INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Monk Of Reason]

pjpjpoijpojpojpojpo

You make an excelent piont that has dumbfounded me with your logic and grace. I concede the entire argument and now will convert to Christianity.

 

[cottage]

Yes God can choose to act. I do not see the contention or problem with that.

I apparently do not understand what you are contending. I will paraphrase Craig and would agree with what is said. There is no natural explanation for the universes coming into existence know or theoretically reliable. The only known theoretical concept capable or bring things into being is a disembodied mind that is omnipotent, omniscient, etc......

Now you can show I misunderstood Craig or that you are trying to show something else, but what I said (not being proof of anything) Has no logical invalidation. No known natural explanation for the universe exists. I am not intentionally waffling. I just do not see exactly what your contention is.

With reference to Craig’s amendment to the Kalam Argument, and his quoted passage in the link you gave me, I’m saying it isn’t a question of whether or how God acts but why, that is to say for what purpose? Craig rules out a deductive truth or a scientific explanation for the world coming to be and maintains that only leaves a personal explanation involving an agent doing something for a reason. Now, please, may I ask you to go back and look at the argument I’ve twice given you (post 2653) that shows there can only be two reasons for bringing the world into existence and both run to a contradiction and hence to an absurdity.

Logic requires a cause that no known natural process can supply. The only thing left is something beyond nature. Nothing has no causal potential. It is the absence of being, never a cause. It is true that maybe something else will be discovered that could explain this but even theoretically this is almost a logical absurdity. In fact not almost but it is a logical absurdity. The absence of anything can't create anything. You must either show the universe eternal or than nothing has causal potential. Being generous I agree it is not known we can go from something beyond nature to the God of the Bible, but what is certain is you can't go from nothing to nature without something beyond nature.

So how to explain the world? Well, we can’t because its origin is unknown. However, in our ignorance we may want to propose two hypotheses:

1) An unknown external agent created and sustains the world (God)?
2) An unknown internal source sustains the world (the world itself).
In the case of (1) we have a difficulty because while nothing in the world is seen to be created, causation is observed and belongs in the already existent world, whereas creation isn’t a requirement in the case of (2) because it doesn’t create anything but only causes change to occur in matter. But we may ask isn’t this unknown, internal source, subject to the same problem that an external agent has in being constrained by a contingent principle and hence a contradiction? And so how could either hypothesis have the appellation “Necessary Being”? Indeed, that is so. But something still exists, even if it needn’t. And that something is the world. That much we do know. And the advantage that (2) has over (1) is that as a sustaining entity it doesn’t have to try and explain the creation of the world from nothing since it already exists.

In conclusion, a causal and sustaining power within the world (2) can still be contingent and but not constrained by time, for we are not forced to conclude a necessary existence in order for the world to continue existing indefinitely, and nor does contingency imply a creator since that is to presuppose creation as a necessary principle when we can demonstrate logically that it is not. The opposing thesis (1) has two problems to contend with. The first is the concept of “creation”, which is no more than an arbitrary act of the mind, devoid of any intelligible explanation. And the second is the dependency upon a contingent principle and the need to borrow from the actual world in order to argue beyond the world, which immediately puts any supposed worlds within the concept of time and an infinite regression. And on that account God would be in want of a cause. It also directly contradicts the concept of an Absolutely Necessary Being, which makes God impossible.

Then how is it possible to have multiple worlds (universes)? Or is one world said to theoretically contain multiples universe. I hate terminology.

Multiple worlds are concepts. They are possible, but are they likely? I have my doubts.

What might be true of the arbitrary terminology associated with the word World does not suggest what is true of nature. God can be in the world and independent of nature if the word is used like that. The world that contains God might be self explanatory but the natural world alone is not self explanatory. I deny the capacity of any term to bind God anyway.

“God” is a concept. So to speak of his “true nature” is not informing us of any fact, objective truth, or possible experience; as an argument it is evidently specious.

 

[cottage]

This is where the fallibility of our crude language causes paradoxes to be supposed where no exist. There is nothing illogical concerning a God who never created a material universe. This almost sounds like a tree in the forest argument with no one to hear. A paradox of language is not a paradox in reality many times. I find them interesting and completely unproductive. [/font]

God as the Creator of the world is self-evidently unintelligible without the world, but the same doesn’t apply to the contrary because the world is perfectly intelligible without God; the point is made by the putative object having no existence outside the concept.

You did not read my claim carefully. I never sais information can be copied without intelligence which is what Hume is saying. I said it can be created to begin with without intelligence. A good explanation or example is the movie contact. They were listening to space and said that the way they would distinguish intelligent signals from natural ones is would be the presence of information. Indeterminate natural processes are mostly chaotic, a few can generate patterns of less than equilibrium complexity, what they can never do is produce complex information. My boss is an information specialist. It gets far worse than my primitive example. You also get into decoders than must be tuned to the type of information given so you need two independent systems coordinated with each other in sophisticated ways. There is not one example of information arising from nature without mind being involved. I would love to expand on this alone but am short of time.

In that case your statement rejects the teleological argument, and the Kalam argument as amended by Craig.

That was interesting but as usual appears to only be a problem of semantics that is then transcribed to reality for some reason.

Intelligence implies the ability understand. A roach and a human are not intellectual equals. A human and God are both cognitive but in infinitely contrasting capacities as to in no way be equals.

I have no idea why that would be fine for finite creatures but impossible for an infinite one.
To say God is intelligent, personal, or a moral agent is not to say his morals, intelligence, or ability to choose is identical to humans. Humans were made with similar aspect as God. We were not made with his capacity. To say both a ten inch line and an infinitely long theoretical line both have length does nothing to suggest he are equal in length. God is aware, we are aware. He is aware of everything and we are aware of an infinitesimally small subsection of a subsection of reality. There are no lesson from equality to be drawn from things that can't be any less equal.

God “able to understand”? (!) I seem to be constantly defending God against theists who undermine the concept of Supreme Being. It rather supports my theory that believers are protecting their own sensibilities first, as do we all of course. But anyway in the case of God the term intelligence is understood in human/animal terms and is then multiplied to an infinite extent; but for all that it still engenders the human/animal connotations that I outlined in my piece. The alternative is to say God’s intelligence has different meaning but that would be a self-defeating special plea.

There comes a point in most fields of study where the only
gain becomes to blur the simple and complicate the obvious. I find most of theoretical physics, cosmology, the deep end of rhetoric, and philosophy to only blur and obfuscate things. We have begun to literally think our selves into imbecility. The Bible indicates that this way:
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

I am loathe to criticize people as smart as a Hawking or a Hume but many times the glaring stupidity of their claims is so obvious I wonder at their sanity. I can supply some of those instances if needed.

This is not argument. It has an ad hominem air about it and so I’ll decline to comment further if you don't mind.

 

[cottage]

Newton's laws do not apply to creation. They apply to a created thing. Newton's laws apply to nature once you have nature and they assume only what nature does. As Lewis has said natural law may explain that A + B = C but it will never produce A,B, or C. Natural law is creatively impotent. Yes all the evidence we have suggests a finite universe.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

All you’ve done here is to repeat the article you gave me earlier that leaps from science to non-science concluding with an argument by Craig – to which I showed that Craig’s argument results in there being two, and only two, possibilities both of which run to a contradiction and are therefore absurd. I’ve posted the argument several times.

Yes what is known can and does indicate the presence of unknowns. If nature needs a cause which it does not contain it must come from something beyond nature and it's characteristics can be deduced from nature.

I’m not sure it makes sense to speak of “indicating the presence of unknowns”! But what I will say is by all means suppose the existence of some unknown thing by making inferences from what is known, but that doesn’t enable you to infer more qualities in the unknown thing, the supposed cause, than is required for the effect.`

They are susceptible to personal experience and many times to shared experience. No they are not of a reproducible type by definition by vast swaths of what science claim is neither. No one has ever experienced or replicated a multiple universe, abiogenesis, or a dinosaur becoming a bird yet all are validated in volumes of text books. Truth is independent of perception, therefor perception is not the criteria for truth. If I say the sun exist and you say it does not one of us are wrong but both can't be right. As in every other form of study multiplicity of experience indicate greater probability of truth. It is possible billions are wrong but it is not likely they are. I did not make a moral epistemological claim, I make moral ontological claims. I claim that with God moral foundations exist, objective moral truths exist, even if no one knows what they are. Almost everyone believes certain actions are morally wrong. That can't be possible unless God exists. The fact virtually all people perceive an objective moral realm makes it's existence very likely but not proof.

All of our reasoning comes in two forms, those that are self-evident or true by definition, and those that exist as matters of fact. To say “truth is independent of perception” is to know what truth is; an assertion too far by any standard it seems to me! But while experience may not be a criterion of truth in terms of certainty, that is to say a logically necessary sense, it is universally the way we agree to what is the case. For example we accept that there is a moon, even though there needn’t be such an object, and we can explain how its existence can be confirmed, even to the extent of travelling there; and we accept that there is a world of physical of phenomena because denial would be self-contradictory. And while of course there are numerous examples of scientific hypotheses that cannot be replicated, as well as theories that turn out be wrong or false, they at least refer in all cases to the actual world, a world that we all share and experience. The physical world consists in form and matter, solidity and extension and is certainly explicable in those terms. In contrast the supernatural has nothing whatever to identify it and is simply just a belief that cannot be explained in terms of the former.
And there is no “objective moral realm” as some God-given law; there is only the learned experience that ensures we are able to co-exist with our fellow man in reasonable harmony. Right and wrong is simply a matter of what is beneficial and able to keep us from harm, and thus the prior self concept has a mutual gain for us all in practice. Our being utterly selfish is what enables our continued existence as a species and, incidentally, it works in exactly the same way for all other animals too.

Even if a set of hypothesis are equally possible they are not equally likely. The point is this, instead of a life time lets say that man has one day to arrive at or deny faith.

If only cosmological evidence was available to make that decision on then since virtually all evidence suggests a Bible consistent cosmos and since even the other possible theories have good reasons to think they are probably impossible faith should be adopted. Even if that logic is faulty what is certainly faulty is validating the least likely theories and contending with the one consistent with all the evidence. Everyone uses that logic for everything else. Why is it only violated with God permitting theories? All of us make decisions given the best evidence unless it is a non-theist with God.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with any of that. The Bible is contradictory, and I know of no god-based argument that rejects all possible alternatives.

We will probably never be able to say with certainty this side of the dirt. However we can make the case that the universe indicates finiteness and a cause it needs, but does not contain, with vastly better certainty than any other theory. You appear to be saying that in the absence of proof all theories are equally valid and that is not true nor is it how anyone runs all their non-theological parts of their lives. I may not know how fast a pitch was, but 100 mph is a much better theory that c^2.

All we are entitled to say is that, as far as we can ascertain, the material world is contingent, which is simply to say there is no logically necessary reason for it to exist at all. It might be finite and yet it could exist indefinitely, for to make the point again we don’t fully understand the nature of the world but, unlike any supposed external cause, we know that it exists. And thus it is less fanciful to suppose an inert, latent, internal aspect to explain the world’s self-sustaining nature than to suppose an external agent as a personal being that requires a reason for its actions and seeks a relationship with its creation, which, as I’ve described elsewhere, leads directly to contradiction and absurdity.

It is the same principle as the discovery that certain small objects did not obey Newtonian physics. They acted in ways and were of a nature that was not described by natural law as we knew it. Turned out there was a whole new and huge aspect of reality with whole sets of laws we had no apprehension of. God is the exact same type of analogy except God comes with the inconvenient concepts of judgment, morality, and paints us in a none to flattering light. The principles are exactly the same, why is the willingness to concede them not?

The “new aspects of reality” are still the old reality. There is only the one reality, and it is one that paints the superstitious belief in God in a thoroughly unflattering light: a supposedly omnipotent and benevolent being that causes and allows his creation to suffer. Believers cannot presume God as a moral exemplar when amongst all the suffering and evil in the world we see human compassion and attempts to alleviate the suffering that you cannot deny was made both possible and actual by your God. And what is done cannot be undone; it is logically impossible. Finite, error-prone, humankind is far more benevolent than any supposed god.

 

[cottage]

That is not the premise it is the conclusion. Greenleaf uses the exact same methodology and testing as is employed in all legal testimonial evaluations and arrives at the conclusion it is reliable. I was not discussing the influence of the Church in history. I am not sure what I am supposed to do with that.

No! That is evidently wrong! Like many Christian apologists Greenleaf begins with the answer. In the opening gambit, and the end of the very first paragraph, Greenleaf informs us that the investigation should be “pursued in the presence of God” and under the “solemn sanctions created by a lively sense of his omniscience.” So much, then, for “bringing to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice.”

The standard of all historical claims is probability no the absence of doubt. It is very baffling to me why non-theists saddle faith with standards it does not have and do not require anything of science at all. In science if not demonstrably impossible and even at times when it is, the theory is valid but for faith claims (of all things) absolute certainty is demanded. Why?

No matter how many times I explain this you come back with the same thing. Any scientific explanation that cannot be observed in some way, repeated, or demonstrated in possible experience, remains no more than a hypothesis ie a suggested answer to a problem. A body certified dead, under the established criteria, returning to life and without the least corruption of the flesh cannot be observed nor even verified by recourse to possible experience or any empirical data whatsoever. The criteria are precisely the same for scientific hypotheses or faith claims. And Multiverses, black holes etc are purely hypothetical, even if it is claimed they provide an explanation of sorts.

There is always the possibility of error but it is only the indication of error that is relevant.

I nor he made the case that authenticity is proof. I and he claimed authenticity is a factor in building the case for probability of reliability. Your getting proof burdens mixed up with reliability and faith burdens.

In the case of documents, authenticity is allowable and I made it abundantly clear in my critique that I’m prepared to accept that the documents refer to the period in question and that they have not been tampered with since, as far as can be known. My argument is that the authenticity of the documents doesn’t provide reliable or compelling evidence for the nature of the claims that are made; written submissions alone do not provide for the likelihood of a miracle, particularly when no investigation of the claim is possible - and subject of course to my paragraph above.

Proof is not the issue. Reliability in testimony is. There is a huge disconnect here. There is no absolute proof for anything beyond that we think.

Actually there is no absolute proof even for that, if we are speaking of certainty. For example, Rene Descartes was wrong in his Cogito ergo sum, mistakenly believing in the personal pronoun “I” when all that was established was the Cogito itself, viz “there is thinking”. But it isn’t certainty we are dealing with here but the reasonableness of believing that a man can leave his grave and return to life, when no actual test and no test in possible experience can corroborate or demonstrate the claim.

Even though most do not admit it every claim beyond that is based partially on faith and only has a probability of being reliable. As documents go the Bible is extremely reliable in every category by which ancient document reliability is determined. It was never claimed to be truth. It is not proof or worthlessness. It is a quality of evidence issue.



The willingness to sacrifice everything for the sake of a proposition based on experience is proof that sincerity of the claim exists and indicates accuracy of the claim. This is a truth so intuitive as to be virtually instinctual.

And it is also misleading! It does not indicate the accuracy of the claim: in indicates a commitment to what is believed.

All of us know the qualitative difference between a claim for benefit and a claim that results in great sacrifices. All of us doubt love until it is practiced even in suffering. You can't deny the principle. You are again claiming lack of proof indicates lack of value. Which is irrational enough on it's own but when so inconsistently applied becomes an indication of preference not evidence.

When you throw around terms such as “irrational” please remember that I’m a mere sceptic and I can be wrong, whereas you are defending a belief that you hold to be true as a matter of faith, and which by definition is held preferentially.
Sacrifice and commitment, even to death, does not make a belief true or even probable, but a lack of proof does not mean a lack of value. Love is the most irrational thing and yet invokes evokes the most (albeit emotional) valued and valuable response.

 

[cottage]

Are you telling me that 2 people who claim to have been abducted by alien's has the same persuasive value as 2 billion? For some reason you seem to claim that reliable testimony automatically becomes unreliable if about the supernatural. [/font][/color]

I disbelieve people have been abducted by aliens for the same reason I disbelieve a dead body sprang to life after four days, regardless of the number that attest to it. For there is no reason or compelling evidence to believe such things are the case, or even that they are possible with the latter example. And your “two billion”, what exactly do the individuals that make up that supposed number actually believe? Because in my experience no two people of the same religion believe exactly the same thing. I was a Christian once, but never believed in the miracles, and my secondary school RE teacher (for we had such things in Britain once) didn’t believe them either and proffered convoluted explanations in terms of allegory and symbolism. The Church of England is well known for its relativistic views and there is an a la carte approach throughout. And if the retort is “That is not a true Christian” then my argument is duly confirmed.

You misquoted: Here is the statement.
The argument has no refutation. I can allow that the truth claim is a little optimistic but is not Greenleaf's nor an unjustifiable part of common language use. It also states this as a proposition not a statement of proven fact.

That there is a Loch Ness Monster is not refuted either.
The death of Jesus and his subsequent resurrection is being presented as a fact and the argument to that end is “incapable of refutation”, we are being told. So Greenleaf, who is supposed to be trying the evidence on the basis of probability and his own rules of evidence (see section 2 of my critique), resorts to both possibility (see section 5 of my critique) and to absolute assertions as we see here.

I am not sure I understand what Greenleaf was saying here. It appears he is saying that experiential truth can still be acceptable even if it contradicts norms but can't be sure. I could not find this statement at all. It seems to be similar to a doctors taking my word that my arm hurts even if he can find no evidence that it should be. I can't be sure because I can't find it, for context.

He is saying that the account given in scripture may be proved as facts, not as demonstrable truths. All rather circumlocutory, but all he is saying is that facts are sufficient, but the only "facts" presented are that so-and-so said such-and-such, not that a factual event actually took place.

I have not been able to copy and search for any of the three statement you gave from Greenleaf. Where are you getting these things from? I searched "testimony of the evangelists) copying three sections from this quote and can't find it. Nor could I find it with a general web search.

Hard copy, much annotated, that I’ve had since 2001. I think you might be looking at abridged versions?

 

[cottage]

That is a subjective standard that you can not demonstrate is untrue. If you do not think it true then maybe you are not unprejudiced. I will take the standard and estimation over the founder of Harvard law and a well experienced lawyer as to what convinces an unprejudiced mind before a random person in a forum. I was convinced in spite of a prejudiced mind so can only say I very strongly disagree with your interpretation here. [/font]

This made me chuckle. Tell me, what is it you think you’re responding to there? Because I see a typo where I’ve stated: And it is not satisfactory evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, which ordinarily satisfies an “unprejudiced mind” that all men must suffer death and that flesh is irreversibly destroyed? I’m asking a question and the “it” and the “is” are the wrong way about. So, permit me to pose Greenleaf’s own standard once more and then to ask the question again. He said: “…by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt”
And I now ask: Is it not satisfactory evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, which ordinarily satisfies an “unprejudiced mind” that all men must suffer death and that flesh is irreversibly destroyed? And now I repeat: “If Greenleaf is asking us to consider his argument on the balance of probabilities, as he insists, then he must accept that the weight of evidence against him in this matter is overwhelming and incontrovertible.” Note that I’m applying to the letter Greenleaf’s own rules of evidence here.

He is not arbitrarily batting away supposed deceit. He nor I nor anyone I have heard of has ever shown the slightest indication of complicity or contrivance. That was a large part of the point. In fact every indication in every category indicates the greatest possible sincerity. I would be happy to discuss this alone if you wish.

You’ve missed the point entirely here. I have not anywhere impugned their honesty; in fact I’ve stated that there is no reason to think of them as dishonest men. Read my Critique, sections 2, 3, 6 and the conclusion. What I said was that Greenleaf employs a Straw Man argument. In other words he bats away an argument that has not been made.

What evidence is he not accepting?

This: “by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt”. And is it not beyond all reasonable doubt, which ordinarily satisfies an “unprejudiced mind” that all men must suffer death and that flesh is irreversibly destroyed?

I saw no probability argument made above besides the probability of reliability for their testimony. The probability of us dying and our bodies decomposing places no bounds on the probability we could rise again with either a spiritual body or a new material body. The only evidence we have for resurrection is positive.

There is not the least probability of our rising from the dead whether as resurrected or disembodied! Probability refers to what is expected based upon general experience such as the sun rising in the morning or an object falling when dropped. It is logically possible that the dead will leave their graves after four days as with any other violation of the laws of nature, but that is because anything is possible, even the most ridiculous or unlikely, if it doesn’t imply a contradiction. But probability is based upon the principle of induction and what has gone before.

That is the point. A claims truth is independent of it's extraordinary nature. I will show both the logic and the double standards with a comparison. Even with very god evidence you deny Christ's resurrection because it is extraordinary. However in spite of all the evidence you consider valid, virtually impossible extraordinary things such as multiverses and eternal natural realities. What you should have said was that extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence to be persuasive but you would be no more cosnistant. There are billions who testify to having experienced a resurrected Christ and no one has ever claimed to experience eternity or multiverses.

I treat multiverses as just another example of speculative metaphysics. And a self-existent world is just another hypothesis among many given as a possible explanation and certainly not proposed as a scientific theory.
And “extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence” is so often trotted out on the forums it has become something of a cliché. But explain to me just exactly what these “billions” experienced and how you know it?

I most certainly can. His paper had a specific purpose. I can very well indicate that what he presumed that is part of another proof is not invalid because this paper had no burden for that proof. The same way Hawking did not get into Newton's theory of gravity to make the very stupid claim that gravity proves that something can come from nothing. That statement is stupid on it's own not because he assumed gravity was true based on arguments he did not include.

But Greenleaf’s statements form part of the paper; they undermine his supposed disinterested, professional approach and they can’t be unsaid.

He made statements for differing audiences. He made some to be more relevant to Christians, some to legal professional. and even some anticipating (apparently to no effect) the claim that he was giving evidence weight it's importance, not it's reliability, justified. It is an extremely frequent tactic to anticipate and overcome contentions. However you are contending with the contention to head off a contention. Not even Greenleaf could see all that coming out of a rational minded person.

Greenleaf was not writing for Christians that already believed in the Resurrection; that would be absurd. He was writing, we are told, to convince the doubters that the truth of the Christian religion could be proved by subjecting the Evangelists’ accounts to the same rules of evidence that apply to Municipal Law.

I do not think there is a single thing here you could possibly know even if true.

I think you are forgetting we’re supposed to be applying Greenleaf’s principle of probability!

No, and there is another huge inconsistency here. I am bound by the descriptions assigned to God and his thousands of promises recorded thousands of years ago. Science is not bound by anything. Even the impossible or virtually impossible is claimed to be valid science and layer upon layer upon layer of assumptions producing assumptions are derived from it. Christians do not have the luxury of being restricted by nothing.

That’s true! Your beliefs are, as you imply, necessarily dogmatic and you hold to it as an article of faith. But science can never, ever be true, only highly probable.

Yes they do. Exactly what everyday facts are multiverses based on. There is not the slightest reason to even think the natural law we know so little about has anything to do with them. There is not the slightest evidence they exist, and there are endless reasons to think they can't exist. Yet they are valid and God not. Why?

I have no idea why you are asking me about multiverses. I see no reason to believe there are such things, and even if there were they would presumably be constrained by the contingent limitations of matter. It’s a rubbish theory as far as I’m concerned.

 

[cottage]

What does our location have to do with this? Quantum physics was extrapolated before any known natural law could explain it and it was true. Why is it only a non-natural explanation that can't be reliably extrapolated. Why is God less probable than the next field of physics we discover? In fact much of theoretical science is based on no known reality and many times contrary to it. Hawking's has waxed on quite a bit about what occurs in black holes or multiverses. Based on what? No evidence is available and no known principles are known to apply. [/font][/color][/color][/color].

All metaphysics and some of those favoured hypotheses in theoretical science I consider little more than speculative. The only thing they’ve got going for them is that they describe the physical, which at least is consistent with our material world, whereas the supernatural does not. But in any event they are only hypotheses and even the advocates don’t believe-in them, not in the way that you believe in God.

No, life coming only from life is consistent with every known observation ever performed. Why is what is consistent with every observation question begging but what is inconsistent with every observation perfectly valid and claimed as fact at times. Double standards do not come any more flagrant. Causality is demonstrated in every effect ever observed. God is not dependent on causality. It may be said the perception of him is based on it but not his existence. Nothing caused God. The last piece of "logic" above escapes me.

Life coming from life is perfectly valid, and cause and effect is also a fact; those things are an essential part of our world. God is not! An effect is observed to be in conjunction with every cause. But God is not! You say the last piece of logic escapes you, so permit me to explain. Causation is a feature of the physical world and it cannot logically be both necessary and contingent. This demonstrates the problem of inferring the existence of other worlds (gods) while expecting to apply phenomena from the actual world. For if the same causal phenomenon is necessary for the omnipotent being’s work then the omnipotent being cannot work without it! And so the absurdity we arrive at is that the Being’s omnipotence and creative ability is causation dependent: it cannot be the former without the latter, and yet the latter (thedenial of which invites no contradiction) means that it cannot be the former!

Supernatural experience is no less valid than natural experience. If truth can be truth can be gained by the natural there is no reason to suggest it can't be gained through the transcendent.

You haven’t addressed the question I asked: what truths and knowledge of the world are derived from, or given by, God and what knowledge can we have of God over and above that which is already available to us in the basic concept?

Greenleaf never claimed that because X occurred on earth it exists in other worlds. He concluded that if X occurred in this world and this world does not contain the explanation of X then it's explanation is beyond this world. His paper I referenced is only concerned with the reliability of the testimony for X. The impossibility of the natural world to produce X is a matter for history, science, and philosophy and so is a side issue for that paper.

Then how do you explain this: “We may fairly conclude that the power which was originally put forth to create the world is still constantly and without ceasing exerted to sustain it; and that the experienced connection between cause and effect is but the uniform and constantly active operation of the finger of God.

Actually that is fact with proof. people have been clinically dead for quite some time and have recovered. It used to be such a problem caskets came with signaling devices equipped. However that was not my argument anyway. A lack of evidence is only a problem if more evidence should exist. The only resurrection in the Bible is of Christ. The testimony for it meets all criteria for reliability. What additional evidence should you have.

?

Well, we can’t go back in time to see for ourselves a cadaver being restored to life so there is no additional evidence that could make such an occurrence less improbable. But of course if the event could be replicated today, even with the aid of modern technology then we would have to concede that the Resurrection was at least plausible.

Many things in the natural world are independent of it. Numbers, many constants, abstract concepts have been shown to be independent of nature. Their existence in nature is not proof or even evidence that they are naturally derived.

There is not the slightest reason to believe cause and effect are only natural laws.

The world is everything that is the case, to include demonstrative truths, tautologies, geometry, and quantity and number. And they are naturally derived for they inhere in the world in the sum of its parts; we have the concept of a sphere for example because there are spherical objects in the world, and we have the law of identity because a thing can only be what it is and not some other thing at the same time and in the sane way. But I’m amazed that you say: “There is not the slightest reason to believe cause and effect are only natural laws”, especially when you announced further up the page: “God is not dependent on causality”. In that case someone had better inform Craig because the Kalam argument is now looking redundant. The reason we know that cause is natural is because it is contingent. If it wasn’t then the world could be the necessary Being. But of course it is contingent and we know that to be certain because the contrary of every causal event implies no contradiction; it simply doesn’t have to be!

I agree he included his beliefs. I also claim his beliefs were not what he used as his core argumentation. The man as much as any in history and countless that claim faith were thoroughly trained in separating preference from evidence. Your confusing inclusion with foundation or method.

Looking at my notes of over ten years ago I see I have marked with an asterisk where Greenleaf discusses points of law, and I have marked with a triangle where he appears to be making an impassioned plea to his faith or where he uses such terms as “our Savior” or “our Lord” or presumes to lead the reader by use of his own subjective opinion. There are seventeen marked with an asterisk and twelve marked with a triangle.

Greenleaf says: “There should be a readiness on our part, to investigate with candor to follow the truth wherever it may lead us...” Yes, exactly! But why, it must be asked, does this legal scholar insist that we “…submit, without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of [the Christian] religion”?

I’m quite certain that anybody that reads the Testimony of the Evangelists, theist or sceptic, will find it rather difficult to believe that Greenleaf did in fact set out to disprove the testimony concerning the Resurrection of Christ. The most certain fact to be concluded is not the Resurrection but the intensity and commitment of Greenleaf’s own faith.

 

[Thief]

Well thats great that you say that and all but I need the evidence that lead you to this sort of conclusion.

Please review the post you quoted.....
Faith is not formed of evidence.
It is held by reason.

 

[ladybug77]

Simple. 'GOD'...is that someONE? or someTHING? simply doesnt matter...'God' is thought. Not a mind, not a brain or body...a thought...that realizes its thinking. That very moment that pure thought acknowledged itself...that was God. No rules, no exceptions...he/she/it is AWARE of existing...now this thought...is the ONE AND ONLY THOUGHT at this moment! not the one and only molecule...the very first thought! Wow! Time didnt exist...no other thoughts existed...do we know the exact thought? No. Do we understand that something must be aware of existing before it actually exist WITHIN itself? Yes. We assume the plants of earth are 'alive'. Well yes...they are alive to us...because we are aware they exist. But is the plant alive to ITSELF? We dont know!! We arent in charge of the plant! We cant force it to realize its there! We are 'created in 'God's' image...because we think! Because we ask these silly question...we are 'God' like! We exist and we know it! And its beautiful! So if you believe all this...the question is what now?? Ok...fine...im aware that i exist...big stinking deal right? Well...we are on common ground then! All of us...can agree AT LEAST THIS: we are aware of our existence. REGARDLESS of HOW...or WHY ...we are aware. The actual awareness is the root of all questions. But if we were FULLY aware...there would be no questions. We must be somewhere in the middle of 'all knowing'...and not knowing at all! And btw...if my statements are correct...this 'God' would be 'all knowing' considering its the only knowing!! And the 'i am, that i am'...totally makes sense too! That little 'voice' inside your head...do you listen to it? Or ignore it? Are you so conformed to societies 'box' that listening to the very part of you that makes you you is 'crazy?' And if it was crazy...then God is crazy. But its not crazy!!! Its LOVE!! we can experience!! LOVE is the experience! 'GOD' is LOVE! we are love. We are aware...so we reach out to thank someone, anyone for this life! We reach out to curse this life at times! We desire to understand...when we already understand!! We get it! Its the questions that hold us back...we simply just ARE. We share this awareness...that makes us all equal. we cannot make a false idol to God...because its not a 'seeing'...its a 'knowing'.God couldnt have written the bible...people did! Who asked questions...and became aware of something far greater than existing! Yes...KNOWING you are existing! (And reflecting inward) being born again? Yea...this works too...makes since. We are existing withOUT realizing...first birth. We are AWARE...second birth. It can be explained viewing 'God' this way...but ive started a short novel already. Lol. 'God' has given us a great gift! If you understand this...you can see how we are all one. Yet all different. thats what makes us worthy. Unique awareness. ) ahhh....so glad i got that off my chest.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Please review the post you quoted.....
Faith is not formed of evidence.
It is held by reason.

In other words, its a house with no foundation. No surprise there.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Please review the post you quoted.....
Faith is not formed of evidence.
It is held by reason.

Well...you have to provide a situation in which "reason" supports Faith. Faith is typically devoid of reason or at least in the methaphysical "blind faith" sense.

 

[ladybug77]

If 'God' is 'thought' it proves the existence of 'God'

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If 'God' is 'thought' it proves the existence of 'God'

That simply changes the definition of god. That doesn't produce an argument for religion. If I call Communism Democracy it doesn't make it any more or less appealing.

 

[ladybug77]

Well...you have to provide a situation in which "reason" supports Faith. Faith is typically devoid of reason or at least in the methaphysical "blind faith" sense.

If my faith is that 'God' is 'thought'...then its supported and proven. 'Reason' is a synomyn for 'thought' ironically...and more coincidental...'conscience' translates to: 'with science'. Its not a blind-faith...its starring you right in the face.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If my faith is that 'God' is 'thought'...then its supported and proven. 'Reason' is a synomyn for 'thought' ironically...and more coincidental...'conscience' translates to: 'with science'. Its not a blind-faith...its starring you right in the face.

Then you don't have a belief in any concept that a normal secular person has. Just as I stated in the above post, you simply change the wording or definitio behind god but not provided an argument for religion of any kind.

I can't stop you calling "thoughts" god but I can simply disagree that it would be qualified for my personal definition of god.

 

[ladybug77]

That simply changes the definition of god. That doesn't produce an argument for religion. If I call Communism Democracy it doesn't make it any more or less appealing.

Not really...the definition of 'God' is: YHWH. It literally means: 'to be' ...the 'I am, That I am'. It doesnt change it at all...infact it compliments it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not really...the definition of 'God' is: YHWH. It literally means: 'to be' ...the 'I am, That I am'. It doesnt change it at all...infact it compliments it.

In that the "christian" "jewish" "Islamic" religions are based off of it then yes. Yes it does change it.

That means you remove the commandments. The idea that god is a being or anything supernatural. It removes anything beyond the physical and more or less represents it in the same way many Atheists view the world.

 

[ladybug77]

In that the "christian" "jewish" "Islamic" religions are based off of it then yes. Yes it does change it.

That means you remove the commandments. The idea that god is a being or anything supernatural. It removes anything beyond the physical and more or less represents it in the same way many Atheists view the world.

So...i want to make sure we are clear...are you stating that implying 'God' is merely 'thought' ...that it removes all spiritual aspects...?? And it represents the view of 'God' more or less the same way Atheists view the world?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So...i want to make sure we are clear...are you stating that implying 'God' is merely 'thought' ...that it removes all spiritual aspects...?? And it represents the view of 'God' more or less the same way Atheists view the world?

If you go so far as to say that god is proven by the idea that we have "thought" then yes. If you propose that "god" is beyond that then "thought" doesn't actually prove anything.