Deductive Argument for the existence of God?

[Immanuel Can]

I know no Greek. But the version that I favour includes the mercy of Jesus in healing the child , and not doing so on condition on the man had enough faith .

There are excellent Greek tools online. You can check me. I'm telling you the truth. And what we prefer...well, that really doesn't actually have a lot of weight, if "Read the full story in Mark" is your frame of reference.

Please see also the Good Samaritan whose mercy was not quid pro quo the recipient was a non-Jew.

I'm very familiar with it. I wonder what use you will hope to make of it in the present context. Go ahead, if you're inclined.

But I'll be busy for a few days, and might have to get back to you then. If you have will to say, I'll eventually respond.

[Gary Childress]

I know no Greek. But the version that I favour includes the mercy of Jesus in healing the child , and not doing so on condition on the man had enough faith .

And what we prefer...well, that really doesn't actually have a lot of weight, if "Read the full story in Mark" is your frame of reference.

So do you think God is the type of God who only deals favors on condition that a person has enough faith? I'd like to think that it has more to do with a person's character. Although, it seems that bad things happen to good people sometimes and good things happen to bad people sometimes. Are you sure someone like Jesus is up there running the show?

[Immanuel Can]

I know no Greek. But the version that I favour includes the mercy of Jesus in healing the child , and not doing so on condition on the man had enough faith .

And what we prefer...well, that really doesn't actually have a lot of weight, if "Read the full story in Mark" is your frame of reference.

So do you think God is the type of God who only deals favors on condition that a person has enough faith?

The Bible says, "Without faith, it is impossible to please God." (Hebrews)

[Gary Childress]

And what we prefer...well, that really doesn't actually have a lot of weight, if "Read the full story in Mark" is your frame of reference.

So do you think God is the type of God who only deals favors on condition that a person has enough faith?

The Bible says, "Without faith, it is impossible to please God." (Hebrews)

Well, then I must displease God. I apologize to God. Does he accept apologies?

[Janoah]

there is one whole cause that includes every event .

Very much so.


***Whether or not this "whole cause" is God or not, is another discussion.***


God is the First Cause, so yes.

God is trivialised if 'he' is held to be the first cause, because 'first' implies a time scale whereas God is eternal ----- timeless.

First Cause is term introduced by Aristotle.
According to Aristotle, the world has no temporal beginning, "nothing comes from nothing", therefore the First Cause is the first not in the historical sense, but in the fact that it is the cause of everything that happens, and on the other hand does not depend on what happens, the First Cause is unchanging and immaterial.
The law of nature quite copes with the role of the First Cause, doesn’t it?
After all, the law of nature is immaterial, unchangeable, and does not depend on what is happening in nature.


***One may call the first cause "God" however if so we need to question the attributes of God. Is 'he' good, or is 'he' goodness itself. Does 'he' intervene in history. Is 'he' cognate with existence itself or is 'he' supernatural.***

God has no attributes, goodness or evil, these are the attributes of a person, depending on whether a person neglects the law of nature, or strives to conform to it. In relation to God, these attributes can be used by a person only allegorically, in meditations-prayers, with which a person tunes himself in the right way.

[Immanuel Can]

So do you think God is the type of God who only deals favors on condition that a person has enough faith?

The Bible says, "Without faith, it is impossible to please God." (Hebrews)

Well, then I must displease God. I apologize to God. Does he accept apologies?

Indeed He does...anybody who has faith enough to repent sincerely of what he's done can be forgiven. He just has to ask.

[Belinda]

Very much so.


***Whether or not this "whole cause" is God or not, is another discussion.***


God is the First Cause, so yes.

God is trivialised if 'he' is held to be the first cause, because 'first' implies a time scale whereas God is eternal ----- timeless.

First Cause is term introduced by Aristotle.
According to Aristotle, the world has no temporal beginning, "nothing comes from nothing", therefore the First Cause is the first not in the historical sense, but in the fact that it is the cause of everything that happens, and on the other hand does not depend on what happens, the First Cause is unchanging and immaterial.
The law of nature quite copes with the role of the First Cause, doesn’t it?
After all, the law of nature is immaterial, unchangeable, and does not depend on what is happening in nature.


***One may call the first cause "God" however if so we need to question the attributes of God. Is 'he' good, or is 'he' goodness itself. Does 'he' intervene in history. Is 'he' cognate with existence itself or is 'he' supernatural.***

God has no attributes, goodness or evil, these are the attributes of a person, depending on whether a person neglects the law of nature, or strives to conform to it. In relation to God, these attributes can be used by a person only allegorically, in meditations-prayers, with which a person tunes himself in the right way.

I now see what you mean by first cause. Spinoza proved such a first cause by means of reason.
I agree with you about attributes of God. But you have not yet commented on whether or not God intervenes in history. Neither have you said whtehr or not you believe in a super natural mode of being.

[Janoah]

Spinoza proved such a first cause by means of reason.

According to Spinoza, "infinite matter" is the first cause.
I do not agree with this, simultaneous infinity is absurd. The first cause is a law of nature, immaterial, not matter.

***But you have not yet commented on whether or not God intervenes in history***.
It "intervenes" to the extent that the law of nature "intervenes".
Let's say, if a person bangs his head on the floor during prayers, then he will naturally break his forehead, such an "intervenes".

*** ... you believe in a super natural mode of being***

God forbid that I should believe in the violation of the law of nature.
Apparently there is confusion in understanding the concept of "metaphysics".
The name "Metaphysics" was given to the work of Aristotle, at the same time that according to Aristotle there is no violation of the law of nature, but there is something that can be comprehended by the senses, that is, the material, and something that can be comprehended only by thinking, the "first causes."
Let's say that the law of nature is comprehended by abstract thinking, therefore an animal cannot formulate regularity.

[Belinda]

Spinoza proved such a first cause by means of reason.

According to Spinoza, "infinite matter" is the first cause.
I do not agree with this, simultaneous infinity is absurd. The first cause is a law of nature, immaterial, not matter.

***But you have not yet commented on whether or not God intervenes in history***.
It "intervenes" to the extent that the law of nature "intervenes".
Let's say, if a person bangs his head on the floor during prayers, then he will naturally break his forehead, such an "intervenes".

*** ... you believe in a super natural mode of being***

God forbid that I should believe in the violation of the law of nature.
Apparently there is confusion in understanding the concept of "metaphysics".
The name "Metaphysics" was given to the work of Aristotle, at the same time that according to Aristotle there is no violation of the law of nature, but there is something that can be comprehended by the senses, that is, the material, and something that can be comprehended only by thinking, the "first causes."
Let's say that the law of nature is comprehended by abstract thinking, therefore an animal cannot formulate regularity.

But what Aristotle meant by 'metaphysics' is closer to what we today would call science. What metaphysics is today is the word for epistemology and ontology.

[Fairy]

I mean, who knows what it is that we are calling "God"/creator of the universe? Maybe all of us are wrong. \_(o_o)_/

No one is right or wrong. There is only the idea of right and wrong in this conception of WORDS

There is no one, or thing, that is calling the Universe a Universe. Or, the God a God...any claim to know anything at all, either by name, form, or number, or symbolism is a falsely claimed ''creator and created'' fictional dualism.

Notice the source of all sound heard is silence. Names, labels, or symbols are simply sound heard as names, labels, and symbols, including numbers.

Words are empty, only appearing as full. Silence is great, and yet no one's ever heard anything in the first place. For even the dualistic story is the Unknown.

Silence has nothing to say. Silence has no interlocutors for silence is "one" with all. All words are functioning at the level of dualistic "thinging". There is no "path to truth" which can be described.


This is the antithesis of "In the beginning was the word..." (John 1:1)

[Janoah]

Spinoza proved such a first cause by means of reason.

According to Spinoza, "infinite matter" is the first cause.
I do not agree with this, simultaneous infinity is absurd. The first cause is a law of nature, immaterial, not matter.

***But you have not yet commented on whether or not God intervenes in history***.
It "intervenes" to the extent that the law of nature "intervenes".
Let's say, if a person bangs his head on the floor during prayers, then he will naturally break his forehead, such an "intervenes".

*** ... you believe in a super natural mode of being***

God forbid that I should believe in the violation of the law of nature.
Apparently there is confusion in understanding the concept of "metaphysics".
The name "Metaphysics" was given to the work of Aristotle, at the same time that according to Aristotle there is no violation of the law of nature, but there is something that can be comprehended by the senses, that is, the material, and something that can be comprehended only by thinking, the "first causes."
Let's say that the law of nature is comprehended by abstract thinking, therefore an animal cannot formulate regularity.

But what Aristotle meant by 'metaphysics' is closer to what we today would call science. What metaphysics is today is the word for epistemology and ontology.

Aristotle himself did not use the term Metaphysics.
After Aristotle, there was rather a degradation of Philosophy. Philosophers today tangle their own and others' brains with various intricate theories, but they do not reach Aristotle.
Apparently, there is an influence of Christianity here. At first, philosophy was closed in Christian Rome, the Academy and other centers of philosophy were closed, but when Islam began to rise, armed with Aristotle and Plato, then the monasteries got scared and began to adopt Aristotle back from Islamic commentators. But in order to combine their absurd doctrine of the God-man with Aristotle and his immaterial First Cause, Christians began to invent various confusing theories to confuse themselves and others, and this continues to this day, even among non-religious people by inertia.