I am a non-believer and I would like my reasoning assessed.

[NSV]

If I am reading you correctly then, and if I am not please correct me:
You are ok with a reasoning process that shows that God may exist if the argument is logical and sound and, of course, if you agree with it.
Evidence wise, you think that God would be able to give someone a personal revelation ( show Himself) BUT that you would probably not accept that because the person ( even yourself I presume) could be hallucinating, is this correct?

That is correct. I would like to add that I would not be entirely closed to the fact to a personal revelation, but you can surely understand why it would be more logical to discredit it given that a personal revelation cannot me demonstrated and that it is so common among every religion, myth, bizarre claim.

[PaulSacramento]

If I am reading you correctly then, and if I am not please correct me:
You are ok with a reasoning process that shows that God may exist if the argument is logical and sound and, of course, if you agree with it.
Evidence wise, you think that God would be able to give someone a personal revelation ( show Himself) BUT that you would probably not accept that because the person ( even yourself I presume) could be hallucinating, is this correct?

That is correct. I would like to add that I would not be entirely closed to the fact to a personal revelation, but you can surely understand why it would be more logical to discredit it given that a personal revelation cannot me demonstrated and that it is so common among every religion, myth, bizarre claim.

So you would LIKE a personal revelation BUT probably wouldn't accept it.
You are ok with a logical reasoning process that MAY lead one to believe in God IF you agree with the reasoning (not if it is correct mind you, but only if YOU agree).
Do you not see a problem with this?
Seems like you are open to the possibility of God ONLY under YOUR conditions and that you are NOT open to a personal relationship with God because you do NOT trust personal revelation.
You seem to be looking to believe in a God that exists only how YOU want Him to AND for Him to be an impersonal one.

[NSV]

I cannot accept a logical reasoning process if I do not agree with it, now can I? It is not as if I see a sound logical argument and choose not to agree with it. The sound logical argument wording pre-assumes that one agrees with it. Else, it would not be sound to that person.

I felt like I gave perfect reasoning as to why I cannot trust personal revelation. If you do not want to address that, then that is okay, but chastising me for giving a reason that I do not accept something, and not explaining why my reasoning is flawed, is not productive or helpful to the conversation.

I am looking for sound reasoning or evidence. I do not know what this reasoning or evidence could be, but I am willing to accept it if they are valid.

[PaulSacramento]

I cannot accept a logical reasoning process if I do not agree with it, now can I? It is not as if I see a sound logical argument and choose not to agree with it. The sound logical argument wording pre-assumes that one agrees with it. Else, it would not be sound to that person.

I felt like I gave perfect reasoning as to why I cannot trust personal revelation. If you do not want to address that, then that is okay, but chastising me for giving a reason that I do not accept something, and not explaining why my reasoning is flawed, is not productive or helpful to the conversation.

I am looking for sound reasoning or evidence. I do not know what this reasoning or evidence could be, but I am willing to accept it if they are valid.

The issue seems to be that you don't realize that not accepting a logical argument because you don't agree with it is NOT a valid reason to not accept it because you have to understand WHY you don't agree.
You may not agree with it because you don't understand it or because you (emotionally for example) choose not to.
Not agreeing with an argument does NOT make it invalid.
There are sound logical arguments why one should agree with vaccinations, with objective morals, with the world being round and YET there are people that disagree with ALL of them.

My point is that you seem to have a bias against believing in God and while you seem to be open minded to the possibility, it really doesn't appear that you are.
Oh yes, you are open to A God existing under certain conditions or in a certain way that YOU decided are the ONLY possible ways ( if any possible ways) but you are not open to God existing or the possibility of Him existing unless it is in that/those ways.

You are not alone mind you, I find your attitude typical of the atheist skeptic and I have asked this very question to many and they all respond in kind:
Question: Is there any possible way or any possible evidence that would lead you to believe in God ?

The most honest of skeptics say NO.
The naive ones, the ones that THINK they are open minded say things along the same lines that you do, that under certain SPECIFIC conditions that they AGREE on, they MAY believe that something like God COULD exist.
Of course those conditions are made up by them to make sure that such a thing as God can't exist because, well, according to them, "That isn't God" or "why would that be God"?

Sound familiar?

[NSV]

The issue seems to be that you don't realize that not accepting a logical argument because you don't agree with it is NOT a valid reason to not accept it because you have to understand WHY you don't agree.
You may not agree with it because you don't understand it or because you (emotionally for example) choose not to.
Not agreeing with an argument does NOT make it invalid.
There are sound logical arguments why one should agree with vaccinations, with objective morals, with the world being round and YET there are people that disagree with ALL of them.

My point is that you seem to have a bias against believing in God and while you seem to be open minded to the possibility, it really doesn't appear that you are.
Oh yes, you are open to A God existing under certain conditions or in a certain way that YOU decided are the ONLY possible ways ( if any possible ways) but you are not open to God existing or the possibility of Him existing unless it is in that/those ways.

You are not alone mind you, I find your attitude typical of the atheist skeptic and I have asked this very question to many and they all respond in kind:
Question: Is there any possible way or any possible evidence that would lead you to believe in God ?

The most honest of skeptics say NO.
The naive ones, the ones that THINK they are open minded say things along the same lines that you do, that under certain SPECIFIC conditions that they AGREE on, they MAY believe that something like God COULD exist.
Of course those conditions are made up by them to make sure that such a thing as God can't exist because, well, according to them, "That isn't God" or "why would that be God"?

Sound familiar?

Paul, there is obvious a mistake with our communication. I am not saying that one’s logical argument is false because I do not agree with it. I am saying that It is not sound to me. You are making this sound as if I am not agreeing with a logical argument “Just because”. This is not the case. I am not agree with a “logical” argument because I do not see it as a logical argument and I have a reason for that. Believe me Paul. I understand what you are saying and I agree with it.

Paul, I did not come here to tell you all I do not believe in a god and do not want to. I came here to hear why I should because I would like to know to truth if it exists. Yes, there are people on this forum who do not have a valid reasoning for believing in a god, and it is not bias of me to point out the flaws in that belief. This seems to be a trend among believers that they are quick to accuse non-believers in simply not wanting to know the truth. Paul, let’s set the record straight. There is no one in their right mind that does not want to accept an everlasting paradise. So can we please shelf this accusation. Yes, I have my criteria that I have set that limits my credulity. What am I supposed to do, believe in a god based on someone else’s criteria? I am willing to always change this criteria that I have set if I have good reason.

I converse with many skeptics. I rarely find those that will say that nothing can convince them. We are wasting time and getting off track by discussing this though because this is not productive to explain why god exists. All you are doing is bashing non-believers. This is not helpful. I could say that Believers will believe anything with no thought process at all. But I am not here to tell you want believers think, what they believe, how they think. I am here asking how to think about this question and is it sound reasoning. Anything else is seeing who can light the match first while standing in gasoline.

To reiterate about the criteria that is set for credulity for me, I have to know, what more do you want from me Paul? Everyone has their own criteria set/adopted. Should I accept a previous post’s author’s POV? Believe for the sake of believing? I would almost argue that it isn’t even my criteria that I am creating. If you notice Jac set pretty detailed reasoning for me concluding a principle cause. This logic is like math to me. It isn’t something I invented, but it is something I use. Jac seems to be able to communicate with me effectively with it, so are we to say that I have Jac’s specific conditions? No. I say that the conditions you claim to be my pre-set bias condition is simply logic as I understand it. Jac had no problem conveying his point to me with it. I don’t see why anyone else should either.

[PaulSacramento]

All you are doing is bashing non-believers. This is not helpful.

Nope, not at all.
I am simply pointing out that unless you are OPEN to believing, you simply will find any and all excuse ( which you will confuse with "reason") not to believe.

To be OPEN means to accept that God CAN exist in a fashion that YOU may not agree with OR in a fashion that may not even seem logical to YOU.

Some skeptics ask "WHY" would God allow this or that or make the universe this or that and then expect a scientific answer to a philosophical question and they do that because they know there isn't one and as such, God, of course, can't exist.

They bring up the issue of suffering for example and say ask why God allows it and when you give them an answer ( and of the answers that have been out forth for centuries mind you) they simply say they don't agree and so God doesn't exist because there is no good reason for God to allow suffering ( even though they were presented with them).
How can they say that? simple really.
The disagree that the answer is a valid one, as if THEIR agreeing or not is what makes the answer valid.

Another example if those that dismiss personal revelation because, like you point out, the person could be hallucinating or whatever.
They won't even accept their OWN personal revelation IF God would give it to them anyways and then they wonder why God doesn't "show Himself to them" ?

See, if you are truly open to the possibility that God exists then that means you are open to the possibility that God is NOTHING like your preconceived views of "god" may be are.

Are you open to that?

[PaulSacramento]

There is no one in their right mind that does not want to accept an everlasting paradise.

Sure there are, I know quite a few.
Why?
Because what it REQUIRED of them to get that paradise is TOO MUCH for them.
They would h ave to give up too much sin, too much selfishness, too much of "THEM", more than they are willing.
So they would rather believe that THIS is all there is and it is all by random chance and we are no more or no less than any other animal on this planet and are only here to propagate the species.
As many atheists are proud of stating:
The more intelligent the person, the less they believe in "fairy tales".

So, many people in their "right mind" do NOT want to accept even the NOTION of "everlasting paradise".

[PaulSacramento]

If you notice Jac set pretty detailed reasoning for me concluding a principle cause.

Yes he did, in the Aristotelian/Thomistic tradition that He ( and so many of us) hold dear.
And your reply?

Maybe you can explain why we must call this god and how could an unchangeable entity act in a timeless void where change cannot happen?

When Jac hadn't even mentioned the word God at all.

See how your bias was already trying to figure out a way to dismiss this line of reasoning because it was already bringing you close to the notion of "God"?

[NSV]

Paul. Buddy. Help me out here. Can we stop bringing up what “Skeptics” think. I don’t care what they say. You should only care about what I have to say. If I didn’t say it, then don’t tell me some skeptic said it.

Let’s also set this straight. I will not believe in anything past small trivial claims (e.g. a stranger told me a taco bell is down the road or a bum telling me he won’t spend my just gifted $20 on alcohol.)

And when I say believe, I am not saying trust. I am saying belief would be accepting something as true when there is no reason/evidence to warrant it. Trust would be the opposite of this definition for me. So let’s make sure we are on the same page there. Yes, I will believe in something as I gave an example before. My reasons for that is that is not worth my time to drill the stranger on questions about the truth claim that a taco bell is down the road. The same goes with the bum. I gave him $20 out of kindness. It will not be productive for me to riddle him with questions and proof that he will use the money on food. Tell me to believe something until every day of my life, that will define the very person I am, until I die, well belief is not going to cut it here. I hope we are on the same definitions here.

God could exist. I will NEVER deny that. It may not be the god I had envisioned. It may be an unjust god, and illogical god, and cruel god, etc. This is why I do not want to hear about other skeptics. You are talking to me Paul. Let’s make the conversation about me, you and the argument.

There is no one in their right mind that does not want to accept an everlasting paradise.

Sure there are, I know quite a few.
Why?
Because what it REQUIRED of them to get that paradise is TOO MUCH for them...

Paul, you are confusing them having their own reasoning that they think is more valid with an immediate dismissal of obvious evidence for the existence of god.

When Jac hadn't even mentioned the word God at all.

See how your bias was already trying to figure out a way to dismiss this line of reasoning because it was already bringing you close to the notion of "God"?

As our goal as to provide rational warrant for the claim that God exists, I believe we've at a minimum shown a rational warrant for the claim that an eternal, immutable principle cause of essentially-ordered causal chains exists, and that, I think even beyond further commentary on the nature of such an entity, provides a strong prima facie warrant for the claim that God exists.

I may have mistaken this with him drawing a conclusion to god. You are doing a lot of assuming for me Paul. You really need to tone this down a bit, please.

You commented recently to somewhere that you might have misunderstood me in thinking that I am drawing a line to God. You did not. I think I am doing so. But I would suggest that there might be some sort of problem with basic assumptions. I'm hoping to get around them with the approach we're taking here, but this is a good time to address them directly.

I guess not, Paul.

[Jac3510]

Jac, I will definitely think on this conclusion. I will have to say, that I do not see how the conclusion points to a god. I understand that if there is no issue with the premises, that it does point to a principle cause. I feel like we are missing premises to point to a god.

1. Some things are in the process of changing.
2. Anything in the process of changing is being changed by something else.
3. If a thing that is changing something else is itself changing, then it, too, must be being changed by another something else, and so on.
4. Since every such series of [essentially-ordered] changes has to have a principle thing causing the change, no such series of things being changed by other things can go on forever.
5. Therefore, there must be a principle cause [of essentially-ordered causal chains] that is itself unchanging.
6. ?
C. God

Maybe you can explain why we must call this god and how could an unchangeable entity act in a timeless void where change cannot happen?


Again, thank you. You have been most thorough.

You commented recently to somewhere that you might have misunderstood me in thinking that I am drawing a line to God. You did not. I think I am doing so. But I would suggest that there might be some sort of problem with basic assumptions. I'm hoping to get around them with the approach we're taking here, but this is a good time to address them directly.

I'm sure you are well aware of the fact that if you ask ten different people who or what God is, you will get ten different answers (even among Christians and even in the same denomination!). Some atheists have argued that actually counts against claims that God exists (Kai Nielson comes to mind here). Without getting into that debate, I would point out that what is true is that "God" is the ultimate blank canvas. On my view, there is nothing we can point at and say "that is God." And this, I would add, is something that classical theists have long believed. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "Now, because we cannot know what God is, but rather what He is not, we have no means for considering how God is, but rather how He is not" (ST Ia.3). I wouldn't take that language too strictly, but this gets at a methodological problem that gets to your question about a premise pointing to God. I would suggest, for reasons we will get to, that it is intrinsically impossible to point at any individual thing or any individual concept and declare "that is God." But that would make it terribly difficult to use "God" as a term in an argument (e.g., "therefore, God exists."). We do that often, but we have to understand that when we do, we are actually using shorthand for a variety of concepts that may partially identify the essence of divinity or that refer to that essence obliquely, but do not do so directly.

So what is the way forward? I would suggest that what we do is what we have been doing. We have discovered, in our case, reason to affirm the existence of an eternal (=non-temporal), immutable (=changeless) principle cause. Having affirmed such a thing is real, we can now ask what else we can know about this "thing" based on what we have seen about it so far. And what I submit to you is that, ultimately, what we will find out is that the eternal, immutable cause is what people have traditionally called "God."

Now, to jlay's point, and to SH's related point prior to that, this God of Natural Revelation is in some sense distinct from the God of Scripture. A Jew or Muslim, for instance, could claim, "Yahweh is that God" or "Allah is that God." That remains to be seen on further investigation. But I would suggest that we are nowhere near any of that. Still less are we at a place where, even if we affirmed the Trinune God of the Christian Bible is, in fact, that God, we actually come to know Him. What you and I are doing is, I think, very important work. We have to know something about Him so that we may come to know Him. Skipping ahead a million steps, I think there comes a point in your journey where you have to know Him so that you may further know things about Him. But, again, we just aren't there yet, and when you get there is between you and God. And I, for one, am content to trust Him in His relationship with you on those issues.

So . . . as to your missing premises, if you'll permit me some time I'll offer you some ideas to think about. What I can concede to you NOW is that we don't HAVE to call the etenal, immutable principle cause God. But I would submit to you that we certainly can, and that perhaps it is not irrational to do so. After all, God, as Scripture defines Him, certainly is at least that! But you need more, and I don't blame you for that. I do just hope that at this juncture you can concede to me that those people who do look at this and discover an unchanging, non-temporal source of change and call this "God" are neither irrational nor are they acting without warrant. Perhaps it would be unwarrated for you at the present juncture to make such an affirmation. But for them it would not be, and it would certainly not be blind faith.

I'm at work now, and we are terribly understaffed this week. I'll get back to offering you some concrete ideas this evening. Thanks for your openness and willingness to discuss these things honestly, as well as for holding me and others here to a strict standard of reason. I think that is to your credit, and it is only for our good, too.

edit:

And the question, btw, of how an unchanging, non-temporal principle cause can effect change in a temporal world is a good one. I'll be sure to address that as well!

[Mallz]

NSV

how could an unchangeable entity act in a timeless void where change cannot happen?

How did you draw this conclusion?

[NSV]

NSV

how could an unchangeable entity act in a timeless void where change cannot happen?

How did you draw this conclusion?

What conclusion? It was a question.

[Mallz]

What conclusion? It was a question.

I assumed it was a question based off a drawn conclusion :p

The unchangeable entity causes change but is unchangeable in Itself. It's not a timeless void, It's being. Time is in It and It is outside of time. No void, but Pure Being. And we're in That too

Change comes from the unmoved mover aka The unchangeable entity. I think of it as through expression.

[NSV]

Excellent. I agree, the use of the word God is understood, by so many, differently.

After all, God, as Scripture defines Him, certainly is at least that! But you need more, and I don't blame you for that. I do just hope that at this juncture you can concede to me that those people who do look at this and discover an unchanging, non-temporal source of change and call this "God" are neither irrational nor are they acting without warrant. Perhaps it would be unwarrated for you at the present juncture to make such an affirmation. But for them it would not be, and it would certainly not be blind faith.

Jac, this may be the crossroads that would most tip the scales for me, and at the same time, may be our first disagreement. This may be difficult to argue or convey because of the point you made earlier: Everyone has their own definition of what god is, but I will do my best to make this coherent.

We have accepted two attributes to this principle cause that you have identified here: Unchanging and Non-temporal. I would like to add another that we both may have already pre-assumed. This principle cause also can cause change(unintentionally or intentionally{as to say with reason}) in some way. This concept of intention is where I see a problem in taking the leap(for lack of better words) to the conclusion that this is a god in whatever since suffices them. Intention here, for me, would make the distinction between this being some kind of force or energy(lack of better words again). If it does not act in the sense that it “choose” to, then I would not view this as god. Rather, I would see this as some extension of a natural process beyond time. Without reason to think this Cause acted, then I would not view the conclusion that this is god as logical.

Now my current concept of god or understanding of what acting really means in a timeless void could be flawed. I hope to hear if that is the case.

A final note, I noticed you used the word “Him” when referring to this Cause you have identified. Are we using “Him” in an English since or for a substitute in place of “It, itself, God, Cause”? If we could continue to call this a principle cause, I think it would help my understanding of your arguments. I find myself assuming that you are pre-assuming Him = Jesus/God as a Man.

Thank you for your response and take your time. I know how busy work can be!

[PaulSacramento]

I guess not, Paul.

You missed the point.
You didn't allow Jac to conclude or even draw the line to God YET and you were already thinking of arguments to disprove it.

You think I am being harsh with you, generalizing you argument and lumping it with other skeptics and you may be right.
So I will stop and apologize for that.

But I will ask you what your argument is because, if I recall correctly from page 1, it was this:

I do not accept the bible's claims about God and I do not think there is any validity in or around it supporting it's claims.

And after it being pointed out that:

If you want somebody here to critique your reasoning, you need to present some reasoning. As it stands, all you've done is offer a few assertions

I don't recall you answering the "WHY"....

Why do you not accept the bible's claim about God and do not think there is any validity in or around it supporting it's claims ?