A Christian Philosophy

I'm with you on that one: The undeniable order in the universe strongly points to an order-giver. I think an objector might say that "while improbable...

I wonder still if the definitions are not essentially saying the same thing in different ways. Aren't natural sciences dealing only with things that a...

Yeah. Materialism does not leave room for the existence of God. God is conventionally considered a spiritual, non-material being, because a material b...

Interesting. I am not advocating materialism, but I also thought that naturalism and materialism were interchangeable words. What is the difference be...

I was referring only to natural or material things. Indeed, non-material things like meaning, information, knowledge, values, moral law, etc., do not ...

It changes my argument drastically if we only consider material things, but we can try it out for fun anyways: - The first cause possesses all propert...

I think that indeed we can reduce the thesis "conservation of property" to "conservation of mass and energy" when it comes to the natural or material ...

Energy transfer is causal. I may have miswrote something along the way. In fact, I think we can generalize that in the natural world, all the properti...

Sure there is. The effect of the word inscription on paper is caused not only by the typewriter but also by the writer using the typewriter. No writer...

I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. Let's go back to the principle: "No effect can be greater than the sum of its causes (with an 's'). An ...

Well we are getting into small details, but it goes something like this: The computer has the potential to inscribe words, and remains passive until y...

That is the gist of it. "Inscription" is a better fit for the property too. Indeed, you are not the direct cause of the inscription because if we remo...

We can just modify the premise slightly, to say "Everything that we can conceive must exist in their simple components". The argument then becomes: - ...

I don't understand your position. Are you denying that there is energy transfer from the fire to the water? If yes, then what is the causal relationsh...

I agree. That is why I said earlier: Does it make my reasoning invalid?

Yep. I stand corrected. Upon further thinking, I too don't actually believe that all that exists can be conceived. Thanks for finding the flaw in that...

The fire emits the energy received by the water to boil, and the "boiling" effect is just the combination of the energy (caused by the fire) and the p...

Still an incorrect causal relationship. The words have a physical property (say pixels on the screen), and a meaning. The meaning of the words is caus...

Interesting article. So what it says is that if I died tonight, another "me" could still go to China, thus making that possibility actualized somewher...

No probs. I was just paraphrasing. Here is the link. Additionally, I can summarize the argument on how he got to that conclusion, if requested.

This sounds like a self-contradiction: Do you (or Michael Dummett) have a means which would in principle decide the truth-value of that very statement...

I think some philosophers have said something similar in the past; but this seems absurd to me. Here is an example: I have never been to China. It is ...

I tried to prove this here. Where do you see a flaw in the reasoning?

That's fine. I too have trouble coming up with clear examples to illustrate general statements. But then let's provisionally accept that the statement...

I think this is logically provable: Once again, let's start with the self-evident principle that 'nothing can come from nothing'. Therefore the event ...

Very interesting. I will stay away from it because its complexity makes it hard to convince.

Kool! I will accept either the first or second correction. And so if we buy into the assumption that a first cause exists, then this first cause is 't...

I disagree. I will explain my same point (original here) in smaller steps: Using the law of noncontradiction, either a thing has a cause or not. This ...

Thanks bro. I hope this will not be seen as a fight between theists vs non-theists, but merely philosophers looking for truth.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, or you are misunderstanding me, because I am with you, that we cannot say that 'everything has a caus...

Sure, but the event without the object is only the movement of the objects, that is, the movement of the hammer causing the movement of the nail. And ...

While it may be hard to pronounce, the argument is really a simple syllogism in the form: If A is B, and B is C, then A is C. - Replace A with 'all th...

Actually, I don't think that 'everything has a cause'. Only that 'everything in the natural universe has a cause'. There is no need to extend the prin...

Agreed. Common usage or common sense determines the prima facie or default position, but is not a proof.

This is not the causal relationship between the hammer and the nail. The only effect to the nail caused by the hammer is the energy from the hammer re...

I agree. But my intent was not to prove God's existence, merely to answer the question of 'how do people go from the first cause to God?' This is my a...

Just nitpicking: Your definition makes the cause 'equal', not necessarily 'greater'. Can you show me why?

That's okay if you have not heard of God being defined in that way before. You just need to 'buy' into the definition for us to have a meaningful argu...

Regarding 'an effect cannot be greater than its cause(s)'. You've all asked what it means and how to back it up. Here goes. 'Greater' here means that ...

The inference is valid from the premises. Premise 1: God is traditionally defined as 'that which nothing greater can be conceived'. You can look it up...

Why not? Where do you see a flaw in the logic?

I see your point. We just need to differentiate between the epistemological order and metaphysical order of the two words. Epistemologically, we human...

It is. But we can bridge that gap a couple of ways: 1. In Revelation 22:13: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and t...

You are contradicting yourself, because you agreed earlier that "everything in the natural universe has a cause". The first cause, by definition, has ...

Because if the universe has a beginning, then there must be a first thing. The only logical alternative is no beginning. But finiteness is a simpler h...

No problem. Good luck.

Let's go for solution 2 then: I have recently wrote a 20-page document which provides a practical method on how to solve emotional problems. It can be...

First check: Do you have stomach-related problems? I recently read a book that talks about how the stomach health plays a critical role in our emotion...

(Y)

Hey. I tried your link and it does not seem to work.