Evidence for God from Science

BryanH wrote:

You're just going to have to forgive our snarkiness Bryan because, honestly, how many times do you expect us to go through this with you? 3, 4, 10 times, 100 times?

It doesn't matter Byblos. You need to understand and accept that you might be wrong about some things.

When did I ever say I do not accept that I might be wrong Bryan? You advance a rational argument then we'll see. The problem here is in fact the other way around. Are you willing to accept that you're wrong given a plausible, rational rebuttal to your objections?

BryanH wrote:@Byblos

How about if you think of hell as not a particular place but a particular state of mind, does that help resolve your 1st dilemma in any way?

Well no because although I do not believe in God as you do, if God exists,

And now we're back to the crux of the problem and this is why we've been recommending that you read Aquinas. Frankly speaking Aquinas' Five Ways establish beyond any doubt the existence of God and his Divine Simplicity establishes beyond any doubt the existence of the Christian God. Please read those two most rational arguments then come back and tell me why you may disagree (with a rational counter-argument). I have to warn you though, it hasn't been done yet.

BryanH wrote:there is no state of mind that can exclude him literally. I can choose not to believe, but my mind is still God's creation. So any state of mind can exclude God by choice, but the mind itself is the creation of God, so there is no total exclusion. That is my point.

And you have nothing but assertions to make that claim. Care to back that up?

BryanH wrote:

1. The death spoken of is a spiritual, not a physical death
2. Adam and Eve were created immortal and due to the fall became mortal (and therefore marked for death)

***If you use that interpretation yes, you can explain, but I think this is one the things we have argued about in the past as well. Which interpretation is the correct one?

Can we stick to one interpretation at a time please? I will accept your answer vis a vis your first dilemma and assume it has been answered satisfactorily.

BryanH wrote:***But the major problem is that Eve was corrupted in the Garden Of Eden by the devil. If Devil/Satan/Etc etc is the total absence of God, how could he even be there in the first place?

See Paul's post.

BryanH wrote:

Where did you get the idea that The Devil is the total absence of God ?

Byblos said that hell is pure evil(total absence of good).

My POV:

Therefore the total absence of God which is pure good. Satan is the symbol/ruler of Hell. Automatically he is the total lack of God.

I was arguing against the fact that Hell is pure evil.

@Byblos

I missed this one:

And here's where you fall into self-fulfilling problems. How in the world did you come to that conclusion? How exactly does it follow that a being who is pure goodness is not a free moral agent? He is a free moral agent that is true to his nature and therefore is not self-contradictory.

A free moral agent means that you can choose between doing right and doing wrong. If God is goodness manifest as you said, how can he choose to do wrong? God can't make moral choices because he is morality itself... the moral law giver... He is the source of morality.

Satan is our adversary and a fallen angel, the leader of the fallen one, yes, but still just an angel.
If the passages that mention Lucifer refer to Satan then he was, at one point, a premiere angel ( probably along with Michael, some even suggest that the two angels on the arch are Lucifer and Michael).
None of that equate to Satan BEING anymore than a spiritual being, forme0ly of a high rank.
That said, yes we can see Lucifer as the symbolic absence of all that is good, IE: God.

As for God not being a "free" moral agent, yes I guess one can view it that way, God most certainly can't do anything outside His nature and I guess that can be viewed as a limitation of sorts.

BryanH wrote: @Byblos

I missed this one:

And here's where you fall into self-fulfilling problems. How in the world did you come to that conclusion? How exactly does it follow that a being who is pure goodness is not a free moral agent? He is a free moral agent that is true to his nature and therefore is not self-contradictory.

A free moral agent means that you can choose between doing right and doing wrong. If God is goodness manifest as you said, how can he choose to do wrong? God can't make moral choices because he is morality itself... the moral law giver... He is the source of morality.

And as such he cannot do anything against his nature or be self-contradictory. But if we leave it up to you, here's what you're arguing put in a logical construct.

1- A pure goodness being cannot actualize evil
2- God is pure goodness
3- Therefore God is not a free moral agent

The problem is that 3 does not follow in any way from 1 and 2. You haven't established the connection.

On the other hand, I can put your argument in a logical syllogism that shows the absurdity of your argument:


1. God is morality
2. God cannot violate the law of non-contradiction (actualize evil)
3. To be considered a free moral agent (according to Bryan) God must NOT be God (he must NOT be morality in order to actualize evil)

Do you see how absurd what you're proposing is? It is exactly like saying X is not X. It is the same silly argument if God can create a rock he can't lift. Utterly incomprehensible.

You are saying that God CAN'T do anything contradictory to His nature and if His nature is good, then God can't do evil.
The issue is that IF the result of an "evil" act is good, then God doing an "evil" act is not a contradiction because the act, is actually a good act.
Sometimes we forget that what makes something evil is the absence of good as the end result.
Sure it is good to love someone, bu if that love is obsessive then nothing but evil will come out of it.

Byblos wrote:And now we're back to the crux of the problem and this is why we've been recommending that you read Aquinas. Frankly speaking Aquinas' Five Ways establish beyond any doubt the existence of God and his Divine Simplicity establishes beyond any doubt the existence of the Christian God. Please read those two most rational arguments then come back and tell me why you may disagree (with a rational counter-argument). I have to warn you though, it hasn't been done yet.

I read that and I already pointed out some issues with that theory. It does have a strong point of view, but that point of view is based on an axiom which comes from a pure assumption. I don't think there is a philosophical theory that doesn't have a BASE axiom(assumption). Some theories are more plausible than others, that is true.

Divine Simplicity doesn't prove beyond any doubt the existence of a God, and especially that of the Christian God. Divine simplicity can be used by any religion to prove the existence of "their" God. The fact that the author of the theory happened to be a supporter of Christianity is a total different story.

Byblos wrote:1. God is morality
2. God cannot violate the law of non-contradiction (actualize evil)
3. To be considered a free moral agent (according to Bryan) God must NOT be God (he must NOT be morality in order to actualize evil)

Do you see how absurd what you're proposing is? It is exactly like saying X is not X. It is the same silly argument if God can create a rock he can't lift. Utterly incomprehensible.

The only absurdity here unfortunately is on your side this time. If you start from a false premise, you are going to end up with a false conclusion. Let me rephrase your logical deduction.

1. God can only be 1.
2. God can't be 1 and 0 at the same time.
3. In order for God to be a free moral agent he needs to be able to choose between 1 and 0.

premise number 1 is correct.
premise number 2 is useless and used incorrectly. The moment you say God can only be 1, saying that he can't be 1 and 0 is illogical and pointless because that is a simple deduction. premise number 2 has no place in this demonstration.

***Besides that, you can't apply the law of non-contradiction to God. God is only good. The law of contradiction says that a statement and its negation can't be both true at the same time. You can't actually negate God's goodness. On paper you can, but in reality, you can't. Therefore your demonstration is flawed.

Since God is only good, if you choose though to apply the law of noncontradiction, you demonstrate that God can't be a free moral agent because the true value of the statement is that God is only good and we know that from the many Bible verses that say that. To be honest I don't understand why you would apply the law of noncontradiction in the first place if you already know the truth value of a statement.

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is that IF the result of an "evil" act is good, then God doing an "evil" act is not a contradiction because the act, is actually a good act.
Sometimes we forget that what makes something evil is the absence of good as the end result.

You just said that the end justifies the means as long as the end is good. No offense, but what's the catch?

BryanH wrote:

Byblos wrote:And now we're back to the crux of the problem and this is why we've been recommending that you read Aquinas. Frankly speaking Aquinas' Five Ways establish beyond any doubt the existence of God and his Divine Simplicity establishes beyond any doubt the existence of the Christian God. Please read those two most rational arguments then come back and tell me why you may disagree (with a rational counter-argument). I have to warn you though, it hasn't been done yet.

I read that and I already pointed out some issues with that theory. It does have a strong point of view, but that point of view is based on an axiom which comes from a pure assumption. I don't think there is a philosophical theory that doesn't have a BASE axiom(assumption). Some theories are more plausible than others, that is true.

And which axiom is that?

BryanH wrote:Divine Simplicity doesn't prove beyond any doubt the existence of a God, and especially that of the Christian God. Divine simplicity can be used by any religion to prove the existence of "their" God. The fact that the author of the theory happened to be a supporter of Christianity is a total different story.

In the strict sense you may be right that divine simplicity doesn't prove the Christian God but it does eliminate most non-mono-theistic gods and does narrow the field quite a bit.

BryanH wrote:

Byblos wrote:1. God is morality
2. God cannot violate the law of non-contradiction (actualize evil)
3. To be considered a free moral agent (according to Bryan) God must NOT be God (he must NOT be morality in order to actualize evil)

Do you see how absurd what you're proposing is? It is exactly like saying X is not X. It is the same silly argument if God can create a rock he can't lift. Utterly incomprehensible.

The only absurdity here unfortunately is on your side this time. If you start from a false premise, you are going to end up with a false conclusion.

1. is most certainly not a false premise, it is foundational from divine simplicity. You want to falsify it you're gonna have to falsify divine simplicity. Good luck with that.

BryanH wrote: Let me rephrase your logical deduction.

1. God can only be 1.
2. God can't be 1 and 0 at the same time.
3. In order for God to be a free moral agent he needs to be able to choose between 1 and 0.

premise number 1 is correct.
premise number 2 is useless and used incorrectly. The moment you say God can only be 1, saying that he can't be 1 and 0 is illogical and pointless because that is a simple deduction. premise number 2 has no place in this demonstration.

Bryan, you fail yet again. In order for you to claim 3, you must first establish that a free moral agent MUST be able to choose 0 (evil). You haven't established that, it's just your wishful thinking.

BryanH wrote:***Besides that, you can't apply the law of non-contradiction to God. God is only good. The law of contradiction says that a statement and its negation can't be both true at the same time. You can't actually negate God's goodness. On paper you can, but in reality, you can't. Therefore your demonstration is flawed.

Dear Lord Bryan, what sort of (il)logic are you using here? Says who I can't use the law of non-contradiction with God? You? Why? Because you say I can't? Well that's rich. Okay I'll just take your word for it.

The fact of the matter is this, God cannot be self-contradictory and remain God. God cannot do non-nonsensical things and violate the law of non-contradiction because he will be just as absurd as your baseless claims. God cannot make a square circle or a 4-sided triangle not because those put a limit on God but precisely because those things are non-things to be made. The same with evil, it is a non-thing, a privation, the total and complete absence of God. Perfectly logical and reasonable (as in grounded in reason).

BryanH wrote:Since God is only good, if you choose though to apply the law of noncontradiction, you demonstrate that God can't be a free moral agent because the true value of the statement is that God is only good and we know that from the many Bible verses that say that. To be honest I don't understand why you would apply the law of noncontradiction in the first place if you already know the truth value of a statement.

One last time, you will need to first prove why a free moral agent must be self-contradictory (which is a self-refuting argument in and of itself, since it is rendered absurd). Evil is a privation, total absence of love. Since God is pure love, He cannot actualize evil because it would mean God is not God, a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

You just said that the end justifies the means as long as the end is good. No offense, but what's the catch?

I also said IF.
Lets look at the example of compassion.
The only way we can fell it is if someone is suffering, right?
Compassion is perhaps the most idealistic representation of love, it is feeling for another person, not so that they feel for us but simply because something bad is/has happened to them. They may even be some one or some people we hate.
What we have is a GOOD thing ( compassion) from a BAD thing (suffering).
It's not the "end justifying the means" but the means leading us to a better end.

Byblos wrote:Bryan, you fail yet again. In order for you to claim 3, you must first establish that a free moral agent MUST be able to choose 0 (evil). You haven't established that, it's just your wishful thinking.

Mate, no offense, but are you sleeping or something? This whole discussion started from the fact that evil came out of the fact that people were given free moral agency, meaning that they can choose between good and evil. I think the word "free" clearly refers to being able to make a choice and since morality refers to good and evil, I think we are pretty clear on the fact that a free moral agent can choose between good and evil.

Byblos wrote:The fact of the matter is this, God cannot be self-contradictory and remain God. God cannot do non-nonsensical things and violate the law of non-contradiction because he will be just as absurd as your baseless claims.

Mate I think you got caught up in semantics.

Let's revise AGAIN:

***The law pf contradiction says that a statement and it's negation can't be both true and at the same time.

1. We KNOW that GOD is only GOOD.
2. GOD can't violate the LNC and this means that he can't be GOOD and EVIL at the same time.

The moment you say GOD is ONLY GOOD, the LNC can't be applied because there is no logical reason to do it. Of course GOD can't violate the LNC because he is ONLY GOOD.

And therefore GOD is not a free moral agent. God can't choose not to be God.

Byblos wrote:One last time, you will need to first prove why a free moral agent must be self-contradictory

Can you explain me why is a free moral agent self-contradictory? Don't get it...

Byblos wrote: And which axiom is that?

The base axiom of the theory: "there is a first mover"

There could be multiple movers...
There could be multiple gods from which only one has the function of a mover.
There could be no mover at all.

PaulSacramento wrote:Compassion is perhaps the most idealistic representation of love, it is feeling for another person, not so that they feel for us but simply because something bad is/has happened to them. They may even be some one or some people we hate.

Actually sacrifice is the most idealistic representation of love...

PaulSacramento wrote:What we have is a GOOD thing ( compassion) from a BAD thing (suffering).
It's not the "end justifying the means" but the means leading us to a better end.

The end is not better at all Paul. You just add sugar, that's all. The cup of sorrow is still there on the table.

The fact that compassion exists doesn't put an end to suffering.

Don't get me wrong, compassion is a good thing, but it doesn't change that much or at least it hasn't yet.

Nihilism makes my feet itch.

BryanH wrote:

Byblos wrote:Bryan, you fail yet again. In order for you to claim 3, you must first establish that a free moral agent MUST be able to choose 0 (evil). You haven't established that, it's just your wishful thinking.

Mate, no offense, but are you sleeping or something? This whole discussion started from the fact that evil came out of the fact that people were given free moral agency, meaning that they can choose between good and evil. I think the word "free" clearly refers to being able to make a choice and since morality refers to good and evil, I think we are pretty clear on the fact that a free moral agent can choose between good and evil.

Bryan, please man, I beg of you try to follow this time okay?

Moral beings have the choice between getting closer to God who is pure love, or step away from God. According to your (il)logic, for God to be a moral agent, he would have to 'step away' from Himself. Clearly God cannot step away from himself and not violate the law of non-contradiction. If you want to call that a restriction on God, i.e. that he's not a moral agent then be my guest but it makes no sense to even state that God is not a moral agent. God cannot even be said to be an agent of anything because that would make him dependent on such agency and we know from divine simplicity that God is not dependent on anything, everything is dependent on him. So to state that God is not a moral agent because he cannot step away from himself is a self-refuting, nonsensical statement. Do you get it now?

BryanH wrote:

Byblos wrote:The fact of the matter is this, God cannot be self-contradictory and remain God. God cannot do non-nonsensical things and violate the law of non-contradiction because he will be just as absurd as your baseless claims.

Mate I think you got caught up in semantics.

Let's revise AGAIN:

***The law pf contradiction says that a statement and it's negation can't be both true and at the same time.

1. We KNOW that GOD is only GOOD.
2. GOD can't violate the LNC and this means that he can't be GOOD and EVIL at the same time.

The moment you say GOD is ONLY GOOD, the LNC can't be applied because there is no logical reason to do it. Of course GOD can't violate the LNC because he is ONLY GOOD.

And therefore GOD is not a free moral agent. God can't choose not to be God.

Byblos wrote:One last time, you will need to first prove why a free moral agent must be self-contradictory

Can you explain me why is a free moral agent self-contradictory? Don't get it...

See my response above.

BryanH wrote:

Byblos wrote: And which axiom is that?

The base axiom of the theory: "there is a first mover"

There could be multiple movers...
There could be multiple gods from which only one has the function of a mover.
There could be no mover at all.

Evidently you didn't do any in-depth reading on the subject.

- There could be multiple movers...

No there cannot be multiple movers. There can only be one omnipotent creator for if there were multiple omnipotent creators, each with the will to create, or not, they would annihilate one another and nothing would be created. Yet, there is a creation.

- There could be multiple gods from which only one has the function of a mover.

See above.

- There could be no mover at all.

You've got to be kidding me, right.

You think you can have sacrifice BEFORE you have compassion ?
How so?
Compassion is what drives us to put an end to suffering, nothing else does because compassion is the beginning of those other things that help us and drive us to end suffering, things like justice and sacrifice, they come from a sense of compassion, a sense of love for others, of suffering with others ( compassion means to suffer with others).

*The law of contradiction says that a statement and its negation can't be both true and at the same time.*

I would guess that would be something like:

1. Nothing exists without a pre-existing cause.
2. God exists without a pre-existing cause.

Both can’t be true?

coldblood wrote:*The law of contradiction says that a statement and its negation can't be both true and at the same time.*

I would guess that would be something like:

1. Nothing exists without a pre-existing cause.
2. God exists without a pre-existing cause.

Both can’t be true?

In the form you presented it you would be correct. It's just that what you presented is in fact NOT what theists claim, which would be something like this:

1. Nothing that came into existence is without a cause
2. God did not come into existence
3. Therefore God is eternal.

-----------1. Nothing exists without a pre-existing cause.
-----------2. God exists without a pre-existing cause.
-----------Both can’t be true?

*In the form you presented it you would be correct. It's just that what you presented is in fact NOT what theists claim, which would be something like this:*

1. Nothing that came into existence is without a cause
2. God did not come into existence
3. Therefore God is eternal.

2. God did not come into existence

Interesting.

I think would have chosen to disagree primarily with the first premise. That is, I “think” all theists do claim that God exists; however, I am less certain that they all claim everything (except God) requires a physical, pre-existing, cause.

Also, once you allow for one exception (i.e., God did not come into existence), you open the door to the possibility of further exceptions.

And if there were even a single exception, then a universal statement such as - everything needs a pre-existing cause - would not be true.

Which is not at all to say that it IS true.

The existence of an impossibility defies our intuition, contradicts our logic and destroys the meaning of our language. While we can mouth the words easily, we can explain neither a spontaneous existence nor an eternal existence, nor an alternative to the two.

Rationality fails. We can only believe within our limitations.

.

coldblood wrote:-----------1. Nothing exists without a pre-existing cause.
-----------2. God exists without a pre-existing cause.
-----------Both can’t be true?

*In the form you presented it you would be correct. It's just that what you presented is in fact NOT what theists claim, which would be something like this:*

1. Nothing that came into existence is without a cause
2. God did not come into existence
3. Therefore God is eternal.

2. God did not come into existence

Interesting.

I think would have chosen to disagree primarily with the first premise. That is, I “think” all theists do claim that God exists; however, I am less certain that they all claim everything (except God) requires a physical, pre-existing, cause.

Also, once you allow for one exception (i.e., God did not come into existence), you open the door to the possibility of further exceptions.

And if there were even a single exception, then a universal statement such as - everything needs a pre-existing cause - would not be true.

Which is not at all to say that it IS true.

The existence of an impossibility defies our intuition, contradicts our logic and destroys the meaning of our language. While we can mouth the words easily, we can explain neither a spontaneous existence nor an eternal existence, nor an alternative to the two.

Rationality fails. We can only believe within our limitations.

.

Coldblood, the first or nesseccary cause makes perfect logical sense, what doesn't make sense is an infinite regress of causes.

Peter Kreeft points this out brilliantly in his first cause or nesseccary being

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

I have always referred to this because it explains it very nicely to even a layman like me

Everything that begins to exist must have a cause, God never began to exist, he always existed.
The alternative is an infinite regress of causes which is a logical contradiction.
Kreeft explains why an infinite regress is a logical contradiction in this article.