A question for atheists and agnostics

[Nathan45]

All right, you want an argument for God's intelligence.
Here goes.


First, the perfect logically precedes the imperfect.

Show your work.

Although the same being evolves from perfect to imperfect (as in a boy prior to a man), everything imperfect must come from a perfect original.

I disagree and don 't follow.

The child is not conceive except by a man, and the seed is not existence if not for the plant it came from.

Man is not perfect, neither is the plant. Furthermore, i could make the reverse argument about the seed proceeding the plant. We could argue chicken and egg all day.

Further, any perfections found in anything must be superabundantly present in God.

"Perfection" is meaningless unless given a context of utility, as in, "Perfect" for what purpose. "God" is outside time, so none of the attributes which would make any of his creations "Perfect" in any context would apply to God.

In God exists all perfections in creatures. Whoever moves something toward its perfection, first must possess in itself the perfection it gives to others.

I completely disagree and this assertion is not supported by anything as far as i can tell.

A teacher has the knowledge he passes on to students.

Teachers and students often learns things on his own without being taught them directly. Once he knows the pattern by which learning is done he can learn for himself with no teacher.

God possesses the perfection he gives to existence. All perfections found in things must exist in God super-abundantly.

I don't accept your earlier premises so obviously i don't accept this.

Also whatever contains some perfection but not others is contained under a genus. God is not. If the divine essence is infinite, it must possess all perfections in the genera.

in addition to this not making a lick of sense, please define "Perfection".

Now, we must demonstrate that God is an intelligent Being. All perfections pre-exist in Him. Among all the perfections in creatures, intelligence is a special importance, because intellectual beings are more powerful than others. Also, God is the first mover. This is, apparently, a property of intellect. The intellect uses all other things as an instrument, animals and plants and inantimate objects, of a sort, to cause motion. God, the first mover, must be intelligent.

... see above.

 

[MaxP]

please don't take this as an indication that i agree with everything you posted. I'd honestly like to skip all of the metaphysical philosophy or whatever this is, and get into actual theology.

You apparently show disdain for philosophy in favor of science. Both have their place.
Philosophy answers why.
Science answers what.

 

[TeddyKGB]

But that would mean if there was no quark, or no energy particle, the things that seemingly pop out of nothing would not pop out.
Thus, they're not popping out of nothing?

They come into existence where they did not exist before, and they appear to do so without cause. What is the "nothing" to which you refer?

 

[Nathan45]

No, the basic question is "Why does God exist?"
And the answer is "Because nothing natural lasts for eternity; and existence must be eternal, because if there was nothing at one point there still would be."

The question was "Why does god exist?" not "How do you know god exists?"

 

[stekaya]

^Um, why are you listed as Catholic then?

I'm a confirmed Catholic, just not a practicing one.

 

[MaxP]

They come into existence where they did not exist before, and they appear to do so without cause. What is the "nothing" to which you refer?

Absolute nothing. I was saying that is has a cause, because without the energy particle, the virtual particle would not exist, so then the coming into existence requires the particle be there. So, it has a cause?
I obviously don't have a great grasp on the science, but is there anything scientifically that would state otherwise?

 

[Nathan45]

I'm a confirmed Catholic, just not a practicing one.

Technically, I'm Jewish, so maybe we have a bit in common

But usually on a forum like this someone who doesn't believe in God would take an atheist or agnostic icon, regardless of what church he used to (edit: or nominally) attend(s).

 

[TheBear]

I have not shifted from the general concept of God.

Once you shifted to "personal guidance from the Spirit", you changed the subject from a general concept of a deity, to a specific claim that not only is there a god, but people are personally guided by this god. For all we know, if there is a supernatural force out there, it may be far removed from human events. Or maybe there's a committee of gods, busy designing other universes. But you made a specific claim, and assigned a specific trait to god. That's a change of subject from the OP question.

BTW, Gos is not anthropomorphic.
Any traits He possesses ...

You've made my point.

 

[MaxP]

The question was "Why does god exist?" not "How do you know god exists?"

Ok then, God exists because existence does.
Then you state how.

 

[Nathan45]

You apparently show disdain for philosophy in favor of science. Both have their place.
Philosophy answers why.
Science answers what.

I think when you're asserting that your religion is true, this is really a question of "what" not "why".

 

[Nathan45]

Ok then, God exists because existence does.

Which is essentially the equivilent of saying "He just does".

Then you state how.

I really have no idea.

 

[stekaya]

Technically, I'm Jewish, so maybe we have a bit in common

But usually on a forum like this someone who doesn't believe in God would take an atheist or agnostic icon, regardless of what church he used to attend.

I didn't even notice the option for Agnostic, I just went right for catholic

I'm not opposed to the idea of a God, and as a matter of fact I wished that I did believe in him! I haven't personally witnessed any incontrovertible evidence to support his existence, however, which leads me to believe that his existence is doubtful.

On a different note, is your icon a representation of chaos theory?

 

[Nathan45]

I didn't even notice the option for Agnostic, I just went right for catholic

I'm not opposed to the idea of a God, and as a matter of fact I wished that I did believe in him! I haven't personally witnessed any incontrovertible evidence to support his existence, however, which leads me to believe that his existence is doubtful.

On a different note, is your icon a representation of chaos theory?

No. it's a deist icon. Wikipedia has a decent article on deism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

edit:

or if you're talking about the fractal that is in my avatar see this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set

 

[MaxP]

Show your work.

I could show Plato's work on us being an imperfect copy of an ideal form, if you wish. But I suppose you wouldn't like that.

I disagree and don 't follow.

The perfected form of boy is man(not saying man is perfect; nothing on earth is perfect, just man is ultimate form of boy). The boy precedes from the man.

Man is not perfect, neither is the plant. Furthermore, i could make the reverse argument about the seed proceeding the plant. We could argue chicken and egg all day.

Again, the analogy is not absolutely translatable because nothing on earth is perfect. And the chicken and egg argument is immaterial; whichever came first, the seed is meant to be a plant. The plant is meant to drop seeds. The relative "perfection," and full potential, of the seed is only realized when it is a plant. A seed, then, proceeds from a plant, and that seed is not perfected until it becomes a plant.

"Perfection" is meaningless unless given a context of utility, as in, "Perfect" for what purpose. "God" is outside time, so none of the attributes which would make any of his creations "Perfect" in any context would apply to God.

Perfections are those traits of ours that make us more, so to speak, perfect. In other words, perfections are traits of being perfect. Perfect is the best form of ourselves possible.
As for God being outside of time, is completely immaterial. God is existence, so any perfections applying to us would apply to Him.

I completely disagree and this assertion is not supported by anything as far as i can tell.

If God is existence in its perfection, he must possess the perfect traits man has.

Teachers and students often learns things on his own without being taught them directly. Once he knows the pattern by which learning is done he can learn for himself with no teacher.

But from whence does the student learn?
Book, the internet nowadays. But if there is no one to write the book or website, the student will not receive the knowledge.
Being self-taught is still being taught. The knowledge must be passed on to be known.

I don't accept your earlier premises so obviously i don't accept this.

So you can read my above responses.

in addition to this not making a lick of sense, please define "Perfection".

Not a lick of sense? Here, God is not a genus. Genuses are defined in their differences in perfection, but God is all genuses. He contains infinitely all perfection.
Perfection is the status of being the best possible form of oneself.

... see above.

I did.

 

[MaxP]

I'm not opposed to the idea of a God, and as a matter of fact I wished that I did believe in him! I haven't personally witnessed any incontrovertible evidence to support his existence, however, which leads me to believe that his existence is doubtful.

I respect you for that. Many atheists are; I am not on this thread to convince people God exists, but that He is a reasonable conclusion.
Of course involved with belief in God is a measure of faith; God Himself acknowledges that.
Faith is not a bad thing, IMHO.

 

[Nathan45]

Perfections are those traits of ours that make us more, so to speak, perfect. In other words, perfections are traits of being perfect. Perfect is the best form of ourselves possible.

I think i'm going to focus on this since nothing else you say makes any sense at all until you define perfect.

Needless to say everything i quoted above is circular logic.

 

[MaxP]

Once you shifted to "personal guidance from the Spirit", you changed the subject from a general concept of a deity, to a specific claim that not only is there a god, but people are personally guided by this god. For all we know, if there is a supernatural force out there, it may be far removed from human events. Or maybe there's a committee of gods, busy designing other universes. But you made a specific claim, and assigned a specific trait to god. That's a change of subject from the OP question.

I referenced my belief in one sentence.
Yes, I have a belief.
Referencing it does not invalidate other traits.

You've made my point.

I stated earlier God is neither He nor She nor It nor Bozo, it is just a title.

 

[MaxP]

I think i'm going to focus on this since nothing else you say makes any sense at all until you define perfect.

Needless to say everything i quoted above is circular logic.

What, that perfect is the best form of ourselves possible?

 

[Nathan45]

On a different note, is your icon a representation of chaos theory?

You must be talking about my avatar not my icon.

The big blue picture is called an "avatar". "Icon" usually refers to the Faith Icon, which would be the little atomic symbol that says "deist" if you scroll over it. Just a little forum vocabulary for you.

anyway as i said before the big blue picture is a fractal, part of the mandlebrot set

 

[MaxP]

I think when you're asserting that your religion is true, this is really a question of "what" not "why".

Again, my purpose is not to convince you of my religion, but to convince that intelligent God is not a wholly illogical conclusion.