(November 7, 2016 at 7:27 am)Whateverist Wrote: Is naturalism in need of justification or is it just what we call the bed rock assumption we employ in the practical task of making our way through the world? 

IKR?  

When I want to boil a pot of water I don't waste a minute staring at the pot intently to see if I might be able to excite the molecules with the power of my eye-magic....I turn on the fuckin burner.  

Wanna have a good life, don't worry about whether or not you can get it from wishing to a fairy, just don't be a dick.

This sherlock holmes bullshit about how naturalism can't justify itself....that's window dressing, that shit doesn't matter to the presenter even if it's true, because it's not as if "god" can justify itself either. Special rules for special people and their special beliefs. lol.

(November 6, 2016 at 11:11 am)Mudhammam Wrote: If God is Pure Act of Being then it would seem, by your claim that God creates in time, that He is only sometimes Pure Act, but that his Being and his Act are separable from each other -- which is a contradiction of the notion that by necessity God is Pure Actuality, and that his Actuality is Being, i.e. Pure Act of Being.

 

I didn't claim here that God creates in time, did I? Time is created, for it is the rate of change, and change exist in creation only. So, if God created, then He created not in time, but to be precise, creates time.

(November 6, 2016 at 11:11 am)Mudhammam Wrote: But of course, this is incompatible with the notion of creation, which is the reduction of the Possible into the Actual, and in your view, the reduction of God's Act from potentiality into actuality, which you suggested is but His Pure Act of Being.

God Himself is the Pure Act of Being. Apart from creation, He is still Pure Act of Being. For, if not, He can't be a Pure Act of Being and He will depend on His creation to be a Pure Act of Being.

Creation is not God, for God is Pure Act of Being, while creation is not Pure Act of Being. Thus, creation is not God. If creation in itself is not Pure Act of Being because it is a reduction of potentiality to an actuality and that creation is not God, it follows that there is no contradiction between creation and God being Pure Act of Being. There will only be contradiction, if God is not Pure Act of Being without the creation and then becomes Pure Act of Being with creation. But, via demonstration from the effects we sense around us, there must be a Pure Act of Being Whom is God in order to explain why is there something instead of nothing. So, it seems that you are holding that there is an instance that God is not Pure Act of Being, and that is in instance that there's no creation. However, you didn't consider that creation is from an already Pure Act of Being. This can be compared to the following: Infinite plus one is still infinite and not to be equal any super large number. That goes with God: Pure Act of Being Whom creates is still Pure Act of Being.

(November 6, 2016 at 11:11 am)Mudhammam Wrote: Yes, just as it was demonstrated that the concept of God is superfluous and that manner of being must exist, not wholly but only in its substratum, the part that is pure Act of Being rather than the part that is only a manner.

So, then if His Action was not in Him, which part of His Being relates to his Act?  He is Pure Act of Being, remember.

Of course, creation is also God's action. It is an action of the Pure Act of Being. Now, it seems to me that, for you, for the Pure Act of Being be truly a Pure Act of Being, it must not be able to create, for creating entails reduction from potentiality to actuality and that cannot be for a Pure Act of Being Whom doesn't have any potentiality.

But, in that kind of reasoning, that will make the Pure Act of Being inferior to beings that are not Pure Act of Being, for some of the latter can create in the broad sense of creating, like human persons whom can create ideas, etc.

However, nothing can be superior from the Pure Act of Being.

Thus, you're appeal to the contradiction between creation and the Pure Act of Being must be false.

(November 6, 2016 at 11:11 am)Mudhammam Wrote: But the created things, you claim, existed in God, in potentiality, which is nonsensical, because you also he said he was Pure Act of Being.  So how do all things exist in potentiality in the one thing that is Pure Act of Being, and how do they become reduced to Action without an additional Actuality to cause them to do so?  You also said that God is not a manner of being, but then you said that God was the manner of a creator.  But if God was not always creator, as his Act of creation was at one time potential and not Pure Act, then God subsumed a manner of being, i.e. creator, which contradicts your argument.

So, there we have it. You hold that God and creation are one, for you said:

"So how do all things exist in potentiality in the one thing that is Pure Act of Being, and how do they become reduced to Action without an additional Actuality to cause them to do so?"

But, it is not true that God and the creation are one. For, the former is Pure Act of Being, while the latter is not. Further, I didn't claim that the creation is in God and that the two are really one. Thus, your accusation that I have committed an absurdity in my argument is nothing but a straw man.

(November 6, 2016 at 11:11 am)Mudhammam Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 4:55 am)theologian Wrote: After all, created things are not God.

No, but you said they are his Act, and that God is Pure Act of Being

Indeed creation is God's act and He is Pure Act of Being. But, God being Pure Act of Being doesn't mean that He is Pure Act of Creation. Being Pure Act means not being composite being which is composed of distinct "act of being" and "manner of being". So, you have used the term "act" here equivocally which is fallacious, when you have used it in "Pure Act of Being" and in "Creative Act".

(November 6, 2016 at 11:11 am)Mudhammam Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 4:55 am)theologian Wrote: It's like the case where Socrates didn't really became shorter when his friend became taller. Therefore, God's creation doesn't make Him not Pure Act of Being.

I agree.  That's why your conception of creation in time and God as subsuming the manner of being although at the same time being Pure Act of Being are contradictory and must be discarded into the waste bin of failed arguments.

You think that I hold that God creates IN time. However, time is created IN creation. For, again, time is rate of change, and in God there's no change, so there's no time in God. So, if your objection here is that "God can't be Pure Act of Being, for He creates in time, and creating in time is to be not a Pure Act of Being", then your reasoning is incorrect, because the premise "God creates IN time" is false.

Now, the heart of your objection is that if God creates, then He actualizes a potentiality in Him. However, God is already Pure Act of Being, and it was demonstrated that He must be existing in order to explain why is there something instead of nothing. So if God choose to create the universe from nothing with His Omnipotence, nothing can be added into Him, for He is already the Pure Act of Being. So, your objection is false, because it assumes that God is not yet Pure Act of Being without His creation even though God is Pure Act of Being regardless of the existence or the non-existence of creation and that assumption doesn't consider what's already demonstrated, and to fail to consider some truths in concluding one's objection is to object weakly and to risk committing wrong conclusion. Thus, your objection is seen to be wrong when we have considered what must be considered, namely, God is, always, beyond time, a Pure Act of Being.

(November 6, 2016 at 11:11 am)Mudhammam Wrote: Why would he degrade God-world, where only a loving Pure Act of Being exists, to create one with infinitely inferior creatures with which to share his Happiness?  Do you deny that God is three persons or that there are angelic beings whom never fail to displease God, which offer God a better opportunity to share His happiness and not further degrade God-world -- a place of perfection -- as no conceivable perfect being would freely chose to do?

First, what is God-world? Is it the term which denotes the erroneous concept of the created world and God being one and the same?

I do not deny the Holy Trinity nor the angelic beings, for those are the truths revealed by God Himself and it can be accepted logically in faith, for God knows all and He is Infinitely Good and therefore He cannot be wrong and He cannot lie. The truth of the Holy Trinity also shows that creation is not an addition to God, for in the Holy Trinity, the Father generates the Son in the Holy Spirit eternally.

It seems to me that your objection here is that "it is not fitting for God to create, as it will degrade His dignity".

Nevertheless, nothing can degrade God's dignity, for again and again, He is already perfect by being a Pure Act of Being. Creating creatures to share in His happiness further proclaims His glory, which in turn is the only perfect reason for God's every action. So, if creation of the world glorifies the one Whom is Infinitely generous, then creation of something inferior which are destined to be elevated by sharing in God's happiness to show forth His glory will not obviously degrade God, but on the contrary, will show forth His glory.

(November 6, 2016 at 11:11 am)Mudhammam Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 4:55 am)theologian Wrote: Now, your second point is that matter, energy and particles are the pure act of being. Am I correct with that understanding?

No.  The substratum by and from which matter, energy, and particles naturally began to take their present forms is Pure Act of Being. Everything else is its manner of being.

Ah! So, you are affirming the existence of the Pure Act of Being which is not energy, nor matter, nor particles! That's interesting!

(November 6, 2016 at 11:11 am)Mudhammam Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 4:55 am)theologian Wrote: Matter, energy and particles cannot be Pure Act of Being.

Matter, energy, and particles are a manner of being.  A manner of being is two parts, manner and being.  The being is Pure Act of Being, of which manner -- manner, energy, and particles -- takes but a part, but is not itself Pure Act.

So, for you, the whole world is God and thus your belief is pantheism, is that correct? So, you affirm that God exist, correct? Hence, you may be worshiping the world.

However, I have an objection. God Whom is Pure Act of Being must be a Simple Being. A Simple Being must not be composed of distinct manner of being and and a limited act of being (which is limited by the manner of being). But, the God-world you are holding is composed of 1.) manner of being, as it has matter, energy and particles which has manner of being, and of 2.) act of being which you are calling Substratum. Therefore, your God-world aka Substratum cannot be the Pure Act of Being.

(November 6, 2016 at 11:11 am)Mudhammam Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 4:55 am)theologian Wrote: For, whatever is bounded by space cannot be Pure Act of Being, (for Pure Act of Being is Boundless, and whatever is bounded by space is not boundless).

Pure Act of Being is also bounded by the Eternal Now of time, and space is not boundary but the absence of boundary.  A boundary is involves two points, and a line, from whence we arrive at shape -- and a shape involves body, the lack of which is space.

Pure Act of Being cannot be bounded by space-time, for if so, it will not be Pure Act of Being, and it will have a distinct manner of being in terms of time and space. Further, eternity really means without time. So, if the Pure Act of Being is in Eternity, then God can't be in time.

(November 6, 2016 at 11:11 am)Mudhammam Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 4:55 am)theologian Wrote: But, it is obvious that energy, matter and particles are bounded by space. Therefore, matter, energy and particles are not Pure Act of Being.

Right, only a part of Pure Act of Being, the part of being that is individuated into a manner or form.

Again, the Pure Act of Being is a Simple Being, and so it cannot have parts like matter or energy. Having parts is to be dependent on its parts, and that implies potentiality. But, Pure Act of Being doesn't have any potentiality.

(November 6, 2016 at 11:11 am)Mudhammam Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 4:55 am)theologian Wrote: Now, what I can understand from your post is that manner of being is a perfection. However, manner of perfection is not something. Manner of perfection is what limits the act of being. Manner of Being thus limits and makes lesser the act of being of a being.

But no perfect being would degrade the perfection of God-world.  Therefore, God is not the Pure Act of Being or actuality that caused a manner of being to begin to exist, as "Manner of Being thus limits and makes lesser the act of being of a being."  Therefore, the Pure Act of Being is not perfect or manner of being is not an imperfection.  In either case, your perfect God is necessarily excluded from the choices.

I think you are entirely missing the point here by affirming that God and the created world are one and same being.

(November 6, 2016 at 11:11 am)Mudhammam Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 4:55 am)theologian Wrote: Now, the principle of causality implies that the effect can either be equal or less than the cause, but not greater, for as we both hold: "from nothing, only nothing comes". But, the creation is something lesser which is caused by God Whom is Infinitely Greater than the creation, for creation is limited by its manner of being. So, creation is not against the principle of causality.

Many parts which act as cause to produce one effect have the power to create novel forms, and these forms are a kind of perfection that did not exist in its scattered parts.  Actuality is also greater than Possibility, and your notion of creation involves the latter causing the former, which is the lesser causing the greater as you call it.  The problem with your application of the principle of causality to creation is that you wish to assert the fabulous idea of creation from Pure Act of Being while insisting that Pure Act of Being could be reduced from potentiality to actuality without a further cause or actuality which was the principle requirement by which you arrived at your contradictory conclusion.

In conclusion, you don't consider God first as a Pure Act of Being before thinking about creation. However, the Pure Act of Being is understood by people to be God, and by sound theistic arguments, it can be shown that Pure Act of Being must necessarily exist, and that Pure Act of Being is understood to be God. To ignore this in thinking about creation is to arrive at erroneous conclusion, for every reasoning that are lacking are erroneous, for again, from nothing, only nothing comes, and incomplete premises are partially nothing.

(November 8, 2016 at 7:59 am)theologian Wrote: In conclusion, you don't consider God first as a Pure Act of Being before thinking about creation. However, the Pure Act of Being is understood by people to be God, and by sound theistic arguments, it can be shown that Pure Act of Being must necessarily exist, and that Pure Act of Being is understood to be God. To ignore this in thinking about creation is to arrive at erroneous conclusion, for every reasoning that are lacking are erroneous, for again, from nothing, only nothing comes, and incomplete premises are partially nothing.

Do you realize that arguments like this are not evidence for anything?

(November 6, 2016 at 11:24 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote:

---

(November 5, 2016 at 7:21 pm)theologian Wrote: Aside from particles, we see many other things which its cause can't be determine immediately like crime scenes etc. Does it follow that crime scenes like the particles doesn't have any cause too? Did we really found something such as particles to be without cause other than God Whom is an Uncaused Cause OR we just don't know yet? After all, particles are defined as particles. Where does its limited form came from? The crime scene is also limited in form, for there are scene that are not crime scene and we know that crime must be caused.




I think this is a good time for Atheists to recognize that correct theistic argument for God's existence doesn't argue from the premise that everything has a cause and so be reluctant next time to commit straw man argument fallacy repeatedly. If you want to be free from that fallacy here, you may want to point out that what I really said is that only those which has manner of being has a cause. So, everything that has a cause, has a manner of being. But God doesn't have a manner of being. Therefore God must be Uncaused. Isn't it funny that when atheist is asking "what caused God?", they are asking an absurd question which is "what caused the Uncaused?"? It's like asking: what have you done that you haven't?

So, if the invocation of the atheist of the proposition that everything has a cause is a straw man, then pointing that "if God doesn't have cause, then nothing will have a cause" will be missing the point too.

---

I understand that you fail to have the knowledge of my friend's non-contingent vacuum cleaner. You see, he is a Purple Rabbit from the 26th dimension and his vacuum cleaner created everything. Ya know, since we can just assign properties to things without evidence. So I like my vacuum cleaner theory better than the failed hypothesis of God.

You can't just say things have a cause so there must be an un-caused cause; or at least that doesn't make sense to me. There certainly isn't evidence of an unmoved mover. Just like a crime scene suggests a criminal not a non-ontological being of pure act like a Crimus Purus.

I've heard these arguments so many times and don't understand why theists think that a god is necessary but different from the rest of the universe instead of stopping one step earlier and saying the the universe might be all that there is and somehow it either just is or sprang from apparent nothing of a singularity. I certainly don't know, well except the non-contingent vacuum cleaner.

Let's see. Could the universe be the Necessary Being, the Uncaused Cause?

To answer that, let us examine whether the universe cannot have a cause or it must have a cause.

Well, the universe is must the collection of things in it. But all things in the universe have particular form and configuration. So, the universe has a particular form.

But, everything that has a particular form must be caused, for we may ask, why is it in this form instead of another? What or whom form it that way? The one which or whom formed it may have not have a particular, or it may have, which in turn must be formed by another and so on. But, it cannot go on, lest nothing will exist. But things exist. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being, an Uncaused Cause, which cannot be the universe. To deny this is to deny both reality and logic. And that Necessary Being and Uncaused Cause is called by people: God.

As though a "being" weren't a "particular form"...and as though you don't imagine that this "being" -has- an even more specific, and particular, form. Sure as hell aren't talking about Ometecuhtli, are you? Seems the only time you think that a "particular form" requires a creator being that is itself uncaused... is when it isn't your creator being's particular form, lol. Special rules for special people and their special beliefs.

That's ignoring that you just smuggled the being bit in for no reason at all, ofc.  People can call their uncaused cause god all they like, but that doesn't demonstrate that it is a god.  That just demonstrates that people say things of shady rational provenance, as you've done above. On the subject of things said with shady rational provenance....it's enitrely unclear why there must be an uncaused cause in the first place. It's easy to see why we'd need one to form a rational argument, because an infinite regress cannot yield a definite answer...and thus the purpose of a rational argument cannot be met. People imagine that an infinite regress is impossible in some sense other than it being impossible to reach terminus in a rational argument, but that's just their imagination. A subtle misunderstanding of the problem of infinite regress.

(November 8, 2016 at 8:23 am)theologian Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 11:24 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote:

---

---

I understand that you fail to have the knowledge of my friend's non-contingent vacuum cleaner. You see, he is a Purple Rabbit from the 26th dimension and his vacuum cleaner created everything. Ya know, since we can just assign properties to things without evidence. So I like my vacuum cleaner theory better than the failed hypothesis of God.

You can't just say things have a cause so there must be an un-caused cause; or at least that doesn't make sense to me. There certainly isn't evidence of an unmoved mover. Just like a crime scene suggests a criminal not a non-ontological being of pure act like a Crimus Purus.

I've heard these arguments so many times and don't understand why theists think that a god is necessary but different from the rest of the universe instead of stopping one step earlier and saying the the universe might be all that there is and somehow it either just is or sprang from apparent nothing of a singularity. I certainly don't know, well except the non-contingent vacuum cleaner.

Let's see. Could the universe be the Necessary Being, the Uncaused Cause?

To answer that, let us examine whether the universe cannot have a cause or it must have a cause.

Well, the universe is must the collection of things in it. But all things in the universe have particular form and configuration. So, the universe has a particular form.

But, everything that has a particular form must be caused, for we may ask, why is it in this form instead of another? What or whom form it that way? The one which or whom formed it may have not have a particular, or it may have, which in turn must be formed by another and so on. But, it cannot go on, lest nothing will exist. But things exist. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being, an Uncaused Cause, which cannot be the universe. To deny this is to deny both reality and logic. And that Necessary Being and Uncaused Cause is called by people: God.

I think, if there is a God, that he would probably have been created in his form, of his form, within the formless form of being that is a caused causal chain of sucking that can only come from a vacuum cleaner; specifically one from the 26th dimension. That is 15 more dimensions than we have in this reality sir!

Words are fun, you can create outlandish walls of text that are tearfully hard to parse and feel that you are getting somewhere. What you are doing is special pleading and you ARE forgetting to explain the 26th dimensional vacuum cleaner and why there is no super-God.

For real though I have no answers. I just find yours as convincing as my own bullshit one. It would be like explaining gravity by pleading some gravus purus that knows which direction to push things because it is omniscient and can do so because it is omnipotent. Oh, and it doesn't just crush us because it is omnibenevolent. We think there are gravitons but we haven't observed them. Gravity is a much more mundane topic than the beginning of the universe but we wouldn't want to just invent some sprite or imp that controls it rather than figure out what the mechanism really is.

(November 8, 2016 at 8:29 am)Rhythm Wrote: As though a "being" weren't a "particular form"...and as though you don't imagine that this "being" -has- an even more specific, and particular, form.  Sure as hell aren't talking about Ometecuhtli, are you?  Seems the only time you think that a "particular form" requires a creator being that is itself uncaused... is when it isn't your creator being's particular form, lol.  Special rules for special people and their special beliefs.

Well, I have to agree with you with some things. First, imagination does and must include specific and particular form. Because, imagination are about images, and all images has forms. However, imagination is different from the use of intellect which knows reality and conceive concepts, just as an image of triangle and the concept triangle are infinitely different from each other. And what we have use in order to prove the existence of God is not imagination alone which remind us of what we have sensed in reality, but what is use to prove His existence is reality, sense and intellect. And so, to deny that God exist without have a good refutation is to deny both reality, the credibility of our senses and of our intellect and of the rules of logic.

Second, I agree that there must be special. Just as Dr. Edward Feser, a Philospher, argues that the rules of the chess game by itself cannot explain why is that there are rules of chess or why does chess game exist; in the same manner, law of nature which science studies can never explain why is there law of nature and why is there existence. So something special to the rules of chess must be known to know why is there chess game or why is there chess rules, just as something special to the laws of nature (which is the scope of science) must be known in order to explain why is there something instead of nothing, and why is there laws of nature. Hence the heart of this thread: regarding Supernatural; and that I hold it is beyond being a useful concept: it's real.

(November 8, 2016 at 8:29 am)Rhythm Wrote: That's ignoring that you just smuggled the being bit in for no reason at all, ofc.  People can call their uncaused cause god all they like, but that doesn't demonstrate that it is a god.  That just demonstrates that people say things of shady rational provenance, as you've done above.  On the subject of things said with shady rational provenance....it's enitrely unclear why there must be an uncaused cause in the first place.  It's easy to see why we'd need one to form a rational argument, because an infinite regress cannot yield a definite answer...and thus the purpose of a rational argument cannot be met.  People imagine that an infinite regress is impossible in some sense other than it being impossible to reach terminus in a rational argument, but that's just their imagination.  A subtle misunderstanding of the problem of infinite regress.

Well, the term God means one Whom nothing can be more perfect. But, the argument which is more than rational argument, (because sound theistic arguments starts from things we can sense through our 5 senses) proves that there must be the Pure Act of Being. If act is the most perfect, and if there's a being Whom is Pure Act of Being, Whom must be Being Himself, it must be the one Whom nothing can be more perfect. So, it shows that God exists.

Now, regarding the argument itself, it is founded on the principles that "from nothing, nothing comes" and that "the effect cannot be greater than the cause". Using those principles, and supposing that everything has a cause, we can arrive at an absurd conclusion: that there must be nothing. But, we can sense  and know that there are things. And by logic, which both philosophy and science utilizes, there must be an Uncaused Cause. So, that's how to understand the rational part of the sound argument for God's existence.

(November 8, 2016 at 11:11 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote:

(November 8, 2016 at 8:23 am)theologian Wrote:

---

Let's see. Could the universe be the Necessary Being, the Uncaused Cause?

To answer that, let us examine whether the universe cannot have a cause or it must have a cause.

Well, the universe is must the collection of things in it. But all things in the universe have particular form and configuration. So, the universe has a particular form.

But, everything that has a particular form must be caused, for we may ask, why is it in this form instead of another? What or whom form it that way? The one which or whom formed it may have not have a particular, or it may have, which in turn must be formed by another and so on. But, it cannot go on, lest nothing will exist. But things exist. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being, an Uncaused Cause, which cannot be the universe. To deny this is to deny both reality and logic. And that Necessary Being and Uncaused Cause is called by people: God.

---

I think, if there is a God, that he would probably have been created in his form, of his form, within the formless form of being that is a caused causal chain of sucking that can only come from a vacuum cleaner; specifically one from the 26th dimension. That is 15 more dimensions than we have in this reality sir!

Words are fun, you can create outlandish walls of text that are tearfully hard to parse and feel that you are getting somewhere. What you are doing is special pleading and you ARE forgetting to explain the 26th dimensional vacuum cleaner and why there is no super-God.

For real though I have no answers. I just find yours as convincing as my own bullshit one. It would be like explaining gravity by pleading some gravus purus that knows which direction to push things because it is omniscient and can do so because it is omnipotent. Oh, and it doesn't just crush us because it is omnibenevolent. We think there are gravitons but we haven't observed them. Gravity is a much more mundane topic than the beginning of the universe but we wouldn't want to just invent some sprite or imp that controls it rather than figure out what the mechanism really is.

Well, what I can see is that you are starting with the properties like Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, and Omniscient. However, nothing can have properties without existence. And after we have prove through reality and logic that there must be an Unmoved Mover, Uncaused Cause, Necessary Being, Being Himself and Super Intelligent Being, then we can rightly prove whether He is Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. That's how to argue orderly, right? I think there's no special pleading with that way of reasoning. For if is special pleading, then all other sound argument will be special pleading.

Further, it is the effect of the wrong philosophy, namely scientism, that you are looking for mechanism here. Why? Scientism declares that only what can be scientifically proven are the true things. However, science is concern only with mechanism, and not why is there mechanism or why is there existence. Nevertheless, the proposition "only what can be scientifically proven are the true things" is self-defeating. For, that proposition itself has not been and can never be scientifically proven, as it is a philosophical claim. So, don't just be locked up with mechanism, and accept other sound form of reasoning. And you'll leave the error of atheism and start being truly happy.

Do I need to participate or will you be able to manage continuing this conversation you're having with yourself?

(November 8, 2016 at 9:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Do I need to participate or will you be able to manage continuing this conversation you're having with yourself?

Ah, you can participate. Try to ask one question or a couple at a time.

About what, I've heard your argument, I gave you my comments...you want to talk about something else.