Shia Islamic Argument for the existence of God

[Neo-Scholastic]

... according to Aristotle/Kalam/Aquinas, the one requirement that every existing being or object must have is that it must have a creator.

Either you are illiterate or stupid. I challenge you to accurately quote anything directly from either Aristotle or Aquinas that says that.

[IATIA]

Wrong wiseguy. Aquinas demonstrated the existence of a Necessary Being in Way 3.

Aquinas is wrong!

Let us start with;  Is this an accurate and acceptable translation?  If not, let me have yours, as it makes no difference to me.  There is no point in having you attack your own proof.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That appears to be a summary and not a particularly good one. Who was the translator? I generally use the Great Books of the Western World published by Encyclopedia Britannica translated by Fr. Lawrence Shapcote. If you only want to use a summary I'm fond of the one I made. You can see that in the debate area.

Nevertheless, with what part of the argument do you disagree?

[IATIA]

Step 4 to step 5 is non sequitur. From step 5, the argument is invalid. Jumping the track from being to thing. There is no reason to believe that space-time, dark energy, gravity (and who knows what else) are not eternal.

[robvalue]

No one believes because of these crappy logical arguments.

Clearly not because they make no distinction between any different kind of vague "cause". Certainly nothing to link them to characters out of a book. The belief that the characters are real clearly comes first, with logical arguments as rationalisations built up second.

If anyone genuinely did it in the other order, I'd be extremely worried about how their brain works. Even if someone hasn't been indoctrinated, they're often waist deep in the mythology just by living in society. But then, if you can be fooled by these arguments, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you could be fooled into thinking fictional characters are real.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Step 4 to step 5 is non sequitur.  From step 5, the argument is invalid.

The validity of that step comes from Way 1.

There is no reason to believe that space-time, dark energy, gravity (and who knows what else) are not eternal.

Whether the universe was created or eternal has no bearing on the demonstration. It works either way. Gravity et al may be both eternal and contingent.

[IATIA]

Step 4 to step 5 is non sequitur.  From step 5, the argument is invalid.

The validity of that step comes from Way 1.

"Way 1" does not validate anything either. There is no reason to assume that space-time, dark energy, etc. are not eternally in motion. Any attempt to apply the infinite regression rule would apply to god also. Because god had to have a 'first' thought, a desire to create, then the 'action' of creation, we have a causality scenario that needs a "first mover" for god. The argument that god is "outside" time can just as well be applied to space-time, etc.. As time is a function of the causality of matter, there would be no time until space-time erupted and matter was created.

Which is more logical? eternal energy or eternal intelligent energy?

[Neo-Scholastic]

The validity of that step comes from Way 1.

"Way 1" does not validate anything either.  There is no reason to assume that space-time, dark energy, etc. are not eternally in motion.  Any attempt to apply the infinite regression rule would apply to god also.  Because god had to have a 'first' thought, a desire to create, then the 'action' of creation, we have a causality scenario that needs a "first mover" for god.  The argument that god is "outside" time can just as well be applied to space-time, etc..  As time is a function of the causality of matter, there would be no time until space-time erupted and matter was created.

Which is more logical?  eternal energy or eternal intelligent energy?

So sorry. I will try to be more clear. So you can avoid all those straw men.

Your second sentence is based on a misreading of the text.Your examples, space-time, dark energy, etc. are the types of things mentioned in 1W as being in motion, which means that they change. Space-time warps and expands, etc. That means in goes from once state of existence to another. It goes from a potential state (potency) to actuality (in act). As logic shows,the First Mover is that which is fully in act and in which there is no potential. Your third sentence builds on that misreading. Because the First Mover is fully in actualized it doesn't change. To have a "first thought" leading to a subsequent action, as you suggest, would imply an initial state of potential. Having potential to change is contrary to the nature of the First Mover because it is fully actualized across time and space and not within it. Your further objections merely build on these earlier misunderstandings of the demonstrations.

As it relates to the Necessary Being, you need to understand that the logical conclusion of your stance, which you seem to be expressly proposing is tas follows. The physical universe is the necessary being. If you pay attention to what the 3W actual says, and not rely on a faulty summary, you will notice that the demonstration is based on the difference between what is possible to be or not be and what must be out of necessity. You stance is essentially that the universe is exactly as it is out of necessity and could not possibly be different from the way it is. For example the physical constants, like the speed of light, had to be what they are and that it would be impossible for them to be otherwise. They must be brute facts for which no explaination is required. Your position is that it is not reasonable for anyone to ask, "Why is the speed of light c and not c +/- x?" Now my position is that those types of questions are perfectly reasonalbe when talking about things that seem like they could have been otherwise.

My suggestion to you is that you take a bit more time to make sure you fully understand the terms of the demonstrations before raising objections that have nothing at all to do with them.

[IATIA]

My suggestion to you is that you take a bit more time to make sure you fully understand the terms of the demonstrations before raising objections that have nothing at all to do with them.

There is no strawman. It just as easy to accept the universe as timeless as it is to accept a god as timeless. It is much easier to accept an unintelligent universe that allowed our particular cosmos to exist than it is to accept that magically there was an intelligent being. It is you building the strawman suggesting that god could overcome causality with a convoluted explanation, but insisting that the universe could not have done the same thing without intelligence.

Your god had to have a desire to create before creating. Causality. No matter how many hoops you jump through, god had to have a desire and also a reason.

It is quite obvious that no theist has any idea what a god is. If there were a god, it would be so far above any interest in this tiny blue speck of dust, let alone, a nomadic tribe of superstitious murderers and rapists. It certainly would not need or want our worship.

I am sure you will respond with a "blah blah blah" and never once accept that a god capable of creating a universe could certainly find something more entertaining to itself.

Oh yeah, angels. They were created before the universe. More causality. Whoops, infinite regression again.

[quip]

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)


1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

You're playing fast and loose with the concept of "being" by 2's "assumption". I don't have to "assume" anything, every being is a contingent being. 2 could be completely removed, save your attempt to revise the (contingent) understanding of being.

2 is only necessary to set up this theater of smoke and mirrors (9).