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

An argument for Monotheism

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
    The first cause is brought into the argument which assumes the truth of the principle of limited regress. The assumption is true and hence the introduction of the first cause into the argument is made without error.

    JM
    Do you want people to discuss first cause, or do you want people to discuss necessary Monotheism? It seems you want to people to discuss necessary monotheism.

    From nothing, nothing is caused.
    There is something, therefore something did not come from nothing, but from a cause.
    That cause prior to all something is the cause prior to all.
    The cause that is prior to all is uncaused.
    Assume first God as first-cause. (Cuts out four lines. Indicates that your emphasis is on the logical reasoning behind monotheism, not first cause)

    That which is uncaused is unreceptive of another cause.
    Sure.

    What is unreceptive of another cause is unreceptive.
    I don't follow you here. Did you mean to repeat unreceptive?

    What is receptive has potency.
    For potency is the cause of receptivity.
    Then what is the prime cause, but unreceptive is act without potency.
    Therefore the prime cause is pure act.
    Here it might be useful to define your terms, since you are using words in ways that incorporate ideas outside of the standard definitions. If you are using actual jargon from a given text or discipline, recognize that most of us are not professional philosophers.

    As being and act are interchangeable, then the prime cause as pure act is pure be.
    But God is pure act and pure be.
    Therefore because there is something, God is the prime cause.
    Therefore God exists.
    Again, not sure about the recursion, but presuming you're arguing monotheism contra other theisms, then we already assume God exists.

    As that which is pure act is act without limit, then the prime cause is alone prime.
    For to have more than one pure act is to have many pure acts.
    But many pure acts are acts with all perfection without limit.
    But to have many with all perfection without limit is to have many that are identical in every respect.
    What are identical in every respect are not distinct in an respect.
    What are not distinct in any respect is identical.
    What is identical is one.
    Therefore pure act is only one.

    Therefore only one God exists.
    Monotheism says only one God exists.
    Therefore monotheism is true.
    This seems to be the meat of it, but I'm so bewildered by your diction, that I have no idea how to respond.

    fwiw,
    guacamole
    "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
    Hear my cry, hear my shout,
    Save me, save me"

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Than God as the 'cause' is finite and temporal. What caused God?
      Read it again, God is infinite and eternal.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
        False. An "eternal physical existence and Natural Law" is not the first cause for "eternal physical existence and Natural Law" is composed of potency and act. The first cause is pure act.
        If an eternal physical existence and Natural Law exists there is no prior cause. It becomes the pure act in and of itself.
        Traditional Christianity is monotheistic.

        JM
        False, it is Tritheistic
        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


        • #34
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          If an eternal physical existence and Natural Law exists there is no prior cause. It becomes the pure act in and of itself.
          If an eternal physical existence and Natural Law exists, then it is a contingent and therefore dependent thing. Hence an eternal physical existence and Natural Law exists can never be the prime cause.


          False, it is Tritheistic
          Christianity says God is three persons with one divine nature. The one nature infers only one God.

          JM
          Last edited by JohnMartin; 03-09-2017, 08:12 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
            An argument for the truth of monotheism is presented below for the readers consideration.

            From nothing, nothing is caused.
            There is something, therefore something did not come from nothing, but from a cause.
            That cause prior to all something is the cause prior to all.
            The cause that is prior to all is uncaused.
            That which is uncaused is unreceptive of another cause.
            What is unreceptive of another cause is unreceptive.
            What is receptive has potency.
            For potency is the cause of receptivity.
            Then what is the prime cause, but unreceptive is act without potency.
            Therefore the prime cause is pure act.

            As being and act are interchangeable, then the prime cause as pure act is pure be.
            But God is pure act and pure be.
            Therefore because there is something, God is the prime cause.
            Therefore God exists.

            As that which is pure act is act without limit, then the prime cause is alone prime.
            For to have more than one pure act is to have many pure acts.
            But many pure acts are acts with all perfection without limit.
            But to have many with all perfection without limit is to have many that are identical in every respect.
            What are identical in every respect are not distinct in an respect.
            What are not distinct in any respect is identical.
            What is identical is one.
            Therefore pure act is only one.

            Therefore only one God exists.
            Monotheism says only one God exists.
            Therefore monotheism is true.

            JM
            Another version of the above argument is stated below.

            If there is something then there has always been more than nothing.
            For from nothing something is not caused.
            Yet because something cannot come from nothing, then something came from another that is not nothing.
            What is not nothing is prior to something which is either 1) that which has being or 2) is per se being.
            If 1) then because that has being by participation, then that thing has being received and is thereby dependent upon another thing for its being.
            If 2) then because that has being by nature, then that thing is not dependent upon another thing, and thereby not dependent upon another thing for its being, and thus the prime being.
            Therefore, because there is something, there is a prime being, which is being.
            But being by nature is being that is not received and thereby being without potency.
            Hence the prime being is pure act.
            Hence if there is something, there is the prime being which is pure act.
            But the prime being which is pure act is not a creature, for creatures are composed of potency and act.
            Hence the prime is a thing other than a creature, which is only God.
            For God is not a creature, but the prime, which is not dependent upon another.
            Monotheism says there is only one God.
            As there is only one prime being which is pure act, for act without limit is only one, therefore monotheism is true.

            JM

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
              If an eternal physical existence and Natural Law exists, then it is a contingent and therefore dependent thing. Hence an eternal physical existence and Natural Law exists can never be the prime cause.
              It remains possible that the eternal physical existence and Natural Law can be the prime cause, just a it is possible that God is the prime cause, but the Biblical anthropomorphic God(s) ground in ancient Babylonian, Canaanite and Phoenician mythologies.



              Christianity says God is three persons with one divine nature.

              JM
              Therefore Tritheism. Like in Vedic tradition all Divinities are One Divine Nature the Brahman. The root of Abraham is A-Brahman
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-09-2017, 08:16 PM.
              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


              • #37
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                It remains possible that the eternal physical existence and Natural Law can be the prime cause, just a it is possible that God is the prime cause, but the Biblical anthropomorphic God(s) ground in ancient Babylonian, Canaanite and Phoenician mythologies.
                You have a very poor understanding of Christianity.

                JM

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  False, it is Tritheistic
                  We've been over this before. Traditional Christianity is monotheistic. Now, if you want to argue that the doctrine of a Triune deity is incoherent, you are free to do so. However, it is a complete Straw Man to say that "there exists a single God in three persons" instead means "there exist three distinct gods."
                  "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                  --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                    You have a very poor understanding of Christianity.

                    JM
                    I do not necessarily need to appeal to the traditional beliefs of Christianity. That would be the blind following the blind, and the sheep following the goat. The real history and the nature of the origins of the scripture and beliefs is more real and substantial.
                    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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                      We've been over this before. Traditional Christianity is monotheistic. Now, if you want to argue that the doctrine of a Triune deity is incoherent, you are free to do so. However, it is a complete Straw Man to say that "there exists a single God in three persons" instead means "there exist three distinct gods."
                      The fact that we have been here before does nott change the reality of the doctrine and dogma of Traditional Christianity. I most definitely take unfounded claims on face value.

                      The use of 'persons' in Traditional Christianity translates to God the Father, God the incarnate Son and God the Holy Spirit. Polite euphemisms of the dodge of using the word 'person' does not cover up the reality of the Greek/Roman origins of Tritheism, and the concept of incarnate Gods, which Paul was taught by his Father.

                      This the same concept as found in other religions like Hinduism labeled polytheistic.

                      Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith are truly monotheistic religions with these messy 'double talk' complications.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-10-2017, 12:09 PM.
                      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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        . . .

                        Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith are truly monotheistic religions with these messy 'double talk' complications.
                        The God of Biblical Judaism is the God of Biblical Christianity. The Trinity is the explanation of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit being the same God as God the Father. Your failure to understand it is yours.

                        God is infinite, eternal. Creation is finite and temporal. What is caused is finite and temporal. And all causes in causing anything is finite and temporal in being a cause.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                          An argument for the truth of monotheism is presented below for the readers consideration.

                          From nothing, nothing is caused.
                          There is something, therefore something did not come from nothing, but from a cause.
                          That cause prior to all something is the cause prior to all.
                          The cause that is prior to all is uncaused.
                          That which is uncaused is unreceptive of another cause.
                          What is unreceptive of another cause is unreceptive.
                          What is receptive has potency.
                          For potency is the cause of receptivity.
                          Then what is the prime cause, but unreceptive is act without potency.
                          Therefore the prime cause is pure act.

                          As being and act are interchangeable, then the prime cause as pure act is pure be.
                          But God is pure act and pure be.
                          Therefore because there is something, God is the prime cause.
                          Therefore God exists.

                          As that which is pure act is act without limit, then the prime cause is alone prime.
                          For to have more than one pure act is to have many pure acts.
                          But many pure acts are acts with all perfection without limit.
                          But to have many with all perfection without limit is to have many that are identical in every respect.
                          What are identical in every respect are not distinct in an respect.
                          What are not distinct in any respect is identical.
                          What is identical is one.
                          Therefore pure act is only one.

                          Therefore only one God exists.
                          Monotheism says only one God exists.
                          Therefore monotheism is true.

                          JM
                          The above argument may be reduced down to the following simplified version.

                          A thing is either contingent or necessary.
                          If contingent, then dependent upon another, and ultimately dependent upon the necessary.
                          If necessary then necessary.
                          The necessary thing is that which is being.
                          God is being.
                          Being by nature is only one.
                          Hence there is only one God.

                          JM

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            Read it again, God is infinite and eternal.
                            Than logic is flawed and not ALL 'causes' are finite and temporal. Is not God a cause?

                            It remains possible the nature of our existence and Natural Law is eternal, and without prior cause.
                            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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Than logic is flawed and not ALL 'causes' are finite and temporal. Is not God a cause?

                              It remains possible the nature of our existence and Natural Law is eternal, and without prior cause.
                              Nature is contingent and hence is not the prime cause.

                              JM

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                                Nature is contingent and hence is not the prime cause.

                                JM
                                An assertion on your part based on your agenda, and not based on objective evidence.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 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  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,504 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X