Theism vs. Atheism debate

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 540
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
You aren't using the term "logically necessary" correctly if you're using modal logic terminology.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Created things are composed of that which is passing. The exist only in a relative sense. They are by nature contingent existences.

The Uncreated is not composed of transient things, it exists in an eternal and absolute sense. It is by nature a non-contingent existence.





3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
You aren't using the term "logically necessary" correctly if you're using modal logic terminology.
Please explain.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Created things are composed of that which is passing. The exist only in a relative sense. They are by nature contingent existences.

The Uncreated is not composed of transient things, it exists in an eternal and absolute sense. It is by nature a non-contingent existence.
This is a noble effort.

HoweVer, you still haven't explained how "the uncreated" could "create" anything that wasn't made out of 100% pure uncut "uncreated" material.

If "the uncreated" is the only thing in existence, and it wants to make stuff, the only material available is necessarily some portion of ITSELF.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
We understand that there is a distinction between essences and energies.

Creation comes as a manifestation of these uncreated energies. It would be wrong to say that creation was made of a previously existing substance. It would also be wrong to say that creation is a necessary emanation of the divine essence. God created everything out of nothing by the grace of God, and everything is sustained also by the grace of God.  The grace of God being uncreated energy of God.

Creation is united to God through these energies, not the essence of God. To say otherwise would be to imply that God could be divided or broken in to pieces. Or it would be to say that God is composed of created things that are part of Himself.


No, God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, unchanging, eternal, undivided, perfect. If God wasn't these things, God would not be The Ultimate Reality. However, The Ultimate Reality is God. We do not call a rock by the name of a tree. 

There is a distinction between the essence of God and the energy of God.







3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
...created everything out of nothing...
There's your problem.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Yet it is the truth, and another example of how The Uncreated and created are of two different physis.


Created things can not create out of nothing, they simply reconfigure what is already there.

Yet creation was spoken into existence by God. The Ultimate Reality by nature precedes everything, even time. Not simply eternal, but pre-eternal even. Time itself, being creation, is contingent on The Ultimate Reality to exist.



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Yet creation was spoken into existence by God.
Your hypothetical god (EITHER) includes "nothingness" (OR) excludes "nothingness".

(IFF) your hypothetical god INCLUDES "nothingness" (THEN) anything made of "nothingness" is ALSO made of 100% pure, uncut hypothetical god stuff.

(IFF) your hypothetical god EXCLUDES "nothingness" (THEN) your hypothetical god is not properly "the first and only thing in existence".

ALSO,

(IFF) your hypothetical god and the scientifically verifiable world do NOT share some fundamental commonality (THEN) your hypothetical god cannot interact with the scientifically verifiable world in-any-way-shape-or-form.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Nothing is impossible!


Really though, if you didn't catch it, this nothing isn't truly nothing because God is there. The point is that creation was brought into existence by The Uncreated, and not through the configuring of pre-existing material.


When you say "made of God stuff", you are not recognizing the distinction between essence and energy.

When you are saying that exluding nothing means that God isn't the first and only thing in existence, it sounds like you are implying that nothing existed before God, as if nothing has any existence. There always was,bis, and forever will be God. To say thst nothing existed before God is not giving existence to nothing. Nothing is the absence of existence.

In an attempt to clarify, it is meant no created thing existed. Nothing IN creation. Before creation, there was only God. Pure existence is God. Creation did not exist before creation existed. Got it?

But to take it a step further, no, creation is not made up of God bricks. It is given existence by God's energy. Not the same thing.



To you, something doesn't exist truly unless you know it. This is an aberration of your post Kantian worldview, which is why you speak of noumenons and such. The fruit of this worldview is seen in how you struggle with God. To you, "The Ultimate Reality" is a meaningless pronouncement of syllables and an arbitrary placeholder.



Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones."

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
When you say "made of God stuff", you are not recognizing the distinction between essence and energy.
When you say "the distinction between essence and energy" you are not recognizing that BOTH essence and energy are necessarily 100% god stuff.

And yes, of course, "nothingness" cannot ever and will not ever "exist".

But since you suggested that your hypothetical god "made something" out of it (ex nihilo), I was simply trying to point out to you that, even if your claim was "true", it wouldn't solve the logical incoherence of your claim.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
God is omnipresent, enlivening all things, omnipotent, etc.


There is however a subtley in what we are speaking of that you aew not appreciating that we recognize as being very important. The distinction between Orthodoxy(correct belief) and heterodoxy(other than correct belief). 

That is, The Uncreated and Created have distinct physis or natures.

These two natures ARE united in the hypostasis of The Son. 

To simply merge these two distincy physis into 1 physis is the error of monophysitism.

1 hypostasis, 2 physis is the correct formulation. Dyophysitism.







3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
It doesn't matter what words you use to describe it.

Your hypothetical god (EITHER) includes "nothingness" (OR) excludes "nothingness".

(IFF) your hypothetical god INCLUDES "nothingness" (THEN) anything made of "nothingness" is ALSO made of 100% pure, uncut hypothetical god stuff.

(IFF) your hypothetical god EXCLUDES "nothingness" (THEN) your hypothetical god is not properly "the first and only thing in existence".

ALSO,

(IFF) your hypothetical god and the scientifically verifiable world do NOT share some fundamental commonality (THEN) your hypothetical god cannot interact with the scientifically verifiable world in-any-way-shape-or-form (omni-impotent).
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Creation does exist.
God does exist.

Is this not a fundamental commonality?

To say that God doesn't interact with the "scientifically verified world" is rather silly considering it is God that gives everything its existence.




keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
...considering it is God that gives everything its existence.
What you believe is not what everyone believes and what you believe is not necessrily true. Unless you start differentiating between dogma and fact you are not going to have much luck changing anybody's mind.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
The dogma is fact. We speak of what we know.


If there is no ultimate reality, there can be no reality. It is very simple, and obviously true.


mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
And yes, of course, "nothingness" cannot ever and will not ever "exist".
This is false { in error } because, IFF we live in a finite --ergo integral-- occupied space { structural } Uni-V-erse { One-Verse }, then there can exist only one logical conclusion as to what is beyond the finite Universe.

Macro-infinite non-occupied space that, is available for the finite, occupied space Universe to expand into or contract from.

All other conclusions are irrational, illogical and lack common sense.

To date, the best response any human can state, is that we dont observe any part of this alledged macro-infinite non-occupied space Universe.

However, that is 2nd to the philosophical question and its conclusion vai rational, logical common sense search for the speculative truth, based on we do observe.

1} all occupied space things have a systemic and structural integrity, even if that integrity is very short lived mesonic particle,

2} finite space as definite 2D area or 3D volume has a definitive meaning that most humans agree too, irrespective of specific size

3} infinite space has not integrity, ergo and no definite area or volume.

keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
If there is no ultimate reality, there can be no reality. It is very simple, and obviously true.
We're willing to grant that - now show us that the UR is the Christian god.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
So you keep saying.

But obstinate repetition won't prove anything.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
You have no hope of understanding what it is I say unless you accept that God is Reality as it truly Is. Everything about Trinity has to do with our relationship with that.


So what you are in fact requesting is an unreasonable demand. If you are faithless, how can I overcome your disbelief? 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
The Truth doesn't change.

Nothing will suffice as proof to the faithless and wicked who deny The Ultimare Reality as existing.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
All that the faithless require is proof.

What could be a more reasonable than that?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
This is a motte and bailey argument. [LINK]

Your motte is "the ultimate reality exists".

Your bailey is "the ultimate reality equals the YHWH".

You refuse to defend your bailey and instead always retreat to your motte.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
You have no hope of understanding what it is I say unless you accept that God is Reality as it truly Is
But to an English speaker brought up in western culture 'God' (capital G) is the name of the god at the centre of Judeao-Christianty and we are taught that particular god has many attributes which are detailed in the Bible.  Amongst those attributes is that he (it?) chose the Hebrews (to choose a ranom example).

My problem is that while an 'Ultimate Reality' must exist on logical grounds (ie in order for 'ordinary reality' to exist), you never make any case for the utimate reality to have chosen the Hebrews, is the source moralty, judges departed souls and all the other things that God (aka yhwh) is associated with.  You might say that the UR/Kalam argument proves a god exists, but it doesn't prove God/yhwh exists.
.





 

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
The Ultimate Reality is a legitimate translation of that name.

Another English translation of thst name that is even used in liturgy is "The eternally existing One."



Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
Maybe you should get an Orthodox education, you will only get further confused by the heretics.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I think it's straightforward - the argument for the exitsence of the UR is based on abstract logic but the identification of the UR with God  - ie with the god of Christianity - is a matter of faith.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
You are confused because you aren't accepting that this is what God is, The Ultimate Reality.

Instead you are trying to reconcile your understanding of Christianity's God with The Ultimate Reality.


If you don't know The One True God, how can I even begin to tell you of Jesus Christ who He sent?


If you can at least accept that The Ultimate Reality is God, and that God surely exists, we might be able to get somewhere with your request. 






7 days later

WyseGui
WyseGui's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
4
WyseGui's avatar
WyseGui
0
0
4
Not this again.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@WyseGui
No amount of sophistry can disprove or cast into doubt into The Ultimate Reality, and this is what is meant by God.

You can plug up your ears and wish it wasn't so all you want, but this merely a reflection of your unwillingness to confront The Truth.

Instead you would rather mock, scoff, and make pretense that you know better. You certainly don't.


God is Real.