Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:I also take exception with #2. Things can change over time as well. Now on Earth this change is mature/deterioration, but we can’t assume that to be the case everywhere, in the context of eternity; I can imagine a scenario where something that has always existed in a constant state of change.

Then you've arrived at a logical contradiction for in an essentially order series a first mover (regardless of its quantity or characteristics) is absolutely necessary.

#2 says ANYTHING that is changing is being changed by something else. It doesn’t make an exception for the first mover, or time.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:I also take exception with #2. Things can change over time as well. Now on Earth this change is mature/deterioration, but we can’t assume that to be the case everywhere, in the context of eternity; I can imagine a scenario where something that has always existed in a constant state of change.

Then you've arrived at a logical contradiction for in an essentially order series a first mover (regardless of its quantity or characteristics) is absolutely necessary.

#2 says ANYTHING that is changing is being changed by something else. It doesn’t make an exception for the first mover, or time.

Ken

Hi kenny, just to offer an off hand remark. The first mover by logical inference then, should be unmoved since failure of that is infinite regression. And I am quite sure IR is not true.

carry on.

neo-x wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:I also take exception with #2. Things can change over time as well. Now on Earth this change is mature/deterioration, but we can’t assume that to be the case everywhere, in the context of eternity; I can imagine a scenario where something that has always existed in a constant state of change.

Then you've arrived at a logical contradiction for in an essentially order series a first mover (regardless of its quantity or characteristics) is absolutely necessary.

#2 says ANYTHING that is changing is being changed by something else. It doesn’t make an exception for the first mover, or time.

Ken

Hi kenny, just to offer an off hand remark. The first mover by logical inference then, should be unmoved since failure of that is infinite regression. And I am quite sure IR is not true.

carry on.

I agree! As I said before, the first mover was not interupted by an outside force. #2 does not seem to make an exception for this

Ken

Let's work on your reading comprehension, kenny.

"Anything that is changing is being changed by something else"
"The First Mover is unchanging."

Explain the difference between those sentences, which accurately represent Aquinas' thoughts, and these sentences, which come from the version of the argument you initially posted and haven't seen to got past yet:

"Only an actual [change] can convert a potential [change] into an actual [change]. "
"Therefore, the First Changer is [being changed] by nothing else."

I'll give you two hints. First, this has already been explained, so you have the resources for this in this very thread if you can't see it for yourself, and second, note that Aquinas would very strongly disagree with the first sentence in Gracyk' take on his argument.

You figure that out and you'll see the "exception" (which is no exception at all but in fact a necessary conclusion to a universal law) that you are looking for.

Jac3510 wrote:Let's work on your reading comprehension, kenny.

"Anything that is changing is being changed by something else"
"The First Mover is unchanging."

Explain the difference between those sentences, which accurately represent Aquinas' thoughts, and these sentences, which come from the version of the argument you initially posted and haven't seen to got past yet:

"Only an actual [change] can convert a potential [change] into an actual [change]. "
"Therefore, the First Changer is [being changed] by nothing else."

I'll give you two hints. First, this has already been explained, so you have the resources for this in this very thread if you can't see it for yourself, and second, note that Aquinas would very strongly disagree with the first sentence in Gracyk' take on his argument.

You figure that out and you'll see the "exception" (which is no exception at all but in fact a necessary conclusion to a universal law) that you are looking for.

I understand! You believe God does not change, but he does cause change. We went over this already. Don't assume that because I don't agree, that I don't understand.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Let's work on your reading comprehension, kenny.

"Anything that is changing is being changed by something else"
"The First Mover is unchanging."

Explain the difference between those sentences, which accurately represent Aquinas' thoughts, and these sentences, which come from the version of the argument you initially posted and haven't seen to got past yet:

"Only an actual [change] can convert a potential [change] into an actual [change]. "
"Therefore, the First Changer is [being changed] by nothing else."

I'll give you two hints. First, this has already been explained, so you have the resources for this in this very thread if you can't see it for yourself, and second, note that Aquinas would very strongly disagree with the first sentence in Gracyk' take on his argument.

You figure that out and you'll see the "exception" (which is no exception at all but in fact a necessary conclusion to a universal law) that you are looking for.

I understand! You believe God does not change, but he does cause change. We went over this already. Don't assume that because I don't agree, that I don't understand.

Ken

But if you understood that then how can you assert the possibility of an infinite state of change? The two are mutually contradictory.

If he understood, he wouldn't be complaining about a lack of "exception" in #2.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Let's work on your reading comprehension, kenny.

"Anything that is changing is being changed by something else"
"The First Mover is unchanging."

Explain the difference between those sentences, which accurately represent Aquinas' thoughts, and these sentences, which come from the version of the argument you initially posted and haven't seen to got past yet:

"Only an actual [change] can convert a potential [change] into an actual [change]. "
"Therefore, the First Changer is [being changed] by nothing else."

I'll give you two hints. First, this has already been explained, so you have the resources for this in this very thread if you can't see it for yourself, and second, note that Aquinas would very strongly disagree with the first sentence in Gracyk' take on his argument.

You figure that out and you'll see the "exception" (which is no exception at all but in fact a necessary conclusion to a universal law) that you are looking for.

I understand! You believe God does not change, but he does cause change. We went over this already. Don't assume that because I don't agree, that I don't understand.

Ken

But if you understood that then how can you assert the possibility of an infinite state of change? The two are mutually contradictory.

Because I disagree the two are mutally contradictory. If you are going to claim that an eternal state of change is contridictory for something that has been in an eternal state of existence, you need to demonstrate why.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:But if you understood that then how can you assert the possibility of an infinite state of change? The two are mutually contradictory.

Because I disagree the two are mutally contradictory. If you are going to claim that an eternal state of change is contridictory for something that has been in an eternal state of existence, you need to demonstrate why.

I'm beginning to think Jack was right, this is pointless.

Ken, that's precisely what we've been doing and you've offered nothing in rebuttal other than to state we haven't demonstrated what we actually have. Let me try this one more time, there's nothing contradictory about asserting the eternal existence of a pure act which itself does not change. In fact it is the only logical and necessary conclusion of Aquinas' first way. But change, as in how Aquinas argued it, i.e. motion, i.e. as in an essentially ordered series, necessarily precludes an eternal state of change for, from the first way, it was already shown that the first mover must be changeless. Seriously Kenny, if you don't see what I'm saying there really is no point in going any further. Good luck to you.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:But if you understood that then how can you assert the possibility of an infinite state of change? The two are mutually contradictory.

Because I disagree the two are mutally contradictory. If you are going to claim that an eternal state of change is contridictory for something that has been in an eternal state of existence, you need to demonstrate why.

But change, as in how Aquinas argued it, i.e. motion, i.e. as in an essentially ordered series, necessarily precludes an eternal state of change for, from the first way, it was already shown that the first mover must be changeless. Seriously Kenny, if you don't see what I'm saying there really is no point in going any further. Good luck to you.

More claims! You haven’t presented any evidence that the first mover does not move. If you disagree, I challenge you to present the date, and time you presented such evidence.
I am curious; Is there any place in the bible that says God doesn’t move? I know of scriptures that indicate God does move; Genesis 3:8, Exodus 33:22-23, but where does it say he does not move?

Ken

Come on guys! Kenny didn't just fall off the turnip truck! It's going to take a lot more than common sense and logic to convince Kenny.

RickD wrote:Come on guys! Kenny didn't just fall off the turnip truck! It's going to take a lot more than common sense and logic to convince Kenny.

Thank-you!

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:But if you understood that then how can you assert the possibility of an infinite state of change? The two are mutually contradictory.

Because I disagree the two are mutally contradictory. If you are going to claim that an eternal state of change is contridictory for something that has been in an eternal state of existence, you need to demonstrate why.

But change, as in how Aquinas argued it, i.e. motion, i.e. as in an essentially ordered series, necessarily precludes an eternal state of change for, from the first way, it was already shown that the first mover must be changeless. Seriously Kenny, if you don't see what I'm saying there really is no point in going any further. Good luck to you.

More claims! You haven’t presented any evidence that the first mover does not move. If you disagree, I challenge you to present the date, and time you presented such evidence.
I am curious; Is there any place in the bible that says God doesn’t move? I know of scriptures that indicate God does move; Genesis 3:8, Exodus 33:22-23, but where does it say he does not move?

Ken

Perhaps one day you will take my advise and do some research on the subject of metaphysics. You aren't there yet. Just to give you some perspective, I've been studying it on and off for a number of years now and I have yet to grasp many aspects of it. I've read The Last Superstition twice and I think I'm about at 10% comprehension. And that's from a person who uses logic for a living.

For your sake I am ending our conversation, but as always, yours is the last word.

Take care my friend.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:But if you understood that then how can you assert the possibility of an infinite state of change? The two are mutually contradictory.

Because I disagree the two are mutally contradictory. If you are going to claim that an eternal state of change is contridictory for something that has been in an eternal state of existence, you need to demonstrate why.

But change, as in how Aquinas argued it, i.e. motion, i.e. as in an essentially ordered series, necessarily precludes an eternal state of change for, from the first way, it was already shown that the first mover must be changeless. Seriously Kenny, if you don't see what I'm saying there really is no point in going any further. Good luck to you.

More claims! You haven’t presented any evidence that the first mover does not move. If you disagree, I challenge you to present the date, and time you presented such evidence.
I am curious; Is there any place in the bible that says God doesn’t move? I know of scriptures that indicate God does move; Genesis 3:8, Exodus 33:22-23, but where does it say he does not move?

Ken

Perhaps one day you will take my advise and do some research on the subject of metaphysics. You aren't there yet. Just to give you some perspective, I've been studying it on and off for a number of years now and I have yet to grasp many aspects of it. I've read The Last Superstition twice and I think I'm about at 10% comprehension. And that's from a person who uses logic for a living.

For your sake I am ending our conversation, but as always, yours is the last word.

Take care my friend.

I just wanted to take a moment to say that I think you are a gentlemen Byblos. The way you are able express your opinion, use rebuttable of another's point of view to further your stance if needed but all the while remaining considerate, humble and kind-hearted is admirable.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Come on guys! Kenny didn't just fall off the turnip truck! It's going to take a lot more than common sense and logic to convince Kenny.

Thank-you!

Ken

Ohh Kenny
That is what you call a back-handed comment that Rick made. He was being facetious.
I am sarcastic and a smart-a** but I'm not too fond of seeing people have the mickey taken outta them.
I have prayed for you ken and I'm going to continue.
It is not your lack of intelligence or logic that is stumbling you. If all it took was the smarts and a theory we would have a considerably larger, highly intelligent christian family! It is not your mind but your spirit that will lead you to Christ. But you have to be willing. You can have a sceptical mind but you must have an open heart.
Why not give it a go, what do you have to lose? Let's say we're wrong then you are no worse off but if we're right think about what you have to gain. Theoretically if God exists, think about for a moment what that means to you, your life, spirit and your future, would you want to be on the unbelieving side of that coin?
I have a challenge for you, ask Him!
You can be sceptical but you must have sincerity. If you ask " yeah so show me God" all the while in the back of your mind thinking "crock of baloney" of course that will get you no-where, and im sure you can see why. But if you say something along the lines of "God, I don't know if your real or not but I'm willing to find out, I want the truth and if that lies within you then please show me"
Don't expect lightning bolts from the sky but he will lead you. He loves you and wants you in his kingdom, He will not lead his children astray.
Give it a go Kenny
God bless you