What on God's Earth is a "justified axiom"? It's impossible to prove a first principle. First principles are assumed. In geometry we assume definitions, postulates, and common notions. We don't demonstrate them. How would you prove that "a point is that which has no part" or that "a line can be extended indefinitely"? What makes God necessary is the a priori principle of causality. If there is an infinite regression of causality we would never arrive at the present which is absurd. We know the universe had a beginning. And all beginnings are caused. http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html The Big Bang had a necessary cause and we call it God. The opposite, that the first motion in the universe and the Big Bang happened without cause, is absurd. If Big Bangs and motion can happen without cause you might as well flush science down the toilet. As Heisenberg writes in Physics and Philosophy:
OilisMastery: There are some axioms which are incapable of proving outside a system. There are also some axioms which are simply definitions. "Point" is a definition. However, one could prove the existence and necessity of points. As one could prove the notion of line. It tends to be a bit more difficult than just affirming them, and for the sake of geometry (as opposed to philosophy), unneeded. We do not know the universe had a beginning, if by "universe" we mean "existence". If by the physical universe of the Big Bang, then yes, we know it had a beginning - but a cause involving God begs the question "why God?". It is just as reasonable that existence (that is all that is) preceeds and generates the big bang and it is that which is the necessary cause. The Big Bang clearly needs a cause, but it needn't be divine. For current scientific theories on this, check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_Model I myself am not that interested in the science, as I am primarily a philosopher and this is a topic for metaphysics. As to your affirmation that we'd never meet the present motion, I'll respond ala Aquinas: Traversal is always understood to be from term to term. But whatever past day is designated, from that (day) to this there are finite days that can be traversed. But the objection proceeds from this, that, positing the extremes, there are infinite terms in between. [ST 1.46.2 ad 6] - http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm
How is that possible? Again, how do you prove that "a point is that which has no part?" I have never seen any such geometric demonstration. How is it possible to prove that "a line can be extended indefinitely?" I have never seen any such geometric demonstration.
OilIsMastery: Here's a some quick informal arguments. I would not consider them purely geometrical, as we're dealing more with ontology in these, even if geometry has a role in ontology. 1. Ultimately, there exists only somethingness and nothingness. 2. Somethingness and nothingness are mutually exclusive. 3. Were somethingness to cease, nothingness would exist. 4. Yet nothingness cannot exist, as to exist is to cease to be nothing. 5. Thus somethingness must exist and do so infinitely. 1. That which is infinite must be composed of an infinite amount of parts. 2. The smallest part imaginable is infinitesimally small. 3. A point is infintesimally small. 4. Therefore, a point is the smallest part imaginable in existence. 1. Infinity must encompass all dimensions. 2. THe second dimension is a dimension. 3. The second dimension encompasses only length, and to match infinity, must stretch infinitely. 4. Therefore, the ultimate expression of the second dimension is a single extension encompassing only length for infinity. 5. A second dimension extension is called a line. 6. Ergo, a line without a termination point is infinitely long.
You just took 2 first principles that cannot be demonstrated and multiplied them into 15 first principles that cannot be demonstrated.
OilIsMastery: It is unprovable to affirm that something can most basically either exist or not exist? And as such, the prime categories to discuss are existence/non-existence and the rammifications of the inability for one to manifest (as it would cease to be non-existent)? We have the hallmarks of the necessity I spoke of earlier. The opposite is absurd and the true is manifestly so.
i agree with oilismastery. that god was never created fits in with the rest of the religion. i was only looking for something theologically sound, there only has to be possibility, not likelihood or reason. keep in mind we're discussing a matter of faith, it doesn't matter how unlikely something sounds. "We have to deduce necessity from the nature of God. What makes God necessary? What aspects lead it to that conclusion?" - this is a logical way of viewing the issue, not a religious way. are you counting for the fact that theists can argue that they 'know' god exists and is creator of all things, as they have witnessed his presence etc. the religious perspective is only unprovable to those who have not witnessed his presence. 'those who do not believe will never understand'. As for "If Big Bangs and motion can happen without cause you might as well flush science down the toilet" - we know there are problems with science, its constantly being revised and added to. what we know of science at the moment is our prototype, we're still perfecting it and figuring out what we can. to sum up, i'm atheist, i'm just picking at religion. so don't have a go at me for being brain washed, i know how difficult to swallow religion is, there's so many good reasons to criticise and doubt it, but with the right interpretation of a religion it comes down to a matter of faith, not logic.
Codanblad: I was assuming we're talking from philosophical theology. Mysticism isn't involved here. The cosmological argument is from Aristotle, who was certainly not a fideist.
It all logical. God was made by a succession of previous gods, all of whom stood on the backs of turtles standing on the backs of turtles. That's what I call proof and godless Richard Dawkins cannot disprove it.
The entire kalam argument have flaws because it makes too many presuppositional errors. One have to beg many questions in order to lend credence to this method of theistic apologetics (at least this one is much more crafty than the Pascal's Wager). If one supposes that everything that existed is created by a creator, then that means everything the existed (yes, even the creator) has to be created by another maker. If this is true, there has to be a super god to create the current god, and so on for eternity. Note: we also come into a snag on presupposition of primacy of existence vs. the primacy of consciousness. creation has to be an act of consciousness whether it embodies intelligent or unintelligent design. To say that creation occured before existence, you have to posit that there is some way for this act of creation to occur. Well, what is required for creation? You need time, you need a space, some brains to at least go through with the action, and a physical entity to "cause the action". Do you not see the problem with the primacy of consciousness already? To create everything also entitles creating time, but in the formula I have just presented, you cannot create time when "time" is an essential formula that comes before the act of creation. Also, we have problems with semantics as well. To say something existed when there was nothing simultaneously, we reach a logical contradiction and conundrum. In fact, this cannot be a paradox because a paradox requires for the seeming contradiction to actually be a possible fact. That means a paradox might look like a contradiction at first, but it is really possible (a boy and his father were driving, they get into a car accident and the father dies, but the boy is sent to the ER. The surgeon looks at the boy and says, I can't do this, this is my son! Apparently, some might instinctually think the surgeon is the father due to preconcieved notions, but in actuality, we did not consider the surgeon could be the mother instead). This near-contradiction becomes a paradox, however, this is not the case with the primacy of consciousness, it is a contradiction. Thus, we are left with the primacy of existence- existence has always existed. How can we say that nothing existed before? Has there ever been a time when we experienced inexistence? How can anything exist simultaneously with the nonexistence? How can we attribute an amorphous being with human attributes? How can a just God also be merciful at the same time? All these circularities and contradictions appear to have been created to make sure that a person who is unversed in critical thinking might give up trying to sort out all the problems with the belief in a God. Looks like it's worked very well because a vast majority of the people in the world believes in at least 1 God.
i thought there were four giant elephants in one version? and personally i like the atlas one the best. if you're strong enough to hold up the world, why are you letting people make you hold up the world. punch them. how'd he get himself into that situation even. 'oh yeah well i didn't want music and archery, which apollo was heaps keen for, so i took "holding up the world". i'm basically the god of single support columns. yes, i was drunk'
OilIsMastery: Exactly. A second rate hack who thinks he can go into philosophy without reading one book. He needs to stick to biology, where he is brilliant.
My god is more powerful than your god.; you can't prove otherwise, so I must be right. Science has yet to show there were no turtles involved !
Metaphysics is for the retarded posing as intellectuals. whether they walk the face of the Earth or not. In short, it's a load of bollocks. It's sole utility is keeping philosophy teachers in work and having their books and articles printed. Now you have declared Dawkins a retard, I have great expectations of you. What an intellect ! Do tell us what you have published !
I'm sure Dawkins will be delighted to know you regard him as a brilliant biologist...praise, indeed, coming from you. I wasn't aware that he claims to be a metaphysician. His arguments are clear, reasoned and based on objective evidence, hardly the stuff of metaphysics which is more appropriate for someone sitting on a cracker barrel and whittling a stick.
I'm sure Dawkins will be delighted to know you regard him as a brilliant biologist. I wasn't aware that he claims to be a metaphysician. His arguments are clear, reasoned and based on objective evidence, hardly the stuff of metaphysics which is more appropriate for someone sitting on a cracker barrel and whittling a stick.
