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.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 129 by JohnA]

You are correct in saying that these two definitions don't need to be kept separate, the definitions of possible and impossible should be one premise. However, you have been very difficult. It should also be self-evident that they encompass all things.

I posit that they are a dichotomy. (a "true false dichotomy" is not a thing)
A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into two groups that are jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive. This seems to be the case for "possible" and "impossible".

You keep saying that they are a false dichotomy. How?
For it to be a false dichotomy you have to prove one of two things:
1) They are not mutually exclusive (there is an overlap between possible and impossible)
OR
2) They are not jointly exhaustive (the two groups exclude some part of the whole)

The reason you have not given an example is that there is not one. Possible and impossible are a true dichotomy.

You are trying to shift the burden here. It will not work.

I have said already that you can have binary for some things to be possible/impossible, but that does not apply as a general logical rule at all. If you take time to look at the cube vid it would be clear for you. But you refuse to do that, and every post you offer is getting more desperate by your deception.

Remember what you want to convince me of:

It is possible for the supernatural/god/gods to exist.

And the irony is that you can not, which just shows that it is impossible, which you are still holding as possible. You are arguing in circles. The more you deny it the more you are defeating your own argument.

You are still failing at the logic. All you are offering now is the dictionary of impossible and possible and somehow you think that is living up to your burden. No it is not, since you are completely forgetting the nature of your claim.

You may as well say:
A definition of god, gods, and the supernatural are found in dictionaries, therefore it is possible that they can exist.

That is not logical at all.

This reminds me of John Lennox. He is claiming he has 'faith based evidence'. Besides the fact that evidence and faith are clearly mutually exclusive by definition he holds it is try and offers that as evidence for his god. I can not find 'faith based evidence' in any dictionary. Where he fails is that he needs to logically show that it is possible to have "faith based evidence" regardless of his claim for his god's existence.

That is your problem as well.
You can not convince me of the concept of supernatural.
And we have not even address the concept of god / gods.


And I am saying that it is not impossible that you are right. But to date you have not even been able to use logic that it is even remotely possible for the supernatural to exist.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to JohnA]

This is where you are wrong. You say that I cannot shift the burden of proof, but that's kind of how it works.
And I quote:
If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the agnostic position that "I don't believe that X is true" is different to the explicit denial "I believe that X is false".

[JohnA]

[Replying to JohnA]

This is where you are wrong. You say that I cannot shift the burden of proof, but that's kind of how it works.
And I quote:
If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the agnostic position that "I don't believe that X is true" is different to the explicit denial "I believe that X is false".

Yet you still have not lived up to your burden to convince me that it is possible for a god/gods/supernatural to exist.

I never said you can not "prove" the above. Remember I am asking you to and NOW (via you trying to shift the burden) you just want me to show now that it is not possible, when I say it is impossible. Remember, I am not the one saying not possible = impossible for your claim, you are saying it. And we can play this as well, since you have not given me any sound logic either for:
"not possible = impossible" or
it is possible for a god/gods/supernatural to exist.

So, yes, even if you do shift the burden, you yourself have shown "my burden" true as you fail at yours, by yourself (All I do is point out where your logic fails).

Concede?

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to JohnA]

no because impossible is DEFINED as "not possible". you can't just decide that's not what the word means anymore.

Concede?

[JohnA]

[Replying to JohnA]

no because impossible is DEFINED as "not possible". you can't just decide that's not what the word means anymore.

Concede?

But you have not convinced me of such.
That is like saying god exist because it is in the dictionaries.
You are completely ignoring the nature of your claim.

Besides, which dictionary are you using that says impossible is defined as "not possible".

This one does not agree with your claim:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/impossible
1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.
2. Not capable of being accomplished: an impossible goal.
3. Unacceptable; intolerable: impossible behavior.
4. Extremely difficult to deal with or tolerate: an impossible child; an impossible situation.

I think you are finding yourself in an impossible position.

Did you watch the cube video?

I think you have already conceded indirectly via your content of your posts!

[nayrbsnilloc]

This one does not agree with your claim:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/impossible
1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.
2. Not capable of being accomplished: an impossible goal.
3. Unacceptable; intolerable: impossible behavior.
4. Extremely difficult to deal with or tolerate: an impossible child; an impossible situation.

Drawn from the site you used:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/possible
pos·si·ble (ps-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
2. Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom.
3. Capable of favorable development; potential: a possible site for the new capital.
4. Of uncertain likelihood.

Possible = capable of having existence or occurring.
Impossible = incapable of having existence or occurring = not capable of having existence or occurring

Thus impossible = not [possible]
this simple fact that you are trying to fight this is astounding

[JohnA]

This one does not agree with your claim:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/impossible
1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.
2. Not capable of being accomplished: an impossible goal.
3. Unacceptable; intolerable: impossible behavior.
4. Extremely difficult to deal with or tolerate: an impossible child; an impossible situation.

Drawn from the site you used:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/possible
pos·si·ble (ps-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
2. Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom.
3. Capable of favorable development; potential: a possible site for the new capital.
4. Of uncertain likelihood.

Possible = capable of having existence or occurring.
Impossible = incapable of having existence or occurring = not capable of having existence or occurring

Thus impossible = not [possible]
this simple fact that you are trying to fight this is astounding

Only if you assign not capably = incapable.
You fail again, since you are still circular, begging the question: define the definition that you want you want to prove.

Why do you refuse to watch the cube video?

Logic alone can refute impossible beings
Logic can't show that possible beings actually exist without evidence (justification, whateva).

You are saying it is possible for god/gods/supernatural to exist. Yet you can not convince me of it, your logic fails every-time.

And the irony is that even if we do assign "impossible = not possible", you still have not given any logic that suggests that we need to even remotely consider that it is possible for a god/gods/supernatural to exist. Ironic don't you think?

Now, if you want a practical example of dice to show that being impossible does not imply it is is possible, see this:


To say anything is possible is saying you can roll a negative 4 using a six sided die. You can not, since there is no negative 4 on any side of a 6 sided die.
However, it is not impossible to roll a 7 if you do not know how many dices are being rolled and if you adding up (6 from die one, and 1 from die two). But you can not say it is possible to roll a 7 if you do not know how many dice you have and what the math is to get to 7.




And honestly, this is my last response to you on this. I have written you on it, I have now given you videos where your SEE it for yourself. if you still reject it then you clearly reject logic (which I think is at the heart of the issue here).

[nayrbsnilloc]

And honestly, this is my last response to you on this. I have written you on it, I have now given you videos where your SEE it for yourself. if you still reject it then you clearly reject logic (which I think is at the heart of the issue here).

I agree, rejecting logic is definitely at the heart of this issue. You are as equally blinded by your belief that only the natural and physical world is possible as those who firmly assert the existence of the supernatural.

Only if you assign not capably = incapable.
You fail again, since you are still circular, begging the question: define the definition that you want you want to prove.

Why would that not be the case? not capable and incapable mean the exact same thing.

Logic alone can refute impossible beings
Logic can't show that possible beings actually exist without evidence (justification, whateva).

This is true. Luckily for me I am not asserting actual existence, merely stating the possibility of it.

You are saying it is possible for god/gods/supernatural to exist. Yet you can not convince me of it, your logic fails every-time.
And the irony is that even if we do assign "impossible = not possible", you still have not given any logic that suggests that we need to even remotely consider that it is possible for a god/gods/supernatural to exist. Ironic don't you think?

The fact that you are unconvinced says more about your unwillingness to accept logical arguments that oppose your beliefs more than anything.

Now, if you want a practical example of dice to show that being impossible does not imply it is is possible, see this:

To say anything is possible is saying you can roll a negative 4 using a six sided die. You can not, since there is no negative 4 on any side of a 6 sided die.

This is a faulty analogy. You are using a very clearly defined system where all outcomes are definitively known (a 6-sided die) and comparing it to a very large system that is not entirely known and understood (the universe)

However, it is not impossible to roll a 7 if you do not know how many dices are being rolled and if you adding up (6 from die one, and 1 from die two). But you can not say it is possible to roll a 7 if you do not know how many dice you have and what the math is to get to 7.

There are several things wrong with the proof given for this and the video in general. Don't worry, I won't hold you in suspense, I'll tell you what they are.

1) Talk about a biased source. To see exactly who this was, I went to their website. To my lack of surprise, "the atheist experience" is not exactly brimming with credentials. A public access television show produced by the Atheist Community of Austin and whose hosts (at least in this video) have no academic credentials to speak of. This in and of itself does not refute the evidence, but does question its credibility.

2) Lack of definitive and complete information is not a problem for probability. In fact, probability is the estimation of the likelihood of outcomes without definitive evidence of how an event will occur. If we had completely definitive evidence of how an event would occur, the probability of the outcome would be 1 (100%)

Let me show you how this works in your dice scenario:
Given a single six-sided die, six outcomes are possible. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Given three six-sided dice, 16 outcomes are possible. 3-18
This would make the hypothetical "18" possible when given three six-sided dice

Now, let us put an unspecified number of dice within a bag like they did in the video. When asked, is it possible to roll an 18 with the dice inside the bag, they think the answer is that it is not impossible, but it is also not possible. Not only is that logically incoherent (because of the binary nature of possible and impossible, even though you keep denying it), but it is also wrong.
By having an unspecified number of dice, it is simply adding another variable to the equation. Additional variables result in additional probable outcomes. The total "possible" outcomes would now include all outcomes that result from the possible dice quantities. Because both the size of the bag and the number of dice that can fit in the bag are unspecified, the number of dice and possible outcomes would theoretically be infinite. However, for the sake of simplicity, let us say the number of dice within the bag is between 1 and 3.
This would result in the possible outcomes of the roll of the dice from inside the bag being all outcomes that are possible from the roll of 1-3 dice. That would be:
1 die: 1,2,3,4,5,6
2 dice: 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12
3 dice: 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18
If asked whether it is possible to roll an 18 from the dice that are in the bag, then it is concluded that: Yes, it is possible for there to be 3 dice in the bag, and yes it is possible to roll an 18.

You say that your last post was your last. I truly hope that this is true and that you see how I have made logical sense.

All things are possible until proven impossible.
Many things may be ridiculously unlikely or improbable, but still possible.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 138 by nayrbsnilloc]

Sigh.

You did not watch the video, did you? If you did then you clearly did not understand it. I know why: because your reason filter is broken, you are illogical. You will not understand it. It is my fault, the evidence showed you are illogical, but I did not follow the evidence. Am responding as you do need help.

So you say it is possible to roll an 18 without knowing how many dice are in the bag or what math will be used to get to 18. So you saying it is possible to roll an 18 (even if we open the the bag and found it had only 1 die in, meaning 18 was impossible). Jesus.

All things are possible, until proven impossible?

So truck engineers needs to design for all possible failures / accidents, until they get evidence for the ones (failures/accidents) that were not needed? Lol.
A die has negative 4 side, until proven not to. This die has a pink elephant crapping on the number 6, until proven not to. What else does the die have? it has you sitting on it, until proven not to.


So all gods can possibly exist, until proven impossible to exist?

That is faulty reasoning, wishful thinking.
Are you sure you are not a Theist? Based on your logic you are, until proven not to.
A weak attempt at an argument from authority was grounded in obscurantism, of you only knew what that is.
You have no understanding of the burden of proof, you have demonstrated conclusively your are illogical, lost all your credibility. You did this on your own. And you did it very well!

Bye. [ says the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since it exists until shown not to. Can you? No you could not even make a coherent logical claim that your god can possibly exist. How on earth would you prove the FSM does not exist. ]

Oh dear.

[help3434]

[Replying to JohnA]

no because impossible is DEFINED as "not possible". you can't just decide that's not what the word means anymore.

Concede?

But you have not convinced me of such.
That is like saying god exist because it is in the dictionaries.
You are completely ignoring the nature of your claim.

Besides, which dictionary are you using that says impossible is defined as "not possible".

This one does not agree with your claim:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/impossible
1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.
2. Not capable of being accomplished: an impossible goal.
3. Unacceptable; intolerable: impossible behavior.
4. Extremely difficult to deal with or tolerate: an impossible child; an impossible situation.

I think you are finding yourself in an impossible position.

Did you watch the cube video?

I think you have already conceded indirectly via your content of your posts!

From the Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary:
im•pos•si•ble (ɪmˈpɒs ə bəl)

adj.
1. not possible; incapable of being or happening.
2. unable to be performed or effected: an impossible assignment.
3. difficult beyond reason or propriety: an impossible situation.
4. utterly impracticable: an impossible plan.
5. hopelessly unsuitable, undesirable, or objectionable: an impossible person.

Impossible means not possible. This is even simpler than the dictionary definition of atheist.