Evidence for God from Science

Ken, in Aristotelian terms movement/mobility is the same as change. So when God is decribed as "immobile", it means that He is unchanging. Follow me here: 1: For Him to be God, He must not have any potentiality, because potentiality implies less-than-perfection. 2: Therefore, God must be ...

Ken, in Aristotelian terms movement/mobility is the same as change. So when God is decribed as "immobile", it means that He is unchanging. Follow me here: 1: For Him to be God, He must not have any potentiality, because potentiality implies less-than-perfection. 2: Therefore, God must be ...

Have you and your friends tried talking to the guy?

Ken, in Aristotelian terms movement/mobility is the same as change. So when God is decribed as "immobile", it means that He is unchanging. Follow me here: 1: For Him to be God, He must not have any potentiality, because potentiality implies less-than-perfection. 2: Therefore, God must be a...

How do you know immaterial exist? Let alone having the ability to create? Ken As for the immaterial, Plato logically deduced it's existence, ironically, since logic is itself immaterial. Take the concept (or essence, in Platonic terms) of triangles. No matter what, three straight lines connected in...

The first cause is not by definition an intelligent being . :swhat: The first cause argument (or “cosmological argument”) takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it . It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first ca...

You humble me, sir.

Logically, by definition, whatever the first cause is; I.e., the Unmoved Mover, is the Creator, and is God. Given His creation, He must be concious, consisting of pure actuality and no potentiality (more Aristotle/Aquinas terms), and perfectly good. No that does not follow. First cause only means o...

Yeah, well, if there is a beginning it leads to a cause and that leads to a Creator ... this isn't new stuff ken... The cause of the Big Bang would probably be the singularity. Now if you want to believe the origin of the singularity leads to a creator, that's fine, but that belief is gonna be base...

The "Unmoved Mover" is a reference to Aristotle; his Four Causes logically require that everything that has a beginning has a cause. So if the cosmic singularity has a beginning, which it does by definition, then what caused it? By definition the singularity doesn't have a beginning, so w...

The "Unmoved Mover" is a reference to Aristotle; his Four Causes logically require that everything that has a beginning has a cause. So if the cosmic singularity has a beginning, which it does by definition, then what caused it? Eventually you must arrive at an uncaused cause, I.e. the Unm...

A couple logical issues with your argument Kenny (forgive me for not quoting, but I'm on my mobile and editing forum code on this little screen is a pain): 1. All professed atheists have stated, to themselves or others, that there is no God/Unmoved Mover. Many try to play little debate games to avoi...

It's a positive assertion, therefore requiring evidence. Just because you have none doesn't somehow validate the claim. No! Proving something DOES exist is a positive assertion; proving something does not exist is proving a negative. Can you prove Santa Clause, or Easter Bunny does not exist? No; p...

Why can't you guys accept the fact that the idea of some invisible guy in the sky looking over everyone shoulder keeping score; sounds illogic and unreasonable to us and faith or religion isn't required to conclude this guy doesn't exist? Why can't you guys be okay with that? Sounds? Faith is not r...

Yeah, well, if there is a beginning it leads to a cause and that leads to a Creator ... this isn't new stuff ken... The cause of the Big Bang would probably be the singularity. Now if you want to believe the origin of the singularity leads to a creator, that's fine, but that belief is gonna be base...