Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Proofs for the Existence of God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
    To prove God is pure act.

    If God is a creature, then God is contingent.
    But what is contingent, is dependent
    But what is dependent is not supreme
    But God is the supreme being
    Therefore God is not a creature.


    A creature is contingent
    Therefore a creature is composed of potency and act.
    God is not a creature
    Therefore God is not composed of potency and act.
    What is not composed is simple
    Only pure act is simple, as a being in act
    Therefore God is pure act.

    JM
    This is 'Begging the Question,' because it is based on the presupposition that God exists and is the 'supreme being.'

    If the 'Ultimate Natural Existence' is a creature, then 'Ultimate Natural Existence' is contingent.
    But what is contingent, is dependent
    But what is dependent is not supreme
    But 'Ultimate Natural Existence is the supreme 'Source'
    Therefore 'Ultimate Natural Existence' is not a creature.

    A creature is contingent
    Therefore a creature is composed of potency and act.
    'Ultimate Natural Existence' is not a creature
    Therefore 'Ultimate Natural Existence' is not composed of potency and act.
    What is not composed is simple
    Only pure act is simple, as a being in act
    Therefore 'Ultimate Natural Existence' is pure act.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
      To prove God is pure act.
      Apart from the minor objection that you should be proving that a particular instance of pure act is God, and not the other way around, your 'logic' contains a fatal flaw:
      A creature is contingent
      Therefore a creature is composed of potency and act.
      God is not a creature
      Therefore God is not composed of potency and act.
      That can be written symbolically as:

      Premise 1: c(x) -> f(x)
      Premise 2: f(x) -> p(x)
      therefore c(x) -> p(x)
      Premise 3: not c(G)
      therefore not p(G)

      where
      c(x) = is a creature
      f(x) = is contingent
      p(x) = is composed of potency and act
      G = God

      Now if the above is valid, then c(x), f(x), p(x) and G can be replaced by any other entities, and if the premises remain true so do the conclusions.

      So, for example, try
      c(x) = is a squirrel
      f(x) = can remember where it has buried its nuts
      p(x) = is smarter than a turnip
      G = John Martin

      This gives the following premises:
      Premise 1: c(x) -> f(x): A squirrel can remember where it has buried its nuts
      Premise 2: f(x) -> p(x): Something that can remember where it has buried its nuts is smarter than a turnip
      Premise 3: not c(G): John Martin is not a squirrel

      Since these are all true, the resulting conclusions must also be true:
      c(x) -> p(x): A squirrel is smarter than a turnip
      p(G): John Martin is not smarter than a turnip

      So which is it: your proof is invalid, or you're dumber than a turnip?
      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

      MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
      MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

      seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

      Comment


      • #33
        Yeah, I know, false dichotomy.
        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
          To prove God is pure act.

          If God is a creature, then God is contingent.
          But what is contingent, is dependent
          But what is dependent is not supreme
          But God is the supreme being
          Therefore God is not a creature.

          A creature is contingent
          Therefore a creature is composed of potency and act.
          God is not a creature
          Therefore God is not composed of potency and act.
          What is not composed is simple
          Only pure act is simple, as a being in act
          Therefore God is pure act.
          John, once again, these are not proofs of god simply because you call it god. Your conclusion is in your premise. All you are doing with this argument is assuming that the necessary existence is god. Now perhaps necessary existence is god, and perhaps it is not god, but simply calling it god isn't proof that it is indeed god. What you need to do in order to prove the existence of god, is to prove that that which is necessary, which you like to call being, is actually a being, a mind, with intellect and will. Perhaps you can prove that syllogistically?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Roy View Post
            Apart from the minor objection that you should be proving that a particular instance of pure act is God, and not the other way around, your 'logic' contains a fatal flaw:
            That can be written symbolically as:

            Premise 1: c(x) -> f(x)
            Premise 2: f(x) -> p(x)
            therefore c(x) -> p(x)
            Premise 3: not c(G)
            therefore not p(G)

            where
            c(x) = is a creature
            f(x) = is contingent
            p(x) = is composed of potency and act
            G = God

            Now if the above is valid, then c(x), f(x), p(x) and G can be replaced by any other entities, and if the premises remain true so do the conclusions.

            So, for example, try
            c(x) = is a squirrel
            f(x) = can remember where it has buried its nuts
            p(x) = is smarter than a turnip
            G = John Martin

            This gives the following premises:
            Premise 1: c(x) -> f(x): A squirrel can remember where it has buried its nuts
            Premise 2: f(x) -> p(x): Something that can remember where it has buried its nuts is smarter than a turnip
            Premise 3: not c(G): John Martin is not a squirrel

            Since these are all true, the resulting conclusions must also be true:
            c(x) -> p(x): A squirrel is smarter than a turnip
            p(G): John Martin is not smarter than a turnip

            So which is it: your proof is invalid, or you're dumber than a turnip?


            I love it! Spot on, of course, but with such style!
            I'm not here anymore.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              To prove God is pure act.

              If God is a creature, then God is contingent.
              But what is contingent, is dependent
              But what is dependent is not supreme
              But God is the supreme being
              Therefore God is not a creature.

              A creature is contingent
              Therefore a creature is composed of potency and act.
              God is not a creature
              Therefore God is not composed of potency and act.
              What is not composed is simple
              Only pure act is simple, as a being in act
              Therefore God is pure act.

              JM

              This is 'Begging the Question,' because it is based on the presupposition that God exists and is the 'supreme being.'
              False. The argument assumes God exists. But the argument is not arguing for the existence of God. It's arguing for God as pure act. Also to define God as the supreme being is to correctly define the nature of God. If God is not the supreme being, what then is the supreme being? A creature, or God? God. God which is not the supreme being is a false definition of God.

              JM

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                To prove God is pure act.

                If God is a creature, then God is contingent.
                But what is contingent, is dependent
                But what is dependent is not supreme
                But God is the supreme being
                Therefore God is not a creature.

                A creature is contingent
                Therefore a creature is composed of potency and act.
                God is not a creature
                Therefore God is not composed of potency and act.
                What is not composed is simple
                Only pure act is simple, as a being in act
                Therefore God is pure act.

                John, once again, these are not proofs of god simply because you call it god. Your conclusion is in your premise. All you are doing with this argument is assuming that the necessary existence is god. Now perhaps necessary existence is god, and perhaps it is not god, but simply calling it god isn't proof that it is indeed god. What you need to do in order to prove the existence of god, is to prove that that which is necessary, which you like to call being, is actually a being, a mind, with intellect and will. Perhaps you can prove that syllogistically?
                The argument does not seek to prove God is, it demonstrates God is pure act. There is no premise that says God is pure act.

                JM

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Roy View Post
                  It's the usual apologetics "This is God" shell game.

                  Start with some reasonable argument about causes, or events, or forces, or emotional states, or something similar.
                  Conclude there must have been some first cause or initial event etc.
                  Say "This is God".

                  More than half the so-called 'proofs' of God take this form. None of them include any attempt to link the first cause/initial event/etc to any of the other trappings associated with their god - scripture, prayer, angels, sin, omniscience, transubstantiation - or to explain why it's their god and not Rongo or Ptah or Eledumare.

                  Sir Humphrey Appleby would be quietly smug.
                  And its the usual shell game of the atheist simply cannot bring himself to understand that God is the supreme being. Simply unbelievable.

                  JM

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                    The argument does not seek to prove God is, it demonstrates God is pure act. There is no premise that says God is pure act.
                    Your title John, your title. "Proofs of gods existence!" You are merely acknowledging a necessary existence and calling it god. Again, simply calling it god doesn't make it god, and it certainly isn't a proof of god..

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Your title John, your title. "Proofs of gods existence!" You are merely acknowledging a necessary existence and calling it god. Again, simply calling it god doesn't make it god, and it certainly isn't a proof of god..
                      Again, the recent argument seeks to prove God is pure act, and not the existence of God.

                      JM

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                        Again, the recent argument seeks to prove God is pure act, and not the existence of God.
                        Okay, so contrary to the Title of your thread, you have no proofs for the existence of god?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                          The argument does not seek to prove God is, it demonstrates God is pure act. There is no premise that says God is pure act.

                          JM
                          The title of your thread is 'Proofs for the Existence of God'. Arguing semantics and splitting frog hairs over wording does not help your can case. You are 'Begging the Question' arguing proofs for the existence of God.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                            And its the usual shell game of the atheist simply cannot bring himself to understand that God is the supreme being. Simply unbelievable.
                            Yes, your claim is simply unbelievable. I do understand it. I reject it because I understand it, and because I see the flaw in it that you do not.
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              The title of your thread is 'Proofs for the Existence of God'. Arguing semantics and splitting frog hairs over wording does not help your can case. You are 'Begging the Question' arguing proofs for the existence of God.
                              In that argument I was arguing for God as pure act. God's existence was assumed from prior arguments. Not every argument starts from scratch.

                              JM

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                Okay, so contrary to the Title of your thread, you have no proofs for the existence of god?
                                Arguments were already presented in the OP. And subsequently other arguments for other conclusions.

                                JM

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                33 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                421 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X