What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: Dan Listermann on 31 Mar 2005 09:27 "Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message news:424c0271.2105487(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > On 31 Mar 2005 03:55:44 GMT, Enkidu <zwi6iv402(a)sneakemail.com> wrote: > > In Existential Metaphysics, God (the Supreme Being) is not a thing. > God is an Act. God is the Act of Being, the cause of Existence. > It strikes me that you are merely anthropomorphizing the unknown. I suppose this is OK so long as it does not cause you to do silly and wasteful things like mumbling to yourself a lot.
From: Hector Plasmic on 31 Mar 2005 09:30 >>>>> What do you all mean by "intervenes in our lives"? >>>>> What kind of "intervention"? >>>> That'd be a mystery, don't you reckon? :-) >>> OK, then what is meant by "mysterious intervention in >>> our lives"? >> That'd be a mystery, don't you reckon? :-) Sorry, it's turtles >> all the way down. Ask a substantive question. > OK. > If the Universe cannot be its own cause because it is > mutable, what is the cause of the Universe? Tsk, tsk. I said "ask a substantive question," not "make an unwarranted assumption." The universe is where causes act; it does not itself appear to be caused. Your naiive "argument from mutability" does not appear to apply to the universe at all.
From: Hector Plasmic on 31 Mar 2005 09:31 >> In Existential Metaphysics, God (the Supreme Being) is >> not a thing. God is an Act. God is the Act of Being, the >> cause of Existence. > It strikes me that you are merely anthropomorphizing the > unknown. Indeed, he is merely using the word "God" in place of "existence." NOP. No useful information contained herein.
From: Christopher A. Lee on 31 Mar 2005 09:56 On 31 Mar 2005 06:31:56 -0800, "Hector Plasmic" <hec(a)hectorplasmic.com> wrote: >>> In Existential Metaphysics, God (the Supreme Being) is >>> not a thing. God is an Act. God is the Act of Being, the >>> cause of Existence. > >> It strikes me that you are merely anthropomorphizing the >> unknown. > >Indeed, he is merely using the word "God" in place of "existence." >NOP. No useful information contained herein. It enables him to both equivocate and obfuscate. It also gets in the way of discussion.
From: RainLover on 31 Mar 2005 11:09
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:12:00 GMT, sob(a)sob.com (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote: >>God does nothing but cause the universe to exist? > >God causes the Universe to exist. That's enough, because there is no >more fundamental act than to cause Existence. So your theory of 'god' is that it exists outside of the universe? And, just to clear things up... I missed some of this thread... are you speaking of the CHRISTIAN god here or some other, metaphysical concept of "god"? > >> What good is He? > >If God did not exist, then nothing would exist. So, in your vision of 'god', it does exist outside of existance itself. How did you come to possess this knowledge? >So the answer to your question depends on what you consider "good". If >existence is good, then God has acted in a good manner by causing >existence. If you consider existence as bad, maybe you should exercise >your free will and check out. So, if we leave 'existance' upon our death, where were we all before our births? James, Seattle, Washington, USA, Earth, Outer spiral arm of the milkyway |