Draygomb

The first cause must exist in a state that is outside of time which is to say it exists without change. And since that which is totally unchangeable can't have a change of thought how could it think and if it can't think how could it be conscious? And if it is not conscious then why should we call it god if it can't recognize and respond to our prayers?

Wyrdsmyth

Does it ever occur to anyone that these sorts of arguments are just a big smokescreen to cover the fact that theists don't have any evidence for a god? How about, instead of producing yet another variant on the cosmological argument, you turn some loaves of bread into fishes, or some water into wine, and do it all on television with exhausting documentation?

Presumably, in your worldview, the first theists that there ever were believed because they actually had contact with god -- they knew him personally, and he "verified" who he was by performing miracles. When Christianity started to spread and grow, I don't think the proselytizing priests used a cosmological argument -- I think they tried to convince people their god was real with stories of Jesus and the OT god doing all these miracles.

Media-1

My conversion from atheism was fairly gradual. As I look back on the various "stages" I passed through from atheism to Christianity, it now seems IMO to have been the plan of God being worked out in me so that I would become what God intended for me to be.

I don't remember whether or not this argument played any part in my conversion. What I CAN say is that I began to be confronted with numerous types of evidence strongly suggesting that reality cannot be explained without resorting to some kind of intelligent creator having a purpose. I started to realize that atheism requires faith in something too. Even if I place all of my faith in "human reason", I'm trusting in something very dubious indeed.

Now I have doubts as to the degree to which human beings are capable of rational thought. Think about it...if human beings are rational creatures, why do they posses such a powerful need for self-delusion? Does self-delusion make human survival more likely? I doubt it very much considering how many wars are fought over religious differences.

Media-1

Media-1

But is "thought" material? Is consciousness necessarily limited to creatures having physical bodies which are constrained by time and space?

If not, then what exactly is it in the thoughts of God that changed?

Media-1

sir drinks-a-lot

Media-1,

This is getting confused.
Please define necessary and contingent things and give examples.

thanks,
Sir Drinks-a-Lot

David Gould

So in order to support he bizarre idea of a God outside time and space you now have to insist that time and space are not required for consciousness or change.

Keep adding to the list of bizarre claims with no proof - I am sure you will convince me at some stage that you are right.

Define God in an understandable way and I might be able to formulate belief in it.

Otherwise, no chance.

Ender

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002153&p=3" target="_blank">Originally posted here</a> and i've taken the liberty of re-introducing it to the unwashed masses

For ammo against the theologian, here's my counter-ontological argument, believers & skeptics.

Disclaimer: I consider the philosophical terms 'necessary' and 'demonstrable' both interchangeable. This leads me to the assertion that phrases such as 'necessary existence' or 'demonstrable existence' are meaningless.


Premise 1- no assertion is demonstrable unless its negation is contradictory.

P2- no negation of a matter of fact is contradictory.

P3- all assertions about the existence of things are matters of fact.

Conclusion 1- Therefore, no negation of an assertion that some thing exists is contradictory.

C2- Hence there is no thing whose existence is demonstrable.

The conclusion is built in my epistemology- logic or factoids. Ergo, anything that necessarily exists is already ruled out. One could question my epistemology and state that there is at least one being whose non-existence would be contradictory. 'He necessarily exists.' An objection to disregard my epistemology could consider it as an arbitrary stipulation. However, this leaves the disputing person to establish grounds to claim that the epistemology is arbitrary or place another model, and a better one in its place. The possibility that at least one exceptional being whose existence is necessary can be analyzed in different ways:

• a. Existential propositions in mathematics are necessarily true. If my 'empirical epistemology' can except these, could a case be made for the necessary existence of the Supreme being? The existence of mathematical entities is hardly similar to a supreme being. Math depends upon human stipulation while God is 'absolutely independent and self-subsistent.' The existence of mathematical entity is no more similar to the existence of a Supreme being than a brick could be like the raging inferno of a solar flare.
• b. A second way would discuss the 'eternal' existence of a Supreme being- as the great theistic religions have claimed - whether God exists, He has always existed and will never go out of existence. However, the word 'necessary' or 'demonstrable' does not entail 'always existed and will never go out of existence.' The word 'necessary' or 'demonstrable' is misleading- it is an elucidation, not an a priori demonstration. "Whatever we can conceive as existent, we can also conceive as nonexistent" because it remains an open question whether God does in fact exist.
• c. My rejection of 'necessary existence' is a referal to logical necessity. The existence of God is factually necessary, not logically necessary. All factual necessity accounts are appeals to notions like 'uncaused,' 'independent,' or 'eternal.' It remains to be seen whether in fact there exists anything which is factually necessary and whether that is identified with God.
• d. The statement 'God exists' is not a tautology. there are tautologous existential statements, such as 'Fictitious objects do not exist.' This statement is an analytic proposition, which entails the non-existence of the subject-class. It is as straightforward as saying 'nonexistent invisible purple godzilla do not exist.' However, 'God exists' is an open question whether His existence is true since the meaning of the word 'exists' does not analytically repeat the meaning of the word God. One can assert that god doesn't exist and be wrong, but it is no self-contradiction.

NEXT!

~Speaker 4 the death of God~

Media-1

David Gould

As I do not believe in God, I would say that nothing changed in God's thoughts as imaginary concepts do not have thoughts.

I agree that Christians believe in many strange things. I used to be one, and even though that was less than 9 months ago I cannot recognise myself.

As to the eye being 'strange', in what way? We know basically how it functions.

To compare that with a being supposedly outside time and space who can change is ... strange.

God must exist somewhere, no? And he must be able to change, no? Thus, the arrangement of God in that somewhere must be different through some sort of temporal dimension.

Thus, God, if he exists, cannot exist outside of space and time, although he may exist outside our space and time.

That does not save God, though, because if He is outside of our space and time he cannot affect us. He certainly cannot be defined as omnipresent - we have just said that he cannot be here.

LinuxPup

Mal 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Why?