Proofs for the Existence of God

[JohnMartin]

Yes, your claim is simply unbelievable. I do understand it. I reject it because I understand it, and because I see the flaw in it that you do not.

So you claim. But then again the existence of a supreme beings seems so elementary to work out. Is one thing greater than another? If yes, then there is a supreme. If no, then there is a supreme. If the supreme is dependent in being, then there is another, as the prime being, which is the real supreme. How simple is that to understand? I simply don't see that proving the existence of the supreme being is difficult at all. After knowing there is supreme being, we can work out the details of what the supreme being is as an identity of essence and being.

JM

[Roy]

So you claim. But then again the existence of a supreme beings seems so elementary to work out.

Anything is elementary to work out if you assume it in advance and/or employ logical fallacies in your reasoning. I have successfully proven that you are dumber than a turnip via the latter route.

Is one thing greater than another? If yes, then there is a supreme. If no, then there is a supreme. If the supreme is dependent in being, then there is another, as the prime being, which is the real supreme. How simple is that to understand?

Very simple. Why don't you understand it? Why did you get it wrong? Why do you think it has anything to do with any theistic description of any god?

I simply don't see that proving the existence of the supreme being is difficult at all.

It's trivial, but depending on the measurement used to determine greatness, and the criteria for dependency, doesn't always produce the same result.

After knowing there is supreme being, we can work out the details of what the supreme being is as an identity of essence and being.

Then do so. Without assuming the identity or any characteristics of the supreme being in advance. Don't forget to specify the criteria you use for greatness and dependency.

For extra marks, work out which of {Victoria Beckham | The Rosetta Stone | the De Lorean used in Back to the Future | The iceberg that hit the Titanic | 96747 Crespodasilva | Donald Trump's hair extension} is supreme.

[Roy]

In that argument I was arguing for God as pure act. God's existence was assumed from prior arguments.

So you were assuming God's existence in the argument intended to rectify an omission in your proof for God's existence.

Good job, chump.

[shunyadragon]

In that argument I was arguing for God as pure act. God's existence was assumed from prior arguments. Not every argument starts from scratch.

JM

Yes, in the other arguments you also assumed in the premises that God exists, and that, of course, makes all the arguments 'Begging the Question.'

[JohnMartin]

Yes, in the other arguments you also assumed in the premises that God exists, and that, of course, makes all the arguments 'Begging the Question.'

Demonstrate that every argument I made for the existence of God has the fallacy of begging the question in it.

JM

[JohnMartin]

It's trivial, but depending on the measurement used to determine greatness, and the criteria for dependency, doesn't always produce the same result. Then do so. Without assuming the identity or any characteristics of the supreme being in advance. Don't forget to specify the criteria you use for greatness and dependency.

To demonstrate the Supreme Being has an identity of essence and being.

Part 1Part 2Part 3

For extra marks, work out which of {Victoria Beckham | The Rosetta Stone | the De Lorean used in Back to the Future | The iceberg that hit the Titanic | 96747 Crespodasilva | Donald Trump's hair extension} is supreme.

None of them because they are all composed of potency and act. Only pure act is supreme.

JM

[Roy]

It's trivial, but depending on the measurement used to determine greatness, and the criteria for dependency, doesn't always produce the same result.

After knowing there is supreme being, we can work out the details of what the supreme being is as an identity of essence and being.

Then do so. Without assuming the identity or any characteristics of the supreme being in advance. Don't forget to specify the criteria you use for greatness and dependency.

To demonstrate the Supreme Being has an identity of essence and being....
The Supreme Being is pure act. (11a)
God is the Supreme Being. (11b)

Unsupported assertion of the form 'This is God'.
Identity of the supreme being assumed in advance.
No specification of any criteria for greatness/dependency.

Demonstrate that every argument I made for the existence of God has the fallacy of begging the question in it.

This one certainly does.

[shunyadragon]

Demonstrate that every argument I made for the existence of God has the fallacy of begging the question in it.

JM

Already done. Roy clearly showed this one, and the others are similar.

[The Pixie]

I love how you have to re-define so may words to mean something new.

Act:

... An act does not always mean the act, ...

Perfection:

The fundamental perfection is the primary being of the thing. ...

Analogous:

Yes they are analogous. A rock has being to thereby exist as a concrete thing. Sunday exists as time. Time has being, analogous to the rock, which has being.

Proper.
Or accident maybe:

What is proper is a necessary accident of a thing. For example, it is necessary that a body have the accidental perfection of quantity, whereby quantity is parts outside of parts. It is not necessary for a body to have the accidental quality of the colour red. For a body can be blue or yellow as well. The colour of a body, is not a necessary accident, but a common accident.

Perfection again:

Whatever fills the glass has being, and is therefore a perfection of the glass, or jar, or container.

Contingent:

That which can be subject to change. A piece of wood can burn and have itself otherwise as ash. A man can die and have himself otherwise as a corpse.

Necessary:

The necessary is that which cannot be otherwise...

[JohnMartin]

Unsupported assertion of the form 'This is God'.

Answered below. The objection to 'God is the supreme being' is merely only nominal anyway. Its as though I am not permitted to identify any being as God, for that would be to presuppose that being is God, even though the supreme, prime being has all the right stuff. It looks like a tree, feels like a tree, smells like a tree, but I'm not to call it a tree, for that would presuppose the thing that everyone would normally identify as a tree, is really a tree.

Identity of the supreme being assumed in advance.

A secondary being is hardly a god is it Roy. It is self evident that God is the supreme being, for all other beings are subordinate in perfection to the supreme and hence creatures according to being.

No specification of any criteria for greatness/dependency.

The words Greatness/dependency are not used in the argument, so your statement is irrelevant.

The argument is now independent of 11c.

[JohnMartin]

I love how you have to re-define so may words to mean something new.

Act:

Perfection:

Analogous:

Proper.
Or accident maybe:

Perfection again:

Contingent:

Necessary:

Your post was junk, because you avoided the context.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Already done. Roy clearly showed this one, and the others are similar.

Roy doesn't want any being to be identified as God, even though the proofs show there is a being with all the right stuff. The existence of God is not presupposed in the OP. The label, or name, God is used to associate the supreme being, first cause, prime mover and so on with the word, God, because that is what God is. This does not presuppose that God exists. The proofs identify a specific being and that being is known by theologians as God.

Atheists invent objections that are merely nominally to avoid the problem of having to convert to theism. Roy has already admitted there is a supreme being, and uncaused cause, but has failed to come to the conclusion that the supreme being is the uncaused cause, which is God. Accordingly his version of atheism is very close to monotheism. He simply doesn't want, or see the need or ability to come to the conclusion that the uncaused cause is pure act, which is God. If his only remaining objection is that of the nominal label of God is . . . this is simply nominal hand waving to avoid becoming a theist.

JM

[Roy]

Is one thing greater than another? If yes, then there is a supreme. If no, then there is a supreme. If the supreme is dependent in being, then there is another, as the prime being, which is the real supreme.

The words Greatness/dependency are not used in the argument, so your statement is irrelevant.

Enough said.

[Roy]

Roy doesn't want any being to be identified as God, even though the proofs show there is a being with all the right stuff.

Apart from sentience, beardedness, interest in humanity, goodness, continued existence, ...

[JohnMartin]

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin, making his argument
Is one thing greater than another? If yes, then there is a supreme. If no, then there is a supreme. If the supreme is dependent in being, then there is another, as the prime being, which is the real supreme.

Taken from post 46 where I made reference to greater and dependent.

Originally Posted by Roy View Post

Yes, your claim is simply unbelievable. I do understand it. I reject it because I understand it, and because I see the flaw in it that you do not.

So you claim. But then again the existence of a supreme beings seems so elementary to work out. Is one thing greater than another? If yes, then there is a supreme. If no, then there is a supreme. If the supreme is dependent in being, then there is another, as the prime being, which is the real supreme. How simple is that to understand? I simply don't see that proving the existence of the supreme being is difficult at all. After knowing there is supreme being, we can work out the details of what the supreme being is as an identity of essence and being.

JM

The argument you were referring to was on post 51 which does not use the words Greatness/dependency as I stated.

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin, after he forgot his argument

The words Greatness/dependency are not used in the argument, so your statement is irrelevant.
Enough said.

The initial argument is true, but the subsequent argument does not use the words Greatness/dependency. There is nothing here to answer. Even so, greater is that which has more being than another, and dependent is that which is positively influenced regarding being. So there is no problem.

Also I note my new argument as amended on post 55 has not been rebutted either.

JM