Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

I have never said that God does not act.

Actions require time. The act is to change.

There is no physical evidence but the alternative arguments are infinite regress, The universe just is or the universe being the necessary entity.

Drivel.

• An unknown is not an argument for your favourite baseless fantasy.
• A 'necessary entity' is still logically incoherent.
• Even if we accepted a 'necessary entity' (or a brute fact, for that matter) at the base of all hierarchies, it would be nothing like your God, that plans, thinks, acts, interacts, judges, and so on, and so on. All things that require time, change, morality, and complexity. Feser blatantly contradicted himself on this by claiming that a mind required the hierarchy, and then described a God with a mind. You appear to be doing the same.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So you think now that praying for other people (little Timmy for example) makes no difference at all to the outcomes for those people?

As I said prayer changes US rather than God. It allows us to partake of the supernatural or non physical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actions require time. The act is to change.

Drivel.

• An unknown is not an argument for your favourite baseless fantasy.
• A 'necessary entity' is still logically incoherent.
• Even if we accepted a 'necessary entity' (or a brute fact, for that matter) at the base of all hierarchies, it would be nothing like your God, that plans, thinks, acts, interacts, judges, and so on, and so on. All things that require time, change, morality, and complexity. Feser blatantly contradicted himself on this by claiming that a mind required the hierarchy, and then described a God with a mind. You appear to be doing the same.

You need to show how a necessary entity is logically incoherent.

[Stranger]

You need to show how a necessary entity is logically incoherent.

Good grief, how many more times? It's incoherent because nobody can logically explain how something can be its own reason for existence. You would have to have something that would cause some sort of contradiction if it didn't exist or was different.

Until you can explain that, it's nothing but a fantasy that would be nothing like the God you want to exist anyway.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No Hillside, You are giving us your view of what prayer is and how a God operates. It’s theology, innit?

Stop lying. YOU’RE the one claiming an “unchanging” god, and hitherto at least YOU’VE been the one asserting that this same god will intercede on behalf of others in answer to prayers (though you seem to be backing away from that claim now).

So again: do you assert both an “unchanging” god AND a god who will change the course of events in response to certain prayers, or don’t you?

Why is this so difficult for you?

As I said prayer changes US rather than God.

So no amount of praying for your god to intercede on behalf of someone ELSE (eg, little Timmy) will make a difference to that’s person’s experience?

Is that your position now?
 

It allows us to partake of the supernatural or non physical.

Unless you can demonstrate that there is a “supernatural or non physical” then that’s just a blind faith claim, epistemically equivalent to any other blind faith claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good grief, how many more times? It's incoherent because nobody can logically explain how something can be its own reason for existence. You would have to have something that would cause some sort of contradiction if it didn't exist or was different.

Until you can explain that, it's nothing but a fantasy that would be nothing like the God you want to exist anyway.

There has to be a reason for why there is existence rather than non existence. That is logical.
That reason is the necessary entity since non existence provides no reasons.

[Nearly Sane]

There has to be a reason for why there is existence rather than non existence. That is logical.
That reason is the necessary entity since non existence provides no reasons.

  No, it's not logical, it's an assertion based on Begging the question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Stop lying. YOU’RE the one claiming an “unchanging” god, and hitherto at least YOU’VE been the one asserting that this same god will intercede on behalf of others in answer to prayers (though you seem to be backing away from that claim now).

So again: do you assert both an “unchanging” god AND a god who will change the course of events in response to certain prayers, or don’t you?

Why is this so difficult for you?

So no amount of praying for your god to intercede on behalf of someone ELSE (eg, little Timmy) will make a difference to that’s person’s experience?

Is that your position now?
 
Unless you can demonstrate that there is a “supernatural or non physical” then that’s just a blind faith claim, epistemically equivalent to any other blind faith claim.

I think what has happened here is somebody saw me say prayer changes me rather than God and went into a bit of a feeding frenzy a la the river Amazon.

Perhaps you can say how God changes?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There has to be a reason for why there is existence rather than non existence. That is logical.

Only if you can demonstrate first that non-existence is more likely than existence. That actually is logical.

That reason is the necessary entity since non existence provides no reasons.

But you’ve never been able to explain why the universe can’t be the “necessary entity”, or at least not without collapsing into several logically false arguments. Try to remember this. 

[Stranger]

That reason is the necessary entity...

Baseless and meaningless. If you can't explain how it is logically possible for something to be its own reason for existence, and what contradiction would occur if it didn't exist or was different, then 'necessary entity' is just gobbledygook.

It's trivially easy to imagine something very different from the universe we see. It's trivially easy to imagine endless different versions of God, gods, or godless realities. You seem to be using 'necessary entity' like it's a magic spell that removes all the logical problems.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  No, it's not logical, it's an assertion based on Begging the question.

I think you are arguing against the principle of sufficient reason by means of the principle of sufficient reason here.

There is a reason for existence over non existence,
That reason must exist
Non existence cannot be that reason.
It must be something that exists

Seems sound to me

[Outrider]

Or, maybe what emerges is moral ability,analogous to mathematical or linguistic ability.

Right. And we invent the maths and the language to utilise that capacity, language isn't something intrinsic to reality, there is no 'absolute maths'.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Baseless and meaningless. If you can't explain how it is logically possible for something to be its own reason for existence, and what contradiction would occur if it didn't exist or was different, then 'necessary entity' is just gobbledygook.

It's trivially easy to imagine something very different from the universe we see. It's trivially easy to imagine endless different versions of God, gods, or godless realities. You seem to be using 'necessary entity' like it's a magic spell that removes all the logical problems.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think what has happened here is somebody saw me say prayer changes me rather than God and went into a bit of a feeding frenzy a la the river Amazon.

So much ducking and diving. Yes, you've recently retrenched to "prayer changes me". So the question then remains the one I asked you:   

"So no amount of praying for your god to intercede on behalf of someone ELSE (eg, little Timmy) will make a difference to that’s person’s experience?

Is that your position now?"

Perhaps you can say how God changes?

According to your mutually contradictory assertions, I already have:

"...on the one hand you assert a god who’s “unchanging”, but you also assert praying that causes this god to change his mind. Thus god’s plan A at 9am (to kill little Timmy at lunchtime for example) becomes god’s plan B (to effect a “miraculous” cure for little Timmy instead for example) provided someone has dome some praying at 9.30am".

If you've now rowed back from asserting a god who will intercede on behalf of others (little Timmy for example) so praying for other people is pointless that's fine, but as you seem determined not to tell us whether that is what you now think there's no guessing about that.     

[Nearly Sane]

I think you are arguing against the principle of sufficient reason by means of the principle of sufficient reason here.

There is a reason for existence over non existence,
That reason must exist
Non existence cannot be that reason.
It must be something that exists

Seems sound to me

More assertion , again based on begging the question.

[Stranger]

There is a reason for existence over non existence,
That reason must exist
Non existence cannot be that reason.
It must be something that exists

Seems sound to me

You've actually neatly pointed out why it's incoherent. How can something that exists (requires existence) be the reason for existence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



"...on the one hand you assert a god who’s “unchanging”, but you also assert praying that causes this god to change his mind.

Where have I said that prayer causes God to change his mind?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You've actually neatly pointed out why it's incoherent. How can something that exists (requires existence) be the reason for existence?

I shall wait for the penny to drop.

[Stranger]

I shall wait for the penny to drop.

It's about time you understood the problem. How long is it going to take you? Just making up a something that is magically its own reason for existing and calling it 'necessary' is not a logical response.

It's no more logical than just saying "it's magic, innit?"

[Stranger]

Perhaps you can say how God changes?

Any action is a change, any judgement is a change, any interaction is a change, any creation is a change, any manifestation is a change, any thought is a change, any plan is a change, and miracle is a change...

Where have I said that prayer causes God to change his mind?

You disagree with the bible, then? For example, Exodus 32:7-14.

[jeremyp]

Depends what you mean by change.

Not staying the same. Are you not a native speaker of English?

If you mean changes from one entity into another then his various entities cannot be eternal.

I don't and neither does anybody else with a reasonable grasp of English.

You claimed that God's divinity being eternal means that it is unchanging. But the inference is false. An entity being eternal just means it never ceases to exist. Ceasing to exist is only one of many ways in which an entity may change. For example you have changed significantly since you were born and yet you haven't ceased to exist.

Since you assert he does change then in what way does he change?

One example: before Jesus was born, God din't have a human component. After Jesus was born, he did.

[jeremyp]

My assertion I believe was that prayer changes me rather than God.

I think you replied to the wrong post. The above has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Where have I said that prayer causes God to change his mind?

In previous discussions about the (supposed) efficacy of prayer. Rather than have me trawl through to find them, to avoid your continued slipperiness let’s just simplify this as a question instead.

Do you think that prayers to your god to intercede in the fate of other people can have effect:

A. Yes

B. No

C. I refuse to answer, and this is why I refuse to answer

D. I refuse to answer, but I’m not going to tell you why I refuse to answer?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not staying the same. Are you not a native speaker of English?
I don't and neither does anybody else with a reasonable grasp of English.

You claimed that God's divinity being eternal means that it is unchanging. But the inference is false. An entity being eternal just means it never ceases to exist. Ceasing to exist is only one of many ways in which an entity may change. For example you have changed significantly since you were born and yet you haven't ceased to exist.One example: before Jesus was born, God din't have a human component. After Jesus was born, he did.

But there are a slew of theologians who would argue that he didn't. They would say that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine without blending or what they would call confusion.

Christianity though also states that humans will be raised to eternity spiritually.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

In previous discussions about the (supposed) efficacy of prayer.

Er,  which previous discussions?