Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Arguments for the existence of God

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 2:08:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Argument 1:

1. The concept of God amounts to a self-defining entity that is externally undefined and thus externally unconstrained, meaning that it is totally self-configuring...all of its definition comes from within.

2. An entity that doesn't exist must be externally constrained.

3. Thus, either the concept of God is incoherent (defeats itself) or God exists.

4. God is coherent, which means the definition of God doesn't contradict the definition of God (equals itself).

5. Thus, God exists.

Argument 2:

1. Either reality is fundamentally random, or it is has a cause. If it has cause, then that cause is real, and thus reality is self-causing.

2. If reality is fundamentally random, then everything which is logically coherent is given the chance to exist, since "laws" (constraints) which are themselves random lack the means to constrain (deterministically).

3. Since God is the potential for self-definition, it must assert its own existence and constrain (rule out) others, since if the others existed, or if God didn't exist, then God wouldn't be "self-defining", and that's precisely what its potential amounts to. In other words, God is the potential for a necessary (and therefore self-constraining) being.

4. On the other hand, if reality is its own cause, then reality amounts to God.

5. Thus, God exists.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 2:11:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I expect many people will have a problem with the premise that God is coherent, so feel free to attempt to prove that God is incoherent.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 9:05:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 2:08:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Gave up on defending idealism? You were in a rough place.

Argument 1:

1. The concept of God amounts to a self-defining entity that is externally undefined and thus externally unconstrained, meaning that it is totally self-configuring...all of its definition comes from within.

As far as I'm aware this is equivalent to: the concept of God amounts to a self-creating entity whose existence is not based on an external reality meaning it is based purely on the reality of his existence, meaning that he is self-created... he creates himself.

If you want to argue that someone can create himself, please explain how something which is not created can do something, viz. create itself. Something caused to exist cannot be caused to exist by itself. Creation is by definition causing something to exist.


2. An entity that doesn't exist must be externally constrained.

Constraint cannot be applied to that which does not exist. What you mean is that something that does not exist is 'limited' to being itself, i.e. something that does not exist, because A=A.

3. Thus, either the concept of God is incoherent (defeats itself) or God exists.

1. God is unconstrained
2. That which does not exist is constrained
3. God is not self-contradictory
Conclusion: God exists.

I do a better job of being Dylan than you do.

4. God is coherent, which means the definition of God doesn't contradict the definition of God (equals itself).

5. Thus, God exists.

Argument 2:

1. Either reality is fundamentally random, or it is has a cause. If it has cause, then that cause is real, and thus reality is self-causing.

Reality cannot be caused to exist for the same reason I gave earlier. The cause cannot be identical to the effect. The antonym of contingent is necessary, not random.


2. If reality is fundamentally random, then everything which is logically coherent is given the chance to exist, since "laws" (constraints) which are themselves random lack the means to constrain (deterministically).

3. Since God is the potential for self-definition, it must assert its own existence and constrain (rule out) others, since if the others existed, or if God didn't exist, then God wouldn't be "self-defining", and that's precisely what its potential amounts to. In other words, God is the potential for a necessary (and therefore self-constraining) being.

4. On the other hand, if reality is its own cause, then reality amounts to God.

5. Thus, God exists.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 9:18:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 9:05:43 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/20/2014 2:08:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Gave up on defending idealism? You were in a rough place.

Sorry, I haven't even read your post yet. The conversation was starting to bore me.


Argument 1:

1. The concept of God amounts to a self-defining entity that is externally undefined and thus externally unconstrained, meaning that it is totally self-configuring...all of its definition comes from within.

As far as I'm aware this is equivalent to: the concept of God amounts to a self-creating entity whose existence is not based on an external reality meaning it is based purely on the reality of his existence, meaning that he is self-created... he creates himself.

Oh please. It was perfectly clear.


If you want to argue that someone can create himself, please explain how something which is not created can do something, viz. create itself. Something caused to exist cannot be caused to exist by itself. Creation is by definition causing something to exist.


2. An entity that doesn't exist must be externally constrained.

Constraint cannot be applied to that which does not exist. What you mean is that something that does not exist is 'limited' to being itself, i.e. something that does not exist, because A=A.

No, what I mean to say is that if something doesn't exist, then there must be external constraint enforcing this i.e. defining its not existence as opposed to its existence.


3. Thus, either the concept of God is incoherent (defeats itself) or God exists.

1. God is unconstrained
2. That which does not exist is constrained
3. God is not self-contradictory
Conclusion: God exists.

I do a better job of being Dylan than you do.

Close, but no dice. I'm obviously of the belief that God is self-constrained.


4. God is coherent, which means the definition of God doesn't contradict the definition of God (equals itself).

5. Thus, God exists.

Argument 2:

1. Either reality is fundamentally random, or it is has a cause. If it has cause, then that cause is real, and thus reality is self-causing.

Reality cannot be caused to exist for the same reason I gave earlier. The cause cannot be identical to the effect.

Why can't the cause be identical to the effect? I never read the reasoning you apparently gave earlier.

The antonym of contingent is necessary, not random.

?



2. If reality is fundamentally random, then everything which is logically coherent is given the chance to exist, since "laws" (constraints) which are themselves random lack the means to constrain (deterministically).

3. Since God is the potential for self-definition, it must assert its own existence and constrain (rule out) others, since if the others existed, or if God didn't exist, then God wouldn't be "self-defining", and that's precisely what its potential amounts to. In other words, God is the potential for a necessary (and therefore self-constraining) being.

4. On the other hand, if reality is its own cause, then reality amounts to God.

5. Thus, God exists.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 9:36:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 2:08:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Argument 1:

1. The concept of God amounts to a self-defining entity that is externally undefined and thus externally unconstrained, meaning that it is totally self-configuring...all of its definition comes from within.

2. An entity that doesn't exist must be externally constrained.

3. Thus, either the concept of God is incoherent (defeats itself) or God exists.

4. God is coherent, which means the definition of God doesn't contradict the definition of God (equals itself).

5. Thus, God exists.

Argument 2:

1. Either reality is fundamentally random, or it is has a cause. If it has cause, then that cause is real, and thus reality is self-causing.

2. If reality is fundamentally random, then everything which is logically coherent is given the chance to exist, since "laws" (constraints) which are themselves random lack the means to constrain (deterministically).

3. Since God is the potential for self-definition, it must assert its own existence and constrain (rule out) others, since if the others existed, or if God didn't exist, then God wouldn't be "self-defining", and that's precisely what its potential amounts to. In other words, God is the potential for a necessary (and therefore self-constraining) being.

4. On the other hand, if reality is its own cause, then reality amounts to God.

5. Thus, God exists.

Until you actually give these premises support it is suitable to apply Hitchen's Razor to them. Also you have left God undefined, meaning your arguments are meaningless anyway.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 9:38:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 9:18:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 9:05:43 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/20/2014 2:08:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Gave up on defending idealism? You were in a rough place.


Sorry, I haven't even read your post yet. The conversation was starting to bore me.

People tend to say that when I reduce them to claiming that their God is literally self-created rather than necessary. It's something of a well-known contradiction. God forbid that I ever become bored of arguing with people who have no interest in changing their minds. I was killing you.



Argument 1:

1. The concept of God amounts to a self-defining entity that is externally undefined and thus externally unconstrained, meaning that it is totally self-configuring...all of its definition comes from within.

As far as I'm aware this is equivalent to: the concept of God amounts to a self-creating entity whose existence is not based on an external reality meaning it is based purely on the reality of his existence, meaning that he is self-created... he creates himself.



Oh please. It was perfectly clear.

I was checking that I understood it. You and I don't think in the same way so I have to translate it, in a way.



If you want to argue that someone can create himself, please explain how something which is not created can do something, viz. create itself. Something caused to exist cannot be caused to exist by itself. Creation is by definition causing something to exist.

I don't know why you've ignored this important objection.



2. An entity that doesn't exist must be externally constrained.

Constraint cannot be applied to that which does not exist. What you mean is that something that does not exist is 'limited' to being itself, i.e. something that does not exist, because A=A.


No, what I mean to say is that if something doesn't exist, then there must be external constraint enforcing this i.e. defining its not existence as opposed to its existence.

For there to be an external constraint acting upon X, X must exist, or else the constraint is non-existent. Ideas are by definition given existence by being 'defined', so I have no idea how you're claiming some are subject to external constraint so that they become non-existent.



3. Thus, either the concept of God is incoherent (defeats itself) or God exists.

1. God is unconstrained
2. That which does not exist is constrained
3. God is not self-contradictory
Conclusion: God exists.

I do a better job of being Dylan than you do.


Close, but no dice. I'm obviously of the belief that God is self-constrained.

A does not prevent itself from being not-A, as such a relationship can only exist between distinct entities. You idealist crazies are all the same. RT#9119 tried pulling this same sh*t with me when he claimed that the ultimate mind was dependent on itself. B*tch please, come back with something that isn't the most obvious piece of self-contradiction.



4. God is coherent, which means the definition of God doesn't contradict the definition of God (equals itself).

5. Thus, God exists.

Argument 2:

1. Either reality is fundamentally random, or it is has a cause. If it has cause, then that cause is real, and thus reality is self-causing.

Reality cannot be caused to exist for the same reason I gave earlier. The cause cannot be identical to the effect.


Why can't the cause be identical to the effect? I never read the reasoning you apparently gave earlier.

A's relationship to B is 'creator'; B's relationship to A is 'created'.
A is the subject; B is the object.
A acts; B is the result.

If the cause is identical to the effect, then there has been no action. You just have a tautology: Subject=Subject, Act=Act, Creator=Creator, Cause=Cause. To inject 'effect' into there is a clear violation of A=A.

The antonym of contingent is necessary, not random.

?

1. Either reality is fundamentally random, or it is has a cause

If X has a cause, it is contingent. If X does not have a cause, it is not random, but necessary.





2. If reality is fundamentally random, then everything which is logically coherent is given the chance to exist, since "laws" (constraints) which are themselves random lack the means to constrain (deterministically).

3. Since God is the potential for self-definition, it must assert its own existence and constrain (rule out) others, since if the others existed, or if God didn't exist, then God wouldn't be "self-defining", and that's precisely what its potential amounts to. In other words, God is the potential for a necessary (and therefore self-constraining) being.

4. On the other hand, if reality is its own cause, then reality amounts to God.

5. Thus, God exists.

I'm just what you made, God.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 9:51:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 9:38:44 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/20/2014 9:18:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 9:05:43 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/20/2014 2:08:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:



If you want to argue that someone can create himself, please explain how something which is not created can do something, viz. create itself. Something caused to exist cannot be caused to exist by itself. Creation is by definition causing something to exist.

I don't know why you've ignored this important objection.

I missed it the first time. In any case, I fail to see how this is an important objection when you haven't attempted to justify your assertion.



2. An entity that doesn't exist must be externally constrained.

Constraint cannot be applied to that which does not exist. What you mean is that something that does not exist is 'limited' to being itself, i.e. something that does not exist, because A=A.


No, what I mean to say is that if something doesn't exist, then there must be external constraint enforcing this i.e. defining its not existence as opposed to its existence.

For there to be an external constraint acting upon X, X must exist, or else the constraint is non-existent. Ideas are by definition given existence by being 'defined', so I have no idea how you're claiming some are subject to external constraint so that they become non-existent.

I didn't say it was acting upon X, but rather the potential for X.




3. Thus, either the concept of God is incoherent (defeats itself) or God exists.

1. God is unconstrained
2. That which does not exist is constrained
3. God is not self-contradictory
Conclusion: God exists.

I do a better job of being Dylan than you do.


Close, but no dice. I'm obviously of the belief that God is self-constrained.

A does not prevent itself from being not-A, as such a relationship can only exist between distinct entities. You idealist crazies are all the same. RT#9119 tried pulling this same sh*t with me when he claimed that the ultimate mind was dependent on itself. B*tch please, come back with something that isn't the most obvious piece of self-contradiction.



4. God is coherent, which means the definition of God doesn't contradict the definition of God (equals itself).

5. Thus, God exists.

Argument 2:

1. Either reality is fundamentally random, or it is has a cause. If it has cause, then that cause is real, and thus reality is self-causing.

Reality cannot be caused to exist for the same reason I gave earlier. The cause cannot be identical to the effect.


Why can't the cause be identical to the effect? I never read the reasoning you apparently gave earlier.

A's relationship to B is 'creator'; B's relationship to A is 'created'.
A is the subject; B is the object.
A acts; B is the result.

If the cause is identical to the effect, then there has been no action. You just have a tautology: Subject=Subject, Act=Act, Creator=Creator, Cause=Cause. To inject 'effect' into there is a clear violation of A=A.


Obviously my point is that God is both creator and created i.e. that he causes himself reflexively. Your argument is therefore irrelevant; I fully acknowledge that subject=subject, etc.

?

1. Either reality is fundamentally random, or it is has a cause

If X has a cause, it is contingent. If X does not have a cause, it is not random, but necessary.


Not if the cause is itself. And if X does not have a cause, then it is pretty much random by definition, but if you say so...





2. If reality is fundamentally random, then everything which is logically coherent is given the chance to exist, since "laws" (constraints) which are themselves random lack the means to constrain (deterministically).

3. Since God is the potential for self-definition, it must assert its own existence and constrain (rule out) others, since if the others existed, or if God didn't exist, then God wouldn't be "self-defining", and that's precisely what its potential amounts to. In other words, God is the potential for a necessary (and therefore self-constraining) being.

4. On the other hand, if reality is its own cause, then reality amounts to God.

5. Thus, God exists.

I'm just what you made, God.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 9:54:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 9:36:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/20/2014 2:08:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Argument 1:

1. The concept of God amounts to a self-defining entity that is externally undefined and thus externally unconstrained, meaning that it is totally self-configuring...all of its definition comes from within.

2. An entity that doesn't exist must be externally constrained.

3. Thus, either the concept of God is incoherent (defeats itself) or God exists.

4. God is coherent, which means the definition of God doesn't contradict the definition of God (equals itself).

5. Thus, God exists.

Argument 2:

1. Either reality is fundamentally random, or it is has a cause. If it has cause, then that cause is real, and thus reality is self-causing.

2. If reality is fundamentally random, then everything which is logically coherent is given the chance to exist, since "laws" (constraints) which are themselves random lack the means to constrain (deterministically).

3. Since God is the potential for self-definition, it must assert its own existence and constrain (rule out) others, since if the others existed, or if God didn't exist, then God wouldn't be "self-defining", and that's precisely what its potential amounts to. In other words, God is the potential for a necessary (and therefore self-constraining) being.

4. On the other hand, if reality is its own cause, then reality amounts to God.

5. Thus, God exists.

Until you actually give these premises support it is suitable to apply Hitchen's Razor to them. Also you have left God undefined, meaning your arguments are meaningless anyway.

They more or less stand on their own, given the proper background of course.

As for God's definition: God is a self-contained mind which retroactively self-configures to maximize its self-defined utility in light of zero constraint. This is just a technical way of saying that God is quadra-omni.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:00:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 9:38:44 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/20/2014 9:18:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


1. Either reality is fundamentally random, or it is has a cause. If it has cause, then that cause is real, and thus reality is self-causing.

Reality cannot be caused to exist for the same reason I gave earlier. The cause cannot be identical to the effect.


Why can't the cause be identical to the effect? I never read the reasoning you apparently gave earlier.

A's relationship to B is 'creator'; B's relationship to A is 'created'.
A is the subject; B is the object.
A acts; B is the result.

If the cause is identical to the effect, then there has been no action. You just have a tautology: Subject=Subject, Act=Act, Creator=Creator, Cause=Cause. To inject 'effect' into there is a clear violation of A=A.


You're thinking in terms of a causal chain within time, when this is not how I am using any of these terms.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:04:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 9:38:44 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/20/2014 9:18:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Something tells me that you don't even know what a "cause" actually is, except as it relates to changes occurring within time, and superficially. Please try to give a definition for "cause" that isn't a meaningless tautology.
a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:53:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 2:08:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Argument 1:

1. The concept of God amounts to a self-defining entity that is externally undefined and thus externally unconstrained, meaning that it is totally self-configuring...all of its definition comes from within.

2. An entity that doesn't exist must be externally constrained.

3. Thus, either the concept of God is incoherent (defeats itself) or God exists.

4. God is coherent, which means the definition of God doesn't contradict the definition of God (equals itself).

5. Thus, God exists.

For Argument one, I'm not sure how this is really any argument for God. "God is coherent with his own definition thus he exists." That really does not make any sense to me. How does something being coherent with its own definition make it exist? Isn't nearly everything coherent with its own definition, even false things? I mean, wouldn't this apply to the Gods of all religions? So every God that its coherent with itself exists? Different gods of different religions contradict each other as far as I know, so I'm not sure this would make sense. Also, I can make up a ridiculous theory about the history of life on earth that is consistent with evidence and its own definition, but that doesn't make it true. Also, what does "externally constrained" mean in the first place? Maybe I've gotten your argument wrong, some explanation would be appreciated.

Argument 2:

1. Either reality is fundamentally random, or it is has a cause. If it has cause, then that cause is real, and thus reality is self-causing.

Well I don't know if reality is random, but it is definitely uncaused or caused.

2. If reality is fundamentally random, then everything which is logically coherent is given the chance to exist, since "laws" (constraints) which are themselves random lack the means to constrain (deterministically).

Okay yea, but I guess this is only possible if reality if infinite in regards to time. But one definition of God is that he is infinite, so reality would not be able to allow God to exist if God is also infinite, unless God and reality are the same thing...?? Okay, I have thoroughly confused myself. Man, this type of stuff really makes my head hurt lol

3. Since God is the potential for self-definition, it must assert its own existence and constrain (rule out) others, since if the others existed, or if God didn't exist, then God wouldn't be "self-defining", and that's precisely what its potential amounts to. In other words, God is the potential for a necessary (and therefore self-constraining) being.

Okay, so are your arguing that with infinite time, everything that is able to exist will? So that means God exists? I guess it does make sense, although wouldn't that imply that God had a beginning? The general consensus among people is that God is uncaused, without beginning.

4. On the other hand, if reality is its own cause, then reality amounts to God.

So reality is God, that actually does make sense to me.

5. Thus, God exists.

Okay either this argument is way too complicated to be plausible, or I'm just too dumb to get it haha. By the way, I do believe in a God.
The truth will set you free
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 8:32:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 10:04:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 9:38:44 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/20/2014 9:18:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Something tells me that you don't even know what a "cause" actually is, except as it relates to changes occurring within time, and superficially. Please try to give a definition for "cause" that isn't a meaningless tautology.

Well clearly one of us is wrong about what causality is because that appears to be the bulk of what this discussion hinges upon.

You're thinking in terms of a causal chain within time, when this is not how I am using any of these terms.
Obviously my point is that God is both creator and created i.e. that he causes himself reflexively. Your argument is therefore irrelevant; I fully acknowledge that subject=subject, etc.

You claim to have been getting bored of my objections, but to be honest I am getting bored of your obnoxious and obstinate persistence that basic philosophical truths are false.

If you are not thinking in terms of a causal chain, then what grounds do you have to say that God caused himself to exist? Without a casual chain, he clearly didn't cause anything. You have literally just asserted that you are discussing causality, i.e. cause and effect, but that you are not discussing causes which have any kind of effect.

Cause -----> Effect. There is no cause without an effect, and no effect without a cause.

God -----> God is not an example of a cause and an effect, it's just a tautology. Please, then, stop referring to your God as self-created. You yourself state that there is no causal chain, and without a causal chain, causality is meaningless.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:39:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 8:32:17 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:04:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 9:38:44 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/20/2014 9:18:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


If you are not thinking in terms of a causal chain, then what grounds do you have to say that God caused himself to exist? Without a casual chain, he clearly didn't cause anything. You have literally just asserted that you are discussing causality, i.e. cause and effect, but that you are not discussing causes which have any kind of effect.


In this case, the "causal chain" is shaped like a loop. So the "cause" is responsible for the effect which is responsible for the cause.

Cause -----> Effect. There is no cause without an effect, and no effect without a cause.


God -----> God is not an example of a cause and an effect, it's just a tautology. Please, then, stop referring to your God as self-created. You yourself state that there is no causal chain, and without a causal chain, causality is meaningless.

First, "God causes God" is a statement of self-containment with respect to causality... it is a tautology in the sense that this is already implied by "God", but that doesn't mean it precludes cause and effect. Second, I didn't say that there is no causal chain, I said that there is no causal chain within time.

Your confusion comes down to this: since you base your understanding of causality on relations of sequential states within time, you don't acknowledge the true essence of causality, and therefore, find it incomprehensible that something could be responsible for its own existence. When I say that God causes God, I'm saying that God provides himself with a self-implicating structure such that his existence is implied by (defined on) his existence. In other words, God is self-explaining in the sense that he is self-implying....he exists because he defines himself to exist.

If you haven't already noticed, this is exactly how we define causality in normal circumstance. "A causes B" is really just saying that A and B are defined on each other i.e. A's definition includes B and vice versa in the sense that A is defined relative to B.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 1:14:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 2:11:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I expect many people will have a problem with the premise that God is coherent, so feel free to attempt to prove that God is incoherent.

Shifting of the Burden of Proof. You had a premise that "God is coherent", so you must defend it.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 5:23:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 9:39:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In this case, the "causal chain" is shaped like a loop. So the "cause" is responsible for the effect which is responsible for the cause.

Then there is no cause and no effect. The cause acts on nothing. It produces no effect.

First, "God causes God" is a statement of self-containment with respect to causality... it is a tautology in the sense that this is already implied by "God"

A is not contingent on A. Contingency is a relationship that exists between separate entities. Saying that something is contingent on itself is like saying that there is a house built on top of itself.

Your confusion comes down to this: since you base your understanding of causality on relations of sequential states within time, you don't acknowledge the true essence of causality, and therefore, find it incomprehensible that something could be responsible for its own existence. When I say that God causes God, I'm saying that God provides himself with a self-implicating structure such that his existence is implied by (defined on) his existence. In other words, God is self-explaining in the sense that he is self-implying....he exists because he defines himself to exist.

Unfortunately for your argument causality cannot be separated from time and space. The existence of A does not imply the existence of A, it is the existence of A. Same bullsh*t RT#9119 tried to pull.

If the existence of (?1) is predicated upon (?2) defining (?1) to exist, then the only sensical way to understand this is that (?1)'s existence preceded the existence of (?2) and is non-identical to (?2). Replacing (?1) and (?2) with 'God' exposes the contradiction.

To put it simply, the effect has the property of 'being caused by X', and the cause has the property of 'causing X'. These are mutually exclusive properties. You cannot give God both.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 6:01:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 5:23:58 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:39:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In this case, the "causal chain" is shaped like a loop. So the "cause" is responsible for the effect which is responsible for the cause.

Then there is no cause and no effect. The cause acts on nothing. It produces no effect.

First, "God causes God" is a statement of self-containment with respect to causality... it is a tautology in the sense that this is already implied by "God"

A is not contingent on A. Contingency is a relationship that exists between separate entities. Saying that something is contingent on itself is like saying that there is a house built on top of itself.

Your confusion comes down to this: since you base your understanding of causality on relations of sequential states within time, you don't acknowledge the true essence of causality, and therefore, find it incomprehensible that something could be responsible for its own existence. When I say that God causes God, I'm saying that God provides himself with a self-implicating structure such that his existence is implied by (defined on) his existence. In other words, God is self-explaining in the sense that he is self-implying....he exists because he defines himself to exist.

Unfortunately for your argument causality cannot be separated from time and space. The existence of A does not imply the existence of A, it is the existence of A.

"The existence of A does not imply the existence of A"

Of course it does.

Same bullsh*t RT#9119 tried to pull.

If the existence of (?1) is predicated upon (?2) defining (?1) to exist, then the only sensical way to understand this is that (?1)'s existence preceded the existence of (?2) and is non-identical to (?2). Replacing (?1) and (?2) with 'God' exposes the contradiction.

To put it simply, the effect has the property of 'being caused by X', and the cause has the property of 'causing X'. These are mutually exclusive properties. You cannot give God both.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 11:24:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 5:23:58 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/21/2014 9:39:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In this case, the "causal chain" is shaped like a loop. So the "cause" is responsible for the effect which is responsible for the cause.

Then there is no cause and no effect. The cause acts on nothing. It produces no effect.
Light waves are made of electric and magnetic field components, the oscillation of each sustains the other. In this case, the cause and effect are circular (propagation of waves more generally can be thought of as having this property).


First, "God causes God" is a statement of self-containment with respect to causality... it is a tautology in the sense that this is already implied by "God"

A is not contingent on A. Contingency is a relationship that exists between separate entities. Saying that something is contingent on itself is like saying that there is a house built on top of itself.
This is exactly what the axiom of identity in the standard expositions of logic say.
A => A. There are treatments of logic that do not rely on this assumption (though they are uncommon). If logicians feel the need to state it, why ignore it?

Your confusion comes down to this: since you base your understanding of causality on relations of sequential states within time, you don't acknowledge the true essence of causality, and therefore, find it incomprehensible that something could be responsible for its own existence. When I say that God causes God, I'm saying that God provides himself with a self-implicating structure such that his existence is implied by (defined on) his existence. In other words, God is self-explaining in the sense that he is self-implying....he exists because he defines himself to exist.

Unfortunately for your argument causality cannot be separated from time and space. The existence of A does not imply the existence of A, it is the existence of A. Same bullsh*t RT#9119 tried to pull.
You haven't actually provided an argument for this anywhere I can see. I might be tempted to agree, but not because of anything you said.

If the existence of (?1) is predicated upon (?2) defining (?1) to exist, then the only sensical way to understand this is that (?1)'s existence preceded the existence of (?2) and is non-identical to (?2). Replacing (?1) and (?2) with 'God' exposes the contradiction.
Again, I agree, but your first statement is just a supposition. I see no argument demonstrating that the act of definition has to precede the existence of that which is defined. If we treat mathematics platonically then numbers exist whether or not I have defined them, their properties exist regardless of whether I have proven them. The definition exposes these properties to us for investigation, and that is all. Now, I'm not a platonist myself, but many people do take these ideas seriously. Have you got any arguments for this?

To put it simply, the effect has the property of 'being caused by X', and the cause has the property of 'causing X'. These are mutually exclusive properties. You cannot give God both.

What I interpret from your argument is the following
Let A and B be events/entities.
1. causes (A,B) => before (A,B) [premise 1]
2. before (A, B) => not (A=B) [premise 2]
3. God = God [axiom of identity]
4. not not (God = God) [double neg introduction from 3]
5. not before (God, God) [modus tollens from 2 and 4]
6. not causes (God, God) [modus tollens from 5 and 1]

Your premises are intuitively appealing, though not beyond question.

Hope this helps in the miscommunication!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 10:16:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 1:14:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 2:11:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I expect many people will have a problem with the premise that God is coherent, so feel free to attempt to prove that God is incoherent.

Shifting of the Burden of Proof. You had a premise that "God is coherent", so you must defend it.

I'm not exactly sure how I go about doing that, except by refuting claims that God is incoherent.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 11:56:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
One of Envisage's arguments:

Theological Fatalism

This is an argument against divine foreknowledge being compatible with free will, this argument also applies to human free will (assuming they have it), but given that only God is defined as having free will in this debate, this argument only needs to involve God himself.[2]

P1) If God exists, he knows the results of all choices that will occur
P2) If he knows the results of all choices that will occur, then the future exists
P3) If the future exists, then God could not have chosen differently
P3) If God cannot have chosen differently, then free will does not exist
C) If God exists, then free will does not exist
C2) If free will does not exist, then God does not exist


This argument is flawed for at least two reasons. First, it assumes that God must know the future, thereby assuming that everything is determined. If the future is freely determined by God or by sentient agents, it is not yet defined and thus not something God could know. Thus, he would remain omniscient. Secondly, "if the future exists, then God could not have chosen differently" assumes that the future and God's choice are somehow mutually irrelevant. Obviously God cannot choose differently than his choice, and is in this sense "self-constraining". That is, God can provisionally deprive himself of omnipotence but only by simultaneously exercising his omnipotence. Since this is a "possible action", claiming that God cannot do this amounts to saying that God is not omnipotent.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 12:18:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Another one of his arguments:

None of these go any way in defining God"s primary attributes, they are all secondary or relational attributes. Omnipotence regards power, or ability, but isn"t an entity in itself. Omnipotence can be applied to anything (my sister is omnipotent) as a secondary attribute, but is meaningless without the primary essence. Omnipotence in fact is meaningless without a physical universe to relate to. The same applies to the all five of these attributes.[6]

Often God is portrayed further, such as "metaphysical", or "immaterial", however these are not attributes of God, they are precidely descriptions of what God is not, the statement "I am not Barack Obama", gives zero information about my primary attributes, and hence goes no way into demonstrating my essence.

In order to actually provide a positive attribute of A (fulfilling P1), then we run into serious problems of the perfection, and omnipotence of God, since giving such an attribute would present limits to God, which violates the necessary secondary attributes of God, hence such a definition is impossible to attain.


Since God is self-defining, one cannot claim that God "is" anything except the minimum logical structure necessary to self-define, without which God's omnipotence could not function. Since God's existence is the limit of his omnipotence - after all, he can not exercise his omnipotence once he doesn't exist - it's impossible for God to use his omnipotence in a contradictory way. Claiming that such limits take away from God's omnipotence amounts to claiming that true omnipotence is equal to no omnipotence whatever, which is nonsense.

In other words, God is at least whatever "is" requires, and in addition, whatever he chooses to be.
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 6:42:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
this is my debate opening arguemunt.
Pro
Ok lets get started.
For an arguement you need something certain so lets look at the work of plato. (you can look this up)
He set fourth that the only thing that is certainis that we exist. Since we exist we can build from that.
I build first that since we exist that we first must be made. But what from? I awnser this with for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For an improfection there first must be a profection. Since the big bang has none it is out so therefore there is some kind of profection.
A god is a supreme being. But the greeks created thier gods in the image of themselves which means another improfection.
That eliminates polytheism. So we are left with monotheism. In cristianity it is impossible for a person to earn salvation, the only way that a person can get to heaven is through Jesus Christ. When jesus dies on the cross he eliminated sin from the equasion and therefore making us pure. The jewish faith doesn't have that so therefore the equasion is incomplete eliminating it. Since islam has an incomplete equasion as well it is eliminated. So we are left with christianity being the last variable but now that i exist i must prove that he exists. But with this i have established that christianity is the only possible faith/religion
The equasion looks like this:
God+creation=sin+purity
God and purity are positive while creation and sin are negative. God washed away our sin so they cancel each other out. Creation and purity cancel each other out and so we have a valid equasion without extra variables. There is no other way for a proper equasion to be unless nothing = nothing which leaves out the variable that we exist and so finally we can reach a logical conclusion that god does indeed exist.
BTW: the big bang could still have been created by god.

Conclusion: God is a proper variable therefore he exists.