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 the True Faith

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
    God is the necessary being, without which no thing can exist.
    Unsupported
    The proof the the existence of God are given on the Proofs for the Existence of God thread. One proof arrives the the conclusion that God is the necessary being.

    If polytheism is true, then many necessary beings exist.

    Not true; this assumes that any god must be a necessary being, which is not a claim of polytheism.
    Other versions of Polytheism say many Gods are contingent beings. Then again that other version of Polytheism is also false and collapses into monotheism. For many contingent gods, is really only another version of many contingent creatures, which are ultimately dependent upon the one, necessary being, which is itself being.

    As polytheism is an error, anyone can invent any version of polytheism that they want. One such version is many necessary gods, or again another version, is many contingent gods. Both are false and both imply the truth of monotheism.

    JM

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
      You know, I'm pretty sure you just smashed into a brick wall called Hinduism. From my understanding, Hinduism doesn't propose that many gods are necessary.

      In fact, I can't think of a polytheistic religion that actually requires multiple gods to keep existing. In some cases, you could even kill off the lot of them.
      If a god has any reality which is truly that of god, then that god must be in some sense necessary. Polytheism can affirm, or deny anything as its adherents wish. The fact is that all versions of polytheism collapse to the truth of monotheism.

      JM

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
        I'm a case-in-point for that. I am a practitioner of Forn Siðr, a typically polytheistic religion, while also maintaining that I am an atheist.
        Your gods are empty vessels then, just like all other creatures.

        JM

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
          That argument by extension implies that God also directly controls all actions of humans. Consequently, we would have no free will at all.

          If God allows free will and does not directly control all humans all of the time, then God also need not directly control all of world history.
          God controls all action whilst creating and maintaining and moving human agents with free will. The truths of free will and Gods sovereignty over all of creation is a mystery.

          JM

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
            If a god has any reality which is truly that of god, then that god must be in some sense necessary. Polytheism can affirm, or deny anything as its adherents wish. The fact is that all versions of polytheism collapse to the truth of monotheism.
            Well, then, if Hinduism collapses to monotheism, then it becomes a monotheistic rival to Judaism and its offshoots. How then do you discount the Vedas as holy scripture as revealed by the one God, Brahma?
            Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
              God controls all action whilst creating and maintaining and moving human agents with free will. The truths of free will and Gods sovereignty over all of creation is a mystery.
              So you are hand-waving the obvious logical contradiction as a "mystery". Well, then. A chain of logic this is not.
              Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                So you are hand-waving the obvious logical contradiction as a "mystery". Well, then. A chain of logic this is not.
                Both the freedom of the will and God's sovereignty over all of creation can be proven. Hence the mystery as to how both exist together.

                JM

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                  The truths of free will and Gods sovereignty over all of creation is a mystery.

                  JM
                  It's a contradiction. Sticking any other label on it, such as "mystery," won't change that.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                    Both the freedom of the will and God's sovereignty over all of creation can be proven.

                    JM
                    You say so.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                      You say so.
                      An argument for free will.

                      The will is defined as an appetite for understood good.
                      What is understood is in some manner known to be good and in another manner knowledge to be a limited good, and thereby not good under the aspect of a limit.
                      The goodness of a thing is that which is appetised (desired) by the will,
                      but the limit of the goodness of a thing is that which is not appetised (desired) by the will.
                      As a limited thing is both desired and not desired, the limited thing attracts the will as good but attracts the will in a manner whereby the will is free due to the limited nature of the goodness of the thing.
                      The will is then ordinarily free when desiring limited things.
                      The will is then not free when desiring the unlimited thing, with the unlimited good, called God.

                      An argument for Gods sovereignty.

                      Step 1 - Demonstrate God is.

                      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.
                      That which is being is not a creature, for a creature always only participates in being.
                      Therefore that which is being is other than a creature.
                      That which is other than a creature is fittingly called God.
                      Therefore the necessary being is God.
                      Therefore God is.

                      Step 2 - Demonstrate God's sovereignty.

                      The being received into a nature is received into nature in the manner of nature acting as a potency to receive the act of being.
                      Therefore being received into nature, for example, that which can be a tree is in potency to be a tree, which receives the act of being to exist as a tree, as potency receives an act.
                      But God is being.
                      What is being, is being by nature.
                      What is being by nature, is being that is not received into a nature, unlike the can be tree (potency to be a tree) receives the act to be, to become the tree in act.
                      What is not received by nature is not received as potency receives and act.
                      Therefore being not received by nature, is being not received by potency.
                      Being not received by potency is being without potency.
                      Being without potency is being without limit.
                      For potency is receptive of being and thereby the cause of the limit of of the act of being.
                      Hence, God is being without limit.
                      What is being without limit is supreme.
                      What is supreme is sovereign.
                      God is being without limit.
                      Therefore God is sovereign.

                      So both free will and God's sovereignty are both real as shown above.

                      JM

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                        Both the freedom of the will and God's sovereignty over all of creation can be proven. Hence the mystery as to how both exist together.
                        You don't logically prove something that results in a logical contradiction. Your sequences of deduction vaguely resemble logic, but they are simply philosophical posturing, and they hardly constitute any kind of proof.
                        Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                          If your god exists, then atheism is false.
                          If your god does not exist than atheism may be true - or may not.

                          Your argument fails because it includes a fallacy of the inverse.

                          I predict you won't understand this, so will be unable to correct the problem, and hence anything else you write in this thread will be pointless.
                          It's only apparently the fallacy of the inverse, but not so. All forms of theism that are not monotheism are known to be false by the author, for only monotheism is true.
                          Prediction confirmed.

                          That you may know something doesn't matter if you omit that knowledge from your argument.
                          You also commit the fallacy of the non sequitur ...
                          No. Referring to your general incompetence at logic is not a non sequitur to your attempts at logic.
                          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


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                            The proof the the existence of God are given on the Proofs for the Existence of God thread. One proof arrives the the conclusion that God is the necessary being.
                            It actually attempts to arrive at the conclusion that there is a necessary being, and assumes that the necessary being is God.

                            You'd know this if you ever learned symbolic logic rather than simply spewing random assertions.
                            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


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                              An argument for free will.

                              The will is defined as an appetite for understood good.
                              Equivocation between the definition of 'will' in 'free will' and your own alternative meaning. Thus nothing you can demonstrate about your definition of 'will' is relevant to 'free will'.

                              Rest deleted.

                              But thanks for once again committing a fallacy in the first line of your 'proof' so that reading further is unnecessary.
                              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


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                                That which is other than a creature is fittingly called God.
                                That would make a good sig, but it doesn't quite reach the depths of your previous idiocy.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                44 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                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
                                78 responses
                                414 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