"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[anonymous person]

Certain people = people who have a firm grasp on logic?


Cool. So are you now going to provide a workable definition for the task of arguing against the existence of "God"?

No.

 

[quatona]

No.

Then your request remains poinless.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If that is the case, then the logical problem of evil evaporates.

So does the logical problem of existence, first causes, infinite regression, etc.

 

[anonymous person]

Wouldn't it be "greater" if he gave us all the same intuitions about "greatness," so that we'd all agree that he is "greatest"?

Amazing isn't it?

How we argue for what is greater without really realizing it?

You've done the very thing some here say is either meaningless or pointless or purely a matter of opinion that cannot be established objectively.

 

[anonymous person]

Then your request remains poinless.

Great.

Now I can turn my attention to those who think there are good arguments against the existence of God and talk with them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The Original Cause can not be caused.

Why not and how do you know?

It's impossible to cause the original cause, because that would imply there is no original cause, only effect. But an effect is caused by definition.

You're just defining it to be the case.

I can define the universe as being uncaused just as easily.

 

[anonymous person]

So does the logical problem of existence, first causes, infinite regression, etc.

Exactly.

Some people don't mind throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Aha, i see your point.
We're obviously speaking of our reality, you know, the thing we have in common, which we can observe by means of our senses, of which we're a part ourselves.

Still not making sense....

You are still speaking of existence.
We can't look "beyond the universe" (if that even makes sense), but if the universe exists within a larger plane of existance (like a multi-verse or whatever the heck it is), then that existence is simply also part of existence.

As was said by @Archaeopteryx... the cause itself would have to exist in some way. So no matter what "plane of existance" you are speaking off... it is always non-sensical to state that "a cause that exists caused existence itself".

That should be pretty obvious.......

 

[Hieronymus]

--------should have quoted, never mind...---------

 

[Hieronymus]

Why not and how do you know?

it's basic logic, friend.
If the Original Cause was caused, it's not the Original Cause, but an effect, caused by something else (which may be the actual Original Cause)

 

[Hieronymus]

I expect you to demonstrate that existence has a cause. You're intuitively jumping from "every effect that we experience has a cause"

Even if we do not experience.
The definition of an effect is that it has a cause.

to "matter and energy and the universe itself has a cause". This is not a reasonable intuitive leap.

I think we all can agree (for numerous reasons) the universe had a beginning.
Even time had a beginnig, probably.

It's our reality.
It can't have caused itself, otherwise it would have existed before it existed.

Well okay then, if God is defined as the only thing without a cause, then I can validly reformulate the first premise of the argument as follows: "Everything except God has a cause".

Correct.
And why?
Because God is defined as the Original Cause(r).

And at that point, the argument has become circular. You are trying to prove the existence of god, but the first premise already assumes that god exists.

Nope, you just don't seem to get it.

 

[Hieronymus]

On a more general note: I think it has become hopeless by now to try to keep this thread on topic.
I´ll officially submit it to the fate of pretty much every thread here has after a couple of pages: I.e. becoming a general discussion of the question "Does a God exist?".

Not "a God", God.
There is only one God by definition, but which one is It?

 

[Hieronymus]

Or, you know, you could save time and just give a straight answer. Why are you dodging? It takes just as much time to write "option 1" or "option 2" as it takes to say "go back and reread all my posts". Less, even.

Reading it again would be even more efficient, in stead of complaining about my stopping the repetition.

Why do you think there's a reason?

Because it has design written all over it.
Everything seems to have purpose, like organs, organisms, eco-systems, solar system, our lives, the lives of others in our community.

I don't want reality to be pointless. I don't see reality as pointless. This is a far cry from assuming that there has to be a reason for the universe's existence.

Something either has a point or it doesn't.

William Lane Craig has explicitly stated that if he were taken back in time and got to watch Jesus's body rot away for months in the tomb, he would still believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

What does this have to do with this discussion?

Bias doesn't get much more rigid than that.

I would agree, and i think it's a strange remark by W L Craig.

And yet, we don't throw that at him when discussing his arguments, we address it on its merits.

Of course, that's called "discussion" isn't it?
But WLC didn't join us here.

 

[anonymous person]

There are some that will say that things can come into being without any causal conditions whatsover.

There are some that will say that things can cause themselves to come into being.

These and like views constitute the vain philosophies Paul spoke about in his letters.

Such as they who profess to be wise in holding such views are actually fools he states.

I concur.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Amazing isn't it?

How we argue for what is greater without really realizing it?

What's this "we" business...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

But WLC didn't join us here.

Which is a good thing, because if he were posting here I couldn't call him a moron and a huckster without getting banned from the website...

 

[The Cadet]

The definition of an effect is that it has a cause.

At a certain point, we're just playing word games. If having a cause is baked into the definition of "effect", then I'm going to have to ask you to demonstrate that the universe is an effect. You don't just get to smuggle your premises into the definitions of the words you're using like that.

I think we all can agree (for numerous reasons) the universe had a beginning.
Even time had a beginnig, probably.

I think I'd like to see you demonstrate that point.

Nope, you just don't seem to get it.

Well why don't you show me where my logic breaks down? Here's the traditional structure of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
   Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.
4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful; Therefore:
5. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

That bit in premise 1? It sets up a dichotomy beween two sets - "things that begin to exist" and "things that do not begin to exist". And it sets out a condition for the former set. However, your claim is that the latter set contains just one object - god. If that's the case, then a simple logical reformulation can take place:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause -> (Because we set this up as a true dichotomy, we can replace the term with its inverse)
1. Everything except things that do not begin to exist has a cause -> (Because there is only one thing that did not begin to exist, we can generalize)
1. Everything except god has a cause

At which point your argument becomes circular and thus a meaningless tautology.

If there is a problem with my reasoning, please explain the problem, don't just hand-wave it away.

There are some that will say that things can come into being without any causal conditions whatsover.

Yes, actually, this is heavily implied by quantum physics.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not "a God", God.
There is only one God by definition, but which one is It?

What definition?

 

[Hieronymus]

What definition?

Well, God is the Creator, everything that is, is (initially) made by Him, He is the Original Cause.
That definition.
If you believe this or not is not relevant, but it's what "God" (capital G) means.

 

[anonymous person]

What's this "we" business...

Who did I quote?