Proofs for the Existence of God

[JohnMartin]

So you don't know. Want to try again, or do I get to add "Welsh rabbit" to the cluelessness list?

1) Is a Welsh rabbit a rabbit?
2) If a Welsh rabbit is a rabbit, why didn't you simply say that?
3) If a Welsh rabbit is not a rabbit, why did you assume a cosmic yoyo was necessarily a yoyo?

Why bother answering your silly questions, when you are trying to reduce theism down to a silly childish belief system, when in fact it is you and your atheism that is entirely childish, irrational, and morally irresponsible. Your recent challenge was a set up, because you have a childish need to do such things. I couldn't care less about the existence of yoyo's or rabbits on this thread. I'm only interested in discussing arguments about the existence of of on this thread. Thats why I have tried in vain to bring the thread back from your silly example to something more robust. If you are unable to keep on topic then I will have to ask you to stay away from the thread.

Request - stay on topic, or stay away from this thread.

Your choice.

JM

[Roy]

So you don't know. Want to try again, or do I get to add "Welsh rabbit" to the cluelessness list?

1) Is a Welsh rabbit a rabbit?
2) If a Welsh rabbit is a rabbit, why didn't you simply say that?
3) If a Welsh rabbit is not a rabbit, why did you assume a cosmic yoyo was necessarily a yoyo?

Why bother answering your silly questions,...

Welsh rabbit added to cluelessness list.

Request - stay on topic, or stay away from this thread.

It is on topic.

You are assuming that the 'prime being' identified by tracing back causes to their source is your god.
I asked how you knew it was your god and not something entirely different, like for example a "cosmic yoyo".
You promptly started making claims about the properties of a "cosmic yoyo", even to the point of assuming it was an actual yoyo, rather than something named after yoyos.
When I queried this you wrote

"We name things according to what they are."

at which point I produced several trivial counter-examples to demonstrate your unbelievable naivety.

But apart from your incredibly stupid claim that the names we give entities always reflect their actual nature and not some common trait or resemblance, there is an outstanding issue:

How do you know that the 'prime being' you have concluded must exist is your god, and not something very different?

You've failed to do this for 20 pages now, culminating in this incredible faux pas: "What is invented by the imagination is limited. "

If your perception of god includes anything at all that is not directly observed or concluded - and it does, since you have incorporated ideas from the writings of others - by your own logic your god is limited and hence cannot be the prime being.

Thread over.

[JohnMartin]

Request - stay on topic, or stay away from this thread.
It is on topic.

You are assuming that the 'prime being' identified by tracing back causes to their source is your god.

The answer is the prime act is pure act, which is God. All other secondary acts are composed of potency and act, and are therefore not prime, and not pure act. It's very easy to work out.

I asked how you knew it was your god and not something entirely different, like for example a "cosmic yoyo".

The claim that it is my God is your own making. The proofs for God are analogous to mathematical proofs. Does anyone say x=3, and then say there is no evidence that x is your x. Roy does this with the proofs for God. Apparently pure act is not God, because it is my God. Does anyone see how silly Roy is being here? I do.

You promptly started making claims about the properties of a "cosmic yoyo", even to the point of assuming it was an actual yoyo, rather than something named after yoyos.

That's because when a question is asked about the nature of limit of a thing, you can assume that even if it is a real thing then it is composed of potency and act. This is part of the method employed to show you that anything other than pure act is composed of potency and act. Hence only pure act is God.

When I queried this you wrote

"We name things according to what they are."

at which point I produced several trivial counter-examples to demonstrate your unbelievable naivety.

When you type the words "cosmic yoyo", there really is nothing else to go on, except the meaning of the words given. This is standard fair in dialogue. The correspondents read and write words that have understood meaning. Hence I thought you meant what you said. Turns out you admitted at some stage that those words could mean anything. Hence I have now concluded that you are playing games.

But apart from your incredibly stupid claim that the names we give entities always reflect their actual nature and not some common trait or resemblance, there is an outstanding issue:

Everyone calls a chair a chair, because everyone knows the common consent of man aligns with calling things according to their nature. Roy wants it to be different, when its not.

How do you know that the 'prime being' you have concluded must exist is your god, and not something very different?

The prime being is pure act, and because creatures have natures which receive being, then creatures are composed of potency and act. Therefore, because the prime being is not composed, it is not a creature. Then the only possible conclusion is the prime being is real, but not a creature, hence the prime is God.

You've failed to do this for 20 pages now, culminating in this incredible faux pas: "What is invented by the imagination is limited. "

I do believe your question is both in part false, and in part based upon your misunderstanding of what has been said, and has been also been answered where applicable.

If your perception of god includes anything at all that is not directly observed or concluded - and it does,

It does not. The conclusion is arrived at through deductive reasoning. The prime act is God and cannot be anything else.

since you have incorporated ideas from the writings of others

Its irrelevant as far as I can tell.

- by your own logic your god is limited and hence cannot be the prime being.

Not established by any logical reasoning. Your atheism is entirely false. It is rather easy to prove the existence of the prime being which is pure act. I've done so in several ways on this thread and nothing has been said to rebut those arguments.

Thread over.

Your atheism is false.

JM

[Roy]

The answer is the prime act is pure act, which is God.

I give up. You are clearly too stupid to realise the problem here. 'God' could be substituted with any other term without affecting any of your 'proofs' in the slightest. They all works equally badly as proofs for 'The cosmic yoyo'.

[JohnMartin]

I give up. You are clearly too stupid to realise the problem here. 'God' could be substituted with any other term without affecting any of your 'proofs' in the slightest. They all works equally badly as proofs for 'The cosmic yoyo'.

Well actually no, God could not be substituted for any of the terms, for that would reduce God down to a creature. You can do it only if you are playing nominalist games. There are only three options regarding being -

1) Pure act which is not a creature and hence God.

2) Potency and act composed, which is dependent in being, hence is a creature.

3) Pure potency, which is not in act, and is not either a creature, or God.

If we think something is 2) then it is dependent upon 1), if 1) then 1). Either way, if 2) or 1), then 1), which means God exists, is always true.

If you don't want to call pure act God, but something else, you are free to do so. But note well that theists conclude that pure act is God, hence as an atheist, you must oppose the existence of pure act. Furthermore, you must propose a means by which a composed thing can exist without dependence upon pure act. Of course atheism has nothing to argue here, simply because ontology/metaphysics points directly towards the existence of God, like a glove points to the existence of a hand.

JM

[Yttrium]

I'm afraid I'm a bit lost with all the philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

I can conclude that something caused the universe to come into existence. I will call that something God. It is the creator of the universe.

Now. How do I logically conclude from this that God is sentient, or even still exists? God could have been a sequence of natural events, existing outside of our understanding of spacetime. God could have been something like Azathoth; alive, but mindless. God could have been some brilliant alien scientists, who designed and built our universe. I have no way of knowing simply based on the premise that God is the creator.

[Roy]

If you don't want to call pure act God, but something else, you are free to do so.

Ok. I'll call it 'The cosmic yoyo'.

Now for the rest of your post:

There are only three options regarding being -

1) Pure act which is not a creature and hence God. The cosmic yoyo

2) Potency and act composed, which is dependent in being, hence is a creature.

3) Pure potency, which is not in act, and is not either a creature, or God. The cosmic yoyo

If we think something is 2) then it is dependent upon 1), if 1) then 1). Either way, if 2) or 1), then 1), which means God. The cosmic yoyo
exists, is always true.

So the cosmic yoyo exists. Is the cosmic yoyo 'God'? I do not think so.

But note well that theists conclude that pure act is God, hence as an atheist, you must oppose the existence of pure act.

Codswallop. I'm opposing the assumption that pure act is 'God' or, if you insist on labelling pure act 'God', opposing the equivocation between the 'God' that is pure act and the 'God' of scripture.

You may have proven that pure act (aka 'the cosmic yoyo') must have existed. You haven't even tried to prove anything about the god of Xtian scripture.

Bus as I just said, you are too stupid to understand the problem.

[Roy]

I'm afraid I'm a bit lost with all the philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

I can conclude that something caused the universe to come into existence. I will call that something God. It is the creator of the universe.

Now. How do I logically conclude from this that God is sentient, or even still exists?

Via equivocation. You've called it 'God', so it must be the Xtian God because, well, because Xtianity is true and all other gods are false gods and because you say so.

[JohnMartin]

If you don't want to call pure act God, but something else, you are free to do so.
Ok.

I'll call it 'The cosmic yoyo'.

Which is only a nominal game. As you have agreed that pure act exists, then I suggest you are now no longer an atheist, but a theist who thinks pure act is a cosmic yoyo.

Now for the rest of your post:
There are only three options regarding being -

1) Pure act which is not a creature and hence God. The cosmic yoyo

2) Potency and act composed, which is dependent in being, hence is a creature.

3) Pure potency, which is not in act, and is not either a creature, or God. The cosmic yoyo

If we think something is 2) then it is dependent upon 1), if 1) then 1). Either way, if 2) or 1), then 1), which means God. The cosmic yoyo
exists, is always true.
So the cosmic yoyo exists. Is the cosmic yoyo 'God'? I do not think so.

But you are only playing silly nominal games. I can also play that game and say pure act is an egg, or potency is a melon. This doesn't get us anywhere, but only shows us we can play games. Once it is admitted that pure act is real, then the game is over for atheism. The theist has correctly deduced that pure act is not a creature, and is therefore a thing existing that is not a creature.

But note well that theists conclude that pure act is God, hence as an atheist, you must oppose the existence of pure act.

Codswallop. I'm opposing the assumption that pure act is 'God' or, if you insist on labelling pure act 'God', opposing the equivocation between the 'God' that is pure act and the 'God' of scripture.

Its not assumed, but deduced as has been shown previously. Composed things are creatures and creatures are composed. Pure act is not a creature, hence pure act is other than a creature. What is other than a creature is God. There is only one way put of this, and this is the silly game of nominalism, whereby the word, God is replaced by the word cosmic yoyo. Even still the reality is the same. Pure act is other than composed, so even if pure act is labelled a cosmic yoyo, it is still God in the real.

There is no equivocation between pure act and God of scripture. Pure act is God as known by reason. The Trinity is God as known by faith, through what God has revealed. To prove that God is a Trinity required the presentation of evidence concerning the veracity of the Christ event and what Christ did and taught.

You may have proven that pure act (aka 'the cosmic yoyo') must have existed. You haven't even tried to prove anything about the god of Xtian scripture.

Correct. The second part would follow a line of argument as follows -

Treat the old testament scriptures as a historical document and Israel as a historical community.
Check the documents and the traditions in Israel and see that God has made promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and and David that all the nations would be blessed through the seed of Abraham (Gen 15-22) and that Davids kingdom would last forever (2 Sam 7).
There are also the promises of the prophets that predicted the Messiah, the new Exodus, New creation, new covenant, and the restoration of Israel.
So when Christ comes along and acts as the Messiah and carries out the new Exodus, New creation, new covenant, and the restoration of Israel, then the Jews took him seriously and many converted to Christianity.
So Christ is the fulfillment of the OT promises, and Christ taught that He was God via His own miracles, fulfillment of prophecy, and His own claims concerning his own identity.
As Christ, who was God (pure act) taught God is a Trinity of divine persons, then God is a Trinity of divine persons.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Via equivocation. You've called it 'God', so it must be the Xtian God because, well, because Xtianity is true and all other gods are false gods and because you say so.

Because the conclusion of God is pure act is deduced logically, the conclusion is independent of religion. The nature of the Godhead, is revealed via the Christ event. Such is unknown to any other world religion.

JM

[Yttrium]

Because the conclusion of God is pure act is deduced logically, the conclusion is independent of religion.

I think my method was way easier than yours. Seriously, you put a heckuva lot of effort into something that apparently can be deduced from simple cause and effect.

The nature of the Godhead, is revealed via the Christ event. Such is unknown to any other world religion.

Why am I not surprised.

[Roy]

Which is only a nominal game.

Almost everything you have written in this thread is a nominal game. For example:
"Composed things are creatures and creatures are composed."
"What is other than a creature is God."
and most notably:
"pure act, which is God."

Nominal games are all you have.

As you have agreed that pure act exists, then I suggest you are now no longer an atheist, but a theist who thinks pure act is a cosmic yoyo.

You can suggest as many blatant falsehoods as you like.

There is no equivocation between pure act and God of scripture. Pure act is God as known by reason. The Trinity is God as known by faith, through what God has revealed.

Since you have admitted you haven't demonstrated the two 'God's are the same entity, that is equivocation, by definition.

You are obviously too stupid to understand this.

[JohnMartin]

Which is only a nominal game.
Almost everything you have written in this thread is a nominal game. For example:
"Composed things are creatures and creatures are composed."
"What is other than a creature is God."
and most notably:
"pure act, which is God."

Nominal games are all you have.

Everything I have said above is based upon ontology, which means my statements are not nominal games.

As you have agreed that pure act exists, then I suggest you are now no longer an atheist, but a theist who thinks pure act is a cosmic yoyo.
You can suggest as many blatant falsehoods as you like.

Once you admit pure act is real, then you are 9/10th's theist.

There is no equivocation between pure act and God of scripture. Pure act is God as known by reason. The Trinity is God as known by faith, through what God has revealed.

Since you have admitted you haven't demonstrated the two 'God's are the same entity, that is equivocation, by definition.

You are obviously too stupid to understand this.

I have not demonstrated the second part, but I have already stated this several times. This thread is devoted to proofs for God. Such has been done whereby pure act is God.

To show - If pure act is a creature, the contradiction is had. Therefore pure act is not a creature.

If pure act is a creature, then a creature is not dependent regarding being.
For pure act is not composed with potency, hence pure act is unreceptive of being.
But what is not composed is simple.
But what is simple does not have parts, and what is not composed, does not decompose.
Hence pure act is the necessary being.
But what is a necessary being, cannot not be.
But creatures come into and out of existence.
Hence creatures are not necessary.
Hence if pure act is a creature, that creature is necessary,
Yet creatures are not necessary, but contingent.
Hence if pure act is a creature, as creature it is contingent and not necessary.
But pure act is necessary.
Hence if pure act is a creature, then pure act is both a creature and not a creature.
Hence if pure act is a creature, contradiction is had, then pure act is not a creature is true.
Therefore pure act is not a creature.

Or

Pure act is a creature.
But what is in act, but unreceptive of being is not a contingent being.
For a contingent being is receptive of being, and thereby dependent on another with regard to being.
Therefore, if pure act is a creature, then pure act as a contingent being.
Hence if pure act is a creature, then pure act is both pure act and composed act with potency.
But then contradiction is had.
Hence pure act is not a creature.
Hence pure act is act other than a creature.

To show it is true that not all that exists are creatures.

If all that exists are creatures,
then all that exists are composed of potency and act.
Then all that exists are dependent regarding being.
As being is the prime act of a creature, all creatures are dependent on another for being.
Yet no creature causes the being of a creature,
for a creature is not of itself being.

And as being is the fundamental perfection, then only being is the cause of being,
As such, the being of all creatures must be caused by being.
Yet if all that exists are creatures, then no creature has a sufficient reason of be, for no creature has a cause of being.
But what lacks a sufficient reason of be, lacks what is sufficient for the thing to be.
And to lack sufficient reason of be, regarding being is to lack sufficient reason for being, and hence any perfection.
What lacks reason of be, for all perfection, does not be.
Hence if only creatures exist, then no creature can exist.
Hence it is true that not all that exists are creatures.

Corollary - Hence that which exists are creatures and that which is other than creatures.
And that which is other than creatures, is both the cause of being of creatures and itself not a creature.


To Show Pure act is God.

Definition - God is the necessary being, whose nature is being.

If pure act is not God, then pure act is a creature.
But if pure act is a creature, then contradiction is had (as shown above).
Hence pure act is other than a creature.
What is in act, but other than a creature, is not a creature.
What is not a creature, is not contingent.
What is not contingent, but in act, is necessary.
What is necessary is pure act, and therefore the prime being.
What is the prime being, as pure act is being not composed with potency.
What is not composed is simple.
What is simple as pure act, is the prime being as being.
The necessary being is the prime being, which has the nature of being.
For if the necessary being did not have a nature of being, it would not be necessary, but contingent.
Hence the necessary being has the nature of being.
Such is the definition of God.
Hence pure act is God.

To show a denial of pure act is God, results in contradiction.

If pure act is not God, then pure act is a creature.
But a creature is dependent regarding being.
Hence a creature is not pure act, but act composed with potency.
For what is dependent is then receptive of being,
And what is receptive of being is in potency with regard to being.
Hence pure act is not a creature, which contradicts line 1 above.


JM

[37818]

An "act" is finite and temporal. Even if it is of what is eteranl and infinite. An uncause cause is both of what is eternal infinite being uncaused and would be a finite temporal being a cause - an "act."

[JohnMartin]

An argument for the existence of God.

Non being does not cause being.
For a cause is the positive influence regarding the being of a thing.
And non being is not a positive influence regarding the being of a thing.
And what is not a positive influence regarding the being of a thing is not a cause.
Hence non being is not a cause of being.

Yet there is being now.
So being must be the cause of the being we experience now.
Hence something has always existed.

That something that has always existed is being.
The being that has always existed is the prime being for the prime is the universal cause of all being.
But God is the prime being.
Hence God exists.

In short.

Being is experienced now.
Being does not come from nothing.
Hence something must have always existed.
That thing which always has existed is God.
For only God is being and only being from nature can always exist.

JM