Posts: 11697
Threads: 117
Joined: November 5, 2016
Reputation:
43
RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 28, 2017 at 2:00 pm
(This post was last modified: November 28, 2017 at 2:05 pm by Amarok.)
Stuff changing within the cosmos says nothing about the cosmos .
Sigh it may take something not bound to the current in universe laws . But again that says nothing at all . And again the claim about infinity has not been demonstrated . It's not the name it's the whole concept . We have already been over this .
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 28, 2017 at 2:05 pm
(This post was last modified: November 28, 2017 at 2:07 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(November 28, 2017 at 1:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (November 28, 2017 at 1:52 pm)Hammy Wrote: For starters, Neo, take this from Wikipedia:
I'm with this until the part I bolded. It just says all this stuff that makes sense logically and then falsely concludes "Therefore God".
What they mean is it takes a force that is not bound by the laws of physics or time to have started all this, hence the "this chain cannot be infinitely long." We call this force, this supreme being, "God". But if the word is your hang up, I suppose you can call it something else.
It doesn't take that though because the laws of physics themselves could be the first cause. You could say that those laws themselves are Godly and they are embedded in God just as much as you could say that God created them.
And yes, the first force is merely called "God" but doing that is no different to labeling the universe or anything else with the word "God". God has not been demonstrated, a first cause has been demonstrated, and that first cause need not be God.
The word is only my hangup because it seems utterly pointless to call something non-intelligent and without a mind "God." There's no reason to think that the first cause is anything like God and calling something that isn't like God "God" is the confusion here. I could say that my left food exists and call my left foot "God" but that would just be calling my left foot "God", it wouldn't actually have anything to do with God, nor would it mean that just because I call it "God" and it exists that it means that God itself really exists. Something that we can call God is not the same as an actual God because we can call anything God.
Posts: 11697
Threads: 117
Joined: November 5, 2016
Reputation:
43
RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 28, 2017 at 2:06 pm
(November 28, 2017 at 2:05 pm)Hammy Wrote: (November 28, 2017 at 1:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: What they mean is it takes a force that is not bound by the laws of physics or time to have started all this, hence the "this chain cannot be infinitely long." We call this force, this supreme being, "God". But if the word is your hang up, I suppose you can call it something else.
It doesn't take that though because the laws of physics themselves could be the first cause. You could say that those laws themselves are Godly and they are embedded in God just as much as you could say that God created them.
And yes, the first force is merely called "God" but doing that is no different to labeling the universe or anything else with the word "God". God has not been demonstrated, a first cause has been demonstrated, and that first cause need not be God.
The word is only my hangup because it seems utterly pointless to call something non-intelligent and without a mind "God." There's no reason to think that the first cause is anything like God and calling something that isn't like God "God" is the confusion here.
Indeed why call it god ? Why not just call it physics?
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Posts: 67189
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 28, 2017 at 2:07 pm
It's not pointless, it allows them to assert that the first cause hates gays... that's the point. 
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 28, 2017 at 2:08 pm
(This post was last modified: November 28, 2017 at 2:09 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(November 28, 2017 at 2:05 pm)Hammy Wrote: (November 28, 2017 at 1:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: What they mean is it takes a force that is not bound by the laws of physics or time to have started all this, hence the "this chain cannot be infinitely long." We call this force, this supreme being, "God". But if the word is your hang up, I suppose you can call it something else.
It doesn't take that though because the laws of physics themselves could be the first cause. You could say that those laws themselves are Godly and they are embedded in God just as much as you could say that God created them.
And yes, the first force is merely called "God" but doing that is no different to labeling the universe or anything else with the word "God". God has not been demonstrated, a first cause has been demonstrated, and that first cause need not be God.
The word is only my hangup because it seems utterly pointless to call something non-intelligent and without a mind "God." There's no reason to think that the first cause is anything like God and calling something that isn't like God "God" is the confusion here.
That first force needs to be something that is not bound by the same laws as everything else in the natural, physical world/universe. Which is why we say it was a supernatural force.
(November 28, 2017 at 2:06 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: (November 28, 2017 at 2:05 pm)Hammy Wrote: It doesn't take that though because the laws of physics themselves could be the first cause. You could say that those laws themselves are Godly and they are embedded in God just as much as you could say that God created them.
And yes, the first force is merely called "God" but doing that is no different to labeling the universe or anything else with the word "God". God has not been demonstrated, a first cause has been demonstrated, and that first cause need not be God.
The word is only my hangup because it seems utterly pointless to call something non-intelligent and without a mind "God." There's no reason to think that the first cause is anything like God and calling something that isn't like God "God" is the confusion here.
Indeed why call it god ? Why not just call it physics?
Lol, because it is specifically NOT physics. The laws of physics don't allow that something be infinite or that it materialize from nothing. That's the whole point.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 28, 2017 at 2:10 pm
(This post was last modified: November 28, 2017 at 2:14 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(November 28, 2017 at 1:52 pm)Hammy Wrote: For starters, Neo, take this from Wikipedia:
Quote:In the world we can see that at least some things are changing. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else. If that by which it is changing is itself changed, then it too is being changed by something else. But this chain cannot be infinitely long, so there must be something that causes change without itself changing. This everyone understands to be God.
I'm with this until the part I bolded. It just says all this stuff that makes sense logically and then falsely concludes "Therefore God".
Aquinas doesn't just have to say a bunch of stuff that makes sense, he actually has to say a bunch of stuff that makes sense and actually concludes logically that "Therefore God."
I can say lots of true things that are logically flawless like:
2+2=4
Squares have 4 sides.
All bachelors are unmarried.
But I can't then conclude:
"Therefore God."
And I can't simply say something true of cosmology and then conclude "Therefore God" either...You don't seem to even recognize non-sequiturs. And in my experience that is really a theist thing. How can so many theists not see that the "Therefore God" part is pulled out of nowhere?
Frozen dog shit on a stick. He doesn't say "Therefore God." He says, "this everyone understands to be God". You quoted it and you still got it wrong. It's a difference that makes all the difference. Aquinas is saying that any god having the nature of a prime mover perfectly overlaps with the nature of the Christian God given by special revelation.
Otherwise, it is good to see that you agree with the notion of a prime mover. That means you accept that the logic of the demonstration is impeccable. You've debunked nothing.
Your examples of tautologies have nothing to do with Aquinas.
Posts: 7568
Threads: 20
Joined: July 26, 2013
Reputation:
54
RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 28, 2017 at 2:10 pm
(November 28, 2017 at 2:08 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (November 28, 2017 at 2:05 pm)Hammy Wrote: It doesn't take that though because the laws of physics themselves could be the first cause. You could say that those laws themselves are Godly and they are embedded in God just as much as you could say that God created them.
And yes, the first force is merely called "God" but doing that is no different to labeling the universe or anything else with the word "God". God has not been demonstrated, a first cause has been demonstrated, and that first cause need not be God.
The word is only my hangup because it seems utterly pointless to call something non-intelligent and without a mind "God." There's no reason to think that the first cause is anything like God and calling something that isn't like God "God" is the confusion here.
That first force needs to be something that is not bound by the same laws as everything else in the natural, physical world/universe. Which is why we say it was a supernatural force.
. . . outside time/space but somehow acting as a cause.
Yep, sounds solid.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 28, 2017 at 2:11 pm
It also must be timeless and be able to create time, which has been proven to be finite (time is finite). Not only that, but determine the limits and equations and numbers everything is apportioned (fine tune the universe).
Laws don't exist by themselves, something is applying these laws. God has been proven in so many ways, and it's really getting boring this "no reason to assume" shit you guys keep spouting when plenty of reasons has been shown which you address not but just parrot your disbelief and slogans like mantras.
Posts: 11697
Threads: 117
Joined: November 5, 2016
Reputation:
43
RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 28, 2017 at 2:12 pm
(This post was last modified: November 28, 2017 at 2:13 pm by Amarok.)
Which is asserted not demonstrated.
Quote:Lol, because it is specifically NOT physics. The laws of physics don't allow that something be infinite or that it materialize from nothing. That's the whole point.
Again asserted not demonstrated.
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 28, 2017 at 2:17 pm
(November 28, 2017 at 2:08 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: That first force needs to be something that is not bound by the same laws as everything else in the natural, physical world/universe. Which is why we say it was a supernatural force.
The laws themselves aren't bound by themselves . . . and there's no more reason to think they were created by something eternal than to think they themselves are eternal or they themselves are part of the nature of something eternal.
And again, if all you mean by "supernatural" is something not bound by the laws of physics then that's once again misleading because it has nothing to do with miracles or God. There's nothing "super" about it. It's not even non-natural or outside natural existence, it's merely the first element of natural existence that wasn't bound by the natural laws that came into being thereafter. There's no reason to think that all of nature must be bound by natural laws, just all of nature since the natural laws have been around. Maybe before the natural laws came into being there was natural lawlessness, and to call that "Supernatural" or "God" is just misleading and playing with words.
|
