Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'd say your argument would likely be disputed at about point 6 by most scientifically minded folk. Why wouldn't a deist god be sufficient, one that gets the ball rolling and then exits the stage?A 10-Step Program from Me to God
1. Some things undeniably exist (I cannot deny my own existence).
No one can deny his own existence without affirming it; one must exist in order to deny his own existence, which is self-defeating. What is undeniable is true and what is unaffirmable is false; hence, it is undeniably true that I exist. This does not mean that my existence is rationally inescapable (i.e. I don’t have to exist). It is logically possible that I do not exist, but since I do, I cannot deny it.
2. My non-existence is possible.
Since something undeniably exists (pt. 1), this existence falls into one of three categories: impossible, possible, or necessary. Let’s look at these one at a time. First, my existence is not impossible; the fact that I undeniably exist proves that my existence is actually possible; therefore my existence is not impossible. Second, my existence is not necessary (a necessary existence is one that cannot not exist). A necessary being would not have either change or multiplicity, both of which I experience. A necessary existence would be pure actuality with no potentiality at all. This means that a necessary being would be changeless with respect to time and space (i.e. it would be omnipresent and eternal ) Also there could be only one necessary being, because to be able to distinguish between two (or more) necessary beings would require a potential difference between them, exactly what a necessary being cannot have. Further whatever qualities this being possessed, it would possess infinitely. Being pure actuality means it could not gain or lose an attribute or any degree of an attribute. Finally, a necessary being would be an uncaused being, because to be caused means to move from a potential existence to an actual existence; therefore, a necessary being must be uncaused because the only other choice is a self-caused being which is impossible. Now, my existence is not impossible (because I do exist), and my existence is not necessary (because I change in time, space and knowledge). Therefore my existence must be a possible existence (I am, but I might not be). And hence, my non-existence is also possible; I am contingent as well as limited and changing.
3. Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.
Since my non-existence is possible (pt 2), I have only a potential existence. This existence is either self-caused, caused by another, or uncaused. A self-caused being is a logical impossibility. My existence cannot be uncaused either for this would be a necessary existence, some thing I do not have (pt 2). Therefore my existence must be caused by another. Also, an important point to realize is that all causality of existence is current. This is because I am right now a contingent being; its not that I once was contingent and now am not. Whatever was once contingent will always be contingent. I cannot move from a contingent existence to a necessary existence. It is incorrect to talk of existence as if it were something you could get all at once; what we have is not existence as much as a continual moment by moment process of existing. Therefore, my current cause of existing must come from beyond me.
4. There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.
This can easily be shown because either the series as a whole is sufficient grounds for all contingent beings or it is not. If the causality is from within the series, then there is a mutual self-causality going on. But if each contingent being is an effect, no amount of adding them up will provide a cause for these effects. Making the series longer or infinitely long does not lessen the need for a grounding cause to explain it. In fact, it only makes it worse. If a chain with 5 links needs a peg to hang on, a chain with 5 thousand links would need an even bigger peg to hang on. If the causality is not from within the series, then the series is dependent on a being outside of the series and, hence, follows pt 3. Another point can also be made: there cannot be an infinitely long series of causes of contingent beings because there could not even be a one-link chain between the cause of being and the being caused. How can something that is an effect with regard to its own existence be a cause for another’s existence? As contingent beings, we are in a state of potentiality regarding being and cannot simultaneously be in a state of actuality for the existence of another. Only a necessary being can cause the existence of a contingent being. We are responsible for what we become, but are not and cannot be responsible that we are.
5. Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists.
This follows from the above premises. If I undeniably exist and if my non-existence is possible, then I must have a cause that actualizes my existence. But the cause of all contingent existence cannot be contingent itself, i.e. it must be a necessary being and, as a result, un-caused. There is then an un-caused cause of the existence of all that is caused to exist, of which I am an undeniable example.
6. This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect.
From point 2 it was shown that an uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, non-temporal, non-spatial, unique and necessary. We need only show that it is also all-powerful, all-knowing and all-perfect. First, power means being able to effect a change in another. But as shown in points 4 and 5, the uncaused cause is what is currently causing the very being of all that exists. Also the uncaused cause is infinite in being; therefore, it has unlimited causal power. This does not mean that it can do the impossible, because the impossible cannot be. But it has the power to make come to be whatever can come to be. Second, I am a knowing being. I cannot deny knowing without an act of knowledge. But as a contingent being, my current cause of knowing is grounded in the uncaused cause. Therefore, the uncaused cause must be a knowing being as well. Also, since the uncaused cause is infinite, simple, eternal, and unchanging it knows anything that it is possible to know infinitely, simply, eternally and in an unchanging way. It is important to realize that not everything in the creature’s knowledge can be attributed to the Creator. Some things are due to the finite and limiting potentials in which the causal power is received. Because of this, ignorance and other imperfections cannot be attributed to the Cause of the world. Finally, for the same reason that the cause of knowing must be all-knowing, the cause of goodness must be all-good. Therefore, the infinite and necessary Cause of all good must be infinitely and necessarily good. The unchanging Cause of all changing things must be unchangingly good. The cause of personhood cannot be less than personal himself. He may be superpersonal, but he cannot be sub-personal. (It must be remembered that we are the cause of the becoming of good acts by our free choice, but the Creator is the cause of the being of all good.)
7. This infinitely perfect Being is appropriately called “God.”
“God” would be defined as the Ultimate who is deserving of worship. God is that which has ultimate intrinsic value—what can be desired for his own sake as a person. In contrast, any ultimate commitment to anything that is less than what is ultimately and intrinsically worthy of our admiration and submission is a commitment to a false god, and hence, idolatry. It may be a religious commitment, but it is a commitment to something that is less than religiously worthy or adequate. If points 1-6 are sound, then we have good reason to believe that an ultimate value worthy of our worship or ultimate commitment does exist. Nothing has more intrinsic value than that which is the ultimate ground and source of all value. Hence, nothing is more worthy of worship than the infinitely perfect uncaused cause of all else that exists. Therefore, it is appropriate to call this perfect cause “God.”
8. Therefore, God exists
We may conclude that God exists. What in religion is known as the ultimate object of worship or commitment is by reason known to exist. Philosophy leads us not to unmoved mover but a real concrete ground for our being. The God the heart needs, the head has good reason to believe really exists.
9. This God who exists is the same as the God described in the Christian Scriptures.
The God described in the Bible is said to be eternal (Col 1:16, Heb 1:2), changeless (Mal 3:6, Heb 6:18), infinite (I Kings 8:27, Isa 66:1), all-loving (John 3:16, I John 4:16), and all-powerful (Heb 1:3, Matt 19:26). However, there cannot be more than one infinitely perfect, changeless, eternal being. There can be only one infinite and necessary being as shown above in pt 2. There cannot be more than one because there would have to be a difference to distinguish them. But to have a difference means to lack something that another has and, therefore, the one lacking would be less than perfect. Since there cannot be more than one such being, then the God described in the Bible is identical to the one concluded from the above premises.
10. Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists.
If there is only one God, and the God of the Bible is identical in characteristics to him, then the God described in the Bible exists. This does not mean that everything that the Bible claims that this God said or did, he actually said or did. But we can conclude two things: 1) the God described in the Bible does exist, and 2) any Biblical claims about Him are possibilities insofar as that they are not inconsistent with his nature. This is a Theistic universe.
How would you justify that? What about a necessary being implies any personal attributes whatsoever?DIsputed is not the same as disproven. How do you see it failing? God's omni-qualities are a logical conclusion of His necessary Being.
Have you heard of Hilbert's 10th Problem in math or the Halting Problem in computer science?What is undeniable is true and what is unaffirmable is false;
From Pt 6: The cause of personhood cannot be less than personal himself. He may be superpersonal, but he cannot be sub-personal. The argument is from our (my) qualities to His.How would you justify that? What about a necessary being implies any personal attributes whatsoever?
No, I'm not familar with them.Have you heard of Hilbert's 10th Problem in math or the Halting Problem in computer science?
They are proven undecidable problems. No one can assert or deny them ever, except God. There exists an infinite number of these problems.No, I'm not familar with them.
I'm sympathetic to this thought, but I don't see it moving a skeptic as it appears to be an assertion rather than a derived argument.From Pt 6: The cause of personhood cannot be less than personal himself. He may be superpersonal, but he cannot be sub-personal. The argument is from our (my) qualities to His.
Who says it is random chance, other than some Christians and their incompetent philosophers? Any reference?
Agree, and I think that's basically what Romans 1:18-21 means when it talks about God making Himself plain to people by what He has made. How can anyone see the order and complexity of the universe and of the human body and so on and conclude that there is no God? It makes no sense and there is no excuse for that.The complexity and construction of all life and all creation in general. It’s all organized too perfectly to just be the result of random chance.
"Affirmable" by what system of laws? There is more than one.A 10-Step Program from Me to God
1. Some things undeniably exist (I cannot deny my own existence).
No one can deny his own existence without affirming it; one must exist in order to deny his own existence, which is self-defeating. What is undeniable is true and what is unaffirmable is false;
hence, it is undeniably true that I exist. This does not mean that my existence is rationally inescapable (i.e. I don’t have to exist). It is logically possible that I do not exist, but since I do, I cannot deny it.
2. My non-existence is possible.
Since something undeniably exists (pt. 1), this existence falls into one of three categories: impossible, possible, or necessary. Let’s look at these one at a time. First, my existence is not impossible; the fact that I undeniably exist proves that my existence is actually possible; therefore my existence is not impossible. Second, my existence is not necessary (a necessary existence is one that cannot not exist). A necessary being would not have either change or multiplicity, both of which I experience. A necessary existence would be pure actuality with no potentiality at all. This means that a necessary being would be changeless with respect to time and space (i.e. it would be omnipresent and eternal ) Also there could be only one necessary being, because to be able to distinguish between two (or more) necessary beings would require a potential difference between them, exactly what a necessary being cannot have. Further whatever qualities this being possessed, it would possess infinitely. Being pure actuality means it could not gain or lose an attribute or any degree of an attribute. Finally, a necessary being would be an uncaused being, because to be caused means to move from a potential existence to an actual existence; therefore, a necessary being must be uncaused because the only other choice is a self-caused being which is impossible. Now, my existence is not impossible (because I do exist), and my existence is not necessary (because I change in time, space and knowledge). Therefore my existence must be a possible existence (I am, but I might not be). And hence, my non-existence is also possible; I am contingent as well as limited and changing.
3. Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.
Since my non-existence is possible (pt 2), I have only a potential existence. This existence is either self-caused, caused by another, or uncaused. A self-caused being is a logical impossibility. My existence cannot be uncaused either for this would be a necessary existence, some thing I do not have (pt 2). Therefore my existence must be caused by another. Also, an important point to realize is that all causality of existence is current. This is because I am right now a contingent being; its not that I once was contingent and now am not. Whatever was once contingent will always be contingent. I cannot move from a contingent existence to a necessary existence. It is incorrect to talk of existence as if it were something you could get all at once; what we have is not existence as much as a continual moment by moment process of existing. Therefore, my current cause of existing must come from beyond me.
4. There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.
This can easily be shown because either the series as a whole is sufficient grounds for all contingent beings or it is not. If the causality is from within the series, then there is a mutual self-causality going on. But if each contingent being is an effect, no amount of adding them up will provide a cause for these effects. Making the series longer or infinitely long does not lessen the need for a grounding cause to explain it. In fact, it only makes it worse. If a chain with 5 links needs a peg to hang on, a chain with 5 thousand links would need an even bigger peg to hang on. If the causality is not from within the series, then the series is dependent on a being outside of the series and, hence, follows pt 3. Another point can also be made: there cannot be an infinitely long series of causes of contingent beings because there could not even be a one-link chain between the cause of being and the being caused. How can something that is an effect with regard to its own existence be a cause for another’s existence? As contingent beings, we are in a state of potentiality regarding being and cannot simultaneously be in a state of actuality for the existence of another. Only a necessary being can cause the existence of a contingent being. We are responsible for what we become, but are not and cannot be responsible that we are.
5. Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists.
This follows from the above premises. If I undeniably exist and if my non-existence is possible, then I must have a cause that actualizes my existence. But the cause of all contingent existence cannot be contingent itself, i.e. it must be a necessary being and, as a result, un-caused. There is then an un-caused cause of the existence of all that is caused to exist, of which I am an undeniable example.
6. This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect.
From point 2 it was shown that an uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, non-temporal, non-spatial, unique and necessary. We need only show that it is also all-powerful, all-knowing and all-perfect. First, power means being able to effect a change in another. But as shown in points 4 and 5, the uncaused cause is what is currently causing the very being of all that exists. Also the uncaused cause is infinite in being; therefore, it has unlimited causal power. This does not mean that it can do the impossible, because the impossible cannot be. But it has the power to make come to be whatever can come to be. Second, I am a knowing being. I cannot deny knowing without an act of knowledge. But as a contingent being, my current cause of knowing is grounded in the uncaused cause. Therefore, the uncaused cause must be a knowing being as well. Also, since the uncaused cause is infinite, simple, eternal, and unchanging it knows anything that it is possible to know infinitely, simply, eternally and in an unchanging way. It is important to realize that not everything in the creature’s knowledge can be attributed to the Creator. Some things are due to the finite and limiting potentials in which the causal power is received. Because of this, ignorance and other imperfections cannot be attributed to the Cause of the world. Finally, for the same reason that the cause of knowing must be all-knowing, the cause of goodness must be all-good. Therefore, the infinite and necessary Cause of all good must be infinitely and necessarily good. The unchanging Cause of all changing things must be unchangingly good. The cause of personhood cannot be less than personal himself. He may be superpersonal, but he cannot be sub-personal. (It must be remembered that we are the cause of the becoming of good acts by our free choice, but the Creator is the cause of the being of all good.)
7. This infinitely perfect Being is appropriately called “God.”
“God” would be defined as the Ultimate who is deserving of worship. God is that which has ultimate intrinsic value—what can be desired for his own sake as a person. In contrast, any ultimate commitment to anything that is less than what is ultimately and intrinsically worthy of our admiration and submission is a commitment to a false god, and hence, idolatry. It may be a religious commitment, but it is a commitment to something that is less than religiously worthy or adequate. If points 1-6 are sound, then we have good reason to believe that an ultimate value worthy of our worship or ultimate commitment does exist. Nothing has more intrinsic value than that which is the ultimate ground and source of all value. Hence, nothing is more worthy of worship than the infinitely perfect uncaused cause of all else that exists. Therefore, it is appropriate to call this perfect cause “God.”
8. Therefore, God exists
We may conclude that God exists. What in religion is known as the ultimate object of worship or commitment is by reason known to exist. Philosophy leads us not to unmoved mover but a real concrete ground for our being. The God the heart needs, the head has good reason to believe really exists.
9. This God who exists is the same as the God described in the Christian Scriptures.
The God described in the Bible is said to be eternal (Col 1:16, Heb 1:2), changeless (Mal 3:6, Heb 6:18), infinite (I Kings 8:27, Isa 66:1), all-loving (John 3:16, I John 4:16), and all-powerful (Heb 1:3, Matt 19:26). However, there cannot be more than one infinitely perfect, changeless, eternal being. There can be only one infinite and necessary being as shown above in pt 2. There cannot be more than one because there would have to be a difference to distinguish them. But to have a difference means to lack something that another has and, therefore, the one lacking would be less than perfect. Since there cannot be more than one such being, then the God described in the Bible is identical to the one concluded from the above premises.
10. Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists.
If there is only one God, and the God of the Bible is identical in characteristics to him, then the God described in the Bible exists. This does not mean that everything that the Bible claims that this God said or did, he actually said or did. But we can conclude two things: 1) the God described in the Bible does exist, and 2) any Biblical claims about Him are possibilities insofar as that they are not inconsistent with his nature. This is a Theistic universe.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?