There is no logic for a single, separate god

[sthitapragya]

Otherwise you run into a wall with the paradox of first creation.

There are two problems here. The first, often repeated, is the problem that arises out of assigning creation to God which leads to the question, who created God?

The second is the assumption that existence was created at some point. The fallacy seems to arise from equating the present universe with existence itself.

[yiostheoy]

Otherwise you run into a wall with the paradox of first creation.

There are two problems here. The first, often repeated, is the problem that arises out of assigning creation to God which leads to the question, who created God?

The second is the assumption that existence was created at some point.

Those are not "problems" those are simply paradoxes.

You must choose whether to live with a first cause paradox or with an infinity paradox.

So pick your poison.

[sthitapragya]

Otherwise you run into a wall with the paradox of first creation.

There are two problems here. The first, often repeated, is the problem that arises out of assigning creation to God which leads to the question, who created God?

The second is the assumption that existence was created at some point.

Those are not "problems" those are simply paradoxes.

You must choose whether to live with a first cause paradox or with an infinity paradox.

So pick your poison.

I don't understand what you mean by the infinity paradox. Space time came into being 14 billion years ago. We don't know if there was even time "before" that or indeed if time is an accurate measure of the "before". How can we use time to measure anything Pre 14 billion years when time itself probably didn't even exist?

Looking "beyond" 14 billion years, all we have is the I don't know non-paradox. There is no need to introduce God to create a first cause paradox or to introduce time to create the infinity paradox.

I would not be making this argument if it weren't for Obvious Leo. I am not sure this is what he meant, but this is what I understood from some of his posts.

[Lacewing]

If you get a chance to read any actual Philosophy you will encounter Aristotle and his "Prime Mover" argument, which results when you observe the heavenly bodies of the Sun, Moon, planets, comets, and meteors in motion (or in apparent motion). This in addition to Aquinas's additional "First Cause" argument, and two more subsequent more modern "Artistic Artificer" and "Purposeful Designer" arguments are all powerful Deist explanations. If you want to update this concept to modern times, you can also add the Earth in motion around the Sun as the Sun plies it way around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy -- although Aristotle did not know this.

These are philosophical arguments.

Great. We don't all live and understand by philosophical arguments.

As philosophical arguments, they have validity. Without them you run into precursor paradoxes. With them you run into infinity paradoxes.

For you, perhaps. It is the structure you live by. There is always more. None of us really know anything.

Do I myself think this logic supports the existence for a single separate God?

Yes, it supports the existence of at least ONE God if not more.

How?

The Christian Father, Son, and Holy Spirit make more sense to me as well -- this would indicate a single separate God who is just beginning to replicate other Gods.

How does it indicate that? How is this not something you are making up?

This is what Philosophy tells us.

Since when is philosophy static?

Philosophy is a logical speculative endeavor. Philosophy attempts deductively to determine truth or most likely truth.

Agreed. I would add that there are many ways to do it, and many foundations for logic, and our perception of truth keeps expanding. Not everyone needs to study and discuss philosophy the way you do, as that would make philosophy a very narrowly defined endeavor which is highly prone to thinking one knows answers that are actually made up.

[yiostheoy]

If you get a chance to read any actual Philosophy you will encounter Aristotle and his "Prime Mover" argument, which results when you observe the heavenly bodies of the Sun, Moon, planets, comets, and meteors in motion (or in apparent motion). This in addition to Aquinas's additional "First Cause" argument, and two more subsequent more modern "Artistic Artificer" and "Purposeful Designer" arguments are all powerful Deist explanations. If you want to update this concept to modern times, you can also add the Earth in motion around the Sun as the Sun plies it way around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy -- although Aristotle did not know this.

These are philosophical arguments.

Great. We don't all live and understand by philosophical arguments.

As philosophical arguments, they have validity. Without them you run into precursor paradoxes. With them you run into infinity paradoxes.

For you, perhaps. It is the structure you live by. There is always more. None of us really know anything.

Do I myself think this logic supports the existence for a single separate God?

Yes, it supports the existence of at least ONE God if not more.

How?

The Christian Father, Son, and Holy Spirit make more sense to me as well -- this would indicate a single separate God who is just beginning to replicate other Gods.

How does it indicate that? How is this not something you are making up?

This is what Philosophy tells us.

Since when is philosophy static?

Philosophy is a logical speculative endeavor. Philosophy attempts deductively to determine truth or most likely truth.

Agreed. I would add that there are many ways to do it, and many foundations for logic, and our perception of truth keeps expanding. Not everyone needs to study and discuss philosophy the way you do, as that would make philosophy a very narrowly defined endeavor which is highly prone to thinking one knows answers that are actually made up.

You are going to need to study the issue of God-ness by reading some of the modern philosophical authors in order to make sense of this.

Right now you sound like a high school kid or maybe at best a college freshman philosophy student.

Roger Scruton in his book "Modern Philosophy" has a topical chapter on God-ness.

That's the best I can tell you.

[Lacewing]

That's the best I can tell you.

Yes, because clearly you can't think for yourself and answer hard questions about why you think what you think.

All you can do is point people to go read books and "study" like you did, in order to come to the same static conclusions that you feel so proud to associate yourself with.

That's not philosophy... that's programming.

Your arrogance is unfounded... and your critical put-downs (rather than answering questions) reveal what you're really about.

[yiostheoy]

That's the best I can tell you.

Yes, because clearly you can't think for yourself and answer hard questions about why you think what you think.

All you can do is point people to go read books and "study" like you did, in order to come to the same static conclusions that you feel so proud to associate yourself with.

That's not philosophy... that's programming.

Your arrogance is unfounded... and your critical put-downs (rather than answering questions) reveal what you're really about.

Oh I think for myself just fine.

I am quite comfortable with the 4 proofs of God.

You on the other hand are in dire need of more reading.

[Harbal]

Oh I think for myself just fine.
.

You couldn't blame someone for thinking otherwise. You are constantly referring to what somebody else said or thought. You were being asked what you think, not what Aristotle or Roger Scruton think.

[thedoc]

Oh I think for myself just fine.
.

You couldn't blame someone for thinking otherwise. You are constantly referring to what somebody else said or thought. You were being asked what you think, not what Aristotle or Roger Scruton think.

What is wrong with agreeing with what someone else has written? Quite often I will read what someone else has written and they have expressed my thoughts much better than I could. Some people are very good at expressing ideas, and if some one has expressed a thought that you agree with, then use it. The only time using a quote is wrong, is when that quote does not express your thoughts.

[Harbal]

What is wrong with agreeing with what someone else has written?

You tell me, you're not agreeing with what I've written.

Quite often I will read what someone else has written and they have expressed my thoughts much better than I could. Some people are very good at expressing ideas,

Whenever I see Plato this and Aristotle that and Descartes the other, It grates on my nerves, that's just the way I am, I kant help it.

The only time using a quote is wrong, is when that quote does not express your thoughts.

Well you quoted my last post so you must either agree with me or you were doing something wrong.

[thedoc]

The only time using a quote is wrong, is when that quote does not express your thoughts.

Well you quoted my last post so you must either agree with me or you were doing something wrong.

This wouldn't be the first time I've done something wrong.

[yiostheoy]

Oh I think for myself just fine.
.

You couldn't blame someone for thinking otherwise. You are constantly referring to what somebody else said or thought. You were being asked what you think, not what Aristotle or Roger Scruton think.

Just because you yourself have only read one philosophy book don't get parochial on me/us.

[Harbal]

Just because you yourself have only read one philosophy book don't get parochial on me/us.

I only read one book because that's all I needed. If I need a quote I can usually make one up.

[yiostheoy]

Just because you yourself have only read one philosophy book don't get parochial on me/us.

I only read one book because that's all I needed. If I need a quote I can usually make one up.

Well if you think you are that smart then get a copy of Roger Scruton's "Modern Philosophy" and use it to get up to speed with.

I suspect that afterwards you will be totally confused again though.

[thedoc]

If I need a quote I can usually make one up.

We are all aware that you make things up.