From: vexen	Date: September 1st, 2002 05:59 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I also posted this essay to the Atheist User Community on Live Journal, Click here to read their responses to this essay.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: August 18th, 2005 03:58 pm (UTC)		(Link)
The Logic of God

Anyone who believes that the metaphysics of God is philosophically logical will enjoy reading a book that I have just self published,"The Logic of God". Anyone interested can either purchase it at Amazon.com, or contact me at Bill_Clark@att.net

From: (Anonymous)	Date: November 21st, 2006 06:11 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Good Laugh

Thats about all you get there Vexen. Wow, I'm telling you what, this really gave me something to laugh about today. Take a look here;

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/faith.html#Cosmology

God requires no cause - Thomas Aquinas - Unmoved Mover argument, found here: First Way: The Argument From Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the agrument this way:
1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God. - Logically sound argument proving God's existence. Therefore, this statement is true, not assumed.
or
God is infinite - That God is Infinite
INFINITY cannot be attributed to God on the score of multitude, seeing there is but one God. Nor on the score of quantitative extension, seeing He is incorporeal. It remains to consider whether infinity belongs to Him in point of spiritual greatness. Spiritual greatness may be either in power or in goodness (or completeness) of nature. Of these two greatnesses the one follows upon the other: for by the fact of a thing being in actuality it is capable of action. According then to the completeness of its actuality is the measure of the greatness of its power. Thus it follows that spiritual beings are called great according to the measure of their completeness, as Augustine says: "In things in which greatness goes not by bulk, being greater means being better" (De Trinit. vi, 9). But in God infinity can be understood negatively only, inasmuch as there is no term or limit to His perfection. And so infinity ought to be attributed to God.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: November 21st, 2006 06:12 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Good Laugh

2. Every actuality inhering in another takes limitation from that wherein it is: for what is in another is therein according to the measure of the recipient. An actuality therefore that is in none, is bounded by none: thus, if whiteness were self-existent, the perfection of whiteness in it would have no bounds till it attained all the perfection of whiteness that is attainable.* But God is an actuality in no way existent in another: He is not a form inherent in matter; nor does His being inhere in any form or nature; since He is His own being, His own existence (Chap. XXI). The conclusion is that He is infinite.

4. Actuality is more perfect, the less admixture it has of potentiality. Every actuality, wherewith potentiality is blended, has bounds set to its perfection: while that which is without any blend of potentiality is without bounds to its perfection. But God is pure actuality without potentiality (Chap. XVI), and therefore infinite.

6. There cannot be conceived any mode in which any perfection can be had more perfectly than by him, who is perfect by his essence, and whose being is his own goodness. But such is God: therefore anything better or more perfect than God is inconceivable. He is therefore infinite in goodness.

7. Our intellect, in understanding anything, reaches out to infinity; a sign whereof is this, that, given any finite quantity, our intellect can think of something greater. But this direction of our intellect to the infinite would be in vain, if there were not something intelligible that is infinite. There must therefore be some infinite intelligible reality, which is necessarily the greatest of realities; and this we call God.

8. An effect cannot reach beyond its cause: now our understanding cannot come but of God, who is the First Cause. If then our understanding can conceive something greater than any finite being, the conclusion remains that God is not finite.*

9. Every agent shows greater power in action, the further from actuality is the potentiality which it reduces to actuality, as there is need of greater power to warm water than to warm air. But that which is not at all, is infinitely distant from actuality, and is not in any way in potentiality: therefore if the world was made a fact from being previously no fact at all, the power of the Maker must be infinite. This argument avails to prove the infinity of the divine power even to the mind of those who assume the eternity of the world. For they acknowledge God to be the cause of the substantial being of the world, although they think that substance to have been from eternity, saying that the eternal God is the cause of an ever-existing world in the same way that a foot would be the cause of an everlasting foot-print, if it had been from eternity stamped on the dust. Still, even accepting the position thus defined, it follows that the power of God is infinite. For whether He produced things in time, according to us, or from eternity, according to them, there can be nothing in the world of reality that He has not produced, seeing that He is the universal principle of being; and thus He has brought things to be, without presupposition of any matter or potentiality. Now the measure of active power must be taken according to the measure of potentiality or passivity; for the greater the pre-existing or preconceived passivity, the greater the active power required to reduce it to complete actuality. The conclusion remains that, as finite power in producing an effect is conditioned on the potentiality of matter, the power of God, not being conditioned on any potentiality, is not finite, but infinite, and so is His essence infinite. To this truth Holy Scripture bears witness: Great is the Lord and exceedingly to he praised, and of his greatness there is no end (Ps. cxliv, 3). - another sound argument for God. http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/gc1_43.htm

or

From: (Anonymous)	Date: November 21st, 2006 06:15 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Quite funny still

Man, being made in God’s image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic. He does not invent them.
Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the Laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them. http://www.carm.org/atheism/logic.htm This follows :).
Logic exists as part of the Universe - How does the atheist account for the laws of logic?
If the Atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote."
The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory.
If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe.
We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions.
For example, we do not see in nature that something is both itself and not itself at the same time.
Why? Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed? It cannot.
Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought.
Or, where do we observe in nature that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist?
You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist. You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all and how can any laws of logic be applied to or derived from observing nothing at all?
The laws of logic are conceptual realities. They only exist in the mind and they do not describe physical behavior of things since behavior is action and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth.
In other words, laws of logic are not actions. They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought. Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior. But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things since they reside completely in the mind.
We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter. You don't watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn't exist. Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.
If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and the atheist has nothing to work with.
If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything. http://www.carm.org/atheism/logic.htm

Thus - Atheists will use logic to try and disprove God’s existence, but in so doing they are assuming absolute laws of logic and borrowing from the Christian worldview.
The Christian worldview maintains that the laws of logic are absolute because they come from God who is Himself absolute.
But the atheist worldview does not have an absolute God.
So, we ask, "How can absolute, conceptual, abstract laws be derived from a universe of matter, energy and motion?"
In other words, "How can an atheist with a naturalistic presupposition account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?"
Conclusion

From: (Anonymous)	Date: November 21st, 2006 06:16 pm (UTC)		(Link)
bligga!

The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God.
God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.
God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.
Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.
The are absolute because there is an absolute God.
The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.
http://www.carm.org/atheism/logic.htm
God is conscious - This is self evident from the Christian worldview. The Bible is enough evidence for this in itself.

Universe is conscious [nc] - This is a reiification fallacy. Besides, most of the people arguing this believe in a Pantheistic God in the first place. Thus, this is from your viewpoint an argument from ignorance.

3. An omnipresent entity is conscious, not mechanical YES

God is omniscient - again...problem?

Universe is omniscient Reiification and implies Pantheistic God.

Pantheism is false by this: 1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist. This is called the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It follows, despite various attempts by Atheists to disprove it. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

Next part: Omniscience
The godhead as a repository for all existing information would be considered omniscient. The godhead would inherently observe, perceive and note the existence and properties of all existing objects. The godhead would be all-observing, seeing everywhere at once, due to its nature as the be-all of existence. This would be true whether or not we considered the godhead conscious or not, and whether or not we grant the godhead free will.

Whether or not I can use the word "omniscient" to describe a non-conscious being is a valid concern... I use the term anyway as the unconscious universe, as the container of all that is to be known is encapsulating of all knowledge and "omniscient" is as good a term to use as any and aids in comparing theistic and nontheistic premises about existence[1].

Woohoohoo...hold the phone...and by what means do you believe that God is non-conscious? God breathed existence into being according to the Christian worldview. You are really going to have to do better than that to refute Christianity.

http://ezinearticles.com/?What-is-God?--Does-Proof-Exist?&id=9749

From: (Anonymous)	Date: November 21st, 2006 06:17 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Strawman - if you only had a brain!

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

There we have it, defining God's nature from the Christian perspective.

Now, I happened to notice your objections to Aquinas's arguments, so lets take a lookie, shall we? The problem of evil? http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/theodicy_intro.html - not a problem at all. We'd expect this based off of the Biblical accounts as a matter of fact. Man is the cause for evil, not God. God exists in two dimensions, and this does not hurt our position on God at all. The problem of evil does a good job nailing those Pantheistic religions though, so I kind of like the argument. Further, this is the problem of evil: The atheists' logical argumentWhat I have found is that atheists like to say that their arguments against God's existence specifically exclude the God of the Bible as a God who could exist. However, in reality, atheists produce generic arguments against a generic God whose characteristics and creation do not match those that are described in the Bible. Atheists may not accept what the Bible says, but they cannot say the God of the Bible cannot logically exist and then ignore what the Bible has to say about the characteristics of God. If the atheist states that the God of the Bible is logically impossible, he cannot pick and choose which arguments from the Bible to accept in order to "prove" his point. Let's formalize the atheist's arguments:

God is all-powerful, loving, and perfect.
A perfect, loving God would create a universe that was perfect (e.g., no evil and suffering).
The universe is not perfect but contains evil and suffering.

Therefore, God does not exist.
The Bible's Response The Bible does state that God is "all powerful." In the Old Testament, one of God's titles is "El Shadday," which is translated "God Almighty."1 The Bible also states that God is loving.2 In fact, the Bible indicates that God is love.3 The Bible also indicates that God is perfect.4 So, we can agree that the first statement is a correct interpretation of what the Bible says about the characteristics of God.

The next statement indicates that a perfect, loving God must create a universe that is perfect. This is the statement that is false and invalidates the argument. Nowhere does the Bible state that the universe was created to be perfect. God Himself called it "good"5 and "very good,"6 but never "perfect." In fact, God Himself stated that part of the original creation was "not good."7 The Bible states that the current universe is not perfect,8 but was designed to be temporary9 and will be replaced with a perfect universe10 that will be permanent.11 Science also tells us that the universe was designed to be temporary.12

The Bible, as we can see demonstrates this to be false. You are attacking a strawman argument of the Christian position.

What about contradictions in the Bible?: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/apol_index.html

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/theodicy_heaven.html Free will argument fails because of Mr. Rich Deem's argument: http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/predestination.html nothing wrong there.

You really love burning them strawmen don't cha?

From: (Anonymous)	Date: November 21st, 2006 06:17 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Nonsense!

Materialists assume that theists are looking for spiritual interpretations to events and therefore 'experience' them more readily and therefore it is self delusional. Theists assume that materialists are blind or have some ulterior motive to not 'acknowledging' the spiritual world. Materialists say that all such experiences are explainable through psychology and chemistry.

Again, the Christian God seeks us out. While this may be true for many other religions, the Materialists assumptions are apparently what causes the Materialists to not understand the Christian argument. And ignorance is no excuse here.

Theists assume nothing. We go by the Bible. Hence, perhaps you might wish to state, "Some Theists" here, because Christian Theists go by whatever the Bible states as Evidential support.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/theodicy_naturalevil.html - and I ask, whats the difference between this and the problem of evil in the first place? False dichotomy.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/freewill_godisimmoral.html - Which God are you arguing against here? The only God that provides free will that I know about is the Christian God.

I take exception to how you answered this gentleman. He brings up a good point that you just write off: An objection from a theist by email: God doesn't "force people to do things":

"You are basing your reasoning on a misunderstanding of the nature of a "loving" God. Love does not "force" people to do anything."
My response was: That's a useless excuse. Why doesn't God put everyone in Heaven? It would end all problems. Just stating that it doesn't do it because it doesn't force people to do things is rubbish. It FORCED millions of South East Asians to move from their homes in the aftermath of the Christmas 2004 tsunami, it forces millions of people to have diabetes, genetic disorders, unfortunate diseases, suffer natural disasters... it forces all these bad things on people, why won't God force heaven on everyone too? Is it true that God forces all the sufferings of life on people, despite their "free will", yet won't force happiness on them? What type of God is that?!! Certainly not a God that holds free will in much esteem, nor one that particularly cares about us! It is as if God was actually evil, or simply not there at all!

First of all, if you write off his argument as a useless excuse, I'm inclined to do the same to your argument...thus, this response is simply a useless excuse for not wanting to address his argument. Secondly, Omnibenevolences does not imply that everyone can just have FUN! Things in life are required to build character in individuals. I think a little bit of common sense would you do you well here. When God calls people home, he has ever right to do so. And what makes you think, as your little finite existent being self, that you are any more important than God? Why blame God for everything? I think we're forgetting a separate evil in the world known as Satan. And besides this, where in the Bible does it state that God lets people live on this earth forever? The life to come is much better and much more blissful. A Sadistic God would take joy in watching someone suffer. Instead, he calls them to be with him, if they have followed his law. If they have not, then thats not due to a fact that he has not given them an opportunity to do so, and he has ever right to send them wherever he wants to. So when someone is going through the pain and agony of cancer and such, isn't it a bit better for that person to go in peace and be with God? I think this is a rather self attitude being displayed on your behalf here. Perhaps thinking about the concern of other people would do you well. I think you're also again creating a very irrational argument for what God can and can not do here. God can not do anything logically impossible. What you have inferred here is not logically possible. If God could do something logically impossible, he would contradict himself, and then he would not be all powerful. He would be self defeating. I don't ever recall reading in the Bible anywhere that God causes people to have diabetes, genetic disorders, or diseases. You might want to quote that passage for us there :).

From: (Anonymous)	Date: November 21st, 2006 06:18 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Not going away yet!

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/god_test.html - try again. This is your Televangelist definition, but what would a real Evangelical preacher state regarding the problem of evil? I think we've already answered that one several million times..haha.

Next...love taking those scripture verses out of context don't you? "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

Lets see what this is really in regards to: 5 I am the LORD, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me,

6 so that from the rising of the sun
to the place of its setting
men may know there is none besides me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other.

7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

8 "You heavens above, rain down righteousness;
let the clouds shower it down.
Let the earth open wide,
let salvation spring up,
let righteousness grow with it;
I, the LORD, have created it.

9 "Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker,
to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground.
Does the clay say to the potter,
'What are you making?'
Does your work say,
'He has no hands'?

10 Woe to him who says to his father,
'What have you begotten?'
or to his mother,
'What have you brought to birth?'

11 "This is what the LORD says—
the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker:
Concerning things to come,
do you question me about my children,
or give me orders about the work of my hands?

12 It is I who made the earth
and created mankind upon it.
My own hands stretched out the heavens;
I marshaled their starry hosts.

13 I will raise up Cyrus [b] in my righteousness:
I will make all his ways straight.
He will rebuild my city
and set my exiles free,
but not for a price or reward,
says the LORD Almighty."

Apparently, someone wasn't doing something very nice to God here. God, being a just God punished them for doing something wrong. Thus, the "create disaster" here refers solely to the effect that what was going on during Israel at the time. May wish to check out: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=45&version=31 next time. http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godevil.html see here as well.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: November 21st, 2006 06:19 pm (UTC)		(Link)
young laddie!

2 Samuel 6:6-11
6 " When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The Lord 's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God. 8 Then David was angry because the Lord 's wrath had broken out against Uzzah, and to this day that place is called Perez Uzzah. 9 David was afraid of the Lord that day and said, "How can the ark of the Lord ever come to me?"10 He was not willing to take the ark of the Lord to be with him in the City of David. Instead, he took it aside to the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite. 11 The ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite for three months, and the Lord blessed him and his entire household."
This is quite ridiculous. Like "I shall punish sinners for up to 4 generations", God appears to punish and kill even for things they did not do. The same applies to the very concept of original sin. This is not the actions of a moral God! There's not much I can say about this. It reads like the author/storry teller was trying to simply present his God as very very fearsome, not as moral. God's character is invented by Humans according to their needs.
Instead of whining, why not research: http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tillstill7-2.html


Numbers 16:16-49 [ Thanks to VictorThomas for bringing this one to my attention. ]
The escaped Israelites had been complaining to Moses about the lack of water, sustenence and food in the desert that they have been led to by Moses.
16 Moses commands that 250 of them must come to the tent and present incense at the altar. They do so.
21God says, "Stand back from these people, and I will destroy them immediately."
Moses then asks an important moral question:
22 "But Moses and Aaron bowed down and said, "O, God, you are the source of all life. When one man sins, do you get angry with the whole community?"
31-34 "the ground under Dathan and Abiram split open and swallowed them and their families, together with all of Korah's followers and their possessions. The earth closed over them, and they vanished. All the people of Israel who were there fled when they heard their cry. They shouted, "Run! The earth might swallow us too!
35 Then the Lord sent a fire that blazed out and burnt up the 250 men who had presented the incense."

When told to offer incense they did, no doubt wandering what the answer to the complaints would be. They were told they were to be destroyed. The answer to Moses' important question "When one man sins, do you get angry with the whole community?" is apparently, yes. All those who offered incense, as told to by Moses, were killed by a blazing fire.

You would think that that was enough.