On God...

[zrweber]

I am itching to debate the existence of God right now. I don't want to read the above thread of 7000+ post so I am going to start a new thread. Would anyone be willing to debate me if I did?

(Warning you I have horrible spelling and gramar and no time to proof read because I usually have only a 1/2 hour to post before I get kicked off, sometimes more.)

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I am willing to debate with you, just give your starting statements.

[Marcus Septim IV]

yeah first statements are u Do u belive god exists or no tell why som reason and trash then someone can debate with you

[czePowerslave]

Start it somewhere man. Could be interesting. And to add, I do not believe the god exists, I think its mankind created artificial intelligence kept in minds of people by the Church and alike in general in order to stay at power.

[Marcus Septim IV]

Start it somewhere man. Could be interesting. And to add, I do not believe the god exists, I think its mankind created artificial intelligence kept in minds of people by the Church and alike in general in order to stay at power.

i think we'l never see him again

[czePowerslave]

i think we'l never see him again

itching´s been too much apparently

[zrweber]

i think we'l never see him again

Atempt number 3 to write this post *is ready to smash computer because power keeps going out*.

Lol, sorry I'm back I'm kinda in the infantry and kinda in Iraq so undetrstand if it takes me awhile to respond. Some weeks I wont beable to message at all, some days I will litterally have nothing better to do all day(on refit days it's pretty much sleep, play computer games, watch movies, or use the internet and phones.).

Now that i got willing debaters...

Yes I believe in God, namely the Christian God, but thats a whole other debate.

The only naturally way we can know of God's existences is through the things that do exist, namely by need for a Primary cause and effect, but it goes much deeper than that.

I will post my arguements in my next post so i can make sure this gets off in case power goesa out again.

[zrweber]

Anyway, because power keeps cuting out I am going cut this up even more.

1. Movement: Everything is in movment which there can't be an infinite regress, because those are two contradicting terms when put together. Also because it's possible for the universe to be in a state of endless seperation of all forms from each other, it is necesary in an infinte amount that all posibilities happen. All things are not endlessly seperated from each other, therefore there must be a Prime Cause which is what we mean by God.

[zrweber]

2. Necessity: Necessity, as we usaully use it in chance and necessity, is predetermined effect in a form, by a form which has also had it's effect predetemined in it ect.. This predetermination of forms effect, is order intent and not chaotic. Ordered intent necessarly implies a Primary Intender, for the same problem of infinite regression as in the last post. It is basically the same argument but slightly different.

[Kiljaden]

1. Movement: Everything is in movment which there can't be an infinite regress, because those are two contradicting terms when put together.

-Everything is in movement, yes.
-There cannot be an infinite regress... I fail to see how movement and the law of conservation of energy demand infinite regress - as we have not defined cause. Without cause, we're left with a universe in perpetual motion, which is entirely logically plausible.

Also because it's possible for the universe to be in a state of endless seperation of all forms from each other, it is necesary in an infinte amount that all posibilities happen.

-All forms of what, universe? We only know of one universe.
-We, as a species, have not definitively defined anything as infinite yet. As far as we know (have observed), the universe is finite. Therefore, it is not necessary that all possibilities happen.
-Anthropic reasoning help us see that: There is a system. This system has potentially infinite [possibilities]. The system exists in a state, expressing only ONE of the possibilities. Hence, the system is not presently infinite. We exist within the system.
-Metaverse or Multiverse theories are still speculation with help of some advanced mathematics - none have any solid evidence.

All things are not endlessly seperated from each other, therefore there must be a Prime Cause which is what we mean by God.

-I fail to see any logic in this. Because the universe is one thing, there's a Cause? This is a logical fallacy beyond all doubt.

-------------------------------------------------------------

2. Necessity: Necessity, as we usaully use it in chance and necessity, is predetermined effect in a form, by a form which has also had it's effect predetemined in it ect.. This predetermination of forms effect, is order intent and not chaotic. Ordered intent necessarly implies a Primary Intender, for the same problem of infinite regression as in the last post. It is basically the same argument but slightly different.

-You are irrationally asserting Intent and Cause upon a universe which shows neither. I fail to see any logic in this.
-The heart of this argument goes back to infinite regress, but used against you. The only time an infinite regress ever happens is when you assert a Primary Mover\Cause\Intent. This opens a new door to who made the Primary Maker? What caused the Primary Cause? What moved the Primary Mover?
It's completely illogical to just say "Oh, it was always there", as there is no evidence, not even logical inference, to support this claim.
-God requires more explanation than he provides.

[eventhorizen]

The only naturally way we can know of God's existences is through the things that do exist, namely by need for a Primary cause and effect, but it goes much deeper than that.

That is a somewhat ironic statement, for "it" does indeed go much deeper than "that". You have stated that existence is a question deeper than even God.

[zrweber]

That is a somewhat ironic statement, for "it" does indeed go much deeper than "that". You have stated that existence is a question deeper than even God.

You miss understand. I'm saying God is much deeper than just a Prime Cause.

3 cont.: I have pointed out the distinction between simple infinity and finite muliplicity. We know that mulitplicity(finite), cannot exist one it's own because because at one point it didn't exist and it had to be caused to come into existence. What is infinite though, by deffinition, has not started or ceased in existence, it therefore can allways be. Infnite is eternal. Now all numbers exist as a subdivsion of what is infinite. This is true because all number possible = infinity. Now, these number are not actually subdivided from infinity, because inifinity is simple, so properly it is created by infinite, meaning multiplicity and simlicity are two seperate forms yet multiplicity was still brought into being by infinity. Infinity cannot make infinity because it would have no speration of form. If it did it would not truely be infinity.

[Dayman]

finite things have a cause, infinite do not. Infinite is act that has allways been in act, from which finite act originate form. It's not that hard of a consept to understand, and there is no contradiction

So why can't the universe be infinite? Why propose something else? Eliminate the unnecessary theories.

Let me ask this, in what religion do you believe?

[zrweber]

I am going to be gone for a while I will respond but finally it looks like i got saome good arguments to work with, thanks.

[zrweber]

So why can't the universe be infinite? Why propose something else? Eliminate the unnecessary theories.

Because the universe is multiplicite, infinite is simple as the arguments show above.

Let me ask this, in what religion do you believe?

Christianity.

Just got back, will respond to the rest tomorrow if i can.

[zrweber]

No you misunderstand, your very own God is premised upon the fact that things can exist. Whatever is this principle of existence, this mode of existence, it is something your God obeys.

God is ultimate being and existence. I don't see any missunderstanding on my part. Care to expleain more?

The "Prime Cause" in this context would be the fact that no alternative is possible.

Yes... thats what I am arguing.

Order is presupposed at the very heart of existence, prior even to God. Without order God would not be God. With order God can be God, and we call this ordered coherence of possible self existence.

God is that order. I am not sure how you can say it is prior to God. It is what God is.

What you need to ask is not what is this "Prime Cause" for I am of the opinion that this a relatively easy question to answer philosophically, but ask yourself what is this fundamental ordered self coherence that is a priori to all that is.

I just argued in my second point that this was God.

Yet how do you define what is finite and infinite?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infinite
Also endless is only properly infinite if it also has no start.

What objective evidence is there for god not only existing, but being infinite as well?

Any start has a cause, multiplicite has to have a start, therefore multiplicity has a cause. If you keep going back you have infinite regretion which is not possible as already proven, being a self contradictory term. So what is infinite had to be the cause for it to start. It is the only possible for a non-finite cause.

Have you any empirical evidence for this?

This being what? What is wrong with the evidence I have already posted?

Without cause, we're left with a universe in perpetual motion, which is entirely logically plausible.

All you are doing is calling infinite regression by different words. It is not logically possible as stated above in my first few posts. How would perpetual motion not be infinite regression?

-We, as a species, have not definitively defined anything as infinite yet. As far as we know (have observed), the universe is finite. Therefore, it is not necessary that all possibilities happen.

Yes that is what I am saying! It is n9ot possible for the universe to be infinite. It requires and infinite cause to exist. Any start requires a cause. If you are saying it doesn't have a cause then you are saying it doesn't have a start, that which doesn't start cannot have and end, so by deffinition you are saying that it's cause is infinite.

-Anthropic reasoning help us see that: There is a system. This system has potentially infinite [possibilities]. The system exists in a state, expressing only ONE of the possibilities. Hence, the system is not presently infinite. We exist within the system.

I am not really arguing against this.

I fail to see any logic in this. Because the universe is one thing, there's a Cause? This is a logical fallacy beyond all doubt.

Because the universe is in the state it is, it is impossible for there not to an Infinite cause. In fact it is not possable to think of a universe that infinite is not the cause.

-You are irrationally asserting Intent and Cause upon a universe which shows neither. I fail to see any logic in this.

Saying "no it doesn't" is not a counter argument. Argue how this is not true.

-The heart of this argument goes back to infinite regress, but used against you. The only time an infinite regress ever happens is when you assert a Primary Mover\Cause\Intent. This opens a new door to who made the Primary Maker? What caused the Primary Cause? What moved the Primary Mover?
It's completely illogical to just say "Oh, it was always there", as there is no evidence, not even logical inference, to support this claim.

You missunderstand, the prime mover is always in an aboslute simple Act, not simple movemnet. Movement can be broken down to what is potentailly act, becoming act by prior act. Now Act, without potential to act, is not movement. So there is no regression in what is pure act. This is what is ment that God is the begaining and end. He is the Act which all movment is a subdivision. A subdivision, is different in form, and only exists in relation to what is divided from.

[zrweber]

What you describe is the first premis in what we call 'The Problem of Evil'. For God to be 'God' he has to be all knowing and all powerful. (Otherwise he's just some other Dude who is bigger and stronger than you!)

I totally agree. He has to be infinite, not finite.

Now, the second premis is that God is 'Good' (otherwise, why would we want to obey and worship him?)

Agreed, if by good you mean he is Benovolence towards being in genral, and is being (sorry for bashing you with Aquinas). If you use a different definition then we are talking about two completely different "good's"

The third premis is that bad things happen. Probably little controversy there. An example would be a newborn child starving to death or being born with a horrible disease.

Yes and no. They bad things do happen, but in their happening a greater good is being caused, by grace being add. Evil, being the knoweldge of a good even though that good(exitence) is lacking, it is possible that it is evil, but not evil absolutely.

So. God is all-knowing (he knows about the child not having any food.) He is all-powerful (he could magic food into its belly if he felt inclined.) He is good (he generally disapproves of starving infants to death.)

Agree, but there are far more inportaint things then a starving kid. Like the state of the soul, is it in rebelion against the principel of reality or not.

So, why doesn't he intervene?

He see it is not good for him to intervene. It's that simple.

The classic Christian response is: God wants us to have free will because otherwise we cannot display moral choices (or for some more complex reason we don't - or can't understand.)

Thats the main part of it yes.

Now, if the world follows physical laws. And we are physical beings..? Can you see the problem with the so-called free-will defence to the problem of evil?

No because our will is what we choose to afferm subsiting intent of the prinibple of being (the Tree of Life), or to have intent order to knowledge which is not dirived from the principle of being. Is it founded in the Logos(Logic/Word), or is it founded in irationality. That is the will, and there is nothing physical that causes what you found your intellect and Knowledge in. What is to make me be logical or illogical? I could choose either one. I make the choice in reason, because I hope in the Logos.

[zrweber]

Does no response to my arguements mean I win?