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

Does 2 + 2 = 4 need a god to be true?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    As was the case with my answer to Robrecht, I find this to be a fairly weak definition of "God." Nothing about "uncaused existence" implies that such an entity is personal, intelligent, omnipotent, et cetera, et cetera. Nor does an "uncaused existence" necessarily equate to "the ultimate and necessary source of rationality."
    This uncaused existence is personal in that it is omnipresent at the very least. It possesses all that there is or can even be. It cannot not be so. It, this uncaused existence needs no God and is the only thing that can be God, and is the very identity of God.
    Last edited by 37818; 12-23-2014, 12:38 PM.
    . . . 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


    • #32
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      This uncaused existence is personal in that it is omnipresent at the very least. It possesses all that there is or can even be. It cannot not be so.
      I do not see that this is the case. I don't see that uncaused existence is unique, for one-- there might be several things which all exist without causation. Nor does uncaused existence imply omnipresence, nor the possession of all things.
      "[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


      • #33
        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        In a base 3 counting system, 2+2 is not 4 since there is no such thing as a 4 in base 3 counting. The correct answer would be 2 + 2 = 11. So "truth" is limited by the system you are using.
        In base two, 10 + 10 = 100. In base 5 or higher, it can still be written as 2 + 2 = 4. In sticks it is, || + || = ||||.
        . . . 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


        • #34
          Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
          I do not see that this is the case. I don't see that uncaused existence is unique, for one-- there might be several things which all exist without causation. Nor does uncaused existence imply omnipresence, nor the possession of all things.
          We do not agree here. Since, in my understanding of the concept of uncased existence, a singular uncaused existence would still precede all. And any uncaused enities would still be the one uncaused existence too.
          . . . 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


          • #35
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            We do not agree here. Since, in my understanding of the concept of uncased existence, a singular uncaused existence would still precede all. And any uncaused enities would still be the one uncaused existence too.
            Why couldn't there be two (or more) similarly and simultaneously uncaused, extant entities? I must not be understanding something in your position.
            "[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


            • #36
              Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
              Why couldn't there be two (or more) similarly and simultaneously uncaused, extant entities? I must not be understanding something in your position.
              The part you're not understanding is all the (definitional) assumptions he's made about all manner of things.
              I'm not here anymore.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                The part you're not understanding is all the (definitional) assumptions he's made about all manner of things.
                He seems to be mixing up various arguments. Like saying two uncaused entities can't exist, where the argument actually is there cannot be two infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent entities in existence (beyond the scope of this thread for now)

                I can imagine for example two finite eternal cubes floating in space somewhere that have always existed. That doesn't make them God, or intelligent, or omni anything, other than "eternal" since to have no cause means they always existed.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  He seems to be mixing up various arguments. Like saying two uncaused entities can't exist, where the argument actually is there cannot be two infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent entities in existence (beyond the scope of this thread for now)

                  I can imagine for example two finite eternal cubes floating in space somewhere that have always existed. That doesn't make them God, or intelligent, or omni anything, other than "eternal" since to have no cause means they always existed.
                  I think he's defined 'LORD God' as the uncaused entity that necessarily exists which possesses the Omni- predicates and is the foundation of logic. Robrecht's post #4 becomes moot because there is no "if" when it comes to how you define God. In 37818's mind, so far as I can tell, there is only a single way to define 'LORD God'. His posts #21 and #34 underscore this further.

                  The issue, then, is that 37818 quite simply cannot conceive of a 'LORD God' that does not possess these attributes. Anything different, even hypothetical deities without the Omni- predicates, quite simply cannot be the 'LORD God' by definition. It's not that he's mixing up arguments, but that he rejects out of hand anything that isn't the definition as he sees it. Meanwhile, the rest of us are going about the normal methods of teasing out the different potential attributes and sorting out which ones do or don't make sense. 37818's not even using the same book we are, let alone on the same page.
                  I'm not here anymore.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                    I think he's defined 'LORD God' as the uncaused entity that necessarily exists which possesses the Omni- predicates and is the foundation of logic. Robrecht's post #4 becomes moot because there is no "if" when it comes to how you define God. In 37818's mind, so far as I can tell, there is only a single way to define 'LORD God'. His posts #21 and #34 underscore this further.

                    The issue, then, is that 37818 quite simply cannot conceive of a 'LORD God' that does not possess these attributes. Anything different, even hypothetical deities without the Omni- predicates, quite simply cannot be the 'LORD God' by definition. It's not that he's mixing up arguments, but that he rejects out of hand anything that isn't the definition as he sees it. Meanwhile, the rest of us are going about the normal methods of teasing out the different potential attributes and sorting out which ones do or don't make sense. 37818's not even using the same book we are, let alone on the same page.

                    got me. I couldn't follow his last few posts directed at me.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                      I think he's defined 'LORD God' as the uncaused entity that necessarily exists which possesses the Omni- predicates and is the foundation of logic. Robrecht's post #4 becomes moot because there is no "if" when it comes to how you define God. In 37818's mind, so far as I can tell, there is only a single way to define 'LORD God'. His posts #21 and #34 underscore this further.

                      The issue, then, is that 37818 quite simply cannot conceive of a 'LORD God' that does not possess these attributes. Anything different, even hypothetical deities without the Omni- predicates, quite simply cannot be the 'LORD God' by definition. It's not that he's mixing up arguments, but that he rejects out of hand anything that isn't the definition as he sees it. Meanwhile, the rest of us are going about the normal methods of teasing out the different potential attributes and sorting out which ones do or don't make sense. 37818's not even using the same book we are, let alone on the same page.
                      Not quite moot in my opinion because I still consider the question of whether or not one can, does, or should define God to be a fundamental consideration.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        got me. I couldn't follow his last few posts directed at me.
                        His post #23 I can understand, but only if viewed as the "LORD God = uncaused existence and basis of rationality" that I propose is his stance. However, his post #28 is pure gibberish.
                        I'm not here anymore.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          Not quite moot in my opinion because I still consider the question of whether or not one can, does, or should define God to be a fundamental consideration.
                          We definitely agree here. I wasn't trying to say that I think it's moot, rather that 37818 does. He's free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm feeling confident.
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                            I think he's defined 'LORD God' as the uncaused entity that necessarily exists which possesses the Omni- predicates and is the foundation of logic. Robrecht's post #4 becomes moot because there is no "if" when it comes to how you define God. In 37818's mind, so far as I can tell, there is only a single way to define 'LORD God'. His posts #21 and #34 underscore this further.

                            The issue, then, is that 37818 quite simply cannot conceive of a 'LORD God' that does not possess these attributes. Anything different, even hypothetical deities without the Omni- predicates, quite simply cannot be the 'LORD God' by definition. It's not that he's mixing up arguments, but that he rejects out of hand anything that isn't the definition as he sees it. Meanwhile, the rest of us are going about the normal methods of teasing out the different potential attributes and sorting out which ones do or don't make sense. 37818's not even using the same book we are, let alone on the same page.
                            Hmm. He also can't conceive of nothingness, so in light of that, I'm assuming he believes the universe is uncaused as well. Maybe he's a pantheist and believes that God and the universe are one in the same.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              Hmm. He also can't conceive of nothingness, so in light of that, I'm assuming he believes the universe is uncaused as well. Maybe he's a pantheist and believes that God and the universe are one in the same.
                              Somehow I doubt that, but good point nonetheless. It also begs the question of whether or not God is 'a thing', 'something', or an object of our intellect.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                Hmm. He also can't conceive of nothingness, so in light of that, I'm assuming he believes the universe is uncaused as well. Maybe he's a pantheist and believes that God and the universe are one in the same.
                                I will let him speak for himself, but it seems to me that he is wanting to use the Kalam cosmological argument and getting it mixed up.

                                That says that if the universe has cause it is an eternal uncaused personal being, that the cause would have to be intelligent, since it would have to be able to act in order to create the universe. Otherwise the universe would just remain uncreated since there was no time for it to be created in before it existed.

                                1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of
                                its existence.

                                2.The universe began to exist.
                                -- 2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
                                ---- 2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
                                ---- 2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
                                ---- 2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
                                -- 2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:
                                ---- 2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
                                ---- 2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
                                ---- 2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
                                -- 2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of the universe.
                                -- 2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic properties of the universe.

                                3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

                                4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.
                                -- 4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a personal Creator:
                                ---- 4.11 The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.
                                ---- 4.12 The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions.
                                ---- 4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent.
                                -- 4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent:
                                ---- 4.21 The Creator is uncaused.
                                ------ 4.211 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)
                                ---- 4.22 The Creator is beginningless.
                                ------ 4.221 Whatever is uncaused does not begin to exist. (1)
                                ---- 4.23 The Creator is changeless.
                                ------ 4.231 An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)
                                ---- 4.24 The Creator is immaterial.
                                ------ 4.241 Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator is changeless. (4.23)
                                ---- 4.25 The Creator is timeless.
                                ------ 4.251 In the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless. (4.23)
                                ---- 4.26 The Creator is spaceless.
                                ------ 4.261 Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless (4.24, 4.25)
                                ---- 4.27 The Creator is enormously powerful.
                                ------ 4.271 He brought the universe into being out of nothing. (3)
                                ---- 4.28 The Creator is enormously intelligent.
                                ------ 4.281 The initial conditions of the universe involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points to intelligent design.

                                5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is "beginningless," changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

                                see http://z15.invisionfree.com/Talk_Reason/ar/t130.htm

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                1 response
                                24 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                61 responses
                                290 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                299 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 02-15-2024, 11:52 AM
                                74 responses
                                319 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 02-06-2024, 12:46 PM
                                60 responses
                                337 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X