I saw a lot of crazy things too. Much less now thanks to perphenazine.

(March 30, 2013 at 11:45 pm)jstrodel Wrote: That is the way you deal with things you don't understand, with superstition and ignorant claims. So be it, you will live in a small shallow world.

Yes, that is what each and every one of us wants to do.

Will you go away, now?

(March 30, 2013 at 11:45 pm)jstrodel Wrote: That is the way you deal with things you don't understand, with superstition and ignorant claims. So be it, you will live in a small shallow world.

I would be impressed if jstrodel advanced a very good, sound argument to seriously consider adopting his Christian beliefs. It doesn't have to be a clincher, just have sound premises and not be based on a fallacy. Given posting history, it would legitimately raise the question of whether he really is in contact with a being greater than himself.

Here is the argument from contingency from Aquinas. When you add up his arguments, they point towards God.
1.If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2.The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3.Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4.What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

(April 1, 2013 at 8:05 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Here is the argument from contingency from Aquinas. When you add up his arguments, they point towards God.
1.If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2.The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3.Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4.What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

Infinite regress? Also, point one is way too vague.

What is vague about it? "If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist". Whatever the necessary conditions for something to exist, that is what it takes for the thing to exist.

(April 1, 2013 at 8:25 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Whatever the necessary conditions for something to exist, that is what it takes for the thing to exist.

Just an aside here: I am assuming you are referring to god being the thing that exists behind the existence of the universe. If that is the case, not stating that it is, what is the thing that exists behind the existence of god?

(April 1, 2013 at 8:25 pm)jstrodel Wrote: What is vague about it? "If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist". Whatever the necessary conditions for something to exist, that is what it takes for the thing to exist.

If that is true, then there must be infinite regress.

Mir Infidel, God does not require a cause for his existence in the same way that observable, caused, finite entities require causes.

---

(April 1, 2013 at 8:29 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(April 1, 2013 at 8:25 pm)jstrodel Wrote: What is vague about it? "If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist". Whatever the necessary conditions for something to exist, that is what it takes for the thing to exist.

If that is true, then there must be infinite regress.

Why an infinite regress? Why not only a regress until it reaches the conditions of the first cause?