wiegraf:

If he isn't necessary that would mean he (very) likely doesn't exist, not that he necessarily doesn't exist, no? That he's surplus to requirements (by quite some way imo, so much so it's illogical to assume he exists), but not definitely so. Unless I'm missing something, of course.

What you are missing is the entire meaning of the word "necessary" as per philosophy.

Kay 17: 1. God is a necessary being

2. If God exists, he necessarily exists

3. God is a Supernatural Cause.

4. Causes can be Natural.

5. A cause is either supernatural or natural.

6. A cause is not necessarily Supernatural.

7. Therefore God is not necessary and hence can not exist.

Wow, I find it hard to believe that you of all people blundered this badly

Let me see if I can break it down for you:

1. The laws of logic are necessary laws

2. If the laws of logic exist, they necessarily exist

3. The laws of logic are non-physical

4. Laws can be physical

5. A law is either physical or non-physical

6. A law is not necessarily physical

7. Therefore the laws of logic are not necessary and hence cannot exist

See I've just disproved the laws of logic. Now spot the error in my argument (as you do I'm sure you'll spot the error in yours as well)



Have a Happy Sunday.

Mr Anony

Deep Sight:

What you are missing is the entire meaning of the word "necessary" as per philosophy.

I'm certainly no philosophy buff per say. I'll look it up, thanks

Mr anony:
Wow, I find it hard to believe that you of all people blundered this badly

Let me see if I can break it down for you:

1. The laws of logic are necessary laws

2. If the laws of logic exist, they necessarily exist

3. The laws of logic are non-physical

4. Laws can be physical

5. A law is either physical or non-physical

6. A law is not necessarily physical

7. Therefore the laws of logic are not necessary and hence cannot exist

See I've just disproved the laws of logic. Now spot the error in my argument (as you do I'm sure you'll spot the error in yours as well)



Have a Happy Sunday.

Mr Anony

But laws are all non physical (information in the least). Also I linked God to his primary function as a Cause which ought to make his existence totally necessary.

However there isn't sufficient reason to have a supernatural cause supercede a natural cause.

EDITED

Kay 17:

But laws are all non physical (information in the least). Also I linked God to his primary function as a Cause which ought to make his existence totally necessary.

However there isn't sufficient reason to have a supernatural cause supercede a natural cause.

EDITED

lets b a lil exact here. "primary FUNCTION as a cause" - wrong.
Function means bhvr e.g the primary function of ur hart is to pump blood . But d attributes of a hart aint pumping blood.
The attributes of a hart equips it to perform its "primary function"


"there isnt sufficien reason to have a supernatural cause supercede a natural cause.."

bogus.
Wat dyu mean by supersede?
A thng supersedg anoda thng only if dat other thng exsts, then
d superseding thng bcomes a replacement.
If a supernatural cause supersedes a natural cause then theyl b only one cause standg-d supernatural cause- and evry1 wud b in d supernatural realm.

Instead of typing so much to point out y ur arg is a misfit. Brevity requires mor economy. I.e just call ur prose crap or nonsense etc..

God exist and there is no point that one can bring to dispute that

odumson: God exist and there is no point that one can bring to dispute that

Yawn. Where is your proof for God? Why does he need you to tell us he exists?

kambo:

1. lets b a lil exact here. "primary FUNCTION as a cause" - wrong.
Function means bhvr e.g the primary function of ur hart is to pump blood . But d attributes of a hart aint pumping blood.
The attributes of a hart equips it to perform its "primary function"


2."there isnt sufficien reason to have a supernatural cause supercede a natural cause.."

bogus.
Wat dyu mean by supersede?
A thng supersedg anoda thng only if dat other thng exsts, then
d superseding thng bcomes a replacement.
If a supernatural cause supersedes a natural cause then theyl b only one cause standg-d supernatural cause- and evry1 wud b in d supernatural realm.

Instead of typing so much to point out y ur arg is a misfit. Brevity requires mor economy. I.e just call ur prose crap or nonsense etc..

1. What are you saying? Where are you standing?

2. Since there isn't one Cause, but two; where does that place God as a supposed necessary being?

kambo:
I may make an effort later to respond more fully to this incoherent babble by the OP.
but , if he's really convinced he did his best and is only being bashed out of wrong sentiments,
he can anonymously email his posting to a more respected authority (or authorities)
and observe their replies.
most wont bother replying
or will politely correct him
the impatient ones who've had a bad day will tell him the raw truth.

posting as if your learning rules of grammer and thinking at the same time while composing ur post..

interesting to see some atheistic solidarity here.
God or no God/ man can't do without a sense of FAMILY and that is God's invention. isnt God wise?

** terribly bored of this site,nowadays..**

God invented the sense of family? Yet it didn't occur to him to create a family rather than having Adam alone roam the garden? He didn't realize that Adam didn't have a companion from those animals? You must be joking.

Deep Sight:

You didn't?

I didn't. Can you tell me what the flaw was?

Mr anony:
Wow, I find it hard to believe that you of all people blundered this badly

Let me see if I can break it down for you:

1. The laws of logic are necessary laws

2. If the laws of logic exist, they necessarily exist

3. The laws of logic are non-physical

4. Laws can be physical

5. A law is either physical or non-physical

6. A law is not necessarily physical

7. Therefore the laws of logic are not necessary and hence cannot exist

See I've just disproved the laws of logic. Now spot the error in my argument (as you do I'm sure you'll spot the error in yours as well)



Have a Happy Sunday.

Mr Anony

The error in your argument is that you've made a category mistake.

God is supposed to be a causative agent but laws are rules we've derived based on axioms.

thehomer:

God invented the sense of family? Yet it didn't occur to him to create a family rather than having Adam alone roam the garden? He didn't realize that Adam didn't have a companion from those animals? You must be joking.

To put it lightly. It's similar to saying god created 'being', or a sense of being even. If there were no being before god, how did god come into being?

Somewhat similar to what this thread is about methinks.

kambo:

lets b a lil exact here. "primary FUNCTION as a cause" - wrong.
Function means bhvr e.g the primary function of ur hart is to pump blood . But d attributes of a hart aint pumping blood.
The attributes of a hart equips it to perform its "primary function"

Doesn't the heart cause the blood to circulate round the body?

kambo:
"there isnt sufficien reason to have a supernatural cause supercede a natural cause.."

bogus.
Wat dyu mean by supersede?
A thng supersedg anoda thng only if dat other thng exsts, then
d superseding thng bcomes a replacement.
If a supernatural cause supersedes a natural cause then theyl b only one cause standg-d supernatural cause- and evry1 wud b in d supernatural realm.

Instead of typing so much to point out y ur arg is a misfit. Brevity requires mor economy. I.e just call ur prose crap or nonsense etc..

I couldn't make any sense of this response. Can you try to be a bit clearer about what you're saying here?

thehomer:

God invented the sense of family? Yet it didn't occur to him to create a family rather than having Adam alone roam the garden? He didn't realize that Adam didn't have a companion from those animals? You must be joking.

Bring ur brains wt u wen u com on here .
Adam was d pre eminent 1, in God's creation. He was d son of God. The root and terminal of humanity. The Seed tht wud strt d human race, he ddnt need to b couched in a human family (taught,guided,instructed,loved,protected,corrected,reprimanded,cautioned etc). Tht was wat God was there fore afterwards, he and his wife wud hav a family and train thm as God had trained them(adam,eve).

thehomer:
Doesn't the heart cause the blood to circulate round the body?

go bck and read k17s reply tht made post ths.
Function and attributes are 2 different thngs . He is ascribing a function (wat God can do) to an attribute (who God is).
Attribute precedes functions.
His argument error ,wrong assignment, is subtle and flawed and injects meangs not there .. "God's primary function is to cause...". Halt it here.
U hav a hand with 5 fingers (attribute) but their function isnt to hold thngs. It transcends tht.
Your fingers feel surfaces, serve as primitive weapons, are balancing tools (fall breakg,exercise etc). But this is all possible cuz of they way d hand is designed (its attributes).

thehomer:
I couldn't make any sense of this response. Can you try to be a bit clearer about what you're saying here?

either the poster made a mistake , using d wrd suprsede, or he was deliberate. If he was deliberate his argument bcomes meangless.
because wen somethg supercedes anoda, only one of the two objects bcome effectve. The superceded item bcomes redundant or nonexistent. E.g wen an announcement supersedes a previous one, you dnt hav 2 effectve announcements , one bcomes old news and not bindg anymore.
The bible doesnt talk anywhere of supersessions . But co existence.
If, he made a mistake and wasnt deliberate thn its anoda cuppa tea.
Point, his choice of wrds created a different meangs and unsupported assumptions.

^^^

@kambo, we appreciate your difference btw attribute and function, however how does it affect my argument?

Ain't God arguments built around "No God no universe"?

EDITED

Kay 17: ^^^

@kambo, we appreciate your difference btw attribute and function, however how does it affect my argument?

in many ways. Ur argument is distortive of d facts upon whch christianity rests.

This is d post i responded to:

Kay 17:

But laws are all non physical (information in the least). Also I linked God to his primary function as a Cause [/b]which ought to make his existence totally necessary.

However there isn't
[b]
sufficient reason to have a supernatural cause SUPERCEDE a natural cause.

EDITED

IF God's primary function is a cause. Then he of necessity at some point in His existence in accordance with his primary bhvr (function) must CAUSE anoda entity to come into being. E.g
Create d universe.
This is nowhere supported in d Bible. So it makes no sense,biblically.
This is an assumption u came up wt and use as a supplied premise frm christianity, to build ur argument with.
GOD created d wrld not as a functional consequence, but as a volitional consequence. Meang, he dd it arbitrarily. He very could hav chosen not to and still b God.
A heart, cannot b functiong(alive) and not pump blood.
A hand cannot b functiong(alive) and not grasp,punch,feel.
But God can b functiong (alive) and not create anythg!


The second bolded was anoda messy argument soup.
Lets ignore the semantics of d wrng wrd u used like Reason "sufficient reason".
U meant sufficient facts/evidence.
Reason is out of d question.
But christianity blves tht d supernatural (spirit wrld) created d physcl wrld with God being the agent in d spiritual wrld causg the physcal one to materialise.

D wrd supersede alters ths premise.
If we ignore dat wrd we go back to the age old debate , evolution vs Creation.

Either way, i was drawg attntion to the errors in ur response not ur initial posting. I told u earlier tht critiquing tht post wud b too exactg ... See ths simple crap u wrte takg up so much response time.
Organise properly ur tots b4 u shoot.

Logicboy03:



lol.....you want to be denunked?

The only people that are getting denunked include you and ur fellow atheists. I'm tired of ur continuous distortion and want to set the record straight.

Let me start: first you guys believe that there's no God and science is the ultimate right?

kambo:

in many ways. Ur argument is distortive of d facts upon whch christianity rests.

This is d post i responded to:



IF God's primary function is a cause. Then he of necessity at some point in His existence in accordance with his primary bhvr (function) must CAUSE anoda entity to come into being. E.g
Create d universe.
This is nowhere supported in d Bible. So it makes no sense,biblically.
This is an assumption u came up wt and use as a supplied premise frm christianity, to build ur argument with.
GOD created d wrld not as a functional consequence, but as a volitional consequence. Meang, he dd it arbitrarily. He very could hav chosen not to and still b God.
A heart, cannot b functiong(alive) and not pump blood.
A hand cannot b functiong(alive) and not grasp,punch,feel.
But God can b functiong (alive) and not create anythg!


The second bolded was anoda messy argument soup.
Lets ignore the semantics of d wrng wrd u used like Reason "sufficient reason".
U meant sufficient facts/evidence.
Reason is out of d question.
But christianity blves tht d supernatural (spirit wrld) created d physcl wrld with God being the agent in d spiritual wrld causg the physcal one to materialise.

D wrd supersede alters ths premise.
If we ignore dat wrd we go back to the age old debate , evolution vs Creation.

Either way, i was drawg attntion to the errors in ur response not ur initial posting. I told u earlier tht critiquing tht post wud b too exactg ... See ths simple crap u wrte takg up so much response time.
Organise properly ur tots b4 u shoot.

Most of what you are saying are distractions. Your post isn't so coherent, I can hardly sieve out a position. Who said anything about Christian God??

Kay 17:

But laws are all non physical (information in the least). Also I linked God to his primary function as a Cause which ought to make his existence totally necessary.

However there isn't sufficient reason to have a supernatural cause supercede a natural cause.

EDITED

I see you missed the point. Let me try again

Consider this example of a bad argument:

1. Greek is a language,
2. Socrates is Greek
3.Therefore Socrates is a language.

Note that while 1 is true and 2 is true, 3 is not true because 1 and 2 are not true in the same sense. The above is the classic fallacy of equivocation.

======================================================================================================================
Now onto your argument.

I thought my initial mirror argument would make the error in yours evident to you but since you still missed it, I'll tackle your argument one last time. point by point

Kay 17: 1. God is a necessary being

2. If God exists, he necessarily exists

True. However, I hope you do realize that what is meant by this is that the entirety of nature is contingent on the existence of God. To put it simply No God, No Nature

3. God is a Supernatural Cause.

To be more precise: God is the supernatural being(transcendent to nature) that caused nature(the natural world) itself to begin to exist.

4. Causes can be Natural.

True.

5. A cause is either supernatural or natural.

True. In the sense that a supernatural being can cause something as well as a natural being can equally cause something.

6. A cause is not necessarily Supernatural.

True. Again In the sense that a supernatural being can cause something as well as a natural being can equally cause something.

7. Therefore God is not necessary and hence can not exist.

Here lies your "Socrates is a language" moment. Notice that you have equivocated "being" to "cause" by slyly taking advantage of an ambiguity in the English language.

In case what I said still isn't clear, consider yet another example:

1. Seun is the Cause of Nairaland
2. Causes are not human beings
3. Therefore Seun is not a Human being.

I hope I have been clear enough for you.



Once again, have a great day.

Mr Anony

Kay 17:

Most of what you are saying are distractions. Your post isn't so coherent, I can hardly sieve out a position. Who said anything about Christian God??

distractions. Incoherent. Christian God.
How will u understand wen u hav a trck record of producg disjointed ramblgs.
Distractions frm wat?
Incoherent in wat sense - u mis assign wrng proerties to an entity
(mistake attributes and functionality) , build an argument on a distorted premise then crown it up by tryg to refute a non existent religious belief.

"who said anythg about a christian God"
u were talkg about a muslim God?
Or a pagan God?
Or non religious God?
Or u xpct theists responders to reply ur post without recoursg to
their belief systems- yet u consult
ur belief system: evolution, science etc.
Is there any scientifc recognition of a spiritual realm?
Anyway, were general enuff to be understandable in d broadest possible sense cuz it adopted a general theistic viewpoint. Though d perspectve is biblical.

my responses were not to ur Op. I said tcklg tht wud b tedious. My arguments were to a reply u made , which was to defend ur position. I dealt on the nature of tht reply: wrong assumption, missassignment (you created an entity called God wch is different from d bible entity), wrong meaning created by wrong use of words ("no reason to believe..", "supersede". With this contraption of urs u went ahead to marshall ur points! .
It is ths invented device of urs wch in no way represents any partcular theists model,tht u want to draw a conclusion with. Sorry bros,
it doesnt wrk tht way.
Thts like sewg cloths fr a person with d wrng body measurements.
Correct model b4 advancing further arguments.

Kay 17:

Before we get to that, is the argument valid on its own premises and conclusions??

Capital NO because its conclution is FUALSE; NOW answer my own QUESTION? WHO DECIDES WHAT IS NECESSARY

Mr anony:
I see you missed the point. Let me try again

Consider this example of a bad argument:

1. Greek is a language,
2. Socrates is Greek
3.Therefore Socrates is a language.

Note that while 1 is true and 2 is true, 3 is not true because 1 and 2 are not true in the same sense. The above is the classic fallacy of equivocation.

======================================================================================================================
Now onto your argument.

I thought my initial mirror argument would make the error in yours evident to you but since you still missed it, I'll tackle your argument one last time. point by point


True. However, I hope you do realize that what is meant by this is that the entirety of nature is contingent on the existence of God. To put it simply No God, No Nature


To be more precise: God is the supernatural being(transcendent to nature) that caused nature(the natural world) itself to begin to exist.


True.


True. In the sense that a supernatural being can cause something as well as a natural being can equally cause something.


True. Again In the sense that a supernatural being can cause something as well as a natural being can equally cause something.


Here lies your "Socrates is a language" moment. Notice that you have equivocated "being" to "cause" by slyly taking advantage of an ambiguity in the English language.

In case what I said still isn't clear, consider yet another example:

1. Seun is the Cause of Nairaland
2. Causes are not human beings
3. Therefore Seun is not a Human being.

I hope I have been clear enough for you.



Once again, have a great day.

Mr Anony

From 1 to 6 to the exclusion of 3, we are in order.

3. God is also a supernatural being and a Cause sometimes referred to as the first cause, cos the world is an effect of him.

So no ambiguity in my belief.

Kay 17:

From 1 to 6 to the exclusion of 3, we are in order.

3. God is also a supernatural being and a Cause sometimes referred to as the first cause, cos the world is an effect of him.

So no ambiguity in my belief.

God is the first cause of the cosmos in the same sense that Seun is the cause of nairaland i.e. a being bringing something into existence

I think my point has been made quite clearly

^^^
I always have issues without your analogies cos they mostly don't give a good representation.

My use of Cause to describe God wasn't to suggest he is inanimate or lifeless or unnecessary. My argument is in good order.

Besides, you accepted all the foregoing premises!

Mr anony:
God is the first cause of the cosmos in the same sense that Seun is the cause of nairaland i.e. a being bringing something into existence

I think my point has been made quite clearly

Is God really the first cause of the cosmos? Are you sure there isn't a natural explanation?

Seun didn't cause Nairaland out of a vacuum, he created it using machines that were already available, tools that were already available but what did God cause the cosmos out of?

thehomer:

Is God really the first cause of the cosmos? Are you sure there isn't a natural explanation?

Seun didn't cause Nairaland out of a vacuum, he created it using machines that were already available, tools that were already available but what did God cause the cosmos out of?

His spoken Living wrd.
Hebrews 11 v 3.
"...what is seen is made out of what is not seen..".

Suen created NL usg pre made tools. Made by other men etc.
God used tools created by other Beings? Analogy breaks dwn here!

kambo:
God used tools created by other Beings? Analogy breaks dwn here!

Lol. Anyone who's been following Kay's posts recently would have realised this was where the argument was heading.

Going back to the sidelines.

Morning Kay,

Brilliant!...this is simply brilliant...but...

Kay 17: 1. God is a necessary being

You forgot to state why God is necessary and to whom is he necessary to...

Do you mean that he is necessary for man to exist? Or do you mean that he is a necessity for the existence of everything and everyone?

Let me take it that your meaning is that God is a necessity because he made all that is not in existence to come into existence...

Kay 17:
2. If God exists, he necessarily exists

This really is a repeat of the first premise with a little twist...probably meant to introduce the element of doubt. If he exists then he becomes necessary because of the aforementioned reason but if he does not then the argument ends here.

Hence, you hinge the existence of God on whether he is necessary or not...the argument should have started here in my opinion because this brings forth the crux of the argument...

Kay 17:
3. God is a Supernatural Cause.

Statement meant to introduce the position of Theists I guess...

Now how is God Supernatural? The likely answer would be because he is not part of nature i.e he is beyond nature...this is reasonable I believe.

A computer programmer is not necessarily part of his program...in a similar vein, an inventor is not necessarily part of his invention...hence God is not necessarily part of his creation i.e. he is not necessarily governed by nature and its laws.

Kay 17:
4. Causes can be Natural.

Agreed but we should not forget that these natural causes were brought about by this supernatural cause...without the supernatural cause there won't be any natural cause...this actually is the position you attempt to disprove.

Kay 17:
5. A cause is either supernatural or natural.

Okay...

Kay 17:
6. A cause is not necessarily Supernatural.

Agreed but the natural causes are not necessary because they wouldn't have existed without the supernatural cause...have it in mind that this has not shown that the supernatural cause is not necessary...

In order to show that the supernatural cause is not necessary, there is a need to demonstrate that the supernatural cause is not needed for the natural causes to be...anyways, this still depends on your definition of what is natural.

Kay 17:
7. Therefore God is not necessary and hence can not exist.

You have not demonstrated that God is not necessary...look at it this way...

'A' causes 'B', 'B' causes 'C'...your argument now is that since 'A' and 'B' are both causatives therefore 'A' is not necessary...but this does not follow because without 'A' existing, 'B' or 'C' would not exist.


EDIT:

If the argument is intended for Theists then it would make sense but to an Atheist, it would have failed from the beginning.

kambo:

His spoken Living wrd.
Hebrews 11 v 3.
"...what is seen is made out of what is not seen..".

Suen created NL usg pre made tools. Made by other men etc.
God used tools created by other Beings? Analogy breaks dwn here!

Its breakdown means either that God didn't create the universe or that he used something that was already present.

striktlymi: Morning Kay,

. . . .

You have not demonstrated that God is not necessary...look at it this way...

'A' causes 'B', 'B' causes 'C'...your argument now is that since 'A' and 'B' are both causatives therefore 'A' is not necessary...but this does not follow because without 'A' existing, 'B' or 'C' would not exist.


EDIT:

If the argument is intended for Theists then it would make sense but to an Atheist, it would have failed from the beginning.

If all you can observe is C and maybe B, at what point can you introduce A?