What do you think about the logic of God?

[dartzed]

---

you mean, there are some who'd rather see the world torn in chaos and destruction?

im afraid YES..

imagine a perfect world daw, did you ever think about the consequences to obtain a perfect world?.. bcn if mahitabo na muana mo maypa d nlang perfect..lolz

im just an observer bro change is inevidable.. i only love how things comes and goes, birth destruction and reformation is the art of nature i love to witness...

hehe

[brownprose]

God is alogical.

[NASYO]

don't we all?

we all need to know this..

[Hellblazer 2.1]

im afraid YES..

imagine a perfect world daw, did you ever think about the consequences to obtain a perfect world?.. bcn if mahitabo na muana mo maypa d nlang perfect..lolz

im just an observer bro change is inevidable.. i only love how things comes and goes, birth destruction and reformation is the art of nature i love to witness...

hehe

ah yes, it's a necessary evil. it helps keep the balance.

[regnauld]

I find the Logic of GOD very interesting (Does GOD really EXIST? )

Logical syllogisms can be written in mathematical equations but the arguments would not be understood by anyone not trained in understanding the symbols used. To make my argument available to all readers I will express the syllogism in plain language and include points of support for each numbered premise. [The numbered points alone represent the syllogistic argument. The lettered sub-heading are supporting information]

• Something undeniably exist.
  
  • If I admit I exist then something exists.
  • I must exist to deny my own existence, once again proving that something indeed exists.
  
  
• My non-existence is possible.
  
  • There was a time when I did not exist therefore; I'm not a necessary being.
  
  
• Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.
  
  • This is the basic "Law Of Causality"
  
  
• There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.
  
  • This is a basic principle in logic.
  
  
• Therefore, a current uncaused cause of my existence exists.
• This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all knowing and all perfect.
  
  • It must be infinite because if it were a finite being it would be a contingent being and not an uncaused being.
  • It must be unchanging because change is a reaction to a cause, which violates the nature of an uncaused cause.
  • It must be all-powerful because as the sole infinite uncaused cause it has caused all other contingent beings.
  • It must be all knowing because the universe has the clear signs of intelligent design and a design requires an intelligent designer. An uncaused cause can not learn because that would be change and violate it's nature therefore the uncaused caused must have eternally had all the intellect required to be the uncaused cause.
  
  
• This infinite being is appropriately called God.
  
  • There is hardly a better description of what a God would be if one exists.
  
  
• Therefore, God exists.
  

[regnauld]

SO, how does an Atheist disproves the Existence of GOD if someone proves the Existence of GOD?

The existence of God can be proved in five ways. (By: St. Thomas Aquinas)

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

So, I challenge you all Atheists to DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD using the power of LOGIC!


SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The existence of God (Prima Pars, Q. 2)

[xeoxander01]

a message to all non believers... "We'll see....."

[alucardxiiv]

I find the Logic of GOD very interesting (Does GOD really EXIST? )

Logical syllogisms can be written in mathematical equations but the arguments would not be understood by anyone not trained in understanding the symbols used. To make my argument available to all readers I will express the syllogism in plain language and include points of support for each numbered premise. [The numbered points alone represent the syllogistic argument. The lettered sub-heading are supporting information]

• Something undeniably exist.
  
  • If I admit I exist then something exists.
  • I must exist to deny my own existence, once again proving that something indeed exists.
  
  
• My non-existence is possible.
  
  • There was a time when I did not exist therefore; I'm not a necessary being.
  
  
• Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.
  
  • This is the basic "Law Of Causality"
  
  
• There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.
  
  • This is a basic principle in logic.
  
  
• Therefore, a current uncaused cause of my existence exists.
• This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all knowing and all perfect.
  
  • It must be infinite because if it were a finite being it would be a contingent being and not an uncaused being.
  • It must be unchanging because change is a reaction to a cause, which violates the nature of an uncaused cause.
  • It must be all-powerful because as the sole infinite uncaused cause it has caused all other contingent beings.
  • It must be all knowing because the universe has the clear signs of intelligent design and a design requires an intelligent designer. An uncaused cause can not learn because that would be change and violate it's nature therefore the uncaused caused must have eternally had all the intellect required to be the uncaused cause.
  
  
• This infinite being is appropriately called God.
  
  • There is hardly a better description of what a God would be if one exists.
  
  
• Therefore, God exists.
  

good luck...

[rcruman]

in eleven big "k", "i" plus "a"

in11bigKi+a

is this equation can be accepted people like sinyalan, regnauld, mr. brownpose and etc?

Peace!

[rcruman]

Yes there is... Love, feelings are all about chemistry. When there is science there are numbers and when there are numbers there are formulas and when there are formula there is equation. Sounds logical enough sir rcruman? Well, that's how I put it though.

then show me? because let me remind you sister about this topic.
people believing that GOD's logic is illogical must show all logic and mathematical equation and formula about everything in this earth/universe.
People doesn't believed in GOD or the logic of GOD must show mathematical equation and formula about their feelings.

the moment they can't then that's the time the LOGIC OF GOD comes in which its hard for people who want GOD to appear in their front physically to understand and explain.

hope you get me.

PEace!