God Argument: from Beimg itself or ground of beimng

[metacrock]

Nothingness as PSA is marked by its own contradiction,

A.True absolute nothingness and PSA are contradictions because nothingness means nothing at all, and PSA is something.

B.True nothingness would lack any essential potential for change; no time, no potentiality, noting at all; therefore, no change, no becoming.

Therefore:

(2)Being, in some form, as the alternative to nothingness must obtain to a state of aseity.

(3)Aseity implies eternal and the infinite.

(4)Human being is contrasted by finitude.

(5)The awareness of our finitude in contrast to Aseity of Being creates a sense of the unbounded condition; which evokes our sense of the numinous.

(6) The sense of the numious creates religious devotion, thus we have an object of religious devotion and theological discourse in Being itself.

(7) An object of religious devotion and theological discourse is a ratinal warrent for belief.

[37818]

Uncaused existence is aseity.

[metacrock]

Uncaused existence is aseity.

yes. I think Our thing bout uncaused existence before was probably just miscommunication. I am not sure what you ere saying about it. in my view God is the only uncaused existence.

[37818]

God's Name means "Self-Existent."

"[There is] no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD." -- Proverbs 21:30.

". . . For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . . " -- The Apostle Paul, Acts 17:28.

[metacrock]

God's Name means "Self-Existent."

"[There is] no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD." -- Proverbs 21:30.

". . . For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . . " -- The Apostle Paul, Acts 17:28.

exactly

[metacrock]

so far the only dealing with this are Christians, atheists love to make such a fuss about there being no evidence for God then here it is they want even talk about it. they have not answered any of my arguments

[metacrock]

so atheist accept belief in God is warranted?

[metacrock]

just remember when atheists demand proof of God they don't really want it because you give it they wont read it.

[Roy]

just remember when atheists demand proof of God they don't really want it because you give it they wont read it.

You haven't given it.

There are many holes in your above "proof", the most obvious being that just because it is rational to believe something does not mean that something is necessarily correct.

[JimL]

Nothingness as PSA is marked by its own contradiction,

A.True absolute nothingness and PSA are contradictions because nothingness means nothing at all, and PSA is something.

B.True nothingness would lack any essential potential for change; no time, no potentiality, noting at all; therefore, no change, no becoming.

Therefore:

(2)Being, in some form, as the alternative to nothingness must obtain to a state of aseity.

(3)Aseity implies eternal and the infinite.

(4)Human being is contrasted by finitude.

(5)The awareness of our finitude in contrast to Aseity of Being creates a sense of the unbounded condition; which evokes our sense of the numinous.

(6) The sense of the numious creates religious devotion, thus we have an object of religious devotion and theological discourse in Being itself.

(7) An object of religious devotion and theological discourse is a ratinal warrent for belief.

Wrong. You give no reason in the above to believe that that which is eternal and infinite is a distinct and divine object deserving of religious devotion.

[metacrock]

You haven't given it.

There are many holes in your above "proof", the most obvious being that just because it is rational to believe something does not mean that something is necessarily correct.

you can't beat an argument just by claiming it has holes, you have to show that is really and hole why that beats the argument Just saying so doesn't cut it. you claim there's a hole just being rational doesn't mean it's correct. That's not even a hole.

what's going on there is that we disagree about to put the bar. you want the bar absurdly high so no God argument can meet it then you can't pretend that there's no reason to believe. But if it's rational to believe then it's not irrational and thus you have to prove God exists in order to prove it's valid to believe.

For too long atheists have gotten away with this ploy. You can't probe God absolutely so there's no reason to believe. BS. there are good reasons to believe even if it can't be absolute proved.

there are plenty of basic things naturalistic views can't prove. that doesn't stop atheists from accepting the possibility. how many atheists assert that string theory gives science a valid bias in understanding the nature of reality when in fact string theory can't be proved?

[metacrock]

Wrong. You give no reason in the above to believe that that which is eternal and infinite is a distinct and divine object deserving of religious devotion.

It gives two reasons (1) evokes the basis upon which religion comes to exist, sees of the numinous, and that creates a fit object of rleigio0us devotion. it's a priori. (2) it demonstrates that there is an eternal necessary basis for reality and by definition it's 'god.

here's simpler statement of the argument and analysis


1) Sense of the Numinous evokes religious devotion

(2) The sense of the numinous is the sense of the special nature of being

(3) Thus being itself, the ground of being, is the object of religious devotion

(4) whatever is the fit object of religious devotion (the thing that evokes it at the core in the first place) is defined as "God."

(5) since we know this special sense of being existing then QED God exists.





Analysis:


this is not an attempt at modal logic. It's a desscription of the basic phenomenolgoical apprehension of depth in Being and how it unfolds into the object of religious devotion.



People confuses what God is with the most sticking or most frequently used images. That doesn't mean God is those images, it just means the images is used to point to the reality beyond the image. One example, God is not a big father-king in the sky. But the image of the father king was important to people in the ancient world, they understand certain things about that image,s o they used it a lot. So we today have inherited the notion that God has to be a big father-kind in the sky. No that is not the case.

God is not a big man, God is reality, God is the basis of how we understand and feel about what it means to be. God is the foundation of our take on the spacial nature of not failing to exist.

The nature of religion, the reason it exists in the first place, the core origin of what religion is about is prompted by these kinds of feelings, the sense of the numinous. The result of this this feeling is the evocation of religious devotion. That means the object of these feelings, the thing that evokes them is God! I mean by that not that I think God is evoking these feelings, and then you can go on imagining a big guy in the sky evoking them. I mean the thing that reallky evokes them, whatever it is, is actually God. that is the nature of our religious instincts.

It's the fulfillment of our religious impulse. It means the thing that evokes the sense of the numinous must be the object of our religious devotion, the term we use to describe that is "God."

Now we can speculate about the nature of that thing that evokes this sense. It could be connected to the origin of the Bible and the object of Biblical revelation or not. It could be object of Hindu revelation, or both, or neither. that's for the individual believer to decide.

[JimL]

It gives two reasons (1) evokes the basis upon which religion comes to exist, sees of the numinous, and that creates a fit object of rleigio0us devotion. it's a priori. (2) it demonstrates that there is an eternal necessary basis for reality and by definition it's 'god.

here's simpler statement of the argument and analysis


1) Sense of the Numinous evokes religious devotion

We don't have a sense of the divine, some have a belief in it which evokes such feelings. Believing in god, and so having strong feelings associated with that belief, doesn't make the belief a reality.

(2) The sense of the numinous is the sense of the special nature of being

Belief in a thing, evokes a sense of the special nature of the subject of your belief. Doesn't make your belief reality.

(3) Thus being itself, the ground of being, is the object of religious devotion

Now you've got it. Belief is the object of religious devotion.

(4) whatever is the fit object of religious devotion (the thing that evokes it at the core in the first place) is defined as "God."

True, believers define that which they believe in as god.

(5) since we know this special sense of being existing then QED God exists.

You don't know, its a belief.

[metacrock]

We don't have a sense of the divine, some have a belief in it which evokes such feelings. Believing in god, and so having strong feelings associated with that belief, doesn't make the belief a reality.

that's foolish 90% of humanity dos, it all over world literature every single culture that ever existed all great thinkers and writers philosophers. huge body of empirical work in psychology of religion. 200 studies. well established.

Belief in a thing, evokes a sense of the special nature of the subject of your belief. Doesn't make your belief reality.

that is not disproof that is nothing more than begging the question. you don't want God so you just gain say the evidence, I don't care if you don't like it most humans sense the numinous in one way or another, it's very well established,. since that is evoked by the infinite and the eternal nature of being then that's a good reason to associate ground of being with the object of religious devotion.

Now you've got it. Belief is the object of religious devotion.

True, believers define that which they believe in as god.

obviously I'm saying more. try actually thinking for a bit. if the sense that underlies the belief is evoked by a certain mode of being that is a good reason to think that mode of being is the object of the belief.

You don't know, its a belief.

no wrong it's a matter of logic. there has to be eternal. necessary being since contingent things have to have caused and eternal contingency makes no sense.

[metacrock]

this argument is asking you to think about this in anew way

this part of the argument establishes that eternal necessary being is logically demanded by the nature of being

Nothingness as PSA is marked by its own contradiction,

A.True absolute nothingness and PSA are contradictions because nothingness means nothing at all, and PSA is something.

B.True nothingness would lack any essential potential for change; no time, no potentiality, noting at all; therefore, no change, no becoming.

Therefore:

(2)Being, in some form, as the alternative to nothingness must obtain to a state of aseity.


then the second part connects that sense of eternal necessary being to
God as fit object of religious devotion because it evokes the sense of religious devotion.