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.

[Reverend Richard]

At the risk of repeating myself (and Dr. Sagan), my "spirituality" cannot be defined as any single thing. It is a number of things in combination. Those things include purely subjective emotions, feelings, hunches, and an intuition that there is something more to the universe than is typically experienced at ordinary levels of consciousness, or in day-to-day experience.

And, I would be one of the first to support that as it does not interfere with anyone else beliefs or makes demands on anyone other than perhaps yourself. No problem.

Thank you ATM. I am not here to inflict my beliefs or my "spirituality" on anyone, nor to create difficulties. Life is difficult enough without haranguing others about what they should or should not believe.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 91 by Reverend Richard]

The only thing I disagree within this is that challenging other people's beliefs requires the articulation of your own thoughts, which is incredibly useful in realizing what you actually believe and hold true. Done in a civil manner, as this forum promotes, it is a mutually beneficial process that sharpens the reasoning and cognitive prowess of both sides of the discussion.

If someone is dissuaded from their original position, then so be it. It would reflect an inherent weakness in what they had previously believed and allow them to move on to more sound views, which I would argue clearly benefits them.

[Reverend Richard]

[Replying to post 91 by Reverend Richard]

The only thing I disagree within this is that challenging other people's beliefs requires the articulation of your own thoughts, which is incredibly useful in realizing what you actually believe and hold true. Done in a civil manner, as this forum promotes, it is a mutually beneficial process that sharpens the reasoning and cognitive prowess of both sides of the discussion.

If someone is dissuaded from their original position, then so be it. It would reflect an inherent weakness in what they had previously believed and allow them to move on to more sound views, which I would argue clearly benefits them.

I don't disagree with any of what you said. I agree that entering into a debate or a discussion with someone who has opposing views, is useful in discerning and perhaps clarifying your own beliefs and position on a topic, whether that topic is politics, morals, or in this case, spirituality and religion. While all of these topics are volatile, or are potentially so, I think religion seem to be the most volatile of any.

As a former conservative Christian, my identity was so tied up and entangled with my beliefs that any attack on my faith was a personal attack on me. It took me a long time (decades) to disentangle myself from that; to realize that my ego and my self-worth had nothing to do with what I did (or did not) believe. It was such a relief that I still find it next to impossible to describe the positive ripple effect that it had on my personal and spiritual life.

Do I understand that you are an atheist, and I think a former Christian? Perhaps you had a taste of the same experience?

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 93 by Reverend Richard]

Not exactly. I was raised a Christian by my parents and when I started thinking for myself and having doubts instead of blindly accepting what I was told, around early middle school or so, I just drifted away from the religion.

I've never had what I would describe as a spiritual experience, so when the religion no longer made sense to me, I just sort of cut ties with it. It was a relatively clean cut, although it did suck still having to go to a Christian school for the rest of my academic career.

[Reverend Richard]

[Replying to post 93 by Reverend Richard]

Not exactly. I was raised a Christian by my parents and when started thinking for myself and having doubts instead of blindly accepting what I was told, around early middle school or so, I just drifted away from the religion.

I've never had what I would describe as a spiritual experience, so when the religion no longer made sense to me, I just sort of cut ties with it. It was a relatively clean cut, although it did suck still having to go to a Christian school for the rest of my academic career.

Hahaha! I guess you might have had it a little easier than I. Both sides of my family (mother and father) were ultra religious. My uncle was a Baptist minister, my dad was a deacon in the church, I even taught Bible study classes as a young adult. I was totally immersed (both figuratively and literally). Today, including me, there are four ministers in my family. I am the only heretical (non-Baptist) one. My family views me oddly, of course. , but none of them say too much - at least in front of me!

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 95 by Reverend Richard]

Not so different as you might think. Although nobody in my family is any form of the clergy (although my twin brother is getting a religion minor with a specialty in apologetics), they are still very devout and strict Christians and don't really support my views. I kept it to myself and just kind of thought through the process internally for a while and they didn't know about it until after I had already graduated.

[JohnA]

I wanted to just send you a one liner response with a link to a video, but suspected you would not play it, since you did not read my post at all.

I have to say that the apparent calmness in your response is a subtle and revealing way of preaching to me. It did not work. Am not going to argue point by point as this is really showing an amateur at debate.

Sigh.... I clearly did read your post, as I responded to each point completely. I don't know how my calmness is a "revealing way of preaching"... I'm not preaching at all. Also, I am going to continue responding the way I have previously, regardless of your disdain for the method. I'm sorry you consider clarity "amateur".

My point is simple:
It does not follow for something that is impossible that it is possible.
Your point:
Impossible and possible is mutually exclusive, a true false dichotomy.

Now, reading back you post again, you have FAILED to address my point. Not only that, you have FAILED to give any argument against it, OR for your point. I have given you MANY arguments for my point, and EVIDENCE, yet you refuse to accept this AND refuse to say why you reject evidence.

Supernatural.
No-one knows what it is (regardless of existence). And here you come and say it is not X, not Y, it is Z, while assuming existence. And for this you offer dictionaries when ONLY when it suites you. Your Set example is circular, begging the question, since you start with only two sets.

To the contrary, I have given adequate evidence to refute yours. You say that it is a false dichotomy. It is not. A false dichotomy is "an informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option." This is not one of those cases. There is no additional option available.

Possibility is similar to existence in this regard. Things either exist or they don't exist. There is no other option. Things are either possible or impossible. Not a false dichotomy.

This can also be described as the law of the excluded middle: when given two contradictory propositions, one must be true and the other false.

My set example was not circular. I started with nothing, and then in step 1 I defined possible. In step 2 I defined impossible. In step 3 I concluded that no other sets where necessary.

I did not assume the existence of the supernatural when I defined it. In fact, I went very much out of the way to show that the definitions of existence and supernatural do not exclude each other. I made no assumptions.

On determinism and light.
Short answer: Already told you.... particle, wave, wave-particle, etc. (clue, it is not 3 mutually exclusive options)

Long answer: See double slit experiment, see Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

Longer answer: Guess you are not familiar with quantum physics and relativity, Einstein and Bohr: God does not play dice, stop telling god what to do. Or that Einstein was shown wrong conclusively in the 1960'ties.
Watch this:
Besides, determinism is a nice label that the philosophers dreamed up, and since philosophy can not prove or disprove anything, you had to leave it to since to blast away.

This makes me question what you think determinism is. I am fairly familiar with quantum physics and there is nothing in the field which refutes determinism, especially the double slit experiment or Walter White's (just a joke. but seriously, how good is breaking bad amiright?? love the Heisenberg reference) uncertainty principle.

Now I have shown how I have completely addressed your questions.

What evidence have you provided for your claim that it is possible for the supernatural to exist, that it is possible for some or more gods to exist?

Please enlighten me with this evidence.

[no comment on the cube video.....but you still hold that Einstein was right saying everything is deterministic when Bohr showed him wrong; some things are probabilistic].

I can not debate with someone that can not show me the evidence that it is possible for some god or the supernatural to exist.

Am especially interested in how you know that the supernatural is not X or Y, but part of or is Z (reality).

Please enlighten me.

Let me guess: "You know when I do not ask you, but when I ask you, you do not know".

[nayrbsnilloc]

[no comment on the cube video.....but you still hold that Einstein was right saying everything is deterministic when Bohr showed him wrong; some things are probabilistic].

I made no comment on the cube video because I did not watch it, I had no need to. As i mentioned before, I think we are talking about two different kinds of determinism, which is why I asked you to define yours.
Regardless, I don't know how we got on this topic as it has nothing to do with our original conversation about the supernatural.

What evidence have you provided for your claim that it is possible for the supernatural to exist, that it is possible for some or more gods to exist?
Please enlighten me with this evidence.
I can not debate with someone that can not show me the evidence that it is possible for soem god or the supernatural to exist.
Am especially interested in how you know that the supernatural is not X or Y, but part of or is Z (reality).
Please enlighten me.

First, quit confusing yourself and throwing gods into this. I never mentioned any.

Second, I did provide evidence, but it seems you ignored it. I will present my argument here so that you won't:

Definition of possibility: a thing that may happen or be the case

Assign set 'POSSIBLE' the definition of "All things that are within the realm of possibility"
Assign set 'IMPOSSIBLE' the definition of "All things that are not contained within set 'POSSIBLE'" (All things that are not possible)
It can be concluded that:
1) All things fit within one of these sets
2) By nature of these two sets being binary opposites, they are mutually exclusive

some more definitions:
Existence: The fact or state of having objective reality.
Reality: everything that is or has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible
Supernatural: that which is not natural
Natural: that which is of the physical (observable) world

It can then be concluded that the supernatural has not been prohibited from existing by the definitions of existence, reality, or supernatural. It is not impossible for the supernatural to exist.

If it is not impossible for the supernatural to exist, then by the law of excluded middle it can be concluded that it is possible for the supernatural to exist.

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to post 14 by JoeyKnothead]

What about just the empty space? If nothing else can we say the empty space was always there?

[JohnA]

[no comment on the cube video.....but you still hold that Einstein was right saying everything is deterministic when Bohr showed him wrong; some things are probabilistic].

I made no comment on the cube video because I did not watch it, I had no need to. As i mentioned before, I think we are talking about two different kinds of determinism, which is why I asked you to define yours.
Regardless, I don't know how we got on this topic as it has nothing to do with our original conversation about the supernatural.

What evidence have you provided for your claim that it is possible for the supernatural to exist, that it is possible for some or more gods to exist?
Please enlighten me with this evidence.
I can not debate with someone that can not show me the evidence that it is possible for soem god or the supernatural to exist.
Am especially interested in how you know that the supernatural is not X or Y, but part of or is Z (reality).
Please enlighten me.

First, quit confusing yourself and throwing gods into this. I never mentioned any.

Second, I did provide evidence, but it seems you ignored it. I will present my argument here so that you won't:

Definition of possibility: a thing that may happen or be the case

Assign set 'POSSIBLE' the definition of "All things that are within the realm of possibility"
Assign set 'IMPOSSIBLE' the definition of "All things that are not contained within set 'POSSIBLE'" (All things that are not possible)
It can be concluded that:
1) All things fit within one of these sets
2) By nature of these two sets being binary opposites, they are mutually exclusive

some more definitions:
Existence: The fact or state of having objective reality.
Reality: everything that is or has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible
Supernatural: that which is not natural
Natural: that which is of the physical (observable) world

It can then be concluded that the supernatural has not been prohibited from existing by the definitions of existence, reality, or supernatural. It is not impossible for the supernatural to exist.

If it is not impossible for the supernatural to exist, then by the law of excluded middle it can be concluded that it is possible for the supernatural to exist.

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.