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.

[Filthy Tugboat]

This being is one singular identifiable being and does not violate the law of identity, without any other attributes to go on, this being does not violate the law of non-contradiction

Can you show that any direct or indirect implications of the existence of such a being that constructed the universe and space/time doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction? So far you have just asserted that it doesn't.

Sure, God is A and is not ~A.

Great, let me now prove the logical possibility of Christian God: Christian God is A and is not ~A

See how you are doing the exact thing you were complaining about, merely asserting that your example complies with the laws of logic?

You asked me to demonstrate that this God concept that I have constructed does not violate the law of non-contradiction so I did it for you. Why are you complaining?

Here are some other laws of logic, please show that the above being and all it's implications comply with all of these laws (also make sure to prove me that there aren't additional laws of logic that we haven't yet discovered that might contradict your above claim). Either this or admit that it is unreasonable demand to ask someone to demonstrate that his claim complies with every law of logic (i.e. is logically possible).

I can see a strawman approaching.

The three laws mentioned are the very fundamentals of logic, from them all other logical forms and laws are derived. Very little can be gained by over analyzing, it's simply not necessary.

Nonsense and a cop-out. Something is logically possible if and only if it doesn't contradict any laws of logic, you haven't demonstrated logical possibility until you have demonstrated compliance with every single law of logic and proven that you are dealing with an exhaustive list. Is this a reasonable demand? I'd say no.

I have demonstrated that to a reasonable extent. You asked me what I would accept as a measure of acceptable demonstration in way of logical possibility. I have presented exactly what you requested. If you aren't happy with it, too bad.

[JohnA]

This being is one singular identifiable being and does not violate the law of identity, without any other attributes to go on, this being does not violate the law of non-contradiction

Can you show that any direct or indirect implications of the existence of such a being that constructed the universe and space/time doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction? So far you have just asserted that it doesn't.

Sure, God is A and is not ~A.

Great, let me now prove the logical possibility of Christian God: Christian God is A and is not ~A

See how you are doing the exact thing you were complaining about, merely asserting that your example complies with the laws of logic?

You asked me to demonstrate that this God concept that I have constructed does not violate the law of non-contradiction so I did it for you. Why are you complaining?

Here are some other laws of logic, please show that the above being and all it's implications comply with all of these laws (also make sure to prove me that there aren't additional laws of logic that we haven't yet discovered that might contradict your above claim). Either this or admit that it is unreasonable demand to ask someone to demonstrate that his claim complies with every law of logic (i.e. is logically possible).

I can see a strawman approaching.

The three laws mentioned are the very fundamentals of logic, from them all other logical forms and laws are derived. Very little can be gained by over analyzing, it's simply not necessary.

Nonsense and a cop-out. Something is logically possible if and only if it doesn't contradict any laws of logic, you haven't demonstrated logical possibility until you have demonstrated compliance with every single law of logic and proven that you are dealing with an exhaustive list. Is this a reasonable demand? I'd say no.

I have demonstrated that to a reasonable extent. You asked me what I would accept as a measure of acceptable demonstration in way of logical possibility. I have presented exactly what you requested. If you aren't happy with it, too bad.

Can you tell us how this is logical:

How can a something (a god) exist inside/outside nothing before it created everything (the universe we know of)?

Take your time.

[instantc]

This being is one singular identifiable being and does not violate the law of identity, without any other attributes to go on, this being does not violate the law of non-contradiction

Can you show that any direct or indirect implications of the existence of such a being that constructed the universe and space/time doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction? So far you have just asserted that it doesn't.

Sure, God is A and is not ~A.

Great, let me now prove the logical possibility of Christian God: Christian God is A and is not ~A

See how you are doing the exact thing you were complaining about, merely asserting that your example complies with the laws of logic?

You asked me to demonstrate that this God concept that I have constructed does not violate the law of non-contradiction so I did it for you. Why are you complaining?

And I used your method to demonstrate that Christian God is logically possible as well. I just don't find the above demonstration anymore useful than simply asserting that it doesn't seem to contradict the laws of logic.

Here are some other laws of logic, please show that the above being and all it's implications comply with all of these laws (also make sure to prove me that there aren't additional laws of logic that we haven't yet discovered that might contradict your above claim). Either this or admit that it is unreasonable demand to ask someone to demonstrate that his claim complies with every law of logic (i.e. is logically possible).

I can see a strawman approaching.

The three laws mentioned are the very fundamentals of logic, from them all other logical forms and laws are derived. Very little can be gained by over analyzing, it's simply not necessary.

Nonsense and a cop-out. Something is logically possible if and only if it doesn't contradict any laws of logic, you haven't demonstrated logical possibility until you have demonstrated compliance with every single law of logic and proven that you are dealing with an exhaustive list. Is this a reasonable demand? I'd say no.

I have demonstrated that to a reasonable extent. You asked me what I would accept as a measure of acceptable demonstration in way of logical possibility. I have presented exactly what you requested. If you aren't happy with it, too bad.

My contention was that logical possibility of a thing cannot be demonstrated, insofar as logical possibility means that something doesn't contradict any laws of logic. Now you are suggesting that it could be demonstrated to a reasonable extent, and you did that by typing down the three fundamental laws of thought and asserted that your concept doesn't seem to contradict them (e.g. "without any other attributes to go on, this being does not violate the law of non-contradiction").

My point is, you complained about people simply asserting logical possibility, but I don't find your attempt at demonstration anymore useful than just that.

"without any other attributes to go on, this being does not violate the law of non-contradiction" is not a demonstration, it's just another way of asserting that the attributes of the being don't violate the law of non-contradiction.

[JohnA]

This being is one singular identifiable being and does not violate the law of identity, without any other attributes to go on, this being does not violate the law of non-contradiction

Can you show that any direct or indirect implications of the existence of such a being that constructed the universe and space/time doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction? So far you have just asserted that it doesn't.

Sure, God is A and is not ~A.

Great, let me now prove the logical possibility of Christian God: Christian God is A and is not ~A

See how you are doing the exact thing you were complaining about, merely asserting that your example complies with the laws of logic?

You asked me to demonstrate that this God concept that I have constructed does not violate the law of non-contradiction so I did it for you. Why are you complaining?

And I used your method to demonstrate that Christian God is logically possible as well. I just don't find the above demonstration anymore useful than simply asserting that it doesn't seem to contradict the laws of logic.

Here are some other laws of logic, please show that the above being and all it's implications comply with all of these laws (also make sure to prove me that there aren't additional laws of logic that we haven't yet discovered that might contradict your above claim). Either this or admit that it is unreasonable demand to ask someone to demonstrate that his claim complies with every law of logic (i.e. is logically possible).

I can see a strawman approaching.

The three laws mentioned are the very fundamentals of logic, from them all other logical forms and laws are derived. Very little can be gained by over analyzing, it's simply not necessary.

Nonsense and a cop-out. Something is logically possible if and only if it doesn't contradict any laws of logic, you haven't demonstrated logical possibility until you have demonstrated compliance with every single law of logic and proven that you are dealing with an exhaustive list. Is this a reasonable demand? I'd say no.

I have demonstrated that to a reasonable extent. You asked me what I would accept as a measure of acceptable demonstration in way of logical possibility. I have presented exactly what you requested. If you aren't happy with it, too bad.

My contention was that logical possibility of a thing cannot be demonstrated, insofar as logical possibility means that something doesn't contradict any laws of logic. Now you are suggesting that it could be demonstrated to a reasonable extent, and you did that by typing down the three fundamental laws of thought and asserted that your concept doesn't seem to contradict them (e.g. "without any other attributes to go on, this being does not violate the law of non-contradiction").

My point is, you complained about people simply asserting logical possibility, but I don't find your attempt at demonstration anymore useful than just that.

"without any other attributes to go on, this being does not violate the law of non-contradiction" is not a demonstration, it's just another way of asserting that the attributes of the being don't violate the law of non-contradiction.

Your post has two basic problems:
There are no laws of logic, there are a few rules of though.
If something is not impossible, then it does not follow it is possible.

[Aetixintro]

Congratulations to TheChristianEgoist for the argument. Either way, the Maker/Author should be proud of the wording as matter of description, minimally, "no matter what they say", and that holding onto it (awareness/consciousness) is the duty.

Thanks to TheChristianEgoist.

[Filthy Tugboat]

This being is one singular identifiable being and does not violate the law of identity, without any other attributes to go on, this being does not violate the law of non-contradiction

Can you show that any direct or indirect implications of the existence of such a being that constructed the universe and space/time doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction? So far you have just asserted that it doesn't.

Sure, God is A and is not ~A.

Great, let me now prove the logical possibility of Christian God: Christian God is A and is not ~A

See how you are doing the exact thing you were complaining about, merely asserting that your example complies with the laws of logic?

You asked me to demonstrate that this God concept that I have constructed does not violate the law of non-contradiction so I did it for you. Why are you complaining?

Here are some other laws of logic, please show that the above being and all it's implications comply with all of these laws (also make sure to prove me that there aren't additional laws of logic that we haven't yet discovered that might contradict your above claim). Either this or admit that it is unreasonable demand to ask someone to demonstrate that his claim complies with every law of logic (i.e. is logically possible).

I can see a strawman approaching.

The three laws mentioned are the very fundamentals of logic, from them all other logical forms and laws are derived. Very little can be gained by over analyzing, it's simply not necessary.

Nonsense and a cop-out. Something is logically possible if and only if it doesn't contradict any laws of logic, you haven't demonstrated logical possibility until you have demonstrated compliance with every single law of logic and proven that you are dealing with an exhaustive list. Is this a reasonable demand? I'd say no.

I have demonstrated that to a reasonable extent. You asked me what I would accept as a measure of acceptable demonstration in way of logical possibility. I have presented exactly what you requested. If you aren't happy with it, too bad.

Can you tell us how this is logical:

How can a something (a god) exist inside/outside nothing before it created everything (the universe we know of)?

Take your time.

I don't recall suggesting that what you've written above is logical.

[Filthy Tugboat]

And I used your method to demonstrate that Christian God is logically possible as well. I just don't find the above demonstration anymore useful than simply asserting that it doesn't seem to contradict the laws of logic.

The difference is, that one word you use "Christian" has many other attributes to be considered, I personally know many people who argue that the "Christian" God does violate the laws of non-contradiction. I also have seen several different interpretations of this God violate the law of non-contradiction. So it all depends on what you mean when you add that adjective "Christian". The God that I put forth is not something I claim more knowledge of than just what I've written, I don't claim it's eternal, I don't claim to know it's origins, it's intentions or what it has done or witnessed of the universe apart from it playing a role in constructing the thing. All I have asserted is that this God exists (meaning it doesn't; exist(A) and not exist(~A) at the same time) and this God has being and form, it is identifiable.

My contention was that logical possibility of a thing cannot be demonstrated, insofar as logical possibility means that something doesn't contradict any laws of logic. Now you are suggesting that it could be demonstrated to a reasonable extent, and you did that by typing down the three fundamental laws of thought and asserted that your concept doesn't seem to contradict them (e.g. "without any other attributes to go on, this being does not violate the law of non-contradiction").

It doesn't* contradict them, all of my knowledge of this being and what I think it is, is logically consistent and coherent. Your only rebuttal was not accurate as you introduced far more of the concept without justifying the excess. Unless you use "Christian God" to mean, "pantheistic/deistic" God then just filling in the "Christian" into my simply assertion doesn't work as what most people associate with "Christian God" is far more complex and often, contradictory and logically inconsistent. You have basically done exactly what I'm arguing is illogical.

[JohnA]

And I used your method to demonstrate that Christian God is logically possible as well. I just don't find the above demonstration anymore useful than simply asserting that it doesn't seem to contradict the laws of logic.

The difference is, that one word you use "Christian" has many other attributes to be considered, I personally know many people who argue that the "Christian" God does violate the laws of non-contradiction. I also have seen several different interpretations of this God violate the law of non-contradiction. So it all depends on what you mean when you add that adjective "Christian". The God that I put forth is not something I claim more knowledge of than just what I've written, I don't claim it's eternal, I don't claim to know it's origins, it's intentions or what it has done or witnessed of the universe apart from it playing a role in constructing the thing. All I have asserted is that this God exists (meaning it doesn't; exist(A) and not exist(~A) at the same time) and this God has being and form, it is identifiable.

My contention was that logical possibility of a thing cannot be demonstrated, insofar as logical possibility means that something doesn't contradict any laws of logic. Now you are suggesting that it could be demonstrated to a reasonable extent, and you did that by typing down the three fundamental laws of thought and asserted that your concept doesn't seem to contradict them (e.g. "without any other attributes to go on, this being does not violate the law of non-contradiction").

It doesn't* contradict them, all of my knowledge of this being and what I think it is, is logically consistent and coherent. Your only rebuttal was not accurate as you introduced far more of the concept without justifying the excess. Unless you use "Christian God" to mean, "pantheistic/deistic" God then just filling in the "Christian" into my simply assertion doesn't work as what most people associate with "Christian God" is far more complex and often, contradictory and logically inconsistent. You have basically done exactly what I'm arguing is illogical.

By people claim that this christian god created ex nilhilo. In fact, other religion and people claim similar; it's not exclusive to the maniac christian god.
That implies "Something (a god) can exist inside/outside nothing before it created everything (the universe we know of)? "
That is indeed saying it exist(A) and not exist(~A) at the same time. But it also says meaning it doesn't; exist(A) and not exist(~A) at the same time, because there was no time before he created everything from nothing.

all of my knowledge of this being and what I think it is, is logically consistent and coherent.

Can you tell us how this is logically consistent and coherent:

How can a something (a god) exist inside/outside nothing before it created everything (the universe we know of)?

I don't claim it's eternal, I don't claim to know it's origins, it's intentions or what it has done or witnessed of the universe apart from it playing a role in constructing the thing.

Why call it god then? or are you admitting this your god is just fictional, therefore it's actions (that you claim no no knowledge of) can be illogical, just not the god itself.
This is a wonderful example how people create gods to try and make them rational, and logical.

[Filthy Tugboat]

And I used your method to demonstrate that Christian God is logically possible as well. I just don't find the above demonstration anymore useful than simply asserting that it doesn't seem to contradict the laws of logic.

The difference is, that one word you use "Christian" has many other attributes to be considered, I personally know many people who argue that the "Christian" God does violate the laws of non-contradiction. I also have seen several different interpretations of this God violate the law of non-contradiction. So it all depends on what you mean when you add that adjective "Christian". The God that I put forth is not something I claim more knowledge of than just what I've written, I don't claim it's eternal, I don't claim to know it's origins, it's intentions or what it has done or witnessed of the universe apart from it playing a role in constructing the thing. All I have asserted is that this God exists (meaning it doesn't; exist(A) and not exist(~A) at the same time) and this God has being and form, it is identifiable.

My contention was that logical possibility of a thing cannot be demonstrated, insofar as logical possibility means that something doesn't contradict any laws of logic. Now you are suggesting that it could be demonstrated to a reasonable extent, and you did that by typing down the three fundamental laws of thought and asserted that your concept doesn't seem to contradict them (e.g. "without any other attributes to go on, this being does not violate the law of non-contradiction").

It doesn't* contradict them, all of my knowledge of this being and what I think it is, is logically consistent and coherent. Your only rebuttal was not accurate as you introduced far more of the concept without justifying the excess. Unless you use "Christian God" to mean, "pantheistic/deistic" God then just filling in the "Christian" into my simply assertion doesn't work as what most people associate with "Christian God" is far more complex and often, contradictory and logically inconsistent. You have basically done exactly what I'm arguing is illogical.

By people claim that this christian god created ex nilhilo. In fact, other religion and people claim similar; it's not exclusive to the maniac christian god.
That implies "Something (a god) can exist inside/outside nothing before it created everything (the universe we know of)? "
That is indeed saying it exist(A) and not exist(~A) at the same time. But it also says meaning it doesn't; exist(A) and not exist(~A) at the same time, because there was no time before he created everything from nothing.

I'm not claiming the Christian God exists.

I don't claim it's eternal, I don't claim to know it's origins, it's intentions or what it has done or witnessed of the universe apart from it playing a role in constructing the thing.

Why call it god then?

Because it concerns the nature of the universe.

or are you admitting this your god is just fictional, therefore it's actions (that you claim no no knowledge of) can be illogical, just not the god itself.
This is a wonderful example how people create gods to try and make them rational, and logical.

Perhaps you missed most of the posts between me and instantc, I am providing an example of a logically consistent God concept. That's all, it is hypothetical.

[JohnA]

And I used your method to demonstrate that Christian God is logically possible as well. I just don't find the above demonstration anymore useful than simply asserting that it doesn't seem to contradict the laws of logic.

The difference is, that one word you use "Christian" has many other attributes to be considered, I personally know many people who argue that the "Christian" God does violate the laws of non-contradiction. I also have seen several different interpretations of this God violate the law of non-contradiction. So it all depends on what you mean when you add that adjective "Christian". The God that I put forth is not something I claim more knowledge of than just what I've written, I don't claim it's eternal, I don't claim to know it's origins, it's intentions or what it has done or witnessed of the universe apart from it playing a role in constructing the thing. All I have asserted is that this God exists (meaning it doesn't; exist(A) and not exist(~A) at the same time) and this God has being and form, it is identifiable.

My contention was that logical possibility of a thing cannot be demonstrated, insofar as logical possibility means that something doesn't contradict any laws of logic. Now you are suggesting that it could be demonstrated to a reasonable extent, and you did that by typing down the three fundamental laws of thought and asserted that your concept doesn't seem to contradict them (e.g. "without any other attributes to go on, this being does not violate the law of non-contradiction").

It doesn't* contradict them, all of my knowledge of this being and what I think it is, is logically consistent and coherent. Your only rebuttal was not accurate as you introduced far more of the concept without justifying the excess. Unless you use "Christian God" to mean, "pantheistic/deistic" God then just filling in the "Christian" into my simply assertion doesn't work as what most people associate with "Christian God" is far more complex and often, contradictory and logically inconsistent. You have basically done exactly what I'm arguing is illogical.

By people claim that this christian god created ex nilhilo. In fact, other religion and people claim similar; it's not exclusive to the maniac christian god.
That implies "Something (a god) can exist inside/outside nothing before it created everything (the universe we know of)? "
That is indeed saying it exist(A) and not exist(~A) at the same time. But it also says meaning it doesn't; exist(A) and not exist(~A) at the same time, because there was no time before he created everything from nothing.

I'm not claiming the Christian God exists.

I don't claim it's eternal, I don't claim to know it's origins, it's intentions or what it has done or witnessed of the universe apart from it playing a role in constructing the thing.

Why call it god then?

Because it concerns the nature of the universe.

or are you admitting this your god is just fictional, therefore it's actions (that you claim no no knowledge of) can be illogical, just not the god itself.
This is a wonderful example how people create gods to try and make them rational, and logical.

Perhaps you missed most of the posts between me and instantc, I am providing an example of a logically consistent God concept. That's all, it is hypothetical.

How can it be a god of it can not create anything, especially if you know nothing about it?
Am not even sure you know yourself what you are assuming to argue here. Can you state your valid and sound argument clearly?