The Second Proof of God

[bgrouse]

I think that I, like most people, have evolving morals throughout life.

How can that be possible? Don't you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Where have I ever indicated such a thing? Do you think you are arguing with someone else?

Doesn't matter anymore. You've proven your true character.

You make a claim that I believe something, I ask when I've ever said something like that, and you just blithely pass it right by. You might want to consider your own character, when you both refuse to give definitions for terms you use and refuse to explain why you think I believe something I've never said or hinted at.

I can do anything I want.

We figured that out when you made your laughably nonsensical argument.

 

[Montrovant]

I think that I, like most people, have evolving morals throughout life.

How can that be possible? Don't you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Where have I ever indicated such a thing? Do you think you are arguing with someone else?

Doesn't matter anymore. You've proven your true character.

You make a claim that I believe something, I ask when I've ever said something like that, and you just blithely pass it right by. You might want to consider your own character, when you both refuse to give definitions for terms you use and refuse to explain why you think I believe something I've never said or hinted at.

I can do anything I want. I don't need you to get my message out. You have been weighed and measured and found to be lacking.

Good for you. Did you decide I was telling you you could not do something? Do you often feel as if people are telling you you cannot do things?

Need a cookie?

 

[edthecynic]

The way to understand that it is impossible for matter and energy to exist forever even if there is an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy to the system. So as time approaches infinity, no matter what the universe does, the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

 

[Slyhunter]

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
   
   
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
   
   
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
   
   
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
   
   
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
   
   
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
   
   
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
   
   
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
   
   
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

That logic worked for the Neanderthal.
Look, Lightning, lets pray to it.


You know we once sold Catsup as cough syrup?

 

[edthecynic]

Clearly the laws of nature are different from the physical laws of our universe.

Or more clearly our physical laws are incomplete.

 

[DrLove]

There is NO Proof of God
Happy to help

 

[edthecynic]

One big hole in your "logic" is right here: it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Ir it could be something other than God. You make absolutely no compelling argument supporting the idea that the "first efficient cause" is God.

Exactly, the first efficient cause could just as easily be called "Nature" or "Energy."

 

[RWNJ]

There is NO Proof of God
Happy to help

There is proof. Atheists have claimed that the simple fact that we're here is proof of evolution.
Well, I say that the simple fact that we are here is proof of God. Because nothing physical can create itself. It's a physical impossibility. There you have it. Happy to help.

 

[Taz]

So what's the first proof of god? Does it make any more sense than the second one?

Thomas Aquinas came up with five ways to prove god exists. Here's the first way:
The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
   
   
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
   
   
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
   
   
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
   
   
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
   
   
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
   
   
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
   
   
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove that God exists -- The Arguments

5. Nothing can move itself? I can.

EPIC FAIL. But thanks for the link.

 

[edthecynic]

So what's the first proof of god? Does it make any more sense than the second one?

Thomas Aquinas came up with five ways to prove god exists. Here's the first way:
The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
   
   
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
   
   
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
   
   
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
   
   
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
   
   
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
   
   
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
   
   
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove that God exists -- The Arguments

Of course the obvious flaw to that proof is there is no such thing as a body at rest!!!

 

[Montrovant]

I didn't say Aquinas's proofs were all valid, I just pointed them out.

 

[Synthaholic]

God can't be logically disproven that's the issue.

It can’t be logically disproven that you’re a homosexual. Does that mean that you are?

 

[RWNJ]

God can't be logically disproven that's the issue.

It can’t be logically disproven that you’re a homosexual. Does that mean that you are?

The universe requires a Creator. It is a scientific fact that nothing physical can create itself. Therefore, the PHYSICAL universe had a creator. My logic cannot be refuted. It is iron clad.

 

[Toro]

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
   
   
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
   
   
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
   
   
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
   
   
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
   
   
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
   
   
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
   
   
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
   
   
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

And God is a Muslim god.

 

[Toro]

God can't be logically disproven that's the issue.

It can’t be logically disproven that you’re a homosexual. Does that mean that you are?

The universe requires a Creator. It is a scientific fact that nothing physical can create itself. Therefore, the PHYSICAL universe had a creator. My logic cannot be refuted. It is iron clad.

And God is Allah.

 

[RWNJ]

God can't be logically disproven that's the issue.

It can’t be logically disproven that you’re a homosexual. Does that mean that you are?

The universe requires a Creator. It is a scientific fact that nothing physical can create itself. Therefore, the PHYSICAL universe had a creator. My logic cannot be refuted. It is iron clad.

And God is Allah.

Allah? Who's that? Oh, that's right. I believe he was a Pagan moon god that some murdering pedophile selected for his false religion.

 

[Toro]

God can't be logically disproven that's the issue.

It can’t be logically disproven that you’re a homosexual. Does that mean that you are?

The universe requires a Creator. It is a scientific fact that nothing physical can create itself. Therefore, the PHYSICAL universe had a creator. My logic cannot be refuted. It is iron clad.

And God is Allah.

Allah? Who's that? Oh, that's right. I believe he was a Pagan moon god that some murdering pedophile selected for his false religion.

It’s irrelevant to the OP what you believe.

 

[Synthaholic]

The universe requires a Creator.

Not a factual statement. What was there before the universe was "created"?

 

[Picaro]

Aquinas was an idiot. Or at least he catered to them. Nothing more than "I don't know, so God," followed by a lie. I wouldn't even honor it by calling it pseudoscience.

Ah, someone volunteered to verify my point that a lot of you are indeed stupid. Thanks.

Aquinas is one of the most acknowledged and brilliant writers and philosophers in human history, bar none, but to assorted Dawkins' Dufuses, deviants, perverts, and other ilk he's ' a moron'.lol

 

[ding]

How can that be possible? Don't you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Where have I ever indicated such a thing? Do you think you are arguing with someone else?

Doesn't matter anymore. You've proven your true character.

You make a claim that I believe something, I ask when I've ever said something like that, and you just blithely pass it right by. You might want to consider your own character, when you both refuse to give definitions for terms you use and refuse to explain why you think I believe something I've never said or hinted at.

I can do anything I want. I don't need you to get my message out. You have been weighed and measured and found to be lacking.

Good for you. Did you decide I was telling you you could not do something? Do you often feel as if people are telling you you cannot do things?

Need a cookie?

No. I decided you were dishonest.