Proof of God's existence!

http://www.piousfabrications.com

"Like" Pious Fabrications on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/piousfabrications

Category:

Education

Tags:

• proofs
• god
• existence
• exists
• philosophy
• christianity
• philosophers
• christians
• greeks
• ancient
• aristotle
• plato
• prime
• mover
• cosmological
• argument
• anselm
• canterbury
• ontological
• metaphysics
• metaphysical
• prosbologion
• middle
• ages
• medieval
• descartes
• immanuel
• kant
• david
• hume
• orthodoxy
• thomas
• aquinas
• five
• ways
• logical
• mind
• propositions
• axioms
• jesus
• christ
• being
• criticism
• critique
• truth
• evidence
• philosophical
• atheism
• atheists

[mrstevenjake22]

@Theatheosis Its only in time if something is being reduced from potentiality to actuality. But since God is not being reduced from potentiality to actuality but is pure actuality in Himself then He is not in motion. therefore the whole talk of priorness in time is irrelevant.

[Theatheosis]

@mrstevenjake22 Right, "everything has a cause" or is a product of prior motion, etc. Doesn't matter how you want to put it. Things preceded by time required things to be in prior motion. But motion is a change in displacement over time, so if there is no time what does things being in motion even mean? Nothing. Priorness is also required for causality. What is priorness if there is no time? Aquinas might as well have said "What is the square root of the color green? Therefore, God exists."

[mrstevenjake22]

@Theatheosis What in the world are you referring to? Aquinas First Way or Unmoved Mover argument has to do with change, or entities being brought from potentiality to actuality.

[Theatheosis]

@mrstevenjake22 Aquinas's cosmological argument is very easily refutable. "Defend premise 1". What I mean by that is demonstrate that premise one holds for the situation at hand rather than being an extrapolation to a point where the rule no longer applies. It's impossible to do because by definition causality requires priorness in which the cause to exist which was not there for the first moment (In which case it wouldn't have been the first moment). Boom roasted. Aquinas's argument fails.

[giorgiv18]

@Theatheosis WTF do you want? I said already, that I didn't express myself very well, while speaking with you and stepped away. Yes, there is no before time, only outside time. We don't make up any rules. And try putting your third point in a more easily understandable way, if you don't want our talk to be more disconnected, than it was. But didn't I say already, that we both messed up a bit in terminology by giving same words different meaning?

[Theatheosis]

@giorgiv18 "But if there ...different nature" 1) There is no 'before time', because beforeness requires time to exist, so you can't be prior to the existence of priorness. It doesn't work 2) Ok, so do we just make up the rules of this new causality? If so, I make up the rule that nothing needs causing. No, you say? Why not? 3) Sometimes ideas extrapolate to things that turn your view upside down. "Gravity bends space time? That's absurd!" but your GPS would be 6 miles off without it, so, tough!

[giorgiv18]

@Theatheosis well, the disconnect between us is my fault. I should not have used the words "initial cause" to express what I think.

[Theatheosis]

@giorgiv18 "as if time were some kind of fundamental property of the universe". Step 1: study physics, most notably the notion of space-time as put forth by Einstein. Time is absolutely a fundamental property of space time, as much as space. 2) What I'm saying there is no initial cause, not that I perceive an initial cause as part of the universe. 3) If you're not willing to listen to my argument and understand the material of course you won't be convinced. I could have told you that.

[giorgiv18]

@Theatheosis Well, your argument is wrong, when you tie causality to time, as if time were some kind of fundamental property of the universe. I think the difference in our logic lies in what we perceive as universe and God, because I think it's very likely, that what I mean under God, or initial cause, you see as part of the universe. Well, could you do me a little favour? When using analogies, please make them more persuasive. Well, bye.

[Theatheosis]

@giorgiv18 So where are my arguments wrong? Do you still disagree with my conclusions. If so, indicate which of my arguments are unsound or invalid.

I enjoy using analogies to explain things because I feel that's more convincing to people than premise 1, p2, p3 therefore c1, c2, etc. CIP: how many people believe in god because of the ontological argument vs because of a personal experience? Emotive argument is more convincing than logical. If I make the logic emotive, I get the best of both.