That is just being silly. God is actuality without any potency (for example, change or a material body).

God is not concious in the way you define it. You necessarily assume that conciousness implies time in making decision. Hence, your definition does not apply to God. But I would not maintain that God is not concious. He merely makes decisions eternally (in eternity); there is no deliberation or movement - He makes the decision from eternity and reaches the conclusion from all eternity. There is no movement or change called for.

Except that these all apply to created determination, which is not spoken of God.

That does not follow at all. A God who is unlimited acts constantly without deliberation. Also, He is necessarily not limited by time.

Only if you assume human or angelic determination. However, God is utterly simple and hence takes no time in making determinations.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

PS -Happy Solemnity of the Baptism of Our Lord!

God created time when He created things to exist in space that had minds.

Sure, go right ahead. But to say that I am not using the same definition of concious as you is not to say that God is not concious. Maybe we can say that God is intelligent instead, as this more clearly expresses the fact of the matter. God does not deliberate, but He wills from all eternity.

This seems totally irrelevant. God is simple, no division. He has no difference between His deliberation and His action.

I don't see the point with the Superman reference.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

PS - Are you not a native English speaker? Just curious.

That would be utterly contradictory. If we merely begin with the knowledge that a first cause is necessary, time obviously does not apply.

Second, this phrase does not make sense.

[quote ] Than God did not create intelligence.

Is act temporal? There is no reason that a cause (which is a variety of act) is temporal. A formal cause, which is the structure/idea/form of a thing, does not act necessarily in time. An efficent cause (the reason something exists in the particular way it does) does not necessarily act in time, but this is I think the main definition you give to act. The final cause of a thing (what its term/end is) does not act in time, as for example the end for a rock falling exists in time. The material cause of a thing (what constitutes a thing) is not temporal by necessity; the cause as matter of a rock is atemporal.

If you "hacked" His mind, He must exist. Boo-ya!

It does not equal 0 x Infinity. There is no reason it ought to. You don't justify the leap there. Besides, God's eternity is not really expressable in mathematical concepts, because He is outside of time as its cause.

Frankly, there is no continuity between these statements.

You are defining the terms as an assertion of why I am wrong. Justify how you mean these things. How do you arrive at the position that 'outside time is to have no time to do anything.' Further, your analogy likewise doesn't make sense as it does not prove anything contradictory about the first statement.

God is outside of time, but He acts from eternity. There is no division between one action or another. He acts always and continually because He is pure act.

God creates time and I don't see what my statement has to do with it.

Why? There is no reason to suppose that. God is, by definition, the first cause. He has no ulterior cause and is necessary to posit any subsequent causes.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

PS - Anyone else is free to interject at any time.

If you wish, you are welcome to post something on a different track and I will answer it seperately. Or, you can message me and I can reply to it privately. I agree, however, that this is getting rather silly (and, possibly, useless).

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

What kind of theist? I assume a variety of Christian, yes? 

I would disagree that that is my position. All human knowledge is in the mind, by definition. Maybe you misunderstood what I mean by "reason / natural reason" by which I mean "the mind's ability to discover truth without Revelation." The Christian/Catholic never abandons reason in the sense of the reasoning human mind and logic; "Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology." However, I would disagree that natural reason is the only method to arrive at truth. Further, faith is based on the foundation of natural reason, as "grace perfects nature." There are certain truths that are beyond our human ability to know naturally; God reveals these truths in order that we can attain salvation. We know by natural reason that our happiness consists in the Beatific Vision in heaven and likewise we know that we cannot attain this without God giving the gift. Thus, it becomes a logical conclusion that God would give it. Revelation gives us the specific revelation of how God grants His grace to us and how we can recieve God's grace, though we can know by natural reason that God's grace is necessary (because, by definition, our possession of eternal happiness is beyond the achievement of our nature without God).

True faith cannot ever be in contradiction either to logic or to truths we know by our natural reason. Nor have I ever claimed that they are.

 Regarding what the Catholic Church teaches, I quote the Catechism: "

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."[11] Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".[12]

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.[13]

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error". [14]"

Faith only exists in a world that presumes logic. Faith uses logic just as much as natural reason does. They never contradict.

I never claim faith to be intuitive knowledge.

Except that I never claim this.

I claim:

1. We know that God exists, because the world necessarily needs a cause.
2. We know by natural reason that our eternal happiness lies only in a knowledge of God (the Beatific Vision).
3. We know by natural that the only way we can arrive at a knowledge of God as He is in Himself and to attain the Beatific Vision is to be given this by God Himself.
4. We know by natural reason that God could give this grace to man.
5. We find that Christ claimed to be God.
6. We find that Christ substantiated His claim to be God with miracles that only God could do.
7. We can logically conclude that Christ is God and that His claims are likewise from God.
8. Christ's claims do not conflict with what we know naturally.
9. Christ revealed that we can only attain salvation by His doctrine.
10. We are thus led by these external proofs, assisted by the action of the Holy Spirit in our souls, to accept Christ's teaching and to be baptised as a member of His Church.
11. Thus, we can attain salvation and eternal happiness.

While I do not prove each premise there, each is merely an outline of how faith occurs. It is never in conflict with reason.

I am not a fideist, nor do I reject reason. It would be false to believe that the Catholic Church does so. I encourage you not to abandon hope but to examine my claims.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

The first thing that needs to be said is that I was not offering my proof for God's existence, but merely stating that He is provable as the cause of the universe in the outline showing how one moves to faith.

Second, the existence of God can be proven five ways:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

   The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

   The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

   The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

   The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

PS - That would be Saint Thomas Aquinas speaking in the proofs. I copied them from the ST because I thought it better than rewriting them.

Michael,

Your words used in the definitions of fallacies:

Argument from Ignorance

Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.

God is logically necessary (another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven) because real things exist (because there is a lack of evidence for a theory explaining the existence of real things.)

Begging the Question: An argument which begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way.

God, as the cause of all other existences (because god exists), is the necessary existence for the universe. (god is necessary)

...for all existing things to exist, there must be at least one necessarily existing cause of all things. (There is not another proven theory of why things exist) This argument is in my favor as it is the proof for God's existence. (Therefore, God exists - ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE)

As things exist, they require a necessarily existence to sustain/create them. It is clear that there are possible existences (the chair can cease to exist, as can my dog) and this requires a necessary cause.(Because there is not enough evidence for a theory of why existing things exist) Thus, God is logically necessary because real things exist. (Therefore, God exists - ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE)

It's there in front of you Michael. I'm not going to refute Aquinas because it's been done in great detail on other threads.

I am not claiming that there is not enough evidence to prove that the universe was not created, so that it must have been created. I am claiming that the universe exists in a manner that is purely possible. A possible existence, by definition, cannot exist on its own. It must come into existence. As such, the universe requires a cause which is necessary (which cannot go out of or come into existence). God fulfills this requirement.

It does not have to do with a theory for the existence of real things. The universe has objects in it which exist. Some cause must exist for their existence, because they are possible existences. Thus, a cause exists. This first cause which explains the existence of things is God.

This was merely a conclusion. Because God causes all other existences, His existence is the necessary cause for the universe (or else other things would not exist), as no other cause could be prior to Him (otherwise He would not be the first cause).

It has nothing to do with the argument from ignorance. The existence of the universe requires a necessary cause. It has nothing do with a 'proven theory.' In fact, it merely posits that a 'theory'/origin/cause of the universe must exist, regardless of what it is. This is what we call God.

Aquinas' argument cannot be refuted because it is correct; I see no logical gaps or problems with it. Further, I have read most arguments against this proof and find them utterly non-convincing, possessing bad logic.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

The Big Bang requires a cause. It has very little to do with the cause of material motion.

 Further, it is not purely the prime mover argument, as that is only Via 1. I have made mainly reference to Via 3 (or 2).

There is no argument justifying that there is.

This proof could not be used to substantiate Hinduism, as it necessitates one God (which the Hindus do not have). It might be argued to substantiate Islam, but that is irrelevant as it still logically requires a God. All I am proving here and for the purposes of this debate is that God exists. At the moment, we do not need to go further than that. I believe it is identifiable with Christianity, but really that identification involves an acceptance of Revelation on faith. The most I could show is that, by something of a process of elimination and checks to natural reason, almost all world religions except Christianity and Judaism are not in keeping with this God (that we know exists). It amounts to an elimination with probable proof, but Revelation is not proven by natural reason and is only accepted on faith.

The whole point is that a first cause must exist. An infinity of causes is impossible, for then there would be no causes subsequently existing. A first cause, regardless of what it is, must exist (and we would point to this cause as God). If something caused 'X,' then 'X' is not the first cause, and hence not God. But a first cause must exist.

The cause of the universe is not necessarily a material cause of movement. God is not just a motion machine in the sense of material motion. God causes the existence of things.

The Big Bang requires a cause, however, and that is all that is necessary to be said. Material causality does not even need to be spoken of, as God is logically prior to them.

There are many types of cause. The atom must exist, in the first place, in order to be emitting radiation. The atom must thus have a cause. Also, the atom must be radioactive, which indicates that it acquired instability in some way. I am sure that there is a cause for the emission of radiation, but it is irrelevant to the proof.

It is not. Everything must have a cause of some sort, otherwise it would not exist. Again, an infinite regress of absolute efficent causes is impossible.

I meant that physical laws exist, indicating a lawliness to the universe. The fact that physical laws can exist proves that an ordering agent must exist.

Aquinas says nothing of the sort. The degrees in which we can speak of something as more or less perfect than another indicates that an absolute standard which provides being to our standard must exist. It is different from what you are arguing against.

God is absolutely simple, though, as a matter of fact, not complex (for that would imply some sort of division).

The motion spoken of in the proof is not force. Rather, Aristotelian motion indicates change. The most fundamental change necessary would be movement from non-being to being.

What God is cannot be naturally defined except in relation to the cause of the universe. We have no a priori knowledge of what He is, and even by looking at a posteriori proofs we cannot prove more than that He exists, regardless of what He is.

We can only know what God is by Revelation, which requires faith.

Zeus and Jupiter, ect. are impossible because they contradict what we know of the nature of God by reason of Him being the cause of all things (that He is one, ect.).

It can be proven that this God is further omniscient, omnipotent, ect. but I wish to focus first on whether or not this proof is cogent (which I believe it to be).

It is not. There is no reason why it would be.

Absolute standards of morality are not contradictory. Morality might depend largely on intent and circumstance, but that does not mean that the disposition of the will and its objects cannot be classified as evil objectively (or good). Slavery is immoral, but its morality is a rather complicated example for many reasons (If you want, we can talk about it further).

In matters of the Bible, the Bible reveals what the natural law and eternal law is. Now, the morality of slavery is fairly clearly expressed in a few places, such as the Epistle to Philemon. The Bible indicates that slavery is a bad practice, but can be tolerated if it meets certain conditions (whereby we treat slaves in a manner that is moral, ect.). It can be talked about further, but it is rather a complex question.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

PS - I am not trying to avoid the question on slavery, I just have to do other things. If we want to discuss it in more detail, just say so. However, it seems we ought to focus more clearly on the first question of whether God exists before we move on.

You asked, not me, but you asked if I agreed that the universe needs a first cause.

No, I don't.  I think this is a special plead fallacy. I say as much here:

Refutation of the kalam argument.

 Shaun

God is the name for the first cause. We merely posit that one is necessary. It cannot be a singularity because a singularity has potency and thus cannot be the cause prior to all other causes.

No, to believe that the God proven by natural reason is identical with the God of Christian Revelation can be said two ways. From natural reason's perspective, we cannot only speak of certain attributes flowing from His being (such that He is one, all powerful, ect.) but not of what He is. From faith, we know His essence (One God, Three Persons, ect.). The Christian religion identifies its God as the first cause. The first cause exists. Hence, God, according to Christians, exists. It can be said that faith enters in to the discussion, because the Christian posits things of its God which are not and cannot naturally be known (that He is Three in One, and became man, ect.). It does not beg the question.

If the FSM was the first cause he could not be made of spaghetti. Hence, he is not God. The name we give to the first cause is God, we do not go the other way around because we cannot know what God's essence is by our natural reason. We can only posit that a first cause exists and has certain qualities. We call this being God.

No, it is impossible to know God's essence without God telling you about Himself. We can know that God exists because we know that a first cause exists which we call God.

I pointed that out that Zeus was not a cause of all things, ect. In response, "Zeus" is not the first cause for precisely that reason; he is not a first cause, but a child of the Titans and king among the gods. In a certain sense, Zeus is God because the Christians commandeered the term of "deus" or "theos" from the Greek pagans to speak of God (the pagans of course meaning their divinities). The Christians and Jews use this term in the same general sense (a cause of the things of this world, the order of this world, governing this world, a being beyond nature as a causing agent). It was, in other words, an analogous use of "divinity."

In response to Shaun:

Before we begin, I do not accept the "kalam" argument. I accept the argument of Saint Thomas because it is clearer and less logically ambiguous. 

On both sides, including the fact that an "actual infinite" in the techinical sense of the term is not what is indicated in the proof.

Second, the use of "time" is not in either Aristotle's or Aquinas' proof for the existence of God. It has nothing to do with the fact of when time began. It has to do with a necessary cause for existence in general, applying equally to temporal or even non temporal being.

In fact, Aristotle agreed, as well as Aquinas, that a potential infinity of both matter and time exists, though it is not actualized. The actual infinite cannot exist in natural bodies because a body's nature is, by definition, finite and quantifiable. For example, there can never be an object with an actually infinite surface area in existence. Even in the question of actual infinites apart from matter, no real infinity is possible because all things must be termed in order to be understood. Even the mathematical term "infinity" requires a limit to be set to infinity in order for it to even hypothetically exist. All numbers are, by definition, measured by some quantity; if there is no limit, it is not properly a number. This said, no actual infinity can exist either in physical or mental magnitudes. Potential divisions, however, obviously exist because matter or number can always be subdivided even though continuous (though it is not actually so divided).

Lastly, even though I discussed the topic of actual infinity, the actual infinity as a technical term in mathematics does not apply in the sense you are attempting to. The mathematicians are trying to use the idea that an infinity can be actually concieved as set. They are trying to show that it is a definite enough limit to consider it a set of numbers (which I would disagree with, nevertheless, as above). This has very little impact on the question of whether an infinite regress of causes is possible. An infinite regress is possible only accidentally, where we consider that my hand moves a dog which moves a rock, ect. ad infinitum. An actual infinite of causes is different because it posits that something can exist absolutely without limit, which is impossible. All subsequent causes cannot exist if no ultimate cause exists as their foundation.

Finally, the ultimate first cause must exist, regardless of what caused what. This is why, if something caused the cause, it is not the first cause and hence not God (who is defined philosophically as the first cause). God = "the first cause of all things"

The ontological argument does not apply as I do not advocate it.

It is not pointless.

Well, I cannot address all of those in one post because it would take quite a long time. First, let's talk about God.

 Assuming the first cause exists, the first cause must be purely act, without any potentiality. God is pure act because He, by definition to be God, cannot be caused by anything else. Potency is a lack, while actuality is the presence of being. In God, then, no potency exists because it would indicate that He is caused by something else.

I believe it shall be clear why superstrings, or any material cause cannot fulfill the nature of first cause.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Imagine I posit that a SuperGod created God, since everything must have a cause. I can then state that the existence of my SuperGod cannot be subjected to logical proof because my SuperGod transcends logic. I am thus admitting that it is logically impossible to prove my SuperGod exists. However, since my SuperGod transcends logic, I can also claim that you cannot logically prove my SuperGod doesn't exist. I am comfortable knowing you haven't disproved me. The fact that I haven't proved anything myself doesn't make that comfort any less, well, comfortable.

One of the easiest ways for a believer to reassure themselves that their belief is justified is by placing their belief beyond criticism. Thus, when it becomes obvious that God's existence is logically impossible (or at least not logically provable), the only favorable recourse is to then posit that God transcends logic and thus applying logic is useless. That some ironically package this as logic is irrelevant.

We assume time began at the point the universe began. OK, so how does this prove a first cause? Why couldn't the universe just spontaneously pop into existence? After all, it is no less likely that the universe did just this than God. You can't deny infinity and then use it as an argument for first cause; think about it - if God created time, then before he created it, he must have existed infinitely since not having a concept of time, everything happens at once. But that's impossible, because without time, there is no such thing as "before". Therefore, if God created time, he must have created himself whilst doing so, which of course is absurd. Unless you admit that God existed infinitely which brings me back to the fact that you can't deny infinity when attempting to prove a first cause - why even does one need to posit a creator if one can already accept that something exists infinitely and thus just apply that same principle to the universe? The universe, in some sense existed infinitely because until the universe came about, there was no "before" (there being no time). And if the universe existed infinitely then there is no need to posit a first cause.

It's also logically impossible that everything needs a cause, and yet there be a first cause. It's a self-contradiction and therefore logically impossible.

However, I can't see why infinite regress is impossible. It is merely because the concept of infinite is hard for humans to grasp that we assume it's not possible. However, if we are to believe time began at the time of the universes birth, then, in some sense, the universe has existed infinitely.

And because my SuperGod isn't bound by logic, the following will be true:

(P1) You have to believe in Jesus (follow him, worship him etc.) to be saved.
(P2) I don't believe in Jesus (don't follow him, don't worship him etc.)
-------------------------------------------
(C) Therefore I will be saved (illogical conclusion from (P1) and (P2)

It's only because you aren't paying any attention.

First, we observe around us things which influence other things, and we call that causation. To speak of causation, we have a few criteria:

1. First, A caused B when they belong to the same space and are somewhat near to one another - that is, you can measure the distance between A and B. This presupposes space.
   
   
2. Second, A has to happen before B or at the same time. This presupposes time.
   
3. Third, A must have the potence to act on B. This presupposes the existence of both A and B.
   
4. Fourth, A has to transfer energy on B.
   
5. Fifth, logic must be presupposed. A must have a logical connection to B, it must be logically possible that A caused B.

1. Either, the chain is infinite, that is, it has no beginning. The whole chain is uncaused, because there cannot be a first cause. It is the fallacy of composition to assume that the whole chain is caused, and even if you assume that, you are simply prolonging the infnite chain, which does not make it better.
   
2. Or, the chain has a beginning. In that case, the firt element of the chain is uncaused.
   
3. Or, you have to assume the the chain is a circle: A caused B, B caused C, ... Z caused A. But this circle - though everything belonging to that circle is caused - is, as a whole, uncaused. To assume that it was caused brings you to the second option: That what caused the circle to exist has to be uncaused, or leads to an infinite chain of causes.

• One god has caused the universe to exist.
• Two gods have caused the universe to exist.
• Three gods (and so on, until we have an infinite number of gods) have created the universe.
• Every of these gods could have been a material being.
• Every god could have had limited power and limited knowledge.
• Every god could have died in the process.
• The creation of the universe could have been a side-effect of some other purpose (e. g. an accident), so no god cares for the universe.
• One or more gods could have transformed themselves to the universe, this could even been an act of god-suicide.
• A natural force could have been the first cause (e. g. a quantum fluctuation).
• Everything of the above in some combination.
• The universe could have been its own first cause.
• Another universe could have been the cause of this universe.
• A superior civilisation in another universe could have created this universe.
• In the future, a civilisation could build a time machine and create the universe, simply because this is necessary.
• At the end of time the universe could create a god that will be able to exist out of time and this god will create the universe, just because this god would otherwise destroy its own existence.
• There could be a time-loop - at the end of time the universe will recreate itself and start all over, just because that will be necessary.
• And so on ... (listing all possibilities would make this posting one of the longest postings on this board)

Not to mention that P1 is false and not what I claim. God is in existence and does not have a cause. Tell me you have a higher opinion of me than that

I claim that something cannot be the efficent cause of its own being; God included. God is uncaused causer, without prior cause. He indeed must be because we cannot posit an infinite series of efficent causes, for then no subsequent efficent causes would exist. The same goes for motion - God is not "in motion" but all that which is "in motion" must be put into motion by a mover. This calls for an unmoved mover, not a self-moved mover. A self-moved mover would be a contradiction.

Actually, the nature of it as first cause defines what it can and cannot be. It rules out most of these possibilites, as I previously discussed here or elsewhere.

This is the only possible answer because the first cause must be One. God cannot have any division in Him by matter, by number, by any thing at all (even between what He is and how He is). He must be One, without exception.

Which is impossible because each "God" would have the exact same "definition" or essence and hence they would all be the same thing (because they do not and cannot possess matter). Hence, there could only be one God.

Cannot be material as this would imply potency. The First Cause cannot have ANY potency whatsoever, otherwise something would have caused it and it would not be the first cause.

God would have to have both infinite power and knowledge. First, because something is knowable insofar as it is immaterial. God is immaterial for the reasons listed above. Hence, God has knowledge in the highest degree as He is most free from matter. Further, there are other proofs that can be offered that God knows in an infinite manner. God also must be purely powerful if He is pure act, because power denotes the ability to act upon something else. God must possess this, as He causes every other thing to exist, without limit.

The process...of what? Creation? God cannot die, as He has no material body (as proved above), and death can only occur in the dissolution of a material body.

No it could not. If we assume that there is a first cause, it must possess the characteristics I am speaking of from logical necessity. It cannot be a body for the reasons spoken of, nor could it be limited in any other sense. The First Cause would be the very act of existing, knowing itself and the universe and causing it to exist.

How does this follow at all from my premises? If God is the first cause, He cannot commit suicide or destroy His being (as He is being itself).

Again, no it couldn't because the fluctuation is both material and is a possible existence, denoting a further necessary existence on which it depends; it is clear that it is possible because it begins and ceases to act - a fluctuation. Further, it depends very clearly on the nature of space/time to exist.

Impossible for the above reasons: nothing can cause itself in the same way and same respect, the first cause cannot be a body, the universe experiences generation, corruption, and is thus in motion (hence, dependent on a necessary mover, efficent cause, and necessarily existing being).

But that does not mean that we would not eventually arrive at a first cause. It could have been, but that universe depended on something else, ect., back to the First Cause.

Maybe, but unlikely. False for the previous reason: the existence of the civilization and its universe would have to depend on something else, ect. back to the First Cause.

Nothing can be the cause of itself in the same way and same respect. Further, how? No human can create anything ex nihilo. The only way, then, would be to posit that matter existed from eternity and that man caused human life. But this is a seperate argument. Further, this eternally existing matter still requires an efficent cause. Lastly, we know the universe did not exist from eternity from science (at least, it contradicts all known evidence).

Man can create ex nihilo? Silly idea.

No agent can be its own efficent cause, because it would be logically prior to itself. The same arguments can be repeated.

It is the term we use to designate the cause of all things. We need to define what we mean by "divinity," where you seem to take it to mean something akin to "superhero," which is not what it meant even among pagans. It designates something as the ruler or creator of the natural universe.

I am being accused of being too creative all the time. Anyway, it is an ad hominem.

Design is not something I am advocation, nor the ontological argument, nor these other arguments. I believe that the universe is rationally ordered, but that is not the same thing as design, properly speaking in reference to the modern "design" theory.

First, even if we assume that there might be faith involved, but it is not a "leap" of faith at all. It is supported by perfectly acceptable natural conclusions about the First Cause. Second, I doubt that faith is required in this leap, because the First Cause can be designated God outside of having to associate it with Christianity/Judaism. Third, regardless, it proves that God exists. Fourth, the Christian religion just identifies its God with the First Cause - no leap needed. Fifth, by a process of elimination, the Christian God is the only one that both fits these criteria and claims to do so (which is equally important).

The Christian God is defined as the First Cause. However, I point out that it proves God exists, regardless of which religion you have to associate such a God with (but, of course, this God must be one, all-powerful, all-knowing, ect.).

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

God is the creator of all things which are external to Himself. We never claimed that God must create Himself.

God creates intelligences in things, but is Himself intelligent.

Further, you misunderstand how God is intelligent. God is intelligent as the cause of intelligence in things, and as their exemplar. God is not a created intelligence, by definition. The reason created things have intelligence is because it primarily exists in God.

This follows from God as being the Prime Mover, as His essence and existence are identical. God is.

That does not follow from the premise.

God is not in motion, but He moves other things. No contradiction is found. The only contradiction that can exist is when you superficially interpret the words and make a structure like the following: God moves and does not move. If the sense of the first word indicates God is "in motion" as a mover, and does not mover others, then this would be an open contradiction. But this is not is what meant, or what was indicated, so that proof fails.

I am pointing out the logical errors in the demonstration, not attacking logic itself.

First, the Casimir effect is not uncaused. It depends on the existence of space in order for there to be fluctuations in space. The nature of space is the efficent cause of the Casimir effect.

Second, no thing in movement is uncaused. If it possesses motion as a quality, it was put in motion by another and hence had an efficent cause (a mover).

God foreknows all future events and personal choices, but this does not necessitate that they are unfree. God's will is the source of our freedom. God wills absolutely and antecedently: absolutely, God wills every particular thing to happen the way it ought to happen and in this sense He wills that our free decisions can happen (in order for them to exist); antecedently, He wills that our evil moral decision ought not to happen, as He does not want us to sin. But these two wills are very different, and the first does not impose necessity upon the willed (other than the necessity that their wills are free, as their freedom depends on God willing them to be so).

Again, God can allow moral evil as a consequence of free choice in human beings and angels. He wills in an absolute sense that all things are free, and only in an accidental way that each thing does not sin. His will that things do not sin is coterminous with His will that all things are free. God wills that all men do not sin freely.

Atheism is not a lack of belief in general. It is a lack of religious belief. I contend that many atheists have a blind faith in the truth of their own propositions. That is not to say that they believe in God. There are different senses of faith.

It has nothing to do with the concept of the gods that you have. If you identify your gods as the First Causes of the universe, they must possess the same attributes as a result. But, you may ask, why can there not be two identical "God"s? These would both have the same definition and, without matter to individuate, would be the same God.

Because minds are not the same as brains.

Things exist without bodies all the time. God cannot have a body because He is the First Cause and pure act. To be pure act, He cannot possess any potentiality, such as a body. So God neither exists in space, nor has bodily dimensions.

Again, omnipotence (the ability to do all things)only includes things that are absolutely possible (all things). God, as First Cause, cannot will Himself into nonexistence because it would be a contradiction. Further, He is not a body and cannot "blow Himself up."

You have yet to demonstrate such a contradiction and hence have proven nothing.

It does have a similarity between cultures (all cultures seem to believe in ruling divinities of some form or another with general qualities that are above those of man), but this is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The First Cause is demonstrated to exist, and this is what we are calling God. Fairy tales, Icelandic myths, and Japanese ghosts are not the issue at hand. We are talking about philosophy and demonstrated logical necessities.

God is, in a manner of speaking, an immaterial energy; God is pure act (act being a sense of energy). However, it would be wrong to identify this with physics and their energy (which indicates a material energy, the act of things in motion; this energy is action, but it is act dependent upon matter).

Free will exists because, while God foreknows all things, He does not determine their outcome. He likewise preordains everything by His absolute will, but this merely has to do with sustaining the freedom of our will in the first place (which could not exist without God so ordaining). God wills that we freely choose, and wills all our actions happen as free.

God is the cause of moral evil only indirectly in tolerating it as a result of free will. In His will, simply, He does not will (and cannot will) evil.

It was a proof, not a set of probabilites.

First, the affadavit does not indicate truth of the book (nor is that what the affadavits intend; they are declarations that the people in question encountered the 'golden plates' discovered by Joseph Smith). Second, the Mormons could be said to believe in the Bible; they have a different interpretation and they do not reject our Scriptures in their parallell revelations. Third, it would not be hard to find hordes of people in order to sign an affadavit that the Scriptures are true; but this is no proof of their truth, regardless. 

I don't get it. Why is God a robot? God cannot be if He is the First Cause. An more advanced civilization could have created ours, but God would likewise have to be their cause of existence as well as ours.

First, matter came into existence in the Big Bang. Second, matter can be destroyed; matter and energy cannot be destroyed. Third, this only applies inside the universe post-creation.

Your assertion, not mine. Demonstrate how man could create a universe ex nihilo. God can, by logical demonstration. Man cannot.

First, the concept of a first cause is from before Christ, not arbitrarily from 1200 AD.

Second, no scientific empirical evidence can contradict the metaphysical proof for God's existence because they are operating on different levels of "proving."

Third, science proves no such thing.

The First Cause is not a physical thing, so it cannot be "physically non-sense," but it is not logically nonsense. You have yet to adequately demonstrate that. Don't count your chickens...

God does not kill babies. Humans do.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

There is no justification for P3, P5, or P6; but basically just P3.

That only applies to physical motion. God is not a physical motion. Efficent causality does not require local motion.

The Casimir effect has to do with a force of attraction from quantum fluctuations, not from matter arising from nothing.

Second, virtual particles do not come from nothing, they come from space.

If you want to maintain that there is nothing, which is rather contradictory when you say that "nothing exists."

Actually, it includes all possible universes. Not just the "observable" universe, whatever that means.

You are posting quite alot on a pure bit of speculation. Even the controversial and hypothetically unprovable theory of superstrings does not claim that much.

We are putting a bit too much weight on pure speculation. Even if it is energy or a particle, it doesn't matter because it exists and requires an existing agent to keep/bring it into being.

Yes, it must assume an infinite universe. However, it does not seem that an infinite universe exists. Regardless of whether one exists or not, it has no level at which it would clash with the argument for a First Cause.

And?

What does this have to do with anything? We are now on a tangent discussion with no relevance to the issue at hand.

There are physics professors who molest children. There must, then, be a desire that is squelched by physics that renders physics intrinsically untrue. Harvard alone has had more child molesters on its roll than most dioceses. 

Further, the Catholic Church does not suppress sexual urges. The Catholic priest/religious (monk, nun, sister, friar, ect.) expresses his sexuality in an appropriate context through his vows/promises. He forms appropriate friendships and social contacts.

Further, even if it did, who cares? It does not demand release. Intelligent people contol their desires constantly, suppressing them by use of their reason. If you have to go to the bathroom, you don't just crap all over yourself immediately. No, you control your desire and suppress the urges. Even married couples do not just go at it whenever they get the urge; they control their desires and exercise their marital rights in the appropriate contexts.

 Lastly, the Church does not condone such behavior. If it did, something might be able to be said. But just because Catholics themselves sin does not have any impact on the truth of its claims in general.

Phooey! This is bad logic. "Allow homicide to prevent homicide." There are certain things to which this applies, and certain things to which it does not. You paint everything the same color.

Further, there is no justification for your claim that "many criminals are in a downward spiral due to religious stigma and sin." If anything, a criminal ought to be encouraged to seek forgiveness and pursue a virtuous life. You might just as well say that he is in a downward spiral due to the stigma attached to such crime from the law; in that case, ought we to destroy law?

It has nothing to do with religion. There is further no unique reason for "religion" being the cause. Again, it is bad logic which paints many categories the same color.

Lastly, again, this is an irrelevant discussion which bears no weight directly upon the subject at hand.

Atheism has to do with a denial of religious belief. But that does not mean that they cannot have faith in a general sense. An atheist has faith in their friend when he tells him it is raining outside. An atheist can have faith in his own beliefs.

 Again, this does not make sense in the argument. There can be no "god of clarity/confusion," because each god would be exactly the same "God." There can be no such thing as a "god of clarity/confusion" if each god is the First Cause.

Bad standard. A stone is not concious because it does not exercise the activity that goes with thought.

Further, to say a brain = a mind would indicate that a dog, a rat, a cockroach, a flea, all have minds.

Further, a mind is not the same thing as conciousness.

Further, this is not a necessary relationship described. There is no intrinsic reason a mind cannot exist without a body.

Further, it is provable that the mind is not dependent upon any material organ for its existence. The easiest proof is to look at the fact that sense data decreases in sensibility as the sensation becomes more intense, whereas an idea becomes more intelligible to the mind as it becomes more knowable. The mind is thus not a material organ.

Your idea and your thoughts do not have space or dimension. Do they exist?

Further, it is arbitrary to say that an immaterial thing does not exist. Why not? There is no justification.

Offer your own reasons instead of merely referring somewhere else.

Further, omnipotence is defended there as well.

No argument here, so I need not respond further.

In such a universe, nothing would exist. If things were argued to exist, I would argue that they must be materially determined and no free will was possible (because all action would be determined by matter's previous movement and all actions would basically be mathematically calculable; also, no meaning could be given to the concept "free&quot.

God creates free will and ensures that it is free by His creation of it. No contradiction is found.

Again, this is irrelevant and doesn't answer the question.

But the pink elephant does exist in your mind and without matter.

The concept of what it is "to know" is inherently immaterial and there is no reason to associate it with physical action. My process of knowing is by finding an idea "within" a physical object. But the knowing is beyond the material world.

We can know that God is a subsistent immaterial being from the Prime Mover argument. The Prime Mover must exist without matter. Further, the human mind can exist without matter as a subsistent immaterial substance (and this was shown above).

It depends on senses of the word "natural."

No, the will must merely be free of external violence. A will is free, for example, when it makes a decision based upon reasons (when I choose a fish sandwich over a chicken one), even though it does so with dependence on reasons.

You defined "free" in this way, not I. I think this is an absurdity of defining free will in this way.

What?

Except that this does not answer anything I said. I do not believe Mormonism to be true, nor is there any reason why it is.

I said that affadavits could be produced by myself and affixed to the front of my Catechism that its contents were true, but that does nothing to prove they are true. In fact, there are certifications on the front of Catholic Bibles and Catechisms that they are in conformity with the Church's teaching ("imprimatur" and "nihil obstat" among other things). This does not mean that, for example, on seeing this, you immediately can accept the Scriptures or the Catechism as true. It depends on further evidence and authority beyond the certifications.

God, in fact, does not have emotions, nor does He feel pain. He is incorruptible. Sometimes, Christians speak of God as being sad about something (God is sad that you sinned, ect.), but it is an allegory or analogy.

Yes, and this text did not exist five minutes ago, either.

Then why did you bring it up?

That is correct. Christians do not claim that there was time outside of when God created the universe. The universe nevertheless had a beginning at/in a time.  

Even then, you can never imagine nothingness. But that does not mean that God cannot create from nothing. He does not use preexisting matter, or preexisting space. There is nothing other than God, and then He creates the universe. He does not make nothing into something, absolutely. But where once only nothingness was, now exists something.

That's your problem, not mine.

 And I am not claiming that you ought to accept that God exists based on faith. I am claiming that you ought to accept that God exists based on reason alone. You can know that God exists without faith, and it is knowledge.

Further, faith is a type of knowledge. It is not "anti-knowledge" (as such a thing cannot exist). Faith has justifications and reasons, but they are different than purely natural inquiry (like science or physics or philosophy). Faith believes that a proposition is true because God has revealed it (and God cannot decieve, nor can He be decieved). Faith accepts some thing as true because of the authority that reveals it is trustworthy. Thus, it has a rational justification.

Again, that is not what "faith" is. 

I do not believe that God exists, I know that He does by natural reason. I believe that God is Trinity (I do not know that by natural inquiry, nor can I discover it naturally speaking).  

Thus, you can accept the proof I offered in the First Cause argument and God's existence is logically necessary to posit that the world exists. It is not faith at all.

My reasons are not emotional, nor psychological, nor mystical. I accept the existence of God because my reason demonstrates it (just as my reason demonstrates that three angles in a triangle must equal 180 degrees). Even in matters of faith, I do not base my faith in non-reason. Faith is a rational acceptance of things which are revealed by a greater authority. I believe that Christ was God because He performed works only God can do. Likewise, I believe what He taught because He is God (as I can rationally deduce from the former). In the same way, His Church teaches truth from God, because He (as God) promised that it would. Thus, rationally, I accept these positions without emotion or mysticism.

Yes, God is a spirit. A seperated spiritual substance, like an angel or a human soul that exists seperate from the body. God is higher than these in an absolute sense, but He is still a spirit.

We know by means of material images, but we know immaterial realites. Our knowledge of God discloses Him as a spiritually subsistent substance.

That is exactly what I am saying. Meaning and ideas exist apart from neurons. God exists apart from matter and is a subsistent spiritual being. We cannot know from effects what a spiritual substance is per se because it does not exist in matter. It can only be known as causing or effecting something in matter. This is the only way, by natural reason, that we can know about God - by His effects. This does not tell us much about what He is in Himself. This is what Revelation is: Revelation is God telling us what He is in Himself. But we can know that He exists and that He is One by our natural reason. We know that He is Three in One by what He has told us.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

PS -

It does not. Show me some place where it does.

I would like to ask:

Why is it unreasonable to have an infinite series of causal events? Everything I have seen has had a cause. Indeed, everything everyone has seen has had a cause. So... Why does there have to be something that hasn't been caused? 

What existed before this god (first mover, huggy bear, whatever one might call it) supposedly created the universe?

I would also like an explanation for the assertion that something can not come from nothing. What makes that statement any more truthful than something must come from nothing, or something always comes from nothing?

And I would likewise like an explanation for the assertion that everything that 'begins to exist' must have a cause. We know of nothing that 'begins to exist', except possibly particle/anti-particle pairs, which as far as we know, have no cause. To say that everything that begins to exist has a cause seems to be directly contrary to any evidence we presently have.

[quot

Yeah, thanks for all that, though it has nothing to do with why I asked that question. That's the problem with assumptions.

I ask what existed before god created the universe and you say "Nothing". Surely there was your god. God must have existed if he was to create. Being as that god is infinite would it not be that god created the universe from god, instead of ex nihilo? After all 'nothing' didn't exist, god did?

Exactly my point. The same applies to nothing coming from nothing. Show me pure nothingness and show me nothing coming from it. The statement that 'something can not come from nothing' is a baseless assertion. There is no reason to believe this to be true.

This is another baseless assertion. Show me something that can go in and out of existence that is caused or uncaused.

The statue can no longer be a statue, but the 'stuff' of the statue cannot cease to exist. Everything that exists within the universe has existed inside the universe for as long as the universe has existed. It may have changed form from time to time, but the 'stuff' itself has existed. There is nothing we know of that begins to exist in the way the universe would have had to have begun to exist that could lead us to the rational conclusion that the universe need to have been created. (the only thing that comes even close is the particles I referred to which are uncaused as far as anyone has yet determined).

The fact is that just because we believe these statements to apply within the universe, there is no rational reason to believe they apply to the universe itself. This whole first cause argument is based in statements that we have no good reason to believe are true.