Common ground?

[onecut39]

This is an interesting.(I thought)


I came across the following statements that were presented as some that both atheists and theists could agree to.

I can agree with them, can you?

1: That God (if there is one) is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

2: That this would be an adequate object of such theistic religious attitudes.

3: That this is turn is the being (if such a being exists) that is most worthy of worship

4: That there can be no logically necessary beings

5: An eternal being could not come into being or cease to exist.

6: That God (if there is one) is an eternal being.

7: We cannot sensibly ask if an eternal being exists. If it is an eternal being it must
exist. Still there may be no eternal beings.

8: The God of our theistic religions, if he exists, is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly
good.

9: There is evil in the world.

10: There is considerable agreement (though not complete) that an omnipotent God
cannot do what is logically impossible and that that is no limit on his omnipotence.
There is also agreement that God (if there is one) can do anything that is logically
possible to do. (if he can act at all)

So there it is. I would appreciate it (if you care to comment) that you not get wordy and argumentative. Just agree or disagree. I don't really give a damn why.

Or start your own thread!

 

[Liability]

. . . . All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed.

But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.

The cosmological argument as lifted from: Arguments for the Existence of God (some emphasis added).

I happen not to believe that this is actually a valid argument, but it pretty tough to refute.

 

[Liability]

As to the FIRST statement in the OP, that is known more commonly as the

"ontological argument . . . ." [which was] made famous by St. Anselm in the eleventh century . . . . [It] holds that it would be logically contradictory to deny God's existence. St. Anselm began by defining God as "that [being] than which nothing greater can be conceived." If God existed only in the mind, He then would not be the greatest conceivable being, for we could imagine another being that is greater because it would exist both in the mind and in reality, and that being would then be God. Therefore, to imagine God as existing only in the mind but not in reality leads to a logical contradiction; this proves the existence of God both in the mind and in reality.

-- Lifted (with some edits) from the same source as my prior post: Arguments for the Existence of God .

 

[California Girl]

....Just agree or disagree. I don't really give a damn why.

The sign of a limited intellect who can't cope with debate. That tells me all I need to know about it.

 

[Liability]

This one is pretty interesting, too (but might be evaded by modern physics and the notions of quantum physics):

The most interesting, and persuasive, form of the cosmological argument is Aquinas's "third way," the argument from contingency. Its strength derives from the way it employs both permanence and change. Epicurus stated the metaphysical problem centuries ago: "Something obviously exists now, and something never sprang from nothing." Being, therefore, must have been without beginning. An Eternal Something must be admitted by all, theist, atheist, and agnostic.

But the physical universe could not be this Eternal Something because it is obviously contingent, mutable, subject to decay. How could a decomposing entity explain itself to all eternity? If every present contingent thing / event depends on a previous contingent thing / event and so on ad infinitum, then this does not provide an adequate explanation of anything.

Hence, for there to be anything at all contingent in the universe, there must be at least one thing that is not contingent, something that is necessary throughout all change and self established. In this case "necessary" does not apply to a proposition but to a thing, and it means infinite, eternal, everlasting, self caused, self existent.

It is not enough to say that infinite time will solve the problem of contingent being. No matter how much time you have, dependent being is still dependent on something. Everything contingent within the span of infinity will, at some particular moment, not exist. But if there was a moment when nothing existed, then nothing would exist now.

The choice is simple: one chooses either a self existent God or a self existent universe, and the universe is not behaving as if it is self existent. In fact, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running down like a clock or, better, cooling off like a giant stove. Energy is constantly being diffused or dissipated, that is, progressively distributed throughout the universe. If this process goes on for a few billion more years, and scientists have never observed a restoration of dissipated energy, then the result will be a state of thermal equilibrium, a "heat death," a random degradation of energy throughout the entire cosmos and hence the stagnation of all physical activity.

Arguments for the Existence of God

 

[dblack]

This is an interesting.(I thought)


I came across the following statements that were presented as some that both atheists and theists could agree to.

I can agree with them, can you?

1: That God (if there is one) is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

2: That this would be an adequate object of such theistic religious attitudes.

3: That this is turn is the being (if such a being exists) that is most worthy of worship

4: That there can be no logically necessary beings

5: An eternal being could not come into being or cease to exist.

6: That God (if there is one) is an eternal being.

7: We cannot sensibly ask if an eternal being exists. If it is an eternal being it must
exist. Still there may be no eternal beings.

8: The God of our theistic religions, if he exists, is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly
good.

9: There is evil in the world.

10: There is considerable agreement (though not complete) that an omnipotent God
cannot do what is logically impossible and that that is no limit on his omnipotence.
There is also agreement that God (if there is one) can do anything that is logically
possible to do. (if he can act at all)

So there it is. I would appreciate it (if you care to comment) that you not get wordy and argumentative. Just agree or disagree. I don't really give a damn why.

Or start your own thread!

Alrighty then, I disagree. Enjoy your thread!

 

[onecut39]

This is an interesting.(I thought)


I came across the following statements that were presented as some that both atheists and theists could agree to.

I can agree with them, can you?

1: That God (if there is one) is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

2: That this would be an adequate object of such theistic religious attitudes.

3: That this is turn is the being (if such a being exists) that is most worthy of worship

4: That there can be no logically necessary beings

5: An eternal being could not come into being or cease to exist.

6: That God (if there is one) is an eternal being.

7: We cannot sensibly ask if an eternal being exists. If it is an eternal being it must
exist. Still there may be no eternal beings.

8: The God of our theistic religions, if he exists, is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly
good.

9: There is evil in the world.

10: There is considerable agreement (though not complete) that an omnipotent God
cannot do what is logically impossible and that that is no limit on his omnipotence.
There is also agreement that God (if there is one) can do anything that is logically
possible to do. (if he can act at all)

So there it is. I would appreciate it (if you care to comment) that you not get wordy and argumentative. Just agree or disagree. I don't really give a damn why.

Or start your own thread!

Alrighty then, I disagree. Enjoy your thread!

Forgive me. I realize this is a very difficult subject. Folks tend to get carried away and offer up pages of refutation. (is that a word) I just wanted to keep it down to a reasonable amount of pace.

 

[The Irish Ram]

. . . . All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed.

But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.

The cosmological argument as lifted from: Arguments for the Existence of God (some emphasis added).

I happen not to believe that this is actually a valid argument, but it pretty tough to refute.

And because I do believe it.......
We aren't capable of understanding the power of God. Nor can we find common ground based on limited knowledge of what almighty really means.
Take# 5. If you start out with an erroneous premise, then what good is an opinion regarding it?
Liability makes a good point concerning the laws of thermal dynamics:
Open your palms and put nothing in both, then clap them together and show me what you created.