Proofs for the Existence of God

[Doug Shaver]

The paperweight is lawfully acting for an end.

Other than your say-so, can you suggest any reason for me to believe that?

[Roy]

The paperweight is lawfully acting for an end.

Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it true.

Why is the paperweight is lawfully acting for an end by remaining stationary, as opposed to remaining stationary because it isn't acting at all?

[JohnMartin]

Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it true.

Why is the paperweight is lawfully acting for an end by remaining stationary,

Because God made all nature to act for the good.

as opposed to remaining stationary because it isn't acting at all?

Both the act of stationary and any other act are always ordered towards the good. Every good is subordinated to the ultimate good of the universe, which in turn is for the glory of God.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Other than your say-so, can you suggest any reason for me to believe that?

All nature acts for good and an end is a good. Hence all nature acts for ends. Whatever is in act is an act for a good and thereby an act for an end.

JM

[Doug Shaver]

Other than your say-so, can you suggest any reason for me to believe that?

All nature acts for good

Again: Other than your say-so, can you suggest any reason for me to believe that?

[JohnMartin]

Again: Other than your say-so, can you suggest any reason for me to believe that?

Do follows be. Be is good, hence do is also good. A thing is good. When the thing acts, it acts for being, which is good. Good is a mode of being. The thing, the act, and the end of the act all have being, and are therefore all good. A thing then acts for good as an end. The same for all nature, which is also good, which acts for good. As good is an end, all good is directed to the ultimate natural good of the universe, which is the common good of the universe.

JM

[Doug Shaver]

Do follows be.

In this context, how are you defining "follows"?

[Roy]

Again: Other than your say-so, can you suggest any reason for me to believe that?

Do follows be. Be is good, hence do is also good. A thing is good. When the thing acts, it acts for being, which is good. Good is a mode of being. The thing, the act, and the end of the act all have being, and are therefore all good. A thing then acts for good as an end. The same for all nature, which is also good, which acts for good. As good is an end, all good is directed to the ultimate natural good of the universe, which is the common good of the universe.

So "no" then.

[Roy]

Do follows be.

On this planet, do follows te. Perhaps it's a typo.

[Yttrium]

Awright, let me try my hand at this philosophy thing. I was never any good at it.

- Let's assume for the sake of argument that there can't be a infinite sequence of cause and effect.
- This implies that there was a first something that caused the first event. An uncaused cause. Let's call it "alpha".
- Alpha cannot have a finite existence prior to the first cause. Otherwise, it would have to come into existence somehow, which would require a cause. So its existence is unbounded prior to the first cause.
- Alpha could not be sentient prior to the first cause. After all, a stream of consciousness requires sequence of cause and effect.

I suppose one could imagine alpha as an eternal medium in which events can occur. Except of course for the fact that I haven't established that alpha's existence is unbounded after the first event has occurred. I'm still thinking about that part. I note that I've ended up with a situation in which intelligence is created from non-intelligence. Sorry about that. I don't see how I can avoid that. It doesn't rule out God, it just would mean any sentience would have to develop later.

[37818]

Awright, let me try my hand at this philosophy thing. I was never any good at it.

- Let's assume for the sake of argument that there can't be a infinite sequence of cause and effect.
- This implies that there was a first something that caused the first event. An uncaused cause. Let's call it "alpha".
- Alpha cannot have a finite existence prior to the first cause. Otherwise, it would have to come into existence somehow, which would require a cause. So its existence is unbounded prior to the first cause.
- Alpha could not be sentient prior to the first cause. After all, a stream of consciousness requires sequence of cause and effect.

I suppose one could imagine alpha as an eternal medium in which events can occur. Except of course for the fact that I haven't established that alpha's existence is unbounded after the first event has occurred. I'm still thinking about that part. I note that I've ended up with a situation in which intelligence is created from non-intelligence. Sorry about that. I don't see how I can avoid that. It doesn't rule out God, it just would mean any sentience would have to develop later.

At some point there has to be something uncaused. What is uncaused has no origin. Now all causes are finite and temporal in being a cause. Now the cosmological uncaused cause would have to be both eternal without any origin and be finite and temporal.

[JimL]

At some point there has to be something uncaused. What is uncaused has no origin. Now all causes are finite and temporal in being a cause. Now the cosmological uncaused cause would have to be both eternal without any origin and be finite and temporal.

Correct, and if the finite and temporal are naught but aspects of change taking place within the eternal whole then the uncaused cause, the fundemental nature, or substance, of all temporal things, could be defined in a sense as being both eternal and temperal. To paraphrase Spinoza: Finite things are temporal with respect to themselves, but they are eternal with respect to their cause.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

At some point there has to be something uncaused. What is uncaused has no origin. Now all causes are finite and temporal in being a cause. Now the cosmological uncaused cause would have to be both eternal without any origin and be finite and temporal.

You must be using some rule of logical inference with which I am unfamiliar. Because I am not aware of any which could draw the conclusion you give, here, based on your listed premises.

Let's set up your premises as simple syllogisms and see where modus ponens actually takes us.

1. That which is uncaused has no origin.
2. There exists something uncaused.
3. Therefore, there exists something which has no origin.

Notice that this tells us nothing about whether the uncaused thing in question is finite or temporal or a cause. As such, your next premise:

4. All causes are finite and temporal in being a cause.

...doesn't relate to your earlier statements at all. Which means your conclusion is a complete non sequitur-- not to mention self-contradictory.

[37818]

You must be using some rule of logical inference with which I am unfamiliar. Because I am not aware of any which could draw the conclusion you give, here, based on your listed premises.

Let's set up your premises as simple syllogisms and see where modus ponens actually takes us.

1. That which is uncaused has no origin.
2. There exists something uncaused.
3. Therefore, there exists something which has no origin.

Notice that this tells us nothing about whether the uncaused thing in question is finite or temporal or a cause. As such, your next premise:

4. All causes are finite and temporal in being a cause.

...doesn't relate to your earlier statements at all. Which means your conclusion is a complete non sequitur-- not to mention self-contradictory.

Either something is caused or uncaused.

Do you know of anything that is not finite? Do you know of anything which is uncaused?

Both the infinite and uncaused are metaphysical concepts.

Nothingness, as I understand the term, has no existence. Therefore existence always was.

[The concept of nothingness has an existence as a concept.]

So, I start with uncaused existence.

Causes are all finite and temporal. What ever is not finite and temporal are metaphysical. [There can be finite and temporal which could be metaphysical.]

Again, the cosmological "uncaused cause" would have to be eternal in being uncaused. What is uncaused, as I understand and use the term, has no origin. And cause to be a cause is [both] finite and temporal. And so, the "uncaused cause" in being a cause would also be finite and temporal.

Now being "uncaused" and so being "infinite" can be supposed. But being "uncaused" does not necessitate being "infinite," does it?

[JimL]

Either something is caused or uncaused.

Do you know of anything that is not finite? Do you know of anything which is uncaused?

Both the infinite and uncaused are metaphysical concepts.

Nothingness, as I understand the term, has no existence. Therefore existence always was.

[The concept of nothingness has an existence as a concept.]

So, I start with uncaused existence.

Causes are all finite and temporal. What ever is not finite and temporal are metaphysical. [There can be finite and temporal which could be metaphysical.]

Again, the cosmological "uncaused cause" would have to be eternal in being uncaused. What is uncaused, as I understand and use the term, has no origin. And cause to be a cause is [both] finite and temporal. And so, the "uncaused cause" in being a cause would also be finite and temporal.

Now being "uncaused" and so being "infinite" can be supposed. But being "uncaused" does not necessitate being "infinite," does it?

"Finite and temporal with respect to itself, infinite and eternal with respect to its cause." Cause and effect are one!