Friday, June 17, 2005

God argument no1

Now go through the steps one by one and show me what's wrong with my logic?

Being Has to Be.



A. Logic of the Argument.

P1)Nothingness as a putative state of affiars (PSA) is impossilbe;it is a contradiction in terms since a PSA is something and thus cannot be total absolute nothingness.

P2)The concept of Nothingness as PSA is incoherent; What would total absolute nothingness mean? Even when Physicists speak of "nothing" they don't mean real absolute nothingness.

P3) If Nothingness were the PSA nothing could ever come to be; it cold not rise in time because time is something and thus the PSA would already contradict itself; it could not rise beyond time, since there is no change or causality beyond time.

P4) Thus, Nothingness cannot be a PSA, and therefore, something must have always been for all eternity.

P5) Since this "Something" has to be eternal, it must be necessary and without cause; Being Itself is the logially necessary candidate since the nature of Being is to be.

P6)Therefore, Being Itself, or the Ground of Being is eternal, uncreated, necessary being, and must be the thing that has given rise to all other things that come to be.

P7) These attrbutes, necessary, eternal, fist cause, creator of all that is, are the very crucial attributes of God.

P These attributes are mutually exclucive, that is, they could only be held by one enetity, and cannot shared in the same way at the same time; this can be seen immidately from the logic of he case; how could there be two grounds of being? How could there be two first causes or two things that are logcially necessary to have been the PSA?

P9) Therefore, God and the Ground of Being, or Being Itself must share identity.

P10) Since we Know that Being is, we know that God is.
Metacrock: Have Theology, Will Argue!

5 comments:

MaxVel said...

Hello Meta!

A few thoughts on your argument:

I take it that you are arguing from the position that 'given the Universe as we now observe it'.. It seems to me that a 'nothingness' PSA is possible conceptually... but that it's not compatible with the universe we have now.

ref said...

"Nothingness as a putative state of affiars (PSA) is impossilbe;it is a contradiction in terms since a PSA is something and thus cannot be total absolute nothingness."

I'm not convinced that a nothingness PSA is impossible. The fact that there is a grammatical contradiction (we talk of nothingness as a thing) may only be indicative of our language and not "how things are/could be".

Also, I'm not convinced that God could be desribed as "somethingness", as God isn't "something", I wouldn't say.

J.L. Hinman said...

Nothingness as PSA is impossible.

(1) it's a contradiction in terms; its' a proiri a contradiction.

why? Becasue PSA is something, and nothing is nothing.

(2) Nothingness would require that there be no time. Time is something, if we have a state of true aboslute nothing, nothing nothing nothjng, then we cannot have time.

No time = no change and no becoming. this is absolute because you can't ever have a state of change so it can't change, (change is becoming, becoming is negated always already by the fact of timelessness because you can't have change without time).

J.L. Hinman said...

If we have only two cohices, something and nothing; God is certainly not noting. So God must be "something."

Come on, "Something" is not a thin in itself, it just means you have an existant. God has to be some kind of existenat if God has being, or is being or whatever.

Anonymous said...

While I will grant nothingness as a PSA seems to me to be an impossibility, since we would not be able to get out of the state of entropy that nothingness implies.

However, to say that the spark, or counterpoint, or whatever it is that keeps the universe "real" and happening is "God" is a stretch. But what if it is God, as in a creator. To think that anything as massive as a counterbalance to the entirety of our known universal reality would even consider us important is ridiculous.

Would something with that much force and power then create something as infintesimal as a human son to teach us a lesson? I hardly think so. Would that force even bother to notice Man in the great expanse of the universe that God created?

There is so much of man in the Judeo-Christian manifestation of God that just has to be wrong. Kingdom's. God the Father. Lord.

These are all human concepts. If God is the Father, then who is our Mother? Men can fertilize, but he cannot create.

I am not saying there isn't something, but I highly doubt it's anything like the men who wrote the Old Testament envision. Man has been wrong about the nature of his God through every epoch. We "know" that there is no Zeus on Olympus. No Odin in Valhalla. No Jupiter. No Osis. Yet it's ok to believe in a J-C God, Allah or Vishnu? We call theirs a "mythology" and ours are "beliefs"? "Ancient" man beleived just as ferverantly in the Gods as those of the faith do now.

You can't have it both ways.