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

[NSV]

It may have taken much less for me to concede your point, but it never hurts to be thorough.

Let's continue.

[Jac3510]

Haha, no, it doesn't it hurt be thorough. But perhaps it hurts less to be laconic. Anyway, all that remains is to draw the conclusion, which is this:

5. Therefore, there must be a principle cause that is itself unchanging.

Notice carefully what the argument has demonstrated. The principle cause we just established exists in any essentially-ordered causal chain must be unchanging. The theological word for that is immutable. The reason it must be unchanging is that if it, too, is changing, then it must be being changed by something else (per the second premise) and therefore it is not the principle cause after all. We have to continue tracing causes "back" until we get to an agent that satisfies the "if" in the third premise. That means, strictly, I cannot be the real principle cause of the paint spreading on the wall when I am painting. After all, I am changing, and sense I am changing, I cannot be the principle cause.

In fact, this means that pressed far enough, nothing temporal can be the principle cause, because every temporal thing, by definition, is changing. That means there is something that is causing change that is non-temporal. And that is precisely why this thing is immutable. That which is not in time cannot change, because, by definition, time is the numbering of change before and after. So this thing is, in principle, not capable of change. And yet it is producing changes in this temporal world. Now what would you call a non-temporal entity (which is to say a real thing, since non-real things cannot do things, i.e., cause changes?) that is causing change? Another word for non-temporal is eternal. So to clarify further, what would you call an eternal, immutable entity causing effects in this world?

edit:

In review, our argument fully stated was this:

• 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.

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.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other classical theists have historically called this entity "God." Now there are other things that we can know about this entity that falls directly out of the conclusion of this argument. I can show you some of those other necessary inferences in a bit. Right now, though, I'm curious as to what you think about the eternal, immutable principle cause of essentially-ordered causal chains we see in our world.

[Philip]

Jac: It is important to remember the type of chain we are talking about here is one in which the causes and effects happen simultaneously. I make no argument about whether or not an infinite number of events could exist into the past. That's another matter. Some philosophers try to argue that is impossible, too, but I'll leave that to them. What I am saying is

Jac, I'm tracking with you, but does it truly matter that the causes and effects in such a chain are SIMULTANEOUS? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I can't see why a lag of time in between these isn't also possible.

[Jac3510]

Yes, the simultaneity is important. Now, I'm speaking of "common sense" simultaneity. If we are going to be very strict, we could say that when I move a paint brush, then the particles at the part of the handle I have in my hand have to move so that the particles in the middle can move so that the particles near the brushes can move, and that implies temporal progression. And very strictly, that would be correct. But that isn't the issue. When I talk about simultaneous causes, I use the present tense on purpose. A is causing B which is causing C, and on that level, whatever picoseconds there are in between the two events doesn't matter.

What is important is what we are NOT talking about. We are not saying that A happened, which caused B to happen, which caused C to happen. The reason we can't say that is because on those kinds of causal chain, when A stops happening, C doesn't necessarily stop happening. For instance, imagine a row of dominoes. You knock the first one over that starts a chain reaction of all the other dominoes falling. Suppose that while they are dropping, you stand the first fallen one back up. Does that stop the causal chain from continuing? Of course not. That's because that type of causal chain is related per accidens and is called an accidentally-ordered causal chain; it is "horizontal" and happens through time. That kind of chain is what we appeal to when we are talking about something like the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Now some, like WLC, think that they can make an argument for God's existence out of this type of chain. And that's fine. I don't think their arguments work, but they are allowed to make them. But the point is that the "through time" aspect is terribly important, because on KCA styled arguments that use accidentally-ordered chains, if you could show that the universe had always existed into the past, you would show that there is no need for a first cause. But the argument I've presented doesn't go back into the past (except in a technical, picosecond style past, but that, again, doesn't effect our argument). It is rooted in the fact that this event is causing another event which is causing a third event, and so on, and all that is happening right now, in the present.

[NSV]

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.

[abelcainsbrother]

@Jac3510

I would be willing to listen to your argument. A way of addressing my reasoning is to hear others. I did have an issue with one thing you stated. Other than that, I would like to continue to your argument that you have for me: "you would see clearly the fact that God must exist."

1. God exists, but there are no rational arguments of any kind to demonstrate this; OR
2. God exists, and there are rational arguments to demonstrate this; OR
3. God does not exist, so there are no rational arguments to demonstrate His existence (assumption: you cannot rationally demonstrate to be true what is not true)

Either you accept it is possible or else you reject it a priori. If the latter, we would sort of have to start over and you would need to offer reasons for that, lest I charge you with a mere assertion. But I don't think that's your position.

It sounds as if you are telling me that 2 remains that only option. Correct me if I have misunderstood you, but as I see it all 3 are still viable to me.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you realize God has revealed himself to millions of people? So it makes no sense that you say God could reveal himself.I remember the day I asked Jesus to save me and he did,you just probably don't want to accept it,but I have been different every since that day,Jesus changed me and my perspective the day I was saved.I did not change myself,you probably don't know much about religion but in a religion a person joins it and then must follow laws,rules,do religious ceremonies,etc in order to earn salvation,true Christianity is totally different as Jesus accepts us flaws and all and saves us and changes us ,it is a miracle. So if you want God to reveal himself to you then it is up to you to seek him,and you will find him if you do this.

Abel, by this logic, I could argue that Allah has revealed himself to millions of people. This is a bit of evidence that, to me, is still at question. Every single day, from every religion, their god is working miracles, revealing itself to them, etc... I hope you can understand from my POV why my statement remains. As far as your statement saying that "you just probably don't want to accept it", you need to understand. I have Muslim friends tell me the same thing. Their, and your, personal experience is not convincing for the very reason they conflict with each other. I have no doubt that both of you are sincere, but Allah cannot be talking to him while God is talking to you. Until I have a method for discerning which one of you are being deceived, I have to keep both on the shelf as mistaken until proven true, and that is my purpose here. To find that method of truth.

I once was a Christian. I went to church, I was baptized, I read my bible, I sought god, I was saved, I spoke to god. I slowly came to an understanding that my ideas and principles were not built on a more efficient method of discerning what was true or false. I decided that logic and scientism arrived at the truth more than faith and I slowly let go of my beliefs.

Come on,stop it for there are only two choices we can have either a creator created everything or it happened naturally,saying I don't know does not let you off the hook at all,as you should know which is more logical and realistic,at least we can see man can create because he was created in the image of God,I did not say man can create what God created and man can't,so do not get confused and compare man to what God can create.You cannot remove a creator and be thinking logical for you must suppose matter can form itself but it can't.To remove a creator from the equation requires blind faith,which is why you say I don't know,you know you have no leg to stand on if you remove a creator.

Abel, it as if you are saying that a creator is self-evident. It obviously is not to millions of people, like myself. While I do not think that there are only two options--A creator vs Naturally--, but if I was to work with those, I can still say I do not know. If it could be either or, and I do not have the evidence or reasoning affirming 100% without a doubt that it was A or B, then I can simply say I do not know, because that is true.

so if man can create then why would it be so hard for you to believe "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

You used the word create with man as you did with god with no distinction to draw an analogous line. I am merely pointing out that the line cannot be drawn because the word create that you are using for man is not the same definition that you are justifying god with.

You cannot remove a creator and be thinking logical for you must suppose matter can form itself but it can't.To remove a creator from the equation requires blind faith,which is why you say I don't know,you know you have no leg to stand on if you remove a creator.

Why can matter not create itself? Maybe it can be something that we, necessarily, wouldn't call matter that can exist outside of space and time? Maybe an energy? The simple fact is that, from my POV. I am not presupposing much. I am not saying everything was supernaturally created. I am not saying it was naturally created. I am sticking with the position that I do not have the answers and would like to have them.

No you can't use Islam or any other religion because they all teach works for salvation,while Christianity doesn't for there is nothing a man can do to save himself,nothing.Jesus takes us just as we are flaws and all saves us,washes our sins away and changes us on the inside to serve God,this does not happen in Islam or any other religion for they change their self by following the llaws of their religion.God has not revealed himself to Muslims at all which is why they think they can save their self,but they can't and niether can you.

You say you don't know if their is is a creator or not and you put your faith in not knowing assuming a lot and yet time is ticking down for you,for you are going to die and stand before God and tell him,I didn't know? You may not believe the bible but it says the invisible things of God are clearly seen so that they are without excuse,so you are inexcusable especially since you've heard the truth.

Jesus will save you right now because this is not religion and you will be changed,your whole perspective will change just like I told you that happened to me,as I did not change myself and you will not change yourself either,Jesus will change you if you will believe and pray,then you will know the truth regardless of what an atheists says,when they deny Jesus even existed you will know they are liars.

So if you want to know the truth then believe in Jesus and ask him to save you,he will,stop thinking you are off the hook saying I don't know,you do know that matter does not form itself into the things that make make up this universe including life for you see man creating things all around you and the very same principle applies to you and the reality around you.Plus there is no reason for you to think that you can get around reality when you have nothing to base it on to think like that,it is just an opinion that can never be demonstrated.Salvation through Jesus can be demonstrated right now if you will believe in Jesus.

[NSV]

No you can't use Islam or any other religion because they all teach works for salvation,while Christianity doesn't for there is nothing a man can do to save himself,nothing.Jesus takes us just as we are flaws and all saves us,washes our sins away and changes us on the inside to serve God,this does not happen in Islam or any other religion for they change their self by following the llaws of their religion.God has not revealed himself to Muslims at all which is why they think they can save their self,but they can't and niether can you.

You say you don't know if their is is a creator or not and you put your faith in not knowing assuming a lot and yet time is ticking down for you,for you are going to die and stand before God and tell him,I didn't know? You may not believe the bible but it says the invisible things of God are clearly seen so that they are without excuse,so you are inexcusable especially since you've heard the truth.

Jesus will save you right now because this is not religion and you will be changed,your whole perspective will change just like I told you that happened to me,as I did not change myself and you will not change yourself either,Jesus will change you if you will believe and pray,then you will know the truth regardless of what an atheists says,when they deny Jesus even existed you will know they are liars.

So if you want to know the truth then believe in Jesus and ask him to save you,he will,stop thinking you are off the hook saying I don't know,you do know that matter does not form itself into the things that make make up this universe including life for you see man creating things all around you and the very same principle applies to you and the reality around you.Plus there is no reason for you to think that you can get around reality when you have nothing to base it on to think like that,it is just an opinion that can never be demonstrated.Salvation through Jesus can be demonstrated right now if you will believe in Jesus.

Abel, other religions teaching works of salvation vs Christianity doing the opposite as nothing to do with it being true or not. This is a matter of what is taught in said religions. I doubt you would accept this, but from the outside looking in, Allah has revealed himself to Muslims as much as god has revealed himself to Christians. I have had Muslim friends tell me that Allah has spoke to them. What would you say about this that cannot be said about God speaking to you?

I do not put my faith in not knowing. I am not sure if that thought is even coherent. It is not as if I know Jesus was the son of god and I am choosing to not know. Believe me, I would enjoy an afterlife. You really need to understand that when I say I do not know, then that is what it means, Abel.

Abel, I have already said this once. If you keep choosing to ignore what I write, then I will have to only respond to Jac and SH. I used to pray, I used to believe, I used to be saved, I asked Jesus to save me. Understand what I am telling you or we cannot continue with our conversation. I used to be a Christian for 75% of my life. Jac is obviously reaching me in a way you are not, and you need to understand that telling me to believe then I will know is not how I will come to a conclusion in the manner you want me to.

I am sorry, but you need to understand where I am coming from.

[abelcainsbrother]

No you can't use Islam or any other religion because they all teach works for salvation,while Christianity doesn't for there is nothing a man can do to save himself,nothing.Jesus takes us just as we are flaws and all saves us,washes our sins away and changes us on the inside to serve God,this does not happen in Islam or any other religion for they change their self by following the llaws of their religion.God has not revealed himself to Muslims at all which is why they think they can save their self,but they can't and niether can you.

You say you don't know if their is is a creator or not and you put your faith in not knowing assuming a lot and yet time is ticking down for you,for you are going to die and stand before God and tell him,I didn't know? You may not believe the bible but it says the invisible things of God are clearly seen so that they are without excuse,so you are inexcusable especially since you've heard the truth.

Jesus will save you right now because this is not religion and you will be changed,your whole perspective will change just like I told you that happened to me,as I did not change myself and you will not change yourself either,Jesus will change you if you will believe and pray,then you will know the truth regardless of what an atheists says,when they deny Jesus even existed you will know they are liars.

So if you want to know the truth then believe in Jesus and ask him to save you,he will,stop thinking you are off the hook saying I don't know,you do know that matter does not form itself into the things that make make up this universe including life for you see man creating things all around you and the very same principle applies to you and the reality around you.Plus there is no reason for you to think that you can get around reality when you have nothing to base it on to think like that,it is just an opinion that can never be demonstrated.Salvation through Jesus can be demonstrated right now if you will believe in Jesus.

Abel, other religions teaching works of salvation vs Christianity doing the opposite as nothing to do with it being true or not. This is a matter of what is taught in said religions. I doubt you would accept this, but from the outside looking in, Allah has revealed himself to Muslims as much as god has revealed himself to Christians. I have had Muslim friends tell me that Allah has spoke to them. What would you say about this that cannot be said about God speaking to you?

I do not put my faith in not knowing. I am not sure if that thought is even coherent. It is not as if I know Jesus was the son of god and I am choosing to not know. Believe me, I would enjoy an afterlife. You really need to understand that when I say I do not know, then that is what it means, Abel.

Abel, I have already said this once. If you keep choosing to ignore what I write, then I will have to only respond to Jac and SH. I used to pray, I used to believe, I used to be saved, I asked Jesus to save me. Understand what I am telling you or we cannot continue with our conversation. I used to be a Christian for 75% of my life. Jac is obviously reaching me in a way you are not, and you need to understand that telling me to believe then I will know is not how I will come to a conclusion in the manner you want me to.

I am sorry, but you need to understand where I am coming from.

I am giving you the gospel truth the same that was given me and millions of other people who have been saved and changed by Jesus to serve God.You said you do not know and yet you deny you put your faith in it.Please explain how you can say you do not know and yet deny you do not have faith in this.It is what is keeping you from believing in a creator,you obviously have faith it could happen another way.

[NSV]

I am giving you the gospel truth the same that was given me and millions of other people who have been saved and changed by Jesus to serve God.You said you do not know and yet you deny you put your faith in it.Please explain how you can say you do not know and yet deny you do not have faith in this.It is what is keeping you from believing in a creator,you obviously have faith it could happen another way.

389483245438963590 * 329404353459854 – 34900 = X

Without being able to work the problem out or use a calculator, I do not know what X is. I do not have faith that I do not know. I truly have no idea what X is in this equation. I do not believe that I do not know. I KNOW I do not know what X is. That is the issue with faith and “I do not know” in our conversation.

I KNOW that I do not know.

If we still do not see eye to eye on this point. Maybe we should give our definitions of faith. I understand that work as: Accepting something as true without valid justification. I would not view the word as a form of Trust. Trust I think must have a valid justification for accepting. (e.g. I trust that my friend will pay my borrowed money back. I trust that he will because in the past he has before. ) Now, if my friend has never borrowed anything from me before, then I would say that I have faith that he will bring it back--assuming that no other form of displayed character or merit could vouch for my trust.

[neo-x]

Abel, let him go on his own pace. Telling him to believe isn't going to help at all. No one should believe in God because its what others think is best. This is the wrong reason.

[PaulSacramento]

NSV, a quick question:
What evidence or proof would you accept to believe in God?
Do you think that there is ANY evidence or line of reasoning that will lead you to believe in God?

[jlay]

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?
.

I understand the reluctance in conceeding "God." But understand that the term God is generic in natural theology arguments. For example Aristotle would have said "gods."
Jac isn't asking you to accept Judeo-Christian theology as the conclusion.
He is asking you whether the conclusion follows the premise, that it is rational to deduce a non-temporal and unchanging, first cause. Jac would likely admit that (for arguments sake) this cause could be Allah, Jehovah or something else entirely. How we determine whether the God of the Bible is one and the same is another argument all together. FWIW, Mac already made this point earlier in the thread.

There are a few reasons someone would reject the argument
1) Don't understand the argument.
2) Abe to show that the conclusion doesn't follow.
3) Able to show error in the premise.
4) Don't like what the answer forces us to concede.

[NSV]

NSV, a quick question:
What evidence or proof would you accept to believe in God?
Do you think that there is ANY evidence or line of reasoning that will lead you to believe in God?

You may have read some of the other posts in this thread and saw the premises and conclusion that was drawn by Jac. Essentially the premises pointed to a principle cause. A cause that I believe Jac is stating may be god. I think we are short of a premise or two that would explain why this can be god or is god. That is what kind of reasoning I would accept though.

Evidence-wise, I am not sure what would be acceptable. If god is real, surely god would know and be able to present it. (e.g. A vision, personal experience, etc.) There is a problem with my examples given. Who is to say that I didn’t hallucinate? It truly is a tough one when it comes down to evidence for such a large claim.

[PaulSacramento]

NSV, a quick question:
What evidence or proof would you accept to believe in God?
Do you think that there is ANY evidence or line of reasoning that will lead you to believe in God?

You may have read some of the other posts in this thread and saw the premises and conclusion that was drawn by Jac. Essentially the premises pointed to a principle cause. A cause that I believe Jac is stating may be god. I think we are short of a premise or two that would explain why this can be god or is god. That is what kind of reasoning I would accept though.

Evidence-wise, I am not sure what would be acceptable. If god is real, surely god would know and be able to present it. (e.g. A vision, personal experience, etc.) There is a problem with my examples given. Who is to say that I didn’t hallucinate? It truly is a tough one when it comes down to evidence for such a large claim.

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?

[NSV]

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?
.

I understand the reluctance in conceeding "God." But understand that the term God is generic in natural theology arguments. For example Aristotle would have said "gods."
Jac isn't asking you to accept Judeo-Christian theology as the conclusion.
He is asking you whether the conclusion follows the premise, that it is rational to deduce a non-temporal and unchanging, first cause. Jac would likely admit that (for arguments sake) this cause could be Allah, Jehovah or something else entirely. How we determine whether the God of the Bible is one and the same is another argument all together. FWIW, Mac already made this point earlier in the thread.

There are a few reasons someone would reject the argument
1) Don't understand the argument.
2) Abe to show that the conclusion doesn't follow.
3) Able to show error in the premise.
4) Don't like what the answer forces us to concede.

As long as the premises are true(I have not spent enough time thoroughly dissecting them, but I will later), then Jac's reasoning is sound, and I accept the conclusion that there was a first cause that is non-temporal & unchanging.

I may have misunderstood Jac's post and assumed that Jac is drawing a line to a god. If he did not say this, then that is my mistake.