Will you share your opinion on abortion, OM?

Sure! I think that it's not okay because what if that person was the guy who would save our butts in the future from who knows what? Also, as soon as it has a heartbeat it's a living creature, and whether you call it a 'fetus' or a 'baby' it's still alive. Would you kill a puppy in the womb? Then why would you kill a human baby? I say that all abortions should come to an end, at that all those supposedly unwanted children could be put up for adoption for those who are less fortunate.
Of course, some people can't have that baby because they need to work instead of being pregnant, but there are help centers for people like that. Anything else?

I am willing to debate anything about God, now that I am convinced of his existence. I always thoroughly enjoy debating with those who have strong, solid arguments so feel free to put something out there.

Using that same logic when someone prays and the prayer is not answered, would that then be proof that god does not exist?

Devastating. Wish I had thought to put it that way.

There's a nice addendum to that: since God is the one granting prayers under this account, then anyone who acts to give me what I pray for will be God. That's a lot of Gods.

I Suppose so, although I was operating under the impression prayers had to have a supernatural component otherwise ya, one wonders just whats so impressive about a prayer being answered to begin with.

A prayer of thanksgiving is gratitude for the things you have today which logically, is because of prayer - or God's (regardless of what god) actions. To conclude, if the existence of God is true, we only know an approximate definition of him. Therefore the accidental and essential intrinsic attributes cannot define God - he is undefinable.

The difference is the state of being. Contingent beings like us human beings, do not correlate to godly principles. Necessary beings like God or a god - do not correlate to humanly principles. So the argument for the existence of God by Anselm and Aquinas mostly imply to necessary beings.

An example would be the envy of God - he will not allow you to praise other gods or prophets beside him. Yet envy for him, is only approximate to human envy as he is undefinable.

To add, something necessary would be like a Mathematical statement. As a mathematical statement cannot be contradicted unless its beginning terms are altered. Something contingent would be like an opinion 'All cats are yellow' just because all the cats you saw were yellow - doesn't necessarily mean all cats are yellow.

I know that's that argument, my point is it doesn't make sense.

If our prayer is to be answered, something or some being act in the world, to produce one contingent state or another (e.g. curing my illness, rather than me being sick and dying). Our prayers are answered because they are definable, something we know happens in the world, on account of the moving and changing through action of its entities.

So if we take the happening of answering of a prayer, like in the OP, to be evidence of God, we are talking about the entity which caused that contingent state to occur (e.g. the doctor, who, with the right knowledge, cured me), we are taking that entity to be God (in this case the doctor, since they are the one who answered my prayer to be well).

Take Aquinas' argument on God's existence. The theory of causation and motion - that things has happened because of a necessary being making that happen. The doctor who, you argued, made your prayer come true, is also because of God - back when he was in primary to his present career, it was caused by an uncaused causer.

Personally, I believe the arguments of Aquinas and most especially Anselm are not much of logical value, but they can be potentially utilised for other arguments - like prayer. Whether it makes sense or not, we really just can't know God yet for sure as even his characteristics as an all knowing and powerful god is not written in the bible.

I made a simple prayer once. That I would fall asleep then when I woke up and looked at my digital clock would read 12:34:56. Didn't work. Must have been asking for too much.

:lol:

That's exactly the issue though: such a God is not a causer at all. Since God is the most perfect simple, unaltered over time and beyond contingent events, they can do nothing. No matter what happens in the world, God remains the perfect simplicity, infinite and never changing.

Such a God cannot be the contingent difference that causes me to be cured rather than not. God is identical whether I get cured or not.

I need an imperfect being, with the complexity of the form of causing my cure, to do the work.

The events of our creation was caused by this causer, so I apologise, I don't understand. If he created us, which if you are theistic or not, that is a known concept, he should be capable to intertwine with contingent affairs.

The necessary being, God; is omniscient so he should be able to know the perspective of contingent beings, and therefore still be the reason of causing that cure. The curing process though, might be something really out of the detail, one small alteration of ecological relationships or just one more carcinogen causing cancer. The necessity of him actually leads to knowledge beyond the human capacity to know, so yes, he should be able to intertwine to contingent events.

God exists, I'll tell you why.

Have we been told? I just reviewed the thread and don't see it. Maybe I missed it. Or maybe the OP hasn't yet said. Well, OP, the world awaits you.

I prayed that my dog would be cured from a form of incurable canine cancer, and he was. — OpinionsMatter

I think you need a larger sample size than one before drawing any conclusions.

'Recent medical studies on prayer have generally shown mixed results when it comes to healing from illnesses'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer

I personally think it is probable that a creator of the universe exists, but proving there is a God is another question and rather a tricky undertaking (particularly without defining the characteristics of God first).

Well...earlier you mentioned, "They definitely are (worthy)! But if God exists, than heaven is a way better place than earth could ever be, so why wouldn't they want to live there? It would be a place without pain or sickness. A true paradise! Wanting them to stay healthy or at least alive on earth would be selfish, would it not? I think God takes them to heaven where they can be eternally happy and healthy,"

So...if the aborted fetuses were "living"...they would go to Heaven and live in that "true paradise" with your god...and be "eternally happy and healthy."

Your god may know that if allowed to live here on Earth for a relatively few years, they will do something that stops them from attaining Heaven...and the god may want to give them a pass. Your god may know that if allowed to live...they would live in excruciating pain from disease...and the god may want to give them a pass from that.

So you would deny your god that?

You would deny that fetus the chance to attain Heaven with a free pass...or to be freed from a life of pain and anguish?

Why would you do that?

There is no way to establish that any gods exist...or to establish that none do, Tim.

In fairness, I think Devans is just sharing his blind guesses about these things.

I figure eventually he will acknowledge that.

I think a logical argument can be made for a similar but distinct question 'Is there a creator of the universe?'.

For example, the fine-tuning argument: The universe is fine-tuned for life; there must be a fine tuner. But who fine-tuned the fine-tuner's environment for life? There must be another fine-tuner. This infinite regress terminates with a timeless fine-tuner (IE timeless so beyond cause and effect so does not in itself need creating).

As to the question of 'Is there a God?'; if the definition of God includes the 3O's then framing a logical argument is more difficult. People sometimes say that the laws of nature possess some or all of the 3O's and then associate the laws of nature with God...

↪Frank Apisa
I think a logical argument can be made for a similar but distinct question 'Is there a creator of the universe?'. — Devans99

Perhaps.

But what we humans call "the universe" may actually have had a "creator"...and that creator may not be a god.

Keep in mind that what we humans call "the universe" may be only an insignificant part of what exists.

In some much larger reality...what we humans call "the universe" may be a molecule in an experiment being performed by a kid using a chemistry set.

For example, the fine-tuning argument: The universe is fine-tuned for life; there must be a fine tuner. But who fine-tuned the fine-tuner's environment for life? There must be another fine-tuner. This infinite regress terminates with a timeless fine-tuner (IE timeless so beyond cause and effect so does not in itself need creating). — Devans

You seem determined to suppose "the universe" is fine tuned.

It may not be.

All of what we humans consider "the universe" may be an accidental amalgam of things we cannot even imagine, Devans.

As to the question of 'Is there a God?'; if the definition of God includes the 3O's then framing a logical argument is more difficult. People sometimes say that the laws of nature possess some or all of the 3O's and then associate the laws of nature with God... — Devans

The ONLY "logical argument" that can be made about the true nature of the REALITY of existence is:

I do not know.

Try that one out for a bit...and when you finally grok it...you can move on to:

But here are my guesses about what it might be.

But what we humans call "the universe" may actually have had a "creator"...and that creator may not be a god — Frank Apisa

Yes. I think we can conclude if there was a creator, then he would have the following characteristics:

- Timeless
- Powerful
- Benevolent

But there is a gulf between the above and the traditional religious view of God. Thinking of God as the creator of the natural laws partially bridges the gap in terms of omnipresence and omnipotence. It does not cover omniscience or omnibenevolence. I'm not sure that the traditional religious view of God is amenable to being tackled with a logical proof. The very idea of omnipotence/omniscience/omnibenevolence seems to fly in the face of logical thinking,

In some much larger reality...what we humans call "the universe" may be a molecule in an experiment being performed by a kid using a chemistry set. — Frank Apisa

It is an interesting point. When discussing the universe, it is sometimes helpful to use the term 'base reality' to refer to the entirety of everything. Then we can look at creation arguments and say whether they apply to our reality or 'base reality' or both.

Arguments that relate to our universe and our time generally recast as arguments relating to base reality and base reality time with no problem I find.

You seem determined to suppose "the universe" is fine tuned.

It may not be — Frank Apisa

It's a hotly debated subject. Personally I think both the weak and strong Anthropic principle arguments can be countered. My conclusion is the universe is probably fine-tuned for life.

Yes. I think we can conclude if there was a creator, then he would have the following characteristics:

- Timeless
- Powerful
- Benevolent — Devans99

Respectfully as possible, Devans...I do not think we can conclude any of those things.

If there is a "creator"...the creator may not even realize it is a creator.

If you make toast this morning...and it happens that one molecule of the toast you make "creates" a universe that is much like the thing we humans call "the universe"...you would be the creator of a universe...and not even know it.

We ALL may be creating new universes every minute of every day.

A "creator" does not have to be "timeless" "powerful" or "benevolent."

Those are gratuitous characteristics you want for a creator.

But there is a gulf between the above and the traditional religious view of God. Thinking of God as the creator of the natural laws partially bridges the gap in terms of omnipresence and omnipotence. It does not cover omniscience or omnibenevolence. I'm not sure that the traditional religious view of God is amenable to being tackled with a logical proof. The very idea of omnipotence/omniscience/omnibenevolence seems to fly in the face of logical thinking, — Devans

One thing it shares with "the traditional religious view"...is that it is nothing but a blind guess about what MIGHT BE.

In some much larger reality...what we humans call "the universe" may be a molecule in an experiment being performed by a kid using a chemistry set. — Frank Apisa


It is an interesting point. When discussing the universe, it is sometimes helpful to use the term 'base reality' to refer to the entirety of everything. Then we can look at creation arguments and say whether they apply to our reality or 'base reality' or both.

Arguments that relate to our universe and our time generally recast as arguments relating to base reality and base reality time with no problem I find. — Devans

I'm not sure where you are going with that line of thinking...but if it helps get your away from what seems to be certainty of a "god"...good for you.

You seem determined to suppose "the universe" is fine tuned.

It may not be — Frank Apisa


It's a hotly debated subject. Personally I think both the weak and strong Anthropic principle arguments can be countered. My conclusion is the universe is probably fine-tuned for life. — Devans

Okay...that is your "conclusion."

But it is so inappropriate as a "conclusion" you might want to re-consider it.

The only reasonable "conclusion" would be: "It may be fine tuned for life...and life may not be the result of any fine-tuning."

Any conclusion you make is nothing more than a blind guess.

We ALL may be creating new universes every minute of every day. — Frank Apisa

The evidence of fine-tuning for life counts against accidental creation.

A "creator" does not have to be "timeless" "powerful" or "benevolent." — Frank Apisa

- Timeless. Has to be else we'd have an infinite regress in time.
- Powerful. Has to be powerful enough to create the universe, IE pretty powerful
- Benevolent. Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible. If God ever meets a greater god, the outcome is as follows: Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished. Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded. The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be a good god.

Any conclusion you make is nothing more than a blind guess. — Frank Apisa

I think we already discussed this, but what you call 'a blind guess', I call 'a probability analysis'.

This "god" thing is something you need...and will defend no matter what.

I hope at some point you get to "we really do not know...and any blind guesses I make about what is more probable than its opposite...is self-serving."

In the meantime, I'll comment from time to time.

I don't need God. For example, I am very much a humanist, I think that humans should help themselves rather than rely on the possibility of God helping them (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5437/the-eternal-life-company/p1 for example).

But humanist or not, I am still interested in whether there is a God or not and probability is a more enlightening approach that just saying 'I don't know'.

↪Frank Apisa
I don't need God. For example, I am very much a humanist, I think that humans should help themselves rather than rely on the possibility of God helping them (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5437/the-eternal-life-company/p1 for example).

But humanist or not, I am still interested in whether there is a God or not and probability is a more enlightening approach that just saying 'I don't know'. — Devans99

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT PRETENDING TO HAVE A PROBABILITY ESTIMATE IS ANY MORE "ENLIGHTENED" THAN SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE DO NOT KNOW THE TRUE NATURE OF THE REALITY OF EXISTENCE.

Your probability estimate is total fiction, Devans.

Probability that a creator of the universe exists (I’ve plugged in very conservative estimates this time):

1. Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition
2. The start of time/Big Bang: 50% + 50% * 50% = 75%
3. Fine tuning of the universe for life: 75% + 25% * 50% = 87.5%
4. Why is there something rather than nothing 87.5% + 12.5% * 25% = 90.6%

So a 91% chance of the existence of a creator of the universe.

What exactly am I ‘pretending’ about? Why is it fiction? It looks like a perfectly valid probability analysis to me. It could be more detailed I grant and the actual numbers used are guesstimates but it is still a more refined approach to the problem than just saying 'I don't know'.

↪Frank Apisa
Probability that a creator of the universe exists (I’ve plugged in very conservative estimates this time):

1. Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition
2. The start of time/Big Bang: 50% + 50% * 50% = 75%
3. Fine tuning of the universe for life: 75% + 25% * 50% = 87.5%
4. Why is there something rather than nothing 87.5% + 12.5% * 25% = 90.6%

So a 91% chance of the existence of a creator of the universe.

What exactly am I ‘pretending’ about? Why is it fiction? It looks like a perfectly valid probability analysis to me. It could be more detailed I grant and the actual numbers used are guesstimates but it is still a more refined approach to the problem than just saying 'I don't know'. — Devans99

You are kidding yourself, Devans. The fact that you are supposing you have solved a problem that the greatest minds that have ever existed on the planet have not been able to solve...

...should give you a clue that you are kidding yourself.

But apparently it is not.

Okay...continue to think YOU have solved the most difficult problem ever...and that you were able to do it in only one paragraph...and that all the rest of humanity has not been able to accomplish what you have done here.

Doesn't sound delusional at all...

...RIGHT?