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.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 148 by JohnA]

No, it is no ad hominem. I am pointing out I can't understand what you are trying to say. How can I even debate you when your posts are full of gibberish like "But toy have nor proceed anything" ?

My posts are clear.
I would never say it is impossible for a god to exist. That does not mean or is possible.
If you disagree, then you have to tell me why. You have taken the burden.
If not then you were wrong when you said not impossible = possible since I have a practical logical example where your logic fails.

Your choice. I asked you this same question before, but you refused to answer it. Try to answer this time. Or just pretend you did not read this. Your choice. We both know you have been degraded to obscurantism. Make it neuter, easier for yourself.

No, your posts are not clear, they are full of meaningless jumbles of words like:
"deal with this on a fault line"
" born in your alerted fatuous obscurantism"
"That does not mean or is possible"
"Make it neuter, easier for yourself."

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 148 by JohnA]

No, it is no ad hominem. I am pointing out I can't understand what you are trying to say. How can I even debate you when your posts are full of gibberish like "But toy have nor proceed anything" ?

Again:
Why are you assuming not impossible = possible?

Please answer this time.
Your 'begging the question' has been shown wrong in the history of these posts. Am really interested in why you are denying this. Can you be honest and tell us? The post history is clear. Even my previous competitor ran as he realised he was wrong. So please tell us why you disagree with the dice example. It is an objective example, please state your subjective opinion so that we can laugh, not at you. Come on. Be clear.

[instantc]

This is quite funny actually, I wonder what this guy thinks is the third option besides something being either impossible or possible.

[scourge99]

This is quite funny actually, I wonder what this guy thinks is the third option besides something being either impossible or possible.

There is only two options: something is possible or its impossible.

But that's not too useful because the human condition is more complicated than that. Something may be impossible but we may not know its impossible. So such an impossibility may seem possible (e.G., perhaps we can imagine its possibility). Or vice versa--something may seem impossible but its actually possible.

The third option is we don't know whether its possible or impossible.

I don't know if that's what John has in mind but that's how i view this issue.

[instantc]

This is quite funny actually, I wonder what this guy thinks is the third option besides something being either impossible or possible.

There is only two options: something is possible or its impossible.

But that's not too useful because the human condition is more complicated than that. Something may be impossible but we may not know its impossible. So such an impossibility may seem possible (e.G., perhaps we can imagine its possibility). Or vice versa--something may seem impossible but its actually possible.

The third option is we don't know whether its possible or impossible.

I guess I agree, but in that case you are neither affirming or denying possibility or impossibility. If you deny impossibility, you are logically left with possibility, thus not impossible does equal possible.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 152 by JohnA]

Okay, I just watched the video. The point of the video is about making claims and the burden of proof. If we don't know if something is possible or not that means that we don't know if something is impossible or not. Notice that when Tracie pulls the dice out the bag she says that it is impossible to roll an 18 with two dice, and Matt confirms that it is not possible. They are using impossible and not possible in the same way. They do not make the claim that impossible and not possible mean different things.

[JohnA]

This is quite funny actually, I wonder what this guy thinks is the third option besides something being either impossible or possible.

There is only two options: something is possible or its impossible.

But that's not too useful because the human condition is more complicated than that. Something may be impossible but we may not know its impossible. So such an impossibility may seem possible (e.G., perhaps we can imagine its possibility). Or vice versa--something may seem impossible but its actually possible.

The third option is we don't know whether its possible or impossible.

I don't know if that's what John has in mind but that's how i view this issue.

Correct. before you can say anything is possible, you need to justify it (with logic, arguments, evidence). If you can not, then it does not follow that it is impossible.

Therefore, I would never say it is not impossible for a god/gods/supernatural to exist, but that does not mean it is possible.

[help3434]

[Replying to JohnA]

You don't know if it is possible, and you don't know if it is impossible. Not possible and impossible mean the same thing. In the dice video they used "not possible" and "impossible" interchangeably.

[JohnA]

This is quite funny actually, I wonder what this guy thinks is the third option besides something being either impossible or possible.

There is only two options: something is possible or its impossible.

But that's not too useful because the human condition is more complicated than that. Something may be impossible but we may not know its impossible. So such an impossibility may seem possible (e.G., perhaps we can imagine its possibility). Or vice versa--something may seem impossible but its actually possible.

The third option is we don't know whether its possible or impossible.

I guess I agree, but in that case you are neither affirming or denying possibility or impossibility. If you deny impossibility, you are logically left with possibility, thus not impossible does equal possible.

"If you deny impossibility, you are logically left with possibility, thus not impossible does equal possible."

And that is the problem. If you say something is possible, then you are taking on a burden of proof.

If you say it is not impossible, then you are not taking on the burden of proof.
All you are saying by saying "it is not impossible" is that you are open for persuasion, open to look at the evidence/logic/arguments. This is the same as when science says it can never say anything with 100% certainty. If you are an philosophy student then you would not get this.

Why do you think the word "impossible" exists? Why not just have "possible" and "not possible".

The dice and cube examples (the videos) are quite clear. As expected, philosopher students may struggle with this. Not because of philosophy, but because of a conclusion that I am not correct (then then try to justify it, instead of looking at the evidence first and then to make a conclusion).

John.

[JohnA]

[Replying to JohnA]

You don't know if it is possible, and you don't know if it is impossible. Not possible and impossible mean the same thing. In the dice video they used "not possible" and "impossible" interchangeably.

The video it quite clear that you can not say something if possible when you know nothing about it. You need justification based on evidence.

Are you saying that some god is possible to exist?
I would not say that, but I would not say it is impossible.

That is my point. I have made this point so many times, and yet people miss this. They want to argue that the word 'impossible' is redundant (as you say we may as well say 'not possible' = 'impossible'). That is not onlt a gramatucal error, it is a logical one as well.

This is the same as when science says it can never say anything with 100% certainty. If you are an philosophy student then you would not get this.

Am glad all conceded by running.
Yet it is sad that not one will admit defeat.

AGAIN:
If you say anything is possible, then you have to convince me of this. A god is possible to exist? A green donkey that flies to Mars everyday is possible to exist? Prove it. It is not impossible, but YOU have to convince me it is possible. And even if you could, then it would still only prove my point that I was right: it was not impossible.

Ironic, hu.