Proofs for the Existence of God

[Roy]

So you can't produce an example of a rock acting to achieve an end. You can only spout meaningless Panglossian assertions.

The rock acts to sit and roll. The end is the common good of the universe. Very easy to understand.

Yes, very easy to understand. Also easy to reject as not just an unsupported assertion but a spectacularly vacuous and Pollyannaish one.

[Yttrium]

The rock acts to sit and roll. The end is the common good of the universe. Very easy to understand.

What.


...

No, I would call that gibberish.

*watch for falling rocks*

[JohnMartin]

Yes, very easy to understand. Also easy to reject as not just an unsupported assertion but a spectacularly vacuous and Pollyannaish one.

The act is to sit in the palm or to roll. The end is the common good of the universe. Action for ends. There you have it.

JM

[JohnMartin]

You've said this already. I asked you to explain how you are making that distinction between an eternal god and an eternal universe. Anyone can make assertions that the one is thus, and the other is thus.

Eternal God is pure act. Eternal universe is really only a universe without beginning, but does have a present and hence a limit. Hence the eternal universe is composed of potency as the limit and act as the universe. The eternal universe is not God, for only God is pure act.

JM

[JimL]

Eternal God is pure act. Eternal universe is really only a universe without beginning, but does have a present and hence a limit. Hence the eternal universe is composed of potency as the limit and act as the universe. The eternal universe is not God, for only God is pure act.

JM

Explain please. What do you mean by the one eternal has a present, hence a limit, but the other eternal has no present, hence no limit, and based upon what did you come up with this.

[Roy]

The act is to sit in the palm or to roll. The end is the common good of the universe. Action for ends. There you have it.

Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it true.

I see no reason to believe that the paperweight on my desk is remaining stationary for the common good of the universe, as opposed to it simply being incapable of independent movement.

[JohnMartin]

Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it true.

I see no reason to believe that the paperweight on my desk is remaining stationary for the common good of the universe, as opposed to it simply being incapable of independent movement.

The paperweight acts in accord with the laws of the universe and thereby acts for the common good of the universe. If everyone ate poison, eating poison is against a natural law an against the common good of the universe. The paperweight acts in accord with the law of gravity and thereby acts in accord with the common good.

JM

[JimL]

The paperweight acts in accord with the laws of the universe and thereby acts for the common good of the universe. If everyone ate poison, eating poison is against a natural law an against the common good of the universe. The paperweight acts in accord with the law of gravity and thereby acts in accord with the common good.

JM

Wow, I never would have guessed that the tree which fell on my neighbors house was acting for the common good.

[Roy]

Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it true.

I see no reason to believe that the paperweight on my desk is remaining stationary for the common good of the universe, as opposed to it simply being incapable of independent movement.

The paperweight acts in accord with the laws of the universe and thereby acts for the common good of the universe. ... The paperweight acts in accord with the law of gravity and thereby acts in accord with the common good.

Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it true.

Why is it for the common good of the universe that my paperweight is remaining stationary?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Wow, I never would have guessed that the tree which fell on my neighbors house was acting for the common good.

Fun with Circular Claptrap. "Well, if it happened, then it must be for the common good because my hypothesis states that everything which happens does so for the common good."

[JimL]

Fun with Circular Claptrap. "Well, if it happened, then it must be for the common good because my hypothesis states that everything which happens does so for the common good."

Actually, as I understand it, your hypothesis is that nothing happens at all since you believe that the universe is static and all events are frozen in and along with time.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Actually, as I understand it, your hypothesis is that nothing happens at all since you believe that the universe is static and all events are frozen in and along with time.

Why does every thread in which I participate get derailed by a discussion of the philosophy of Time? We're already discussing the philosophy of Time elsewhere. If you want to ask me what I mean by a thing "happening" on the B-Theory, you are welcome to do so in those threads.

[JohnMartin]

Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it true.

Why is it for the common good of the universe that my paperweight is remaining stationary?

The paperweight is lawfully acting for an end. An end is subordinate to an ultimate end, which is the common good of the universe. Everything that is and acts does so for the common good of the universe. Even a fee agent that acts unlawfully, bears witness to the common good, by comparison to lawful action towards the common good. A killer bears witness to the common good assumed in the disordered action of killing, by the implied order inherent within the preservation of life. Everything that is or acts, does so either directly for the common good, or indirectly demonstrates the existence of the common good.

Every act is on account of an end is a universal principle.

JM

[JimL]

Why does every thread in which I participate get derailed by a discussion of the philosophy of Time? We're already discussing the philosophy of Time elsewhere. If you want to ask me what I mean by a thing "happening" on the B-Theory, you are welcome to do so in those threads.

Possibly because you contradict yourself, or rather because your hypothesis is self contradicting. If the universe of time is static, then events don't happen, they just are.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Possibly because you contradict yourself, or rather because your hypothesis is self contradicting. If the universe of time is static, then events don't happen, they just are.

Seriously, if you want to discuss the philosophy of Time, you are welcome to either continue in one of the threads already discussing the matter, or else send me a private message. There's no need to derail other threads in order to discuss this.