Answers to Atheistic arguments

[B21C9L15]

POWELL:
The goal of accurate language is understanding. The goal of art (as in poetry) is to invoke emotion. Do you want me to understand or to feel an emotion? If you want me to understand then use accurate language, not poetry.

If you are unable to use accurate language to properly represent your ideas then I propose you don't adequately understand the ideas yourself.

POWELL:
Let me repeat. If you cannot explain your views in accurate language then I suggest you don't adequately understand the ideas yourself. That inability gives reason to REJECT the ideas as imaginary.

Maturity is something you can share to a young adult and can learn to respond to it properly and speak of it properly, but it will not mean that he understand maturity, nor will make him mature. It is true that you can test one’s maturity with how eloquent a person is of the subject, but such eloquence can be dismissed through other factors. Wisdom goes with such kind. And in getting to know God, such wisdom is necessary. And as I was saying, the understanding of wisdom goes beyond the letters. Else, how much more you would not understand how to take the words of God not according to letter.

POWELL:
Then don't expect to understand that hidden meaning.

Sorry, I did not mean it cannot be understood. What I meant was that there are meanings in the words we say that should not be understood literally. Example of that is when we come to agree that we know what it meant for calling Michael Jordan as Mr. Basketball; And (don’t know if you are familiar with this) when Christ said that we ought to forgive our a brother 7 times, but then he said that he actually meant 70 times 7. But the truth is that the latter is not even what Christ exactly meant.

POWELL:
Often humans perceive order even when things aren't ordered.

POWELL:
Humans imagine purpose.

As I said, those are meaningless, hence they are product of chances. It is indeed good that such things happen, but knowing too that it is mere chance we cannot really value it as good in God’s standard; though I believe that you can find value in it. In God’s standard, the Bible says, “What is good for man to gain the world but loses his soul?” There is a way I understand goodness as a theist that you cannot grasp in your nature founded mind.

POWELL:
AFAICT, what Paul in 1 Cor 2 meant by the "spiritual" person was one who accepted as true the kinds of imaginary thoughts Paul had about Jesus and what Paul meant by the "natural" person was a skeptic who demanded that the Jesus claims be verified in the scriptures, or by a good argument, or to see / hear for one self.

Sorry, but if you really would have had understood the word of God, you would have had been a theist. It is like saying, you cannot understand maturity unless you become mature yourself. Likewise, you cannot be and atheist and say you understand the word of God.

Anyways, what is also described as fleshly, or natural, person is that, as Paul described by saying, “for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.” Now, consider yourself as a natural man whose being is shaped by chances in evolution, even you brain. And that your brain is shaped by your environment, the genes of your parents, and of the food you ate. How can you really say that it really knows how to perform that which is good when its ability to know good depends on irrational factors? Perhaps you evolved into imitating goodness, but it does not really meant that you really know how to do good. It is the same as when a chicken protects her chicks, it does not mean that the chicken is a good mother-chicken. Such is the reason of why being natural of fleshly creature does not know how to find to perform good.

If you take into consideration what I present as what a natural person is, and then come to understand it. Then you will understand why salvation is a gift, not something earned.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
The goal of accurate language is understanding. The goal of art (as in poetry) is to invoke emotion. Do you want me to understand or to feel an emotion? If you want me to understand then use accurate language, not poetry.

If you are unable to use accurate language to properly represent your ideas then I propose you don't adequately understand the ideas yourself.

. . .

Let me repeat. If you cannot explain your views in accurate language then I suggest you don't adequately understand the ideas yourself. That inability gives reason to REJECT the ideas as imaginary.

B21C9L15:
Maturity is something you can share to a young adult and can learn to respond to it properly and speak of it properly, but it will not mean that he understand maturity, nor will make him mature.

POWELL:
True. The fact that you understand something and can explain it to another person does not guarantee that they will understand you. However, what does it mean if someone claims they understand something they can't explain? For example, let's suppose someone claims to understand the law of conservation of linear momentum but they can't explain what it means or how to use it to solve physics problems? Do you think they understand it?

B21C9L15:
It is true that you can test one’s maturity with how eloquent a person is of the subject, but such eloquence can be dismissed through other factors. Wisdom goes with such kind. And in getting to know God, such wisdom is necessary. And as I was saying, the understanding of wisdom goes beyond the letters. Else, how much more you would not understand how to take the words of God not according to letter.

POWELL:
You can experience things you can't express, but how can you understand things you can't express?

POWELL:
Then don't expect to understand that hidden meaning.

B21C9L15:
Sorry, I did not mean it cannot be understood. What I meant was that there are meanings in the words we say that should not be understood literally. Example of that is when we come to agree that we know what it meant for calling Michael Jordan as Mr. Basketball; And (don’t know if you are familiar with this) when Christ said that we ought to forgive our a brother 7 times, but then he said that he actually meant 70 times 7. But the truth is that the latter is not even what Christ exactly meant.

POWELL:
Then please revise the words of Jesus to say in English what you think Jesus really meant, ok?

POWELL:
Often humans perceive order even when things aren't ordered.

. . .

Humans imagine purpose.

B21C9L15:
As I said, those are meaningless, hence they are product of chances.

POWELL:
You don't understand the meaning?

B21C9L15:
It is indeed good that such things happen, but knowing too that it is mere chance we cannot really value it as good in God’s standard; though I believe that you can find value in it. In God’s standard, the Bible says, “What is good for man to gain the world but loses his soul?” There is a way I understand goodness as a theist that you cannot grasp in your nature founded mind.

POWELL:
I used to be a Mormon theist and am still able to view things from a Mormon theist perspective. Don't pretend to have some hidden knowledge that is beyond my atheist abilities to understand. Accurately describe what you think you understand or I'm going to conclude you don't really understand after all.

POWELL:
AFAICT, what Paul in 1 Cor 2 meant by the "spiritual" person was one who accepted as true the kinds of imaginary thoughts Paul had about Jesus and what Paul meant by the "natural" person was a skeptic who demanded that the Jesus claims be verified in the scriptures, or by a good argument, or to see / hear for one self.

B21C9L15:
Sorry, but if you really would have had understood the word of God, you would have had been a theist. It is like saying, you cannot understand maturity unless you become mature yourself. Likewise, you cannot be and atheist and say you understand the word of God.

POWELL:
I feel like I understand the Bible better now than I did when I was a believing Mormon. Now my mind isn't split between science and religion. Now I'm a free thinker.

AFAICT, Paul's "natural" men were NOT atheists per se, but they were primarily Jews who were skeptical of his claims about Jesus. Here was a man (Paul) claiming Jesus died on a cross to wash believers clean of sin and then resurrected on the third day and is sitting on the right hand of God. They wanted to see or hear the claims clearly in the Jewish scriptures or to hear a good argument for why it should be or to see / hear Jesus for themselves. They weren't satisfied with Paul's source of information about Jesus, Paul's "spiritual" enlightenment. Paul was frustrated with their skepticism and called them "natural" rather than "spiritual." They didn't have the spirit of God, see?

Scripture Verse:

1 Cor 2:9-10 (NRSV):

9 But, as it is written,
‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the human heart conceived,
what God has prepared for those who love him’—

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.

POWELL:
Eye has not seen (reading the Jewish scriptures or seeing Jesus personally) nor ear heard (hearing the Jewish scriptures or hearing Jesus personally) nor human heart conceived (no good philosophical argument for Paul's claims about Jesus) what God has prepared for those who love him. Rather, the secret truths about Jesus (such as his crucifixion and such things) are revealed to people like Paul through the spirit.

B21C9L15:
Anyways, what is also described as fleshly, or natural, person is that, as Paul described by saying, “for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.” Now, consider yourself as a natural man whose being is shaped by chances in evolution, even you brain. And that your brain is shaped by your environment, the genes of your parents, and of the food you ate. How can you really say that it really knows how to perform that which is good when its ability to know good depends on irrational factors? Perhaps you evolved into imitating goodness, but it does not really meant that you really know how to do good. It is the same as when a chicken protects her chicks, it does not mean that the chicken is a good mother-chicken. Such is the reason of why being natural of fleshly creature does not know how to find to perform good.

POWELL:
"Good" is one of many human words to describe a class of things that humans imagine. In this case, the word refers to things the human imagines to be beneficial.

B21C9L15:
If you take into consideration what I present as what a natural person is, and then come to understand it. Then you will understand why salvation is a gift, not something earned.

POWELL:
Well, assuming God exists, God doesn't have to give the gift, but if the human doesn't obey the commandments then he shouldn't expect the reward.

John Powell

[Roy]

JM continues to claim that the validity of a form of logical deduction is dependent on the subject being analysed - which is enough evidence to conclude that JM really is impervious to logic.

Roy continues to accuse me of saying something I didn’t and also ignores the answer I gave to his answer. This is bad logic and bad rhetoric by Roy.

Failure to address the majority of the post replied to noted.

The fact remains that on several occasions JM's response to the objection that his proof relied on the inverse of a true statement being true was to claim that the level of abstraction being used made a difference.

No, you merely include, in of one of your 'proofs', a deduction based on the inverse of a true statement being also true. Something that despite you now seeming to be agree is invalid, you have never acknowledged nor corrected.

Don’t need to correct anything except your inability to see that the inverse statement is true via the virtual containment of the proof presented subsequently.

It doesn't matter whether the inverse of the particular statement is true or not. JM's 'proof' included the a statement being true solely because it was the inverse of a previous statement. JM has repeatedly refused to acknowledge that this part of his 'proof' was incorrect.

The latest attempt to wriggle out of the now several miles deep hole that he is in is this:
[

The proof was contained virtually in statement 3 as has been demonstrated.

Riiiight. "the proof was contained virtually in statement 3".

Poppycock.

Here's the relevant section again:

13. Also the inverse ~X -> ~Y means
14. Not 'actually limited existence’ requires ‘not limited by the contrary of the act’
15. Which is not a non sequitur.

The following statements are then all true

1. actually limited existence requires limited by the contrary of the act
2. not limited by the contrary of the act requires not actually limited existence
3. not actually limited existence requires not limited by the contrary of the act

There is no proof in statement 3, virtual or otherwise. JM has retreated from stupidity to dishonesty.

Your problem is not with me its[sic] with God

I don't have a problem. I have accepted that you are woefully ignorant and incredibly stupid, and will no longer waste my time trying to convince you of anything other than that you are incredibly stupid and woefully ignorant.

But keep working on those apostrophes. Remember that its means belonging to it while it's means it is. But don't concentrate on this so much that you forget the difference between your and you're.

Roy

[johnmartin]

Originally posted by johnmartin
JM continues to claim that the validity of a form of logical deduction is dependent on the subject being analysed - which is enough evidence to conclude that JM really is impervious to logic.
Roy continues to accuse me of saying something I didn’t and also ignores the answer I gave to his answer. This is bad logic and bad rhetoric by Roy.
Failure to address the majority of the post replied to noted.
The fact remains that on several occasions JM's response to the objection that his proof relied on the inverse of a true statement being true was to claim that the level of abstraction being used made a difference.
<snip>
The proof was contained virtually in statement 3 as has been demonstrated.
Riiiight. "the proof was contained virtually in statement 3".
Poppycock.
Here's the relevant section again:
13. Also the inverse ~X -> ~Y means
14. Not 'actually limited existence’ requires ‘not limited by the contrary of the act’
15. Which is not a non sequitur.
The following statements are then all true
1. actually limited existence requires limited by the contrary of the act
2. not limited by the contrary of the act requires not actually limited existence
3. not actually limited existence requires not limited by the contrary of the act
There is no proof in statement 3, virtual or otherwise. JM has retreated from stupidity to dishonesty.
Your problem is not with me its[sic] with God
I don't have a problem. I have accepted that you are woefully ignorant and incredibly stupid, and will no longer waste my time trying to convince you of anything other than that you are incredibly stupid and woefully ignorant.
But keep working on those apostrophes. Remember that its means belonging to it while it's means it is. But don't concentrate on this so much that you forget the difference between your and you're.
Roy

As my statement has been made in the thrid degree of formal abstraction, I am to prove the following -The inverse of a statement in the third degree of formal abstraction is always true.
Formal proof

The formal object of metaphysics is being for as much as it is being. Being in the third degree of formal abstraction is had without reference to either sensed matter or imagined matter.
The fundamental real distinction of being is act and potency. But act and potency are beings which have

• Opposites according to contrary opposition
• Complementary opposites according to the same order of being, which is opposition in substance or accident.
• Then every substantial act has its contrary substantial potency.
• Every accidental act has its contrary accidental potency

All possible fundamental statements (S) with the inverse statements (I) and contrapositives (C) in the third degree of formal abstraction are as follows.
1(S)If act then act
2(I) If not act then not act
3(C) If not act then not act

4(S)If act then potency
5(I) If not act then not potency
6(C) If not potency then not act

7(S)If potency then act
8(I) If not potency then not act
9(C) If not act then not potency

10(S)If potency then potency.
11(I) If not potency then not potency
12(C) If not potency then not potency

1, 2, 3 and 10, 11 and 12 are self evidently always true from the principle of identity. But as stated above regarding potency and act, which are

• Opposites according to contrary opposition
• Complementary opposites according to the same order of being, which is opposition in substance or accident.
• Then every substantial act has its contrary substantial potency.
• Every accidental act has its contrary accidental potency

From the above truths, and as the categories of substance and accident cover all reality, then lines 4 and 7 are always true according to the properties of potency and act,
4(S) If act then potency
which means
If act then there is it contrary opposite which is potency
For to have act limited by act is to imply act is its own act as act and its own limit as act.
But as a proper cause cannot have two contrary effects, an act cannot be its own contrary
Then
4(S) If act then potency, is always true

Likewise 7(S) If potency then act
Which means
If potency then there is it contrary opposite which is act
For what can be does not effect its contrary, which is what does be, or
Potency does not cause its contrary act
Then only act causes act and potency
Then 7(S) If potency then act, is always true

Also as
Act is not potency
and
Potency is not act
then
line 5(I) If not act then not potency
is the same as
If potency then act, which is the same as 7
line 6(C) If not potency then not act
is the same as
If act then potency, which is the same as 4
line 8(I) If not potency then not act
is the same as
If act then potency, which is the same as 4
line 9(C) If not act then not potency
is the same as
If potency then act, which is the same as 7


As lines 4 and 7 are always true then lines 5, 6, 8 and 9 are always true as stated above. Further, statements be based on the above fundamental statements can be made to cover all reality according to either substance or accidents as follows


Firstly according to substance


(S) A substance composed of act and potency then act with potency
(I) Not a substance composed of act and potency then not act and potency
(C) Not act and potency then not a substance composed of act and potency


Statement (S) A substance composed of act and potency then act with potency, is true according to the principle of identity. The inverse of the true statement is (I) A substance not composed of act and potency then not act and potency,
which is the same as
A substance not composed of act and potency then either
i. pure act (which is a mode of act), or
ii. pure potency (which is a mode of potency)

Examining the two possibilities

A substance not composed of act and potency then pure act,
which is the same as
A substance which is act then act,
which is the same as
If act then act, which is always true


A substance not composed of act and potency then pure potency,
which is the same as
Substantial potency is potency
which is the same as
If potency then potency, which is always true


Also the contrapositive of the true statement (S) is
(C) Not act and potency then not substance composed of act and potency
Is the same as
Either pure act or pure potency then substance not composed of act and potency
which is the same possibilities already examined
which conclude to
If potency then potency,
and
If act then act, which is always true.


From the principle of identity the inverse and contrapositive of the above true statement is always true for act and potency in the order of substance. I now need to prove that the statement (S) A thing composed of act and potency then act with potency, is always true in the order of accidents, which is stated as follows.


According to accidents


(S) An accident composed of act and potency then act with potency
(I) Not an accident composed of act and potency then not act with potency
(C) Not act with potency then not an accident composed of act and potency
(S) above is always true from the principle of identity


And as an accidental act is never without potency (not pure act), as accident is ordered towards substance according to being, the same as potency is ordered towards act*, then
(I) Not an accident composed of act and potency then not act with potency
is the same as
Not an accident composed of act and potency is then an accident of pure act.
But this is excluded by contradiction from accident always ordered to substance, as potency to act.
then
(I) Not an accident composed of act and potency then not act with potency
can only mean,
Not an accident composed of act and potency then an accident of pure potency
Which is the same as
An accident which is potency is pure potency
which is
Potency is pure potency
which is the same as
If potency then potency
which from the principle of identity must always be true.

Similarly the statement

(C) Not act with potency then not an accident composed of act and potency
Using the truths already presented, concludes to either
Not act then not an accident composed of act and potency
which is
Pure potency then an accident of potency
which is the same as
Potency is pure potency
which is the same as
If potency then potency
which from the principle of identity must always be true.

These statements have been proven to be always true

(S) A substance composed of act and potency then act with potency
(I) Not a substance composed of act and potency then not act and potency
(C) Not act and potency then not a substance composed of act and potency

(S) An accident composed of act and potency then act with potency
(I) Not an accident composed of act and potency then not act with potency
(C) Not act with potency then not an accident composed of act and potency

Also the inverse and the converse of a true statement (S) have also been proven to be always true in the third degree of formal abstraction. Which brings me back to my previous statement in a prior post concerning the statement -
Not 'actually limited existence’ requires ‘not limited by the contrary of the act’ virtually contains the proof previously presented is also true.

Further, as the inverse of a fundamental true statement (S) in the third degree of formal abstraction is always true, then any inverse statement that can be reduced to a fundamental inverse statement is then always true.

This is proven as follows –

As being is analogous and exists according to mode, any statement in the third degree of formal abstraction is being had in a different way.
But being had in any manner is either substance or accident, which is reducible to potency and act.
But the fundamental statements all properly use the terms potency and act.
Therefore any inverse statement in the third degree of formal abstraction can be reduced to an inverse fundamental statement. The same can be proven regarding contrapositve statements, which concludes to –

According to fundamental statement in the third degree of formal abstraction

If (S) is true, the (I) is always true and (C) is also always true.

And also any statement properly about being in its modes

If (S) is true, the (I) is always true and (C) is also always true.

The proof is properly concluded and shows yet again that atheism is false and theism is true.
JM

[Roy]

Also the inverse and the converse of a true statement (S) have also been proven to be always true in the third degree of formal abstraction. Which brings me back to my previous statement in a prior post concerning the statement -
Not 'actually limited existence’ requires ‘not limited by the contrary of the act’ virtually contains the proof previously presented is also true.

No, it doesn't.

The proof is properly concluded and shows yet again that atheism is false and theism is true.

Non sequitur. Even if the proof is properly concluded, which I doubt to the extent that I'm not even going to bother trying to understand it,* it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not there is a god - for that you'd need to prove the original statements, not just show that their inverses are consequences.

Roy

*The little of it I read before giving up wading through the nauseatingly repetitive equivocation ("For to have act limited by act is to imply act is its own act as act and its own limit as act."??? Furrfu) suggests that
(S) A substance composed of act and potency then act
(I) A substance not composed of act and potency then not act
is a statement/inverse not covered by the 'proof' which not only shows the proof is non-exhaustive but provides a counterexample that invalidates it.

[nickcopernicus]

The proof is properly concluded and shows yet again that atheism is false and theism is true.[/SIZE]
JM

Do you have any ideal what the word "atheist" means?
Apparently not. How can the "lack of belief" be false when the object does not have the ability to believe? A fetus is by default, an atheist. Is it false that a fetus does not have the belief in the existence of a god(s)?

PS: The earth rotates around the sun, not the latter around the former.

[John Powell]

Do you have any ideal what the word "atheist" means?
Apparently not. How can the "lack of belief" be false when the object does not have the ability to believe? A fetus is by default, an atheist. Is it false that a fetus does not have the belief in the existence of a god(s)?

POWELL:
There is some basis for claiming that a fetus is an atheist, but I think it's better to restrict theists and atheists to those who have thought about the question of God and come to a conclusion as to their belief status.

NickCopernicus:
PS: The earth rotates around the sun, not the latter around the former.

POWELL:
Approximately. Actually, it's more complicated than that. If the Sun and Earth were the only two massive bodies then they should orbit their common center of mass.

John Powell

[nickcopernicus]

Nic:
Do you have any ideal what the word "atheist" means?
Apparently not. How can the "lack of belief" be false when the object does not have the ability to believe? A fetus is by default, an atheist. Is it false that a fetus does not have the belief in the existence of a god(s)?

POWELL:
There is some basis for claiming that a fetus is an atheist, but I think it's better to restrict theists and atheists to those who have thought about the question of God and come to a conclusion as to their belief status.

NIc:
Conceded. However, I tire if hearing theist assume that atheism is a worldview. There are many worldviews that are atheist, yet their philosophies differ: naturalism, existentialism, post-modernism, nihilism, to name a few.

NickCopernicus:
PS: The earth rotates around the sun, not the latter around the former.

POWELL:
Approximately. Actually, it's more complicated than that. If the Sun and Earth were the only two massive bodies then they should orbit their common center of mass.

John Powell

Nic:
Okay. Then let me rephrase it. I reject the geocentricistic model of the Universe introduced by Aristotle and later expanded by Ptolemy.

[John Powell]

NIc:
Conceded. However, I tire if hearing theist assume that atheism is a worldview. There are many worldviews that are atheist, yet their philosophies differ: naturalism, existentialism, post-modernism, nihilism, to name a few.

POWELL:
I'm finding you to be a pretty easy guy to persuade, so theists don't have much to criticize you about being bull-headed.

I have empathy for your sentiment, but it would seem that if atheism isn't a worldview than neither is Christianity or Mormonism or anything else like that. Rather, those beliefs are part of some worldview. For simplicity, we should be able to speak of a typical Atheist worldview (recognizing that not all atheists will share it) like we can speak of a typical Christian worldview.

Strictly, atheism only speaks to one issue: the disbelief (where "disbelief" includes both "lack of belief" and "belief in the lack") in God whereas Christianity is supposed to include a belief that Jesus is divine, God exists, and the N.T. is God's word.

Nic:
Okay. Then let me rephrase it. I reject the geocentricistic model of the Universe introduced by Aristotle and later expanded by Ptolemy.

POWELL:
Fine. However, it turns out that the statement "The Earth orbits the Sun" is no more strictly true than "The Sun orbits the Earth." Both are strictly false, but resultant errors are smaller when assuming the first compared with assuming the second. However in support of your usage, by convention, the first statement is treated as factual and the second as erroneous.

John Powell

[johnmartin]

Non sequitur. Even if the proof is properly concluded, which I doubt to the extent that I'm not even going to bother trying to understand it,* it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not there is a god - for that you'd need to prove the original statements, not just show that their inverses are consequences.

Roy

I suppose if I did do this you'd ignore it anyway.

*The little of it I read before giving up wading through the nauseatingly repetitive equivocation ("For to have act limited by act is to imply act is its own act as act and its own limit as act."??? Furrfu) suggests that

No equivocation here. The above statement in context was used to show that when an act is limited , it is done so by its complementary potency and not of the act itself.

(S) A substance composed of act and potency then act (1)
(I) A substance not composed of act and potency then not act (2)
is a statement/inverse not covered by the 'proof' which not only shows the proof is non-exhaustive but provides a counterexample that invalidates it.

This is covered in the later half of the proof when it was shown that all statements in the third degree are reducable to the fundamentals as all modes of being can be reduced to potency and act.
JM

[johnmartin]

NIc:
Conceded. However, I tire if hearing theist assume that atheism is a worldview. There are many worldviews that are atheist, yet their philosophies differ: naturalism, existentialism, post-modernism, nihilism, to name a few.

Nic:
Okay. Then let me rephrase it. I reject the geocentricistic model of the Universe introduced by Aristotle and later expanded by Ptolemy.

I also reject these forms of geo as well. The modern version has been explained on the geo thread.
JM

[nickcopernicus]

POWELL:
I'm finding you to be a pretty easy guy to persuade, so theists don't have much to criticize you about being bull-headed.

NIC:
I haven't studied Logic yet. I have a rudimentary knowledge of it, but until I get the books I ordered, I have to pick my fights when believe I can win.

POWELL:
I have empathy for your sentiment, but it would seem that if atheism isn't a worldview than neither is Christianity or Mormonism or anything else like that. Rather, those beliefs are part of some worldview. For simplicity, we should be able to speak of a typical Atheist worldview (recognizing that not all atheists will share it) like we can speak of a typical Christian worldview.

Fair enough.

POWELL:
Strictly, atheism only speaks to one issue: the disbelief (where "disbelief" includes both "lack of belief" and "belief in the lack") in God whereas Christianity is supposed to include a belief that Jesus is divine, God exists, and the N.T. is God's word.

NIC:
This is why I classify myself as an agnostic atheist; instead of simply atheist.

[stephen goswami]

What is God really? Mother Teresa of Calcutta and an atheist.

Here I illustrate my point by telling of an encounter between Mother Teresa and an atheist. That atheist was a proud intellectual vainly searching for an illusive God. He told the Mother bluntly that he doesn’t believe in God, but nevertheless likes her charitable works for the forsaken. Mother encouraged him to visit her lost people asylum in Kalighat. So he regularly used to visit the place and got some peace of mind.
One day at that place he was trying to talk to an old totally infirm lady. She was picked up unconscious from the metropolis Calcutta’s footpath. After due care, she had regained sense then. When the gentle man came to her and addressed her as mother as it is the custom here to address senior ladies, she mistook him as her long lost son. Crying aloud she said “my son! You have come at last after so many years. I was searching frantically for you all these years.” The atheist was shaken and loathed to shatter the lady’s death bed consolation. So he said “yes mother I have come to you now”. She asked “are you married now?” “Yes mother” he replied. She again asked “how many children do you have”. He answered “Two”. “Now I can die in peace” she said and closed her eyes being exhausted.
Now an indescribable peace descended on him. He went to Mother Teresa and said “I have found God at last”. Mother smiled approvingly. He had found God in the universal love between mother and child

You can’t prove God’s existence intellectually. Only by appealing to love in heart you can prove God as God is love. This was my case also. Brought up in an atheist family and country I tried to find God vainly in the Hindu scriptures in a Hindu theology school. Then finding a glimmer of hope I converted to Christ. But following prayer rules and reading Christ scriptures here too I was disappointed. But bible’s “love is God” injunction echoed in my mind. To follow I started orphanage and serving the poor. I began to grow up in fatherhood spirit. Then by intuition I found God and Christ and could connect easily to them through prayer. So Christfollowers’ faith becomes so strong that they can even die for that faith. So leaving arguments if one follows Christ he will certainly find the truth. But, the spiritually lazy worldly people loath to take the trouble of following Christ. Theological colleges are full of them.

[Roy]

(S) A substance composed of act and potency then act (1)
(I) A substance not composed of act and potency then not act (2)
is a statement/inverse not covered by the 'proof' which not only shows the proof is non-exhaustive but provides a counterexample that invalidates it.

This is covered in the later half of the proof when it was shown that all statements in the third degree are reducable to the fundamentals as all modes of being can be reduced to potency and act.

1. Those statements are already reduced to potency and act
2. They are not covered in the proof
3. The first statement is true (under your definitions), but the inverse statement is false.
Therefore
4. Your 'proof' is flawed, as usual
5. You have not addressed the problem, as usual

Roy

[johnmartin]

Originally posted by johnmartin
(S) A substance composed of act and potency then act (1)
(I) A substance not composed of act and potency then not act (2)
is a statement/inverse not covered by the 'proof' which not only shows the proof is non-exhaustive but provides a counterexample that invalidates it.
This is covered in the later half of the proof when it was shown that all statements in the third degree are reducable to the fundamentals as all modes of being can be reduced to potency and act.
Those statements are already reduced to potency and act
2. They are not covered in the proof
3. The first statement is true (under your definitions), but the inverse statement is false.
Therefore
4. Your 'proof' is flawed, as usual
5. You have not addressed the problem, as usual
Roy

You are making claims so its up to you demonstrate the following
(S) A substance composed of act and potency then act (1) – is always true from my proof presented previously.
(I) A substance not composed of act and potency then not act (2) is false
JM