Arguments about God

[GioD]

Why Aquinas and any person who has a cosmological argument is wrong.

I'm on vacation, but this one was too much fun to miss!

What we call the known universe is not the whole universe.

Agreed. This is basic astronomy.

It is but one expanding mass among googolplexes of expanding masses.

Unsupported, unfalsifiable, and unverifiable assertion that is a non-sequitur to the previous statement.

This is indeed possible.

It's possible, but is it true?

Because this is possible, then this universe is the result of energies outside this expanding mass interacting. The end. No God necessary.

What causes that energy? And its interaction? The fact that it both exists and is capable of interacting in such a way requires an explanation and a cause!

Furthermore, there needs to exist something self existent.

Something can't cause itself, so no.

I have arguments on this site demonstrating this, but this eternal thing cannot have a mind, cannot be complex.

Having a mind =/= being complex. God is not complex but has to be maximally simple.

The self existing things must be most fundamental and necessary.

You don't seem to realize how you just defined a non-mental version of classical theism. Add in having a mind, which is necessary and provable, and we win.

No God necessary.

"No philosophical competence necessary" is clearly what people like you and Griggsy think when writing these posts.

Check my thread. Is God necessary?

I see you're follwing Griggsy's idea of shameless self-advertising their threads.

[Adrift]

It is but one expanding mass among googolplexes of expanding masses.

Unsupported, unfalsifiable, and unverifiable assertion that is a non-sequitur to the previous statement.

Yeah this got my attention too. At the very most, if this is true, all it does is move the problem one step back. It's clearly not supportable evidentially (at this point) either way.

[Whag]

Yeah this got my attention too. At the very most, if this is true, all it does is move the problem one step back. It's clearly not supportable evidentially (at this point) either way.

How exactly does multiverse move the problem one step back? There *are* clues to multiverse, so to say it's not supported by evidence is untrue. It's not just not supported by strong evidence. And, further, research went in this direction because our entrenched assuptions about the structure of the cosmos have blown up every time we went looking.

[SatanTheAlien]

I'm on vacation, but this one was too much fun to miss!



Agreed. This is basic astronomy.



Unsupported, unfalsifiable, and unverifiable assertion that is a non-sequitur to the previous statement.



It's possible, but is it true?



What causes that energy? And its interaction? The fact that it both exists and is capable of interacting in such a way requires an explanation and a cause!



Something can't cause itself, so no.



Having a mind =/= being complex. God is not complex but has to be maximally simple.



You don't seem to realize how you just defined a non-mental version of classical theism. Add in having a mind, which is necessary and provable, and we win.



"No philosophical competence necessary" is clearly what people like you and Griggsy think when writing these posts.



I see you're follwing Griggsy's idea of shameless self-advertising their threads.

I believe multiple expanding masses is true, and because it's possible, God is not necessary. Energy is an outgrowth of the interacting attributes. The explanation and cause for the attributes to interact is no different than why neutrons photons and electrons if placed together will interact based on their intrinsic properties. The self existing attributes have intrinsic properties, so they must interact by their very nature.

You seemed to disagree with me that something must be eternal. Are you sure you disagree with that?

Self existing, simple properties that interact like particles do is in no way anything like classical theism.

[Griggsy]

Inane questions cannot instantiate Him!
It's immaterial what Levy-Bruhl says about reduced animism, because he assumes that putative God has intent when science, and not just a philosophical point, denies that. Thus, full and reduced animisms rely on no-intent whatsoever!
Theism then is just another superstition like its twin superstiton paranormalism, what together Paul Kurtz calls " The Transendental Temptation," a greater work than the "Summa" without all that specious verbiage. I read that book in Spanish.
I thank Feser for recognizing that theists demand an explanation for what is instead of why not nothing as that explicates that they just have that " mustabatory" need for HIm, despite His adding nothing as the sufficient reason or the primary cause
Ti's no dereliction of duty to note with the Lord, Lord Russell, the Metaverse just is whilst from its quantum fields come forth universes!
Science itself will add to how and why come the transformations, and no real origination occurred! Thus, those who bemoan the loss of Him as the real originator just falsely tell us, why, you aren't letting your metaphysics act for the sufficient reason to appear to you!
No Holy Spirit acts but instead people just self-brainwash! Their own inner resources, just like religious experiences, do not depend on Him!
No sin impels us non-theists but instead the absurdities inherent in religions! No stunting of the mind with the acknowledgment that He is no kind of answer to anything whatsoever1
Yet, theists just have to have that unnecessary need to have HIm as that primary cause, ignoring blithely that He adds nothng to causation,but only is an obscurantism as any kind of explanation1
No reason dictates that He must be simple but unconfirmed intuitions! Thus, those who dismiss Dawkins' argument from complexity merely aver by the argument from ignorance and beg the question of His simplicity!
My signature affirms that bane!

[Griggsy]

Hmph suffices! Ignorance cannot instantiate Him!
SatantheAlien trounces theistic speciousness!

[MaxVel]

Griggsy posts yet more incoherent verbiage!
And in yet another hard-to-read font, with exclamations to make it look more authoritative!

Somewhere amid all the obscure references, which one doubts Griggsy understands, if he has indeed ever read them, is there an actual argument? NO! We must resoundingly answer. Griggsy confuses hurling an elephant with substantive responses! He thinks that referencing little-known writers equates to instantiating a decisive rebuttal of all theist arguments!

But there's more! Catch your breath, tiring reader, as I point out the inconsistency between Griggsy's signature, which includes the words "Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.", and Griggsy's actual postings, which are replete with claims to have decisively shown theism to be false! Oh the humility!

Is Griggsy capable of a normal conversation, you know, where both parties actually listen to what each other is saying, and respond accordingly? One has reason to doubt! Certainly thus far he has exhibited no capability to sustain a dialogue, preferring to dictate and pontificate, spouting streams of rhetoric like a geyser.

But there is hope! Or is there? Anyway, if Griggsy will accept the dire challenge of sticking to one point, and discussing that with other posters, responding to what they say, his posts might have some value to them. More likely however, is that he will continue his pattern of boldly claiming that there are 'no reasons' for any theist belief, this bypassing having to deal with the actual reasons, casting himself as the sole arbiter of reason, and rendering himself immune to actual dialogue where he might find he has to change his mind about something! Alone in an island fortress built of the confidence that comes from not wanting to understand the reasons for the theists position, Lord Griggsy is the master of his fate, afloat in a sea of italicized exclamation marks that drift on apparently endless currents of verbiage!!

[Griggsy]

I expected such inanity from inane people!
SatantheAlien and I give evidence instead of mere assertions as the those others do , they probject on to us their own failings which cannot instantiate Being Itself1 I fathom their inanities so they remain perturbed that others refuse to accept their drivel! They, in response to Satan., evince their lack of comprehension of real science,preferring to side with such bloviators as Edward Feser and Billy Lane.
Again, Feser acknowledges that Leibniz query as to why something exists instead of nothing refers to why something exists instead of askng why not nothing.
Satanthe Alien answers with evidence from science which of course they refuse to fathom,vasue they just have to have Sky Pappy or Being Itself,that performs nothing and explains nothing!
So,taking umbrage at our pellucid posts they prefer projectiong on to us their failings as noted.
As someone notes @ the Uncredible Hallq, Aquinas was a gas bag, whose verbiage outran his supposed facts! For how Chriss Halquiss keel hauls pellucidly Edward Feser!
Blast me and--weep1

[thewriteranon]

inanity from inane

perturbed that others refuse to accept their drivel!

bloviators

taking umbrage at our pellucid posts

Someone's been giving their thesaurus a thorough workout.

[MaxVel]

I expected such inanity from inane people!
SatantheAlien and I give evidence instead of mere assertions as the those others do ,

Really? I look forward to you providing some actual evidence....

they probject on to us their own failings which cannot instantiate Being Itself1

Apart from being nearly incoherent, that is an assertion, with no evidence provided...

I fathom their inanities so they remain perturbed that others refuse to accept their drivel!

Arrogant drivel, and an assertion without evidence.

They, in response to Satan., evince their lack of comprehension of real science,

Another assertion without evidence or argument to support it. That's three already.

preferring to side with such bloviators as Edward Feser and Billy Lane.

Unsupported assertion. Four.

Who is this "Billy Lane"?

Perhaps you're referring to William Lane Craig? If so, then your childish mangling of his name shows you are unprofessional and incapable of mature conversation. {Not that that will surprise anyone who's bothered to read any of your rantings}

Again, Feser acknowledges that Leibniz query as to why something exists instead of nothing refers to why something exists instead of askng why not nothing.

Another unsupported assertion. Five. Source, quote and link please.

Satanthe Alien answers with evidence from science which of course they refuse to fathom,vasue they just have to have Sky Pappy or Being Itself,that performs nothing and explains nothing!

More unsupported assertions. Six.

So,taking umbrage at our pellucid posts they prefer projectiong on to us their failings as noted.

Asserted is more accurate than 'noted'. Seven.

As someone notes @ the Uncredible Hallq, Aquinas was a gas bag, whose verbiage outran his supposed facts!

Unsupported assertion. Eight. Source, quotation and link please.

For how Chriss Halquiss keel hauls pellucidly Edward Feser!
Blast me and--weep1

Yeah, right.

Griggsy criticises others for supposedly doing just exactly what he does - offer nothing but unsupported assertions. Eight in one post.

Are you really that blind, Griggsy?

How about giving some links to the posts you've made at Feser's blog (where you "post as Lord Griggsy"). I don't recall ever seeing you post there.

[Griggsy]

SatantheAlien and other competent posters here, thank you!
When one reads widely in high-brow publications, one picks up quite a vocabulary! And for others,why, dictionaries and thesaurses can help.
Citing ones own sites invites others to fathom better ones thought. And citing sources means helping others to verify ones statements.
So much for background1
No theistic arguments can ever lead to God,because they misrepresent the facts!
Aquinas fails with his Prime Mover- his arguments are hierarchical for explanatory power, not for a chronological creation as Feser so notes about people understanding the five ways.] .Instead he finds Creator God from the Tanakh instead of philosophy.
Now for why he fails: 180Proof @Philosophy Forums well state why:" There isn't any ' regress of sustaining causes." Modern science, like ancient atomists, millennia ago, dispenses with every sort of 'occult teleology.'
...
General relativity and quantum field theory demonstrate [simply put ] matter is energy and energy is motion [i.e. change] and is therefore intrinsically lawful/orderly and by implication matter-energy without ' motion '[eg. unmoved mover ]is nomologically impossible-besides being conceptually incoherent,,,, To be is to vibrate.'"
I maintain then that per the presumption of naturalism and the argument from inherency that order,chaos and regulatity inhere in Nature. Theists, therefore, as noted, seek an answer for the pseudo -query why is there something rather than nothing with their argument from ignorance.
Yet, Aquinas' contingency argument argues to that nothing !
I post firmly, but am a fallibilist!

Satan. and other acute commentators here, let's further Proof's analysis! Philosophy Forums has high-brow commentators like us! I'm Ignostic Morgan there. Google Ignostic Morgan.
Shunyadragon's comments deliver the goods!

[SatanTheAlien]

I await a response to my post #274.

[thewriteranon]

When one reads widely in high-brow publications, one picks up quite a vocabulary! And for others,why, dictionaries and thesaurses can help.

Ah, but one does not always learn how to use those words, it seems. Especially when one does not seem to have a firm grasp on grammar or spelling. Or even basic philosophy and theology.

As others have pointed out, your ramblings are near-incoherent, unsupported, and often non-arguments altogether. Let us examine:

General relativity and quantum field theory demonstrate [simply put ] matter is energy and energy is motion [i.e. change]

Apart from using brackets for parentheses for no real reason, this part of your first sentence is coherent. However, you give no citations or explanations for asserting that general relativity and quantum theory demonstrate what you have said. I am not a scientist, and so I will not presume to know whether you said is correct or incorrect or way off-base, but it would be nice for you to specify. From what little I do know about quantum theory, there are many components to it and it would be helpful for you to explain beyond "Quantum theory says this." What part of quantum theory? Where did you find this? I would not come up to you and say, "Recorded American history says this" and then just expect you to accept what I said without question or further explanation/citation.

and is therefore intrinsically lawful/orderly and by implication matter-energy without ' motion '[eg. unmoved mover ]is nomologically impossible-besides being conceptually incoherent,,,,

See, now your gratuitous use of large words is getting in the way of your coherency, never mind the atrocious grammar. Also, it would be a benefit to you to use full stops when you start getting into "and this and that and this." While it is acceptable to use conjunctions in quick succession without the use of commas, in debate and non-fiction it can muddy the meaning of what you are trying to say. In my experience, this device is used primarily used in prose and poetry to develop rhythm. Also, if you are trying to quote "motion," please be sure to use the double quotes unless it is a quote within a quote. For a second there, I thought you were trying to make "without" a possessive. As well, commas are not ellipses.

I have little to say on how energy works, except that I don't see what argument you are trying to make here. Matter and energy are orderly and lawful? Yes, of course they are.

I maintain then that per the presumption of naturalism

I don't accept your presumption. That's not even an argument. Do you know what "presumption" means?

and the argument from inherency that order,chaos and regulatity inhere in Nature.

Argument from inherency? Maybe someone else can clear this up for me, because the only inherent argument I could find was in relation to policy debate. Or maybe you could actually explain anything you are trying to say.

Theists, therefore, as noted, seek an answer for the pseudo -query why is there something rather than nothing with their argument from ignorance.

"Therefore" and "as noted" together is just a muddled, bad construction of that sentence. Your previous ramblings were hard enough to decipher, and now you expect us to follow that theists have a "pseudo-query" in regards to existence?

Yet, Aquinas' contingency argument argues to that nothing !

You have barely even approached Aquinas' arguments at all.

Forgive me, I have not read everything in this thread because so much of it is appallingly badly written ramblings on the part of Griggsy, but it's just gotten to crazy levels. The poor spacing alone is enough to drive me mad.

[GioD]

I await a response to my post #274.

It's called vacation. Meaning no regular access to the internet for long periods. But I do have access now, so I'll answer.

I believe multiple expanding masses is true

Congratulations. Nobody cares what you believe. Back it up with evidence.

and because it's possible, God is not necessary.

Total non-sequitur. Even if the multiverse existed God still needs to cause it.

Energy is an outgrowth of the interacting attributes.

What?

The explanation and cause for the attributes to interact is no different than why neutrons photons and electrons if placed together will interact based on their intrinsic properties.

So that's why they act the way they do. But how doe they come into existence.

The self existing attributes have intrinsic properties, so they must interact by their very nature.

Another non-sequitur. Having the capacity to interact =/= actually doing it.

You seemed to disagree with me that something must be eternal. Are you sure you disagree with that?

God isn't eternal. He's beyond time and space.

Self existing, simple properties that interact like particles do is in no way anything like classical theism.

On further thought, this is correct - CT is much more coherent.

[technomage]

Even if the multiverse existed God still needs to cause it.

Only if you accept the conclusion that the multiverse needed a cause (in either the Aristotelian or the Thomistic sense). Jury's still out on that.