"Bringing Atheists to God"

[POI]

In a recent exchange, the following quote was made, at the very bottom (viewtopic.php?t=39637&start=410):

"Someone that recently read my argument for God, emailed me and thanked me for bringing him to God."

For Debate:

What is this argument for God, and why is it so convincing?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #1]
Something always exists. What can we figure out must be true of this eternal thing?

It must be uncaused.

Why can't this quality apply to the second explanation: i.e. something came uncaused from nothing?

The argument 'from first cause' is not new. Neither are objections to it.

It is not an argument from first cause.

It would be true if you can accept spontaneous existence. It would be without a cause or explanation.

It certainly looks like an argument from First cause to me. and nobody says that such an argument doesn't have legs, but it fails on two levels; nobody really knows and what they call 'limited human perceptions' (leading to understandable assumptions that could be wrong) merely puts forward an argument for a First Cause that had to have volition and no origin of its' own, which has its' own logical problems.

The second fail is of course 'Which god?'.

Oh and apologies for the duplicate post above. I suspect that happens if I make a correction when submitting.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #1]
Something always exists. What can we figure out must be true of this eternal thing?

It must be uncaused.

Why can't this quality apply to the second explanation: i.e. something came uncaused from nothing?

The argument 'from first cause' is not new. Neither are objections to it.

It is not an argument from first cause.

It would be true if you can accept spontaneous existence. It would be without a cause or explanation.

It certainly looks like an argument from First cause to me. and nobody says that such an argument doesn't have legs, but it fails on two levels; nobody really knows and what they call 'limited human perceptions' (leading to understandable assumptions that could be wrong) merely puts forward an argument for a First Cause that had to have volition and no origin of its' own, which has its' own logical problems.

The second fail is of course 'Which god?'.

Oh and apologies for the duplicate post above. I suspect that happens if I make a correction when submitting.

There would be no which God. This argument only shows what the nature of the eternal ought to be. We would have to decide for ourselves if this eternal ever gave humans revelations or started a church or religion.

But, I want to take the time to demonstrate why this is not an argument from first cause. Arguments from first cause actually argue from a first cause. It is one of their premises in the argument, that a first cause happened. They spend the time defending that premises like William Craig's Kalam argument. He spends a lot of time writing about why our universe has a beginning.

I don't need to do that. I am arguing for what is more likely, something eternal or spontaneous existence. If my argument is persuasive to you, then you will reject the idea of spontaneous existence and accept the only alternative, that something always exists.

The second stage of the argument is to see what we can logically deduce or infer about the eternal. Now, if you already agreed with the first stage of the argument, then you do not believe things spontaneously come to exist, yet there are things that clearly come to exist, like humans, trees, planets, etc.

So if things do not spontaneously come to exist, then they must be caused to exist in some way. There is only one option left, that eternal thing must be the cause, and it must be uncaused.

Because otherwise, you would say, there is this eternal thing, yet it is not the cause of things coming into existence, which means there is an eternal thing and other things come to be spontaneously, but if the first stage of the argument is convincing enough then you reject things coming to be spontaneously, which leaves us with they ought to be caused to be. This doesn't mean they must be directly caused to be by the eternal. For example, I was caused to be by my parents. But in the very least, the most fundamental things that come to be, could not come to be spontaneous and thus must be caused by something and the only thing left is the eternal.

There are other things we can come to understand about the eternal, which my argument goes into.

But notice, I do not rely on the universe itself being caused like Kalam. I do not rely on anything being caused. It just happens that trees come to exist and are not eternal.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #7]

What have we figured out about the eternal? He is self-existent, unchanging, uncaused, cause of all things, all-knowing, self-aware, something like intelligent, and something like conscious, all-powerful, and omnipresent.

I think that is enough to establish him as God. I have deduced so much more about God in this same way, but if I keep going this will turn into a book, and I doubt you want to read a book right now.

Who is this God?

What you describe re the God, cannot - in all honesty, be the God of the Bible.

So who is the God of the Bible in relation to this God you have described?

It is the God that Catholics believe in, that Jews believe in, that Muslims believe in, and many others believe in. I am not trying to argue that God set up a religion.

[William]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #7]

What have we figured out about the eternal? He is self-existent, unchanging, uncaused, cause of all things, all-knowing, self-aware, something like intelligent, and something like conscious, all-powerful, and omnipresent.

I think that is enough to establish him as God. I have deduced so much more about God in this same way, but if I keep going this will turn into a book, and I doubt you want to read a book right now.

Who is this God?

What you describe re the God, cannot - in all honesty, be the God of the Bible.

So who is the God of the Bible in relation to this God you have described?

It is the God that Catholics believe in, that Jews believe in, that Muslims believe in, and many others believe in. I am not trying to argue that God set up a religion.

Can you explain why Catholicism, Juadism and Islam are not religions?
Can you explain why the Bible is not a religious book?

In the post you made prior to this, you wrote;

So far, we have the eternal is self-existent, unchanging, uncaused, the cause of all things, and all-knowing. Is it just me or is this starting to sound like God? I think I will just call it God from here on.

Why are you using a religious term for this "eternal thing" you write about? Why are you referring to it in the masculine [he/him] and in relation to the atheist you claim you helped convert, did you convert him to religion or did he just choose Christianity, after being convinced there was an "eternal thing"?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to William in post #14]

Can you explain why Catholicism, Juadism and Islam are not religions?
Can you explain why the Bible is not a religious book?

In the post you made prior to this, you wrote;

I did not say they were not religions. I said I am not arguing for any religious idea of God. I am arguing for God in general.

Why are you using a religious term for this "eternal thing" you write about? Why are you referring to it in the masculine [he/him] and in relation to the atheist you claim you helped convert, did you convert him to religion or did he just choose Christianity, after being convinced there was an "eternal thing"?

I use he and him as a respect to God rather than calling god IT. I prefer him over her for many reasons that I do not wish to type about right now.

I only convinced him that God in general exists.

[Diagoras]

I am arguing for what is more likely, something eternal or spontaneous existence. If my argument is persuasive to you, then you will reject the idea of spontaneous existence and accept the only alternative, that something always exists.

There’s one piece of evidence (the Big Bang) which supports ‘spontaneous existence’, yet no evidence of any eternal ‘something’.

To me, that tips the scale toward spontaneous existence.

While the how is currently unanswered, it shouldn’t be therefore dismissed as an explanation (for the universe).

[AquinasForGod]

I am arguing for what is more likely, something eternal or spontaneous existence. If my argument is persuasive to you, then you will reject the idea of spontaneous existence and accept the only alternative, that something always exists.

There’s one piece of evidence (the Big Bang) which supports ‘spontaneous existence’, yet no evidence of any eternal ‘something’.

To me, that tips the scale toward spontaneous existence.

While the how is currently unanswered, it shouldn’t be therefore dismissed as an explanation (for the universe).

The big bang is how people like William Craig develop the Kalam argument. Besides, there is no evidence of a singularity anyway. It conflicts with QM, which is why many physicists are redefining singularities.

The problem is, how could a singularity have space that is smaller than the waveforms? Waveforms cannot extend beyond space itself if there is nothing else that is.

And finally, the big bang doesn't teach there was once nothingness. It teaches there was a singularity, which is an infinite density of energy, thus it is something. That something existed without time, and thus is eternal.

[Diagoras]

The big bang is how people like William Craig develop the Kalam argument. Besides, there is no evidence of a singularity anyway. It conflicts with QM, which is why many physicists are redefining singularities.

The problem is, how could a singularity have space that is smaller than the waveforms? Waveforms cannot extend beyond space itself if there is nothing else that is.

I didn’t study quantum mechanics beyond the first year of a chemistry degree, and that was a while ago. I’m certainly not in a position to confidently address the kinds of thorny mathematical and cosmological problems associated with the beginning of the universe.

However, science thrives on addressing problems like this. What to you today may seem illogical, impossible or outlandish could turn out to be easily explained by the theories of the future. Consider general relativity, wave-particle duality and Hawking radiation for example. Would they have been accepted two hundred years ago? Should we rule out the possibility of a coherent theory of quantum gravity ever being described to solve the problems you offer up? I don’t think so.

And finally, the big bang doesn't teach there was once nothingness. It teaches there was a singularity, which is an infinite density of energy, thus it is something. That something existed without time, and thus is eternal.

If we’re agreeing that at t=0, a singularity of zero size and infinite energy density existed, that’s as far as we can go. The idea of ‘going back further’ is equivalent of walking North from the North Pole: essentially meaningless.

Something existing for ‘all of time’ (i.e. eternal) would still have to ‘start’ at that point. If there’s no time for it to exist in, then it can’t exist.

Here’s something to think about:

…a feature of the underlying laws of physics can allow quantum processes to drive the universe away from a featureless state. Physicist Frank Wilczek was one of the first theorists to explore these possibilities <and said>:

“One can speculate that the universe began in the most symmetrical state possible and that in such a state no matter existed; the universe was a vacuum. A second state existed, and in it matter existed. The second state had slightly less symmetry, but was also lower in energy. Eventually a patch of less symmetrical phase appeared and grew rapidly. The energy released by the transition found form in the creation of particles. This event might be identified with the big bang . . . The answer to the ancient question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" would be that "nothing" is unstable.”

From A Universe From Nothing - L Krauss

Indeed, in the afterword, it’s remarked about the ‘nothing’ at the beginning of the universe, “something was almost bound to spring into existence from it”.

Anyone examining current physics and allowing that future discoveries will expand our knowledge further should take away the idea at least that ‘something from nothing’ isn’t nearly as absurd or illogical as you make out. Meaning, no need to add a god as explanation - Occam’s Razor is looking more like a Sword of Damocles for Him in that regard.

[William]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #15]

I did not say they were not religions. I said I am not arguing for any religious idea of God. I am arguing for God in general.

Well let us examine your documented evidence.

From post #7

AquinasForGod:

I think you might find this argument convincing, so I am taking the time to write it....

...The first explanation: something always exists...

...The first just means that something has always existed, whatever that something might be. There never was nothingness. There is something that is always in existence.

You might wonder, okay? So, what.

William: I have made that argument myself hereabouts and concur with the logic - simply put- that something cannot come from nothing and since the universe exists as something, but had a beginning, then it must have been created.

AquinasForGod: Something always exists. What can we figure out must be true of this eternal thing?

It must be uncaused. After all, it never can come to exist because it always exists. That follows from it always being.

It is also uncaused because it cannot come to be in some new way other than the way it always is. Whatever is always existing must be existing in the way it always exists.

So whatever the eternal is, it must always be that, thus it is uncaused.

It must also be self-existent, meaning that it has existential inertia and relies on nothing for its existence. It is not dependent.

William: I would argue that the "eternal thing" could - at that rate - be referred to as Primary Source [First Source] - something along those lines...

AquinasForGod: Oh, but wait you might say. What if it is eternal like Aristotle’s idea of the universe but that it eternally depends on something else for its existence. Then that something else is the eternal thing that has existential inertia.

That is the eternal thing I am concerned with here. Besides, I have no reason to assume a second eternal thing or this eternal dependency. It would still be true that the more eternal thing without dependency is uncaused and self-existent.

These are things we can deduce must be true of that which is eternal. It is uncaused and self-existent.

I can agree with this and will be pointing it out further on...

AquinasForGod: That would mean the eternal has causal powers, which means we have no reason to be skeptical of cause and effect the way Hume was. Hume would have to appeal to something like spontaneous existence, but we already ruled that out. We found common ground.
So, we have deduced that the eternal must be self-existent, unchanged, uncaused, and the cause of all non-eternal things, such as particles. Many would-be content to stop here. We have thus concluded there is an uncaused cause.

William: Agreed.

AquinasForGod: That is all that is necessary to conclude that God exists.

William: Wait...what?
This is where your conflation begins - you mentioned "The eternal thing" twice, and then - once you established the logic of First Source existing, you then refer to it as "God".
This is what I refer to as "Religion Dressing The Ghost"


William: What I mean by that is this;

Ghost Apparel
False imagery re the religious theists.

False imagery amounts to willful ignorance. However, because the imagery is based in the genuine, in that The Ghost is acknowledged - dressing The Ghost through the use of imagery is an attempt to make The Ghost be seen.

The Ghost - in essence is The Mind...Consciousness, and that The Ghost breathed itself into form, is also a form of 'dressing up' and a false image for that - but to be fair re The Genesis story, the intent wasn't false.{SOURCE}

William: More on that later...depending on how you respond to this post.

So you then briefly revert back to referring to "The Eternal as "it"

AquinasForGod: But we can take this further. We can deduce more about the eternal. I want to understand it as much as possible.

William: then you continue...

AquinasForGod: Because there is cause and effect, we can develop a principle of causality. That opens up the question of what is change exactly? That opens up arguments from Aristotle and Aquinas that change is a potential being actualized. It lends credibility to those arguments.

William: Agreed

AquinasForGod: Anyway, that is outside the scope of this article. What is important here is we do need some principle of causality if something eternal is the best explanation, which it is.
And once we have a principle of causality, it follows there must be a principle of proportionate causality. What is that you ask? It means that whatever is in the effect must in some way be in the cause. The cause cannot give that which it doesn’t have to give.

William: You are still referring to The First Source as "it" as you continue to present your argument...

You then move forward with your argument re quantum particles...still referring to 'the eternal' - still using non-caps when referring to IT as The Eternal...

AquinasForGod: But the eternal cannot have photons to give either, because photons cannot themselves be eternal, so they must come to exist. They cannot come to exist independently, so the eternal must be the cause of their existence. The eternal cannot be photons. It cannot possess photons to give them. If it could just possess photons, they would have to be eternal, but they cannot be.

William: And then comes the shift, by giving The Eternal, the label "God"

AquinasForGod: So, in what way can God have photons to give them existence?

William: The shift is subtle, but shows the astute reader that you think of The Eternal as being "God" and the shift therein has to do - specifically - with Christianity's referring to The Creator idea as "God". - "God" is specifically Christianity's name for The Creator.

Essentially you are building into your argument, a place for Christianity's Dressing of The Ghost.
This is an important observation, as I will explain...
Your very next line continues to build on the Dressing by your dropping of the word 'it' and replacing said word with "he" further building on definitions specific to the Abrahamic religions...

AquinasForGod: Could he possess them virtually? Not in a bank or anything like that. But he could know photons, of their properties that make them different from himself.

William: However, nothing of your essay prior to this occurring, has established that The Eternal Thing [First Source] can rightfully be identified as the Christian idea, which Christians refer to as "God" - clearly indicating that your subtle insertion has no actual merit for being inserted at this point.
You continue with the use of the word 'he'...

AquinasForGod: This just means, he causes them to be an actual thing, rather than just being a potential thing. They go from being potential to actually exist as things.

William: before flipping back to referring to this eternal thing as "the eternal"

AquinasForGod: How did they potentially exist, though? Where did they potentially exist? It must be that they virtually existed in the eternal. This is because the eternal is the cause and the photon is the effect.

William: This can have the effect on the unwary reader/listener that it has somehow been established that "God" is "The Eternal Thing" when it has - in fact - NOT been established at all that such is the case.
You then proceed with this tactic of pseudo-establishing the unestablished...

AquinasForGod: But what does work, is how I virtually can have $20 in the bank. But because abstracts cannot exist in a bank, and because there is the eternal and nothing else, then the photons must somehow exist in the eternal. They cannot physically exist in God, so they must virtually exist in him.

William: What this does in the mind of the unwary reader/listener is link these two separate ideas as if they are the same thing, when it has not been established as being the case.
From this point on, you continue with this tactic... sewing together two different subjects as if they are to be considered as the one subject...

AquinasForGod: How, though? It must be in the form of knowing. The eternal has the information of what makes a photon exist. The potential photon is then the knowledge of its properties, what makes it different from himself and every other potential thing.

William: Then switching back to 'it';

AquinasForGod: That means the eternal has an understanding of all potential things that exist. But remember that we concluded whatever way the eternal is, it is always that way. If it knows all things that exist, then it always does. It doesn’t change.

And because the eternal cannot change, it cannot come to know more than it always has. Whatever it knows it must always know, so if it were possible for it to increase in knowledge, even if the growth rate is incalculably small, given eternity, be that infinite time or no time, it would be infinitely knowledgeable.

It cannot change, and it cannot grow, thus it must always know everything it knows.

Because it is the ultimate cause of all things existing, and the way in which it can be the cause of all things is by having those things virtually, meaning knowledge of them, then the eternal knows all things that were, are and will be.

William: And then the next sentence, you switch again...this time intermingling the two...as the tactic of pseudo-establishing continues...

AquinasForGod: Also, consider this. He must be the ultimate cause of knowledge itself, but in what way could he have knowledge? It couldn’t have it physically, for physical things come to be. It couldn’t have it virtually either, but why not?

William: At this point I would like to say that it is possible you are not consciously aware of the tactic you are applying, but the evidence is clear that the tactic IS being applied.
In saying this, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are trying to be consciously genuine, while the way the words are coming forth are doing so unconsciously, and can be critiqued by use of critical thinking analysis. I am therefore critiquing the message, not the messenger.
You continue with your essay, referring to The Eternal in the Abrahamic masculine...

AquinasForGod: If he had knowledge in him virtually, he has knowledge of knowledge which is just to say he is knowledgeable. So, it is just to say the eternal is the cause of knowledge because he has knowledge to give, which means he is knowledgeable.

And anyway the eternal is, he is always that way, so he has eternal knowledge. Knowledge without time restrictions.

Because the eternal must have knowledge in some way to be the cause of knowledge, and because he is the cause of all things, he must know all things that were, are and will be.

We might call this all-knowing. I agree with Aquinas that all-knowing means to know all logically possible things. It doesn’t mean to know impossible things.

William: Then you switch once more to 'it'

AquinasForGod: We have established that it must know all things that exist, and because it is always, it must know all things that did exist, do exist, and will exist. In this sense, the eternal is all-knowing.

I do not want to extend beyond what we can deduce must be the case.

William: Then the kicker...having mixed up these different ingredients, you proceed with the coyishly sounding;

AquinasForGod: So far, we have the eternal is self-existent, unchanging, uncaused, the cause of all things, and all-knowing. Is it just me or is this starting to sound like God?

William: I would answer the question, it is just you, and the reason it is "starting to sound like 'God'", is because you have been making it "sound like God" by the way in which you are using your words...
Then you add;

AquinasForGod: I think I will just call it God from here on.

William: At this point I begin to wonder if you should be given the benefit of the doubt, as - clearly - you have been calling 'it' "God" during your mixing process often before this, ...and in doing so, attempting to make it sound like "God" - specifically, your Christian God.

________________________
________________________

My subsequent post in reply to your essay, I ask;

William: Who is this God?

What you describe re the God, cannot - in all honesty, be the God of the Bible.

So who is the God of the Bible in relation to this God you have described?

because I saw - in reading your essay - those things which I show above.

Your reply to my questions was;

AquinasForGod: It is the God that Catholics believe in, that Jews believe in, that Muslims believe in, and many others believe in. I am not trying to argue that God set up a religion.

To which I replied;

William: Can you explain why Catholicism, Juadism and Islam are not religions?
Can you explain why the Bible is not a religious book?

You replied;

AquinasForGod: I did not say they were not religions. I said I am not arguing for any religious idea of God. I am arguing for God in general.

I also pointing out that you were using a religious term [God - specific to Christianity] and asked what the nature of this supposed atheist conversion was.

William: Why are you using a religious term for this "eternal thing" you write about? Why are you referring to it in the masculine [he/him] and in relation to the atheist you claim you helped convert, did you convert him to religion or did he just choose Christianity, after being convinced there was an "eternal thing"?

And you replied;

AquinasForGod: I use he and him as a respect to God rather than calling god IT.

Now the use of the non-capped word 'god' may be a typo on your part, but is still very telling re a Freudian slip. [a verbal or memory mistake linked to the unconscious mind.] and it is easy enough for the critical thinking reader to see that you are not only taking The Eternal Thing and attempting to replace IT with your own God, but are also delegate The Eternal Thing as merely a 'god' in relation to your own [Christianity's] idea of God, NOT out of respect for The Eternal Thing [The First Source] but rather - out of respect for your own idea of God which you superimposed upon The First Source, AS IF it has somehow been established by you, that the God you believe in, is The First Source, which - quite clearly - you have NOT established at all.

You then answer my question re the atheist;

AquinasForGod: I only convinced him that God in general exists.

Which - given the evidence of your essay I have critiqued above, is clearly NOT the case as you most obviously had an influence on the personalities mind in the way that you presented your argument, in that - rather than the individual being brought to the realization of The First Source,
he/she was actually brought to a false image which you dressed The First Source up in, the result being, the person converted to Christianity.

Q: Can we readers assume that the Christianity the individual converted to just happened to be your own, that being Catholicism?

In closing, I would appreciate it if you considered my critique as valid enough to warrant an honest reply from you, acknowledging the fact that you - either purposefully or unconsciously swayed the converts decision through the process I have pointed out, and that you haven't as yet provided any evidence supporting that the Christian idea of God, is the same idea as First Source.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to William in post #19]

Thanks for the reply. The atheists that converted did not become Catholic. He is a protestant right now.

God is not a Christian term. It is used by English speakers around the word for God in general and for special ideas of God, from Allah to Yhwh, to new age God.

The reason I said it is starting to sound like God is because it is. God is understood by most to be self-existent, unchanging, uncaused, the cause of all things, and all-knowing. That is enough by most people's standards to say yes, we are talking about God. If you wish to call it the source or something like that because you are adverse to the word God, that is fine. I used to feel the same way, but then I realized I was being foolish and owned the word God.

Here is a question I thought of.

God is the good and so ought to do the good. It is good that we relate to God, yet we cannot relate to God because God is infinitely beyond us, transcendent, unlike anything. But it is good that God makes himself relatable, and there is one story on earth with the most evidence going for it that God did just that. Incarnation as Jesus. If God does an act, he does it from eternity, so this act would be eternally God. All things would then be able to relate to God.

By God incarnating it raises all of the material world up to the divine, so we are partakers in the divine.