Evidence

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No. Eternal duration is not the same thing as atemporality.

Eternal duration can either mean through everlasting time, or it can mean timelessness (without time) at which is used synonymously with atemporality. And in this case I am arguing for the latter.

Atemporality means temporality does not apply at all- attributes of time or duration are absolutely inapplicable- whereas eternal duration is a measure of temporality (namely, of an infinite quantity).

Ok, fine. However you want to put it. I already explained the concept so whatever definition you think it fits under, go with that.

And a being which does anything cannot be atemporal, since actions occur within space-time and necessarily have a temporal location/duration; an atemporal and acting/intervening being is a contradiction in terms.

Once again, I will tell you the same thing I told two others; God was timeless BEFORE creation. Time did not exist before the creation event. It wasn't until the creation event that time was brought in to existence. With the act of creating the universe, God became temporal and he remains so this very day. So..

God (before the universe): Atemporal
God (after creation): Temporal

So the creation event did occur in time, it was just the first INSTANT of time and no one is arguing otherwise.

First of all, this is not relevant- I was merely pointing out that you left out half of the available options.

Any option that is NOT the hypothesis of a First Cause has the infinity problem, regardless of which option you'd like to chose. I've said this time and time again to both you and cot and both of you are ignoring this fact and keep repeating the same thing.

Secondly, having "no reason to think that there is no possible world in which a MGB can exist" is not the same as having good reason to think there is a possible world in which a MGB can exist. You need the latter for the MOA to go through, and have yet to provide it.

Actually, I do have good reason to think that a MGB can exist in some possible world because any logically coherent proposition could exist in some possible world, which is what possible world semantics is all about anyway. The concept is logically coherent, and based on this alone we have good reasons to think that such a being COULD exist.

Moreover, a maximally great being would appear to be contradictory, since maximums of various traits would appear to exclude one another

Now this is just demonstrably false. How does maximal power exclude maximal knowledge or vise versa? Unsupported claim.

I cannot be maximally generous and maximally frugal, for instance, because these traits are mutally exclusive. A maximally greates being in the relevant sense is like a being that is completely white and completely red all over- self-contadictory.

So you are taking two mutually exclusive terms and saying that since they can't be both, they can't be either?? That clearly does not follow. To say that something is maximally ANYTHING is to automatically exclude the opposite. Is that the best refutation you have?

Then do it.

I've already said the infinity problem about two dozen times.

Show that "there is no logically possible world P such that, in P, "a MGB does not exist" is contradictory" is contradictory or absurd (since this is the denial of your claim, that "it is possible that a MGB exists necessarily")

I don't follow.

We've been over this- remember this?

Yeah I remember that, and I don't find it surprising that I see everything but my response to it.

if I were a fireman, I would not buy fire-retardant products from you since you obviously a very peculiar idea of what constitutes "fireproof". You have here an argument which is either question-begging or invalid, and is not even arguably sound. I wouldn't call that "fireproof"- but hey, to each their own.

I guess the only logical things around here is infinite regression, but hey, to each their own as you said.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It sounds to me that you're saying that nothing created something.

I am saying that everything that is natural ultimately gets its existence from something that never began to exist.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I am saying that everything that is natural ultimately gets its existence from something that never began to exist.

Which would be nothing. Something that never began to exist doesn't exist.

 

[PolyHedral]

Which would be nothing. Something that never began to exist doesn't exist.

Unless time is infinitely long and/or forms loops.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Once again, I will tell you the same thing I told two others; God was timeless BEFORE creation. Time did not exist before the creation event. It wasn't until the creation event that time was brought in to existence. With the act of creating the universe, God became temporal and he remains so this very day. So..

God (before the universe): Atemporal
God (after creation): Temporal

Do you seriously not notice the contradiction in saying "God was atemporal prior to...", given the sense of atemporality mentioned already?

Any option that is NOT the hypothesis of a First Cause has the infinity problem, regardless of which option you'd like to chose. I've said this time and time again to both you and cot and both of you are ignoring this fact and keep repeating the same thing.

That's not relevant. You were laying out all the possible options, not assessing their likelihood. And you left out half of them.

In any case, simply pointing to an infinite regression isn't a refutation, if this is what you mean by "the infinity problem". I've asked you already what this supposed "problem" is, and why it is a problem at all- still waiting.

In any case, the infinite/finite causal sequence issue is not pertinent to the ontological argument or the modal ontological argument, so this is moot.

Actually, I do have good reason to think that a MGB can exist in some possible world because any logically coherent proposition could exist in some possible world, which is what possible world semantics is all about anyway. The concept is logically coherent, and based on this alone we have good reasons to think that such a being COULD exist.

You're begging the question.

Now this is just demonstrably false.

And yet you don't demonstrate it's falsity... Curious.

How does maximal power exclude maximal knowledge or vise versa? Unsupported claim.

No, you just cut off the support into a different quote. See below.

So you are taking two mutually exclusive terms and saying that since they can't be both, they can't be either?? That clearly does not follow. To say that something is maximally ANYTHING is to automatically exclude the opposite. Is that the best refutation you have?

It's all I need. If a MGB is not maximally frugal, it is not maximally great. Conversely, if a MGB is not maximally generous, it is not maximally great. I'd imagine we can come up with any number of mutually exclusive attributes such that a MGB could not possess the maxima of both attributes, and thus not be maximally great.

I've already said the infinity problem about two dozen times.

Do you think the phrase "infinity problem" has magical powers, like "abracadabra" or something? What does it matter how many times you've said this phrase?

And the infinite regression has nothing to do with the claim in question, so this won't help you anyways... Try again.

I don't follow.

That's the claim you need to establish for your argument to be successful, that it is possibly necessary a MGB exists- if it is possibly necessary that a MGB exists, then "it is not possible that "a MGB does not exist" is contradictory" must be contradictory. Show me.

Yeah I remember that, and I don't find it surprising that I see everything but my response to it.

Because the words you typed after quoting that section of my post were not really a response- they didn't address the issue. Which is still waiting to be addressed. The crucial inference in the argument is not a universally acceptable modal principle, and you've yet to establish the antecedent for your conditional inference. Your argument is stuck in neutral at this point.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Anyone can do this.

A creation is a reflection of it's creator.

Consider your five senses and your terminal chemistry.

What are you here for?
It's not a mystery.

So its a propsition without evidence. got it.

I gave at least 6 reasons based on empirical evidence that the universe is finite, and instead of refuting either of those 6, you waste both of our time with the above post. I would prefer to respond to something more substantial since that is what I've been giving.

I read back a few pages and I can't find them. Please reiterate them to me.

Ok so instead of me claiming to have given philosophical evidence, I will say I've given logical and reasonable evidence. No arguments here.

Except that your arguments are based in neither. They aren't reasonable as they cherry pick information or are based on information that is false. Then your logic is flawed and full of fallicies. So your argument is not based on logic, reason or empirical evidence.

 

[Thief]

So its a propsition without evidence. got it.

I think...therefore I am.

Need evidence for that?

I suppose you doubt everyone and question everything.
That's good....scripture is written that you should.

But really....You doubt my previous post because you can't....or won't ...understand?

I say both.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think...therefore I am.

Need evidence for that?

I suppose you doubt everyone and question everything.
That's good....scripture is written that you should.

But really....You doubt my previous post because you can't....or won't ...understand?

I say both.

How dare you compair your dribble with one of the greatest philosophical answers of all time?
I think therefore I am proves one exists in some context or another. You have made baseless assurtions as if they were truth.

"A creation is a reflection of their creator" - Why? Under what circumstances? for what reason?

This is a claim. It is not self evident.

"consider your five senses and your terminal chemestry" - Great. Whats next as it does not follow for your claim at all.

I understand plenty. My five senses were developed over millions of years of trial and error and my terminal chemestry by which I assume you mean the fact that eventually I die, is a mechanism that is not unique as it fits in with nearly every living thing.

"What are you here for? Its not a mystery."
There is no distinct reason to believe that we are innately here for anything. And if we are it is a mystery.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It's all I need. If a MGB is not maximally frugal, it is not maximally great. Conversely, if a MGB is not maximally generous, it is not maximally great. I'd imagine we can come up with any number of mutually exclusive attributes such that a MGB could not possess the maxima of both attributes, and thus not be maximally great.

Just to elaborate on this, consider some other virtues or traits whose maxima would exclude others-

-maximal loyalty appears to exclude maximal honesty or pacificism/non-violence; maximal loyalty would include a willingness to lie or commit violence for that which one is loyal to, thus one could not be maximally loyal and maximally honest or non-violent

-maximal courage would exclude maximal prudence

-maximal justice would exclude maximal tolerance or maximal forgiveness

Typically, when one is extremely good at something, or virtuous in some regard, this entails a deficiency in some other regard, as a necessity. Thus, the idea of a single entity possessing all possible virtues to the maximum degree, without the correspondin deficiency (which would cancel out some other maximal attribute) is as self-contradictory as an entity that is all white and all red all over.

And this gives us good reason to doubt that a MGB is even possible, much less possibly necessary. (and this still leaves the host of other problems with the modal argument I've already mentioned- the questionable status of the inference, the possibility of proving the existence of an infinite number of necessarily existing slightly less than MGBs, etc.)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I read back a few pages and I can't find them. Please reiterate them to me.

It won't matter- this so-called empirical evidence for a finite universe is overstated. An infinite universe is consistent with contemporary physics. That the BBT entails a finite universe or beginning of the universe is a widely held misconception. The BBT postulates a set of initial conditions- not "the beginning of the universe", but rather a hot, dense early state of the universe- that's all, it doesn't speculate as to what happened prior to that.

After two thousand years of trying, nobody has yet to show that an infinite regression of causes (i.e. a temporally infinite universe) is either contradictory or false. Not only does it remain a live option, its more plausible, prima facie, than the alternative.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Which would be nothing. Something that never began to exist doesn't exist.

Unsupported claim; not only is it unsupported but it is false...the number 1 never began to exist but yet it exists.

 

[adi2d]

Unsupported claim; not only is it unsupported but it is false...the number 1 never began to exist but yet it exists.

The #1 exists as a concept. Are you implying that God only exists as a concept?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Unsupported claim; not only is it unsupported but it is false...the number 1 never began to exist but yet it exists.

Unsupported? You said it had no beginning? What has no beginning? Nothing. Only nothing can give birth to something under what you are trying to say.

 

[Thief]

How dare you compair your dribble with one of the greatest philosophical answers of all time?
I think therefore I am proves one exists in some context or another. You have made baseless assurtions as if they were truth.

"A creation is a reflection of their creator" - Why? Under what circumstances? for what reason?

This is a claim. It is not self evident.

"consider your five senses and your terminal chemestry" - Great. Whats next as it does not follow for your claim at all.

I understand plenty. My five senses were developed over millions of years of trial and error and my terminal chemestry by which I assume you mean the fact that eventually I die, is a mechanism that is not unique as it fits in with nearly every living thing.

"What are you here for? Its not a mystery."
There is no distinct reason to believe that we are innately here for anything. And if we are it is a mystery.

Your body is a learning machine.
You are here to learn all you can before you die.
Your body will yield a unique spirit.
It can nothing else.

And Moses did ask....God did reply....
'Tell the people "I AM!"....and they that understand will know whose law this is.'

So I believe.

 

[adi2d]

And Moses did ask....God did reply....
'Tell the people "I AM!"....and they that understand will know whose law this is.'

So I believe.

And Popeye said 'I am what I am and that's all that I am'

I'm failing to see your point

 

[Monk Of Reason]

A response has already been given that decimates your point but I want to break this down further.

Your body is a learning machine.

Why do you call us a learning machine? There are several other ways to describe us. Why not use them?

You are here to learn all you can before you die.

Just because we are capable of learning why is that our primary function? In reality all evidence seems to point to passing down our genes as the most important primary function. Learning is a means to and end.

Your body will yield a unique spirit.

Genetic variation is not evidence for god

It can nothing else.

What? I think you are missing a word or two that is vital to this sentence.

And Moses did ask....God did reply....
'Tell the people "I AM!"....and they that understand will know whose law this is.'

So I believe.

Quoting the bible to support belief in the bible is circular logic. I believe because I believe. Its true because it is held to be true.

 

[Sculelos]

Quoting the bible to support belief in the bible is circular logic. I believe because I believe. Its true because it is held to be true.

Observations are the only path to finding truth. Reading the Bible and evaluating it with real life experience is surely the only path that any logical minded person can come to the conclusion that the Bible is a historically accurate document.

I run into atheistic Scientist blatantly ignoring or discounting a huge amount of historical evidence for certain events simply due to their personal bias which I find the scientist then becoming more of a hypocrite then the religious folk that they are trying to debase.

Granted there is a lot of religious crap out there and the same is true for alleged science however science is not held up to the same standard as religious text simply due to the fact that it can be updated and changed to suit anyone's personal taste. In a way science is a religion, just cut out the parts you dislike, focus on the parts you like and wallah you have your own personal religion.

However we all know that even though we might like something and might even wish it to be true, if it's false it will remain false and we are only deceiving ourselves by becoming ignorant and foolish in our own hearts and logic.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Observations are the only path to finding truth. Reading the Bible and evaluating it with real life experience is surely the only path that any logical minded person can come to the conclusion that the Bible is a historically accurate document.

I run into atheistic Scientist blatantly ignoring or discounting a huge amount of historical evidence for certain events simply due to their personal bias which I find the scientist then becoming more of a hypocrite then the religious folk that they are trying to debase.

Granted there is a lot of religious crap out there and the same is true for alleged science however science is not held up to the same standard as religious text simply due to the fact that it can be updated and changed to suit anyone's personal taste. In a way science is a religion, just cut out the parts you dislike, focus on the parts you like and wallah you have your own personal religion.

However we all know that even though we might like something and might even wish it to be true, if it's false it will remain false and we are only deceiving ourselves by becoming ignorant and foolish in our own hearts and logic.

Wrong. If we read the bible and then uncovered archeological evidence to support it then we would in fact use it as a reference. However nothing innately about the bible would bring it to consideration as fact.

I have read the bible. I have examined it with my life. I drew the conclusion it was nonsensical and stuck to science as it does follow the observable universe.

 

[Sculelos]

Wrong. If we read the bible and then uncovered archeological evidence to support it then we would in fact use it as a reference. However nothing innately about the bible would bring it to consideration as fact.

I have read the bible. I have examined it with my life. I drew the conclusion it was nonsensical and stuck to science as it does follow the observable universe.

0 2 12. 124. You examine things with a great zeal and you try to break them down and understand them in a way that makes things logical to you. However in doing this you over-simplify things and must make sense of your observations.

The Truth is that a lot of evidence does exist that does support Biblical claims. However all well known Christian churches have perverted many true Biblical doctrines. Are you so sure that what you are dead against is truly Biblical in nature or is it said to be Biblical yet full of lies? Are you really sure that the science you so earnestly believe is true and not full of errors itself?

Believe what looks to be true but never stop searching. I constantly am forced to change my belief on some things simply due to overwhelming evidence that forces me to change my mindset, however in examining all the evidence I have personally found the Christian Bible to be closer to true observations then any other book in known history. And if you think you know of a book that is more accurate in Science I'd love to see it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

0 2 12. 124. You examine things with a great zeal and you try to break them down and understand them in a way that makes things logical to you. However in doing this you over-simplify things and must make sense of your observations.

The Truth is that a lot of evidence does exist that does support Biblical claims. However all well known Christian churches have perverted many true Biblical doctrines. Are you so sure that what you are dead against is truly Biblical in nature or is it said to be Biblical yet full of lies? Are you really sure that the science you so earnestly believe is true and not full of errors itself?

Believe what looks to be true but never stop searching. I constantly am forced to change my belief on some things simply due to overwhelming evidence that forces me to change my mindset, however in examining all the evidence I have personally found the Christian Bible to be closer to true observations then any other book in known history. And if you think you know of a book that is more accurate in Science I'd love to see it.

We hardly "know" anything to be true. But we have our best guesses based on observation, logic and reason. That is what science is. Sceince is flawed but it gets better every day.

Religion of any and all kinds is a baseless claim. Bring forth evidence for god and I"ll believe it. However what people bring is not evidence but rather anecdoetes and nonesense.