So, 'one has the power to make oneself commit fallacies'. That's true of me — Bartricks

Consider prediction. You have the ability to make you predict. God has the ability to make you predict. You cannot make God predict, nor can God make God predict because God is Omniscient. If God gives you knowledge of the future, then God makes it so that God did not make you predict. If God makes you pass out before you can predict, then again, God's Will was that you do not predict. If God Creates you, gives you some knowledge (but not knowledge of the future) and then exposes you to something and you willingly make a predictions, then you have only willed what God Willed you to will.

You cannot will anything except if it is also Willed by God/Existence.

God can make predictions. That doesn't mean he does, just that he can.

Er, none - I think you've lost the plot. I'm arguing that God can do anything. I'm not arguing that I can do anything, or that anything God can do I can do. I am arguing that anything I can do, God can do, because God can do anything.

Yeah, that's all false though isn't it - I provided arguments in support of those claims.
If you think there's reason to think there are no imperatives of Reason, that's because you're just confused. For a 'reason to think' something is a 'normative resaon' - that is, it is itself an instruction of Reason. And my argument only requires that there be some.

But, you know, if you want to just ignore arguments and insist that I am just asserting things, that's fine. I mean, in making an argument I am asserting things, the thing to consider is whether the assertions are correct. And in my case, they are.

Anyway, I don't see anything in the rest of what you said that merits any further wasting of finger energy on this keyboard.

Er, none - I think you've lost the plot. I'm arguing that God can do anything. I'm not arguing that I can do anything, or that anything God can do I can do. I am arguing that anything I can do, God can do, because God can do anything. — Bartricks

But if we apply your reasoning, it would go like this: I can kill myself and get someone to turn me into ashes. God Can Kill Itself and Get someone to turn It into ashes too, because anything I can do, God Can do too.

Yes, anything you can do, by definition God Can Do too. But you've got this backwards in one aspect.

God is Omnipresent. God IS Existence. Existence cannot cease to exist. Neither you nor God can make this happen. You can cease to be you. You cannot will yourself to cease to exist without God Willing It. Nothing you do is independently of the Will of God (hence Omnipotence). But God Does what is independently of your will. Existence/God can Make you cease to exist. It cannot Make Itself cease to exist. Consider having a read of this:

https://philosophyneedsgod.wordpress.com/why-it-is-absurd-for-existences-gods-attributes-to-be-paradoxical-absurd/

Skip the first two paragraphs to jump straight into Omnipotence. I sincerely believe it addresses your point in a comprehensive manner.

You're just contradicting yourself. God can do anything, so God can destroy himself.

I can destroy myself. If God can't destroy himself, then I'd have a power God lacks. I don't, because God can do anything and so anything I can do, God can do too.

I suggest that you heed your own request and

engage with sincerity to truth and reason — Philosopher19

I can destroy myself. If God can't destroy himself, then I'd have a power God lacks. I don't, because God can do anything and so anything I can do, God can do too.

I suggest that you heed your own request and
engage with sincerity to truth and reason
— Philosopher19 — Bartricks

Is God Omnipresent?

He has the power to be.

Look, this is about omnipotence and what it involves. It involves being able to do anything. Those who think it involves less than this need to provide non-question begging arguments for this - which is going to be somewhat hard, because all they're going to be able to do is point to ways in which being able to do anything would involve being able to do things that flout the laws of logic. Which is, of course, something that someone who can do anything can do.

There is no human nor god that can break the laws of the universe. — Athena

I agree that the is no 'god' or human that can alter the nature of Existence. I'm not sure if this is the same as saying the laws of the universe cannot change.

Look, this is about omnipotence and what it involves. It involves being able to do anything. Those who think it involves less than this need to provide non-question begging arguments for this - which is going to be somewhat hard, because all they're going to be able to do is point to ways in which being able to do anything would involve being able to do things that flout the laws of logic. Which is, of course, something that someone who can do anything can do. — Bartricks

The reason I asked you that question was because semantically, Omnipotence is impossible without Omnipresence. Only God/Existence IS Omnipresent. For you to claim God Can Make Itself Cease to exist, is for you to claim something can go into nothing, or that Existence can become non-existence.

Think about it, you turn to ashes, those ashes turn to something else perhaps. They do not become or turn to nothing. Existence/God cannot cease to exist. Consider being open minded regarding this issue. You seem firm in your belief, but your belief is semantically inconsistent.

1. If there are laws of Reason, then there is a mind whose laws they are — Bartricks

Might this not be an argument from ignorance? In our experience, the laws of reason are associated with minds, namely, our own minds, which are what detects such laws. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are the product of a mind; it might simply be the case that what we interpret as ‘reason’ is a general characteristic or attribute of the Universe which we then depict anthropomorphically as ‘a being’ by way of projection.

I’m not saying this out of hostility towards theistic arguments, I’m just interested in exploring the alternatives.

Your premise of "God" is very similar to that of Plotinus and his "One": — Gus Lamarch

That is not a co-incidence - the early, Greek-speaking theologians, like Origen and Clement of Alexandria, adopted Neoplatonism as their philosophical framework. Not that this makes them wrong, but it’s of note that Plotinus didn’t see the requirement to name the One ‘God’. It was the theologiizing Christians who presumed that this is what Plotinus must have been referring to.

'God' does not mean 'existence' - that's why we can intelligibly ask whether God exists.

But yes, God can do anything so God can make himself disappear. That is, he can make something become nothing. Impressive, huh?

How do you think God would feel about people who keep insisting he can't do things?

Might this not be an argument from ignorance? In our experience, the laws of reason are associated with minds, namely, our own minds, which are what detects such laws. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are the product of a mind; — Wayfarer

That was not my argument. I did not argue that as our minds detect the imperatives of Reason, therefore the imperatives of Reason depend on a mind to issue them. That would clearly not follow.

My argument was that imperatives require a mind to issue them. That's self-evident to our reason.

My example: imagine I'm a bot. Or imagine that hail stones are hitting this keyboard and by purest coincidence they are causing these words to appear. In other words, imagine that no mind lies behind these words (or 'words'). Well, are we having a conversation? No. Is this "give me your money!" an order? No, of course not. Why? Because no mind is behind it.

So, the reason why imperatives of Reason must be imperatives of a mind has nothing to do with the fact minds detect such imperatives, and everything to do with the fact that minds have a monopoly on issuing imperatives.

It is not an argument from ignorance, then, but an argument that appeals to a self-evident truth of reason - one whose truth most would happily acknowledge in other contexts.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. God. There's only one. — Bartricks

How do you/we know this?

By ratiocination. That's why you're having trouble.

By ratiocination — Bartricks

So "God" is merely an abstract object (e.g. number, idea, concept, etc)?

No. How in blue blazes does that follow?

Of course it follows — you didn't offer an evidentiary or factual or sound inferential basis for knowing that "there is only one".

A law of Reason is an imperative or instruction to do or believe something. — Bartricks

I plead ignorance in this discussion. Would you kindly list the "laws of Reason". If this list is too long, perhaps you can supply the top 10?

Well, your plea is accurate but your request is insincere. So, that's a big fat 'no'.

My argument was that imperatives require a mind to issue them. That's self-evident to our reason. — Bartricks

It doesn’t follow. It is imperative that one doesn’t leap into flames on pain of an awful death. It doesn’t follow that you’re told not to leap into flames, but that doing so is self-evidently dangerous.

As far as moral imperatives are concerned, these don’t need an abstract ‘mind’ to underwrite them. Suppose you believe that all harm you do to others will be returned to you. Then it will be rational not to harm others, without believing this imperative is issued by a mind.

Yep, whatever. You've certainly got me. Embarrassingly next door's dog has also just refuted my argument as decisively as you did - it went 'woof woof'. I mean, of course - woof woof, therefore my argument fails! I can see that now. I'm so ashamed.

"Imperative" can mean 'important', but 'an imperative' is 'a command'. Commands need commanders and away we go.

As far as moral imperatives are concerned, these don’t need an abstract ‘mind’ to underwrite them. Suppose you believe that all harm you do to others will be returned to you. Then it will be rational not to harm others, without believing this imperative is issued by a mind. — Wayfarer

And as for that, moral imperatives do need an imperator because they're imperatives and imperatives require an imperator. But you know, deny it if you want. (And it isn't an 'abstract mind' - what on earth is one of those?? - but 'a mind'; and it doesn't 'underwrite it' but is the 'source of it').

To be 'rational' is to be following reason - yes? Following Reason's imperatives.

God' does not mean 'existence' - that's why we can intelligibly ask whether God exists. — Bartricks

Either God is Omnipresent, or 'god' is not Omnipotent. You cannot be Omnipotent without having reach and access to all of Existence. And you cannot have reach and access to all of Existence, without actually Being Existence.

How do you think God would feel about people who keep insisting he can't do things? — Bartricks

If the person has evil intent when he says what he says, then he is in opposition to Perfection/God (which is why I would advise all people to ensure that their intentions are good, and that their sincerity is pure and true to God/Perfection (a perfect existence)).

How do you think God Feels about your above question? Love/Like/Neutral/Dislike/Hatred?

But yes, God can do anything so God can make himself disappear. That is, he can make something become nothing. Impressive, huh?

With all due respect, what you describe is as meaningless as married bachelors. Perhaps when you use the word nothing, you mean something other than 'non-existence'. I don't know what meaning/semantics you are trying to convey. If by 'nothing' you mean non-existence (as in I can turn to ashes and then God can turn those into pure nothingness), then AND ONLY THEN:

What you say is not impressive. It is semantically inconsistent. One cannot be impressed by that which is contradictory. If I said I was impressed, I'd be pretending. If I sought to worship God via this, i'd be pretentious and insincere in my worship. How can I be impressed by that which is not understandable? Only when I understand something can I be impressed by it. I will not pretend to understand or worship that which is not understandable me.

Peace.

Why the upper-case ‘Reason’?

I’m an admirer of ‘the argument from reason’ but I tackle it in a different way to the way you go about it. It seems to me that your fundamental premise begs the question i.e. it assumes what it sets out to prove. Your initial premise is that reason invariably entails an originating intelligence, yet this is also what you’re endeavouring to prove. If you believe it already, then there’s no need to prove it, but if you’re determined not to believe it, then the argument is not going to be persuasive; someone who wishes not to believe it will always find a way to justify themselves.

A valid argument extracts the implications of its premises. So unless one of my premises asserts God's existence - and none do - the argument is not question begging.

To put it another way, you can't accuse an argument of begging the question just if its premises entail its conclusion, for that would make all valid arguments question begging and thus would render the charge vacuous.

My first premise says

1. If there are laws of Reason, then there is a mind whose laws they are — Bartricks

Subsequent premises - each independently supported - entail that the mind in question exists and is God. So it certainly doesn't beg the question.

I also provided an argument in support of it. First, imperatives of Reason, norms of Reason, call them what you will, are imperatives - directives, instructions, prescriptions. That's why they're called 'imperatives' and why they're called 'norms' and why the word 'reason' that can sometimes be used as a substitute for them is called a 'normative' reason. That isn't controversial.

Then there's my claim that imperatives need a mind to issue them. That's a self-evident truth. It's hard to argue for a claim as self-evidently true as that one, for one almost invariably ends up appealing to other claims that are less self-evidently true than the claim one is trying to argue for (which is why Aristotle advised against it). But I illustrated its self-evidence by pointing out that if I was discovered to be a bot, none of this would be a real communication, precisely because these words would not be expressing the desires or thoughts of a mind.

So, my first premise does not beg any questions. Its truth is entailed by truths that are beyond dispute. And, in conjunction with the other premises - which have the same status, I think - it entails that God exists.

If you believe it already, then there’s no need to prove it, but if you’re determined not to believe it, then the argument is not going to be persuasive; someone who wishes not to believe it will always find a way to justify themselves. — Wayfarer

That's false. I believe in God on the basis of the argument. I didn't believe in God before I reflected on the argument. I did afterwards, and I did precisely because I could not find any grounds for a reasonable doubt about any of its premises.

Those who think arguments are impotent to persuade people reveal, I think, something about themselves: namely that it is they themselves who have decided what's true in advance and are not interested in following Reason unless Reason tells them what they want to hear. They then tar everyone else with the same brush so that they do not have to feel too guilty about their self-indulgence. But we're not all like that.

But anyway, the fact is it is also irrelevant. A proof is a proof. It doesn't have to persuade. What's persuasive to people is a function of the psychologies of people, not a function of what's true.

Why the upper case R - it is to indicate that it is now being used to refer to the source of the imperatives, including the source of all reasons to do and believe things (the latter having a lower case r)

Well - I see your point.

If you think there's reason to think there are no imperatives of Reason — Bartricks

That's not what I think. What I think is that the laws of reason are not imperatives. They are not commands. In the same way that the law of gravity is not a command. It did not need to be issued to rocks in order to function. It is just an attempt at a description of how the world works. And so are the laws of reason. Even without any formalization or statement of the law of non-contradiction, you still cannot have two contradictory propositions be true in the same sense at the same time.

However "follow the laws of reason" is an imperative. Not issued by God though. Just issued by people. And often not followed.

But, you know, if you want to just ignore arguments and insist that I am just asserting things — Bartricks

If you think you made an argument for why the laws of reason (things such as excluded middle) are imperatives then quote it and I'll show you why it doesn't work.

What "argument"? STFD, kid. :rofl: