Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[datc]

Wtf? My OP presents precisely evidence or proofs. Whether they overwhelm you or not is for you to decide. But you refuse so much as to look at them (apparently because it's much easier not to think at all).

The two aren't synonyms...and without evidence, "proofs" are just an exercise in grammar and syntax.  

I'm familiar with Aquinas.  I don't find his arguments compelling, not even as an exercise in grammar and syntax.  You could pick one, post it - or your summary.  Maybe what/why you think it's compelling, and I could tell you why I don't.   

We wouldn't agree, but at least we'd understand each other better.  I'd know why you believed, and you'd know why I don't.

But my argument is different from Aquinas'. It is both more extensive and more precise.

That's why in the 3rd paragraph I write, "Here is where he and I part ways."

[The Grand Nudger]

But my argument is different from Aquinas'. It is both more extensive and more precise.

That's why in the 3rd paragraph I write, "Here is where he and I part ways."

Perhaps a brief synopsis?  Or, you could just present it in a standard form.  That would be useful eh?

[bennyboy]

No links.

Nobody's going to click that, and come back here and report to you.

It's just my personal blog; there are no ads and almost no images, just pure text. But the post linked to, since it discusses all 4 proofs, is somewhat long, so I'd rather not waste the space here by re-posting it.

I'm not asking you to "report" to me as if I were your boss; comment only if you are interested.

If you will repost it here, use hide tags if you think it's long, or if it's really long, clip something concise enough to be talked about in this format. I don't much want to have to visit an unknown site just to see what you are talking about. If you want to talk about something-- talk about it. Or don't.

[Angrboda]

It's a waste of time. This jerkoff is going on about prima materia as if it's something real.

[datc]

It's a waste of time.   This jerkoff is going on about prima materia as if it's something real.

You are both cruel and wrong. Prime matter is an abstract limiting case of matter as potency: "pure" potentiality.

Prime matter is "real" only insofar as it, though just barely removed from non-existence, is not non-existence.

As I write: "To say that prime matter exists is to say that it is potentially, given the appropriate agent, all possible things" but no actual thing.

[Whateverist]

No offense intended but reading through that looks awfully dry and would take a lot of time.  If I were eager to justify god belief, I'd go to the trouble.  But I don't desire to believe in supernatural stuff, and that takes much less time while requiring no justification.

You are not eager to justify your god disbelief?

I personally don't desire to believe in rats; they are disgusting creatures; unfortunately, I am forced to believe in rats due to the overwhelming evidence that they exist.

Well if God was as clearly present as rats, we'd have to deal with It. But how busy you must be if you are seriously going around justifying your disbelief in every other god anyone has ever believed in. Since I dismiss anything of the 'supernatural' variety until such time as there are natural world consequences for doing so, I don't lose any sleep about your god.

[Angrboda]

Prime matter is "real" only insofar as it, though just barely removed from non-existence, is not non-existence.

[Whateverist]

But my argument is different from Aquinas'. It is both more extensive and more precise.

That's why in the 3rd paragraph I write, "Here is where he and I part ways."

Perhaps a brief synopsis?  Or, you could just present it in a standard form.  That would be useful eh?

I don't think the OP wants to rethink all that drivel again either.  He just wants other people to do so and then sit back and spit ball replies to our dismissal.  Why bother?

[datc]

Well if God was as clearly present as rats, we'd have to deal with It.  But how busy you must be if you are seriously going around justifying your disbelief in every other god anyone has ever believed in.  Since I dismiss anything of the 'supernatural' variety until such time as there are natural world consequences for doing so, I don't lose any sleep about your god.

Perhaps God is present as clearly as a non-trivial mathematical theorem is present in its axioms.

---

I don't think the OP wants to rethink all that drivel again either.  He just wants other people to do so and then sit back and spit ball replies to our dismissal.  Why bother?

What am I to rethink? I just wrote it.

[Whateverist]

I don't think the OP wants to rethink all that drivel again either.  He just wants other people to do so and then sit back and spit ball replies to our dismissal.  Why bother?

What am I to rethink? I just wrote it.

Yes you did. I apologize for the snarkiness, but it did seem that you are more motivated to garner an audience for your website than to exchange ideas on a website like this. Few will want to take in all that you've written there and then give you feedback. If you were able to produce a less comprehensive point you'd like to discuss, you would probably get more response.

As you can tell I have no interest in anything described as supernatural. The natural world is everything I've ever experienced, I cannot think of a thing which is not a part of the natural world. Before you suggest mathematics as a counterexample, I should tell you I consider us and everything we can imagine to be entirely natural. A different counter notion to the 'natural' is the 'man made'. Mathematics, literature and religion can all be filed there. But as regards the 'natural' vs 'supernatural' distinction, I place everything manmade also into the natural world.