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 119 by JohnA]

And you have not proven me wrong.

"I am not saying it is impossible that you can do this, I am saying it is not possible."
How does that make any sense whatsoever?
impossible = not possible

I do not have to prove you wrong as you have the burden of proof (BoP) to make a case that it is possible for the supernatural/god/gods to exist. Seems to me you are unclear about the BoP.

I do not have to prove that it is not possible for the supernatural/god/gods to exist when I am saying it is not impossible. All I have to do is show where your logic fails when you try to claim it is possible for these things to exist. I do not have to show it is not possible, you do that yourself when you fail at your BoP.

If you watch the cube video this would be more clear for you.

You must be new at debate on these topics.

[your presupposition that "Anything that is not impossible, is possible." is wrong,
your lack of understanding the BoP is wrong,
your logic fails every time]

Let me make this harder for you:

How can something (a god, or whateva) exist outside nothing before it created everything?
You arguing that the supernatural = nothing. And I am saying that is not impossible, and you are saying it is possible, yet your logical fails and you can not see it.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 121 by JohnA]

The burden of proof would be on me if i were trying to prove it true.

Merely saying it is possible shifts the burden of proof onto the person that is trying to claim it is impossible.

Your logic fails by claiming that there is a third option between impossible and possible. There isn't. Things are either possible or impossible. I have already given evidence of this through a logical proof.

I never argued that the supernatural = nothing.

(I will admit that I am stumbling my way through this particular argument though. I have never attempted to debate this topic before)

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 121 by JohnA]

The burden of proof would be on me if i were trying to prove it true.

Merely saying it is possible shifts the burden of proof onto the person that is trying to claim it is impossible.

Your logic fails by claiming that there is a third option between impossible and possible. There isn't. Things are either possible or impossible. I have already given evidence of this through a logical proof.

I never argued that the supernatural = nothing.

Can you present how it is possible for a god/gods/supernatural to exist?

Please do, I have asked you multiple times and every time you fail.

Please present you case following this:
1) Logic
2) Argument
3) Evidence.

You will fail at 1), but I want to see you try.

Thank you.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 123 by JohnA]

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.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 123 by JohnA]

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.

Your set example is fallacious; a logical fallacy. You start of with only two in the set to prove there is only two. That is circular, begging the question.

I have now twice showed you your fallacy already, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

I agree, but that does not make it possible.



Furthermore, You are stating that the supernatural is not natural, yet it is reality. You are making a positive claim it is (reality), trying to define the supernatural into existence. That is a logical contradiction; circular, begging the question, presupposition.
Goat has also showed you this twice already, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that.

You are still failing at point 1) the logic.

Want another go?

[nayrbsnilloc]

Your set example is fallacious; a logical fallacy. You start of with only two in the set to prove there is only two. That is circular, begging the question.

I have now twice showed you your fallacy already, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

I agree, but that does not make it possible.

Furthermore, You are stating that the supernatural is not natural, yet it is reality. You are making a positive claim it is (reality), trying to define the supernatural into existence. That is a logical contradiction; circular, begging the question, presupposition.
Goat has also showed you this twice already, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that.

You are still failing at point 1) the logic.

Want another go?

Incorrect. In my set example i start with nothing. Then I define possible. Then I define impossible. With all things accounted for, it is concluded that there are no other sets.

what you have inferred from the definitions of supernatural and reality is incorrect.
I defined reality as "all that is or has been, regardless of whether it is observable or comprehensible"
This means that it does not only include things that are natural (things that are observable or comprehensible)
This means that the supernatural (that which is not natural) is not prohibited from being a part of reality.
I have not PROVEN it to be a part of reality (thus proving it to exist), but I have shown that it is not impossible to be a part of reality.
That is the purpose of the "sets" proof, to show that that which is not impossible is possible.

[JohnA]

Your set example is fallacious; a logical fallacy. You start of with only two in the set to prove there is only two. That is circular, begging the question.

I have now twice showed you your fallacy already, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

I agree, but that does not make it possible.

Furthermore, You are stating that the supernatural is not natural, yet it is reality. You are making a positive claim it is (reality), trying to define the supernatural into existence. That is a logical contradiction; circular, begging the question, presupposition.
Goat has also showed you this twice already, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that.

You are still failing at point 1) the logic.

Want another go?

Incorrect. In my set example i start with nothing. Then I define possible. Then I define impossible. With all things accounted for, it is concluded that there are no other sets.

what you have inferred from the definitions of supernatural and reality is incorrect.
I defined reality as "all that is or has been, regardless of whether it is observable or comprehensible"
This means that it does not only include things that are natural (things that are observable or comprehensible)
This means that the supernatural (that which is not natural) is not prohibited from being a part of reality.
I have not PROVEN it to be a part of reality (thus proving it to exist), but I have shown that it is not impossible to be a part of reality.
That is the purpose of the "sets" proof, to show that that which is not impossible is possible.

But you have not proven it is possible to exist. All you did was define the possibility of supernatural existence into existence, by assigning it part of reality.

Your set example:

You conclude: 1) All things fit within one of these sets
WHY? How did you get to that? Why only two sets?
Your are being circular as you are assigning impossible = not possible right here:
Assign set 'IMPOSSIBLE' the definition of "All things that are not contained within set 'POSSIBLE'" [ my insert = ] (All things that are not possible)

If you want to make an argument you need to have at least 2 premises followed by a non-sequitur conclusion. You need to show that your premises are true using sound logic or evidence. You have not done this, you have not even presented an argument for your claim of logical incoherency is coherent.

In-contrast, I have offered you light, cube (vid), earth/sun e.g., probability theory, etc. that shows your begging the question set example for this "Anything that is not impossible, is possible." is wrong. And I did not even have to do that.

You are stuck at point 1) the logic.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 127 by JohnA]

Impossible is defined by being all things that are not "possible"! The prefix im- means "not", denoting that the word means the opposite of "possible".
My proof was not to supply the definitions for these words, but to simply show that all things are contained within the two sets, meaning that there is no other option between possible and impossible.

First premise: Definition of possible
Second Premise: Definition of impossible
Conclusion: All things are found within one of these two
(i don't believe you meant non sequitur, as a non sequitur by definition is a conclusion that does not follow its premises)

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 127 by JohnA]

Impossible is defined by being all things that are not "possible"! The prefix im- means "not", denoting that the word means the opposite of "possible".
My proof was not to supply the definitions for these words, but to simply show that all things are contained within the two sets, meaning that there is no other option between possible and impossible.

First premise: Definition of possible
Second Premise: Definition of impossible
Conclusion: All things are found within one of these two
(i don't believe you meant non sequitur, as a non sequitur by definition is a conclusion that does not follow its premises)

So, you are defining you prove into existence.

Yes, sorry, I meant non non-sequitur. And that is where you failing, your conclusion is a non-sequitur., besides the two premises being offered as 2 when they could and should be one, or you need a 3rd premise.

The point is, not all things are binary (true false dichotomies) as science has shown us conclusively.
Sure some things are, but you have to look at the nature of the claim as well.

Admit defeat?

[nayrbsnilloc]

[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.