Definitions
brunumb wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:34 pmHow is energy a
property of matter? Light energy exists independent of matter. Is light a property of matter?
I appear to be incorrectly using physical and material as syonyms. My thought was that since energy is transferred between objects, that it is a property matter has but I can see that this is wrong. Thank you for showing me that.
It still begs the question to define physical as "anything that exists in any form," with the antonym being "imaginary". I think it still works that physical things are those perceived through the senses. Perhaps it can be improved but it won't be improved by begging the question in favor of naturalism. Non-physical would still be something like: "relating to things not perceived through the senses" and whether such things exist or not is still left open.
The good of arguments
Tcg wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 10:43 pmThe question remains, why would God need even one argument to prove his existence?
Reality (including God, if God exists) needs no argument to prove its existence for it to exist. All human beliefs about reality (including God, if God exists) can have arguments made concerning it. Scientific beliefs have arguments behind them being true. Arguments from God should be and are no different. It is our human nature that calls for arguments for all of our beliefs.
Tcg wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 10:43 pmHas God been proved? As we see whenever arguments for the existence of God are discussed, these arguments convince those who already believed in God prior to encountering them. Does this prove God existence? Perhaps for those who needed no argumentation for his existence to start with.
It's not much of a feat though. Convincing those who already believe in God that he exists. It's about as difficult as convincing flat-earthers that the earth is flat.
Some people have been converted by arguments. But not even that proves God's existence. The reasonableness of an argument is not measured through people being persuaded by it or not because reason alone is not why people hold the beliefs they do.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Does anyone have any more to say concerning what I left the discussion off with? (1) I'm clearly not shifting the burden, (2) metaphysical intuition can carry some weight but I appealed to scientific confirmation on top of that, (3) indeterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics, assuming they are true, do not contradict premise 1.