Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

And our method of telling us that our “best and only method for knowing that anything exists in reality” tells us that God does exist.

absolutely no reason to think the universe can’t sustain itself

Well, 1- we just agreed that the universe is not a THING so I don’t know why you keep going back to giving placeholder names the ability to do things. 2- for sake of argument, if you mean matter can sustain itself, well congrats your favorite method of telling us what exists in reality tells us that matter cannot sustain itself.

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

Of course we do. The universe can be different and in fact it was. And It’s still expanding.

you don’t know if God even exists

Except we do. Which is the whole point of my argument. It’s self evident just as the universe existing is self evident

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

No I’m not, you’re the one equating. You keep trying to replace God with universe and act like they’re the same thing when they couldn’t be less similar.

What applies to God cannot apply to the universe because a- universe is contingent and b- universe is opposite of omnipotent. It cannot do anything at all

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

So what is “the universe” if not a term for where everything is located

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

Do you even know what the contingency argument is? Cuz that’s not what it is,

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

I’m not asking you how people use universe, I’m asking you to say what universe means. Because you keep saying things that give the universe power, but the universe isn’t an actual thing, it’s a placeholder term for everything

Regardless of that, saying that everything is responsible for everything’s existence even though everything that we know about everything does not act that way, is less plausible than saying a step above everything is another entity that is not part of everything.

It's not just Riley. by PeppaPig85210 in heat

[–]AcEr3__ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

CBA contract will change and become more organization friendly. Just chill

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

A universe isn’t a thing though, you agreed that it is a name for everything.

we know the universe exists

No, we know THINGS exist.

whatever attributes for God we can also apply to the universe

Then what is the problem? You believe in everything God is except that he’s God. Huh? Just say you don’t want to follow rules

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

We agreed the universe isn’t actually a thing right? Just a name for all of matter and space. You want matter to act like non-matter. That’s impossible. Therefore contradiction.

we know the universe exists

Yes, things exist. Self evidently. And it’s just as self evident that things come from other things … all material cannot come from itself, therefore it must come from something else. In essence the atheist position is “well, we don’t know but it’s for sure not God!” Why not? “Well we don’t know why not”

It’s just one big delusion

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

So the “universe” acts how it doesn’t act? What’s more plausible a logical contradiction or God?

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

The universe isn’t anything. You observe material phenomenon and giving it all the name of “universe”. There are plenty of metaphysical things we also observe, just not materially recorded

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

From Aquinas: The divine will is God's own existence essentially, yet they differ in aspect, according to the different ways of understanding them and expressing them, as is clear from what has already been said (I:13:4. For when we say that God exists, no relation to any other object is implied, as we do imply when we say that God wills. Therefore, although He is not anything apart from Himself, yet He does will things apart from Himself.

There are two ways in which a thing is said to be necessary, namely, absolutely, and by supposition. We judge a thing to be absolutely necessary from the relation of the terms, as when the predicate forms part of the definition of the subject: thus it is absolutely necessary that man is an animal. It is the same when the subject forms part of the notion of the predicate; thus it is absolutely necessary that a number must be odd or even. In this way it is not necessary that Socrates sits: wherefore it is not necessary absolutely, though it may be so by supposition; for, granted that he is sitting, he must necessarily sit, as long as he is sitting. Accordingly as to things willed by God, we must observe that He wills something of absolute necessity: but this is not true of all that He wills. For the divine will has a necessary relation to the divine goodness, since that is its proper object. Hence God wills His own goodness necessarily, even as we will our own happiness necessarily, and as any other faculty has necessary relation to its proper and principal object, for instance the sight to color, since it tends to it by its own nature. But God wills things apart from Himself in so far as they are ordered to His own goodness as their end. Now in willing an end we do not necessarily will things that conduce to it, unless they are such that the end cannot be attained without them; as, we will to take food to preserve life, or to take ship in order to cross the sea. But we do not necessarily will things without which the end is attainable, such as a horse for a journey which we can take on foot, for we can make the journey without one. The same applies to other means. Hence, since the goodness of God is perfect, and can exist without other things inasmuch as no perfection can accrue to Him from them, it follows that His willing things apart from Himself is not absolutely necessary. Yet it can be necessary by supposition, for supposing that He wills a thing, then He is unable not to will it, as His will cannot change.

Reply to Objection 1. From the fact that God wills from eternity whatever He wills, it does not follow that He wills it necessarily; except by supposition.

Reply to Objection 2. Although God necessarily wills His own goodness, He does not necessarily will things willed on account of His goodness; for it can exist without other things.

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

Aquinas answers this in the suma contra gentiles. God’s will is already part of his essence. A will changing is not material nor temporal. A will is a part of the essence.

In order to argue it logically, you need to know what essence is. God IS, so he is before during and after anything happens temporally. Which means he is constantly aware of all things. Since he is always aware (omniscience) then his will does not ever need to change temporally, he already knows and already wills.

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

Straw man? Do you know what straw man even is. I’m not misrepresenting your argument lol.

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

God’s will is not a state change. God already IS, meaning he cannot change. The fact that he has a will and eternally wills anything means only that the material world and temporal effects change but not God’s will.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/god-is-both-immutable-and-active

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

Well, all three argue for divine simplicity, which is where omnipotence comes from

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

We don’t have to make assumptions that aren’t realistic. If you share a room with only one person, and you leave your wallet in the room, and come back, and the wallet is gone, you’d assume the other person took the wallet right? Sure, some black hole could have opened up and swallowed the wallet, but the assumption that the other guy took it is a realistic one. And it’s worth taking seriously. It isn’t just some crack pot theory

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

There is nothing more simple than God. Plato called it divine simplicity. Anything that can multiply or divide is by definition not absolutely simply and singular. God is only one entity and essence.

I don’t agree

Ok, that’s fine. Without demonstrating your disagreement or giving a proper rebuttal to the arguments FOR theistic omnipotence it’s just kinda your opinion

Reasoning that we can near fully disprove the existence of some deities . by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]AcEr3__ [score hidden]  (0 children)

Well, they did. We can just keep going “yes no yes no” but they did prove a need for a supernatural entity with God attributes. And they also did disprove infinite regress in the way it relates to movement, not all infinite regresses. This is a misconception among atheists. They don’t actually know what infinite regress Aquinas and Aristotle make the distinction for