We mustn't forget that every Dragon is born from an egg. And the average lifespan of a Dragon far surpasses the average lifespan of a human. Right?

If we accept that God exists for the sake of argument then God is either the result of evolution or He simply exists as an Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent. However, God's substance could be corruptible or incorruptible so He is either the subject of destruction because of aging or He can live forever.

Well MoK, an atheist such as myself would say that God does not exist. And I say that as a Hegelian. Why? Because the Ultimate Synthesis, for Hegel, is the following one:

Ultimate Thesis: Art Itself
Ultimate anti-Thesis: Religion Itself
Ultimate Synthesis: Philosophy Itself.

In other words, MoK, according to Hegel, the following formula is True (it has a "T" value):
Philosophy > (Art + Religion).

Well MoK, an atheist such as myself would say that God does not exist. And I say that as a Hegelian. Why? Because the Ultimate Synthesis, for Hegel, is the following one:

Ultimate Thesis: Art Itself
Ultimate anti-Thesis: Religion Itself
Ultimate Synthesis: Philosophy Itself.

In other words, MoK, according to Hegel, the following formula is True (it has a "T" value):
Philosophy > (Art + Religion). — Arcane Sandwich

What is art to Hegel? What is religion to Hegel? What is philosophy to Hegel?

Art is what Aesthetics studies.
Religion is what Theology studies.
And Philosophy is what Science studies.

Ok, and thanks.

Don't take my word for it, though.

He is either the subject of destruction because of aging or He can live forever. — MoK

The eternal God already has OldTimer's disease, for He can't recall His earliest memory!

If the Moon is made of cheese — Corvus

The moon is dusty and full of craters; that's what happens when you leave cheese out!

I don't believe that God is made of matter; otherwise, God would be visible to us. That also applies to spiritual agents. — MoK

Or some believers have Invisibility Disorder of imaginary friends.

The eternal God already has OldTimer's disease, for He can't recall His earliest memory! — PoeticUniverse

Probably! Who knows!?

Or some believers have Invisibility Disorder of imaginary friends. — PoeticUniverse

Maybe!

The moon is dusty and full of craters; that's what happens when you leave cheese out! — PoeticUniverse

"If the moon is made of cheese" is a nonsense premise, hence it was rejected outright with whatever follows from it. :)

Here, I am trying to establish that the uncaused cause and God are different. — MoK

Metaphysical theories can be established only via the refutations and arguments against their critics, not by avoidance of the critics. Keep arguing rationally and logically until the sound conclusions are reached is the way of the establishment.

:roll:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/966656

I already change the argument to include your objection:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes

Metaphysical theories can be established only via the refutations and arguments against their critics, not by avoidance of the critics. Keep arguing rationally and logically until the sound conclusions are reached is the way of the establishment. — Corvus

Here is the argument from Change for God by Aquinas:

1. Some things in the world change.
2. Everything that changes is caused to do so.
3. Nothing is its own cause.
4. Therefore, things that change are caused to do so by something else.
5. There cannot be an infinite regress of such causes.
6. Therefore, there is an ultimate, unchanging cause of change.
7. God is the ultimate, changeless cause of change
8. Therefore, God exists.

There are two objections here: a) 3 is not necessarily true and b) there is a jump from 6 to 7. Accepting b) is a correct objection the argument looks like this:

1. Some things in the world change.
2. Everything that changes is caused to do so.
3. Nothing is its own cause.
4. Therefore, things that change are caused to do so by something else.
5. There cannot be an infinite regress of such causes.
6. Therefore, there is an ultimate, unchanging cause of change.

This argument is valid and sound if we accept that objection a) is not valid or there is a way to answer this objection. This is an argument for the existence of uncaused cause though. All I am saying is that people falsely equate God, who is the creator of the creation from nothing, by uncaused cause. I argue that God, given His definition, is subject to change therefore God cannot be the uncaused cause since the uncaused cause is changeless.

All I am saying is that people falsely equate God, who is the creator of the creation from nothing, by uncaused cause. — MoK

I am not sure what "uncaused cause" means. Shouldn't you prove or demonstrate what uncaused cause means before progressing into the argument? I can understand "unknown cause", but "uncaused cause" sounds like a contradiction to me.

I am not sure what "uncaused cause" means. Shouldn't you prove or demonstrate what uncaused cause means before progressing into the argument? — Corvus

It means that it is not caused and it is the cause of everything else.

I can understand "unknown cause", but "uncaused cause" sounds like a contradiction to me. — Corvus

It is not contrary at all. I have my own argument for it.

It is not contrary at all. I have my own argument for it. — MoK

What is your argument for it? Just to reconfirm. Please elaborate with the reason why it is valid with supporting examples and evidence from real world. Thanks.

Please find my argument here.

P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change — MoK

Does experience exist? Whose experience are you talking about here, and what experience? Does experience change? From what to what does it change?

Does experience exist? — Corvus

Sure experience exists. You are reading my answer now and have a certain experience.

Whose experience are you talking about here, and what experience? — Corvus

Human experience for example and whatever she/he experiences.

Does experience change? From what to what does it change? — Corvus

Experience changes. For example, your experience changes from not knowing to knowing after reading a book.

P2) Experience is due to the existence of physical and the change in the state of physical is due to the existence of an experience

I have no experience ever visiting Australia. Australia is both physical in its land, but also abstract for the country, and it seems to exists (I presume). Why my experience of visiting Australia doesn't exist? From this case, can we say all experiences exist? Isn't it the case, some experience exist, but some don't. In that case, it is correct to say experience exist?

I have experience of seeing the sky. My experience of seeing the sky was it was blue when there was no clouds, and sunny. Why don't my experience of seeing the sky has not changed the colour of the sky at all? From this does all experience change the state of physical?

Sure experience exists. You are reading my answer now and have a certain experience. — MoK

It is not experience. It becomes only experience, if I conceptualise it. If I decided not to conceptualise, then it is not an experience. It is just a perception.

Human experience for example and whatever she/he experiences. — MoK

Experience whatever experiences? Isn't it a tautology? They also know whatever they know. MoK likes whatever MoK likes. :chin:

Experience changes. For example, your experience changes from not knowing to knowing after reading a book. — MoK

Not true. If and only if it could be conceptulaised into knowledge. You have experience or don't have it. Experience cannot be said to exist or changed.

It would be nice of you if you discuss this topic in another thread

I have no experience ever visiting Australia. Australia is both physical in its land, but also abstract for the country, and it seems to exists (I presume). Why my experience of visiting Australia doesn't exist? — Corvus

Because you have never been there.

From this case, can we say all experiences exist? — Corvus

Sure not.

Isn't it the case, some experience exist, but some don't. — Corvus

Yes.

In that case, it is correct to say experience exist? — Corvus

Yes, certain experience exists.

I have experience of seeing the sky. My experience of seeing the sky was it was blue when there was no clouds, and sunny. Why don't my experience of seeing the sky has not changed the colour of the sky at all? From this does all experience change the state of physical? — Corvus

That is not what I mean. Let me give you an example: Suppose someone kicks you, and you say, Ouch. Kicking is the cause of experiencing pain and Ouch is the result of experiencing pain.

It is not experience. It becomes only experience, if I conceptualise it. If I decided not to conceptualise, then it is not an experience. It is just a perception.

Not true. If and only if it could be conceptulaised into knowledge. You have experience or don't have it. Experience cannot be said to exist or changed. — Corvus

If you are not happy with this example then think of moving around while seeing things, watching a movie, etc.

Because you have never been there. — MoK

So do you agree that experience cannot be said to exist? You either have it, or don't have it. You can only have experience of something if you had perceived something from the empirical world. You can only be aware of your own experience. No one else's. I don't have a single scooby clue what experience you have. I just know of my own.

That is not what I mean. Let me give you an example: Suppose someone kicks you, and you say, Ouch. Kicking is the cause of experiencing pain and Ouch is the result of experiencing pain. — MoK

It is just feeling the pain, not experiencing it. Experience happens when I conceptualise the pain from the memory, and tell someone about it. I experienced the pain of getting kicked.
You seem to confusing between feelings and concepts.

If you are not happy with this example then think of moving around while seeing things, watching a movie, etc. — MoK

It is the same thing. When I watch movie, I am having visual and auditory perception. Later when I recall it from memory, and tell someone about it, then I could say it was my experience of disappointment or enjoyment etc. Experience is an abstract mental state, which is a concept. It is not sensation or perception. If something in one's mind, and totally private to the individual, then it is impossible to say it exists or not existing. It would be illogical to say mental events exists. One can either have the mental events or not. It can only be verified objectively by one's explanation about the events.