WHAT A JOKE!
WHERE IS the proof God exist that I asked you to get? You disappeared for almost 20 minutes minutes and came back with more accusations of AI. SHOW me please that an AI can do what I can do. I want you to experience for yourself that the thinng you think is is the standard is absolutely not.
I’M WAITING…
I’m illustrating the trap of using AI, as I did the last time. You don’t know what any of these words mean. You say you illustrated and quantified entropy - you did neither. And you don’t even know what it means. What is it? Why is it so important? Why is it that the exceeding low entropy in the initial state of the universe one of the most compelling factors for scientists in deciding how the universe got here? You don’t have a clue!
That’s the point.
And as I said the last time, you let AI build your arguments and it will build mistakes. Those you’ve listed have several. First one (again) is in your title. You don’t “use” epistemology to prove anything. Epistemology is the study of what constitutes knowledge and why we should believe something. Not the actual bits of information that may or may not be true.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz proposed the “PSR”, the principle of sufficient reason. He also wrote the book “Theodicy”. He proposed “Best Possible World” theory/theodicy, that being that this world must be the “best possible” world because God is the Maximally Great Being. If it sounds circular, that’s because it is. Not a lot of philosophers put any stock in it, but they tip their hats in the direction, feeling compelled to at least pay a little respect.
It’s a starting place. God did create the best possible world - for His purposes. Now it’s fixed.
The thing I don’t get, is why you feel in any way credible, when none of your arguments came from you? And doesn’t it worry you that you don’t actually understand them?
Yeah you know the dudes were pretty dang astute back in that day. That whole monad thing was insightful. Leibniz had a long running feud by letters with Sir Isaac Newton, who used Clarke as his mouthpiece. They had very different metaphysical viewpoints on what constitutes material objects and space and persons, and souls, etc.
But you know without any instruments. All in the brain.
They also each came up with the calculus theories, from different directions and using different methods. So there was a feud over that too.
Pretty fascinating when you’re a colossal nerd like me 
.
You’re right, Pater. But as I get older, and seeing everything happening in the world, the wars and rumours of wars, I find myself losing interest in philosophical debates. I’d much rather spend my time in Scripture and sharing what I learn with others.
I’m no scholar, nor am I some philosophical heavyweight, although I’m not completely unfamiliar with these things. But my priorities have changed. With everything going on in the world, I feel a much greater need to draw closer to my Saviour, Christ Jesus.
If I’m honest, I’ve neglected my own personal relationship and intimacy with my Lord and great God, Abba Father. That’s something I want to put right, and I want to know Christ more deeply and walk more closely with Him through the indwelling Holy Spirit.
At this point in my life, that’s what really matters to me. Everything else can take a back seat. I’d rather spend my time getting to know my Lord better than losing myself in endless philosophical debates.
Shalom to you and family.
J.
You are just an idiot. An initial thermodynamics state is low entropy. The intial state of the universe had very low entropy. I illustrated entropy in my argument but you just didn’t understand my argument. I even went on to to quantified intial entropy fine-tuned at 1 part 10^10^{1233}.
You say I can’t use epistemology to prove something, yet I did. You clearly dont know anything about the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction and law of identidy and non physical truths. Where are they derived from? Are they not piecies of evidence? YOU JUST KNOW NOTHING.
Tell me, where is quantitative subjective awareness derived from? If you say the mind, it will just prove you know nothing.
Do not conflate your complete lack of understanding on me, we are not the same.
I ASKED YOU, TWO TIMES TO RE-TELL MY ARGUMENT BACK TO ME IN YOUR OWN WORDS and you never did. You clearly don’t understand my argument.
YOU JUST CAN`T DO WHAT I CAN DO, JUST ACCEPT THAT!
Something seems a little off here. I’ve noticed quite a few spelling mistakes creeping into your posts lately. Perhaps a spellchecker might help. There are plenty of free ones available, just ask and it shall be given to you.
J.
My guy MOVE ON. I’M DONE with you.
Dr. William Lane Craig’s Response
Wow, I never expected my debate with Beckermann would become the basis for German lessons! What a great way to teach the language!
I do believe that just as God is the basis of necessary moral truths, so He is the basis for the laws of logic, like the rules of inference. The laws of logic merely describe the way God thinks. As the supremely rational being, God’s thinking is always logical. The rules codify how He thinks.
The problem is that I don’t know how to argue for this conviction. Taking the moral argument as our pattern, we might argue as follows:
If God did not exist, the laws of logic would be merely human conventions.
The laws of logic are not merely human conventions.
Therefore, God exists.
This argument is valid and its second premiss is indisputably true. Any attempt to take the laws of logic as just human inventions is bound to assume the laws of logic themselves and so to be self-defeating.
But I don’t know how to argue for premiss (1). I think it’s true, but I don’t know how to show that it’s true. How could you show that on atheism, (p → q) and p do not imply q? Unlike the case with objective moral values and duties, you can’t even appeal to many atheists who deny the laws of logic. About the best spin I could put on (1) is to say that grounding logic in God is part of a synoptic theistic or Christian view of reality which makes eminently good sense. One thinks of C. S. Lewis’ famous aphorism: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
So I’ve not bothered to look into the question further. I hope there’s an argument to be made here, but I’ll leave it to others to discover.
This post and other resources are available on Dr. William Lane Craig’s website: www.reasonablefaith.org
Learn more about Dr. Craig’s book, A Reasonable Response.
You just might learn something.
J.
I am proving God exist not providing evidence for God.
Okay. A few words on entropy, and why it matters, since you still don’t know, even after asking your AI to teach you.
In a word - entropy is chaos. Or decay, or disorder.
A firecracker is a low entropy object. Orderly. Quantified. Compartmentalized. Now put a match to it. It goes from very low entropy, to very high entropy, in an instant. Chaotic homogenizing fiery explosion. Energy is expended.
The universe is supposed by scientists to have gone from a dimensionless, infinitely dense point in nothingness, to trillions and trillions of miles across in a moment. However, it wasn’t an explosion. It was an expansion, where chaos was kept to a minimum, energy was conserved, and gravity began instantly to pull particles into orderly conditions. This seems to be the opposite of what you would expect.
By the way, on your quantification, what is being measured? Just asking. Better look it up.
You didn’t respond to anything I said. Just walk away…
Even philosophers disagree with each other, ever watch debates from these “thinkers” re your topic?
Straight from the proverbial horse’s mouth, no need for AI.
Goodnight.
J.
Ha ha hey - philosophers LIVE to argue with each other. That’s a brute fact!
(The only brute fact, in fact. Since the primary claim of the PSR formulated by Leibniz is that brute facts don’t exist, but must have a reason for their existence, other than God, who can not fail to exist necessarily as an attribute of His own nature, the same as logic, as Dr Craig was pointing out. Every other “thing” in the universe is contingent and must have a sufficient cause, or reason for it’s existence.)
Dang man that guy puts in the work! He just finished a 4 volume set of Theological something or other - a lifetime work for most people. And here he is on the philosophy of time and physics. When does he sleep!?
Nice chatting with you brother Pater, I’m off to bed.
Stay strong in Messaih.
Johann.
Yes sir my pleasure have a good night!
You still haven’t fixed this from the last time you tried this exercise. I already told you why it’s false a long time ago.
Physical reality does not obey mathematical “structures”. Physical reality can be described by abstract mathematical equations, but by definition, mathematical equations are causally effete, just like any and every abstract object. In other words, they have no “power” and can not cause anything.
When was the last time you saw a “3 + 7 =10” knock over a liquor store? Or catch a fish? Or have a baby?
They can’t do none of that. But they can DESCRIBE all of those things with equations.
See the difference?
Can you explain this one please? I mean, I’ve seen it in action. I have in the past made the mistake of using Quantum when my alternator went out. And you’re right those lazy so and so mechanics won’t move a muscle unless you’re lookin right at them. They did finally physically actualize my new alternator, but I had to observe them for several hours.
You’re saying this is some kind of “law of the universe”?
Now I’m not proud of this, but I think I get what you’re saying.
Like, when you’re really high, and spin 13 times on the road, and then lay down real quick and look at the stars. Of course you see your name (everybody knows that), but you also see the next tattoo that you’re supposed to get. Like, the universe tells you - even shows it to you.
Then, it’s really bad luck if you DON’T get it. Like you’re giving the stars the bird.
So, yeah. Good one.