Arguments for God

[Jac3510]

HS, to be very honest, I really couldn't follow your post. There's nothing really to have a "last word" on. I hope out of all this that all you've gotten hasn't just been "if anything exists, God exists." It boils down to "Everything needs an explanation for its being. Since there can't be an infinite regress of being, there has to be a first cause of all being. Since everything is caused by that cause, then every effect is present in an unlimited way by that cause."

I really can't comment anymore on what you said. If you want to clarify, feel free.

To others, as far as me making another thread, my intention is not to edit the original argument out of the first post, but just to add to to it. Ultimately, I'll let the mods decide on this. There are more than a few arguments that need to be considered, and each have different goals. The argument from simplicity, I think, is the most comprehensive. It's also the most difficult. There are other versions of this one as well (Scotus immediately comes to mind), but we'll move on to other types. My only concern about making other threads is that I don't want to litter the philosophy board with various individual arguments that could just be subsumed under one thread. Yes, Reginus is right that a drawback of this is that people could end up discussing different arguments. So it's up to the mods/community how this should all be organized. Next two on the docket are the arguments from the nature of morality and rationality. I haven't decided which to do first yet. Maybe the almighty coin toss . . .

Oh, and Jac, what exactly do you mean by "pure being"?

The philosophical term is subsistent existence. It is that which for which the essence and existence are not distinguished. In other words, it is that which has existence as its nature, as opposed to everything in this world, which has a nature to which existence is added so that the thing becomes real. Obviously, we can get more technical with this, but I think this covers the basic idea.

[Tank]

New thread please. They provide focus and a boundary to the discussion thus preventing de-rails. And it's not like it cost anything to start a new thread.

[humblesmurph]

HS, to be very honest, I really couldn't follow your post. There's nothing really to have a "last word" on. I hope out of all this that all you've gotten hasn't just been "if anything exists, God exists." It boils down to "Everything needs an explanation for its being. Since there can't be an infinite regress of being, there has to be a first cause of all being. Since everything is caused by that cause, then every effect is present in an unlimited way by that cause."

I really can't comment anymore on what you said. If you want to clarify, feel free.

Damn, I thought it was pretty straightforward.  Basically, the idea that essence is prior to existence is dependent on god, or a god like thing, therefore you can't start a proof of god with the idea that essence is prior to existence.   How else could man's essence be prior to his existence without God?

[Jac3510]

Damn, I thought it was pretty straightforward.  Basically, the idea that essence is prior to existence is dependent on god, or a god like thing, therefore you can't start a proof of god with the idea that essence is prior to existence.   How else could man's essence be prior to his existence without God?

But how does it rely on God? It may conclude in God, but I don't see how it relies on Him. There is a difference in the two.

In answer to your question, I can certainly sympathize with your objection . . . but I think it is even broader than what you are saying. If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence. It becomes a necessary line of thought. 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.

So on atheism, nothing is anything. In reality, the argument from subsistent existence just expounds on the fact that if things are what they are, then, ultimately, God exists. It could be reduced to:

1. If things are what they are, then God exists
2. Things are what they are
3. Therefore, God exists

That, however, is hardly as robust and would require even more explaining than this thread has required. And in any case, that is a different argument than:

1. If God exists, then things are what they are
2. God exists
3. Therefore, things are what they are

That isn't my argument. It is logically valid, but deeply unsound. (1) just isn't necessarily true, and it leaves (2) with no support. That's just an assumption. I've not argued that. So, you can argue that things aren't really anything, which would basically be a rejection of the first few premises of the argument. The logical corollary, however, is that nothing is anything, which ultimately makes knowledge impossible.

As an aside, even your argument doesn't get you away from Aquinas simpler second way. Perhaps we can expound on that later.

edit:

BTW, Mike, there is an important sense in which I agree that existence precedes essence. I follow Aquinas, not Avicenna, on the matter. I said it in my very first premise. Although existence is an accidental property, it is prior to all other properties, including the essential properties, because it is the property that makes things be. We cannot apprehend a single nature without first judging the nature to exist. That, however, does not change my argument that there is a distinction between existence and essence, and that until an essence receives existence, it does not exist at all.

[humblesmurph]

Damn, I thought it was pretty straightforward.  Basically, the idea that essence is prior to existence is dependent on god, or a god like thing, therefore you can't start a proof of god with the idea that essence is prior to existence.   How else could man's essence be prior to his existence without God?

But how does it rely on God? It may conclude in God, but I don't see how it relies on Him. There is a difference in the two.

In answer to your question, I can certainly sympathize with your objection . . . but I think it is even broader than what you are saying. If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence. It becomes a necessary line of thought. 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.

So on atheism, nothing is anything. In reality, the argument from subsistent existence just expounds on the fact that if things are what they are, then, ultimately, God exists. It could be reduced to:

1. If things are what they are, then God exists
2. Things are what they are
3. Therefore, God exists

That, however, is hardly as robust and would require even more explaining than this thread has required. And in any case, that is a different argument than:

1. If God exists, then things are what they are
2. God exists
3. Therefore, things are what they are

That isn't my argument. It is logically valid, but deeply unsound. (1) just isn't necessarily true, and it leaves (2) with no support. That's just an assumption. I've not argued that. So, you can argue that things aren't really anything, which would basically be a rejection of the first few premises of the argument. The logical corollary, however, is that nothing is anything, which ultimately makes knowledge impossible.

As an aside, even your argument doesn't get you away from Aquinas simpler second way. Perhaps we can expound on that later.

The theist is just as ignorant of reality as the atheist. You don't know things are what they appear to be.  You can't know without God.  You can't prove God.  What you have presented is not a proof. It's a coherent idea of what god may be.  If it were a proof, it would prove something.  If any proof of god actually proved god, there wouldn't be so many atheists.  How many people do you know who reject 2=2=4?

You don't know that there is such a prior thing as treeness that is combined with some other stuff to make trees.  You assume it.  That assumption entails God.  That's fine.  Your faith is strong, but your proof is weak.

[i_am_i]

If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence. It becomes a necessary line of thought. 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.

Surely you can't mean that.

[humblesmurph]

If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence. It becomes a necessary line of thought. 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.

Surely you can't mean that.

I think he does mean it.  This is the base of his argument.  This is just the first time he put it in plain English.

[Jac3510]

The theist is just as ignorant of reality as the atheist. You don't know things are what they appear to be.  You can't know without God.  You can't prove God.  What you have presented is not a proof. It's a coherent idea of what god may be.  If it were a proof, it would prove something.  If any proof of god actually proved god, there wouldn't be so many atheists.  How many people do you know who reject 2=2=4?

You don't know that there is such a prior thing as treeness that is combined with some other stuff to make trees.  You assume it.  That assumption entails God.  That's fine.  Your faith is strong, but your proof is weak.

Mike, you are making assertions without backing them up.  The first, second, third, fourth, and seventh statements are just bald assertions. They've no place in a reasonable discussion about . . . well . . . anything. You wouldn't let me get away with that, and for good reason.

And why are you appealing to the beliefs of others to decide if something is true? Truth is decided by vote.

edit:

[quote="Jac3510"]If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence. It becomes a necessary line of thought. 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.

Surely you can't mean that.

I think he does mean it. This is the base of his argument. This is just the first time he put it in plain English.[/quote]
Of course I mean it. It's the logically necessary conclusion of atheism. I got it from Dawkins, actually. One of the few things he said that was actually right . . .

In any case, there is a difference in the base of an argument and a logical corollary. Mike, you've accused me of starting with God when I did no such thing. Now you're accusing me of starting with the necessary conclusion of atheism, which again, is false.

If you want to be intellectually honest, you can look at the proof and demonstrate where the argument is logically invalid (where it commits a fallacy) or where you disagree with the premises. The closely you have done is to deny the existence comes before essence, and even then, you didn't offer any response to my clarification. Otherwise, every single one of your responses has been an objection to labels. You've not interacted with the ideas. Now, you can choose to reject the conclusion without reason, but that my friend, is nothing more than faith. "It's wrong because I say it is" isn't an argument.

Of course, you don't have to justify your disbelief to me or anyone else. But when you disagree with a conclusion, the only honest way to do so is to challenge the logic or the premises. Challenging labels and appealing to popular vote doesn't cut it.

Disagreement is fine. I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I've said that from the beginning and will maintain that throughout. Broad dismissals, however, are disrespectful. Whatever our disagreements on whatever points of logic and philosophy or conclusions, there's not need for that.

[humblesmurph]

The theist is just as ignorant of reality as the atheist. You don't know things are what they appear to be.  You can't know without God.  You can't prove God.  What you have presented is not a proof. It's a coherent idea of what god may be.  If it were a proof, it would prove something.  If any proof of god actually proved god, there wouldn't be so many atheists.  How many people do you know who reject 2=2=4?

You don't know that there is such a prior thing as treeness that is combined with some other stuff to make trees.  You assume it.  That assumption entails God.  That's fine.  Your faith is strong, but your proof is weak.

I didn't realize that assertions without evidence were valid. In that case, I'll just assert that God exists and be done with it. I'd come to expect more.

And why are you appealing to the beliefs of others to decide if something is true? Truth is decided by vote.

edit:

If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence. It becomes a necessary line of thought. 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.

Surely you can't mean that.

[quote="humblesmurph"]I think he does mean it. This is the base of his argument. This is just the first time he put it in plain English.

Of course I mean it. It's the logically necessary conclusion of atheism. I got it from Dawkins, actually. One of the few things he said that was actually right . . .

In any case, there is a difference in the base of an argument and a logical corollary. Mike, you've accused me of starting with God when I did no such thing. Now you're accusing me of starting with the necessary conclusion of atheism, which again, is false.

If you want to be intellectually honest, you can look at the proof and demonstrate where the argument is logically invalid (where it commits a fallacy) or where you disagree with the premises. The closely you have done is to deny the existence comes before essence, and even then, you didn't offer any response to my clarification. Otherwise, every single one of your responses has been an objection to labels. You've not interacted with the ideas. Now, you can choose to reject the conclusion without reason, but that my friend, is nothing more than faith. "It's wrong because I say it is" isn't an argument.

Of course, you don't have to justify your disbelief to me or anyone else. But when you disagree with a conclusion, the only honest way to do so is to challenge the logic or the premises. Challenging labels and appealing to popular vote doesn't cut it.

Disagreement is fine. I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I've said that from the beginning and will maintain that throughout. Broad dismissals, however, are disrespectful. Whatever our disagreements on whatever points of logic and philosophy or conclusions, there's not need for that.

[/quote]


I have told you why I reject your proof. Three times. In plain English.  Your "clarification" was not clear.  You didn't answer my point blank question.  The first 2 premises of your proof of God is dependent on essence being prior to existence.

Just answer one question in plain English:

If a thing has an essence before it comes into existence, where did the essence come from?

[i_am_i]

But when you disagree with a conclusion, the only honest way to do so is to challenge the logic or the premises.

Okay. How is this: "If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence" logical?

[Jac3510]

If a thing has an essence before it comes into existence, where did the essence come from?

1. I don't know how you mean this, so I'll answer it in two ways:

a. If by "thing" you mean "an existing thing," then the whole question is illogical.
b. If by "thing" you mean "a logical construct," then it comes from reality itself. Trees are trees. Birds are birds. People are people.

2. The fact that you pose this as a disagreement presents a logical problem for you. It's not logical to reject a position because you don't like it's consequences. If a family member is accused of murder, it is illogical of me to declare that they aren't guilty because I don't want them to go to jail. Likewise, if essences must come from God, then their existence points to God. It isn't logical to deny their existence because you want to deny God.

Looking again at the first three points in my argument:

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.

All (1) means is that things receive their existence from something else. You don't have you existence as a necessary part of what you are (whatever that is), because if it did, you would have always existed. That, of course, presumes that things are what they are. That is the definition of an essence--"what-a-thing-is."

(2) just means that the only way a change can happen to a thing is if something else acts on it. A man loses his hair because of old age, etc. He doesn't lose his hair by virtue of being a man. A brown table becomes black because someone painted it black. It doesn't become black by virtue of being a table.

(3) just combines those two ideas. If a thing isn't the cause of changes in itself, then it isn't responsible for bringing itself into existence. Just like something else makes all changes in me, something else brought me into existence.

That is all the first three points mean. The only way around that is to argue that things aren't really what they are. When someone says, "I don't believe in essences or forms," that is what they are saying. Trees aren't trees. People aren't people. Cats aren't cats. If you do believe that things are what they are, and if you agree that "existence" isn't a part of a thing's basic definition, form, nature, or whatever you want to call it, then you have agreed with the first premise in my argument. If you agree that what things are don't change things (i.e., tables don't change their own color), then you agree with the second premise. The first conclusion is logically necessary. Things don't bring themselves into existence. They get their existence from something else, be it a table maker or mom and dad or whatever.

But when you disagree with a conclusion, the only honest way to do so is to challenge the logic or the premises.

Okay. How is this: "If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence" logical?

That's not part of my argument. That is a summary of the conclusion. It's logical because of 1-21 in the argument presented.

[humblesmurph]

If a thing has an essence before it comes into existence, where did the essence come from?

1. I don't know how you mean this, so I'll answer it in two ways:

a. If by "thing" you mean "an existing thing," then the whole question is illogical.
b. If by "thing" you mean "a logical construct," then it comes from reality itself. Trees are trees. Birds are birds. People are people.

2. The fact that you pose this as a disagreement presents a logical problem for you. It's not logical to reject a position because you don't like it's consequences. If a family member is accused of murder, it is illogical of me to declare that they aren't guilty because I don't want them to go to jail. Likewise, if essences must come from God, then their existence points to God. It isn't logical to deny their existence because you want to deny God.

Looking again at the first three points in my argument:

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.

All (1) means is that things receive their existence from something else. You don't have you existence as a necessary part of what you are (whatever that is), because if it did, you would have always existed. That, of course, presumes that things are what they are. That is the definition of an essence--"what-a-thing-is."

(2) just means that the only way a change can happen to a thing is if something else acts on it. A man loses his hair because of old age, etc. He doesn't lose his hair by virtue of being a man. A brown table becomes black because someone painted it black. It doesn't become black by virtue of being a table.

(3) just combines those two ideas. If a thing isn't the cause of changes in itself, then it isn't responsible for bringing itself into existence. Just like something else makes all changes in me, something else brought me into existence.

That is all the first three points mean. The only way around that is to argue that things aren't really what they are. When someone says, "I don't believe in essences or forms," that is what they are saying. Trees aren't trees. People aren't people. Cats aren't cats. If you do believe that things are what they are, and if you agree that "existence" isn't a part of a thing's basic definition, form, nature, or whatever you want to call it, then you have agreed with the first premise in my argument. If you agree that what things are don't change things (i.e., tables don't change their own color), then you agree with the second premise. The first conclusion is logically necessary. Things don't bring themselves into existence. They get their existence from something else, be it a table maker or mom and dad or whatever.

But when you disagree with a conclusion, the only honest way to do so is to challenge the logic or the premises.

Okay. How is this: "If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence" logical?

That's not part of my argument. That is a summary of the conclusion. It's logical because of 1-21 in the argument presented.

Not exactly plain English, but I'll work with it.  You seem to be saying that essence comes from reality.  Essence is stuff.  

Is it your position that reality makes stuff?  

Isn't "reality" just another name for God?

[Jac3510]

Not exactly plain English, but I'll work with it.  You seem to be saying that essence comes from reality.  Essence is stuff.  

Is it your position that reality makes stuff?

Yes. What else would make stuff?

Isn't "reality" just another name for God?

No. God is the cause of reality. He is not reality itself. To say that God is reality would be pantheism.

[humblesmurph]

Is it your position that reality makes stuff?

Yes. What else would make stuff?

You asked me a question in plain English so I'll answer in kind:  Nothing makes stuff.  Matter can be neither created nor destroyed.  

This is where we disagree.  You think reality makes stuff.  I don't.  
 
Your first two premises depend on reality making stuff.  This violates the laws of physics.  Your proof doesn't explain why we should suspend these laws, it just starts out with a total disregard for them and keeps going until you get to God.

[hackenslash]

It boils down to "Everything needs an explanation for its being. Since there can't be an infinite regress of being, there has to be a first cause of all being.

I'm going to come back and address this thread in more comprehensive detail later, but you have actually stated here the thing I most agree with,which is that this is what it boils down to. I don't agree with the rest, for several reasons. Firstly, what barrier can you demonstrate to an infinite regress? What you seem to be doing here is the usual misunderstanding of just what infinity actually is. It isn't endlessness, for a start. All infinity is, in rigorous terms is 'a really big number'. In its most rigorous form it's 'a number so large that we have no means to deal with it'. Until you actually pin down what infinity is, you have no good reason to make the assertion that infinity can't exist and, by corrollary, that an 'infinite regress of being' (which just sounds like navel-gazers' talk for endless existence) cannot exist.

More importantly, if you assert, as you do, that 'everything needs an explanation for its being', and then go on to cite something that doesn't as some sort of terminus, you are engaging in the fallacy of special pleading. There is no escape from this. In other words, your conclusion refutes your premise, rendering your argument not just unsound but laughably illogical.

Mostly, I object to this entire line of argumentation for stipulative, definitional reasons. The universe is literally 'that which exists'. That's what the word means. Most damningly for your argument, it also includes that which you are trying to assert as a first, uncaused cause. Since the universe is everything in existence, it isn't remotely stretching the point to state that the universe is existence, and that anything that exists, therefore, is a subset thereof, including any creator entity. This is very basic. If it exists, it's part of the universe.

This has a corrollary implication, which is also inescapable, namely that there cannot be a first cause of all being, because that which exists is, and any cause, in the form of a causal agent or otherwise, is necessarily existent infinitely, or was caused by something that is. In other words, you may say god, while I say universe. Your conception of an uncaused cause is predicated on the existence of mine, and contingent thereupon. What does this do for the idea of a creator of the universe? It renders it absurd, which is precisely what all conceptions of a creator are.

With all due respect, this entire thread is irrefutable evidence of the lengths that can be gone to by those who think that their umbilicus is a source of information concerning reality, and it's guff from beginning (see what I did there?) to end.