A Philosophical Argument for the Existence of God

[TheChristianEgoist]

This argument is different from many others (including the Kalam argument on this forum) in that it does not require (or really tolerate) the minutia of various theories of the special Sciences (like physics). It thoroughly anticipates and dismisses most major objections in the structure of the argument, itself.
You can find a full post of my argument, along with many clarifying comments and objections answered here: http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com ... ble-mover/

1) Things can only act according to their natures. This is the law of causality.

2) Regarding action, the nature of a thing is either purposeful or accidental – meaning that an action is either purposeful or un-purposeful, intentional or unintentional. This is the law of the excluded middle applied to the nature of action.

3) Accidental actions are necessarily the result of some sort of interaction – which means that every accidental action necessitates a prior action of some kind.

4) There cannot be an infinite regress of accidental actions. An infinite regress of a series cannot exist because a series must have a beginning in order to exist.

5) There must have been an action which triggered the beginning of accidental action (3 & 4), and this ‘trigger’ action could not, itself, have been accidental (3).

6) If the beginning to accidental action could not have been accidental, then it must have been purposeful (2).

7) A purposeful action is a volitional action and volition presupposes a mind and values.

8) An actor with mind, values, and volition is a person.

9) A personal actor began all accidental action in the universe.

[nayrbsnilloc]

You are yet again falling into your own trap you set for yourself, convincingly and repeatably.
Am at least glad that I was correct in my prediction not to send you a knockdown (the video) that shows you are wrong; that one liner. Appreciate your confirmation, we are making progress. DICTIONARIES are not EVIDENCE. But you know that. So shall we just go and assume some god exist and the supernatural exist because some dictionary (of which you failed to produce a source for: as a side point) says so? Is that really your argument: evidence = information that is not testable?

Now, you have once again refused to answer my questions, yet you continue to quote lines that shows your inexperience with debate. Again, I appreciate your confirmation, remember I predicted this. Progress indeed.

A simple question:
What evidence do you have for your claim that it is possible for the supernatural to exist, that it is possible for some or more gods to exist?

Please pay attention this time.

Thank you.

It should come as no shock that I did not spend an hour of my time to watch a video meant to refute a point that I am not disputing. Like I said, it is a different kind of determinism. The kind of indeterminism that is involved in quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle I do not dispute, and have not at any point.

You say that dictionaries are not evidence. I say that they are very useful for coming to agreement on the concepts that are being questioned. I used them to define these concepts. If you have a different definition you would like to supply, by all means try. We can get nowhere in rational discussion until those concepts have been properly elucidated and defined.

I have made no claims that the supernatural or any gods exist. I have no physical evidence that they exist either, or I would make a claim for their existence.

However, I have clearly demonstrated my point and as such have answered your question. To sum it up and make the answer brief:
I have no physical evidence for the supernatural, and as such make no claim that the supernatural definitively exists.
The supernatural is also not an impossibility. That is what the purpose of my several definitions were for, to show that existence does not exclude the possibility of the supernatural.
If something is not proven to be impossible, it logically follows that it is in fact, possible.

Ignoring this and saying that I need to pay attention or my use of quotes shows my inexperience at debates is both unfounded and distracting to the issue at hand. If it is not shown to be impossible, how can you assert that it is still not a possibility?

If your response would not ignore or dodge my own questions and attribute arguments/beliefs to me that I have not made that would be great.
Thanks

[Goat]

[quote="Reverend Richard"]

Just not to derail the thread, could you go over here??

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 993#598993

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 102 by Goat]

Thanks for the courtesy Goat, it's much appreciated.

If you have the time, would you like to make a brief perusal of the topic that JohnA and I have been discussing?
Although you and I have very different political views (as evident from our healthcare/government debate), I respect your reasoning and an outside opinion on the matter would help quite a bit.

If you don't have the time or the desire, that's fine as well.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 102 by Goat]

Thanks for the courtesy Goat, it's much appreciated.

If you have the time, would you like to make a brief perusal of the topic that JohnA and I have been discussing?
Although you and I have very different political views (as evident from our healthcare/government debate), I respect your reasoning and an outside opinion on the matter would help quite a bit.

If you don't have the time or the desire, that's fine as well.

I tend to stay way about 'is the supernatural possible'.. it depends on how you define 'natural' and supernatural.

My take is there is no such thing as 'supernatural', only the natural being too narrowly defined.

The laws of nature are descriptive, not prohibitive. If something happens outside the current description, then, the description needs to be modified to allow for that possibility..

For example, Newton's laws of motion are description. They also are wrong, at relativistic speeds, nor were they able to predict the orbit of Mercury.

Einstein's GR did a much better job at that.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 104 by Goat]

Natural would be defined as "of the physical (observable) world"
Supernatural would be "things that are not natural"

I would agree with you for most of what you said, and in fact, I also don't think the supernatural exists. However, I would allow for the possibility of the supernatural as it would not necessarily be observable by normal means.

I know, seems like a silly distinction, but I don't like assumptions so to assume the nonexistence of the supernatural would seem hypocritical to me.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 104 by Goat]

Natural would be defined as "of the physical (observable) world"
Supernatural would be "things that are not natural"

I would agree with you for most of what you said, and in fact, I also don't think the supernatural exists. However, I would allow for the possibility of the supernatural as it would not necessarily be observable by normal means.

I know, seems like a silly distinction, but I don't like assumptions so to assume the nonexistence of the supernatural would seem hypocritical to me.

Well, if it could happen, then, it's natural. We just haven't observed it yet, and our definition is too narrow.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 106 by Goat]

the possibility would be of something existing outside of our natural/physical world. we would not be able to observe it directly, but only indirectly through its interaction with the physical world

[Goat]

[Replying to post 106 by Goat]

the possibility would be of something existing outside of our natural/physical world. we would not be able to observe it directly, but only indirectly through its interaction with the physical world

Oh, there are plenty of things we have to infer indirectly. WIMPS for one. Dark matter.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 108 by Goat]

But we know of dark matter because we can observe and measure its effects, thus it is part of the natural world. We may yet learn how to observe it better in the future.

The supernatural would be unobservable by us. We may never know it exists, but it does not change the reality that it exists. For example: A deity existing outside of space and time would be supernatural. It could manifest things within the physical world, and to us it would appear as if something just appeared out of nowhere. There would still be no way to observe the cause behind the manifestation though (god).

(remember i do not believe the supernatural or deities exist, I just allow for the possibility)

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 104 by Goat]

Natural would be defined as "of the physical (observable) world"
Supernatural would be "things that are not natural"

I would agree with you for most of what you said, and in fact, I also don't think the supernatural exists. However, I would allow for the possibility of the supernatural as it would not necessarily be observable by normal means.

I know, seems like a silly distinction, but I don't like assumptions so to assume the nonexistence of the supernatural would seem hypocritical to me.

But that is the my point:
It is not impossible for the supernatural or a god/gods to exist, but that does not mean it is possible.

If you want to allow for this possibility, your possibility, then you need to evidence this "possibility". For that you need to do 3 things:
Have a logical answer - which implies to change definition of terms or logic; thus self-refuting
Have an argument - no such one has been presented to date
Have evidence - we know to date there is none.

My contention is that you keep on saying it is "possible" yet you can not present any coherency for your claim; no logic, no argument, no evidence.

Let me give you an example.
We know for a fact that the earth orbits the sun (if you make the sun the reference point). That does not mean that science declares this fact as 100% true. Science allows for the impossibility of this, not for the possibility that it can be wrong. [actually if you make the massive black hole in our galaxy the reference point, then earth does not orbit the sun].

If you say something is possible, then you are giving yourself the burden of proof. And to date you have not been able to convince me of this possibility for the supernatural / god / gods to exist is possible. And the reason is simple: these thing are logically incoherent.