Arguments for God

[chrisbellekom]

Hello jac3510 (Chris),

Jac is fine - there are enough Chris' on this board.

Though I have and will continue to insist that at this juncture some technical vocabulary is necessary, I do promise that I am looking for ways to better communicate these concepts. Perhaps, if nothing else, this will be the primary mutual benefit between the HAF community and me. Who knows? My point is simply that I don't take it personally, and I am trying to make these admittedly difficult concepts as clear as possible.

By the way, we are all philosophers, just like we are all theologians. Some of us are just better at it than others. I, for example, am an absolutely terrible mathematician. I can barely factor a polynomial. It is rather embarrassing. But language make sense to me . . . anyway, I know that isn't what you meant, per se, but I do think it is of some importance. What "professional philosophers" do isn't all that different from what we are doing here. They are just doing it on full time, so they have developed a particular expertise in it is all. That hardly means, though, that their observations are more valuable than anyone else's. It is, as I have said before (in my view), the argument that is important, not the qualification of the person making it. A bad argument is pretty language made by a PhD is still a bad argument.

It seems that the english speaking forum members have enough problems grasping the individual determinations of the words in the statements you use. We need a thesaurus and a lot of time to even agree on the definitions of things like "subsistent existence" or even a simple one like "being" (Shakespeare comes to mind, but let's not deviate from my train of thought)

Unfortunately, a thesaurus probably won't help, and still less a dictionary, because most of these terms are technical. I try to define them when I use them, but I know that still makes it difficult on some issues. Rest assured most of the other issues on my mind (though certainly not all) don't require nearly this level of discussion--require being the key word.

I see religion and the dogma of religion and the various derivatives of these interpretations for what they are and the problem you are having getting your point across as the same: An interpretation problem.

I would agree with you perhaps more than you might expect. The particular area of philosophy I study in is technically called hermeneutics. It comes from the name of the Greek god Hermes, who was the messenger of the gods. As such, it refers the field of study that focuses on how we communicate. It is to linguistics (the study of language) what epistemology (the study of knowledge) is to metaphysics or ontology (the study of the nature of reality). We start with the brute fact that reality exists. Metaphysics asks, "What is reality" and answers it by studying the nature of existence. Epistemology says, "How do we know things about this reality?" The two are separate, and metaphysics definitely comes before epistemology, but you really can't do one without the other, as they both raise questions about one another. Linguistics asks how we communicate what we know, and so comes after epistemology, and hermeneutics asks how we understand what is communicated. So language is the reality that hermeneutics deals with, whereas reality as it enters our mind is the reality that that epistemology deals with.

I give you all that background to make this simple statement. I am absolutely convinced that the method of interpretation one employs (which is a hermeneutical question) does more than anything else to determine the outcome of your investigation. I'll give you two quick examples to demonstrate, one from theological studies, and one from philosophical studies:

1. In theological studies, there is a school of thought called dispensationalism (I hold to it). The main idea underlying this school is that the Church and Israel are not the same thing, and that all the promises to Israel in the Old Testament are still waiting to be fulfilled in the actual Jewish people. Against this is a school called covenant theology. The main idea underlying that school is that the Church and Israel are one and the same, that Israel was replaced by the Church as God's chosen people when they rejected Christ and put Him on the Cross. As such, the promises of the Old Testament are being fulfilled in an spiritual (that is, non-literal) sense in the Church. Now, what underlies the disagreement is the method of interpretation. Dispensationalists insist on taking the text literally (which takes into account figures of speech and such). If the text says "Israel" it means Israel and if it says "Church" it means the church. Covenant theologians, however, have an allegorical (that is, non-literal) method of interpretation when it comes to prophecy, so they are allowed to conflate the two. If, then, you choose a literal hermeneutic, you are virtually guaranteed to become a dispensationlist; whereas if you choose an allegorical hermeneutic, you are virtually guaranteed to become a Covenant theologian (which is the position held be the vast majority of Christians). So yes, interpretation is the problem.

2. Modern philosophy can be distinguished into two general schools of thought: classical vs. analytical philosophy. The former follows the method I outlined above. It starts with a study of existence itself and moves out from there. The latter, however, following Descarte, Kant, and Hume, believe that we cannot know anything about the real world itself, but only our sensory perceptions of the real world. This has been humorously demonstrated in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 060678292#

The interpretational methods are vastly different. Those who follow classical philosophy interpret the world according to reality itself (we believe), whereas analytical philosophers find that position to be naive and instead interpret the world through our concepts and language. My side things you can talk about reality. Analytical philosophers don't.

So, yes, the main problem is with interpretation, but underlying the issue of interpretation is why we ought to interpret one way or another.

You may have a valid point trying to prove that "the thing in which all perfections are obtained" should have a name. You use the word "god". I would choose the word "everything". That would explain it all... (that might be the Toaistic world view though...)

I will stay out of the dicussion untill I had some proper time to re-read the entire thread, and tried to make some sense of it.

The problem with the word "everything" is that it is not a thing that causes anything. It is a collective noun. "Everything" doesn't make a thing happen. Something in "everything," you or me, for instance, makes things happen. This goes back to the very same objection I leveled against both Hack and i_am_i. If "everything" or "the universe" is the cause of all being, then there is no distinction between us and everything. All is One and One is All. There is no distinction between you and me, you and your computer, you and trees, cats, dogs, or ducks. If "everything" is the cause of what you do, that includes me, my baby, the grass in my yard, etc. And likewise, you are the cause of everything I do. Now, this takes me back to the law of identity I mentioned to you in my last reply. It basically says this:

To say something is different from something else is to say it is different by something. You are different from me because there are things about you that are not the same about me (i.e., where you live, your age, the matter that makes up your body, etc.). But if everything is the cause of everything, that obscures all such distinctions. I wouldn't be able to point to anything in you and say it is different from anything in me, because everything in you was caused be me, and the very same things in me were caused by you. The causes, then, turn out to be completely identical, as would necessarily the effects. Any difference in effect would be an illusion created by our mind.

Yet obviously that is absurd. You are not me, and I am not you. So "everything" isn't the cause of everything, much less anything. We require a singular thing (roughly speaking) to be the cause of everything. The catch word to call a "thing" that has all "perfections" in it is "God." You can call it what you like, including the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster if you like. I don't care. If we agree that this thing is the cause of all being, that it transcends space, time, and matter, and that it has wisdom, will, knowledge, personhood, power, morality, existence, creativity, etc. all without measure, then what we call it isn't important. I call it God. Germans call it Gott. The Greeks call it Theos, the Hebrews Elohim, the Arabs Allah, etc. Call it Flargh. Call it whatever.

The question is simply and only what is the Cause of all things, and what can we know about it? It turns out a great deal, because all causes are known by their effects, and there are a great many effects that can be studied in this world.

One final question:

How would Leibniz' law of identity deal with the existence of that in which all imperfections are obtained, and what would you call that?

Regards,

Chris B.

If such a thing were possible (and I don't see how it would be), Leibniz' law would probably assert that there would be an infinite of such things. The reason is that imperfection is a scale. I can be more or less imperfect. To take the example of sight, my ability to see is better than my brother's, but worse than my wife's, and I suspect it will get worse as I get older. So Leibniz would allow me to site that difference and therefore actually have a different thing.

Now, again, I don't see how you could put together an argument that would give us any reason to believe a being that obtains all imperfections (which would have to mean obtains all perfections in an imperfect way). But if someone were to construct such an argument, I would be willing to consider it.

I hope that was clearer

On Leiniz: I guess he and you are right. If the 'thing' in which all perfection is obtained can be called god/allah/jahweh/etc. than the 'thing' in which all imperfections are obtained is 'everything else' (the universe and everything it contains) proof to be found in:

Leibniz' law would probably assert that there would be an infinite of such things

Then again, In a universe of endless posibilities, maybe even a universe of endless universes. There might be something like a god somewhere... Just like there might be life elsewhere in the universe or even Terry Pratchett's flying world-turtle that holds four elephants, that holds a flat earth.

Who knows. Atheism is a religion unlike any other, but a religion nevertheless.

Kind regards,

Chris B.

[Davin]

Who knows. Atheism is a religion unlike any other, but a religion nevertheless.

Atheism is not a religion at all and theism is also not a religion.

[chrisbellekom]

Who knows. Atheism is a religion unlike any other, but a religion nevertheless.

Atheism is not a religion at all and theism is also not a religion.

Hello Davin,

A pleasure to get aquinted to you too.

Now, to coin a response to your response  [/quote]

Regards,

Chris B.

[Davin]

Who knows. Atheism is a religion unlike any other, but a religion nevertheless.

Atheism is not a religion at all and theism is also not a religion.

Hello Davin,

A pleasure to get aquinted to you too.

Now, to coin a response to your response  

Regards,

Chris B.[/quote]Then here's the problem: the only thing atheists have in common, is that they lack the belief in a god or gods, so the definition would have to be changed to, "A lot of people believing or not believing in the 'same' thing."

Because a lot of atheists believe in lots of different things, a further grouping would be required to say that this or that is a religion. Like those atheists that are solipsists, the ones that are materialists... etc. as well as the atheists that have yet to subscribe to any of those philosophies. So all these atheists are "believing" in various different things and still yet some are not believing in anything. So either your definition would need to be changed or atheism is not a religion.

Theism is the same way, the Greek religion is a very different belief system than Christianity and Wicca is a much different belief system than either of those. Also add in Deism which I consider the same thing as theism but a little more specific. These are all different religions (by your definition), because they're all different beliefs.

The word is good enough on its own, there is no reason to attach another meaning onto it.

Edit: I would also like to point to a theist who posted for a while on this forum called Edward the Theist who claimed that his belief in god was very different than any other belief in god, making him not part of any "shared set of beliefs" yet still a theist because he believed in a god. Also, as I have yet to see anyone who shares my all of my "beliefs," it would be very difficult to say that I'm part of a "shared set of beliefs." Yet because I don't believe in any god or gods, I'm still an atheist.

[chrisbellekom]

Then here's the problem: the only thing atheists have in common, is that they lack the belief in a god or gods, so the definition would have to be changed to, "A lot of people believing or not believing in the 'same' thing."

Because a lot of atheists believe in lots of different things, a further grouping would be required to say that this or that is a religion. Like those atheists that are solipsists, the ones that are materialists... etc. as well as the atheists that have yet to subscribe to any of those philosophies. So all these atheists are "believing" in various different things and still yet some are not believing in anything. So either your definition would need to be changed or atheism is not a religion.

Theism is the same way, the Greek religion is a very different belief system than Christianity and Wicca is a much different belief system than either of those. Also add in Deism which I consider the same thing as theism but a little more specific. These are all different religions (by your definition), because they're all different beliefs.

The word is good enough on its own, there is no reason to attach another meaning onto it.

Hello Davin,

Would that mean that christianity is not a religion, with it's different variations? It might get very personal though, because I think that no two persons have the exact same set of beliefs... It's like politics that way.

Regards,

Chris B.

[Davin]

Hello Davin,

Would that mean that christianity is not a religion, with it's different variations? It might get very personal though, because I think that no two persons have the exact same set of beliefs... It's like politics that way.

Regards,

Chris B.

The problem still exists that atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods, even considering politics, it's still not a religion by any definition. Even considering politics, Christianity in itself is at least grouped by several similar beliefs, while atheism is only grouped by the lack of belief in a god or gods.

[hackenslash]

I'm not going to line-by-line this reply, as it would become unreadable as you are repeating yourself quite a bit. If I miss a substantive objective, feel free to bring it up for clarification.

I've done so several times so far, but to no avail. This entire exercise is a lesson in defining something into existence, and just how useless such a project is. Oh, and a lesson in how bad you are at it.

Here is the argument as we have it so far for reference:

1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2. All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3. Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.
4. Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.
5. Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent (which is to say, all essences are contingent)
6. That which is contingent must rely on that which is not contingent for its existence.
7. Therefore, essentially ordered efficient causes rely on a non-contingent (that is, necessary) cause for their being, which is called a first cause

As to your objections thus far:

I'll come back to this.

1. Dealing with the infinity - infinity is not mentioned in this argument. To continue to argue the point is a straw man.

Actually, infinity is in this argument, albeit only by implication. This is an attempt at a proof of god. Any proof of god necessarily contains infinity, because you are suggesting god as an uncaused first cause which, by definition, must be infinite. In any event, you only removed the infinity because you knew you couldn't support your use of it. In any event, this entire argument is an argument against infinite regress, which still requires that you support your usage of 'infinite'. It doesn't matter if you remove the word from the argument, since your argument is entirely constructed against it. You are arguing both for and against infinity in different things at the same time, and either one requires that you actually understand what infinity is.

2. Circularity - apparently, you see a circular statement in 5-7. All efficiently caused essences are contingent; that which is contingent must rely on that which is not contingent for its existence; therefore, all efficiently caused essences must rely on that which is non-contingent for their existence. You'll have to demonstrate the circularity, because I just don't see it.

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Frankly, you've been hopping around all over the place and failing to keep track of your own arguments. Anyway, let me demonstrate the circularity I accused you of and that you haven't addressed.

You began with your original premises 6 and 7 as follows:

6. There cannot be an infinite regress of essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
7. Therefore, for any series of essentially ordered efficiently caused beings, there must be a first causal being.

Which had it's own problem of special pleading, that you acknowledged. After you acknowledgement, you rejigged that to say that, and I quote:

The argument is actually because there is a first cause, there cannot be an infinite regress. We demonstrate the FC another way, not by the impossibility of the regress.

In an argument for a first cause, this is circular reasoning, because it contains the conclusion of your argument in the premise. Further, both statements 'there is a first cause' and 'there cannot be an infinite regress' (which still both contain infinity, which you claim has been removed from your argument) are bare assertions, and therefore fallacious. For an argument it to be sound, it must be demonstrated that the premises are actually true.

3. Equivocation of 'being' - The word 'being' is used in (1) to refer to the property that makes a thing exist; in (3) the same way; (4) the same way; (5) the same way; (6) uses the word existence in the same way as 'being' in all these statements; and (7) in the same sense. Notice, further, than in all cases except (1) and (4), all uses of 'being' are preceded by the possessive pronoun. In (4), possession is the general subject (or, specifically, the lack of possession). In (1), we are talking about the general concept of being, and the rest of the statements discuss something's possession of it.

There is no equivocation here.

Reading through the thread, you have actually addressed this in the above restatement, but not in a satisfactory manner. Where you had employed 'being' in the second sense (i.e. where you had used 'a being', you have now substituted it for 'an external agent', which must now be clarified. This also doesn't address my very real objection to the idea that the universe can actually have an external agent, because the universe is literally 'all that is'. I must once again make the point here that when I say 'the universe is all that there is, this does not mean that all that exists is that which arose from the big bang, but that whatever preceded the bg bang, and indeed other cosmic expansions, if they exist, are subsets of 'the universe'. There can be only one universe, and everything that exists anywhere is a subset thereof, which demolishes the concept of a 'creator of the universe' without having to go further. It's what the word means.

4. Brute facts - Brute facts are things that are so basic that cannot be further explained and must simply be accepted. Existence is a brute fact. The fact that things come into existence is not, not because it is debatable (although people have debated it), but because the nature of what it means to come into existence is debatable. You can't just yell "Brute facts!" and except that to serve as an objection. So rather than testing me to see if I can find an objection somewhere in the concept, you state it clearly. "PX is untrue because it is simply Y is simply true, which PX does not recognize."

Well, if I had just yelled 'brute facts' without justifying the statement, I'd agree with you. However, since I justified this very early on by clarifying just what comprises the universe, the statement of brute facts, and indeed your evasion of the concept of brute facts in reasserting your premises, stand. Since the universe is all that exists, and since existence is a brute fact, a point you have accepted, then the universe is itself a brute fact and requires no creator.

Now, I do want to quote a few things you stated only because the deep misunderstanding of the argument they convey, and I will use them as a chance to clarify:

I suggest that depends on what you're talking about, The essence of the universe is, in fact, existence.

This is absurd. Essence is what a thing is. The universe may exist, but they universe is not existence. If it were existence itself, then to say, "Mankind exists" would be to say "Mankind is the universe" or something related. The universe may be all that exists (it isn't), but being all that exists means that it is not itself existence. You are simply wrong on this point.

Excuse me? This isn't remotely equivalent to what I said. Your fatuous restatement here is equivalent to, in the event of my saying 'ducks are birds', your responding 'you can't say that, because that's saying that all birds are ducks'. This is really poor reasoning on your part. And this fairly soon after accusing me of constructing a man whose major component is a cereal crop.

I never even used the word essence. Why are you saying that things with cognitive existence don't have essence?

Actually, I said exactly the opposite! I even said it explicitly. Please read again what I wrote.

This is at least twice you have done this, Hack. I never used the word "infinite" in my restatement, and yet you insist it is the crux of my argument.

You don't have to use the word for it to be implicit in your argument. Your entire argument is an argument against the possibility of infinite regress, so infinity is included. Any argument constructed against the existence of something has that something as its crux.

Here, I never mention essence, and you spend your entire time talking about essence. As a matter of fact, to help you understand this concept better, the essence of the cognitive is exactly the same as the essence of the real. The difference is whether or not the essence has its existence in itself (which would make it real) or only in the mind (which would make it cognitive). Your misunderstanding is further demonstrated here:

Everyone agrees that unicorns exist differently from horses. The first does not have its existence in itself. It has its existence in the mind. The latter has its existence in itself (and very often, in our minds as well). Essences in reality have their being in themselves. When discussing the concept, they can, and must, as shown above, be distinguished.

No, this isn't correct. Just because the essence is different doesn't remotely suggest that it has no essence. For something to exist, it must be. To be it has something which is intrinsically it, therefore, under your very own definition, essence.

Again, I never said nor implied that something has no essence. That is self-contradictory, sense an essence is what a thing is. A thing cannot be something without essence. What I did say is that essences with cognitive existence exist differently than essences with real existence. The former have their existence only in the mind, while the latter have their existence in themselves.

Well, since 'what a thing is' includes the property of existence (or not), then there is a very real distinction between the essence of a conceptual thing and its real counterpart. I'm sure you'll simply say the definition is 'accidental', though.

I know you don't mean this.

Actually, I very much mean this.

You can't tell me that you have always existed. The stuff that makes you up may have always existed, but you have not always existed.

I am a mere agglomeration of previously existing entities. Indeed, I don't actually exist in any meaningful sense, because even that which makes me up is continually replaced. I am not the same I that I was yesterday, and I will be a different I again tomorrow.

Therefore, your lack of a problem with the idea that anything ever began to exist is a serious problem for me.

I don't have a lack of problem with that idea. I have a very real problem with it, and with the idea that anything ever began to exist. I shouldn't have to restate this. We have never observed the beginning of anything. All we have ever observed is changes in state and agglomerations of previously existing matter. This is an empirical fact, and it is inescapable.

It shows a continued misunderstanding on your part of what an essence is.

Perhaps, but you continue to show a deep misunderstanding of what constitutes existence.

What you are is distinct from what you are made up of;
That you are is distinct from both what you are and what you are made up of.

Already addressed this. You are arguing for an ex nihilo creation, or a prime mover. This is very much distinct from changes in state, or agglomerations of prior matter/energy.

This goes back to a central philosophical assumption of mine, namely, things are what they are and are not what they are not. Dogs are not trees, even though both are made up of the same matter.

That isn't an assumption, it's a logical absolute, and I have never argued against it. However, this doesn't address the distinction between ex nihilo cause and changes in state. This is, again, one of Kalamity Craig's favourite bits of nonsense. The dog is a change in state, and it always existed.

This dog is not the same as that dog. This dog did not always exist. Why is this all true? It's all in P1:

Being is an accidental property of all efficiently caused causes.

Dogs are efficiently caused causes. Their essence, what they are, is "dogness." That, of course, can be broken down into various essential properties (i.e., animality). That essence does not include the concept of existence anymore than unicorn includes the concept of existence. Some dogs exist. Other dogs don't. Therefore, existence is added to the essence of dogs to make them exist. Sometimes, that existence is merely cognitive, meaning that the dog only has existence in the mind. Sometimes, that existence is real, meaning that the dog has its existence in itself and can thus be said to exist in the real world apart from the mind. In any case, that being is added to the essence makes being an accidental property. Being is therefore distinguished from essence.

Ah, so being material is an accidental property of dogs. And what of the essence of the dog's atoms? What of the essence of the dog's energy, which DID always exist? This is what I am arguing. The 'essence of dogs' argument is entirely conceptual because it doesn't describe the existence of a thing, but the existence of a material concept. The matter/energy that comprises the dog always existed. It just happens to have come together in a concept we label 'dog'. This goes to the heart of the distinction between ex nihilo and arrangements of prior material.

So, in sum, you need to do the following:

1. Demonstrate circularity in my restated argument

Check.

2. Demonstrate equivocation in my restated argument

Addressed this, but it raises another definitional problem, namely the definition of 'agent' in your argument.

3. Demonstrate reference to infinity in my restated argument

Check

4. Demonstrate what brute facts contradicts which premise in my restated argument

Check.

5. Demonstrate that you understand the concept of essence

Not necessary, because it doesn't address my objections to your argument.

6. Demonstrate that your own view does not require mean things like you, me, and dogs have existed for all eternity

Addressed.

As far as when we move on to the next portion of the argument, it will be when, at minimum, the terms are clear, and at most, when you agree that the argument presented in 1-7 is valid. There's no need to go any further if the argument at any stage is invalid.

It may well be valid. What it is not is sound, for the reasons stated above. You are asking that your premises, which should be axiomatic for soundness, be accepted. I cannot.

Moving on...

Or you could respond to the charges laid.

I have.

This entire post here is little more than an attempt to paint me as being intellectually inferior, and thus, paint my arguments as not worth considering. As such, it's nothing more than a (thinly veiled) personal attack. It's an irrational approach to debate. Is this your normal method? (Hey look, my own thinly veiled attack)

Wrong. This entire post was an expression of my exasperation at your failure to grasp my points. I have no interest in painting you as intellectually inferior, not least because I don't think you are intellectually inferior. I do think that your arguments are thin, not least because they are based on premises that cannot be demonstrated.

One of us is clearly misunderstanding the other. What is problematic about your approach here is that you, unlike me, are actually assuming not only the inferiority of my intellect, but the inferiority of the intellect of everyone else on the board. They've asked you, of all people, to challenge my argument. You've been demonstrated to be absolutely wrong--at least your objections--and rather than respond, you simply declare the entire thing worthless, but that somehow, in your mercy and grace, you will condescend to the idiocy that is all of us and explain again.

Absolutely not. Firstly, you haven't remotely demonstrated me to be wrong. Indeed, you have erroneously attached objections to the wrong arguments, which doesn't address the objections.

It is almost enough to make me want to break out in a hymn of praise to my new Lord and Master, which is hardly surprising, given my intellectual inferiority, that I would so easily be swayed by such a powerful demonstration of shear [sic] intellect.

Self-deprecation doesn't suit you.

Again, you've made several explicit charges that are blatantly false.

I absolutely did not.

1. You've accused me of circularity without demonstrating.

I demonstrated it in the post you chose to ignore, and a couple of times since. Read up.

Pronouncements are not discussion.

Nice projection.

2. You've accused me of equivocation on the word 'being,' specifically in (1) and (6), and in response, I looked at every instance of being in the first seven statements and demonstrated that it is being used in the same sense every time. You have failed to demonstrate. Again, pronouncements are not discussion.

Dealt with that above.

3. You've continued to assert that infinity is the central issue, when it does not appear in the argument. Pronouncements, dear sir, are not discussion.

Addressed above.

4. You've pronounced that concept of brute fact defeats my argument without demonstration.

Actually, I did demonstrate it, by providing a clear and robust definition of universe, and how the concept of a brute fact applies to it. Since I have demonstrated, at least as well as you have demonstrated anything, that the universe is a brute fact, your argument is defeated on those grounds alone.

5. You've clearly confused the concept of existence and essence which is central to my argument. How can the board expect you to properly critique my argument when you fail to grasp the distinction upon which my entire argument is built?

ACtually, you haven't demonstrated where I equated the two. I never asserted that existence and essence are the same thing. I did make a statement concerning the essence of the universe, which you dismissed with one of the most pathetically illogical restatements this commentor has ever come across, and I've dealt with the likes of Robert Byers. This is no mean achievement. In any event, I dealt with this above.

 

Your assertion that "essence of the universe is, in fact, existence" is both a mere pronouncement and a ridiculous statement on your part. Rather than merely pronounce it false, however, I demonstrated why it is false, and your reply is to pronounce my inability to understand you. Need I repeat myself that pronouncements are not discussion?

Actually, you didn't demonstrate that it was false, nor did you remotely show that it is ridiculous. Your restatement of it was indeed ridiculous, but I already demonstrated why your restatement was erroneous and, frankly, barely rising to the level of meriting a response. This was actually the source of the frustration that drove the post you have quoted here.

6. Your confusion of essence and existence has led you to assert, whether knowingly or not, a type of atheistic pantheism.

Err, no. Firstly, you haven't shown that I have confused these concepts, you've merely pronounced it, based on a woeful misunderstanding of what I actually wrote. Again, this has been dealt with above.

Again, you said, "since I actually have real problem with the idea that anything, ever, began to exist." In so stating, you are arguing that you never began to exist.

Correct. More importantly, I stated this explicitly above, along with my justification of the statement.

This requires more comment because it provides a great case study on which of us has fundamentally misunderstood the other. We have already made the distinction between what something is and what it is made out of. I pointed out to i_am_i that, "If there is no God, then it really doesn't make sense to call anything by anything. A man isn't a 'man.' It's just a set of molecules collected in a particular way. There is no real difference between "what" a man is and "what" a tree is. At best, that's just a human invention. We see things that look alike and we just label them. That doesn't mean your really are a human being. That's just what we choose to call you." This is a fuller statement of what it means for nothing to come into existence, in that it takes that statement and pulls out the necessary consequences. Specifically, you, as Hack, have clearly not always existed. You, then, are referring to the matter that makes you up. If you, however, are your matter, then since you are made up of the same matter as everything else, then you and everything else are just the same.

And that existence is merely conceptual, albeit also material. I am a mere concept, comprising an agglomeration of energy. More importantly, and quite damning for your argument, the first law of thermodynamics nails the idea of a beginning to the wall. This isn't navel-gazing rhetoric or the act of defining something into existence, but categorical fact. Moreover, even were I to accept your definition of 'beginning to exist' just for the sake of discussion, it would actually invoke a new problem for your line of argumentation, namely the fallacy of composition, in asserting that that which applies in the universe applies to the universe.

This actually provides the basis for another argument for God's existence we may call the argument from the diversity of things. As it stands, it is a major issue in philosophy anyway. It was first grappled with by Parmenides in the fifth century BC, and he concluded that there is no such thing as distinction. Anyway, I digress . . .

Which just shows the value of arguments in elucidatiing reality.

The point is that you have found yourself in precisely the same place as everyone else. In denying the distinction between essence and existence and asserting the equality, certain things necessarily follow, one of which, as I've now shown, is that everything is the same thing. But that is absurd.

Well firstly, I haven't denied the distinction between essence and existence. What I actually did was to state that, in the case of one single entity, namely the universe, existence is its essence, which is not remotely equivalent to what you are suggesting here. This alone highlights which one of us is labouring under a misapprehension.

Now, again, I've taken the time to demonstrate my positions, not to merely pronounce them. The former is discussion. The latter is preaching.

Thinly veiled accusation aside, I have demonstrated all of my positions throughout. That you have chosen to ignore or misrepresent thsoe positions and their justifications is hardly my failing.

So how about rather than starting all over from scratch, why don't you start trying to demonstrate your claims. If your method is just to preach, there's not much use for debate in the first place, now is there?

And this is just brilliant. Accusing me of preaching. With this bit of utter fucking guff, I am done.

Respect must be earned, and you've done anything but.

Edit: Forgot to address the new formulation:

Here is the argument as we have it so far for reference:

1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).

No problem there.

2. All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.

Blind assertion. Demonstrate that the universe received any of its properties through efficient causality. Those men in Stockholm await your response.

3. Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.

The same blind assertion. These two premises demonstrate the fallacy of composition, because you are asserting this for the universe, even were we to accept that this is true within the universe, it cannot be categorically stated for the universe itself.

4. Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.

No problem.

5. Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent (which is to say, all essences are contingent)

Define 'agent'.

6. That which is contingent must rely on that which is not contingent for its existence.

Already dealt with this several posts ago. The concept of a chain applies to contingency in precisely the same way it applies to causality. When stated within the rubric of causality, this can be restated as 'that which is caused must rely upon that which is not caused for its existence', which is clearly absurd.

7. Therefore, essentially ordered efficient causes rely on a non-contingent (that is, necessary) cause for their being, which is called a first cause

Your 'therefore' is unjustified, because there are objections to your premises. Further, your conclusion is, in essence (pun intended) simply  restatement of (P6). This is the very definition of a circular argument.

[Jac3510]

Indeed, I don't actually exist in any meaningful sense, because even that which makes me up is continually replaced. I am not the same I that I was yesterday, and I will be a different I again tomorrow.

You see, I was trying to take the time to offer a very serious response until I got to this. I'm perfectly content to let the issue rest between us here, because this is an impossible difference between the two of us. If in order to reject my argument you have to argue that you don't exist in any meaningful sense, then there's really nothing left to say.

I concede that if you don't exist in any meaningful way, then my argument doesn't work.

I just feel no need to argue that you do exist in a meaningful way. It is so amazingly self-evident that if you refuse that fact, then no other facts I present can or would be useful to discuss. This is the very core of my argument, as I have repeated like a mantra over and over in this thread: things are what they are and they are not what they are not. If in order to maintain your atheism you have to argue that you aren't really you and I am not really me ("in any meaningful sense"), then I think we have said our peace, and I think the community is more than educated enough to be able to decide on the merits of the arguments put forward.

You don't think you exist as you in any meaningful way. I do. For those who agree with me, they'll have to find some other fault in the logic. For those who agree with you, more power to them (whatever "them" is).

I would only point out the logical conclusion of your position: you have never spoken to me before, and I have never spoken to you. We have never met because we don't exist in any meaningful way, since what we were yesterday (if that is meaningful) is different from what we are today and what we will be tomorrow. That means that justice is absolutely impossible, because the person who committed the crime is not the person standing in the courtroom. No spouse has ever cheated on another. The person standing before you now is not the same person who "cheated" yesterday. You can't say what "you" will do in five years from now, because "you" won't exist.

Such a position is so patently absurd (in my very humble opinion) that if you want it, you are more than welcome to it. Sorry if that sounds a bit "patronizing." Someday I hope to be less amazed when I hear people make these claims (because yes, I've heard this before). It is always just unreal to me.

Anyway, all the best. I hope HAF has gotten what they hoped from our . . . discussion.

[hackenslash]

Of course it's unreal to you, because you can't grasp the concept of emergence. I am the emergent result of the agglomeration of pre-existing matter. I didn't begin to exist, I emerged. The same is true of everything inside our local cosmic expansion.

As it happens, I have no problem with the impossibility of infinite regress, not least because I can halt it without violating Occam's Razor. If you ever manage, in a coherent manner, to demonstrate the impossibility of infinite regress, you'll still have all your work ahead of you demonstrating the existence of a deity, and then you'll still have all your work ahead of you demonstrating that Yahweh is that deity, a concept that's utterly falsified by being given logically absurd or contradictory attributes.

Ultimately, all arguments for the existence of god are going to fail until you can actually present some evidence. If you can't do that, then you have to demonstrate that philosophy is capable of supporting an existence postulate. Otherwise you're simply trying to define something into existence. If you engage in that, then I can equally engage in defining pixies into existence. This is completely aside from the fact that your premises have been demonstrated to be either unsupportable, circular, or juts plain wrong.

Thanks for not even trying to respond to the objections, though.