PDA

View Full Version : God Argument: from Beimg itself or ground of beimng



metacrock
04-07-2016, 09:28 AM
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
04-07-2016, 12:10 PM
Uncaused existence is aseity.

metacrock
04-07-2016, 12:17 PM
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
04-07-2016, 08:17 PM
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
04-07-2016, 10:58 PM
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
04-08-2016, 04:41 AM
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
04-08-2016, 08:06 AM
so atheist accept belief in God is warranted?

metacrock
04-08-2016, 12:42 PM
just remember when atheists demand proof of God they don't really want it because you give it they wont read it.

Roy
04-08-2016, 02:44 PM
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
04-08-2016, 05:05 PM
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
04-08-2016, 08:16 PM
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
04-08-2016, 08:32 PM
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
04-08-2016, 09:05 PM
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
04-08-2016, 11:13 PM
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
04-08-2016, 11:16 PM
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.

Roy
04-09-2016, 03:54 AM
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.Since I did in fact outline one of the holes, the above is pure bovine faeces.
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.As usual that bears no resemblence to anything I actually wrote.

I didn't say you had to prove God exists in order to prove it's valid to believe, I said the exact opposite - that proving it's valid to believe does not prove God exists.

Or, using formal notation,

if:
P = God exists
Q = it's rational to believe
then P->Q

You are effectively claiming that P->Q => Q->P, which is the basic logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.


For too long atheists have gotten away with this ploy. You can't probe God absolutely so there's no reason to believe. BS.Yeah, that would be BS. Fortunately for me it isn't anything like what I actually wrote.
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?None that I'm aware of.

Did your Theology courses and "debate" coaching consist of learning how to Gish gallop corn dollies? Because that's all you ever seem to do.

JimL
04-09-2016, 06:35 AM
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.

First off Meta, if you want people to understand your argument, you need to define your terms. I have no idea what you mean by PSA other than that it is something rather than nothing. But yes, I agree, there is that which is eternal and necessary and that which is contingent. My disagreement with you is in your assertion that the eternal and necessary is "being", implying a mind, or that there is any distinction between it and that which is contingent upon it, or that it is worthy of devotion.

metacrock
04-09-2016, 07:30 AM
Since I did in fact outline one of the holes, the above is pure bovine faeces.As usual that bears no resemblence to anything I actually wrote.


I showed that what you call a hole is not one. read it again. here it is:


]Meta:[/COLOR]"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.


I didn't say you had to prove God exists in order to prove it's valid to believe, I said the exact opposite - that proving it's valid to believe does not prove God exists.

think about it. if you didn't say I have to prove God exists then there's no harm to not proving it. so it doesn't mater if it doesn't prove God. you arte must stating your argument in negative but you are still saying I have to prove. otherwise no reason to even point it out.

The point of my argument was never to prove that God e3xists but only that it's rational to believe he does.



Or, using formal notation,


if:
P = God exists
Q = it's rational to believe
then P->Q

You are effectively claiming that P->Q => Q->P, which is the basic logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.






Yeah, that would be BS. Fortunately for me it isn't anything like what I actually wrote. None that I'm aware of.


wrong you are setting up a straw man trying to claim by default that I must prove God exists without having to say it directly., but zi don/t have to prove it.

All I have to prove is that there is good reason to think God exists. I did that. I have two good reasons, both flow from this one argument:

(1) there is eternal necessary being (2) it's valid to think of that as God.

your snide comment:


Did your Theology courses and "debate" coaching consist of learning how to Gish gallop corn dollies? Because that's all you ever seem to do.

I know you think your saying something but you have used that time to think of a real argument.

metacrock
04-09-2016, 07:42 AM
First off Meta, if you want people to understand your argument, you need to define your terms. I have no idea what you mean by PSA other than that it is something rather than nothing.

O yes actually that argument does come with a glossary. Sorry I forgot to include it. PSA= Putative state of affairs



But yes, I agree, there is that which is eternal and necessary and that which is contingent. My disagreement with you is in your assertion that the eternal and necessary is "being",

Being is the term used for it in Philosophy. Not just Paul Tillich but Sartre and Heidegger and going to Brentano and even back to Meister Eckhart.



implying a mind, or that there is any distinction between it and that which is contingent upon it, or that it is worthy of devotion.

Of course there is already a distinction build in, in terms of mode of being necessity rather than contingency). Also eternal rather than temporal. It's not necessary that God be mind but I think it's implied. There are some good arguments for that but this argument doesn't depend upon that that.

atheists model their disbelief against Christianity so you think God has to be personal. Don't get me wrong I think God is personal but doesn't have to be.

JimL
04-09-2016, 12:31 PM
O yes actually that argument does come with a glossary. Sorry I forgot to include it. PSA= Putative state of affairs
Got it, thank you.




Being is the term used for it in Philosophy. Not just Paul Tillich but Sartre and Heidegger and going to Brentano and even back to Meister Eckhart.
Well that is probably just because it is their "personal belief" that it is a mind.




Of course there is already a distinction build in, in terms of mode of being necessity rather than contingency). Also eternal rather than temporal. It's not necessary that God be mind but I think it's implied. There are some good arguments for that but this argument doesn't depend upon that that.
Well, if it, the putative state of affairs, or the eternal and necessary, upon which temporal existence is contingent, need not itself be a "mind", then your argument, this argument, by that fact is invalidated. If it is not a mind, then it what sense do you call it god, and for what reason is it deserving of devotion, or worship?

atheists model their disbelief against Christianity so you think God has to be personal. Don't get me wrong I think God is personal but doesn't have to be.
But if what you refer to as god is mindless and impersonal then it is not god in the sense that we define god. I understand that you too believe it to be a mind, a god, but your argument that people have transformative experiences doesn't get you there.

metacrock
04-09-2016, 12:57 PM
Got it, thank you.

sure



Well that is probably just because it is their "personal belief" that it is a mind.

I don't know where you got the association between GOB and mind. Most people think GOB would not be personal. Tillich seemed to think God transcends b4ing personal but is not e4xasctly impersonal but transcends our concepts of personhood. Sartre and Heidegger are both famous for being atheists they did not see God as personal because they did not believe in God.


Well, if it, the putative state of affairs, or the eternal and necessary, upon which temporal existence is contingent, need not itself be a "mind", then your argument, this argument, by that fact is invalidated. If it is not a mind, then it what sense do you call it god, and for what reason is it deserving of devotion, or worship?

But if what you refer to as god is mindless and impersonal then it is not god in the sense that we define god. I understand that you too believe it to be a mind, a god, but your argument that people have transformative experiences doesn't get you there.[/QUOTE]

Roy
04-09-2016, 05:21 PM
I showed that what you call a hole is not one.No, you stated it wasn't a hole. Repeating your bovine faeces doesn't make it any less odiferous.


I didn't say you had to prove God exists in order to prove it's valid to believe, I said the exact opposite - that proving it's valid to believe does not prove God exists.think about it. if you didn't say I have to prove God exists then there's no harm to not proving it. so it doesn't mater if it doesn't prove God. you arte must stating your argument in negative but you are still saying I have to prove. otherwise no reason to even point it out.
...
wrong you are setting up a straw man trying to claim by default that I must prove God exists without having to say it directly., but zi don/t have to prove it.I'm getting deja vu of JM. I see no point responding to this since you either can't or won't grok what I'm saying.


All I have to prove is that there is good reason to think God exists. I did that. I have two good reasons, both flow from this one argument:

(1) there is eternal necessary being (2) it's valid to think of that as God.Congratulations! You have successfully reduced your argument to "Something exists and we call it 'God'".


I know you think your saying something but you have used that time to think of a real argument.I have thought of, and presented, several real arguments. You haven't understood them.

Roy
04-09-2016, 05:25 PM
atheists model their disbelief against Christianity... False. I don't.

37818
04-09-2016, 07:33 PM
Roy,

Your objections seem concise to you. Of course or you would not make them.

I'm just wondering specifically your reason or reasons that you have concluded against theism, belief in God.

Question, do you or do you not believe in an uncaused existence of some sort?

JimL
04-09-2016, 08:20 PM
Roy,

Your objections seem concise to you. Of course or you would not make them.

I'm just wondering specifically your reason or reasons that you have concluded against theism, belief in God.

Question, do you or do you not believe in an uncaused existence of some sort?
I don't think that there is anyone arguing against eternal existence, the argument is whether or not that which is eternal is, or can be defined as, a god.

metacrock
04-09-2016, 11:05 PM
No, you stated it wasn't a hole. Repeating your bovine faeces doesn't make it any less odiferous.

quite but doesn't answer my argument. here is so called "hole:"


[
B]YOU said[/B]: 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.



my answer:

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?


you have to extend your argument and answer that, do you not understand it" I try to explain it further.




I'm getting deja vu of JM. I see no point responding to this since you either can't or won't grok what I'm saying.


stop playi9ng Tassman and answer the arument



Congratulations! You have successfully reduced your argument to "Something exists and we call it 'God'".

not just any old thing. I'm not just taking some old junk heap and calling it god I'm talking about the basis of reality what else would-be God but the basis of all that is? We don't to think of God as a big man on a throne.



I have thought of, and presented, several real arguments. You haven't understood them.

this isn't one of them. Seriously, you have brought some good points I think I had good answers.

metacrock
04-09-2016, 11:09 PM
I don't think that there is anyone arguing against eternal existence, the argument is whether or not that which is eternal is, or can be defined as, a god.

Of course you are not wiling to look at what modern religious thinkers believe. you have a pre set idea of what religion is about. you seem to thin atheist get to decide what religious people believe. I hate to break it to you but this being itself thin is big. It's major in theology it's even in Vatican II. It goes back tom the 500's and it has had several major theologians in the West and East.

metacrock
04-09-2016, 11:14 PM
I don't think that there is anyone arguing against eternal existence, the argument is whether or not that which is eternal is, or can be defined as, a god.

you are not aware of what modern theology is about. that's the nature of the case a major voice in modern theology understands God as the ethanal necessary aspect of being.

Roy
04-10-2016, 01:54 AM
you have to extend your argument and answer that, do you not understand it" I understand it. It is still bovine faeces no matter how often you repeat it.

Paragraph by paragraph:

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.This is a simple assertion with nothing to back it up.
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.This is a straw-man misrepresentation of my actual views.
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.This is a tautology and another straw-man.
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.This is a rant and a misrepresentation of most atheists' views
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?This is a side-issue based on yetanother straw-man position.

None of the above addresses the actual point I made: just because it is rational to believe something does not mean that something is necessarily correct.


I try to explain it further.Really? Let's look at your so-called further explanation:
stop playi9ng Tassman and answer the arumentThis isn't an explanation at all

Congratulations! You have successfully reduced your argument to "Something exists and we call it 'God'".not just any old thing. I'm not just taking some old junk heap and calling it god I'm talking about the basis of reality what else would-be God but the basis of all that is? We don't to think of God as a big man on a throne.You have successfully reduced your argument to "Something exists and we call it 'God'", where the specific Something is in your particular case "the basis of reality". Your argument has absolutely nothing to do with "God", as your argument would be exactly the same - and just as flawed - if the word "God" was replaced with "Unkulunkulu", "The force", "Cthulhu", "The Magnificent Cosmic Panjandrum" or "The triple tipple apple ripple".

Seriously, you have brought some good points I think I had good answers.You think wrong. You haven't produced any answers at all, just unrecognised fallacies, misrepresentations and rants.

metacrock
04-10-2016, 07:48 AM
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2014/08/atheists-confuse-logic-and-argument.html



Meta: 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.



Roy This is a simple assertion with nothing to back it up.

you are actually saying that you don't have prove there's a hole you can just assert it. That'/s insane, that's contrary the basis of argument. you know nothing about argumentation.




Meta: 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?



Roy: This is a side-issue based on yet another straw-man position.

No it's a major issue because all of my God arguments claim to prove warrant for belief not to prove there actually is a God. You are here arguing that's not enough so you keep the bar absurdly high, I am saying it is enough, that's at the core of argument. Nor is it straw man unless you really don't mean to argue that I have to prove God?




Roy None of the above addresses the actual point I made: just because it is rational to believe something does not mean that something is necessarily correct.

It's true there is a distinction but it doesn't matter because I am arguing that I only need to show rational not actual proof. Actual proof is not to be had concerning scientific matters.

Yes I sure as hell did address it I said it's not a hole there is hole in the argument because I don't to actually prove god exists. I am only interested it proving it[s rational to believe in that sense a good reason to believe is all I need.


Roy: You have successfully reduced your argument to "Something exists and we call it 'God'", where the specific Something is in your particular case "the basis of reality".[/QUOTE]

already answered. you are not extending.

you are not aware of what modern theology is about. that's the nature of the case a major voice in modern theology understands God as the eternal necessary aspect of being. Of course you are not wiling to look at what modern religious thinkers believe. you have a pre set idea of what religion is about. you seem to thin atheist get to decide what religious people believe. I hate to break it to you but this being itself thin is big. It's major in theology it's even in Vatican II. It goes back tom the 500's and it has had several major theologians in the West and East.



Your argument has absolutely nothing to do with "God", as your argument would be exactly the same - and just as flawed - if the word "God" was replaced with "Unkulunkulu", "The force", "Cthulhu", "The Magnificent Cosmic Panjandrum" or "The triple tipple apple ripple".


you are ignorant. modern theology expands the view of God beyond big man on throne.

Paul Tillich is a major theologian in Christian tradition. Here is Tillich say8ing God = being itself


The name of infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of our being is God. That depth is what the word God means. And if that word has not much meaning for you, translate it, and speak of the depths of your life, of the source of your being, of your ultimate concern, of what you take seriously without any reservation. Perhaps, in order to do so, you must forget everything traditional that you have learned about God, perhaps even that word itself. For if you know that God means depth, you know much about Him. You cannot then call yourself an atheist or unbeliever. For you cannot think or say: Life has no depth! Life itself is shallow. Being itself is surface only. If you could say this in complete seriousness, you would be an atheist; but otherwise you are not." Tillich, Shaking of foundations

I provided a good reason to equate4 the two because the ete4rnjal necessary aspect is the basic trigger that evokes the religious emotion, the sense of the numinous. The reason religion exists at all is because the sense of eternal necessary being excites a sense of the divine within us.

Roy
04-10-2016, 11:56 AM
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.This is a simple assertion with nothing to back it up.you are actually saying that you don't have prove there's a hole you can just assert it.No, you are asserting it isn't a hole, as if you can just assert it.
That'/s insane, that's contrary the basis of argument. you know nothing about argumentation.Let's see if I can find any unsupported assertions that demonstrate you fall foul of your own criteria for knowing about argumentation. Based on your previous posts there may be a lot:

No it's a major issue because all of my God arguments claim to prove warrant for belief not to prove there actually is a God. You are here arguing that's not enough...That's #1. There's no indication that I have argued any such thing (I haven't).
Yes I sure as hell did address it I said it's not a hole#2.
you are not aware of what modern theology is about.#3
... a major voice in modern theology understands God as the eternal necessary aspect of being.#4
Of course you are not wiling to look at what modern religious thinkers believe.#5
you have a pre set idea of what religion is about.#6. I haven't said anything in this thread about what religion is about. Nothing. Not a thing.
you seem to thin atheist get to decide what religious people believe.#7. That assertion is completely divorced from reality.
It's major in theology it's even in Vatican II.#8.
It goes back tom the 500's...#9.That should be enough.

I'll finish by noting that any idea in theology that goes back to the 500s (I suspect Thomism is what is being referred to but I'm not certain) cannot possibly be described as "modern".

you are ignorant. modern theology expands the view of God beyond big man on throne.You are stupid and rude. I've said nothing about modern theology's view of God.

I have made precisely one objection to your flawed logic, and you have taken that as an excuse to accuse me of being ignorant of theology, logic, argumentation and much else, based solely on what you imagine my views are and not on anything I have even hinted at let alone said, all the while scattering logical fallacies like confetti.

Roy
04-10-2016, 12:11 PM
Of course you are not wiling to look at what modern religious thinkers believe. you have a pre set idea of what religion is about. you seem to thin atheist get to decide what religious people believe.Those are exactly the same criticisms metacrock (falsely) made of me. Apparently metacrock is assuming all atheists are identical caricatures.

I'd have thought some-one with (supposedly) so much debating experience would be able to deal with what their opponents actually say, rather than just reading off some prepared generic spiel, but apparently that's not the case.

metacrock
04-10-2016, 01:11 PM
Originally Posted by metacrock View Post










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. This is a simple assertion with nothing to back it up. you are actually saying that you don't have prove there's a hole you can just assert it.



]Roy [/B]No, you are asserting it isn't a hole, as if you can just assert it.


I'm answering your argument slick. you attacked my argument remember? he who asserts mist prove. you assert it's a hole you must prove it's a hole. a hole in an argument is a problem in logic. so saying it's a hole mans you must prove there's a problem with the logic, you have to show why i't s a hole.

Meta "That'/s insane, that's contrary the basis of argument. you know nothing about argumentation.



Let's see if I can find any unsupported assertions that demonstrate you fall foul of your own criteria for knowing about argumentation. Based on your previous posts there may be a lot:


problem is you don't know supported from unsupported. you think if you number it and call it unsupported then you beat, you have to beat argument I made. each one of those is supported by logic or fact.



Meta" No it's a major issue because all of my God arguments claim to prove warrant for belief not to prove there actually is a God. You are here arguing that's not enough...



That's #1. There's no indication that I have argued any such thing (I haven't).

that you argued when you did there's a hole. that's the very thing I'm talking about.





Yes I sure as hell did address it I said it's not a hole #2.

I explained why it's not one. that's support. If I saw it'[s true it's supported. showing why it's not a hole is supporting the statement. I explained from the becoming why it'sno0t a problem. Because I'm not claiming proof only warrant.


you are not aware of what modern theology is about. #3

that amply supported because I shoed major theologians accepting God as being you don't even know bout it. it'[s in Vatakimn II. you problem, didn't know what I was talking about., you dwti.l don't. I don't think you understand anything.

there is basis for discussion, you don't even know the basic concepts. you don't even know what theology is.


... a major voice in modern theology understands God as the eternal necessary aspect of being. #4

I just quoted Paul Tillich saying that., how is that unsupported? Tillich is one of the major theologians of 20th century, He's clearly top 3.
I don't think you know what kit means to support an argument.


Of course you are not wiling to look at what modern religious thinkers believe. #5

you just demon treated the truth of it. I quote major theologian you claim it's not supported. that is support so you don't know what it means. you are not willing to look obviously


you have a pre set idea of what religion is about. #6.

that has to b e the case it's the only explanation for your ignorance.



I haven't said anything in this thread about what religion is about. Nothing. Not a thing.
No I have. you have denied that I said it or that it's meaningful or that I supported it when I quote major theologian backing it.

I am beginning think that you don't understand that statements have logical implications.



you seem to thin atheist get to decide what religious people believe. #7. That assertion is completely divorced from reality.
It's major in theology it's even in Vatican II. #8.

sure looks that way




It goes back tom the 500's... #9.That should be enough.


I can document that easily all you had to do was ask: http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2010/06/super-essential-godhead.html

that is an artickle about the Rolt Translation of Psudeo Dionysius who lived around 500AD. that is the basis for Tillich being itself stuff/



I'll finish by noting that any idea in theology that goes back to the 500s (I suspect Thomism is what is being referred to but I'm not certain) cannot possibly be described as "modern".

ok Sherlock what is modern? I it's modern people think or do right? So if they start thinking about an old idea it becomes the modernized version of the old idea, get it? theology is supposed to be a link with ancient tradition.



you are ignorant. modern theology expands the view of God beyond big man on throne. You are stupid and rude. I've said nothing about modern theology's view of God.


I have made precisely one objection to your flawed logic, and you have taken that as an excuse to accuse me of being ignorant of theology, logic, argumentation and much else, based solely on what you imagine my views are and not on anything I have even hinted at let alone said, all the while scattering logical fallacies like confetti.

I best thyat objection by explaining why it's not a problem you have continued to ignore my answer/

metacrock
04-10-2016, 01:14 PM
Those are exactly the same criticisms metacrock (falsely) made of me. Apparently metacrock is assuming all atheists are identical caricatures.

I'd have thought some-one with (supposedly) so much debating experience would be able to deal with what their opponents actually say, rather than just reading off some prepared generic spiel, but apparently that's not the case.

look most atheists don't know anything about theology it's a cfommomn failing., stop trying to cover up and face thye fact thyat can't anmswer the argument.

metacrock
04-10-2016, 01:34 PM
Hey Roy I have looking over the thread and I have to admit I have been rude to you and others, I've become defensive. I know the things I'm saying are right, But I'm not going to get you to see while I am acting like a jerk. I apologize. I'm going to put up some links to essays I wrote on it and I hope you read them.

metacrock
04-10-2016, 01:43 PM
Being itself and the personal God (http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2014/03/hans-urs-von-balthasar-being-itself-and.html)about the theology of a major Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar

Depth of Being and Tillich's implied ontological argument (http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2011/02/deapth-of-being-and-tillichs-impies.html)

metacrock
04-11-2016, 04:34 AM
Tillich's implied ontological argument (http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2014/02/tillichs-implied-ontologcial-argument.html)

JimL
04-11-2016, 06:36 PM
you are not aware of what modern theology is about. that's the nature of the case a major voice in modern theology understands God as the ethanal necessary aspect of being.

Well, you are not a believer in modern theology, you are a christian and believe in a personal god/mind, so i'm not sure why you are even making this argument. If you believe that there is an eternal necessary aspect to existence, fine, so do most people who think about it, otherwise something would need have come from nothing, which most people who think about it do not believe. I don't believe that anything comes from nothing and therefore believe that existence itself is eternal and that all temporal things come from and are of the same substance as the eternal. That would leave out any notion of a distinct god.

Carrikature
04-11-2016, 09:04 PM
Those are exactly the same criticisms metacrock (falsely) made of me. Apparently metacrock is assuming all atheists are identical caricatures.

I'd have thought some-one with (supposedly) so much debating experience would be able to deal with what their opponents actually say, rather than just reading off some prepared generic spiel, but apparently that's not the case.

If he had that much experience, he'd at least understand the difference between 'valid' and 'sound'.

metacrock
04-12-2016, 09:25 AM
Well, you are not a believer in modern theology, you are a christian and believe in a personal god/mind, so i'm not sure why you are even making this argument.

modern theology is not a separate religion. belief in Jesus is nota about preserving an outmoded way of thinking, modern theology is about translating the Gospel into a modern vocabulary.


If you believe that there is an eternal necessary aspect to existence, fine, so do most people who think about it, otherwise something would need have come from nothing, which most people who think about it do not believe. I don't believe that anything comes from nothing and therefore believe that existence itself is eternal and that all temporal things come from and are of the same substance as the eternal. That would leave out any notion of a distinct god.

think about it a bit more. this argument gives a reason to assume that that aspect isw Hoy or sacred and deserves the appellation "God"

are you assuming that "God" is a proper name for a being like "sam jones?" it's not.

metacrock
04-12-2016, 09:27 AM
If he had that much experience, he'd at least understand the difference between 'valid' and 'sound'.

I do understand it better than you do. show me one thing I said that makes you think I don't?

JimL
04-12-2016, 03:32 PM
modern theology is not a separate religion. belief in Jesus is nota about preserving an outmoded way of thinking, modern theology is about translating the Gospel into a modern vocabulary.
But in so far as you have outlined it, Jesus and the gospel would have nothing to do with your modern theology. All your modern theology does so far as I can tell is posit that something existed eternally, that something is the ground of all existing things. I agree with that, but the difference between us is that I see no distinction between the two. Nothing comes from nothing!



think about it a bit more. this argument gives a reason to assume that that aspect isw Hoy or sacred and deserves the appellation "God"
By holy and sacred you mean what? Worthy of worship? Why? Simply because it is eternal?

are you assuming that "God" is a proper name for a being like "sam jones?" it's not.
Nope, I use the term the way it was originally intended. A distinct being, creator and ruler of the world he created. Unfortunately for your argument, there is no evidence that such a distinct creator exists.

InspectorG
04-12-2016, 08:59 PM
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.

Is this an argument for Pantheism?

metacrock
04-13-2016, 03:47 AM
[mistalke

metacrock
04-13-2016, 03:49 AM
Is this an argument for Pantheism?

of course not. Pantheisms not being itself. Nature is part of being not the basis for being.

metacrock
04-13-2016, 03:53 AM
But in so far as you have outlined it, Jesus and the gospel would have nothing to do with your modern theology. All your modern theology does so far as I can tell is posit that something existed eternally, that something is the ground of all existing things. I agree with that, but the difference between us is that I see no distinction between the two. Nothing comes from nothing![

where do you think my argument precludes God as the source of consciousness? Now if the idea I'm discussing is in Vatican II and is held by major Christian theologians including the whole Orthodox church how is it a negation of Christianity?

see the book The Orthodox Church, by Timothy Ware, Penguin Publishing 1964,65

By holy and sacred you mean what? Worthy of worship? Why? Simply because it is eternal?

Nope, I use the term the way it was originally intended. A distinct being, creator and ruler of the world he created. Unfortunately for your argument, there is no evidence that such a distinct creator exists.[/QUOTE]

JimL
04-13-2016, 03:41 PM
of course not. Pantheisms not being itself. Nature is part of being not the basis for being.
So your argument is that nature is a part of god, that we are part of god? Btw Meta, that is pantheism.

JimL
04-13-2016, 03:50 PM
where do you think my argument precludes God as the source of consciousness? Now if the idea I'm discussing is in Vatican II and is held by major Christian theologians including the whole Orthodox church how is it a negation of Christianity?

see the book The Orthodox Church, by Timothy Ware, Penguin Publishing 1964,65
Don't know where you got that from reading my post. Anyway, nature is the source of all attributes, including consciousness, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

InspectorG
04-13-2016, 09:17 PM
of course not. Pantheisms not being itself. Nature is part of being not the basis for being.

Im not understanding this 'basis for being'.

Are you claiming we live within God's(or Shiva's if Hindu) dream?

metacrock
04-14-2016, 12:57 AM
So your argument is that nature is a part of god, that we are part of god? Btw Meta, that is pantheism.

I just said nature is not God.

pantheism is not saying we are part of God. it says nature is God.

Let God Be

Nature be B

Let being itself be C

If A is not B, and C is A but not B, how can you be saying that B is A? that would be a contradiction

metacrock
04-14-2016, 12:59 AM
Im not understanding this 'basis for being'.

Are you claiming we live within God's(or Shiva's if Hindu) dream?

what does the word basis mean? D you believe God created all things not himself? If God is the creator how is that different from being the basis for things?



Webster's dictionaryFull Definition of basis

plural bases play \-ˌsēz\

1
1
: the bottom of something considered as its foundation

2
2
: the principal component of something

3
3
a : something on which something else is established or based

b : an underlying condition or state of affairs <hired on a trial basis> <on a first-name basis>

4
4
: the basic principle

5
5
: a set of linearly independent vectors in a vector space such that any vector in the vector space can be expressed as a linear combination of them with appropriately chosen coefficients



the free dictionary

ba·sis
(bā′sĭs)
n. pl. ba·ses (-sēz′)
1. A foundation upon which something rests.

2. The chief constituent; the fundamental ingredient: The basis for most liquids is water.

3. The fundamental principle.

4.
a. An underlying circumstance or condition: workers paid on a daily basis; friends who are on a first-name basis. See Synonyms at base1.

b. A pattern or schedule for proceeding: on a weekly basis.

c. A condition for relating or proceeding: a first-name basis; a friendly basis

metacrock
04-14-2016, 01:09 AM
Don't know where you got that from reading my post. Anyway, nature is the source of all attributes, including consciousness, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

no it's not. that's only true if you don't believe in God.

JimL
04-14-2016, 04:30 AM
I just said nature is not God.
No, you just said that nature is a part of god which is tantamount to saying that nature is god. If my arm is part of of the whole of my body then it is silly to make a distinction between them.

pantheism is not saying we are part of God. it says nature is God.
Thats pantheism Meta. To say that nature is god is to equate the natural world with god, which is pantheism.

Let God Be A.

Nature be B

Let being itself be C

If A is not B, and C is A but not B, how can you be saying that B is A? that would be a contradiction
You're trying to have it both ways Meta.

metacrock
04-14-2016, 12:21 PM
No, you just said that nature is a part of god which is tantamount to saying that nature is god. If my arm is part of of the whole of my body then it is silly to make a distinction between them.

here is the source of misunderstanding, and it's probably my fault for not being clear. But so Used to thev nuances of Tillich that I forget others don't know them. I said:

I said ()post 45) Nature is part of being not the basis for being.

being part of being does not make it being itself. Created things are part of being (they exist) but they are not the basis of being.

So God and the creatures is another way to say it, or Being itself and the beings is another way. So nature is one of "the beings" part of the totality of being but is not being itself. That means nature is created by God it is not God.

InspectorG
04-14-2016, 03:14 PM
I said ()post 45) Nature is part of being not the basis for being.




Most people think of the Natural World as everything there is as well as all the systems involved because, well, they are 'Natural'.

You sure you arent arguing from an idiosyncratic definition?

Its like saying plastics are not natural.

The statement seems viable at first glance, because, we dont see plastics growing on trees.

But if you include humans and their activities as part of the natural world(there is little to no Supernatural evidence otherwise) then its natural for cybernetic entities that can reorganize other aspects of nature to develop different permutations of matter/energy that weather/geology/microorganisms cant account for in and of themselves.

JimL
04-14-2016, 05:32 PM
here is the source of misunderstanding, and it's probably my fault for not being clear. But so Used to thev nuances of Tillich that I forget others don't know them. I said:

I said ()post 45) Nature is part of being not the basis for being.

being part of being does not make it being itself. Created things are part of being (they exist) but they are not the basis of being.

So God and the creatures is another way to say it, or Being itself and the beings is another way. So nature is one of "the beings" part of the totality of being but is not being itself. That means nature is created by God it is not God.
No that is all clear, that is what i understood you to mean, but the problem that i see in your argument remains, part of the whole is not something different from the whole, its just a part of it. One could make the counter argument to the one you are making by replacing your term for the whole of eternal existence, i.e. god, with the term universe or nature, but there would still be no distinction between the whole and the parts, or between nature and the forms that emerge within it. The forms would be temporal with respect to themselves, but they would be eternal with respect to their substance.

metacrock
04-14-2016, 09:47 PM
Most people think of the Natural World as everything there is as well as all the systems involved because, well, they are 'Natural'.

It's not eternal or necessary.


You sure you arent arguing from an idiosyncratic definition?

I'm sure that what I'm talking about represents a highly learned and very old part of the Christian tradition that can be thought of as very advanced theology, aka "the real thing." It's up held by the major thinkers or at some of them, of the Christian tradition.





Its like saying plastics are not natural.

No it's not. I think what you sense here is that subliminally atheists regard nature as a stand-in for God. But no who believes in Go\d in the Christian sense thinks nature is the creator.




The statement seems viable at first glance, because, we dont see plastics growing on trees.
But if you include humans and their activities as part of the natural world(there is little to no Supernatural evidence otherwise) then its natural for cybernetic entities that can reorganize other aspects of nature to develop different permutations of matter/energy that weather/geology/microorganisms cant account for in and of themselves.

you are conflating several different issues. suffice to say the Christians just accused me of being pantheistic thinking I'm deifying bat now you are upset because I'm not deifying nature. that's it, I am not deifying nature.

metacrock
04-14-2016, 09:49 PM
No that is all clear, that is what i understood you to mean, but the problem that i see in your argument remains, part of the whole is not something different from the whole, its just a part of it. One could make the counter argument to the one you are making by replacing your term for the whole of eternal existence, i.e. god, with the term universe or nature, but there would still be no distinction between the whole and the parts, or between nature and the forms that emerge within it. The forms would be temporal with respect to themselves, but they would be eternal with respect to their substance.

"The whole" is the collection of all existing things. in that sense they are connected that doesn't make God nature or nature God. It does not make them connected physically or metaphysically.

JimL
04-15-2016, 04:24 PM
"The whole" is the collection of all existing things. in that sense they are connected that doesn't make God nature or nature God. It does not make them connected physically or metaphysically.
If the whole is one eternal substance out of which the collection of existing temporal things come to form, then the collection of existing temporal things are the same as the eternal whole. The only way that you can have a god, is if that god is distinct from his creations, and a distinct god would make no sense because unless yo believe that something, temporal things, can be created out of nothing.

metacrock
04-15-2016, 09:54 PM
If the whole is one eternal substance out of which the collection of existing temporal things come to form, then the collection of existing temporal things are the same as the eternal whole.

except I did not say that. I said the whole is a collection of things you added the word "substance" to make it say something I did not say. I never said it's one substance. ny living room is a collection of furniture that make it all an easy chair.



The only way that you can have a god, is if that god is distinct from his creations,

Now don't get me wrong because I do see God as separate, but in fact you have no basis for saying that, it doesn't even say that in the Bible. that is unsubstantiated. Moreover I clearly stated that God is distinct, that's why he called 'necessary: and all the stuff he creates is "contingent.,"



and a distinct god would make no sense because unless yo believe that something, temporal things, can be created out of nothing.

they are created out of nothing, I never said otherwise.

JimL
04-16-2016, 06:11 AM
they are created out of nothing, I never said otherwise.
Actually yes, you did say that, you said that nature is a part of god. If you are going to argue a point then you have to spell it out coherently. If that is not what you believe then don't say it. But, now that you have made it clear, tell me what you are basing that argument upon. The Bible?

metacrock
04-16-2016, 07:53 AM
Actually yes, you did say that, you said that nature is a part of god. If you are going to argue a point then you have to spell it out coherently. If that is not what you believe then don't say it. But, now that you have made it clear, tell me what you are basing that argument upon. The Bible?

you are totally dishonest., you know you have been shown up and you are trying to save face. but you changed my wording to do it.

I said "Nature is part of being not the basis for being. " I explained the distinction between being part of being and being God (the eternal necessary part of being) are you not capable of dealing with the concepts?



I copied that directly and I've already shown you the post ou are deliberatlytwisting my words.

JimL
04-16-2016, 08:31 AM
you are totally dishonest., you know you have been shown up and you are trying to save face. but you changed my wording to do it.

I said "Nature is part of being not the basis for being. " I explained the distinction between being part of being and being God (the eternal necessary part of being) are you not capable of dealing with the concepts?



I copied that directly and I've already shown you the post ou are deliberatlytwisting my words.

And "being" is what you equate with god, so if nature is a part of being, then it is ipso facto a part of god. You either have no idea what it is you are arguing for, or you are not stating it clearly. So what is your point, was nature, the physical world, from your perspective, created out of nothing, or is it part of and emergent from what you call being or god?

metacrock
04-16-2016, 08:41 AM
And "being" is what you equate with god, so if nature is a part of being, then it is ipso facto a part of god. You either have no idea what it is you are arguing for, or you are not stating it clearly. So what is your point, was nature, the physical world, from your perspective, created out of nothing, or is it part of and emergent from what you call being or god?

except I explained the distinction between being and being itself. I said God is being itself. not the beings,

pay attention man.

JimL
04-16-2016, 06:13 PM
except I explained the distinction between being and being itself. I said God is being itself. not the beings,

pay attention man.
Well, i would suggest that you just say what you mean instead of confusing your terms like "being" and "being itself". If you believe that God is distinct from his creation, and that he created it out of nothing, then just say it. Then I can just say your nuts, because you have no evidence with which to base that assertion on. Nothing comes from nothing man!

metacrock
04-16-2016, 08:46 PM
Well, i would suggest that you just say what you mean instead of confusing your terms like "being" and "being itself". If you believe that God is distinct from his creation, and that he created it out of nothing, then just say it. Then I can just say your nuts, because you have no evidence with which to base that assertion on. Nothing comes from nothing man!

I suggest that you read a few books about theology and learn the basics so you know a thing or two about if you are going to keep flapping your gums about it.

JimL
04-17-2016, 06:24 AM
I suggest that you read a few books about theology and learn the basics so you know a thing or two about if you are going to keep flapping your gums about it.
Nihil fit ex nihilo! From nothing, nothing comes. That is a logical conclusion that goes all the way back to Parminides and Lucretious. Your argument contradicts logic and experience. So, instead of flapping your theological gums, lets have some actual evidence for the existence of a god and for your assertion that the world of our experience was created by him out of nothing,.

JimL
04-17-2016, 06:41 AM
except I explained the distinction between being and being itself. I said God is being itself. not the beings,

pay attention man.
You can't assert that things are a part of being, but not the basis of being, and then conclude that the two are distinct in nature. A part of being is a part of the whole of being, or of the basis of being if you will. If you believe that they are distinct in nature, that the parts, a.k.a the created things, were created out of nothing by a distinct entity, a.k.a god, then just say so, make it clear and we can go from there.

metacrock
04-17-2016, 07:18 AM
Nihil fit ex nihilo! From nothing, nothing comes. That is a logical conclusion that goes all the way back to Parminides and Lucretious. Your argument contradicts logic and experience. So, instead of flapping your theological gums, lets have some actual evidence for the existence of a god and for your assertion that the world of our experience was created by him out of nothing,.

you are absurdly myopic.l you readmit into my statements as much as you can to try and bias the reader but you not even paying attention I said nothing g that would contradict creation ex nihiulo stop being a jerk

stop reading in the BS you wish was in my answers and start paying attention. Here's a clue I started the Christian Cadre that means I support the Nicene creed. get it????

try looking at my website to see what Iv believe

JimL
04-17-2016, 10:43 AM
you are absurdly myopic.l you readmit into my statements as much as you can to try and bias the reader but you not even paying attention I said nothing g that would contradict creation ex nihiulo stop being a jerk

stop reading in the BS you wish was in my answers and start paying attention. Here's a clue I started the Christian Cadre that means I support the Nicene creed. get it????

try looking at my website to see what Iv believe

Not reading anything into your words, just trying to decipher them as best as one can. But I take it then that your position is that God is of a distinct subtance from that of which he created. In other words you believe that God created the material world out of nothing, that he just thought the world into existence. Is that correct? If so, what is the evidence you basing that belief on?

metacrock
04-17-2016, 02:19 PM
Not reading anything into your words, just trying to decipher them as best as one can. But I take it then that your position is that God is of a distinct subtance from that of which he created. In other words you believe that God created the material world out of nothing, that he just thought the world into existence. Is that correct? If so, what is the evidence you basing that belief on?

Right. I have several arguments some assume science some assume the Bible. The Bible: God spoke creation into existence but words are not just in your head separate from concepts, words have meaning and even if the signifiers are arbitrary the meanings still relate to an idea in a mind not just a cypher.

Newton explained how gravity can effect things without having a physical connecting to them by theorizing that //god imagined the physical world as the staging ground for his ideas. He called the physical world the sensorium" of God. Nothing about the physical world is available to us directly and unmediated, It's all coming through perceptions. It's all dependent upon mind. Mind is really the only organizing principle we know.

One could connect it to Plantinga's notion of evolution s naturalism. or C.S. Lewis's argument from reasom

JimL
04-17-2016, 04:28 PM
Right. I have several arguments some assume science some assume the Bible. The Bible: God spoke creation into existence but words are not just in your head separate from concepts, words have meaning and even if the signifiers are arbitrary the meanings still relate to an idea in a mind not just a cypher.
I think that what you really mean to say is that it is ideas, not words, that are not just in your head. Tell me then where else do the exist? Material things do not arise by thinking about them.

Newton explained how gravity can effect things without having a physical connecting to them by theorizing that //god imagined the physical world as the staging ground for his ideas. He called the physical world the sensorium" of God. Nothing about the physical world is available to us directly and unmediated, It's all coming through perceptions. It's all dependent upon mind. Mind is really the only organizing principle we know.
And Newton was wrong as Einstein made clear. Space is not a vaccuous staging ground and gravity doesn't effect anything without there being a physical connection. Also, having an effect on things is not the same thing as creating those things, and we are talking creation, not the effecting of that which already exist.

One could connect it to Plantinga's notion of evolution s naturalism. or C.S. Lewis's argument from reasom
And are their arguments any better than the one you've been attempting to make?

metacrock
04-17-2016, 08:58 PM
I think that what you really mean to say is that it is ideas, not words, that are not just in your head. Tell me then where else do the exist? Material things do not arise by thinking about them.

words are signification for ideas. I think what you mean to say you have no knowledge of structuralism. Words come from minds. so speaking into existence means there's an idea in a mind and it's brought into fruition



And Newton was wrong as Einstein made clear. Space is not a vaccuous staging ground and gravity doesn't effect anything without there being a physical connection.

That is total rubvbish. show me where Newton talks about it. show me where Einstein disproved it. name the text site chapter and verse (or page)



Also, having an effect on things is not the same thing as creating those things, and we are talking creation, not the effecting of that which already exist.


you don't understand the issues involved. I am betting you think that relativity challenges Newtonian physics and that disproves the arguments that's rubbish because my argument has nothing to-do with Newtonian absoluter space nor does relativity in any way disprove it.






And are their arguments any better than the one you've been attempting to make?

you would know a good argument from a bad one, the Biblical argument is obviously true. after the Bs childish clap trap you have put forth in this thread so far this is just more face saving BS I never said my argument is Newton's argument I only references Newton I havn'et made my argument yet so you know nothing about it.

this has nothing to do with the argument in this thread. you have used a bait and switch to change the subject because you embarrassed yourself. you totally screwed up answering the argument.

metacrock
04-17-2016, 09:33 PM
I see this as a diversionary tactic designed to take us off the argument in the thread because you didn't answer it. I'm not going to talk about this sensorium stuff because this thread is about being itself.