Philisophical proof of God the Creator

Philisophical proof of God the Creator (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

PromiseLander -> Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 10:52:42 AM)
Fact: What God has that no other person or thing has in the rest of existence, is the "Power of Being" within Himself. God exists, being dependant on nothing, and being caused by nothing. One molecule of anything is more than enough evidence to prove the existence of God, because if something "is" rather than "is not" then somehow, somewhere, something MUST exist that has the power of being. If nothing had the power of being, then nothing would exist... It's that simple. Something out of nothing philosophy is as repugnant to Theology as it is to Science because it is utterly irrational. If something "is" then something must have the Power of Being. Aristotle understood that, Plato understood that, Augustin understood that, St. Thomas Aquanus understood that, Martin Luther understood that, John Calvin understood that, Jonathan Edwards understood that... It is the most simple and irrefutable argument for #1 the existence of God #2 and that God is the originator and creator of everything. - Dr. R.C. Sproul

swan42 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 11:50:53 AM)
quote: Fact: What God has that no other person or thing has in the rest of existence, is the "Power of Being" within Himself. God exists, being dependant on nothing, and being caused by nothing. This is not fact, this is belief.

Jhud -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 11:53:17 AM)
quote: This is not fact, this is belief. Actuallly, I think it has more to do with logical neccesity, something quite different than either.

drj11 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 11:54:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Fact: What God has that no other person or thing has in the rest of existence, is the "Power of Being" within Himself. God exists, being dependant on nothing, and being caused by nothing. No, this is speculation, and its speculation that one cannot conclusively substantiate. Plato didn't even see it this way. In his world, matter was preexistant, along with the demiurge (god for lack for a better word). The demiurge was not all powerful, but was bound by ananke (necessity). quote: One molecule of anything is more than enough evidence to prove the existence of God, because if something "is" rather than "is not" then somehow, somewhere, something MUST exist that has the power of being. If nothing had the power of being, then nothing would exist... It's that simple. Something out of nothing philosophy is as repugnant to Theology as it is to Science because it is utterly irrational. If something "is" then something must have the Power of Being. Aristotle understood that, Plato understood that, Augustin understood that, St. Thomas Aquanus understood that, Martin Luther understood that, John Calvin understood that, Jonathan Edwards understood that... It is the most simple and irrefutable argument for #1 the existence of God #2 and that God is the originator and creator of everything. - Dr. R.C. Sproul Plato also thought that since light came from fire, we all had little fires inside our eyeballs that beamed out light, and this is how sight worked. There's not much he was correct about when it came to the nature of things.

drmark -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 11:59:46 AM)
quote: No, this is speculation, and its speculation that one cannot conclusively substantiate. How conclusive must one's substantiation be, drj? Would you care to offer just one example of something coming from nothing? When you cannot, then I venture to say we have conclusively substantiated this "speculation"!

Jhud -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 12:00:45 PM)
quote: Plato also thought that since light came from fire, we all had little fires inside our eyeballs that beamed out light, and this is how we sight worked. There's not much he was correct about when it came to the nature of things. I think it is poor thinking to say that because someone was wrong about X, that therefore we can dismiss their thoughts on Y. If that's the case, there are very few people who's thinking we should consider.

drj11 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 12:09:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: No, this is speculation, and its speculation that one cannot conclusively substantiate. How conclusive must one's substantiation be, drj? Would you care to offer just one example of something coming from nothing? When you cannot, then I venture to say we have conclusively substantiated this "speculation"! Well, you should learn your own beliefs. According to most Christians the universe did come from nothing;). Creatio Ex Nihilo

swan42 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 12:11:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: This is not fact, this is belief. Actuallly, I think it has more to do with logical neccesity, something quite different than either. You can believe that if you want.

PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 12:12:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: swan42 quote: Fact: What God has that no other person or thing has in the rest of existence, is the "Power of Being" within Himself. God exists, being dependant on nothing, and being caused by nothing. This is not fact, this is belief. Rationality demands this be true. Belief has nothing to do with it.

Jhud -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 12:14:23 PM)
quote: You can believe that if you want. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of whether anything can simply cause itself to exist - if it can, it would seem that much science is irrelevant.

PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 12:15:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: No, this is speculation, and its speculation that one cannot conclusively substantiate. How conclusive must one's substantiation be, drj? Would you care to offer just one example of something coming from nothing? When you cannot, then I venture to say we have conclusively substantiated this "speculation"! Well, you should learn your own beliefs. According to most Christians the universe did come from nothing;). Creatio Ex Nihilo No, you need to learn Latin AND Christianity. That statement is used to say that God created the universe from nothing... The originator is God, not God plus anything else.

drmark -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 12:35:53 PM)
quote: Well, you should learn your own beliefs. According to most Christians the universe did come from nothing;). Creatio Ex Nihilo God is not nothing, drj, according to most Christians!

swan42 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 12:45:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander quote: ORIGINAL: swan42 quote: Fact: What God has that no other person or thing has in the rest of existence, is the "Power of Being" within Himself. God exists, being dependant on nothing, and being caused by nothing. This is not fact, this is belief. Rationality demands this be true. Belief has nothing to do with it. Then I either I am irrational or you have a conclusion where a premise belongs.

drj11 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 12:48:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: No, this is speculation, and its speculation that one cannot conclusively substantiate. How conclusive must one's substantiation be, drj? Would you care to offer just one example of something coming from nothing? When you cannot, then I venture to say we have conclusively substantiated this "speculation"! Well, you should learn your own beliefs. According to most Christians the universe did come from nothing;). Creatio Ex Nihilo No, you need to learn Latin AND Christianity. That statement is used to say that God created the universe from nothing... The originator is God, not God plus anything else. Well, either way, the argument presented in the OP is nothing more than a rephrasing of the cosmological argument. It's spoken in quite the dramatic, hyperbolic tone (ie as if it's resolved, obvious, and undeniable [8\|]) but has been one of the most debated topics for millennia. There are plenty of counter-arguments. The other interesting thing, I kind of alluded to earlier, is that even if you accept the cosmological argument, it in no way provides one with any other knowledge or characteristics of the 'prime mover'. Just look at all the variations of the cosmological argument and what the proponents believe of the 'deity'.

drmark -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 1:03:29 PM)
quote: There are plenty of counter-arguments. Apparently not, since you completely failed to provide even one example of something from nothing. Nice dramatic, hyperbolic tone, drj! quote: it in no provides one with any other knowledge or characteristics of the 'prime mover'. Nonsense! An expanding spatial universe requires an infinite Cause. An expanding temporal universe requires an eternal Cause. An expanding energetic universe requires an omnipotent Cause. You really need to brush up on your physics, drj.

PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 1:13:43 PM)
This argument of the Power of Being cannot be refuted without diving headfirst into absurdities. I don't know about the cosmological argument, but the Power of Being argument is referenced by Paul in Romans 1. God is evidenced in the things that are... The Bible also states that it is through God that we have our being... If you wish to remove the Bible from this argument for fear of circular reasoning, even arguing against the rationale and logic of the statement is absurd. If something "IS" then it must be dependant on something else as it did not appear on its own or by itself. (everything is dependant on something else) The existence of anything therefore points to something that must not be dependant upon anything. This is the idea of the painting / painter. If the painting exists, then there must have been a painter.

drj11 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 1:17:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: There are plenty of counter-arguments. Apparently not, since you completely failed to provide even one example of something from nothing. Nice dramatic, hyperbolic tone, drj! If you insist... " 1. If there is a cause for everything then what caused the first cause (god). 2.If the first cause can be thought to be uncaused and a necessary being existing forever, then why not consider that the universe itself has always existed and shall always exist and go through a never ending cycle of expansion and contraction and then expansion (big bang) again and again!!! If there is to be a deity that is the exception from the requirement that all existing things need a cause then the same exception can be made for the sum of all energy that exists, considering that it manifests in different forms. What the counter argument does is to indicate that the premises of the cosmological argument do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is a being that is responsible for the creation of the universe. " quote: quote: it in no provides one with any other knowledge or characteristics of the 'prime mover'. Nonsense! An expanding spatial universe requires an infinite Cause. An expanding temporal universe requires an eternal Cause. An expanding energetic universe requires an omnipotent Cause. You really need to brush up on your physics, drj. I didnt make myself clear there. This more what I was trying to say. " 3) Further, even if a person wanted to accept that there was such a being there is nothing at all in the cosmological argument to indicate that the being would have any of the properties of humans that are projected into the concept of the deity of any particular religion. The first mover or first cause is devoid of any other characteristic. "

essentialsaltes -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 1:27:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark Nonsense! An expanding spatial universe requires an infinite Cause. An expanding temporal universe requires an eternal Cause. An expanding energetic universe requires an omnipotent Cause. You really need to brush up on your physics, drj. Whatever that is, it's not physics. Looks like philosophy to me. Physics seldom discusses 'causes', and 'causality' has a rather specific meaning that is not much related to issues like this. I refer the interested to my earlier discussion of what quantum physics has to say about causes. In brief, some events have no phsyical causes.

drj11 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 1:33:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander This argument of the Power of Being cannot be refuted without diving headfirst into absurdities. I don't know about the cosmological argument, but the Power of Being argument is referenced by Paul in Romans 1. God is evidenced in the things that are... The Bible also states that it is through God that we have our being... If you wish to remove the Bible from this argument for fear of circular reasoning, even arguing against the rationale and logic of the statement is absurd. If something "IS" then it must be dependant on something else as it did not appear on its own or by itself. (everything is dependant on something else) The existence of anything therefore points to something that must not be dependant upon anything. This is the idea of the painting / painter. If the painting exists, then there must have been a painter. Or you could also say, since we see matter can neither be created nor destroyed "being" could easily just be a quality of the universe itself. But really, to reject the "Being" argument you just need to realize there is no reason to accept Plato's premise that everything fits into the two categories of either "Being" or "Becoming".

swan42 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 1:33:58 PM)
This thread is becoming a prime example of how two groups of people are using completely different thought processes. Stop now, for no one will understand one another anyway.

swan42 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 1:35:37 PM)
quote: This argument of the Power of Being cannot be refuted without diving headfirst into absurdities. Nor can it be proven without diving headfirst into absurdities. (darn I didn't follow my own advice)

Jhud -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 1:47:19 PM)
quote: This thread is becoming a prime example of how two groups of people are using completely different thought processes. Stop now, for no one will understand one another anyway. No, the difference is a thought process and no thought process. And you may be right, the two are irreconcilable.

PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 1:52:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: swan42 quote: This argument of the Power of Being cannot be refuted without diving headfirst into absurdities. Nor can it be proven without diving headfirst into absurdities. (darn I didn't follow my own advice) Sure it can... Just keep asking a scientist "OK, and before that what happened?" to every "answer" he may be able to give you as to the origins of anything and eventually we will get to the prime mover... Here, the questions of ultimate origin cannot be answered by secular means. As to the "who created God" type of questions... God's name for Himself is "I AM." In this, amongst all the implications His name suggests, is the explaination that there was never a time when He was not, and there never will be a time when He will not be. His being exists within Himself - dependant upon nothing.

drj11 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 2:01:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander quote: ORIGINAL: swan42 quote: This argument of the Power of Being cannot be refuted without diving headfirst into absurdities. Nor can it be proven without diving headfirst into absurdities. (darn I didn't follow my own advice) Sure it can... Just keep asking a scientist "OK, and before that what happened?" to every "answer" he may be able to give you as to the origins of anything and eventually we will get to the prime mover... Here, the questions of ultimate origin cannot be answered by secular means. God of the gaps fallacy. It doesn't not follow that one should assume a divine causation because we lack a scientific explanation, at the moment. quote: As to the "who created God" type of questions... God's name for Himself is "I AM." In this, amongst all the implications His name suggests, is the explaination that there was never a time when He was not, and there never will be a time when He will not be. His being exists within Himself - dependant upon nothing. Well your whole argument in the OP is supposed to be a philosophical proof for god that doesn't even address the Bible. Proving that the "first cause" is the God of the Bible is another matter entirely. But your statement is the same old circular reasoning... 1. God exists because the Bible says so 2. The Bible is true because God exists

PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 2:44:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander quote: ORIGINAL: swan42 quote: This argument of the Power of Being cannot be refuted without diving headfirst into absurdities. Nor can it be proven without diving headfirst into absurdities. (darn I didn't follow my own advice) Sure it can... Just keep asking a scientist "OK, and before that what happened?" to every "answer" he may be able to give you as to the origins of anything and eventually we will get to the prime mover... Here, the questions of ultimate origin cannot be answered by secular means. God of the gaps fallacy. It doesn't not follow that one should assume a divine causation because we lack a scientific explanation, at the moment. quote: As to the "who created God" type of questions... God's name for Himself is "I AM." In this, amongst all the implications His name suggests, is the explaination that there was never a time when He was not, and there never will be a time when He will not be. His being exists within Himself - dependant upon nothing. Well your whole argument in the OP is supposed to be a philosophical proof for god that doesn't even address the Bible. Proving that the "first cause" is the God of the Bible is another matter entirely. But your statement is the same old circular reasoning... 1. God exists because the Bible says so 2. The Bible is true because God exists Well, if you don't like using the Bible - find me one thing in this universe that is independant of everything else in the universe. Realizing of course that something doesn't come from nothing, where did everything come from? Answer? There MUST be an independant source of everything that "is": If there is a "dependance," there must be an object of dependance. What is this object of ultimate dependance? There is a philisophical question negating any theological texts - even though the original post was not void of Biblical reference.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI