INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

What "flaw"?

I do not get it. I said: Now the argument's critical flaw is that creation implies no need. Even if you did not agree, how in the world could you ask what flaw I was referring to.

Classical Theism describes God is an all-sufficient, personal being that freely chose to create the world.

Agreed

Proposition: God is not an all-sufficient being Good luck

1. If God is all-sufficient then by definition he has no needs, desires, or unfulfilled wishes

He has no needs. I see no conflict in having desires though I am not sure the word desire accurately would convey what God has. He has no needs is the important point.

2. God had a reason and purpose for creating the world

I think I agree but even if I did not the flaw will still wreck the argument anyway.

3. He created the world for his own benefit or for the benefit of others (the only two coherent reasons, at least one of which is in line with Classical Theism)

4. He did not create the world for the benefit of others because there were no “others”.

And here we go. If I plan to buy a car that has not been built yet, I might build a garage for it. A thing not yet in existence would still require (or could) require other things. IOW if God for some reason desired to make humans he must create oxygen, food, and gravity. Therefor oxygen, food, and gravity would be created to meet the needs of things not yet created. This is a fatal flaw but let's continue.

5. It follows from 4 that he created the world for his own benefit

An incorrect premise is a bad foundation for a conclusion. I am not saying he did not create only as a result of his desire to do so. I am saying you can't know he did because your premise is invalid.

6. But if God is as 1 then he is and has everything
7. Therefore God that created a world for his own benefit is not all-sufficient (contradiction demonstrated)

This is going to be problematic because you are binding God by a human limitation. We must first have a need (which is a problem concerning your claim to begin with, as God has no need) then we later fulfill it. This time domain that limits our actions does not limit his. He could have fulfilled his desire as soon as it existed. Time is a necessary component of this claim, and concerning God we cannot make reasonable claim about sequencing. More importantly a desire implies no necessity of any kind.

Conclusion: There is no all-sufficient God

I do not think even if your above points were al valid this would be a reasonable conclusion. Desires unfulfilled are not necessarily lack or insufficiency. An artist may have a desire to paint but did not actualize it. He is no less fully an artist. God is no less sufficient a creator if he did not create X or Y.

The contradiction is demonstrated by a supposedly necessary being that is contingent upon contingent existence, a self-evident absurdity. And you will notice this argument is entirely consistent with my overall critique and the points I’m disputing with you elsewhere, which is to say by theists’ own stated arguments God is self-contradictorily dependent upon the phenomenal world.

How is God less God without a creation? Having a potential benefit does not mandate a potential need or loss without it. I think I saw an argument in one of the theistic argumentation books I am currently reading that speaks on this problem of essence versus expression. Let me see if I can find it and I will add more. I think your argument fails completely but it is not as obvious in this form as it has been previously. Let me see if I can shed more light on it. Let me ask you this. Is God any less God because he desires that no divorces occur but has relinquished actualizing that desire. I also do not think you can find all-sufficient in the Bible anyway. That can be an ambiguous term. God in the Bible is said to be all powerful, morally perfect, all knowing, omnipresent, and personal. Those are not ambiguous. Where did you get all sufficient? I must know what your source meant by the term and how he derived it to know in what way it was used. It is not one I commonly discuss.

 

[cottage]

I do not get it. I said: Now the argument's critical flaw is that creation implies no need. Even if you did not agree, how in the world could you ask what flaw I was referring to.

Agreed

Proposition: God is not an all-sufficient being Good luck

He has no needs. I see no conflict in having desires though I am not sure the word desire accurately would convey what God has. He has no needs is the important point.

I think I agree but even if I did not the flaw will still wreck the argument anyway.

And here we go. If I plan to buy a car that has not been built yet, I might build a garage for it. A thing not yet in existence would still require (or could) require other things. IOW if God for some reason desired to make humans he must create oxygen, food, and gravity. Therefor oxygen, food, and gravity would be created to meet the needs of things not yet created. This is a fatal flaw but let's continue.

An incorrect premise is a bad foundation for a conclusion. I am not saying he did not create only as a result of his desire to do so. I am saying you can't know he did because your premise is invalid.

This is going to be problematic because you are binding God by a human limitation. We must first have a need (which is a problem concerning your claim to begin with, as God has no need) then we later fulfill it. This time domain that limits our actions does not limit his. He could have fulfilled his desire as soon as it existed. Time is a necessary component of this claim, and concerning God we cannot make reasonable claim about sequencing. More importantly a desire implies no necessity of any kind.

I do not think even if your above points were al valid this would be a reasonable conclusion. Desires unfulfilled are not necessarily lack or insufficiency. An artist may have a desire to paint but did not actualize it. He is no less fully an artist. God is no less sufficient a creator if he did not create X or Y.

How is God less God without a creation? Having a potential benefit does not mandate a potential need or loss without it. I think I saw an argument in one of the theistic argumentation books I am currently reading that speaks on this problem of essence versus expression. Let me see if I can find it and I will add more. I think your argument fails completely but it is not as obvious in this form as it has been previously. Let me see if I can shed more light on it. Let me ask you this. Is God any less God because he desires that no divorces occur but has relinquished actualizing that desire. I also do not think you can find all-sufficient in the Bible anyway. That can be an ambiguous term. God in the Bible is said to be all powerful, morally perfect, all knowing, omnipresent, and personal. Those are not ambiguous. Where did you get all sufficient? I must know what your source meant by the term and how he derived it to know in what way it was used. It is not one I commonly discuss.

You have no coherent objection to my argument and instead appear to be throwing everything you can at it with little care or thought. You accuse me of “semantic exercises” but readily resort to semantics yourself in order to question or reinterpret the overall meaning of what the argument is stating. And I have already told you once that “need” does not mean necessary. Need is a sufficient condition but not a necessary condition for God creating the world.

Now in respect of my 4th premise you show that you completely misunderstand the argument with that car analogy, where you speak of planning to buy a car and build a garage for it; and you compound your misunderstanding further by saying God created oxygen, food and gravity for the humans yet to be created. I’m astounded that you don’t seem to be able to see the contradiction of your own making. There were no humans in existence but it was God’s intention to create them, but being non-existent creatures it was impossible for them in their non-existent state to benefit from anything. Self-evidently a thing that doesn’t exist cannot be improved or be made the recipient of a benefit. Therefore the only entity that could benefit from creation was God himself. Classical Theism appears to concur and we are told that God seeks a relationship with his creation. And William Lane Craig also agrees, and said the purpose of creation is “to bring people to knowledge of himself” and to “know and glorify God”.

And then you introduce yet another analogy that has no relevance to the argument, by asking whether God is “any less God because he desires that no divorces occur but relinquished actualizing that desire?”. What I’ve presented is a logical argument, where if God is X then he is not Y. God is what he is, sufficient in all things and his supreme being cannot logically benefit from anything or be augmented further.

But I was rather surprised to hear that the term all-sufficient is unfamiliar to you. It is commonly used in older theological and philosophical works, and in biblical terms it is translated from El Shadda, which is used in the Old Testament some forty times and has various interpretations. However, I use the term in a very specific way, as I laid out in my original argument, which is that God by definition is the greatest being; God is and has everything, i.e. he is necessarily sufficient in all things. To be otherwise is to be not-God, and a contradiction is therefore implied.

 

[1robin]

You have no coherent objection to my argument and instead appear to be throwing everything you can at it with little care or thought. You accuse me of “semantic exercises” but readily resort to semantics yourself in order to question or reinterpret the overall meaning of what the argument is stating. And I have already told you once that “need” does not mean necessary. Need is a sufficient condition but not a necessary condition for God creating the world.

It does not matter what need meant if need does not apply to God. God needed nothing to be God. He could have created something totally different, he could have created nothing at all, he could have done either or what he actually did without need ever being involved at any point beyond what the type of creation he planned required. Need in any of it's common meanings has no application concerning God and what he created. To use the word is to crate a flaw by using it. You and another person here (I will not be so base as to indicate them by name) exhibit exactly what is so frustrating with modern academia. In my long experience in purely academic realms I completely lost my mesmerization with it. They do a great job in every field up until some break point. Then they start thinking they can literally define and assert truth into existence. It is most obvious in theoretical science but every field has a group in the counter productive stratosphere. The other person objected to the cosmological argument on the grounds that it was logically invalid. I looked into the criteria for it. The criteria are so absurd it literally makes it far easier to create an argument that is known to be false as valid than one known to be true. I can make arguments that officially would be deemed valid that are in fact not true. In fact most site where I found the criteria list many arguments that are known to be false as examples that arguments that are true. What the heck is going on here? If you establish a criteria them immediately endorses false claims what is the use. Not to mention the criteria a pure opinion. There exists nothing that if disagreed on within that can validate with certainty who is right. That was just an example of the over reach of academics. I believe as well for whatever reasons have abandoned actually caring what your clients guilt or innocence is but have resolved to use any technical means possible to make him appear one way or the other. I can easily respect your academic prowess and education but I have no use for it. I am interested in truth even if I have to go against a thousand procedural technicalities to arrive at it. Let me sum this up with a verse that illustrates this perfectly.


1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

God's Wrath against Sin
…21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools.

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1 Timothy 6:20 Commentaries: O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge "--

Now keep in mind that I work in a technical field and have a mathematics degree. I am not some idiot jealous of smart people (and I certainly consider them smart). I honestly feel like in every other area humanity eventually goes at least on step past competence. I love philosophy and science and most of it is unimaginably brilliant but as always they just keep going prodded on by peer pressure, the need to fit in so they are not ostracized and denied publication, grant money, tenure, and the all consuming arrogance that comes with knowledge. I do not expect you to agree but wanted to make sure you at least understand where I am coming from. There is little better than good scholarship but little worse than bad scholarship clothed in academic terminology.

Since I went off the rails far further than I anticipated I will address the rest in a separate post.

 

[1robin]

Now in respect of my 4th premise you show that you completely misunderstand the argument with that car analogy, where you speak of planning to buy a car and build a garage for it; and you compound your misunderstanding further by saying God created oxygen, food and gravity for the humans yet to be created. I’m astounded that you don’t seem to be able to see the contradiction of your own making. There were no humans in existence but it was God’s intention to create them, but being non-existent creatures it was impossible for them in their non-existent state to benefit from anything. Self-evidently a thing that doesn’t exist cannot be improved or be made the recipient of a benefit. Therefore the only entity that could benefit from creation was God himself. Classical Theism appears to concur and we are told that God seeks a relationship with his creation. And William Lane Craig also agrees, and said the purpose of creation is “to bring people to knowledge of himself” and to “know and glorify God”.

I love Craig and it would be hard for me to think him wrong but as I am unfamiliar with his specific claims here they have no relevance.

My claims are:
1. God had no need to create anything.
2. However once he determined to make a specific thing it came with necessary accessories (for lack of a better term).
3. The need for necessities implies no primary need because he did not need to create the entities that had secondary necessities. I do not need to build a car to be 100% an engineer. But once I decide to build a car roads and tires become necessities.
4. There is no contradiction associated with benefit and all sufficiency. That is why I keep accentuating your need argument. I can benefit from a back massage but am no less human without one and not in need of one to be fully human.
5. The only contradiction possible is between need and all sufficiency, not between benefit and all sufficiency.

Tell you what, I have never done so but am a member of Craig's reasonable faith site. I can submit your argument to him and see what he says about it. I have no idea how to go about it and how long it will take but it might be enlightening. If you wish to do so, please repost your argument in a concise but complete paragraph or two and include what it is specifically Craig says you think is wrong. I see no contradictions and am unfamiliar with Craig's claims about this. That is the end of it for me unless you want to do what I suggested.

And then you introduce yet another analogy that has no relevance to the argument, by asking whether God is “any less God because he desires that no divorces occur but relinquished actualizing that desire?”. What I’ve presented is a logical argument, where if God is X then he is not Y. God is what he is, sufficient in all things and his supreme being cannot logically benefit from anything or be augmented further.

That is my point. Regardless of your clients guilt or innocence you have scoured procedure books and made technical objections. You say every analogy fails. That might be because your actual case exists only in abstract procedures based on the opinions of over reaching scholars without reference to fact. Then why don't you give me a real world analogy where you technicalities can be seen in operation. I see no conflict between sufficiency and benefit. It would be the same as saying an infinite series of numbers benefits from adding + 1 to it. Now that I think about it I do not think benefit is the right word at all anyway. I think classifying creation as the logical outworking of a creator is far more accurate. It is an expression of who God is not something God needed to add to himself. I think your saying that because Craig used benefit that I must abide by the word.

1. I have no such burden.
2. This is a completely semantic exercise based on some objective meaning of the word benefit which does not exist.
3. It is completely susceptible to the flaws of language use. Our definitions (in fact our minds cannot grasp infinite things). Our terms are not designed to rigorously incorporate what is true of infinite beings.

But I was rather surprised to hear that the term all-sufficient is unfamiliar to you. It is commonly used in older theological and philosophical works, and in biblical terms it is translated from El Shadda, which is used in the Old Testament some forty times and has various interpretations. However, I use the term in a very specific way, as I laid out in my original argument, which is that God by definition is the greatest being; God is and has everything, i.e. he is necessarily sufficient in all things. To be otherwise is to be not-God, and a contradiction is therefore implied.

I did not say it was unfamiliar. I said it is not in the Bible. It is a human convention about what can be derived from what the Bible does say. You wish to conduct a strictly technical argument that relies on terminology. To do so I must do what I normally do not do. I must be very restrictive on what I technically am responsible to defend. I am only responsible for revelation, not what a philosopher extrapolates from it.

El Shadda means God all-mighty to Christian scholars and the God of heaven to Jewish scholars. Maximum might and identity respectively. It implies omnipotence not all sufficiency. Normally I would never had had any problem with the word, but your are binding God by what a word means to some humans in a think tank. I must be technically as strict as you are to debate you.

The words all-sufficient do not appear in connection with God in the NIV, the KJV, TLB, the Orthodox Jewish Bible, NRSV, or any other I could find. It only appears once in any of them and in connection with people, not God. You have made this a technical and procedural debate and while I do not like them I have out of respect participated in it. I must be as technically demanding as you are. The word does not appear in revelation and so everything humans have attached to it is inadmissible.

I think as well you are binding a Biblical God by the terminology associated with the generic philosopher's God. Normally I would not care but I must distinguish in your case. Sufficiency always applies to a goal or capacity not essence. My shovel is sufficient to dig a whole, my food is sufficient for survival, my car is sufficient for transportation. That word would seem to have no role and no relevance concerning God. He is sufficient to meet all goals. This reminds me of a freewill argument. I was surprised to learn a common definition of freewill is the ability to choose any choice that is desired. This was in opposition to what I had thought. That freewill means the ability to choose anything. If we are going to stay bogged down in semantics this will be a boring and exhausting debate that will probably not resolve anything.

Anyway let me know about Craig.

 

[cottage]

I love Craig and it would be hard for me to think him wrong but as I am unfamiliar with his specific claims here they have no relevance.

My claims are:
1. God had no need to create anything.
2. However once he determined to make a specific thing it came with necessary accessories (for lack of a better term).
3. The need for necessities implies no primary need because he did not need to create the entities that had secondary necessities. I do not need to build a car to be 100% an engineer. But once I decide to build a car roads and tires become necessities.
4. There is no contradiction associated with benefit and all sufficiency. That is why I keep accentuating your need argument. I can benefit from a back massage but am no less human without one and not in need of one to be fully human.
5. The only contradiction possible is between need and all sufficiency, not between benefit and all sufficiency.

Well I’m sorry but you are still not seeing the essence of the argument or the inherent problem. It ought to be obvious that the engineer building a car and the person having a massage, are not in any way analogous with God. For example look where you say “I can benefit from a back massage”. Now would it really make sense to make that comparison with God, to say he can benefit from something?
To sum the argument up for you very briefly, the contradiction becomes evident because there is a supposed Supreme Being, who, by very definition of the term, is a complete entity that wants for nothing and yet intentionally brought the world of creatures into being. But since nothing existed prior to the act of creation there was nothing that could profit, gain, or benefit from the act other than God himself. Therefore if God intentionally created the world with a purpose, that could only be for his own sake or advantage. But as the Supreme Being is a concept already augmented without limit an act of creation is purposeless, which is absurd. And on that account there is no Supreme Being.

Below I’ve presented the argument in a more formal style to take account of your premise “God has no need to create anything”, which I agree would be true if God is indeed the Supreme Being.

So, we can begin by saying:

1. God did create something, i.e. he created the world
2. It is irrational to say a personal being freely and intentionally created the world for no purpose
3. God did he did create the world for a purpose (he created humans, that they may know and glorify him)
4. Therefore there was a need or purpose that benefitted God (3)
5. The Supreme Being requires nothing since he is perfectly complete and entire
6. If 5 is not true then God is not the Supreme Being.
7. Premise 5 is true by definition
8. God had needs, desires, or unfulfilled wishes (3)
9. God is not the all-sufficient Supreme Being
Conclusion: There is no Supreme Being

I think as well you are binding a Biblical God by the terminology associated with the generic philosopher's God. Normally I would not care but I must distinguish in your case. Sufficiency always applies to a goal or capacity not essence. My shovel is sufficient to dig a whole, my food is sufficient for survival, my car is sufficient for transportation. That word would seem to have no role and no relevance concerning God. He is sufficient to meet all goals. This reminds me of a freewill argument. I was surprised to learn a common definition of freewill is the ability to choose any choice that is desired. This was in opposition to what I had thought. That freewill means the ability to choose anything. If we are going to stay bogged down in semantics this will be a boring and exhausting debate that will probably not resolve anything.

Anyway let me know about Craig.

In my discussions with you I cannot help but notice that a great many of the terms, phrases, and indeed the arguments you use are Craig’s. Very well, but if it’s okay for Craig’s metaphysics and logical arguments to be acceptable then you’re in no position to deny me mine by complaining about what you see as semantics and terminology, when I’m only giving self-evident premises and logical arguments in plain terms

And I see you are making heavy weather of the term “all-sufficient”. It is as if you believe that particular expression is essential to the argument. As I explained to you previously, I use the term in a very specific way, as I laid out in my original argument, which is that God by definition is the greatest being; God is and has everything, i.e. in that way he is necessarily sufficient in all things. The term is more a matter of convenience as a way of assembling the necessary elements under a single banner (in italics), and I can dispense with it leaving the principle of my argument unaffected. What is at stake here is demonstrated in the argument and conclusion I gave further up the page, which is that God does not match the definition of the Supreme Being.

Re Craig: My argument as I've developed it over time is lengthy and runs to several pages. But you are very welcome to use any or all of the simple abridged versions and explanations that I’ve posted on this forum.

 

[camanintx]

And you keep equating any uncertainty with total unreliability.

1. There exist more (by far) reasons to think cause and effect was involved with the creation (coming into being) of the universe than not.
2. That matter, time, and space came into being at the same moment.
3. If cause and effect was involved it must have operated in a domain independently of nature. The cause of time must necessarily be independent of it. The cause of matter must be non-material. The cause of space must not require space.

The only logical exception is simultaneous causation but it also would exist independently of these parameters but I lack the terminology to describe it effectively even if I knew how it could work.

My claims are:
1. God had no need to create anything.
2. However once he determined to make a specific thing it came with necessary accessories (for lack of a better term).
3. The need for necessities implies no primary need because he did not need to create the entities that had secondary necessities. I do not need to build a car to be 100% an engineer. But once I decide to build a car roads and tires become necessities.
4. There is no contradiction associated with benefit and all sufficiency. That is why I keep accentuating your need argument. I can benefit from a back massage but am no less human without one and not in need of one to be fully human.
5. The only contradiction possible is between need and all sufficiency, not between benefit and all sufficiency.

If time came into existence along with space and matter when God created the universe, then why do you keep talking about God using temporal terms like "once"? Without time, God's act of creation would have always been necessary.

 

[Looncall]

No you didn't. By definition it takes an experience with God to produce a Christian. Lots of people claim to be Christians but have no actual affiliation with him. Let me illustrate.


Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
https://www.google.com/#q=born+again+verses

You do not get born of the spirit by wearing a cross, belonging to a church, or answering Christian on a census. I am making no moral distinctions here just the most important doctrinal one in the entire Bible. Born of God requires an experience with God.


For the sake of time, whether you agree or not just remember my claims come in that context. I provided stats that corroborate my numbers. I have spent enough time researching this particular issue, as a prayer councilor, and writing a few papers on it to be able to make a reasonable conservative informed guess as to numbers. The data about this issue agrees with my informed estimations. However this does not matter. Even if you changed my numbers by an order of magnitude (something you would need mountains of data I can't find to justify) you would still have proportions and numbers so large as to eliminate any dismissal of what they suggest. IOW you are going to have to have to provide a better explanation for hundreds of millions of rational people claiming to have met God better than I can. Amplifying any uncertainties I may have will never make the numbers available for dismissal.



So you are claiming to have experienced the supernatural in the same post denying it has occurred for many others. Something is way off here. Claims made in ignorance are not relevant anyway. The Bible clams speaking in tongues is or can be a gift from God. It is the authority not some ignorant people who claim to believe. BTW tell me the counter occurrence that must have occurred along with your speaking in tongues without looking it up. The Bible and 100% of my experience always contains something else that occurs with these events of speaking in tongues.

I think the numbers for Catholicism were about 40% who claimed to have. For some reason they included black Catholics separately and it was over 70%. That is hundreds of millions all by it's self. Evangelical numbers are even higher and I think Pentecostals the highest of all. The same experience Jesus spoke on in the above verse and is mentioned in the Bible in dozens of places is to what I refer. It always includes common elements but at times (like the upper room) contains unique elements. You can't know much about this subject and at the same time ask me what experience I am referring to. Without the experience, Christianity means nothing and as Paul said we are to be pitied above all men. The experience is the culmination and climax of the entire Bible.

Even if large numbers of people have the experience of god, you still must demonstrate that you are not merely describing some aspect of human psychology. People often have experiences that are false. How do you know that this is not an example? People do all belong to the same species, after all, and surely share tendencies to defects of cognition.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The story of nicodemus is interesting because in the other gospels a similar question is asked "again a teacher of the law asks it" but the response is different.

 

[1robin]

Well I’m sorry but you are still not seeing the essence of the argument or the inherent problem. It ought to be obvious that the engineer building a car and the person having a massage, are not in any way analogous with God. For example look where you say “I can benefit from a back massage”. Now would it really make sense to make that comparison with God, to say he can benefit from something?
To sum the argument up for you very briefly, the contradiction becomes evident because there is a supposed Supreme Being, who, by very definition of the term, is a complete entity that wants for nothing and yet intentionally brought the world of creatures into being. But since nothing existed prior to the act of creation there was nothing that could profit, gain, or benefit from the act other than God himself. Therefore if God intentionally created the world with a purpose, that could only be for his own sake or advantage. But as the Supreme Being is a concept already augmented without limit an act of creation is purposeless, which is absurd. And on that account there is no Supreme Being.

You seemed to object to my using human analogies for God. Yet you for some reasons jail God in a prison associated with the term benefit and whatever someone has decided it's definition should be. I do not think benefit is applicable. I think God created as the logical outworking of his nature. These are just more semantic games. Man are they exhausting. Since to counter semantic technicalities I must use semantic technicalities let's do something different as I had suggested. You say that Craig used the words "for the benefit of" and that that would create a contradiction. Knowing Craig as well as I do and what he does to objections like this every day my money is on him. Give me his exact statement and your exact objection and if practical I will get his explanation of the veracity of what he stated.

I know of no better way to resolve this, and I am exhausted concerning it.

Below I’ve presented the argument in a more formal style to take account of your premise “God has no need to create anything”, which I agree would be true if God is indeed the Supreme Being.

So, we can begin by saying:

1. God did create something, i.e. he created the world
2. It is irrational to say a personal being freely and intentionally created the world for no purpose
3. God did he did create the world for a purpose (he created humans, that they may know and glorify him)
4. Therefore there was a need or purpose that benefitted God (3)
5. The Supreme Being requires nothing since he is perfectly complete and entire
6. If 5 is not true then God is not the Supreme Being.
7. Premise 5 is true by definition
8. God had needs, desires, or unfulfilled wishes (3)
9. God is not the all-sufficient Supreme Being
Conclusion: There is no Supreme Being

Use this, use the argument the way you originally did, heck change it up and give me a new one. Just give me Craig's exact words and your problem with them and I will see if I can get him to straighten out whatever has gone so wrong here in this technical objection. I know he will answer but I just do not know how long it takes.

In my discussions with you I cannot help but notice that a great many of the terms, phrases, and indeed the arguments you use are Craig’s. Very well, but if it’s okay for Craig’s metaphysics and logical arguments to be acceptable then you’re in no position to deny me mine by complaining about what you see as semantics and terminology, when I’m only giving self-evident premises and logical arguments in plain terms

I have many arguments that come from Craig or were restated by him. I would certainly defend many of his positions. I however am not bound by every word he will utter, especially since he has an extreme advantage in knowing what he meant and why. I never suggest Craig's argument are valid because they happen to line up with formal philosophy. I agree with him because they line up with common sense. They do have the benefit of coming from a scholar well trained in formal philosophy and are valid but that is not why I agree wit them. You do not seem to want to debate anything on the basis of common sense or reasonability but stick tightly to formal philosophy. If I cannot resolve the issue by common sense then I must use Craig's formal logic to debate you and that is not my specialty. I normally find much of formal logic abhorrent. For example logical validity would validate arguments known to be false as valid. In fact using it's criteria it would be much easier to make a false but valid argument than a true and valid argument. Of what use is that?

Anyway I am burned out on formal logic, much of which I think is abused to arrive at a preferred position, to be opinion based anyway, and many times examples of academia gone horribly wrong. If you wish to continue debating that way then I am going to get Craig's much more qualified opinion of your claims.

If you wish to use common sense then I am your guy, but you seem to prefer the former.

And I see you are making heavy weather of the term “all-sufficient”. It is as if you believe that particular expression is essential to the argument. As I explained to you previously, I use the term in a very specific way, as I laid out in my original argument, which is that God by definition is the greatest being; God is and has everything, i.e. in that way he is necessarily sufficient in all things. The term is more a matter of convenience as a way of assembling the necessary elements under a single banner (in italics), and I can dispense with it leaving the principle of my argument unaffected. What is at stake here is demonstrated in the argument and conclusion I gave further up the page, which is that God does not match the definition of the Supreme Being.

You seek to technically bind God by the definitions humans have assigned to words and even inaccurate interpretations of Biblical terminology. You do not allow common language use and common sense to participate and to counter you I must be as technical as you are being. So yes I have begun to be very insistent on proper terminology and interpretation. I have found the term all-sufficient almost never used by Biblical scholars. They do use self-sufficient but it strictly means capacity to carry out intended actions. The bible in no way suggests God has everything. He does not have square circles or rocks so heavy he can't lift them. He does not even have a body that is part of his divine essence. What he does have is everything necessary to be God. He can do anything but has not done everything, he can make anything or could have chosen not to make anything, and he has no need beyond himself.

You are doing what I can do for every claim you make about anything. I can use technicality to logically assert you can't know it. For example.

If you said that you believe your family exists. I could say how do you KNOW that. You would probably give me sensory input claims. I could say how do you know you are being told actual truth by your eyes, ears, etc... You may say you have shared conclusions that suggest truth. I would say brains in a vat could be given common and false sensory inputs.

However I have no wish to defeat what is probably true by reliance on strict technicality and would using common sense say your family probably exists.

There is probably a way to technically object to any claim of any type that is both said to be valid and useless. I simply do not like the methodology nor trust it, but if that is what you want Craig is your man. Let me know.

Re Craig: My argument as I've developed it over time is lengthy and runs to several pages. But you are very welcome to use any or all of the simple abridged versions and explanations that I’ve posted on this forum.

I am quite certain Craig is going to destroy your claims in a paragraph or two using technically valid philosophy. I also imagine you will insist (as would be reasonably expected of anyone heavily invested in a claim) that I had mistakenly left an opening in your claims for his critique. To avoid all of that I wanted a simple paragraph with both his claim and you objection in your own words to submit to him. I do not want to have to discuss technical objections to semantic technicalities that were over turned. He is very candid and he may compliment you for all I know. I however expect quite the opposite.

 

[1robin]

If time came into existence along with space and matter when God created the universe, then why do you keep talking about God using temporal terms like "once"? Without time, God's act of creation would have always been necessary.

Simply because we have no terminology that enables a discussion of that type. Humans have many limitations. We can't conceive of things even if we think they exist. Our language is imperfect and finite. It has no theoretical capacity to be applicable in all realms. I am limited by our limitations and also perhaps my ignorance. Normally in formal debates they either mutually accept this or state it upfront so as to enable debate. I believe you know what I meant even if there was no perfect wording possible.

 

[1robin]

Even if large numbers of people have the experience of god, you still must demonstrate that you are not merely describing some aspect of human psychology. People often have experiences that are false. How do you know that this is not an example? People do all belong to the same species, after all, and surely share tendencies to defects of cognition.

This point is not a good argument but it is the first appropriate counter to my claim.


For example one of the most commonly used counter sources of religious experience is epileptic symptoms. I have no reason to believe epilepsy cannot produce what are thought to be religious experiences. I do know however that the total number of people with epilepsy is at best the tiniest fraction of those that claim experiences with God.

Another would be wishful thinking. I can only say that the character of the experience makes this impossible. I nor any Christian I ever met expected what occurred. There are not even words to describe it. I also know that if wishful thinking was the source it would soon fade away. However it is the quality of the experience that even decades later allows a Christian to face death passively and renews his faith whenever contemplated.

Another would be that any other source (like epilepsy, hallucinations, etc...) would not have produced the experience at the exact moment of faith. They would produce the experience at the exact moment the chemicals became unbalanced or that another event occurred that could have been mistaken for experiencing God. IOW a UFO can easily have been a plane because both experiences would have occurred at the same time and place. The chance I have an epileptic fit occurring the moment I see the scriptures are truthful is almost zero.

All other counter source claims are just as untenable, but I can not list why they all are one by one. Give me your best and we will examine it and see if it really can provide a better explanation than God's existence for claims of experience.

This is (for once) was an appropriate claim but I do not think an adequate one.

 

[1robin]

The story of nicodemus is interesting because in the other gospels a similar question is asked "again a teacher of the law asks it" but the response is different.

I would be interested in knowing what stories you equate with Nicodemus.

However keep this in mind, that Jesus already knew everything there was to know about the person questioning him. He often gave the exact answer that stymied whatever kind of dishonorable tactic the man was implementing. He also used those examples to make points at times instead of answering questions. One very simple story has the most complex message possible. When asked Good teacher Good teacher what must .......... Jesus did not even answer. He said only God is good yet you call me good. Jesus wanted first to make sure the guy understood who he was talking to. Then he went on to give him laws he knew that particular man could not obey. Not because the law can't save but because it can only save if you never break a single one, ever. The man did not understand he could not obey them all nor had obeyed them all until Jesus picked the one he knew that man would not even think he could obey. Then he said what is impossible for man (perfect obedience producing salvation) was possible for God (salvation by grace). Anyway I am getting off track.

 

[Parsimony]

Looking at the length of this thread, I guess the "indisputable" part of the thread title turned out to be quite wrong...

 

[1robin]

Looking at the length of this thread, I guess the "indisputable" part of the thread title turned out to be quite wrong...

I at least attempting to negate that inapplicable term thousands of posts ago. It was a silly standard. Faith precludes proof, but not evidence. So it is a little silly to require it and I readily concede proof of the type a hard core skeptic demands is neither available nor reasonable.

 

[1robin]

To all: I have been very busy lately. If I have left any post hanging that you wanted a response to, please let me know.

 

[cottage]

You seemed to object to my using human analogies for God. Yet you for some reasons jail God in a prison associated with the term benefit and whatever someone has decided it's definition should be. I do not think benefit is applicable. I think God created as the logical outworking of his nature. These are just more semantic games. Man are they exhausting. Since to counter semantic technicalities I must use semantic technicalities let's do something different as I had suggested. You say that Craig used the words "for the benefit of" and that that would create a contradiction. Knowing Craig as well as I do and what he does to objections like this every day my money is on him. Give me his exact statement and your exact objection and if practical I will get his explanation of the veracity of what he stated.

I’ve objected to those analogies only because they implied that man is like God in respect of the specific examples you used, which of course is absurd. And to say creation was God’s “outworking of nature” does nothing at all to address the contradiction. Also it is wrong of you to try and dismiss my argument as “semantic games” when I’ve given you very simple explanations in a number of different ways and in plain unambiguous language as well as straightforward logical arguments in the form of premises and a conclusion.


I’ve not said Craig used the words: ”for the benefit of”! I’ve quoted him as saying God is an “intelligent, personal being”. I have also quoted Craig as saying (in his defence of the moral argument) that “God created humans [not for their happiness in this world] but to come to knowledge of God and to glorify him”. And "...the cause of the world must be a personal being who freely chooses to create the world", and "The purpose of life is to be found in the personal relationship with a holy and loving God".

You seek to technically bind God by the definitions humans have assigned to words and even inaccurate interpretations of Biblical terminology. You do not allow common language use and common sense to participate and to counter you I must be as technical as you are being. So yes I have begun to be very insistent on proper terminology and interpretation. I have found the term all-sufficient almost never used by Biblical scholars. They do use self-sufficient but it strictly means capacity to carry out intended actions. The bible in no way suggests God has everything. He does not have square circles or rocks so heavy he can't lift them. He does not even have a body that is part of his divine essence. What he does have is everything necessary to be God. He can do anything but has not done everything, he can make anything or could have chosen not to make anything, and he has no need beyond himself.

The highlighted text is really saying nothing at all, because God needs a reason or purpose for what he does. Leibniz said "No fact can be real or existing and no statement true unless it has a sufficient reason why it should be thus and not otherwise". The world isn’t a necessary aspect of God, and while God’s eternal existence doesn’t demand an explanation, the finite world of creatures does require an explanation or a reason for its creation.

You are doing what I can do for every claim you make about anything. I can use technicality to logically assert you can't know it. For example.

If you said that you believe your family exists. I could say how do you KNOW that. You would probably give me sensory input claims. I could say how do you know you are being told actual truth by your eyes, ears, etc... You may say you have shared conclusions that suggest truth. I would say brains in a vat could be given common and false sensory inputs.

However I have no wish to defeat what is probably true by reliance on strict technicality and would using common sense say your family probably exists.

Yes, yes! Exactly! Those things are only held from induction to be probable but contingent truths. My family need not exist – and may not exist – but God cannot be not-God. But I’m not claiming to know anything at all; rather it is biblical theism that makes all the claims and assertions. And if even if I'm a brain in a vat I can still argue from a logical standpoint, which is that if God is the Supreme Being then it is incoherent to speak of him wanting things he does not have – and a relationship with his own finite, imperfect creation is an absurdity all on its own that defies logic and even commonsense.

P1: If God is the Supreme Being then he wants for nothing
P2: God wanted a relationship with his creation
Conclusion: God is not the Supreme Being

If the premises are both true then the conclusion that follows must also be true.


According to Christian theism, God the creator wants a personal relationship with his creation, and as I’ve explained there is logically only one agent that can profit or gain from this arrangement – and it isn’t the formerly non-existent creatures! And this is seemingly confirmed for us by Craig in his debate with Peter Millican when he speaks of “God bringing people into a relationship with himself, forever.” And he was even more explicit when he said the purpose of created humans is to "gloryfy God". So I think it is clear from those statements that an eternally existent God requires something he does not already have, which is an immediate contradiction even before we consider the implied emotional content, for by no amount of sophistry can it be argued that the greatest conceivable being is at the same time, or at anytime, not wholly entire or in some way incomplete. And it is utterly absurd even to think of created beings gratifying the needs or emotional requirements of the Supreme Creator. It is even contradictory to think in terms of such a being requiring servants or demanding fealty.

I am quite certain Craig is going to destroy your claims in a paragraph or two using technically valid philosophy.

I see we have yet more of this My Dad’s bigger than your Dad stuff. <laughs> And forgive me but I really don’t understand how you can make those rather patronizing remarks with such confidence when you yourself don’t seem to have the answers?

I also imagine you will insist (as would be reasonably expected of anyone heavily invested in a claim) that I had mistakenly left an opening in your claims for his critique. To avoid all of that I wanted a simple paragraph with both his claim and you objection in your own words to submit to him. I do not want to have to discuss technical objections to semantic technicalities that were over turned. He is very candid and he may compliment you for all I know. I however expect quite the opposite.

Well, I wouldn’t call it a “heavy investment” on my part. It is just a very simple logical truth. The heavy investment is on the part of Christian theists who insist upon awarding the Supreme Being with functions that are not necessary to the basic concept in order to make it fit with their particular doctrine.

In sum, the Kalam Cosmological Argument finds for an uncaused cause to explain the world’s beginning; WLC argues that this uncaused cause is God, a personal, intelligent, and enormously powerful agent that freely brought the world into being (see quotes up the page for the reasons he gives). My argument is that those reasons are self-contradictory (as I explain up the page and elsewhere).

I certainly have no objection in principle to your consulting anybody. But remember my argument is with you as I can’t be expected to conduct an argument with a third party through an intermediary.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I would be interested in knowing what stories you equate with Nicodemus.

However keep this in mind, that Jesus already knew everything there was to know about the person questioning him. He often gave the exact answer that stymied whatever kind of dishonorable tactic the man was implementing. He also used those examples to make points at times instead of answering questions. One very simple story has the most complex message possible. When asked Good teacher Good teacher what must .......... Jesus did not even answer. He said only God is good yet you call me good. Jesus wanted first to make sure the guy understood who he was talking to. Then he went on to give him laws he knew that particular man could not obey. Not because the law can't save but because it can only save if you never break a single one, ever. The man did not understand he could not obey them all nor had obeyed them all until Jesus picked the one he knew that man would not even think he could obey. Then he said what is impossible for man (perfect obedience producing salvation) was possible for God (salvation by grace). Anyway I am getting off track.

The story of the Good Samaritan follows the same question as does the one you mention. The man had obeyed all the laws and Jesus was even said to feel great love for him. What the man would not give up though is his riches.

 

[Looncall]

This point is not a good argument but it is the first appropriate counter to my claim.


For example one of the most commonly used counter sources of religious experience is epileptic symptoms. I have no reason to believe epilepsy cannot produce what are thought to be religious experiences. I do know however that the total number of people with epilepsy is at best the tiniest fraction of those that claim experiences with God.

Another would be wishful thinking. I can only say that the character of the experience makes this impossible. I nor any Christian I ever met expected what occurred. There are not even words to describe it. I also know that if wishful thinking was the source it would soon fade away. However it is the quality of the experience that even decades later allows a Christian to face death passively and renews his faith whenever contemplated.

Another would be that any other source (like epilepsy, hallucinations, etc...) would not have produced the experience at the exact moment of faith. They would produce the experience at the exact moment the chemicals became unbalanced or that another event occurred that could have been mistaken for experiencing God. IOW a UFO can easily have been a plane because both experiences would have occurred at the same time and place. The chance I have an epileptic fit occurring the moment I see the scriptures are truthful is almost zero.

All other counter source claims are just as untenable, but I can not list why they all are one by one. Give me your best and we will examine it and see if it really can provide a better explanation than God's existence for claims of experience.

This is (for once) was an appropriate claim but I do not think an adequate one.

Thanks for your appreciation.

In your post, you have not provided a reason to suppose that religious experiences do not arise internally. That is the crux of the matter.

 

[KMGC]

Yawn. First cause arguments have been around forever, and they've never been particularly convincing, let alone indisputable. For one thing, if everything needs a cause, then wouldn't God require a cause as well? And if you propose that God is an exception, that means exceptions are allowed, so why not just make things simpler and claim that the Universe is an exception to things requiring causes?

There's also always the strange conclusion, that doesn't follow from any of the previous premises, that we should just call this first cause "God". Why? What if the first cause was just some random quantum mechanic event. Why do we call that God? Should that really be considered God?

Oh, and P.S., humans started science. And last I checked, we ain't gods.

God could be his own source. For example, you could say that God as the source of existence is above time. That on the mind, he could have spontaneously occurred by being created by his own future into the past - or whatever type of time-frame he exists in... I guess what I'm trying to say is that your argument is essentially rendered moot by the all-powerful presence you seek to disprove. There is nothing you could say that would ever disprove to anyone who believes in a higher power that the higher power is the source of existence and himself. Judaists for example believe in God as a singular entity above all conception of man in which case there is no way you could ever disprove his existence, as you cannot conceive of what he can think/do. It's as simple as that.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There is nothing you could say that would ever disprove to anyone who believes in a higher power that the higher power is the source of existence and himself.

Right; because in most cases, such a belief is not only held without any evidence, but in spite of evidence. In order to believe in such a thing in the first place, one has clearly already made their peace with irrationality, and so there isn't much anyone could ever say or do to dissuade them. My faith is immune to your facts!