I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Ace Otana]

So god made everything and is everything and can be anything? Well in that case so can santa, easter bunny and any other thought up character. Can't quite disprove that I'm affriad.

Can you answer where god came from and where all that energy came from? How did he archive all this?
The real truth is that, you don't know how the univurse came about. You just believe you do.

God doesn't play dice.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Really? So presumably, as you're quite a gobby chap now, you were somewhat effusive then in support of your atheism?

I went from indifferent atheist, to strong atheist in the sense that God could not possibly exist, to the point I was a militant atheist, and saw religion as a problem and disease of humanity which should be ridiculed and exterminated, preferably in the sense of a persecution and execution of all religious people who refused to "move out of the dark ages".

Then we can regard your claim as the usual non-validatable bollocks then?

Presumably you wrote articles or posts about it much like you do now yes? Care to point us to some of them?

I didn't write or think much intellectually about my atheism for the most part that I was an atheist. The option that God existed was inconceivable to me, and as such an a priori exclusion ("not possible") regardless of what any logical truth or argument might point to, and regardless of the fact that I had no reasonable grounds on which to make such an a priori exclusion. That is why I remained an atheist, for when I changed my attitude as an atheist and began thinking, reading and writing, I ended up turning towards Christianity.

See above! More to the point, given that you cannot or will not justify it, it was an absolutely pointless observation on your part!

Kyu

[Jon Paul]

Ace, your claim was that "anything that is not material is not energy and does not exist". I categorically refuted this. Energy exists independently of matter, as in the vacuum energy attested to by the Casimir effect, vacuum fluctuations, dark energy, previously unknown gravitational fields, etc. Matter is itself potential energy which is equivalent and convertible to energy (e=mc2). Space and time are also not matter, but do exist.

Now that I have refuted your first fallacy, you ask if God is exempt from the logical order which would make it necessary for the creation to have a creator to begin with. The transcendental argument answers this. God transcends the logical order of the universe, not in exemption, but in primariness. The universe exactly follows Gods order, not vice versa. Which means that the logical order which makes it necessary for the creation to have a creator is transcendent, is present in Gods nature, such that the creation is not exempt from the requirement of a creator.

Now, that I've refuted several of your fallacies yet again, you just return to continuing the repetition of the same fallacies you have been repeating through the last ten pages.

So god made everything and is everything and can be anything? Well in that case so can santa, easter bunny and any other thought up character. Can't quite disprove that I'm affriad.

I have already answered this fallacy. You are attacking viewpoint X, and thereby pretending to attack my viewpoint Y, though you are only addressing viewpoint X, a caricature and straw man which is not my viewpoint. Further, the ontological differentiation between viewpoint X and viewpoint Y makes it obvious that viewpoint X (santa, FSM, fairies) could not be the transcendent God of my viewpoint Y, since they do not transcend the attributes of spatiotemporal, material existence, but contain all of them. From this ontological differentiation lies the epistemic differentiation, in that my argument supports a transcendent God, not a contingent being.

Can you answer where god came from

I have already answered this question.

If you are asking this question of the God my argument arrives at, then it is a fallacy. For (quoting now) the question asks for temporal account for the ontogenesis of a nontemporal being whose ontogenesis is accordingly nontemporal. The question is, in other words a fallacy, because it applies a standard to something to which that standard in and of the nature of the thing does not apply. It's like asking "What exists outside of the totality of all existence?". The question is meaningless because it contradicts itself by positing existence outside of "the totality of all existence", a self-referential contradiction. Like the question of "When/how did God come into existence?" predicates temporal contingency of God, when my argument clearly proposes a God which is a nontemporal being.

and where all that energy came from?

The God that my argument arrives at as actus purus means that God, in his essence is pure energeia, energeia (Greek) being the Greek equivalent translated into Latin actus. In other words, any energy in the universe is the actualising (or energizing, in the Greek) principle of God at work. So he created the universe out of nothing, but the power (energy) to do so lies in his own nature. As for a temporal account for it's origin, that is the fallacy I answered above. As for the origin nontemporally, it lies in the being of God as the actualising principle of all actuality, and the infinite potence (as in, not limited in which potentialities he can actualise) of a being which is the actualizing principle of any potential actuality inside the universe.

---

Then we can regard your claim as the usual non-validatable bollocks then?

Which claim would you consider "bollocks", and on what rational grounds?

See above! More to the point, given that you cannot or will not justify it, it was an absolutely pointless observation on your part!

I said that in reply to Minimalists statement that "he has already rejected Christianity". My only point was that that is irrelevant to the rationality of his rejection, and the rational basis of it. I too, have been an atheist, I too have rejected Christianity before I accepted it. It makes no difference to whether it is true, and more importantly for this debate, to the rational soundness of my arguments.

As Arcanus pointed out:

First, I do not think Jon Paul has any expectations about how people here might treat him. His expectations are about how people here treat his arguments, given the extent of his experience with atheists claiming to esteem rational discourse. Those familiar with it know that rational discourse concentrates on the merits of the argument, not the character, attitude, circumstance, etc., of the arguer.

The fact that you have rejected Christianity is not entirely relevant (however interesting it might be biographically), but rather the basis for that rejection. There is ample evidence on this board that most of the atheists here who were former Christians were so around adolescence or earlier; in other words, the level of theological literacy is comparable to that of Sunday School children. His position amounts to, "Let us evaluate now, as grown ups, the rational integrity of your objections"—with tremendous emphasis on the "rational" point, governed as it is by the unforgiving rigor of logic. And given the fascinating array of logical fallacies (e.g., Begging the Question, Straw Man, Prejudicial Language, etc.), that evaluation is, by all accounts, speaking volumes.

(...)

He is not asking you to convert; he is not even asking you to be rational (although he expects you to be). But he is asking you to respond to the merits of his argument, with your response being evaluated by the unforgiving rigor of logic. If it holds up, that's great.

If it doesn't, that's great.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Then we can regard your claim as the usual non-validatable bollocks then?

Which claim would you consider "bollocks", and on what rational grounds?

Sigh! That you claim you were once an atheist ... it was pointless and, as far as anyone can tell, done purely to "score points" and in some way "prove" you have now chosen a superior path. NO one has anyway of telling whether you were lying or not! FWIW I believe you were, at best, being economical with the truth!

See above! More to the point, given that you cannot or will not justify it, it was an absolutely pointless observation on your part!

I said that in reply to Minimalists statement that "he has already rejected Christianity". My only point was that that is irrelevant to the rationality of his rejection, and the rational basis of it. I too, have been an atheist, I too have rejected Christianity before I accepted it. It makes no difference to whether it is true, and more importantly for this debate, to the rational soundness of my arguments.

I agree it made no difference ... so why say it? It was, as I said above, a pointless observation on your part (and I also say, one I remain highly sceptical of)!

As Arcanus pointed out

Do you think I'm as impressed with Arcanus as you are or even that you are as impressed with Arcanus as he is?

Kyu

[Jon Paul]

I agree it made no difference ... so why say it? It was, as I said above, a pointless observation on your part (and I also say, one I remain highly sceptical of)!

As long as we agree that it makes no difference, then it's fine.

Do you think I'm as impressed with Arcanus as you are or even that you are as impressed with Arcanus as he is?

I quoted him so I didn't have to write what he had already said.

[amw79]

JP
This will go round indefinately, not because your argument is unanswerable, but because you've set it up as unquestionable. For instance - "Monotheism is not supposed to be proposed, and then evidenced" - this is quite convenient in a world where everything single other claim MUST be proposed THEN evidenced.

Your answer to the question of where god came from? "The question is, in other words a fallacy, because it applies a standard to something to which that standard in and of the nature of the thing does not apply" - Again, far too convenient (for you), and unsatisfactory (for me) as an answer. YOU have set god up as transcendent and outside "spatiotemporal existence", If no-one's buy's this notion (and I certainly don't), or requires evidence - too Bad.

"The God that my argument arrives at as actus purus means that God, in his essence is pure energeia" - This isn't where your argument "arrives at", this is where your argument BEGINS. The fact I don't believe the orgins of the universe can be explained away with such a theologican semantic non-entity such as 'actus purus', renders anything else your arguments lead to as worthless to me as simply it's an empty phrase, devoid of meaning or any possible substantiation.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I agree it made no difference ... so why say it? It was, as I said above, a pointless observation on your part (and I also say, one I remain highly sceptical of)!

As long as we agree that it makes no difference, then it's fine.

Not quite ... I still suspect you said it order to make a point.

Do you think I'm as impressed with Arcanus as you are or even that you are as impressed with Arcanus as he is?

I quoted him so I didn't have to write what he had already said.

In future I suggest you don't (at least not to me) ... you'll get much the same response as this time.

Kyu

[Jon Paul]

This will go round indefinately, not because your argument is unanswerable, but because you've set it up as unquestionable. For instance - "Monotheism is not supposed to be proposed, and then evidenced" - this is quite convenient in a world where everything single other claim MUST be proposed THEN evidenced.

No. Every other hypothesis must be proposed to fit the data, not merely for verification, but for being a true explanation of the data.

For instance, the theory of evolution is proposed to explain the data of biological diversity.

Bohms and Bohrs interpretations of quantum mechanics proposed to explain the data of quantum mechanical observations.

So my point was not that my claims do not require evidence. My point was that my claims are not arbitrary (like the Flying Spaghetti Monster). If my point had been the former, then I would not have gone in (in that exact same post) with giving a sketch of my evidential argument.

YOU have set god up as transcendent and outside "spatiotemporal existence", If no-one's buy's this notion (and I certainly don't), or requires evidence - too Bad.

My argument from potentiality has dictated that transcendence. Not my "convenience".

This isn't where your argument "arrives at", this is where your argument BEGINS.

It is exactly not where the argument from potentiality begins, because it is not an epistemological argument. It begins at nil, by investigating phenomena in reality, a posteriori. Only the transcendental argument begins at the already-existing worldviews and propositions, and their affirmation or non-affirmation.

The fact I don't believe the orgins of the universe can be explained away with such a theologican semantic non-entity such as 'actus purus', renders anything else your arguments lead to as worthless to me as simply it's an empty phrase, devoid of meaning or any possible substantiation.

It's not semantic, as it bases itself on phenomena in reality, a posteriori, not on semantics.

[Edwardo Piet]

What happened with the earlier posts in this thread, about TAG (as cited at the bottom of this post), was that I got you to admit that the epistemic structure of atheism allows no objective truth to exist

You've failed to show that atheism itself even has a epistemic structure, is a belief system, or a worldview. Atheism is what happens when a group of people get together who don't believe in God. So although there are common similarities, the definition is very very wide. So to speak of 'the epistemic structure of atheism' is to speak of 'the epistemic structure of anyone who doesn't believe in God'...

And you have not shown that all atheists don't believe in objective truth.

within a worldview, and their epistemic relations to each other and to other epistemes and epistemic attitudes in the worldview of the person.

And atheism is not a worldview. Unless you consider 'the view of absolutely anybody who does not believe in God' to be a worldview. In which case, it's very vague and you can't exactly talk about about what it's 'like', so I don't see how it's a worldview. You can't apply any attributes to atheism by definiton, other tahn non-belief in God.

Not believing in God is not a 'belief system', and how exactly is 1 mere absence of a belief a 'worldview'?

Atheism =not believing in God, plus and minus anything else. Not exactly a 'view', anything else is just correlation and not causation. Not part of the definition.

You can talk about an atheist's worldview, but I don't see how you can accurately talk about an atheist worldview.

How exactly does atheism have an epistemic structure?

Any worldview has an epistemic structure, whether the worldview be atheistic or Christian. To say that atheistic worldviews are exempt from having an epistemic structure, would literally equal saying that atheists do not interpret reality without God

As far as I'm concerned you do the same though. You interpret reality without God too because he doesn't exist. The fact you believe he does is irrelevant. An no - I don't claim to 'know' this.

It does no good to say I have to establish the logic before the evidence. Because whether I do or don't, you've still failed to show objective truth exists, and that it supports 'God' somehow.

Atheism refutes even the possibility of it's own objective truth.

If that's the case, then so does theism - because the fact you and other theists alike believe in 'objective truth' (at least in the 'absolute' sense - the only sense you seem to accept it), doesn't mean you've in anyway demonstrated that it actually exists. Because you haven't, have you?

If does no good to say 'oh but I don't need to do that because the logic has to be set up before you can even speak of evidence' - because you still can't pretend to have shown that objective truth exists. How on earth does it? (At least in the absolute sense you will seeminly only except it, as I said).

There would be no difference in degree of truth since there would be no outside truth apart from what is thought to be true, making the contradiction of them just as true insofar as it is thought to be.

Show me how logic can be any more logical if it can be shown to absolute and objective as you say. We live in this one world, and it's just as logical by our experience whether it's absolutely 'objective' or not...it just so happens that you and everyone else it seems, from my perspective - have completely failed to demonstrate that there is objective truth.

If it's ridiculous for me to ask for evidence of objective truth itself, then that doesn't mean you can logically assert that it somehow exists, How does it?

Though of course I don't accept this subjectivism, just to support that Christianity is true

How exactly does ultimately objective truth exist then?

You have not escaped the subjectivism.

I don't need to - how have you demonstrated the existence of ultimately objective truth exactly?

Dude, all I can say about the rest of your post really is...you keep banging on and on about the flaws of my 'subjectivism' but you haven't demonstrated objectivity in anywway. You say don't need to and that's a fallacy. But I fail to see how on earth ulitmately objective truth exists, that's the thing. And so I do think you need to demonstrate it before it's rational to believe in it.

That word 'believe' is the key...

Because to ask for evidence for objective truth may indeed be a fallacy, may indeed be impossible...but whether there can be evidence for it or not, if there isn't any - why believe in it?

It does no good to say 'Oh, it's a fallacy to ask for evidence for objective truth so I'll just go ahead and believe in it anyway' - why believe in it? How exactly does it exist?

EvF

[amw79]

---

This will go round indefinately, not because your argument is unanswerable, but because you've set it up as unquestionable. For instance - "Monotheism is not supposed to be proposed, and then evidenced" - this is quite convenient in a world where everything single other claim MUST be proposed THEN evidenced.

No. Every other hypothesis must be proposed to fit the data, not merely for verification, but for being a true explanation of the data.

For instance, the theory of evolution is proposed to explain the data of biological diversity.

Bohms and Bohrs interpretations of quantum mechanics proposed to explain the data of quantum mechanical observations.

So my point was not that my claims do not require evidence. My point was that my claims are not arbitrary (like the Flying Spaghetti Monster). If my point had been the former, then I would not have gone in (in that exact same post) with giving a sketch of my evidential argument.

I know that your POINT was not that your claims don't require evidence, but the outcome is that your claims are exempt from evidence. Whichever way round you'd like to put the hypothsising, and the evidencing is irrelevant - your claims are unverifiable.

YOU have set god up as transcendent and outside "spatiotemporal existence", If no-one's buy's this notion (and I certainly don't), or requires evidence - too Bad.

My argument from potentiality has dictated that transcendence. Not my "convenience".

Your argument does not dictate transcendence - it relies on it.

This isn't where your argument "arrives at", this is where your argument BEGINS.

It is exactly not where the argument from potentiality begins, because it is not an epistemological argument. It begins at nil, by investigating phenomena in reality, a posteriori. Only the epistemological argument begins at the already-existing worldviews and propositions, and their affirmation or non-affirmation.

Your arguments certainly don't begin at nil - I think most can see this - they begin with god, and work from there.

The fact I don't believe the orgins of the universe can be explained away with such a theologican semantic non-entity such as 'actus purus', renders anything else your arguments lead to as worthless to me as simply it's an empty phrase, devoid of meaning or any possible substantiation.

It's not semantic, as it's based on a posterioritic evidence taking it's basis in phenomena in reality.

---

I disagree, I've read up on 'actus purus', throughout this debate (although one really couldn't call it that, as direct questions do not seem to get direct answers), and it is, for me, simply an empty phrase with no inherant meaning. If you get life-enhancing meaning from such word salad, great; but don't expect anyone else to accept meaningless definitions from a discipline whose whole purpose is to assert the unproveable.