Two arguments against God I simply can't refute

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Apart from once again asserting something to be the case, I am not sure what the point of your response is.

Do you think that simply repeating these assertions actually argues for them?

No. I am giving my description of God and it's one last I checked you had granted for argument.

Existence is descriptive, AP. Existence does not independently exist apart from what it is describing. The other qualities you listed are not transcendent, they are conceptual.

No. You claim they are conceptual. I do not. I claim they are actual. (Of course, if you think truth is only a concept, there's really no point in discussing anything.) You are treating existence as if it was just some abstraction. I am treating it as being qua being and the supreme being is that which exists without limitation.

You seem to have a real problem with category errors.

You seem to have a problem with presupposing your worldview.

Immaterial existence is conceptual existence. This is one of those things you need to provide a case for, if you wish to argue that immaterial existence is anything but conceptual.

The laws of logic exist.

The laws of logic are immaterial.

Therefore, immaterial realities exist.

No AP. Your assertion is simply that, an assertion.

Prove that God is not composed.

I await your argument.

Existence is either derived or it is something that one has necessarily or it is impossible. (A square circle an example of the last.)

My existence is either contingent (derived) or necessary. (I have to be)

Obviously, I don't have to be.

My existence is dependent on another and theirs on another and theirs on another, etc.

Thus, all that exists partake of existence, but to avoid an infinite regress, there must be something that is not derived existence but necessary existence. (Particularly since if there was ever non-existence, nothing would ever be.)

Thus, there is one whose existence is necessary is his own essence.

In fact, it is your problem and all you have done, so far, is to display the fact that you actually disregard evidence that falsifies your belief system.

I find it amusing, I must say.

You haven't even presented anything that gives my belief system a challenge.

And here, you are wrong again. You are simply ignoring the truth, in order to continue in your personal delusion.

This is where you're supposed to give an argument. Not just say "You're wrong."

You may not see a reason to accept that, but until you provide some evidence to support the idea of the immaterial existing apart from the mind, your acceptance will continue to be irrelevant.

And you must just as much make a case. We both have claims we are making and thus both of us have a burden of proof. Even if I could not prove my case, yours would not be right ipso facto.

[robertb]

No. I am giving my description of God and it's one last I checked you had granted for argument.

Indeed.

No. You claim they are conceptual. I do not. I claim they are actual. (Of course, if you think truth is only a concept, there's really no point in discussing anything.) You are treating existence as if it was just some abstraction. I am treating it as being qua being and the supreme being is that which exists without limitation.

Truth is contingent upon something else. It describes a particular situation. It has no existence apart from this.

You seem to have a problem with presupposing your worldview.

Perhaps.

The laws of logic exist.

The laws of logic are concepts which, themselves, point to the logical absolutes. In and of themselves, they only exist conceptually.

The laws of logic are immaterial.

Yes, they are conceptual.

Therefore, immaterial realities exist.

Indeed thay do, as concepts.

Existence is either derived or it is something that one has necessarily or it is impossible. (A square circle an example of the last.)

Existence is a descriptive word that can be applied to the material, the conceptual, or the trancendent.

My existence is either contingent (derived) or necessary. (I have to be)

Sure.

Obviously, I don't have to be.

Ok.

My existence is dependent on another and theirs on another and theirs on another, etc.

Thus, all that exists partake of existence, but to avoid an infinite regress, there must be something that is not derived existence but necessary existence. (Particularly since if there was ever non-existence, nothing would ever be.)

Right here is where you are making an error. You are creating a false dichotomy and excluding other likely possibilities, ones that arise from areas of physics like quantum mechanics.

Thus, there is one whose existence is necessary is his own essence.

As your premise is flawed, your solution is flawed.

You haven't even presented anything that gives my belief system a challenge.

I have, but you have either ignored it or not understood it.

This is where you're supposed to give an argument. Not just say "You're wrong."

True, but I am not sure what argument to use as I already presented evidence that refutes some of the presuppositions your philosophy relys on.

You seem to ignore the fact that to speak of infinite regress or the unmoved mover as the only possiblities simply ignores the other evidenced possibilities.

And you must just as much make a case. We both have claims we are making and thus both of us have a burden of proof. Even if I could not prove my case, yours would not be right ipso facto.

True.

[fm93]

Hey Ryan, if you're still reading this thread...there's an article here that could help you.

[JimL]

Thus, all that exists partake of existence, but to avoid an infinite regress, there must be something that is not derived existence but necessary existence. (Particularly since if there was ever non-existence, nothing would ever be.)

Thus, there is one whose existence is necessary is his own essence.

AP, if you replace God with the natural world as that entity which we call necessary existence, then, being that it is eternal and infinite, why do you assume a problem with an infinite nature of cause and effect? What ever the nature of an eternal and infinite entity is, it is one of infinity. So what's your problem with an infinite regress?

[fm93]

There's a significant difference between an ontological infinite and a numerical infinite, the first of which refers to God, the second of which may not exist in actuality.

[JimL]

There's a significant difference between an ontological infinite and a numerical infinite, the first of which refers to God, the second of which may not exist in actuality.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. What is the difference?

[SatanTheAlien]

I don't believe in God, but I do think that people suffering because they have or will cause suffering. I don't believe time is real, so you can suffer before you ever caused suffering, and this is all part of the balance. In other words, how you suffer is the negativity you have put out. Your own personal suffering always balances out, though.

You could always say God is behind that balancing act, but this only works if reincarnation is true.


Reincarnation seems to be the best understanding for all suffering, coupled with some model of karma.

You said to deny the Christian attributes of God is to deny God all together. How can you be sure of that? How can you be sure that the true God is not Yin and Yang? That he is evil and good. What argument do you have to show me that an eternal mind must only b e good?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

A rose by any other name is still a rose. What is the difference?

An ontological infinite is an infinite with regards to quality. It simply means that something exists without limitation. In my philosophical system, that is God. You can argue he doesn't exist, but be sure you are arguing against the right definition of him.

A numerical infinity is one of quantity. I do not believe in this for you can always add one more to something and if you could not, you would have completed an infinite set. If it is completed, it is not infinite. There is a relative infinity with numbers but not an actual one.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Indeed.

So you want an argument for what you granted for the sake of argument?

Truth is contingent upon something else. It describes a particular situation. It has no existence apart from this.

Truth describes a relation between the knower and the known. Something is also true insofar as it was knowable. Truth is also unchanging when properly understood, hence the question is how a finite and changing mind can grasp unchanging truths.

Perhaps.

No. Definitely. It is not an argument against me to say "God doesn't exist" or "What you believe is false." You can state that, but you need to give reasons.

The laws of logic are concepts which, themselves, point to the logical absolutes. In and of themselves, they only exist conceptually.

If they existed only conceptually, we could change them as we wish and they would have no power for us. How's changing the Law of Noncontradiction working for you?

Yes, they are conceptual.

I do not equate immaterial with conceptual and you've given me no reason why I should. I can just as well say that I can conceive of matter. Is matter immaterial because I conceive it?

Indeed thay do, as concepts.

See above with the problem of if logic is a concept.

Existence is a descriptive word that can be applied to the material, the conceptual, or the trancendent.

Saying this over and over again doesn't make it so.

Sure.



Ok.

Good.

Right here is where you are making an error. You are creating a false dichotomy and excluding other likely possibilities, ones that arise from areas of physics like quantum mechanics.

If you think I am making an error, demonstrate it.

As your premise is flawed, your solution is flawed.

Saying so without reasons does not convince.

I have, but you have either ignored it or not understood it.

No. You haven't. Your understanding of philosophical concepts is extremely limited.

True, but I am not sure what argument to use as I already presented evidence that refutes some of the presuppositions your philosophy relys on.

You seem to ignore the fact that to speak of infinite regress or the unmoved mover as the only possiblities simply ignores the other evidenced possibilities.

Feel free to give them.

True.

Then make one.

[Mountain Man]

So you want an argument for what you granted for the sake of argument?

That's usually what happens when someone grants a point for the sake of argument only to realize that they just committed themselves to fighting an uphill battle with lead weights strapped to their ankles.

[SatanTheAlien]

Truth describes a relation between the knower and the known. Something is also true insofar as it was knowable. Truth is also unchanging when properly understood, hence the question is how a finite and changing mind can grasp unchanging truths.

I have no idea how you can claim truth is unchanging when properly understood, but fine, suppose that is the case. How do you know that we don't live in a dyanmic truth universe?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I have no idea how you can claim truth is unchanging when properly understood, but fine, suppose that is the case. How do you know that we don't live in a dyanmic truth universe?

Because if truth is unchanging then it is not "dynamic."

[SatanTheAlien]

Because if truth is unchanging then it is not "dynamic."

But how do you know truth is unchanging? If the universe is a dynamic truth universe, then there would be no such thing as truth being unchanging. If you think the definition of "truth" must include unchanging, then fine. We can use a new word for dynamic truth: Trufe.

How do we know the universe doesn't have both truth and trufe?

[robertb]

So you want an argument for what you granted for the sake of argument?

Perhaps it has been a while and you have forgotten exactly what I said. Basically I granted your definition and explained why you had described something that exists purely conceptually.

I agree that God exists conceptually. You, obviously, believe that God exists as more than a concept.

I gave you three possible states of existence, defined them and asked you to either show why God belongs in one of those other categories besides conceptual. I even asked you to provide another possibility if you liked. You posited immaterial as a category. I then asked you to demonstrate how immaterial demonstrably distinct from conceptual.

So far, you have not done so.

Truth describes a relation between the knower and the known. Something is also true insofar as it was knowable. Truth is also unchanging when properly understood, hence the question is how a finite and changing mind can grasp unchanging truths.

I agree that truth describes a relationship, which is what I said earlier.

However, truth is also relative to things like a specific time, place and/or sense. For example:

It is true that the water in my bath is hot.

an hour later

It is true the water in my bath is cold, but it is also true that an hour prior, the water was hot.

No. Definitely. It is not an argument against me to say "God doesn't exist" or "What you believe is false." You can state that, but you need to give reasons.

I am saying that the philosophical basis of you argument is flawed and so the conclusions you draw are likely flawed as well.

If they existed only conceptually, we could change them as we wish and they would have no power for us. How's changing the Law of Noncontradiction working for you?

You have fallen into a category error, AP. The laws of logic are simply the conceptual application of the transcendent logical absolutes. The laws of logic themselves are an expression of these transcendent absolutes and are purely conceptual in nature.

I do not equate immaterial with conceptual and you've given me no reason why I should. I can just as well say that I can conceive of matter. Is matter immaterial because I conceive it?

You asserted a state of existence that was immaterial, but not conceptual. I have asked you to demonstrate such a thing actually exists.

Matter exists apart from the conception of it. This is demonstrable.

Now demonstrate that the immaterial exists apart from the conception of it.

See above with the problem of if logic is a concept.

No problem, as long as you do not fall into the category error you fell in to earlier.

Saying this over and over again doesn't make it so.

Demonstrate something that is not material, conceptual or transcendent that the word existence can be applied to.

If you think I am making an error, demonstrate it.

Gott's theory is a possibility, excluded by your false dichotomy, yet a possibility nonetheless.

Here are a few you can research if you are interested:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2986365

Bottom line is that, like I said, you created a false dichotomy regarding the possibilities.

Saying so without reasons does not convince.

See above, look back at the video, do some reading.... the stuff is out there if you actually spent a few seconds looking for it.

No. You haven't. Your understanding of philosophical concepts is extremely limited.

Your opinion, but irrelevant. We are discussing why the basis you have used to crate your definition of God does not, in fact, show what you wish it to show. I am purposely pointing out where demonstrable reality contradicts your philosophy and am not engaging in a philosophical discussion.

Feel free to give them.

See above.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

But how do you know truth is unchanging? If the universe is a dynamic truth universe, then there would be no such thing as truth being unchanging. If you think the definition of "truth" must include unchanging, then fine. We can use a new word for dynamic truth: Trufe.

How do we know the universe doesn't have both truth and trufe?

You granted truth being unchanging being the case. Now you suddenly want to make it that truth is not unchanging. Which argument do you want to deal with?