No particle of matter can occupy the same position, relative to the balance of matter, in any two increments of time. Therefore, all matter is subject to constant spatial change (time). Anything subject to change is subject; it is contingent in its being. Therefore, all matter is contingent in its being. If contingent being exists, necessary being must exist. In short: Material contingency is empirical evidence of necessary being. To date, I am left to believe that the God of the bible uniquely fulfills the Omni-implications of a necessary being. Note: Space is position relative to matter. Time is the progressive relative positions of matter.
Isn't it so convenient for the religious to make the above statement? Plus the whole reward thing never paid out for the millions of innocent children who die horrible deaths by war, disease, starvation...etc. BUT.....a religious person will just say when confronted by that....."Oh! GOD has a plan!" What plan?? And if this is GOD'S PLAN....I don't want anything to do with such a GOD. AA - - - Updated - - - Really? Exactly HOW?? AA
I hold advanced degrees specific to Particle Physics and Cosmology. Your statement as far as Particle Position is only accurate if we use a single universal model. When a Multiversal Model is used your statement does not apply. As well that statement does NOT in any way lead to the belief that the God of the bible uniquely fulfills the Omni-implications of a necessary being. AA
They are not necessary. They are all subject to intellectual, emotional and volitional change. A necessary being is not subject to change. A necessary being is not subject to anything.
Why are they not in the exact same category as the Biblical God? Are you really going to claim that the Biblival God hasn't changed over the course of the history of Judaism and Christianity?
I am able to find a necessary being in the God of the bible. I have not found that in any of the other scriptures. The foundation of my spiritual (meta-spatial) beliefs is material contingency. Absolutely everything that I can measure is subject to change. Anything subject to change is subject; it is contingent in its being, and if contingent being exists, necessary being must exist. The contingent nature of the material universe is empirical evidence of necessary being. I am open to other ideas, but to date, I am left to believe that the God of the bible fulfills the implications of a necessary being.
All material one can measure, including the bible, is subject to change. The bible is not necessary; it exists contingently. Furthermore, there is an indispensable distinction, even when there is no difference, between what is implied and what is inferred. Those who do not recognize that distinction can claim to base their theology upon what is implied in the bible. They, therefore, have no need to defend the reasonableness of their theology because they are not the ones making the implication. I, on the other hand, concede the distinction between implication and inference. I must, therefore, be prepared to defend the reasonableness of my theology because I am the one making the inference. The failure to recognize the distinction, even when there's no difference, between implication and inference has led to some wildly unreasonable theologies. Popular among them today is the theology the God "sovereignly subjects" Himself to human volition. Such "free-will" theology, wherein creatures choose from undetermined possibilities, renders God less than sovereign, not-necessary, subject to change, unholy.
How is this not special pleading and confirmation bias? You are arguing "God exists so God must exist". That so many logical fallacies I don't even know where to begin.
If you don't want anything to do with God, that is your choice. There are indeed consequences of that choice, nevertheless it is your choice. The disease starvation and thirst, is what man has brought to earth. The decisions and actions we have made, are all followed by consequences. If you wish to blame that on God, that is your choice. That is baring false witness upon God. If man decides to set off a nuke in a large city, there are not only immediate consequences, but long term as well. The newborn will see these consequences, and more than likely be deformed. Do you know how many nuclear tests have been accounted for? Over 2,000 (according to wiki). Do you know how many have been detonated in the oceans? Let me guess, you feel that it was God who detonated them. Aside from nukes, do you know what kind of experiments are being done in the lab? All for dna, disease, and biological warfare. When finding drugs for cures, dna, and biological warfare, what takes place, and what are the consequences? They are not going to tell us, especially with the kind of money they make through pharmacies or prescription drugs. What type of breeding is going on in the labs, are they cloning? And from all of the previous, how do you know nothing has leaked out without them telling us? This is not the work of God, rather man deceived by satan. If you wish for this behavior to continue, keep blaming God.
That is the most incomprehensible pile of gibberish I have heard in a very long time. It is so full pf crap I cannot even reply usefully through to powerful stench.
Or.....could a Being or Beings...... composed of fundamental energy..... have became both sentimental as well as curious...... and could they really enjoy having given us humans.... and I assume angels and Extraterrestrial Biological Entities..... genuine freedom of choice to make errors..... and to learn from those errors........ and become better and better.......... ... in one way...... could a statement attributed to Satan/ Lucifer/ The Devil...... be essentially TRUE? Gen 3:5 "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." http://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/howard-storm.html#a06
Energy is material change. Anything subject to change is subject. It is not sovereign; it is not necessary. It is contingent in its being. If contingent being exists, necessary being must exist. If that which changes exists, that which is inviolate must exist. [All of the potential energy in the universe is equal to all mass moving at the speed of light. Energy is material change.] We, as contingent beings, are a complex of actuality and potentiality. We actually exist, but we have the potential not to. We are a complex of intellectual, emotional, volitional and corporeal processes. If any of these processes stop, we are, in that regard, considered dead. A process is a prescribed sequence of changes. We are defined by our changes. A necessary being is holy (inviolate). A necessary being is simple actuality. A necessary being has no potential to change. A necessary being has no potential to come to come to know, come to emote, come to will, come to be or not be. It is what it is with no potential to be anything else. A necessary being is defined by its holiness.
You cannot measure energy, at all, you cannot even observe energy, you cannot even perceive energy, apart from material change. There is no energy apart from material change. There is no potential for energy apart from material. Matter is that with mass. Space is position relative to matter. Time is the progressive relative positions of matter. Energy is material change. Describe even one example of energy apart from material change. You can't do it. You can't even describe energy apart from material change. Even the energy required for the description require material change.
Yes we can, heat energy, its called the Sun our nearest star warming the Earth which happens 24/7 stronger during the day and weak at night of course. Unless you lost your sese of the flesh to sense the heat during the day.
You're making my point. "warming" is material change. The energy that emanates from the sun is caused by material change. That energy then causes additional material changes. Energy is material change.
I think the bottom line is that there are very good arguments for the existence of God. But let's review what makes for a “good” argument. An argument is a series of statements (premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. The premises has to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. A good argument is a sound argument in which the premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their opposites. You should compare the premise and its negation and believe whichever one is more plausibly true in light of the evidence. A good argument will be a sound argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri...d/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god/ Given that definition, the question is this: Are there good arguments for God’s existence? In order to find out, let’s look at five arguments for God’s existence. 1. The Cosmological Argument from Contingency The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. Here’s a simple version of the famous version from contingency: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. The universe exists. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3). Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).
