in the mind/nature of God, which would give them concrete meaning and applicability. 

Based in the mind/nature of god, and yet somehow unbridgeable by the same god?  This isn't actually the position of theism or "in theism", just your position.  What rational justification is there for this claimed attribute?    Can't we both agree that regardless of the existence of a god..logic, mathematics, and abstract objects exist?  That seems, to me, to be a bare minimum level of agreement for any confidence that you and I live in the same world.  

Quote:Related to the question why God cannot do logically impossible things, God would not be able to do things contrary to his nature. Even further, constructing a sentence that has logical impossibilities like a round square or married bachelor are just a grouping of contradictory words and not really a thing to consider. In the same way, can God count to infinity and lift that rock are not really coherent questions.

Why is it that god cannot do things contrary to it's nature?  What prevents that from happening?  Saying ""it wouldn't be able to" does not answer the question raised...which is -why- it cannot do these things, -why- it "wouldn't be able to".  With this response you've merely restated the initial claim.  I saw it the first time, I was hoping for an explanation.  For example, how it is that logic constrains this god (which we both agree that it does, somehow).  How did it come to pass that the author of the universe became subject to the rules of it's own creation?

When I said these things are part of God's mind/nature I meant it was an intrinsic property and not a created or invented concept. It seems to me that God's mind has to be ordered according to some principles.

(May 10, 2016 at 11:00 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(May 10, 2016 at 9:58 am)SteveII Wrote: You are asking the same thing as "can God make a rock so big that he can't pick it up". No, God cannot do logically impossible things like cvount all the natural numbers.

Does that include creating something from nothing, and if not why not?

What are our choices? 
A) The universe sprang from nothing
B) The universe (or a predecessor) always existed necessarily 
C) God created the universe from nothing

B is difficult to defend because of the infinite regression absurdity. Between A and C, at least you have God as an efficient cause were as A has neither an efficient nor material cause.

(May 10, 2016 at 10:31 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 10, 2016 at 11:00 am)Stimbo Wrote: Does that include creating something from nothing, and if not why not?

What are our choices? 
A) The universe sprang from nothing
B) The universe (or a predecessor) always existed necessarily 
C) God created the universe from nothing

B is difficult to defend because of the infinite regression absurdity. Between A and C, at least you have God as an efficient cause were as A has neither an efficient nor material cause.

Or maybe it was the lizard people. Or a sentient macadamia nut. Or maybe the concept of indoor plumbing created the universe.

(May 10, 2016 at 10:31 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 10, 2016 at 11:00 am)Stimbo Wrote: Does that include creating something from nothing, and if not why not?

What are our choices? 
A) The universe sprang from nothing
B) The universe (or a predecessor) always existed necessarily 
C) God created the universe from nothing

B is difficult to defend because of the infinite regression absurdity. Between A and C, at least you have God as an efficient cause were as A has neither an efficient nor material cause.

If gpd existed timelessly and changelessly, what caused god to change states?

P.S. If god is omniscient, then god knows all events that will occur in the future, even in Heaven/Hell; is not that an actual infinite set?

(May 10, 2016 at 9:58 am)SteveII Wrote:

(May 9, 2016 at 10:04 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Notice how Steve is ignoring my posts; perhaps someone else can answer for him.

You are asking the same thing as "can God make a rock so big that he can't pick it up". No, God cannot do logically impossible things like count all the natural numbers.

Your god can't do miracles?

(May 10, 2016 at 10:59 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: ... However, I think that it really shows a lack of understanding of the premise "everything that begins to exist... has a cause" to think that "begins" can arbitrarily be replaced with "blue".    I can understand the case being made, concerning the ontological argument; however, I think it is misguided here.

I invite you to distinguish the two cases.  I've used the blue argument for years, and nobody has come closer than you to showing me how I'm mistaken.  Why don't you go ahead and explain why making an exception for things unbegun is not just arbitrary and self-serving?

(May 10, 2016 at 11:15 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(May 10, 2016 at 10:55 am)Jehanne Wrote: Seems like special pleading to say that god can create something out of nothing, as others have pointed out.  But, as I have asked (as have others), when did god go from being "timeless" to being "timely" (sorry if that is not the correct word); what caused god to change states?

If I could chime in.  I would still argue, that if you start with nothing on one side of the equation, that you will have nothing on the other side.  I think that the doctrine of "Ex Nihilo" which is derived from scripture, is stating that God created everything  from himself. That there was nothing outside of God, with which he was working.  

As to your second question, I would not say that God changed states, so I can't answer that particular question.

So where did god come from? 

If you say that life can't have started on earth, so it must have been seeded from the starship Panspermia Valdes, you aren't answering the question of how life started; you're just setting it back a step.  Likewise, if you say that matter can't have started with the big bang so it must have been created from the substance of god, you again aren't answering the question of where things came from. 

You wouldn't be satisfied if I said the universe was created in 1987 when it came from 1986.  You can hardly expect us to be more satisfied when you say matter came from the substance of a god.

(May 11, 2016 at 12:17 am)wiploc Wrote:

(May 10, 2016 at 9:58 am)SteveII Wrote: You are asking the same thing as "can God make a rock so big that he can't pick it up". No, God cannot do logically impossible things like count all the natural numbers.

Your god can't do miracles?

You are confusing something that is illogical with something that has no natural causation. A miracle is something that has supernatural causation. Logic does not enter into it at all.

(May 11, 2016 at 6:01 am)SteveII Wrote:

(May 11, 2016 at 12:17 am)wiploc Wrote: Your god can't do miracles?

You are confusing something that is illogical with something that has no natural causation. A miracle is something that has supernatural causation. Logic does not enter into it at all.

So God can do things not in keeping with logic.

(May 10, 2016 at 10:40 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote:

(May 10, 2016 at 10:31 pm)SteveII Wrote: What are our choices? 
A) The universe sprang from nothing
B) The universe (or a predecessor) always existed necessarily 
C) God created the universe from nothing

B is difficult to defend because of the infinite regression absurdity. Between A and C, at least you have God as an efficient cause were as A has neither an efficient nor material cause.

Or maybe it was the lizard people. Or a sentient macadamia nut. Or maybe the concept of indoor plumbing created the universe.

I don't think I will ever understand this comeback. The KCA is properly formed, logically sound, not question begging, not equivocating, and not contradictory. The premises of the KCA, if true, infer the cause of the universe (or its predecessor) to be uncaused, timeless, immaterial, personal, and at least powerful enough to bring a universe into being from nothing. This is all it does. It does not get us to the the God of the Christianity and says nothing about other attributes that God might have.

So, how do we get from that to your comeback?