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.

[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 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.

Now you are playing word games.

There are two potential meanings of "possible". And you need to clearly explain which one you are using.

1) something is possible if it hasn't been shown as impossible. I. E., it may actually be impossible or possible.

2) something is possible if we know it can exist/happen/be_done/etc

I contend the first definition is useless because we can't prove negatives (in most cases, at least in any absolute sense) and it can be an acknowledgement of ignorance on the matter. It can mean "i don't know if it's impossible" or it can mean "i know its possible".

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

What does it even mean to "deny impossibility"? That you don't know if its impossible? If you don't know if it's impossible then its only possible if you define "possible" as #1 from above. Otherwise, if you don't know if something is impossible then that doesn't mean you know its possible (#2).

[instantc]

Now you are playing word games.

There are two potential meanings of "possible". And you need to clearly explain which one you are using.

1) something is possible if it hasn't been shown as impossible. I. E., it may actually be impossible or possible.

2) something is possible if we know it can exist/happen/be_done/etc

I contend the first definition is useless because we can't prove negatives (in most cases, at least in any absolute sense) and it can be an acknowledgement of ignorance on the matter. It can mean "i don't know if it's impossible" or it can mean "i know its possible".

I would suggest more useful definitions of possibility

1) Logical possibility, which means that a hypothesis doesn't contradict the laws of logic.

2) Physical possibility, which means that something is in fact possible in the real world governed by the natural laws.

There is no reason to mix these definitions up. Regardless of which type of possibility we are talking about, not impossible means possible. If something is not logically impossible (it doesn't contradict the laws of logic), then it is logically possible. If something is not physically impossible (it doesn't contradict the natural laws), then it is physically possible.

I think lots of confusion is caused when these definitions are mixed up. For example, this guy who started the whole hassle says that something is not impossible but that does not mean it's possible. Here he is first talking about logical impossibility and then physical possibility.

[scourge99]

Now you are playing word games.

There are two potential meanings of "possible". And you need to clearly explain which one you are using.

1) something is possible if it hasn't been shown as impossible. I. E., it may actually be impossible or possible.

2) something is possible if we know it can exist/happen/be_done/etc

I contend the first definition is useless because we can't prove negatives (in most cases, at least in any absolute sense) and it can be an acknowledgement of ignorance on the matter. It can mean "i don't know if it's impossible" or it can mean "i know its possible".

I would suggest more useful definitions of possibility

1) Logical possibility, which means that a hypothesis doesn't contradict the laws of logic.

I like that one.

2) Physical possibility, which means that something is in fact possible in the real world governed by the natural laws.

So something that doesn't violate what we know about the laws of physics and how the world works, right?

Regardless of which type of possibility we are talking about, not impossible means possible. If something is not logically impossible (it doesn't contradict the laws of logic), then it is logically possible. If something is not physically impossible (it doesn't contradict the natural laws), then it is physically possible.

I agree but that's not the world we live in. Because it can be unknown whether something contradicts the laws of logic or not. For example, really complex arguments. Their logical possibility is unknown --> it isn't known whether they are logically possible or impossible. But just because we can't say its logically impossible, doesn't mean it must be logically possible.

Overall, you are missing the human component of ignorance. There are cases where we just don't know either way and it doesn't default to either "possible" or "impossible" in those situations. And that has been part of my point. That ignorance about something seems to get lumped into the category of "its possible", which is wrong.

[instantc]

Regardless of which type of possibility we are talking about, not impossible means possible. If something is not logically impossible (it doesn't contradict the laws of logic), then it is logically possible. If something is not physically impossible (it doesn't contradict the natural laws), then it is physically possible.

I agree but that's not the world we live in. Because it can be unknown whether something contradicts the laws of logic or not. For example, really complex arguments. Their logical possibility is unknown --> it isn't known whether they are logically possible or impossible. But just because we can't say its logically impossible, doesn't mean it must be logically possible.

Overall, you are missing the human component of ignorance. There are cases where we just don't know either way and it doesn't default to either "possible" or "impossible" in those situations. And that has been part of my point. That ignorance about something seems to get lumped into the category of "its possible", which is wrong.

I guess I agree, but in such case where the possibility of something is unknown, you cannot assert that it is not impossible.

[JohnA]

Now you are playing word games.

There are two potential meanings of "possible". And you need to clearly explain which one you are using.

1) something is possible if it hasn't been shown as impossible. I. E., it may actually be impossible or possible.

2) something is possible if we know it can exist/happen/be_done/etc

I contend the first definition is useless because we can't prove negatives (in most cases, at least in any absolute sense) and it can be an acknowledgement of ignorance on the matter. It can mean "i don't know if it's impossible" or it can mean "i know its possible".

I would suggest more useful definitions of possibility

1) Logical possibility, which means that a hypothesis doesn't contradict the laws of logic.

2) Physical possibility, which means that something is in fact possible in the real world governed by the natural laws.

There is no reason to mix these definitions up. Regardless of which type of possibility we are talking about, not impossible means possible. If something is not logically impossible (it doesn't contradict the laws of logic), then it is logically possible. If something is not physically impossible (it doesn't contradict the natural laws), then it is physically possible.

I think lots of confusion is caused when these definitions are mixed up. For example, this guy who started the whole hassle says that something is not impossible but that does not mean it's possible. Here he is first talking about logical impossibility and then physical possibility.

1). For a hypothesis you need evidence. So, we can reject you logical possibility due to a lack of evidence. Actually, going by your rules, we can say a god/god/supernatural is NOT logically possible as they contract logic! That is besides the fact that there is no evidence for a god/god/supernatural.

2) You have to show it is possible first. And you do not need to use the laws of nature for that. (We do not know all the laws of nature yet, and some are only estimations - e.g. Newton's gravity does not hold up everywhere). To say it is only possible via science is just promoting scientism.

It is interesting how you define your faulty definitions into existence just to try and show I am wrong when in fact I am correct.


Instantc, please do not play the man. Argue the content, your burden of proof that you have taken on now, and admit when you are wrong.

[JohnA]

Regardless of which type of possibility we are talking about, not impossible means possible. If something is not logically impossible (it doesn't contradict the laws of logic), then it is logically possible. If something is not physically impossible (it doesn't contradict the natural laws), then it is physically possible.

I agree but that's not the world we live in. Because it can be unknown whether something contradicts the laws of logic or not. For example, really complex arguments. Their logical possibility is unknown --> it isn't known whether they are logically possible or impossible. But just because we can't say its logically impossible, doesn't mean it must be logically possible.

Overall, you are missing the human component of ignorance. There are cases where we just don't know either way and it doesn't default to either "possible" or "impossible" in those situations. And that has been part of my point. That ignorance about something seems to get lumped into the category of "its possible", which is wrong.

I guess I agree, but in such case where the possibility of something is unknown, you cannot assert that it is not impossible.

Why?
1) The cube and dice videos are clear on this not impossible does not mean possible.
2) Science is clear on this as nothing is 100% certain.
3) scourge99 just explained it to you (twice now, and here you go and still refuse to accept it.)

Stop playing the man (cease/halt trying to show JohnA wrong). Argue the content and accept when your arguments are defeated; as in this case again.

[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.

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.

Correct. You also cannot say that it is not possible when you know nothing about it. You need evidence. That is the same thing as saying that you cannot say that it is impossible if you know nothing about it.

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

I would say that I don't know if it is possible or impossible. Which is the same thing as saying I don't know if it is possible or not possible.

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.

You are the one making an error in grammar. How are antonyms illogical? There are many of them in the English language.

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.

Actually, it is thanks to philosophy that we understand this. I wish you would quit your uniformed attacks on philosophy.

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

Who is running? Not everyone has the inclination to make over 9 posts a day on this forum like you do.

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.

I never said said anything is possible, so I don't have to convince you of any of those things.

[help3434]

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.

Why does the word atheist exist? Why not just have theist and not theist? This is a terrible argument you are trying to make here.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 166 by JohnA]

No, the point of the dice video was that not knowing if something is impossible (which means not possible) doesn't mean that it is actually possible. You have clearly misunderstood the video.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 166 by JohnA]

No, the point of the dice video was that not knowing if something is impossible (which means not possible) doesn't mean that it is actually possible. You have clearly misunderstood the video.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

I stand to what I have said with my first post on this.
I would never say it is not impossible for some good/gods/supernatural to exist, but that does not mean it is possible.

Do you agree?

If not then please please convince me that it is possible for some good/gods/supernatural to exist: accept your burden of proof. For this please state your logic, argument, and evidence.

Thank you.