God is not Seperate from his powers.

[Metacrock]

I made an argument, which really for all practical purposes does prove the existence of God (I say "practical" because I don't claim it as proof I claim it as "rational warrant" but really that's as god proved).

In a nut shell the argument says:

(1) All things in the natural world are contingent becuase they all depend upon prior conditions.

(2) All contingent things require a necessity upon which to be preducated.

(3) therefore, there must be a necessity that is the ultimate 'prior condition" and which itself has no prior conditions.


this is important this third step because it means that that this necessity fits the major attributes of God. Thus because it shares the attributes it can be thought of as God and that is a good reason (rational warrant) to believe in God.

those attributes are:

(1) Necessary
(2) eternal
(3) ground of being
(4) first "cause" (prior condition) (for that one could read unbounded condition).
all of these collapse into eternal. Any eternal existent automatically qualifies for all of them.

This is so because if it is eternal (no prior conditions, always existing, timeless) and if all natural phenomena are contingent then it only stands to reason that the eternal produced the contingent. that makes it the ground of all being. By definition that fits no 4. It also flows out of no 1 since to be necessary it has to be non contingent meaning it must have no cause and no begining and has always existed, thus is eternal.



Now certain ones who don't know very much about these issues try to destroy the argument by cheating logic and thus try to spearate the power of God from God himself. They try to make the power of God contingent and thus make God contingent upon his power.

They can't make the power contingent without confusing it with the will to action. But the will to action does not have to be exercised. Just because God could have chosen not to create does ot mean that God's power is contingent.

God would still have his power even if he didn't use it.

Moreover, God's power is God. its' who God is. it can't be separated from him anymore than I can be separated into three people by calling me "me," "myself" and "i."

God is able to create and to do what he wills to do because reality is a thought in his mind. God's power is synonymous with his own ability to think.

How do I know this? I want to bracket that question for now. I have a good reason for thinking so. But I'll suffice for now to say that I am student of the philosopher George Berkeley. So if you read Berkeley you will get an idea of why I say this.

So God's power is synonymous with God himself and thus is cannot be contingent anymore than he can in essence.

[Cupofwrath.com]

That is a good logical argument for the existence of God. I think its also called "self-existence". That you ultimately need something that exists in and of itself, apart from cause and effect, to rationalize the existence of the world.

Also if you separate God from his power, then wouldn't his power be God? I don't see how some force could exercise its will in creating anything

[Seasanctuary]

In a nut shell the argument says:

(1) All things in the natural world are contingent becuase they all depend upon prior conditions.

Begging the question.

That is a good logical argument for the existence of God. I think its also called "self-existence". That you ultimately need something that exists in and of itself, apart from cause and effect, to rationalize the existence of the world.

So far as I can tell, the world might exist in and of itself. One would need to demonstrate that it doesn't, not just conveniently define it as not and then conclude there has to be something besides the world.

[Metacrock]

That is a good logical argument for the existence of God. I think its also called "self-existence". That you ultimately need something that exists in and of itself, apart from cause and effect, to rationalize the existence of the world.

Also if you separate God from his power, then wouldn't his power be God? I don't see how some force could exercise its will in creating anything

exactly! thanks ;-)

[Metacrock]

Begging the question.

hello Seasancury. Let's see what you think is begging the question:





I said:

(1) All things in the natural world are contingent because they all depend upon prior conditions.

that's what you said is begging question.


No, I'm sorry that is not begging the question. It's a prori logic.You see, all naturalistic things have prior conditions becasue the whole of the space/time is conditioned by the Big bang,and that fromt he singularity.


so obviously there is nothing in the natural world that is not contingent.t hat's what the natural world is. In fact the term "nature" itself from the Latin natura means life from life. that is a description of contingency pure and simple

So far as I can tell, the world might exist in and of itself. One would need to demonstrate that it doesn't, not just conveniently define it as not and then conclude there has to be something besides the world.

I just did. The modern concept of cosmology, the accepted theory (big bang) is based upon the observations of empirical physics which tell us this is so.

[Seasanctuary]

hello Seasancury. Let's see what you think is begging the question:





I said:

(1) All things in the natural world are contingent because they all depend upon prior conditions.

that's what you said is begging question.

You are begging the question that all things in the natural world are contingent. Atheists tend to think something non-contingent exists, but suspect it is part of the natural world. Your argument for God simply rules out this Atheistic position.

You see, all naturalistic things have prior conditions becasue the whole of the space/time is conditioned by the Big bang,and that fromt he singularity.

So if anyone suspects the Big Bang was the result of an underlying reality, he is only allowed to suspect that underlying reality is a divine person?

In fact the term "nature" itself from the Latin natura means life from life. that is a description of contingency pure and simple

Word origins are interesting but don't prove metaphysical truths.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I made an argument, which really for all practical purposes does prove the existence of God (I say "practical" because I don't claim it as proof I claim it as "rational warrant" but really that's as god proved).

In a nut shell the argument says:

(1) All things in the natural world are contingent becuase they all depend upon prior conditions.

(2) All contingent things require a necessity upon which to be preducated.

(3) therefore, there must be a necessity that is the ultimate 'prior condition" and which itself has no prior conditions.

Or as I like to properly rephrase it, all things need a cause... except my first cause, which I call god... god doesn't need a cause. Speak about being arbitrary.

Sea is right. Your first statement contains more hubris than a Greek tragedy. "All things in the natural world"... there you go. You just defined all things in the natural world. Things we haven't even discovered yet.... such as particles in the Hadron Collider. I feel your argument is killed with the first word of that proof. "All". How in the world do you think you can honestly say that?

It'd be like making the statement "All cars have a carburetor."

[Metacrock]

Or as I like to properly rephrase it, all things need a cause... except my first cause, which I call god... god doesn't need a cause. Speak about being arbitrary.

(1) Philosophical mistake. you are only doging the question by re writing the terms of the argument.

The argument says contingent things need causes. It doesn't say everything thing that could possibly exist needs a cause. it acknowledges that a cause is needed for contingencies but that cause must not have a cause it's self. you are merely created a straw man by being dishonest about the original concept.

(2) it's oldfashioned to speak of causes. That's why I put it in terms of contingency.

rather than cause we have prior conditions.

that implies a less direct root than a "cause."

Sea is right. Your first statement contains more hubris than a Greek tragedy. "All things in the natural world"... there you go. You just defined all things in the natural world. Things we haven't even discovered yet.... such as particles in the Hadron Collider. I feel your argument is killed with the first word of that proof. "All". How in the world do you think you can honestly say that?

It'd be like making the statement "All cars have a carburetor."

sorry you are merely showing how ignorant you are. Popper said all naturalistic things are contingent.t that is a very common truth that is reflected by numerous physicists and philosophers alike. In fact it's just basically a fact.

In fact it's proved by scientific data since we know the universe is continuing to expand and faces heat death it has to end. Thta means it's not eternal and by definition it has to be contingent.

http://www.doxa.ws/cosmological/cosargpage1.html

there's a ton of evidence documented on that page.

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies, in his book God and the New Physics, states:

"If the universe has a finite stock of order, and is changing irreversibly towards disorder - ultimately to thermodynamic equilibrium - two very deep inferences follow immediately. The first is that the universe will eventually die, wallowing, as it were, in its own entropy. This is known among physicists as the 'heat death' of the universe. The second is that the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist."

[Metacrock]

You are begging the question that all things in the natural world are contingent. Atheists tend to think something non-contingent exists, but suspect it is part of the natural world. Your argument for God simply rules out this Atheistic position.

that is their mistake in logic. they can think there is an eternal thing all they want to. they cant' prove it. and if they could they would probably be proving God. Its' just their mistake in logic to think that the existence of an eternal thing could be naturalistic. there is no natural thing that is eternal.

the universe is not eternal. I've proved that. science proves that you are merely ignoring the facts.

So if anyone suspects the Big Bang was the result of an underlying reality, he is only allowed to suspect that underlying reality is a divine person?

yes.

Word origins are interesting but don't prove metaphysical truths.

the actual concept of nature means a contingent realm.t hat is proved by that fact. that's exactly what it means. if you think other you are ignorant because you forget the concept of nature was invented by Romans and Greeks who believed in Gods.

you have not studied the history of ideas.

[Jimmy Higgins]

(1) Philosophical mistake. you are only doging the question by re writing the terms of the argument.

The arguments are equivalent. You can try to dress it up otherwise, but it says the exact same thing.

The argument says contingent things need causes. It doesn't say everything thing that could possibly exist needs a cause.

Then you say all natural things are contingent. It is the same thing! You arbitrarily create a paradox (all things need a cause) in your argument and then arbitrarily again, solve your paradox by breaking it (except for this uber-cause I call god).

sorry you are merely showing how ignorant you are.

Actually, human ignorance was my point!

Popper said all naturalistic things are contingent.t that is a very common truth that is reflected by numerous physicists and philosophers alike. In fact it's just basically a fact.

Oh... because Popper said it, it has to be true? Anyone can twist words in a way they want, but that can never make up for knowledge we can not verify. The simple fact, that is an actual fact is that we don't know jack about the universe. To be spouting universal truths such as the "fact" that all naturalistic things are contingent is arrogant and unfounded. I certainly agree that many naturalistic things are contingent, but to say all... there is no basis to come to that overstated conclusion.

In fact it's proved by scientific data since we know the universe is continuing to expand and faces heat death it has to end. Thta means it's not eternal and by definition it has to be contingent.

Oh... we know this? When you say know, don't you mean "theorize"? You really shouldn't confuse the two terms of "know" and "theorize".

[Seasanctuary]

sorry you are merely showing how ignorant you are. Popper said all naturalistic things are contingent.

* What did Popper say exactly? I would like to look at the context.

* In your prior thread you paraphrase this as "empirical facts are facts which might not have been." If that is what he said then you are misunderstanding him. Empirical facts have to do with observation. "Might not have been" is a statement about knowledge. All he would be saying is that for things we have to discover by observation, they could have been otherwise for all we knew before we looked into it. NOT anything remotely like: all natural things are contingent, but supernatural things might not be contingent.

* If Popper really did claim all natural things are contingent -- which I doubt -- then he would simply be as unjustified as you are. He is not Mr. Infallible.

In fact it's proved by scientific data since we know the universe is continuing to expand and faces heat death it has to end. Thta means it's not eternal and by definition it has to be contingent.

Do you understand the concept that the natural world could have a larger scope than our universe?

Yes or no.

You can still argue the natural world and our universe are in fact the same thing, but you first need to admit you understand the possibility of a distinction.

that is their mistake in logic. they can think there is an eternal thing all they want to. they cant' prove it.

Proving it is unnecessary. If the non-contingent basis of our universe could be either natural or a divine person then you are begging the question to exclude it.

Its' just their mistake in logic to think that the existence of an eternal thing could be naturalistic. there is no natural thing that is eternal.

According to your convenient, Theistic-slanted definitions.

the universe is not eternal. I've proved that. science proves that you are merely ignoring the facts.

Even if the universe is not, the natural world could be.

[Metacrock]

* What did Popper say exactly? I would like to look at the context.

* In your prior thread you paraphrase this as "empirical facts are facts which might not have been." If that is what he said then you are misunderstanding him. Empirical facts have to do with observation. "Might not have been" is a statement about knowledge. All he would be saying is that for things we have to discover by observation, they could have been otherwise for all we knew before we looked into it. NOT anything remotely like: all natural things are contingent, but supernatural things might not be contingent.

stop you game playing atheist. I know what he said and I know what he meant. I am right you don't know. you have never read Popper and you don't know what he said.

your understanding of empiricism is childish. the reason empriical fact might have been otherwise can only be becuase the facts that produce them woudl not be that. that can only mean they are contingetn. anyone with any kind understanding at all can see this. It's logical think about it little one. If they were necessary they would have to be an dthey could not chance. you cant' utter the sentence, might not have been, if they are necessary, so they have to be contingent. can't you see that. it's a prori. its logic. use your little brain.

why would anything be different than it turned to be? It can only be becasue the circumstances upon which it depends would be different.

* If Popper really did claim all natural things are contingent -- which I doubt -- then he would simply be as unjustified as you are. He is not Mr. Infallible.

why would you dobut that? that just shows that you don't know anything. that you think its' some wild radical nonsense idea to say natural things are contingent shows that you don't know anything about this issue. it is standard knowledge, it is common knowledge. it s not a bit radical to say that. it's just exactly whatever one knows. it's known to all. its' common.

Whitehead said it. they all say it.

do you even understand the nature of synthetic statements? why would a statement be a synthetic statement? what kinds of things are spoken of in synthetic statements?

all swans are white. why is that a synthetic statment? hmmm? do you know that it is? why? Can you you tell me why a swan might not be wrhite? do you think if a swan's whitness was necessary and not contignent then it could still have turned out to be black?

if you know the meaning of the terms, necessity and contingency you can see that you are being very foolish and ignorant, and that all natural things have to be contiguity. the fact that you can't show me anything anywhere that doesn't have a cause corroborates what I'm saying.

Do you understand the concept that the natural world could have a larger scope than our universe?

do you understand that that dose not make it necessary o eternal? do you understand that that is just putting the problem back one?

Yes or no.

science has proved that there cannot be an eternally oscillating universe. and I linked to a page with many quote by scientists saying that and of course you are afraid to read it. aren't you? or too lazy. you didn't' read it. it's there. it's proved. It's documented I documented it.

you are afraid to face the truth. the truth is you are wrong. I've proved that you are wrong.

You can still argue the natural world and our universe are in fact the same thing, but you first need to admit you understand the possibility of a distinction.

you do not understand cosmology nearly as well as i do. stop pretending that being a rebel against truth makes you some kind of expert or some kind of intellectual, it doesn't. it makes you ignorant. atheism is ignorance.

you do not understand the issues involved here. stop trying to lecture me like you know something it's obvious you don't know the basics of any of this.

Multiverse does not change a thing about my arguments. It does is create a lot of bad comic books.

Proving it is unnecessary. If the non-contingent basis of our universe could be either natural or a divine person then you are begging the question to exclude it.

that is a contradiction in terms. It's nothing more than an arbitrary necessity. The natural world cannot be eternal because it has beginning and it has end, its' end is well proved. I linked to many quotes showing that.

According to your convenient, Theistic-slanted definitions.

in other words you acn't beat the logic of the arguemnt so you are angry and regject the termenology of the arguemnt.

but the arguemnt is proved by secular scientists. They are the one's who show the universe has an end and can't be eternal. it doesn't matter if call it contingent, or dependent, or empirical or whatever. that doesn't' make any difference. it can't be always. It can't be eternal and tha means something eternal created it.

Even if the universe is not, the natural world could be.

that makes no sense whatsoever. Everything in the naural world has a cause, but you have to play these little games tyring to spereate the natura world from the reality that makes it up.

you want to flaunt the nature of science because it gives you the ablity tot pretend there's no God but then when it becomes clear that nature points to god you get angry and freighted and start denying all of logic and denying science tiself and all the facts that are proved.

you are trapped. God exits he's looking and you can't do anything about it.

[Metacrock]

here is a quote by former atheist and major physicist Paul Davies (he was convinced to believe in God by his studies of physics).

Davies:"Some scientists have tried to argue that if only we knew enough about the laws of physics, if we were to discover a final theory that united all the fundamental forces and particles of nature into a single mathematical scheme, then we would find that this superlaw, or theory of everything, would describe the only logically consistent world. In other words, the nature of the physical world would be entirely a consequence of logical and mathematical necessity. There would be no choice about it. I think this is demonstrably wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders for reality." First Things: Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address (1999)

[Metacrock]

Popper says:

"or the truth is that the number of factors which predate and lead to the occurrence of any event, past, present, or future, is indefinitely large, and therefore knowledge of all of these factors is impossible, even in principle."

He is arguing about historicist. He says it's a mistake for the historian to think that isolating a few factors he can show that causes which had to lead to certain events. To maintain this position he as to accept that all events are contingent, and the prior conditions to all could have been different. He's not really discussing our topic but to make this arguemnt he has to agree that the natural world is contingent.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#ImmLawConTre

section 8 immutable laws and contingent trends.

[Seasanctuary]

stop you game playing atheist. I know what he said and I know what he meant. I am right you don't know. you have never read Popper and you don't know what he said.

I have read Popper, which is why I doubted he said anything like you paraphrased.

Popper says:

"or the truth is that the number of factors which predate and lead to the occurrence of any event, past, present, or future, is indefinitely large, and therefore knowledge of all of these factors is impossible, even in principle."

He is arguing about historicist. He says it's a mistake for the historian to think that isolating a few factors he can show that causes which had to lead to certain events. To maintain this position he as to accept that all events are contingent, and the prior conditions to all could have been different. He's not really discussing our topic but to make this arguemnt he has to agree that the natural world is contingent.

First of all, that line is not in quotes in the article you linked. The same paragraph even speaks about Popper in the third person. But for the sake of argument, I'll proceed as if that were a Popper quote. This leads me to my next point:

I WAS RIGHT! You have been very deceitful in several of your threads when you've been claiming Popper said all natural things are contingent.

The text you quoted only says that we can't determine the future by isolating a few factors which proceeded past events. For example, we can't take a grade school 'three causes of the Civil War' and know that any time those three causes are met there will be a civil war. It is a critique of Marxism's pseudo-scientific approach to history.

Nowhere does this imply what you have been claiming. You've been caught.