- May 28, 2018
- 14,282
- 6,364
- 69
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Forgive me for my ignorance as to how to put quotes within quotes like you guys do so well. Bear with me.
[1] I notice you were careful not to say, "A thing creating itself is not illogical." You only ask how my points prove it! I guess I need to expand a bit, since you asked, though you implied you would not ask since they were off topic. Often I say something that seems to me to bring obvious implications with it, that are somehow not obvious to others. "A thing cannot cause itself to exist" because it would first have to exist to be able to cause anything. It also "cannot spontaneously begin to exist" because beginning necessarily implies causation, if nothing else, the principle by which it began --therefore, not spontaneity.
Does that help?
[2] "A thing that exists, is either first cause, or was caused." Perhaps I should put the logical link in there, that "cannot spontaneously begin to exist" rules out Spontaneity of existence, period, by definition of the word 'spontaneous'. It is not a static word. So, other than spontaneity, do you have another option besides 'caused to exist' and 'self-existent'?
You say:
You appear to reason as follows :
P1. I don't know how something could cause itself to exist.
P2. It would be covenient for my faith if nothing could cause itself to exist.
C. Therefore, it is impossible for something to cause itself to exist.
That is not what I argue, not how I reason. I wonder how it appeared to you that way.
[3] I thought I had just explained. Chance or randomness causing anything, is self-contradictory. But furthermore, as has been said by others, 'Chance is just a placeholder for "I don't know".'
Mark said: "If God exists, God is not an opinion.[4] Are you one of those who likes the foggy notion that there are many truths?[5]
But I thought atheists are not supposed to believe there is no God, but rather to fail to believe there is a God. Here you are positing the notion that there is no actual God.[6]"
There's something to that --God does not conform. He simply is. Funny how truth is like that.
I'm glad to hear it.
So you slide out from under my point.
Mark, concerning the claim that 'it could be' the universe is eternal and cyclical: "You are describing infinite regression of cause. Difficult to imagine? Difficult to swallow. In fact, a bit indigestible. 'Repugnant', one might say."
Truth doesn't have any relationship to claims or feelings. So what. Is that your defense of infinite regression?
You are talking with Paulo here, but I can't help but jump in. He and I were talking not long ago about this habit atheists have, that often when they see their defense eroding, they quickly, lest they lose the debate, revert to something like, "Well, even if you are right about Omnipotence (or First Cause)(or even First Cause With Intent) you still have to prove that it is the Christian God!" Like, "AHA! Got you on THAT one!"
[1] I notice you were careful not to say, "A thing creating itself is not illogical." You only ask how my points prove it! I guess I need to expand a bit, since you asked, though you implied you would not ask since they were off topic. Often I say something that seems to me to bring obvious implications with it, that are somehow not obvious to others. "A thing cannot cause itself to exist" because it would first have to exist to be able to cause anything. It also "cannot spontaneously begin to exist" because beginning necessarily implies causation, if nothing else, the principle by which it began --therefore, not spontaneity.
Does that help?
[2] "A thing that exists, is either first cause, or was caused." Perhaps I should put the logical link in there, that "cannot spontaneously begin to exist" rules out Spontaneity of existence, period, by definition of the word 'spontaneous'. It is not a static word. So, other than spontaneity, do you have another option besides 'caused to exist' and 'self-existent'?
You say:
You appear to reason as follows :
P1. I don't know how something could cause itself to exist.
P2. It would be covenient for my faith if nothing could cause itself to exist.
C. Therefore, it is impossible for something to cause itself to exist.
That is not what I argue, not how I reason. I wonder how it appeared to you that way.
[3] I thought I had just explained. Chance or randomness causing anything, is self-contradictory. But furthermore, as has been said by others, 'Chance is just a placeholder for "I don't know".'
Mark said: "If God exists, God is not an opinion.[4] Are you one of those who likes the foggy notion that there are many truths?[5]
But I thought atheists are not supposed to believe there is no God, but rather to fail to believe there is a God. Here you are positing the notion that there is no actual God.[6]"
There's something to that --God does not conform. He simply is. Funny how truth is like that.
I'm glad to hear it.
So you slide out from under my point.
Mark, concerning the claim that 'it could be' the universe is eternal and cyclical: "You are describing infinite regression of cause. Difficult to imagine? Difficult to swallow. In fact, a bit indigestible. 'Repugnant', one might say."
Truth doesn't have any relationship to claims or feelings. So what. Is that your defense of infinite regression?
You are talking with Paulo here, but I can't help but jump in. He and I were talking not long ago about this habit atheists have, that often when they see their defense eroding, they quickly, lest they lose the debate, revert to something like, "Well, even if you are right about Omnipotence (or First Cause)(or even First Cause With Intent) you still have to prove that it is the Christian God!" Like, "AHA! Got you on THAT one!"
Last edited:
Upvote
0