Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    Say my name Ultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    63,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Pimp of Pimps View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The Kalam Argument simply proves (again, without any shred of doubt no matter what anyone might try and tell you) the existence of God. It doesn't necessarily prove a particular conception of God.
    "Whatever it is is god" is what you're saying, but God obviously has more attributes than being a creator

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by ReXDrake View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    it really is pathetic that you just ignore my refutations and repeat your bullshit in the hope no one will notice.

    You have not demonstrated that this causal agent is necessarily all powerful/omnipotent, and if you knew your philosophy, youd know better than to proclaim that its "infinite" in some sense, as its well understood in philosophy that actual infinites aren't coherent or possible.

    Keep on being a gutless fucking coward, youre doing your beloved religion proud


    I've refuted your arguments against the Kalam Argument multiple times. I've ignored you on other matters because you were being difficult and rude, but I've always answered your supposed refutations against the Kalam Argument.

    The causal agent is necessarily omnipotent because it, by definition, it is not contingent.

    It should be noted that the Kalam Argument most of you guys use or know of is an incomplete version of the actual Kalam Argument. Kalam is a word associated with the Islamic tradition and is a discipline that has been taught in Islamic lands for more than a thousand years. The real Kalam Argument is the argument that Muslims theologians have posited since the beginning of Islam.

    We see that everything around us is contingent. Meaning, it is one thing but could have been otherwise. If it is raining, it could have not rained. If I'm taking a breath, I could have not taken a breath. If it's day, it could have been night. And so on and so forth.

    In order for a contingent thing to exist there has to be one thing that is not contingent. That is, there has to be something whose existence is necessary and could not have been otherwise.

    To demonstrate this we can take the example of a mathematical theorem. Let's say that you create a new theorem, but there's a part of it that needs explaining. So you utilize a different theorem to explain that. And another theorem is used to explain a part of that theorem. This can't go on forever. Rather, there needs to be an axiom that all these theorems rest on.

    Similarly, in order for ANY contingent thing or exist, there has to be something that serves as a sort of axiom. Something non-contingent. There cannot be an infinite chain of contingent things, i.e. the rain is contingent on the clouds which is contingent on the wind which is contingent on the level of heat and cold and so on ad infinitum. This is logically impossible. There has to be a non-contingent thing and anything that is not all-powerful is, by definition, contingent.
    No.​

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    "Whatever it is is god" is what you're saying, but God obviously has more attributes than being a creator
    God necessarily has infinite attributes.

    But the aspect we're concerned with here is His non-contingency or non-dependency. Because someone can come up with a conception of a God that does not punish and we can still logically call that God. But someone cannot come up with a conception of God that is dependent on something else and logically call that God.
    No.​

  4. #24
    Not Gay Gay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    8,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Pimp of Pimps View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    God necessarily has infinite attributes.

    But the aspect we're concerned with here is His non-contingency or non-dependency. Because someone can come up with a conception of a God that does not punish and we can still logically call that God. But someone cannot come up with a conception of God that is dependent on something else and logically call that God.
    if he has infinite attributes does that mean he has the big gay too





  5. #25
    Let's not disrespect God.

    But, to answer that, God has infinite attributes but not all attributes. This is out of the scope of this thread.
    No.​

  6. #26
    I think there are a few gaping holes in this idea that others have brought up and that havent really been properly addressed, just because something is timeless doesnt necessarily mean that the answer is that God is behind it. I think the origins of the Universe are still too murky too come to any real conclusions about where the first original matter comes from, and even if we suppose there was a creator behind them it shouldnt be attributing that creator as having all the facets of any known God when in actuality we really know very little to nothing at all about what it could mean.

    Also I like how Pops doesnt even bother to get offended by Rex anymore, its like all Rex does any more is actively try and provoke people because he wants attention

    - - - Updated - - -

    Like the entire thing sort of feels like cavemen attributing the creation of fire as some wondrous creation of God because they dont see the actual chemical process behind how fire was made and to them the creator behind it is some all powerful being who put it there

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by White View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think there are a few gaping holes in this idea that others have brought up and that havent really been properly addressed, just because something is timeless doesnt necessarily mean that the answer is that God is behind it. I think the origins of the Universe are still too murky too come to any real conclusions about where the first original matter comes from, and even if we suppose there was a creator behind them it shouldnt be attributing that creator as having all the facets of any known God when in actuality we really know very little to nothing at all about what it could mean.

    Also I like how Pops doesnt even bother to get offended by Rex anymore, its like all Rex does any more is actively try and provoke people because he wants attention

    - - - Updated - - -

    Like the entire thing sort of feels like cavemen attributing the creation of fire as some wondrous creation of God because they dont see the actual chemical process behind how fire was made and to them the creator behind it is some all powerful being who put it there

    The issue is you're still thinking about this scientifically. This is outside the scope of science. Science is not capable of arriving at truth, science can only arrive at working models. If you want truth you need to resort to logic.

    What we're discussing isn't so much the origin of the universe, but its nature. We know that the universe is made up of contingent things. The sun, the moon, the the stars, the planets, the air, the oceans and so on are all contingent. Something made up of contingent things is itself necessarily contingent. In other words, something that is made up of dependent things is itself necessarily dependent on something else. It is, for example, illogical to say that a theoretical person is immortal and does not need any sustenance while also saying his cells need sustenance in order to function. Similarly, the universe cannot be independent and non-contingent since it is made up of dependent and contingent things.

    As I explained earlier, we can't have an infinite chain of contingency. This is impossible. And for contingent things to exist, something non-contingent is necessary. Consider the following example:

    Say you created a mathematical theorem. You use another theorem to explain your theorem. And another to explain the second theorem. Neither theorem actually cause your theorem to be true, they are just explanatory links in the chain. What makes your theorem, and every theorem in the chain, true is the axiom (or set of axioms) that those theorems rest on.

    Similarly, the wind isn't the actual cause of the clouds moving. It's a link in the chain back to the actual cause. The Uncaused Cause, the Non-Contingent, God.

    God is necessary because a non-contingent thing has to exist for anything contingent to exist. A non-contingent thing can only be one of its kind and must be all-powerful, otherwise it is contingent.
    No.​

  8. #28
    ReXDrake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Pimp of Pimps View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote


    I've refuted your arguments against the Kalam Argument multiple times. I've ignored you on other matters because you were being difficult and rude, but I've always answered your supposed refutations against the Kalam Argument.

    The causal agent is necessarily omnipotent because it, by definition, it is not contingent.

    It should be noted that the Kalam Argument most of you guys use or know of is an incomplete version of the actual Kalam Argument. Kalam is a word associated with the Islamic tradition and is a discipline that has been taught in Islamic lands for more than a thousand years. The real Kalam Argument is the argument that Muslims theologians have posited since the beginning of Islam.

    We see that everything around us is contingent. Meaning, it is one thing but could have been otherwise. If it is raining, it could have not rained. If I'm taking a breath, I could have not taken a breath. If it's day, it could have been night. And so on and so forth.

    In order for a contingent thing to exist there has to be one thing that is not contingent. That is, there has to be something whose existence is necessary and could not have been otherwise.

    To demonstrate this we can take the example of a mathematical theorem. Let's say that you create a new theorem, but there's a part of it that needs explaining. So you utilize a different theorem to explain that. And another theorem is used to explain a part of that theorem. This can't go on forever. Rather, there needs to be an axiom that all these theorems rest on.

    Similarly, in order for ANY contingent thing or exist, there has to be something that serves as a sort of axiom. Something non-contingent. There cannot be an infinite chain of contingent things, i.e. the rain is contingent on the clouds which is contingent on the wind which is contingent on the level of heat and cold and so on ad infinitum. This is logically impossible. There has to be a non-contingent thing and
    anything that is not all-powerful is, by definition, contingent.
    still waiting on proof for that assertion

    Incontingency and omnipotence are not mutually inclusive. I can grant you that this first cause has aseity, but it in no way follows that it is necessarily all powerful.

    How did you rule out the possibility that this being was capable of making everything play out in the specific way that it has up to now, but couldn't have used different means? In other words, it could very well have started the causal chain that has led to everything up to us at this very second, but this doesn't mean it can skip steps or say cause a tree to materialize out of thin air etc.

    Notice that this limitation doesn't undermine its aseity in any way whatsoever.






    Not everyone dies because they want to die.

    Most of them die against their will

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •