The Fundamental Philosophical Identity of God.

[37818]

Agreed. This is how God identified himself to Moses for commanding pharaoh. It is not at all the same as the OP's philosophical "uncaused existence," which, by his own irrational standards of criticism, denies the personhood of God.

Here is the deal. An uncaused existence does not need anything. My argument is unless the uncaused existence is the identity of God, then there is no such thing. Furthermoree you falsely accuse me of denying "I Am" of being the uncaused Existence.

 

[Van]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

According to the Laws of Physics as we understand them today, the singularity that existed before the "big bang" would have remained the singularity. What force or cause "caused it" to enlarge? Believers say God, atheists say an unknown force, their "ungod."

An old lady was asked upon what does the earth rest. Her reply, the back of a turtle. But upon what does that turtle rest, she was asked. She smiled, and said, "you are not going to get me with that, it's turtles all the way down.

 

[37818]

. . . What force or cause "caused it" to enlarge? Believers say God, atheists say an unknown force, their "ungod."

Arguing an issue of cause. A cause is contingent on an existence. Uncaused existence has no cause. A unique cause or an infinite series of causes having no first cause, either of which require an uncaused cause. An uncaused cause requires an uncaused existence. An uncaused existence does no require anything.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

You completely misunderstood. The standards by which you falsely accuse can just as easily be used against your own statements. If you feel falsely accused, you have only yourself to blame. The accusation is that you are falsely accusing by saying traditional arguments "effectively deny God's fundamental identity."

While God's existence is uncaused, to assert that is his identity and then call him a "thing" is revealing in itself, and begins to give basis to the charge. No one thinks you believe that, and your statements are not you, but your statements could easily be interpreted that way.

In the process of making your assertions without proof ("proof" referring to providing genuine evidence all can agree to), you are making several errors, including making assumptions called "begging the question" and misunderstanding the point of making traditional arguments in the first place.

The suggestion is that you make your case if you can, not merely assert, but in any case cease accusing others using your double standard. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you."

The traditional arguments for the "existence" for God effectively deny God's fundamental identity.

Uncaused existence is the fundamental identity of God. God being the fundamental self evident truth by which all other self evident truths are self evident.

God is the uncaused existence. To deny God is to deny that, God is God, and is irrational. It is tantamount to saying there is no existence. God is the uncaused existence in which anything that exists must exist in. God being omnipresent.

Here is the deal. An uncaused existence does not need anything. My argument is unless the uncaused existence is the identity of God, then there is no such thing. Furthermoree you falsely accuse me of denying "I Am" of being the uncaused Existence.

 

[loDebar]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

According to the Laws of Physics as we understand them today, the singularity that existed before the "big bang" would have remained the singularity. What force or cause "caused it" to enlarge? Believers say God, atheists say an unknown force, their "ungod."

An old lady was asked upon what does the earth rest. Her reply, the back of a turtle. But upon what does that turtle rest, she was asked. She smiled, and said, "you are not going to get me with that, it's turtles all the way down.

the same on as caused this
Gen 1:3¶
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

I suggest a small still voice.

 

[Van]

Arguing an issue of cause. A cause is contingent on an existence. Uncaused existence has no cause. A unique cause or an infinite series of causes having no first cause, either of which require an uncaused cause. An uncaused cause requires an uncaused existence. An uncaused existence does no require anything.

So you are agreeing with the lady, its turtles all the way down, an infinite series of turtles, and each turtle has an uncaused existence?

 

[37818]

So you are agreeing with the lady, its turtles all the way down, an infinite series of turtles, and each turtle has an uncaused existence?

You evidently cannot comprehend what you read. An infinite series of causes it should be understood that all of its causes are caused in the series. There never being any first cause. And the condition of there never being any first cause, the series would itself be an uncaused cause or it would have an uncaused cause.

There is no evidence of any such turtles. There is evidence of causes. Existence exists. Existence is a self evidence. Evidence is contingent on existing. Ultamately there is uncaused existence and uncaused cause. I do not need an unseen turtle. The God of the Hebrews by name has the meaning of "self Existent." And uncaused existence is actually what is self Existent.

And genuine Christians actually know God.

 

[Van]

You evidently cannot comprehend what you read. An infinite series of causes it should be understood that all of its causes are caused in the series. There never being any first cause. And the condition of there never being any first cause, the series would itself be an uncaused cause or it would have an uncaused cause.

There is no evidence of any such turtles. There is evidence of causes. Existence exists. Existence is a self evidence. Evidence is contingent on existing. Ultamately there is uncaused existence and uncaused cause. I do not need an unseen turtle. The God of the Hebrews by name has the meaning of "self Existent." And uncaused existence is actually what is self Existent.

And genuine Christians actually know God.

Well it appears one of us has a problem with comprehension.

 

[37818]

The accusation is that you are falsely accusing by saying traditional arguments "effectively deny God's fundamental identity."

Do or do not traditional arguments argue for an existence of God?

 

[37818]

An old lady was asked upon what does the earth rest. Her reply, the back of a turtle. But upon what does that turtle rest, she was asked. She smiled, and said, "you are not going to get me with that, it's turtles all the way down.

Where did this old lady come up with her turtle upon which the earth rests upon? Uncaused existence does not need any turtles. But such an infinite stack of turtles need an uncaused existence.

 

[Van]

Where did this old lady come up with her turtle upon which the earth rests upon? Uncaused existence does not need any turtles. But such an infinite stack of turtles need an uncaused existence.

It was a joke, Sir, humor. That is why appeared at the end of the posts.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Do or do not traditional arguments argue for an existence of God?

Oh, brother, I can see the headlines now:

GLEEFUL CRIMINAL WALKS: PROSECUTION ARGUED FOR HIS GUILT THUS ESSENTIALLY DENYING IT

FUMING CLIENT FOUND GUILTY: COUNSEL ARGUED FOR HIS INNOCENCE THUS ESSENTIALLY DENYING IT

 

[37818]

Oh, brother, I can see the headlines now:

GLEEFUL CRIMINAL WALKS: PROSECUTION ARGUED FOR HIS GUILT THUS ESSENTIALLY DENYING IT

FUMING CLIENT FOUND GUILTY: COUNSEL ARGUED FOR HIS INNOCENCE THUS ESSENTIALLY DENYING IT

Existence needs no proof. Guilt needs proof.

 

[37818]

Well it appears one of us has a problem with comprehension.

Yes, I did fail to comprehend that it was a joke.

 

[37818]

Uncaused existence needs no proof. If God's identity is so understood, then to deny God is irrational, and to deny Cod to be God. Then Psalms 14:1, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." is not an ad homimem.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Existence needs no proof. Guilt needs proof.

No, in the sense you are making the argument, whether someone is guilty of a particular crime is already a fact. The only thing that would have to be established is whether someone believes they are guilty, which is not at all the same thing. Being guilty and being found guilty are not the same thing.

 

[37818]

No, in the sense you are making the argument, whether someone is guilty of a particular crime is already a fact. The only thing that would have to be established is whether someone believes they are guilty, which is not at all the same thing. Being guilty and being found guilty are not the same thing.

A person who is guilty knows they are. A person accused falsely of a guilt would know they are not guilty. Now there are causes where a person is guilty and does not understand, for what ever reason, that they are guilty.

Now regarding the matter of acknowledging that uncaused existence is what and who God is. Those who set out to prove God's "existence" are not "correctly" acknowledging God to be the uncaused omnipresent existence in which all things are in. How else can I state this? The Apostle Paul is quoted to say, "In Him we live, and move, and have our [existence] being, . . . " -- Acts of the Apostles 17:28. God's name in the Hebrew can be translated, but typically not, as the "Self Existent" One. Is typically translated as "LORD" based on the long standing tradtion of not pronouncing His name, by saying in the Hebrew Adonai for Lord. (Exodus 20:7 behind the reason).
The Proverb 21:30 says, "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the [Self Existent] LORD." There is no wisdom nor understanding nor councel against the Uncaused Existence. There is none.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Seems to me like this whole thing is a confusion of the epistemic with the ontological.

A person who is guilty knows they are. A person accused falsely of a guilt would know they are not guilty. Now there are causes where a person is guilty and does not understand, for what ever reason, that they are guilty.

You have not demonstrated you understood, much less spoken to the point. You are just flat out wrong in your accusation, even if you don’t realize you are guilty of false accusation.

Now regarding the matter of acknowledging that uncaused existence is what and who God is. Those who set out to prove God's "existence" are not "correctly" acknowledging God to be the uncaused omnipresent existence in which all things are in.

Accusing brethren of arguing against God when they argue for God is not a good thing, not a good thing at all—it is falsely accusing. Expect them to call you on it, just as surely as you did when you felt falsely accused.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The Apostle Paul is quoted to say, "In Him we live, and move, and have our [existence] being, . . . " -- Acts of the Apostles 17:28. God's name in the Hebrew can be translated, but typically not, as the "Self Existent" One. Is typically translated as "LORD" based on the long standing tradtion of not pronouncing His name, by saying in the Hebrew Adonai for Lord. (Exodus 20:7 behind the reason).
The Proverb 21:30 says, "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the [Self Existent] LORD." There is no wisdom nor understanding nor councel against the Uncaused Existence. There is none.

There is no disagreement here, it just doesn't support your accusations.

 

[37818]

. . . it just doesn't support your accusations.

Show one traditional argument that does not argue for a proof for an existence for God. What needs proof of its existence? Existence needs no proof, it is presumed.