I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

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

It's not an argument; it's a comparison of different scenarios.

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.

I believe I have proof enough of a transcendent God, to at least consider his existence highly probably, based on the reasons I have given here and other reasons.

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'.

That it not necessarily so, and the doctrine of divine simplicity would wholeheartedly disagree; it would state that the capability of the universe to contain multiplicity and complexity due to the of it's constants and physical laws and nature, mandates that there be a simpler, and ultimately singular reality (God) that transcends it.

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.

It doesn't; it's exactly the kind of God the argument from potentiality/actuality evidences.

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.

I demonstrate it based on empirical and rational knowledge in the argument from potentiality/actuality. And the transcendental argument demonstrates it based on rational knowledge and analysis of intrinsic logical coherence.

[omjag86]

In following your diatribe of why there is a God, you are assuming, in all your grand wordsmithing, that God is the reason for all this.
The question is really yours to answer; Can every topic, every scenario, every thesis which you have presented exist without God?

As far as we know-YES, absolutely!

Just because there is no God you won't fall apart, you'll do just fine without her.


om


"I love Chocolate-but I'm not attached to it." The Laughing Buddha

[Jon Paul]

The question is really yours to answer; Can every topic, every scenario, every thesis which you have presented exist without God?

They can exist without God, only if and only if, God is not a necessary being, which is just a restatement of whether God is necessary for the existence of the universe or not, and of course as an atheist, you presuppose that he is not:

As far as we know-YES, absolutely!!

The scenario of our universe described by the argument from potentiality versus actuality, exactly answers why it (impure actuality) cannot exist without God (pure actuality).

[Tiberius]

of course as an atheist, you presuppose that he is not

No, as an atheist (and scientist), I don't pre-suppose anything other than "science is the best way to learn things about the universe".

I look at the evidence and do not find any pointing towards a God. My disbelief in God is not a pre-supposition, but more of a conclusion based on the lack of evidence for such a position.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's not an argument; it's a comparison of different scenarios.

Well the comparison is that they are the same except one contains God and the other isn't. The burden of proof is on the God side, evidence for God is needed. Where is it?

I believe I have proof enough of a transcendent God, to at least consider his existence highly probably, based on the reasons I have given here and other reasons.

That it not necessarily so, and the doctrine of divine simplicity would wholeheartedly disagree;

I strongly disagree with them then. 'Divine simplicity' is an oxymoron when you're talking of the universal scale. Divinity, if it is to come at all - has to come from mechanical ignorance that is far from divine.

it would state that the capability of the universe to contain multiplicity and complexity due to the of it's constants and physical laws and nature, mandates that there be a simpler, and ultimately singular reality (God) that transcends it.

A simple mind is less simple than simplicity without a mind. Besides, minds are complex, especially if they're 'there from the beginning'. It's not simple for a mind to be there right form the start, you need an explanation for something like that. And for a mind to devise and create a universe right from the beginning with no explanation for itself whatsover - is very complex indeed!!

It doesn't; it's exactly the kind of God the argument from potentiality/actuality evidences.

I still fail to see evidence. You have to show me with evidence that God exists, that I can't simply attribute to something natural that I already know to exist seperate from God.

I demonstrate it based on empirical and rational knowledge in the argument from potentiality/actuality.

Empirical? Where? Where is God, that isn't just Nature?

And the transcendental argument demonstrates it based on rational knowledge and analysis of intrinsic logical coherence.

I don't see anything that demonstrates a supernatural creator, sorry. I see a lot of suggests that are a lot more complex than the hypothesis without God, and a lack of evidence for those suggestions.

EvF

[Jon Paul]

No, as an atheist (and scientist), I don't pre-suppose anything other than "science is the best way to learn things about the universe".

I was not speaking about you or ALL atheists, as some atheists are more agnostic than others, but about the exact text I quoted in question, which did presuppose that God does not exist (which is strong atheism), it specifically stated "The universe can work just fine without a transcendal 'God'.", which is the same saying that God is not necessary for the universe' existence, which is the same as the presupposition that God does not exist [as the hypothesis of God is that God is a necessary being, and if he is not, then God does not exist].

I look at the evidence and do not find any pointing towards a God. My disbelief in God is not a pre-supposition, but more of a conclusion based on the lack of evidence for such a position.

So let's call it a post-supposition after seemingly not finding evidence; then when you bring that post-supposition into an argument with a theist (me) who has the post-supposition that there is evidence, it becomes a presupposition through which the theistic evidence and post-suppositions are viewed with.

*
Besides, minds are complex, especially if they're 'there from the beginning'.

God is not just there "from the beginning". That is not the transcendent God, anyway; he is wholly transcendent to temporal dimension, and therefore not limited by it or by temporal designations.

*
It's not simple for a mind to be there right form the start, you need an explanation for something like that. And for a mind to devise and create a universe right from the beginning with no explanation for itself whatsover - is very complex indeed!!

Human minds are complex, because it is part of the universe that it is composite, that it can contain multiplicities and complex entities. But that does not mean the kind of mind that we speak of when we speak of God is actually complex. After all, God is not a mind in the human sense, but in the sense of having an intellectual nature.

What we actually mean with Gods absolute simplicity can be clearly understood by a single consideration. Gods absolute simplicity means that all his attributes are ultimately equal to the same fact of his being, meaning that his ontology is entirely noncomposite and singular, and composition is the source of the complexity in the universe. God, being noncomposite, is then totally noncomplex, and absolutely simple.

[Kyuuketsuki]

It's for Youhoo!

I see no refutation of my argument in your post, just some statements of private opinions, some of which even cosonate with exactly what the argument states in some areas of the epistemic structure and non/affirmation implicit in atheism, so I could only speculate that you didn't state that to consonate with the argument intentionally so, because you hadn't considered it.

They were very direct answers ... that you side-stepped them by saying they were not only goes to support my view that you are disingenuous!

Kyu

---

There is, as far as I know, no "Law of Contradiction", there is only a definition of what "contradiction" means. I accept there is a principle that can be derived from that but isn't a law.

To my mind this is exactly what you do when I say you hide behind language ... you take a simple idea of contradiction (that two mutually exclusive things cannot simultaneously be true)and you start backing it up and inflating it with psychobabble. It's also why I wont deal with you on your terms but stick firmly on the grounds of reality.

Kyu

[Jon Paul]

There is, as far as I know, no "Law of Contradiction", there is only a definition of what "contradiction" means. I accept there is a principle that can be derived from that but isn't a law.

The law of contradiction I mentioned only relatively late in the debate. Sure, there are definitions of what is truly contradictory or not, but that doesn't invalidate the law of contradiction; it invalidates perhaps some supposed self-contradictions.

Object X, say, my mobile phone, or Mount Ararat, or an olive branch, cannot both exist in the sense same on the same time, and not exist in the same sense on the same time. To deny that that would be a contradiction (meaning that one thing excludes -contradicts- the other) you would be the one who would have to argue over definitions and semantics, to define a contradiction into existence, by defining that say, Mt. Ararat, both exists and doesn't exist in the same sense on the same time, based on some semantic argument (surely some would do this).

As Avicenna says (from the wikipedia page on it): Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.

[theVOID]

JP:

Making a claim based on unproven assertions and untestable assumptions is not a reasonable hypothesis, especially when your argument contains less reality and more practically useless conceptual descriptors to explain properties that may or may not exist.

You have absolutely failed to deliver a stronger case for god than 'the universe needs a cause therefore god' and it doesn't matter how many silly hypothetical concepts you pull out-of-your-ass in order to justify it, you have still failed to prove anything at all.

[Tiberius]

So let's call it a post-supposition after seemingly not finding evidence; then when you bring that post-supposition into an argument with a theist (me) who has the post-supposition that there is evidence, it becomes a presupposition through which the theistic evidence and post-suppositions are viewed with.

No, my post-supposition after looking at the evidence is not brought into arguments containing new evidence. That would be a foolish way to look at things. If you come up with a new argument that shows evidence for God (and doesn't have other explanations) then you have evidence that is good enough for me.