(August 12, 2009 at 7:39 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: The argument does not attempt to "explain it", in the sense of explaining how humans discovered or developed awareness of moral or logical principles, which is not even the concern of the argument. The concern of the argument is the origin of the conceptual reality of the logical order in the universe to begin with, as it actually exists regardless of the human awareness or limits of human awareness about it.

Well if 'it' exists regardless of the human awareness and limits of human experience. Then how can you know 'it' exists? Where's the evidence that it does?

EvF

And I am telling you, saying it transcends the natural world is a cop out. Try again. If God exists and he is entirely transcendent, he has no effect on this world and is not worth worshiping or believing in. Let's be honest, and stop dodging here. You want us to believe in the Christian god, and the Christian god has specific properties that have effects on the natural world. It can be tested, and until it is tested and proven, I am not believing. So bring me that evidence and stop contradicting yourself.

If you say God interacts with the natural world, then his effects can be tested. The example I already put forth back in earlier posts was intercessory prayer, which has been tested and shown to have a null effect. You are a Christian, therefore I can make the assumption you believe in a God that answers prayer. By believing in a god that answers prayer, have just described a God that has an effect on the natural world and therefore you can test it. And guess what, the tests that have been done produce a negative result, showing that if there is a god, he ain't answering your prayers.

If you are going to sit here and argue that your god is transcendent and cannot be tested, that's fine, but it's ludicrous to expect anyone else to believe, because you can essentially claim whatever you want about something that is transcendent, which is what Adrian has been trying to tell you. If your god is a transcendent god, it cannot be proven to be the Christian god if there is NOTHING you can test about god. You can make the SAME EXACT CLAIMS about the FSM or Allah or Thor.

An untestable transcendent god is the SAME thing as a nonexistent god. If I had three jars and had one full of dice, you can make value judgments about that dice, like what they look like, how many there are, etc... If I have two other jars one with transcendent dice and one with no dice, you can't make a value judgment about the transcendent dice because they inhabit the same quality as NO DICE. They're not worth talking about, so move on.

(August 12, 2009 at 8:08 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Well if 'it' exists regardless of the human awareness and limits of human experience. Then how can you know 'it' exists? Where's the evidence that it does?

Regardless of human errors and limitations in acknowledging specific principles. As Arcanus said, it is not a theory of ethics, or of logic, but of metaethics and metalogic, that is, the origin of the conceptual reality of logical order at all, not the specific principles.

(August 12, 2009 at 8:01 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: By studying and collecting knowledge about the nature of the universe and natural phenomena, we can deduce logical conclusions and understand conceptual realities (e.g. as done in physics). Ultimately, this makes it possible to verify the existence of a necessary being after the effect, such as in the case of the argument from potentiality/actuality in my thread, which depends on empirical knowledge of the universe, or in the case of the Kalam cosmological argument (which someone else mentioned).

Okay, I've finally forced myself to drudge through those 3 pages on your thread. I now understand what you consider evidence.

Your actuality/potentiality argument misses a very important point. Nobody in the scientific community (or at least in physics) is proposing that the universe came into existence/was created/has a cause/etc. Nobody is proposing that causality was responsible for the universe coming into being. Causality can be seen merely as a property springing forth from this uncreated universe- the pure actuality. Time, causality, logic, truth and everything else you speak of could just as easily have sprung forth from the uncaused universe as from the uncaused god. The universe's uncreated existence alone could perfectly suit your argument without invoking a sentient creator who inspires authors and gives favours to football teams.

I dread to think what I've overlooked.

(August 12, 2009 at 8:26 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: If God exists and he is entirely transcendent, he has no effect on this world

Clearly errorneous. If God exists, then the natural world is an effect of his existence.

(August 12, 2009 at 8:26 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: the Christian god has specific properties that have effects on the natural world.

Exactly. The arguments in my thread deals with those effects; let's take it to my thread instead of filling this one.

(August 12, 2009 at 8:26 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: You are a Christian, therefore I can make the assumption you believe in a God that answers prayer.

If a prayer gets answered or not is wholly irrelevant if you aren't a Christian, because the purpose of prayer is the salvation of your soul, something an atheist doesn't believe exist.

(August 12, 2009 at 8:26 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: If you are going to sit here and argue that your god is transcendent and cannot be tested, that's fine, but it's ludicrous to expect anyone else to believe, because you can essentially claim whatever you want about something that is transcendent, which is what Adrian has been trying to tell you. If your god is a transcendent god, it cannot be proven to be the Christian god if there is NOTHING you can test about god. You can make the SAME EXACT CLAIMS about the FSM or Allah or Thor.

Thor and FSM are not transcendental Gods, but to the contrary, spatiotemporal and material (ontologically immanental) beings, and none of my arguments arrive at their existence. As for Allah, that is a word for God used by Arab Christians for God. As for the Islamic doctrine of God, it is completely based on the biblical doctrine of God with the exception of some perversions, so with those exceptions, it is simply a reaffirmation of biblical doctrine.

(August 12, 2009 at 8:37 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 12, 2009 at 8:08 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Well if 'it' exists regardless of the human awareness and limits of human experience. Then how can you know 'it' exists? Where's the evidence that it does?

Regardless of human errors and limitations in acknowledging specific principles. As Arcanus said, it is not a theory of ethics, or of logic, but of metaethics and metalogic, that is, the origin of the conceptual reality of logical order at all, not the specific principles.

*sigh* TAG. It's not logically sound, because it assumes that you have to have a consciousness in order for logical absolutes to exist, therefore bam, there's god, the ultimate consciousness. Which is bullshit, because you have to prove a consciousness has to exist for logical absolutes to exists. And TAG doesn't prove that, so it's out the window.

BUT, even if you could prove God exists with TAG, you CANNOT get to the Christian God, because you essentially prove ANY god with it and any god is not the Christian god.

(August 12, 2009 at 8:42 pm)LukeMC Wrote: Your actuality/potentiality argument misses a very important point. Nobody in the scientific community (or at least in physics) is proposing that the universe came into existence/was created/has a cause/etc.

Some people do propose that something beyond this universe caused it to exist, yes (e.g. quantum physicists), but not on scientific grounds. Because to propose anything beyond the natural world would be contrary to the principle of methodological naturalism.

(August 12, 2009 at 8:42 pm)LukeMC Wrote: . Causality can be seen merely as a property springing forth from this uncreated universe- the pure actuality.

The reason this universe is not pure actuality I have outlined many times. My argument clearly shows that the universe is impure actuality, in that potentialities come into actuality within it (in time and space), and so potentiality is a fundamental part of this world. It is not pure actuality, because it doesn't meet the ontological requirements of being pure acutality.

(August 12, 2009 at 8:42 pm)LukeMC Wrote: Time, causality, logic, truth and everything else you speak of could just as easily have sprung forth from the uncaused universe as from the uncaused god. The universe's uncreated existence alone could perfectly suit your argument without invoking a sentient creator who inspires authors and gives favours to football teams.

It couldn't suit my argument, because the universe is not pure actuality, it is actualised potentiality, and we see potentiality enter into actuality all the time in it, which ontologically differentiates it from being necessary to being contingent.

If you are going to reply to this, please do it in my thread..

---

(August 12, 2009 at 8:47 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: *sigh* TAG. It's not logically sound, because it assumes that you have to have a consciousness in order for logical absolutes to exist, therefore bam, there's god, the ultimate consciousness. Which is bullshit, because you have to prove a consciousness has to exist for logical absolutes to exists. And TAG doesn't prove that, so it's out the window.

Nowhere does it mention consciousness in any form that I have ever seen it. So you are addressing something other than the TAG.

(August 12, 2009 at 8:47 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: BUT, even if you could prove God exists with TAG, you CANNOT get to the Christian God, because you essentially prove ANY god with it and any god is not the Christian god.

Any god does not live up to the biblical doctrine of a transcendent, omniscient, immutable God which is minimally necessary for the logical coherence the TAG concludes the Christian worldview achieves in the transcendence of the conceptual reality of logical truth.

(August 12, 2009 at 8:44 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: Clearly errorneous. If God exists, then the natural world is an effect of his existence.

And I disgree, and since I disagree with your claim, you must prove it. You have done a piss poor job of proving anything so far.

(August 12, 2009 at 8:44 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: Exactly. The arguments in my thread deals with those effects; let's take it to my thread instead of filling this one.

Makes no difference if it's in this thread or your other thread. You're trying to argue TAG and tie it to Christianity. It's relevant.

(August 12, 2009 at 8:44 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: If a prayer gets answered or not is wholly irrelevant if you aren't a Christian, because the purpose of prayer is the salvation of your soul, something an atheist doesn't believe exist.

That's your claim. I'm talking about intercessory prayer which is clearly defined as praying to god to get something. It's not irrelevant to an atheist because if it could be proven it exists, we'd have reason to consider god exists, regardless of salvation of the soul.

(August 12, 2009 at 8:44 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: Thor and FSM are not transcendental Gods, but to the contrary, spatiotemporal and material (ontologically immanental) beings, and none of my arguments arrive at their existence. As for Allah, that is a word for God used by Arab Christians for God. As for the Islamic doctrine of God, it is completely based on the biblical doctrine of God with the exception of some perversions, so with those exceptions, it is simply a reaffirmation of biblical doctrine.

Sorry, you assertions aren't worth shit. Back up your claims. Your TAG argument doesn't differentiate between any proposed god concept. Unless you can clearly prove that it does, your argument is useless.

---

(August 12, 2009 at 8:50 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: Any god does not live up to the biblical doctrine of a transcendent, omniscient, immutable God which is minimally necessary for the logical coherence the TAG concludes the Christian worldview achieves in the transcendence of the conceptual reality of logical truth.

You do a nice job of making contradictions sound logical, but sorry. You fail. You just made a circular argument that essentially says any god does not live up to the biblical god. Only the biblical god lives up to the biblical god. Of course only the biblical god only lives up to the biblical god. You have not proven that TAG proves the biblical god Until you can do that, you're blowing smoke.

BTW, you have to do it without invoking the bible as proof.

(August 12, 2009 at 8:50 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: Any god does not live up to the biblical doctrine of a transcendent, omniscient, immutable God which is minimally necessary for the logical coherence the TAG concludes the Christian worldview achieves in the transcendence of the conceptual reality of logical truth.

Where does the TAG specify a God who kills infants and massacres his people? Or is the bible only half right

(August 12, 2009 at 8:57 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Sorry, you assertions aren't worth shit. Back up your claims. Your TAG argument doesn't differentiate between any proposed god concept. Unless you can clearly prove that it does, your argument is useless.

It certainly does, for the conceptual reality of the logical order and logical truth is not transcendent in any other conception of God than a biblical one of a God who is a transcendent omniscient, omnipotent and immutable, intellectual being. Take any of those attributes away and the logical order and truth isn't transcendent. If God is not transcendent, then neither is the logical order. If not omnipotent, then he is not the source for the imposition of the logical order that exists in the universe. If he is not omniscient, then he cannot be the transcendent source of the logical order of all logical truth and the followingly all scientia. If he is not immutable, then the logical order is not properly transcendent either, since it is subject to change. If he is not intellectual, then he cannot be the source for a conceptual reality which only exists insofar as intellect and intellection/conceptionality does. Again, the Christian worldview in affirming the biblical doctrine of God is fully coherent, and any other worldview is only coherent insofar as it borrows from the Christian one.

---

(August 12, 2009 at 9:04 pm)LukeMC Wrote: Where does the TAG specify a God who kills infants and massacres his people? Or is the bible only half right

Where did the TAG specify a God who made a world in which there was a deer in a remote forest of Norway that ran over a road December 2, 1987? It didn't, but that is implicit in the biblical doctrine of God that the TAG compares to atheism. As to those actions of God recorded in biblical scripture, that is completely irrelevant to the TAG as it doesn't pertain to either metaethics or metalogic which is TAGs only concern.