I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Edwardo Piet]

@ JP

Sounds to me like that's asking for a falstification of falsifiability itself, and is comparable with asking for evidence - for the existence of evidence itself! In other words: Absurd.

Thoughts?

EvF

[Jon Paul]

Sounds to me like that's asking for a falstification of falsifiability itself,

I just don't see how you would falsify the law of contradiction, if it is itself a premise for that falsification. It's a bit trying to falsify falsification itself, if that is the case.

And that's what I pointed out that falsifying the law of contradiction seems to equal to do, so it's not me who did that, I was the pointing out the possible flaw in trying to do such a thing.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ok. Who needs to do it anyway? Where's this "God" of yours? And how on earth does "Jesus" fit into all this - to get to that theistic (Christian) point from where you're at (Deistic rambling) seems like a total mindfuck to me.

EvF

[Jon Paul]

Ok. Who needs to do it anyway?

No one "needs to do it", I never said that.

Where's this "God" of yours? And how on earth does "Jesus" fit into all this - to get to that theistic (Christian) point from where you're at (Deistic rambling) seems like a total mindfuck to me.

"Deus" is the Latin equivalent of Greek "Theos", both of which mean God, and are also etymologically equivalent. My arguments don't establish just any god (deity) or theology (e.g. Zeus), but specifically the transcendent God of biblical doctrine.

Though you should note, I didn't come here to offer absolute or objective proof that Christianity is true, but simply some reasons to believe that the transcendent God of biblical doctrine exists as we have it revealed through the prophets and patriarchs, in the scriptures and traditions.

That is what the TAG does; it compares a Christian to an atheist worldview and concludes that Christianity is more likely to be true. Any version of biblical transcendent theism would then be true insfoar as it borrows from the Christian worldview and biblical doctrine of God, and if analogous biblical theism is taken to be true to begin with, a (biblical-)theistic perspective of the bible and history and Christianity follow, which makes Christianitys truth much more likely, even if one is not a Christian.

[Edwardo Piet]

I miss the part where the TAG provides strong evidence for the existence of such a transcedent mind ("God")! No such belief is required, because there's no evidence. Unless you can enlighten me, and show me the part where the TAG somehow demonstrates God with strong evidence of him actually existing.

EvF

[Jon Paul]

I miss the part where the TAG provides strong evidence for the existence of such a transcedent mind ("God")! No such belief is required, because there's no evidence. Unless you can enlighten me, and show me the part where the TAG somehow demonstrates God with strong evidence of him actually existing.

EvF

Of course you missed the part, because most people do. But to resolve that, I have presented it in several forms, and I presented my own version of a transcendental argument which concludes the existence of a necessary intellectual subsistent transcendent God, after the effect, that is, a posteriori, after reflecting on the existence of the natural world, as opposed to the strictly a priori orthodox TAG. Besides, those are transcendental arguments; neither of which have been refuted (but instead confounded with "created logic and morality"-arguments and the like), but I also presented the decidedly a posteriori argument from potentiality and actuality.

In any case, of course you would not accept any argument that I present, because you will always judge it as "not evidence" without refuting it, just "semantics", etc, and I can't really spend much time on that without a proper refutation.

That is one of the truths of the orthodox transcendental argument, namely that people stick to their presuppositions, a priori foundational knowledge, and judge the world and all arguments and evidence based on that; and that it takes a quantum leap beyond reasonable possibility to invoke except by free will for anything to change that, so that what we should really do is compare the logical coherence and concordance with reality of those almost unshakable presuppositions a priori, as anything else is really unrealistic. You will deny that too maybe, doesn't change anything, only shows that it's easier just to deny to come to terms with a certain reality of subjectivity and hard presuppostion.

[Edwardo Piet]

The universe can work just fine without a transcendal 'God'. If God can exist from the beginning then so can the universe, and the universe is less complex than the universe + God.

So I need some physcial evidence of him, because if he's non-physcial I can't detect him, I can't know of any evidence of him, so there's no reason top believe in him.

I am saying what you have said to be 'just semantics'/not evidence because you have either described things that work just fine without God too, so you have provided nothing but semantics. Or any other so-called 'evidence' you've given, isn't evidence because it hasn't actually demonstrated him existing to me. Where is he? If you just say "everywhere" I can just say "that's the universe" - a transcendental "God" isn't necessary.

EvF

[LukeMC]

but I also presented the decidedly a posteriori argument from potentiality and actuality.

Yeah, about that... I think you missed this when you answered my question on Noah:

---

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.

Quantum fluctuations and multiverses and suchlike are interesting speculations and would be interesting if they were true. Until then, we have no reason to believe the universe had a cause.

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.

Come again? I haven't really followed this thread since it's creation, so I must have missed whatever you outlined. The happenings in time and space spring from the universe, just as time and space themselves come about from the very existence of the "something at all" that the universe happens to be. The mere fact of existence could satisfy your transcedence, as the universe is not required to be defined as "time and space" but merely "the existence of a plane from which time and space can come into being". Much like yahweh.

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.

So your god is allowed to be uncreated but my universe isn't? Why isn't god an actualised potentiality? He just "is" yet my universe must be caused?

---

Fancy getting back to me on that?

[Jon Paul]

1) The universe can work just fine without a transcendal 'God'. 2) If God can exist from the beginning then so can the universe, 3) and the universe is less complex than the universe + God.

1) If there is a transcendental God, then he is a necessary being, and then the universe cannot work "just fine without him". If there is not, then there is not a necessity of that being, and then the universe can work just fine without him. You just proved, yet again, that all you really have to offer is a presupposition: namely the presupposition that there is not a necessary being, only in which case the latter conclusion is correct.

2) A transcendental God is not just a God who exists only from the beginning, but exactly transcendental to time, and therefore nontemporal and existing wholly apart from the beginning and the ending. Otherwise he would be immanent and temporal, not transcendent.

3) Not according to the doctrine of divine simplicity, which signifies that God is the simplest possible being, and that the origin of the complex universe is in God, the simple being whose attributes all reflect on his singular (mono) ontology, as opposed to the attributes of the universe and its capability for containing a multiplicity of them which are not equal and much complexity and contradictions, as opposed to the singular ontology of the necessary being.

So I need some physcial evidence of him, because if he's non-physcial I can't detect him, I can't know of any evidence of him, so there's no reason top believe in him.

You can test Gods existence through the principles of logic, rational and empirical inquiry, since if God truly exists, then his existence has effects which means that we can know, by understanding the nature of reality, whether God is the source for the effect we call the universe. Though you cannot directly observe him, that doesn't exclude evidence, neither of purely rational nor empirically based kinds. We've been over this before; direct observation is not the only kind of evidence of a thing. There is also evidence after the effect.

---

So your god is allowed to be uncreated but my universe isn't? Why isn't god an actualised potentiality? He just "is" yet my universe must be caused?[/hide]

Look around you. You see that this universe is impure actuality, which means a composition of actuality and potentiality through actualised potentiality, because what exists now has unrealised potencies, which means the aptitude for change or for a new thing coming to be true of that thing. That which has unrealised potencies, is not pure actuality, because pure actuality is not purely actual unless it is completely (purely) actual, with nothing being unactual -unrealised/still potential- in it; if it is not purely actual -realised-, and has unrealised potencies, it is impure actuality (like our universe), and it has aptitude for change, and it will constantly change and evolve and unactual real potencies of that thing can (and will) become actual, and this constantly keeps happening while it exists. That is not pure actuality; that is impure actuality, that is, the actuality of a potency which is itself an actualised potency of another thing, and which itself carries other unactual potencies in itself that have yet to become actual.

[Edwardo Piet]

1) If there is a transcendental God, then he is a necessary being, and then the universe cannot work "just fine without him". If there is not, then there is not a necessity of that being, and then the universe can work just fine without him. You just proved, yet again, that all you really have to offer is a presupposition: namely the presupposition that there is not a necessary being, only in which case the latter conclusion is correct.

If that's an argument then what you have failed to understand is the burden of proof.

A transcendental God is an assumption. And yes, no transcendental God is also an assumption. But the burden of proof is on those who believe in a God. Because what we already know to exist, the universe, by itself, is a less complex hypothesis than the universe + .An omnipotent supernatural "God" with a so-called 'objective mind'.

Untill there is any evidence for God first, the burden of proof is on the believer, not the disbeliever.

If I claim to know there's no God. Then that's different, I am claiming to know something I can't then. I am claiming to be able to have proof of a negative - a logical fallacy. So I would need positive evidence in that case.

But seen as all I'm saying is there's "no evidence for God", then untill I know of any I can rationally assume the burden of proof is on you, the believer, not me.

2) A transcendental God is not just a God who exists only from the beginning, but exactly transcendental to time, and therefore nontemporal and existing wholly apart from the beginning and the ending. Otherwise he would be immanent and temporal, not transcendent.

Well this definition of God is all fine and dandy as any other. But like the others it has one crutial problem - it lacks evidence.

You can test Gods existence through the principles of logic, rational and empirical inquiry, since if God truly exists, then his existence has effects which means that we can know, by understanding the nature of reality, whether God is the source for the effect we call the universe. Though you cannot directly observe him, that doesn't exclude evidence, neither of purely rational nor empirically based kinds. We've been over this before; direct observation is not the only kind of evidence of a thing. There is also evidence after the effect.

Yeah, sure. Where is it? Where do you genuinely demonstrate his existence? I don't care how you do it or whether it's direct or not - I just care that it's valid.

EvF