thehomer:

A hallmark is not necessarily a conclusion it's a distinguishing feature.*1

Ok. So do you think humans have freewill?*2

It seems you are attempting to shift focus by introducing some unnecessary details. Here is a direct question.*3

Which of these statements is/are true. You may pick more than one option.*4

A) The moon is larger than the sun.
B) The sun is larger than the moon.
C) Both objects are the same size.

Believing something does not make it true.*5

*1 >>> your statement comes of as false when i consider how you said that atheists too are superstitious/religious >>> thus free-thinking isn't the distinguishing feature of atheists

*2 >>> yeah

*3 >>> i wasn't trying to be trickish >>> both of those statements were at points in time held to be truths

*4 >>> B is the only one that's true

*5 >>> so what ? >>> truths that are believed in turn out to be lies with new knowledge gained >>> truth loses essence if it is not believed in >>> (or put another way) truth has no meaning to a person who doesn't believe in it >>> "man is the measure of all things"

Kay 17:

Subjective truth? You will definitely have the risk of running into contradictions! Reality dwells on in the comfort of objectivity*1

Freethinking in relation to religion, is obscured and discouraged. Dogma has already laid the system of beliefs.*2

*1 >>> contradictions eh ! >>> objectivity ah ! >>> the thing is objectivity is much subject to paradigms >>> the ruling paradigm in this case being the increasingly-revered scientific method >>> your statement of objectivity smacks of pride >>> if you muse upon it >>> you would, of course, conclude that there is so little we know inspite of and because of how much we know

*2 >>> if you say so >>> but that's not all >>> religion is a mode of free-thought and yes ! >>> dogma has a role in science

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> your statement comes of as false when i consider how you said that atheists too are superstitious/religious >>> thus free-thinking isn't the distinguishing feature of atheists

Are you deliberately misquoting me? Please go back and read through my posts.

I said atheists can be superstitious or religious. And I never said free-thinking was the distinguishing feature of atheists. I said the non-belief in a God is generally the end result of critical thinking.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> yeah

Can a human decapitate himself, turn his head around and stitch it back on?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> i wasn't trying to be trickish >>> both of those statements were at points in time held to be truths

That is simply irrelevant. The fact is that only one of them was true all along. Whether or not they knew it.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> B is the only one that's true

Why? You said truth was only relative. So if someone believes A is correct and says so but another believes C is correct and says so, are they both telling the truth?

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> so what ? >>> truths that are believed in turn out to be lies with new knowledge gained >>> truth loses essence if it is not believed in >>> (or put another way) truth has no meaning to a person who doesn't believe in it >>> "man is the measure of all things"
. . .

This is simply absurd. The fact that a person does not believe that they would die if they fell freely to the ground from a height of 8,000 metres does not mean that the person will not die. The truth is that such a person will die whether or not they believe it.

We need to define Truth. And then seperate it from opinion. Ft, obviously means a licence 4 intellectual cooking which transcends borders of politics n religion. 4 sure religion doesn't grant such free rein. Science is self corrective. Demonstrate religion is such.

Speaking of what is true and what is not true. . . NASA just discovered new form of life (bacteria) different from anything we know. SO I guess all that stuff we learned in biology class is bollocks.   

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html

thehomer:

I said the non-belief in a God is generally the end result of critical thinking.

You are joking, right?

Can you tell me how "critical thinking" would support the incongruity of an uncaused universe?

What does the law of cause and effect tell us?

What do the various laws of motion tell us?

I am sorry, Homer, but this statement of yours is farcical and absolutely ill-considered or not considered at all.

I would adjure you to draw a distinction between the gods set out within the cosmogony of religion - and that element which perforce must pre-exist to render the universe extant - which element I state to you as GOD. For I say to you that while it may be apt to discard the cosmogony of God as conceived by religion, critical thinking certainly cannot discard the conception of God as a philosophical and logical construct as the uncaused, necessary and non-contingent element the existence of which is cardinal to render the universe extant.

thehomer:

Are you deliberately misquoting me? Please go back and read through my posts.

I said atheists can be superstitious or religious. And I never said free-thinking was the distinguishing feature of atheists. I said the non-belief in a God is generally the end result of critical thinking*1

Can a human decapitate himself, turn his head around and stitch it back on?*2

That is simply irrelevant. The fact is that only one of them was true all along. Whether or not they knew it.*3

Why? You said truth was only relative. So if someone believes A is correct and says so but another believes C is correct and says so, are they both telling the truth?*4

This is simply absurd. The fact that a person does not believe that they would die if they fell freely to the ground from a height of 8,000 metres does not mean that the person will not die. The truth is that such a person will die whether or not they believe it.

*1 >>> this conclusion is much biased

*2 >>> no

*3 >>> correct but, so what ? >>> the point it is >>> it wasn't self-evident to both right from the start >>> hence relativity

*4 >>> i said "truth is relatively absolute and absolutely relative" >>> however it could so be that with future knowledge gained B could turn out to be a lie

*5 >>> as a matter of fact your statement is false >>> people can, in fact, survive such a fall >>> one greater than that >>> check GWR and get yourself wowed >>> i get and agree with your point though >>> but it doesn't simply apply hard-and-fast as you connote >>> i still assert that truth makes meaning to those who believe in it

Ah, Deep Sight. I'm afraid it's your opinion that is really curious o. You can never say it's more rational to believe in God on the basis of His being uncaused because that begs the question, what caused Him? It's mathematically improbable that the universe just came into being outta nothingness but it's even more mathematically improbable that there's something that has always been which created all things. So I'd say critical thinking will lead to a conclusion that a supreme being is extremely unlikely, not impossible though. Belief in God is largely just that, a belief. It can't really be reasoned out cuz there'll always be a better argument.

^^^ I state to you that your perception is altogether misfooted, and I state this as follows -

vescucci:

Ah, Deep Sight. I'm afraid it's your opinion that is really curious o. You can never say it's more rational to believe in God on the basis of His being uncaused because that begs the question, what caused Him?

I did not state the basis of belief to be the fact of God being uncaused. I stated - that there must be an element which pre-exists the universe and I proceeded to derive that element as a philosophical and logical construct.

This is strictly consistent with logic because it is inconceivable that the universe pops out of nothingness without a cause, without a reason, without a principle or rationale.

Now you are the one who has applied the word "being". . .I very deliberately used the word "element" for the specific purpose of this discussion.

It's mathematically improbable that the universe just came into being outta nothingness but it's even more mathematically improbable that there's something that has always been which created all things.

By what means did you arrive at your assessment of these probabilities?

I have news for you sir: there ARE elements and factors that are definitely eternal and cannot logically be said to have had a beginning.

1. Infinite time

2. Infinite Space

3. Numbers

By what process of reasoning could you presume that these had a beginning? Is it not also beyond cavil that everything needs must have arisen within these self-existent factors?

Do you hope to contradict or deny this?

So I'd say critical thinking will lead to a conclusion that a supreme being is extremely unlikely, not impossible though.

Again for the purpose of this discussion I have defined God as a pre-existing element responsible for all else that exists. I have also been very clear that the concept of God delivered by Religion is NOT that which I speak about. I speak about a philosophical and logical construct which infers the pre-existence of an uncaused element or factor, and I call that factor God.

There is NO critical thinking which leads to any conclusion that may logically deny the precept of a pre-existent element in these terms - the best that you can do is to point out internal inconsistencies in the religious ontology of God, which is NOT that which I advance to you.

Belief in God is largely just that, a belief. It can't really be reasoned out cuz there'll always be a better argument.

I would like to hear the "better aruments" that you think may be advanced?

Perhaps one such may be that. . . .BING! The universe pops out, purposely and meaninglessly, out of nothing. . .?

Would that make sense to you?

That, I submit, is worse than believing in fairy-tale magic.

Deep Sight:



I have news for you sir: there ARE elements and factors that are definitely eternal and cannot logically be said to have had a beginning.

1. Infinite time

2. Infinite Space

3. Numbers

. . . and Circles. These definitely cannot be said to have a beginning.

Pastor, you seem to have an affinity with circles. I am sure I have read you state a zillion times that time, nay, existence may be cyclical and not linear.

I doubt that you've heard it a zillion times, but certainly you've heard it many a time.

A cyclical existence. I like that. Let's work with that.

Do you suppose a cyclical existence will -

1. Deny the spirit new frontiers

2. Dovetail into a sureality of repeated experiences

Whereas a linear existence will eternally push new boundaries.

This is with regard to the human spiritual experience. . .which I do not know if you also apply a cyclical construct to.

With regard to existent things as a whole. . .what would you regard as the purpose of existential cycles?

Deep Sight:

A cyclical existence. I like that. Let's work with that.

Do you suppose a cyclical existence will -

1. Deny the spirit new frontiers

2. Dovetail into a sureality of repeated experiences

Whereas a linear existence will eternally push new boundaries.

This is with regard to the human spiritual experience. . .which I do not know if you also apply a cyclical construct to.

With regard to existent things as a whole. . .what would you regard as the purpose of existential cycles?

Human spiritual experience!!

Define a spirit/soul or whatever entity you guys think actually reside in a human being. And exactly where is this spirit/soul thing located?

Martian:

Human spiritual experience!!

Define a spirit/soul or whatever entity you guys think actually reside in a human being. And exactly where is this spirit/soul thing located?

I doubt that you are interested in the details, and as such, you may just ignore what I wrote. I think it would work better that way.

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> this conclusion is much biased

Yes it's biased towards statements that are verifiably true.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> no

Why not? I ask because this person has free will and wishes to exercise it this way.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> correct but, so what ? >>> the point it is >>> it wasn't self-evident to both right from the start >>> hence relativity

Whether or not it was evident, only one of them was actually true.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> i said "truth is relatively absolute and absolutely relative" >>> however it could so be that with future knowledge gained B could turn out to be a lie

Truth is relative to what, falsehood?

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> as a matter of fact your statement is false >>> people can, in fact, survive such a fall >>> one greater than that >>> check GWR and get yourself wowed >>> i get and agree with your point though >>> but it doesn't simply apply hard-and-fast as you connote >>> i still assert that truth makes meaning to those who believe in it

People such as?

Whether or not one believes a statement is true would not stop the statement if true from affecting such a person when necessary.

Deep Sight:

You are joking, right?

No I'm not.

Deep Sight:

Can you tell me how "critical thinking" would support the incongruity of an uncaused universe?

Why would any one expect this concept of cause and effect to apply to the universe as a whole at the time of its expansion?

Deep Sight:

What does the law of cause and effect tell us?

About what?

Deep Sight:

What do the various laws of motion tell us?

About what?

Deep Sight:

I am sorry, Homer, but this statement of yours is farcical and absolutely ill-considered or not considered at all.

It was well considered. You're free to demonstrate the problems with the statement.

Deep Sight:

I would adjure you to draw a distinction between the gods set out within the cosmogony of religion - and that element which perforce must pre-exist to render the universe extant - which element I state to you as GOD. For I say to you that while it may be apt to discard the cosmogony of God as conceived by religion, critical thinking certainly cannot discard the conception of God as a philosophical and logical construct as the uncaused, necessary and non-contingent element the existence of which is cardinal to render the universe extant.

Why should I? If you wish to redefine God in some way, you're free to do so but do not expect others who have a conception of what the word 'God' means which is actually shared by a very large number of people to simply make way for you and your new definition. You're also perfectly free to use another word for this 'God' of yours.

Why is this 'God' of yours necessary and non-contingent? Do you wish to go with a fallacy of special pleading to explain his necessity and non-contingence?

saying the spirit/soul lives in a human being is plain locution. it is as intangible yet potent as an electromagnetic field looming around some boring metal piece

Martian:

Human spiritual experience!!

Define a spirit/soul or whatever entity you guys think actually reside in a human being. And exactly where is this spirit/soul thing located?

Lol, I've missed DS.

Deep Sight:

^^^ I state to you that your perception is altogether misfooted, and I state this as follows -

Lol. In other words: you're wrong.

Deep Sight:

I did not state the basis of belief to be the fact of God being uncaused. I stated - that there must be an element which pre-exists the universe and I proceeded to derive that element as a philosophical and logical construct.

This is strictly consistent with logic because it is inconceivable that the universe pops out of nothingness without a cause, without a reason, without a principle or rationale.

Look, I believe in God. I don't know why I do but I just do. However I don't think there's any logical reason to say He exists. It's just what we wanna believe. Sure it is inconceivable that the universe pops out of anything. I agree. What I said was that it is even more inconceivable that something that has always been created all. It doesn't mean it's not true, it's just more unlikely. I dunno how bees fly with such a tiny wing to body ratio but they do. If you ask what's our purpose, imagine God wondering who created Him. Let's say something did create Him, Imagine that thing asking the same questions.

Deep Sight:

Now you are the one who has applied the word "being". . .I very deliberately used the word "element" for the specific purpose of this discussion.

Being, Element. Tomato, Tomahto. Would you rather you were created by an Element, whatever that is? Being connotes intelligence, nothing more.

Deep Sight:

By what means did you arrive at your assessment of these probabilities?

I have news for you sir: there ARE elements and factors that are definitely eternal and cannot logically be said to have had a beginning.

1. Infinite time

2. Infinite Space

3. Numbers

By what process of reasoning could you presume that these had a beginning? Is it not also beyond cavil that everything needs must have arisen within these self-existent factors?

Do you hope to contradict or deny this?

No, I do not wish to contradict and certainly do not hope to. In my opinion, such things as time and space are not binding factors. They're caused. There can be no time without motion of bodies. No space without bodies. Numbers are in relation to bodies too. 1 means absolutely nothing and is indistinguishable from 2 until you say 1 what and 2 what, because 1 and 2 become 0.5 and 1 depending on how you wanna look at it. Numbers are just constructs. Between 1 and 2, there exists an infinite amount of numbers. 1.447584889573938573985739573 being an example. Time, space and numbers are just ideas.

In any case, the above is not my point. I meant 'somethings' as physical things with mass. If you can give me other examples of 'elements' that have always existed, I'm sure I'll find them interesting. What'd be more interesting though is to tell me how say infinite time can birth a puny finite atom or even the suave thing called energy.

Deep Sight:

Again for the purpose of this discussion I have defined God as a pre-existing element responsible for all else that exists. I have also been very clear that the concept of God delivered by Religion is NOT that which I speak about. I speak about a philosophical and logical construct which infers the pre-existence of an uncaused element or factor, and I call that factor God.

If you know me, you'd find that I consider religious hogwash a bit like Harry Potter books. It's like someone compiling all the nonsense we spew here a millenium into the future and assuming it is holy cuz we're closer to the beginning of time. More and more, I don't know where to place religion. Anyways, you simply find it satisfactory to think that God never came into being. Ok. How is that more probable than we coming into existence by accident? Perhaps the potpourri needed for our creation had always been available. And if you believe that the universe has always been, then the chance of us being created by chance is one. The reason I reject chance creation is cuz I believe in the Big Bang. Note that I never proposed the universe came into existence out of nothing. Even the Big Bang doesn't propose this.

Deep Sight:

There is NO critical thinking which leads to any conclusion that may logically deny the precept of a pre-existent element in these terms - the best that you can do is to point out internal inconsistencies in the religious ontology of God, which is NOT that which I advance to you.

I would like to hear the "better aruments" that you think may be advanced?

Perhaps one such may be that. . . .BING! The universe pops out, purposely and meaninglessly, out of nothing. . .?

Would that make sense to you?

That, I submit, is worse than believing in fairy-tale magic.

Critical reasoning doesn't always have to come to a conclusion. It merely has to choose from two or more probabilities. In this matter there is no such thing as a conclusion. Things popping out from nothing does not make sense to me. God must simply be a first rate cosmic alchemist then. Not as special as everyone thinks.

To conclude, what I've been trying to say is that logic and critical reasoning when faced with the question of God's existence will say it's more likely that he doesn't exist. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. It doesn't mean it does.

cogicero:

saying the spirit/soul lives in a human being is plain locution. it is as intangible yet potent as an electromagnetic field looming around some boring metal piece

I see!! Electromagnetic fields can be proven. Can you do that with the Soul "field"?

@vescucci. Lmao thanks for the translation.

@Vescucci. I gbadun that ur last post. E be like say sugar dey inside. Pardon my frensh

Martian:

I see!! Electromagnetic fields can be proven. Can you do that with the Soul "field"?

amazingly i just found this. traditional yoga agrees with my 'electromagnetic' view

http://yogaoasis.net/kundalini-101/ten-bodies
You have a soul, the spirit by which you live. Your soul is an electromagnetic psyche which puts everything together for you.
Yogi Bhajan

http://www.suite101.com/content/how-to-detect-paranormal-activity-a162135
The Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Detector is a tool that detects fluctuations in the electromagnetic fields of a place and helps to find energy sources. Paranormal activity is often associated with fluctuations of 2.0 to 7.0 milligauss, so anything higher than this may have a different source.

Read more at Suite101: How to Detect Paranormal Activity: Using Technology to Investigate Haunted Places http://www.suite101.com/content/how-to-detect-paranormal-activity-a162135#ixzz175sJMCVO

http://www.suite101.com/content/using-emf-detectors-for-paranormal-investigation-a103136
To detect changes in the electromagnetic field, paranormal investigators first sweep a given area to discover that location’s base reading (In other words, the normal reading). A typical base reading is usually anywhere from 2 to 3 milligaus. A needle on the EMF Detector moves back and forth to indicate changes in electromagnetic energy. The needle moves to the right for higher levels of electromagnetic energy. Any spike on the EMF detector that occurs in combination with a sound, visual evidence, a cold spot, or disembodied voice caught on tape could mean that a spirit is trying to manifest.

Read more at Suite101: Using EMF Detectors for Paranormal Investigation: Find Ghosts Using the Electromagnetic Field http://www.suite101.com/content/using-emf-detectors-for-paranormal-investigation-a103136#ixzz175sVzfpM

agreed its scientific paranormal investigation but didnt you ask for proof?

thehomer:

No I'm not.

You must be. I must also respectfully add that your response was lamentably lazy. No offence intended bro.

Why would any one expect this concept of cause and effect to apply to the universe as a whole at the time of its expansion?

Because the universe is a finite thing which had a definite beginning. It is not eternal in the past.

Everything that is finite and which has a definite beginning also logically has a cause.

Otherwise it would not have a definite beginning: definite beginnings demand a trigger. That stands to reason: and a position to the contrary is nothing short of believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

Perhaps I should place to YOU the very same question: why would any one expect the concept of cause and effect NOT to apply to the universe? ? ?

About what?

The law tells us that no finite effects can be observed in existence where such effects commenced at a given point if there is no cause. This is cast in iron, and I positively challenge you to dispute it: and in so doing cite examples to validate that which you have imagined.

About what?

The laws of motion give us to know that nothing is observed to begin or commence movement without a trigger in the form of energy.

It was well considered. You're free to demonstrate the problems with the statement.

Demonstrated. And easily so. I state to you that your assertion that the end result of critical thinking is atheism is about as ludicruous as stating that the end result of critical thinking is a belief in magic.

For it denotes a causelessness and purposelessness to the wonder of the universe about us: and to the wonder of our innate faculties: which proposition is beyond absurd.

Why should I? If you wish to redefine God in some way, you're free to do so but do not expect others who have a conception of what the word 'God' means which is actually shared by a very large number of people to simply make way for you and your new definition. You're also perfectly free to use another word for this 'God' of yours.

Now this is the specific portion of your post which struck me as lazy.

It is simply not enough for the truly enquiring mind to address the religious ontology of God and remain stuck with it: seeing absurdities therein and not tasking yourself to think beyond that and into the philosophical and logical construct that is denoted by the reference to God.

Indeed all people have a notion of what that construct is: and it simply is the notion of that entity which is responsible for all else that exists. If you and I are able to discern internal inconsistencies in the religiously conceived ontology of that entity, it behoves us to task our minds to probe over and beyond the flawed religious ontology and reflect on that which may be the causative factor of this existence - which factor is what all peoples retain as the core understanding of what God is.

You are like a man who heard footsteps in his yard late at night: and because the neighbours concluded that the footsteps belonged to a ghost, finding that improbable - you conclude that the footsteps belonged to no one: you lazily do not task yourself to ponder the question - given that the neighbours are wrong - who in fact did the footsteps belong to? ? ?

Why is this 'God' of yours necessary and non-contingent? Do you wish to go with a fallacy of special pleading to explain his necessity and non-contingence?

This has nothing to do with special pleading.

This proves to me that you have yet to get off the mark. I have spent too much energy discussing this in the past - I will only urge you to go and school yourself on the elementary philosophical distinction between necessary things and contingent things. Use google. Or wikipedia. That's at least a start.

Krayola:

@Vescucci. I gbadun that your last post. E be like say sugar dey inside. Pardon my frensh

In fact, ehn, while reading his post I had to stop to check if it was not a post from you - because the views expressed were so strikingly similar to the things you have said to me repeatedly!

Anyhow, as you probably already know, I do not agree with it in the least and will revert later.

Duty calls now.

[size=4pt]Dont worry, not guiness stout this time, a woman i need to honour.[/size]

Deep Sight:

You must be. I must also respectfully add that your response was lamentably lazy. No offence intended bro.

Please explain.

Deep Sight:

Because the universe is a finite thing which had a definite beginning. It is not eternal in the past.
Everything that is finite and which has a definite beginning also logically has a cause.

Definite beginning in what sense? I hope you understand that all we do know is that it started expanding about 14.7 billion years ago. So are you claiming that it began expanding because of this undefined 'God' of yours?

Deep Sight:

Otherwise it would not have a definite beginning: definite beginnings demand a trigger. That stands to reason: and a position to the contrary is nothing short of believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

Would you consider scientific laws as causes? Please don't push your misconceptions on me. You are the one assuming some particular entity as being responsible for the expansion of the universe.

Deep Sight:

Perhaps I should place to YOU the very same question: why would any one expect the concept of cause and effect NOT to apply to the universe? ? ?

My point is that we simply do not know if it does apply to the universe because the only evidence we have for this can only be explained within a framework of time which also commenced with the expansion of the universe. And, it becomes absurd to speak of time outside of the universe.

Deep Sight:

The law tells us that no finite effects can be observed in existence where such effects commenced at a given point if there is no cause. This is cast in iron, and I positively challenge you to dispute it: and in so doing cite examples to validate that which you have imagined.

This concept requires time. And time as we know it commenced with our universe.

Deep Sight:

The laws of motion give us to know that nothing is observed to begin or commence movement without a trigger in the form of energy.

Do you wish to posit some sort of energy floating out there outside of this universe? Is this even coherent?

Deep Sight:

Demonstrated. And easily so. I state to you that your assertion that the end result of critical thinking is atheism is about as ludicruous as stating that the end result of critical thinking is a belief in magic.

Wow. I wonder how you relate non-belief in God with belief in magic. How do you draw this comparison?

Deep Sight:

For it denotes a causelessness and purposelessness to the wonder of the universe about us: and to the wonder of our innate faculties: which proposition is beyond absurd.

If you wish to propose a certain cosmic cause please go ahead with your demonstration. And a cosmic purpose please go ahead. I'm curious, what is the purpose of the universe?

Deep Sight:

Now this is the specific portion of your post which struck me as lazy.

Lazy? I'm simply pointing out that you do have your work cut out for you since you seem to wish to make God into something that God believers may not recognize.

Deep Sight:

It is simply not enough for the truly enquiring mind to address the religious ontology of God and remain stuck with it: seeing absurdities therein and not tasking yourself to think beyond that and into the philosophical and logical construct that is denoted by the reference to God.

Of course for the purpose of discussion, this may be fine. To me, it would simply be a waste of time.

Deep Sight:

Indeed all people have a notion of what that construct is: and it simply is the notion of that entity which is responsible for all else that exists. If you and I are able to discern internal inconsistencies in the religiously conceived ontology of that entity, it behoves us to task our minds to probe over and beyond the flawed religious ontology and reflect on that which may be the causative factor of this existence - which factor is what all peoples retain as the core understanding of what God is.

You fail to understand that I see no particular reason to call on an entity to explain the universe.

Deep Sight:

You are like a man who heard footsteps in his yard late at night: and because the neighbours concluded that the footsteps belonged to a ghost, finding that improbable - you conclude that the footsteps belonged to no one: you lazily do not task yourself to ponder the question - given that the neighbours are wrong - who in fact did the footsteps belong to? ? ?

You need a better analogy than this because footsteps already imply person.

Deep Sight:

This has nothing to do with special pleading.

It doesn't?

Deep Sight:

This proves to me that you have yet to get off the mark. I have spent too much energy discussing this in the past - I will only urge you to go and school yourself on the elementary philosophical distinction between necessary things and contingent things. Use google. Or wikipedia. That's at least a start.

Sorry I did not formally study philosophy but from what I've seen, we don't even have to get to this extent because assuming that this God of yours is an uncaused entity that causes the universe is simply a form of special pleading. Otherwise, do you consider the hot and dense state from which the universe began to expand as God?

And I still do not see why this God of yours is necessary.

Mostly when there is debate on religion and secularism the later (i.e secular proponents) tends to lay claim of free thinking and thus must either lead to disblieve in God.  now i often ask my self severally does believe in God  limits the usage of my free thought?


When in reality no one ever question my ability to implore my critical free thought when dealing with decisions that involve saving lives or money.

Does the ability of usage of free thought cannot be interpolate from real life to believe in God?

Does believe in God only criterion and parameter in determining the usage of free thought.

Why cant my free thought leads me to believe in God?

Present you view/s  using your free thought only

Free thought will eventually lead to GOD. We continue to ask questions(free thought) because we seek an answer that is absolute\universal. This is the definition of god. scientists r continuously looking for the universal grand theorem\equation that fits all physics. this is also the definition of GOD. the debate is that some see god(the universal theorem) as a principle only, some as simply the being, & some(including I) see god as both a principle & a being. but we do not yet know absolutely & we continue to seek.

Yes i like free thinking its the beat for these day, of fake religious belief

Now Diaspora Africans have uniform culture, traditions and spirituality with continental Africans.

Religion is perhaps the most potent binding force there is. In fact, there is no other binding force as potent and total. It encompasses a peoples outlook, traditions, culture and philosophy of life. The food we eat and how we prepare it, our manner of dressing, the names we bear, the way we speak or rear our children and our attitude to life generally are controlled by our religions. But because of public persecution and the mental and psychological damage we have suffered as a result of slavery and colonialism, we are ashamed to flaunt what is ours. We hide our native essence behind the popular alien ones.

Every conquering religion claims superiority over those before it and that life began with its advent. Without destroying what is on the ground,

thehomer:

Please explain.

You are making no attempt to either explain or understand the phenomenon of existence. It is lazy to simply state that the religionist is wrong and then sit back and sulk. You need to task yourself to propound what the right answer might in fact be.

It tires me to deal with persons who are so good at asking questions but are never to be seen attempting to provide any answers of their own whatsoever.

Here is the task and the challenge that I leave for you:

Why something instead of nothing?

Provide your answer.

Definite beginning in what sense? I hope you understand that all we do know is that it started expanding about 14.7 billion years ago. So are you claiming that it began expanding because of this undefined 'God' of yours?

Can you advance an intelligible reason for the commencement of the expansion.

I state to you that you can not.

Would you consider scientific laws as causes? Please don't push your misconceptions on me. You are the one assuming some particular entity as being responsible for the expansion of the universe.

Scientific laws do not exist in a vacuum.

You still have to address the founding question before you can discuss anything -

Why something instead of nothing?

My point is that we simply do not know if it does apply to the universe because the only evidence we have for this can only be explained within a framework of time which also commenced with the expansion of the universe. And, it becomes absurd to speak of time outside of the universe.

Time is an intangible non congintent constant.

The experience of time, is what differs.

Time itself is simply a constant, nothing more.

For this reason it is ludicruous to limit time to realm of matter.

It is an intangible.

What you and the misguided scientific community need to more correctly state is that you measure the time of the existence of this universe from the point of the expansion. That is altogether different from stating that time commenced with the big bang. That is hog wash. Time is an intangible constant and cannot be seen to "begin" or "end" anywhere, anyhow.

This concept requires time. And time as we know it commenced with our universe.

Explained above. Time did not commence with the expansion of the universe, contrary to what may be bandied about by misfooted science.

Time is an intangible constant and does not "begin." It cannot begin. It is a constant.

Besides you still have not shown just why the law of cause and effect should not be seen to apply to the physical universe?

Because it is a law observed in physics and the universe is physical.

So sorry, THAT is special pleading on your part.

Do you wish to posit some sort of energy floating out there outside of this universe? Is this even coherent?

What are you talking about? Is it not true as I stated that motion requires energy? Is that not an elementary fact? ? ?

Can you explain to me from whence the energy in the pre-bang singularity originated from.

Oh, I forgot, the atheist santa-claus put it there.

Wow. I wonder how you relate non-belief in God with belief in magic. How do you draw this comparison?

Because non-belief in God equates a belief that things sprang out of nothing purposelessly. That is magic.

If you wish to propose a certain cosmic cause please go ahead with your demonstration. And a cosmic purpose please go ahead. I'm curious, what is the purpose of the universe?

The universe is an outward radiation of the intangible reality that is embedded in the singularity of God.

Lazy? I'm simply pointing out that you do have your work cut out for you since you seem to wish to make God into something that God believers may not recognize.

I repeat that you are being lazy for limiting yourself to what your so-called "God-believers" recognize.

You have legs, use them to walk for yourself.

Of course for the purpose of discussion, this may be fine. To me, it would simply be a waste of time.

There you have it: an admission that you are not inclined to probe. An admission that you regard inquirity and intellectual curiousity as a waste of time. That is most un-scientific indeed, for a man who screams "science!" before every meal.

You fail to understand that I see no particular reason to call on an entity to explain the universe.

What shall you call upon to explain it then. . . the tooth fairy perhaps?

You imagination that the universe pops out purposelessly is a belief in magic - for which you ridicule the religionist.

You need a better analogy than this because footsteps already imply person.

No, they could imply an animal or robot. They could even be a recorded sound.

So you see why you have demonstrated laziness again? - - - The truly inquiring mind keeps all options open and sets out to discern the correct one.

Sorry I did not formally study philosophy but from what I've seen, we don't even have to get to this extent because assuming that this God of yours is an uncaused entity that causes the universe is simply a form of special pleading. Otherwise, do you consider the hot and dense state from which the universe began to expand as God?

And I still do not see why this God of yours is necessary.

This propably explains your misapprehension of the concept of time as something that could possibly have a beginning.

vescucci:

Lol, I've missed DS.

Really!

Look, I believe in God. I don't know why I do but I just do. However I don't think there's any logical reason to say He exists. It's just what we wanna believe. Sure it is inconceivable that the universe pops out of anything. I agree. What I said was that it is even more inconceivable that something that has always been created all. It doesn't mean it's not true, it's just more unlikely.

Self contradictory.

Discern the contradictions - you state -

"However I don't think there's any logical reason to say He exists." - (Statement 1)

Which is scandalously contradictory to your next statement -

"Sure it is inconceivable that the universe pops out of anything. I agree." - (Statement 2)

This statement absolutely and irretrievably infers that Statement 1 is false.

You would need to ponder on this - and this alone and singularly puts a lie to the rest of your post.

It infers directly that there is every logical basis and ratiionale for the belief in a pre-existent entity - God.

In my opinion, such things as time and space are not binding factors. They're caused. There can be no time without motion of bodies.

Time is an intangible constant.

No space without bodies.

False. Into what is the universe expanding ? ? ? ?

Time, space and numbers are just ideas.

This is a shocking statement.

In that case the universe is imaginary, given that it exists in time and space, which you claim are "just ideas."

I won't even start with numbers, for that will obviously be too intense.

In any case, the above is not my point. I meant 'somethings' as physical things with mass. If you can give me other examples of 'elements' that have always existed, I'm sure I'll find them interesting. What'd be more interesting though is to tell me how say infinite time can birth a puny finite atom or even the suave thing called energy.

Infinite time and infinite space constitute an eternal constant which is the well spring of infinite cosmic energy.

This is what radiates outwards and in latter stages forms matter.

If you know me, you'd find that I consider religious hogwash a bit like Harry Potter books.

What is Harry-Potterish is imagining that it is logical to suppose that the universe popped up purposelessly.

Anyways, you simply find it satisfactory to think that God never came into being. Ok.

Yes, because it is an intangible reality, capisce?

How is that more probable than we coming into existence by accident?

This question contains a fallacy. It assumes material things to be already existent, from which state some sort of accident could then contrive us.

How did material things come to exist in the first place?

This question does not apply to intangible things for the very reason of their intangibility.

At all events, anybody who can look at DNA or the contruct of the human eye and faculties alone and imagine chance and accident to be a plausible explanation is not doing much better than the child you believes in santa claus.

Perhaps the potpourri needed for our creation had always been available. And if you believe that the universe has always been, then the chance of us being created by chance is one. The reason I reject chance creation is cuz I believe in the Big Bang. Note that I never proposed the universe came into existence out of nothing. Even the Big Bang doesn't propose this.

Matter is not eternal in the past. It comes from pre-existing energy. You need to reflect on what that energy is.

To conclude, what I've been trying to say is that logic and critical reasoning when faced with the question of God's existence will say it's more likely that he doesn't exist.

How is this different from believing in black magic?

though not decided yet, but Deepsight may have my vote for the poster of the year

Deep Sight:

You are making no attempt to either explain or understand the phenomenon of existence. It is lazy to simply state that the religionist is wrong and then sit back and sulk. You need to task yourself to propound what the right answer might in fact be.

I don't just state that the religious person is wrong. I also give reasons why. As to the right answer, for all I know, there may simply be no right answer. But, we may be able to identify wrong answers.

Deep Sight:

It tires me to deal with persons who are so good at asking questions but are never to be seen attempting to provide any answers of their own whatsoever.

I do provide answers of my own when they are requested as I have done on this thread and others.

Deep Sight:

Here is the task and the challenge that I leave for you:
Why something instead of nothing?
Provide your answer.

'Something' may simply be the default state of universe-like objects. The fact is that based on what we do know, this universe started with expansion from a very hot and very dense state. Why do you assume that there must be 'nothing'? Do you think that infinity exists in this universe?

Deep Sight:

Can you advance an intelligible reason for the commencement of the expansion.
I state to you that you can not.

No I cannot. For all I know, it may be based on unknown laws and interactions but whatever it is, we simply do not know at least not yet. This does not mean you are free to plug this gap in our knowledge with whatever you like and call it God.

Deep Sight:

Scientific laws do not exist in a vacuum.
You still have to address the founding question before you can discuss anything -

Why something instead of nothing?

Like I said, 'something' may simply be the default level of universe-like objects.

Deep Sight:

Time is an intangible non congintent constant.
The experience of time, is what differs.
Time itself is simply a constant, nothing more.
For this reason it is ludicruous to limit time to realm of matter.
It is an intangible.

This explanation goes against our knowledge of physics as Einstein was able to demonstrate and we have been able to verify experimentally, that time is not a constant but varies depending on the strength of gravitational force. This concept is much clearer when the dimension of time is also bound with that of space forming a single dimension of space-time.

Deep Sight:

What you and the misguided scientific community need to more correctly state is that you measure the time of the existence of this universe from the point of the expansion. That is altogether different from stating that time commenced with the big bang. That is hog wash. Time is an intangible constant and cannot be seen to "begin" or "end" anywhere, anyhow.

As long as one is in this universe, time for that person started with the Big Bang. Do you have some sort of access to some other time outside of this universe? Or do you wish to claim that time is infinite?

Deep Sight:

Explained above. Time did not commence with the expansion of the universe, contrary to what may be bandied about by misfooted science.
Time is an intangible constant and does not "begin." It cannot begin. It is a constant.

Then please present your evidence to rewrite our scientific knowledge.

Deep Sight:

Besides you still have not shown just why the law of cause and effect should not be seen to apply to the physical universe?
Because it is a law observed in physics and the universe is physical.
So sorry, THAT is special pleading on your part.

I already explained this in my previous post. Time and space as we know it began with the expansion of this universe. We know this because the space within the universe is expanding and time expands with it. This is not special pleading it is backed up with physical evidence.
On the other hand, you claim time was somewhere out there outside the universe. All I request from you is the evidence you have for this other time that did not commence with the Big Bang.

Deep Sight:

What are you talking about? Is it not true as I stated that motion requires energy? Is that not an elementary fact? ? ?
Can you explain to me from whence the energy in the pre-bang singularity originated from.
Oh, I forgot, the atheist santa-claus put it there.

You're getting things mixed up. I agree with the evidence at hand that this super hot and dense state started expanding. That is where I stopped because I simply do not have evidence to go further. You on the other hand posit some other entity that you identify as God being the cause of this state. So you are the one introducing an entity not I. So, if you wish to posit this entity, how do you explain it? Where was it? What created this entity that caused it to create this universe? This goes on till infinity unless you use a special pleading to create this God of yours. Your only claim so far is that "something cannot come out of nothing". So my question is why do you assume 'nothing' must precede this state?

Deep Sight:

Because non-belief in God equates a belief that things sprang out of nothing purposelessly. That is magic.

Have you considered that I have not claimed that 'nothing' must have been the default state?

Deep Sight:

The universe is an outward radiation of the intangible reality that is embedded in the singularity of God.

What does this even mean? This statement is not even wrong. How can you tell if what you have stated above was not the actual purpose of God?

Deep Sight:

I repeat that you are being lazy for limiting yourself to what your so-called "God-believers" recognize.
You have legs, use them to walk for yourself.

Please understand what you are doing. You are taking a word with an implied meaning to lots of people and you wish to co-opt this word to mean something that may not be recognized by these people. I say it is up to you to make your particular meaning clear and to avoid confusion, you may use another word for this.

Deep Sight:

There you have it: an admission that you are not inclined to probe. An admission that you regard inquirity and intellectual curiousity as a waste of time. That is most un-scientific indeed, for a man who screams "science!" before every meal.

Do you go about scientifically taxing and probing the existence of leprechauns? How about Zeus and Quetzalcoatl? Explanations for such creatures are already available so unless I intend to go into anthropology and similar fields, I don't deeply concern myself about them being real to those claiming they saw them or that they did things for them.

Deep Sight:

What shall you call upon to explain it then. . . the tooth fairy perhaps?

Again, you are the one calling on some entity I am not.

Deep Sight:

You imagination that the universe pops out purposelessly is a belief in magic - for which you ridicule the religionist.

What you have claimed to be a purpose is quite meaningless to me.

Deep Sight:

No, they could imply an animal or robot. They could even be a recorded sound.
So you see why you have demonstrated laziness again? - - - The truly inquiring mind keeps all options open and sets out to discern the correct one.

But you see I have not concluded anything. You automatically conclude that there must be someone causing something out there. I simply go where the evidence leads me.

Deep Sight:

This propably explains your misapprehension of the concept of time as something that could possibly have a beginning.

The concept of time that I apply is that used in the scientific field and this began with he Big Bang. So you again are attempting to use time in an unfamiliar way.

thehomer:

I don't just state that the religious person is wrong. I also give reasons why. As to the right answer, for all I know, there may simply be no right answer. But, we may be able to identify wrong answers.

This is a staggering contradiction. For if you state that "for all you know, there may be no right answers" then it is inconceivable for you to refer to any answer as wrong. That is logically inconsistent.

Furthermore, your musing to the effect that there may be no right answers reflect two things (1) Lethargy - you are unable to task yourself to vigorously pursue the right answers which do exist and (2) Severe Confusion - you are unable to discern right answers from wrong answers and yet you set yourself up as a judge as to the "rightness" and "wrongness" of the views of the religionist? Beyond bizzarre, and absolutely self defeating.

I do provide answers of my own when they are requested as I have done on this thread and others.

So I ask again: provide me an answer: Why something instead of nothing?

You stated that "something" may be the default state. That is a horribly lazy answer again, and frankly I am getting tired of this laziness: For the question remians unanswered - WHY IS SOMETHING THE DEFAULT STATE? WHY IS NOTHING NOT THE DEFAULT STATE.

That is the question, sir.

'Something' may simply be the default state of universe-like objects.

Question - begging. Why could nothingness not be the default state?

You commit a terrible act of hypocrisy in this: for you are willing to state that the universe "simply exists" and that is a "default state" - and yet when this self-same proposition is tendered to you regarding God, namely that it simply exists in a default state, you swing into an sin assembly of an infinite regress, demanding to know who created God, notwithstanding that God is not said to be created.

Why do you advance the infinite regress question, and yet suggest that the universe could be exempt from such a query - stating that its existence could be the "default state"? ? ?

Since you ask infinite regress questions such as "what created God" then logically and fairly you must also ask the same question regarding the universe! - Unless you seek to make a special pleading - the very thing you accused me of! ! !

It is therefore absolutely untenable for you to advance the proposition of the default state and then turn around to ask others infinite regress questions. That is plain duplicity.

The fact is that based on what we do know, this universe started with expansion from a very hot and very dense state.

What brought about that state?

Is it logical to you that "hot and dense states" simply pop into existence from nothing, by nothing, and of nothing?

I should also ask you to define what a "singularity" from which the universe began to expand, is.

I state to you that you cannot define or describe it.

And I further state to you that if you do manage to define it, in that instant you would simultaenously subscribe to the existence of God.

Why do you assume that there must be 'nothing'?

Why do you assume that there must be "something" (matter, ha!) - much less by "default?"

Do you think that infinity exists in this universe?

I DEMAND of you that you tell me INTO WHAT the universe is expanding? ? ?

No I cannot. For all I know, it may be based on unknown laws and interactions but whatever it is, we simply do not know at least not yet. This does not mean you are free to plug this gap in our knowledge with whatever you like and call it God.

I am not making an argument of the Gaps.

It amuses me that you fail to see that what I am advancing is the Cosmological Argument.

You have acceded that there must have been a cause. You have stated that you do not know what that cause is. Perhaps however the Cosmological Argument (in red below) and the further deductions i draw (in blue below) may give some few pointers regarding the nature of that cause.

Definition: By God, we mean that the universe was created by an entity. That entity is what we refer to as God. Godship is defined as being the First Cause, Prime Mover, and maker of all existence.

Cosmological Argument

  1. The Universe is not eternal in the past: the Big Bang shows that it began at a point.

  2. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

  3. The Universe is something, and it began to exist at a point.

  4. The Universe therefore had a Cause.

  5. The Cause of all existence can only be something that is its own cause: in other words, something that is self-existent. A self existent thing exists by default, and as such does not "begin" or "commence" or "come into existence" at any point, but simply IS. A self-existent thing is accordingly immutable.

   6. "Creator" is the equivalent of the term - "Causative Factor" - or "that which makes something happen". This seals the argument on creation, as the Cause = the Creator (Or "First Mover."

  7. The Cause of the universe could not bequeath features that it does not have itself. (This is obvious within sciences such as genetics).

  8. Every feature inherent in the Universe (including Life, Intelligence, and Power AND EVERY OTHER FEATURE) is therefore also contained within the Cause (Creator).

  9. Therefore, the Cause (Creator) of the Universe, is Living, Intelligent, Powerful. . . and manifests every other attribute evident within the universe.

  10. . . . . . . . The composite Image is complete and emerges as the definition of God.

Like I said, 'something' may simply be the default level of universe-like objects.

So why is this statement immune from the counter-argument of an infinite regress.

Why can we not ask - as you ask of God - "where did the something come from?"

You deploy the same argument to seek to bar me from deploying.

And I state to you that only intangible and immutable things can be said to be self-existent.

Matter is neither.

This explanation goes against our knowledge of physics as Einstein was able to demonstrate and we have been able to verify experimentally, that time is not a constant but varies depending on the strength of gravitational force. This concept is much clearer when the dimension of time is also bound with that of space forming a single dimension of space-time.

I repeat to you that it is the experience of time that Einstein was able to evaluate, and the motion of bodies and light within time and space.

Time itself, is an absolute intangible constant, and cannot be seen to begin or end anywhere.

Can you show me a place where time begins or ends?

It is obvious to the calm mind that the statement "time began with the big bang" - makes no sense whatsoever abd it self-contradictory.

Here -

Check out the words -

"Time began. . ."

Stop for a moment and reflect. The first word contradicts the second word. The moment you use the word "begin", you are already refering to a moment within already existing time.

Going further, the calmly thoughtful mind can easily discern that what ever eternal state in which the "hot dense singular point" is said to have existed in, it began an expansion at some moment.

Since this is the case, the very existence of that moment naturally infers that the dense hot point had existed prior to that moment.

The existence of the dense hot point prior to that moment of expansion is an existence in time, otherwise, we could not even use the word "prior"  - and the dense hot point would not even be said to exist at all!

In this you can see that there is no circumstance without time. Time simply is.

It is the experience of time, and the behaviour of bodies and light within time that you can analyse the way Einstein did.

As long as one is in this universe, time for that person started with the Big Bang. Do you have some sort of access to some other time outside of this universe? Or do you wish to claim that time is infinite?

Yes, time is an infinite constant: it is: it does not cease: it remains an intangible reality.

When you say "time for that person started with the big bang" you unwittingly acknowledge that there is time by itself, and then there is what that one person's perception of it may or may not be.

I am surprised you do not see that the very word "started" connotes a commencement at a point in time.

What you are referring to is our measurement of the age of the universe, not TIME itself as an intangible concept.

I already explained this in my previous post. Time and space as we know it began with the expansion of this universe.

Then please tell me what the universe is expanding into?

Another "I don't know" on this one will just be too sad.

Because if you do not know, you should end the chit chat right here and now.

We know this because the space within the universe is expanding and time expands with it.

Demonstrate the expansion of time.

I repeat to you that it is the behaviour of bodies and light within time that is observed in expansion or retraction and not time itself.

On the other hand, you claim time was somewhere out there outside the universe. All I request from you is the evidence you have for this other time that did not commence with the Big Bang.

I really have to ask you what you imagine time to be.

For your use of the word "other time" is just regrettable to any approximation of the concept of time.

I repeat to you that the very fact that a hot dense point is said to exist BEFORE the expansion, is already a statement made with an acknowledgement of the existence of a period before the expansion.

What is such a period, if not time? ? ? ?

You're getting things mixed up. I agree with the evidence at hand that this super hot and dense state started expanding.

Aha. And before it "started" expanding. . .?

I hope you see now.

What created this entity that caused it to create this universe? This goes on till infinity unless you use a special pleading to create this God of yours.

"What created the hot and dense point that caused it to expand into a universe? This goes on till infinity unless you use a special pleading to create this hot and dense point of yours." Your words, not mine.

Your only claim so far is that "something cannot come out of nothing". So my question is why do you assume 'nothing' must precede this state?

I did not presume that.

You, on the other hand, presume that a gross material state, just sits there existing from eternity. Where is your proof for that?

Are you attending  Hogwarths? How did that state arrive? You ask infinite regress questions and evade the same question of your own theory. You even give the same answer I give - a state of default - save your case cannot be tendered because material things do not self exist because they are not immutable. They change. Self-existent things are logically immutable and unchangeable. They also logically cannot be tangible.

Have you considered that I have not claimed that 'nothing' must have been the default state?

So what is the principle behind your default state? Why exactly is it a default state? And how so?

Please understand what you are doing. You are taking a word with an implied meaning to lots of people and you wish to co-opt this word to mean something that may not be recognized by these people. I say it is up to you to make your particular meaning clear and to avoid confusion, you may use another word for this.

No: every religion understands and recognises the concept of God as being that which created all that exists. In my propositions I have not deviated from that basic understanding.

Do you go about scientifically taxing and probing the existence of leprechauns? How about Zeus and Quetzalcoatl? Explanations for such creatures are already available so unless I intend to go into anthropology and similar fields, I don't deeply concern myself about them being real to those claiming they saw them or that they did things for them.

Flawed; because the universe is real, it is tangible gross matter and as such cosmological question as to its source my be probed by the inquiring mind.

What you have claimed to be a purpose is quite meaningless to me.

Might I ask what is meaningful to you?

Why even bother existing, tell me. What's the point?

But you see I have not concluded anything. You automatically conclude that there must be someone causing something out there. I simply go where the evidence leads me.

There is no evidence for your claim that a material something is possibly the default state of things.

There is no eveidence for your claim that time commenced at the moment of the big bang.

There is no evidence for your claim that space was created by the big bang, exactly because you CANNOT tell me INTO WHAT the universe is expanding?

The concept of time that I apply is that used in the scientific field and this began with he Big Bang. So you again are attempting to use time in an unfamiliar way.

Busted. Kindergarten logic really.

You yourself have described the pre-bang state as being a hot dense point?

Once you can decribe a previous time and state, it is incongruous to state that time only began after that already acknowledged previous time and state.

No event can precede itself!

Vesc/ thehomer -

Your statements to the effect that critical thinking would lead to a conclusion that God does not exist are absolutely presumptuous.

Is it not true that Thomas Aquinas was deploying critical thinking in these arguments he made - - - ?

The existence of God can be proved in Five Ways:

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.

The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.
In response to the first objection, then, I reply what Augustine says; that since God is entirely good, He would permit evil to exist in His works only if He were so good and omnipotent that He might bring forth good even from the evil. It therefore pertains to the infinite goodness of God that he permits evil to exist and from this brings forth good.

How you can imagine that critical thinking tends towards atheism beats me.