God Exists

Expanded Argument from Non-Cognitivism There are three attributes of existents which concern us particularly, these being: A. Primary Attributes- The basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existent’s primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified B. Secondary Attributes - Character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise C. Relational Attributes – What we associate with the character. For example, in the case of President Obama, the fact that he is the President of the United States is an example of a relational attribute. 2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existent’s A in order to be considered meaningful. 2a. This is known by the law of identity. A carrot has the primary attribute allowing it to have the secondary attribute of color. While a feeling doesn’t have the primary attribute to have color as a B or C attribute. 3. The term “God” lacks a positively identified A. 3a. Giving it B and C attributes without giving A, is like saying “nothing” can love. Nothing doesn’t actually have a primary attribute to love. 4. Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2) 5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless. 5a. Simple, by the law of identity, if something doesn’t have an identity, it doesn’t have meaning. It would make it a belief in nothing. 6. Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5) C. Therefore, the god concept is invalid. This would mean talking about or giving evidence of a god is useless, until a definition is given. Pro gave the tri-omni definition, but these are all clearly secondary and do not succeed. First Way: Argument from Motion. Pro gives us the argument from motion which is based of the Aristotelian idea of motion (as stated). I must ask Pro, is he using “motion” as just a synonym for “cause” or are you basing it off the validity of Aristotelian physics? I ask, why does this first mover need to be God? Pro says the mover needs to be “immaterial”, but this is uncertain. "What existed before the big bang? It's still an open question. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps another universe or a different version of our own. Perhaps a sea of universes, each with a different set of laws dictating its physical reality. " [1] There's no reason to assume an immaterial mover. Why can't there exist some type of matter without potential? Even if it was a necessary part, why should we think it's a being? Same with atemporal, why should we think of something atemporal is a being? It's also claimed the mover is immutable. This can't be true, it must be mutable in some way or else it would still be creating universes. Pro tries to prove omnipotence by claiming “. .. two forms of power: active power, the ability to act, and passive potentiality, the ability to be acted upon. Thus, as Pure Act, this being has all possible active power;” I see no justification for this either. This is committing an excluded middle fallacy, because if something has no potential, this doesn't mean it has all active power and vice versa. I need Pro to explain what he means in the omniscience section. Are you saying the mover must be omniscient because it must have everything it gives and since it gave man rationality, it too must have all forms of rationality, meaning omniscience? Just want to make sure, before I go any further. Pro says the mover must be good, because an “ objective standard of goodness” exists. What do you mean by “objective standard of goodness”. If you define it as coming from God, then the argument is circular. Since you assume goodness comes from God, to prove this God is good. If it means something else, then the conclusion can't be reached. Why must the mover be moral and why should we think this morality came from it? Natural Movers. Under the mainstream interpretations of quantum physics, quantum vacuum fluctuations have no cause. [2][3] But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. Keep in mind E=mc^2 shows energy and matter are basically one in the same, they can transform into each other The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. [4] Edward Tryon said The laws of physics place no limit on the scale of vacuum fluctuations. The duration is of course subject to the restriction ΔEΔt ~ h, but this merely implies that our Universe has zero energy, which has already been made plausible. [5] Tryon's model is falsified, but he set the stage. There's newer updated models that use the same foundations as Tryon. Like Alexander Vilenkin's quantum tunneling model. His model states the universe came from an uncaused quantum tunneling event. [6] So the first mover doesn't need to be a God at all. Why should we believe in the God hypothesis over the scientific alternatives? Back to Pro! Sources ____________________________________________________________________________ [1] . http://science.howstuffworks.com... [2] “In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. ” Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London: J. M. Dent & Sons. [3] “Even in a perfect vacuum—a region of space containing neither matter nor energy—particle-antiparticle pairs (such as an electron and its antiparticle opposite, the positron) constantly appear and disappear. .. .” . https://www.cfa.harvard.edu... [4] Hawking, Steven. 1988. A Brief History of Time. Toronto: Bantam [5] Tryon, Edward P. 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? Nature 246: 396-397. [6] . http://www.mukto-mona.com...