God exists subjectively?

[theologian]

Well, what is evidence? Isn't whatever shows you the truth is an evidence?

LOL, no?  Evidence is simple...that which is -evident-. [1]

But, arguments shows us the truth granted that it is sound. Therefore, arguments are evidence.

Arguments aren't evidence, they make nothing -evident-.  They are arguments, and, ironically, they are argued in reference to what -is- evident.  

I'm starting to think that your beliefs amount to a reliable misunderstanding of words and nothing else.  That's what's being made -evident-...in any case.[2]

1. Agree. However, does the sound argument for God's existence starts with things evident or not? Further, if you want evidence only with logical process, do you deny then the laws of logic?

2. So, if the starting point of arguments are evidence, and sound arguments has both true evidence and valid reasoning, should the conclusion be contradicting the evidence? If not, then why not accept arguments?

However, one of the premise of your point is false. For, in the First Way, the conclusion states that there is an Unmoved Mover and not Unmoved Moved, and that one of the premise states that everything that moves (or in motion to be precise) must be acted upon by another and not that every mover must be acted upon. In that case, there is no contradiction between the premise and the conclusion. So, your first reason why the First Way of the Five Ways is a special pleading, i.e. the conclusion contradicts with the premise, is found to be not the case.

It seems as though you re-stated the case.  Everything that moves must be acted upon by a mover, with one exception.  Either the mover does not have to be moved (unproven assertion) or the mover is unmoved (unproven assertion).  Since the example is being used to prove that God is required, it cannot be used to confirm the qualities that are being used to prove that God is required.  Unless you can demonstrate how God is unmoved or how he is an exception to the rule, the conclusion is not compelling. [1]

Second, you label the Five Ways as special pleading, because the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause, the Necessary Being, the Perfect Being and the Super Intelligent Being Which proven to exist in Five Ways can just be other Being other than God.

But, that can't be, for beings other than God are those things which HAVE being, in contrast with God Whom is NOT a thing having being, but the Being Itself, for the term God means which nothing greater can be thought of the Being Itself is Infinitely greater than things have just being. So if there is an Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, Perfect Being and Super Intelligent Being, then that can only be God, as people call Him.

I am not saying that it can be a different being, I am saying there can be another cause.  If we are going to use intuition to walk us through the examples, then we "know" that not every action has a conscious intellect as its cause and thus we cannot say with certainty that the first cause is one.  These proofs for the existence of God cannot work if they rely on unproven assertions of qualities that are required for the proof to work.[2]

1. First, again, there is not an exception, for the proposition that everything moves (to be in context, it mean that everything that changes), and the conclusion shows that there must be a thing that acted upon the movements of others while not being acted upon by another. Hence, the conclusion is that there must be an Unmoved Mover, instead of concluding that there must be an Unmoved Moved, which is not an oxymoron, but also the exception that you are talking about.

Now, you are talking about unproved assertion. However, if we will really be honest and look upon the First Way, Unmoved Mover is derived from:

a. Nothing can be moved by itself.

b. So, everything that is moved must be moved by another.

c. But, if everything are moved, then everything must be moved, which is equal to infinite regress, which is equal to explaining nothing.

d. But, there are things and the principle of sufficient reason must be satisfied.

e. So, not everything are moved.

f. Thus, there must be an Unmoved Mover.

So, the conclusion f is not contradicting the premise a, and that f has been derived from premises a to e which are all true and are in valid logical sequence. Hence, it is not true that f is just an unproved assertion nor f contradicts a. Hence, your objection is not true upon examining St. Thomas Aquinas' First Way.

2. I am not sure if I have gotten your point here properly. Are you saying that we must prove that the quality of God is such and such, before we can prove that there is God? But, the quality of God can be seen without a proof by considering the meaning of the term God, which means that which nothing can be greater. So, with that meaning, we can know that what has been proven (which are the qualities you are talking about) in the 5 ways -- which both start from things that are evident and which utilized valid logical sequence -- are real (lest we deny both or either reality or logic), and therefore we can arrive at the conclusion that God must exist.

I agree that Muslims appeal to God's authority in appealing to Koran. However, that doesn't mean that that cannot be discredited by arguing for the Bible as the sole inspired writings by appealing to the authority of the Catholic Church

They feel the same way about your bullshit, dummy.  And I say a pox on both your houses.

When you get some tangible evidence that your horseshit is anything more than horseshit feel free to look me up.  Philosophy is useless jargon.

Well, if God is Boundless, and every tangible evidence is bounded, then no evidence can make you know that there is God. However, that I believe, is called cherry picking.

By the way, you didn't try to answer my question on what you want to discuss first, or you are just decided and doesn't care anymore whether which one are really right, atheist or theist?

The five ways stuff is dopey.


The answer is not God, it's "Who the fuck knows!?!?!"  It was billions years ago.  We have our small little snapshot of existence from our tiny little planet.  

We don't know yet.  We may never know.  That's kind of to be expected.

However, using metaphysics which deals with things with beings, (and therefore outside of its scope are those which has no being, which are literally nothing), we can know whether there is God or not. So, I think, it is a matter of being open-minded or not.

Okay, your point is that Five Ways are really special pleading. For, every conclusion that contradicts the premise is a special pleading. But, according to you, the first way which has a premise that everything that moves must be acted by something else, while the conclusion states that there must be an Unmoved Mover and thus it contradicts the premise. Therefore, your point that the First Way in the Five Ways are just special pleading. 

However, one of the premise of your point is false. For, in the First Way, the conclusion states that there is an Unmoved Mover and not Unmoved Moved, and that one of the premise states that everything that moves (or in motion to be precise) must be acted upon by another and not that every mover must be acted upon. In that case, there is no contradiction between the premise and the conclusion. So, your first reason why the First Way of the Five Ways is a special pleading, i.e. the conclusion contradicts with the premise, is found to be not the case. 

You wiggle and dance but your faux semantic argument can't escape the objection.

"Aquinas uses the term "motion" in his argument, but by this he understands any kind of change, and more specifically a transit from potentiality to actuality." ~ Wikipedia
So is God not changing from potentiality to actuality?  If he is, then he requires a prior existent.  If he isn't, then you have special pleading.  Both ways fail.

Wikipedia is correct.

I have a question. Does the first way affirm in its premises that everything must change from potentiality to actuality? If it is, where can we find it in the First Way? If it isn't, then it is not a special pleading. Both ways fails to understand Aquinas again and again. And so, to understand him is to be honest and to accept finally that there really is God.