Proof that God exists

Badbark
Posts: 94
Joined: 2008-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Proof that God exists

While debating on YouTube a guy told me he had proof that God exists. I was intrigued and he seemed like a decent fellow so I asked for his proof. This is what I was sent. I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s views.

“The most fundamentally important thing to understand about God is that God is a human construct. It is a label that we have assigned to something. Before there were humans to conceive of God, all there was in the Universe was all there was in the Universe.

"God" is a variable. What I mean by that is that it means exactly what the person using the word wants it to mean. When a Christian refers to God, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by their Bible and their imagination. When a Muslim refers to Allah, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by the Quran and their imagination. But, when a scientist refers to God, they are not referring to either definition, are they? They have their own ideas about who and what God is. And, so do atheists.

But, what is so often missing in discussions about God is the particular definition to which they are referring. When an atheist says, "God cannot possibly exist," to exactly WHAT are they referring that they would claim does not exist? So, even an atheist MUST DEFINE GOD, before they can make ANY meaningful comments or assertions about God. And, if they have not defined God, how can they claim God does not exist? They can't! So, their position can be summarily dismissed - as easily as they dismiss the God they have not defined. This renders active atheism (the idea that God does not exist) to be fallacious, in that it is a position that cannot be proven. It's untenable.

Of course, the concept of God rubs both ways - neither those who believe in God nor those who do not believe in God can possibly fully conceive of anything that is worthy of the title, "God." The best that any of us can do is attempt to discern what characteristics such a being must have in order to be Creator of the Universe and define God in accordance with that.

But, fundamentally, it can be agreed by virtually all that God is defined as Creator of the Universe. Fair enough? So, if that is our definition of God, then the existence of the Universe MUST NECESSARILY be evidence of such a Creator. After all, without the Creation, why bother considering who/what Created it? And, if the Creation exists, then it must have been Created - by something. We can simply choose to call that God.

And, if we leave our definition at that, as God is Creator of the Universe, we technically have no burden of proof -- it's an axiom, a self-evident truth, and certainly not an extraordinary claim. Where the burden of proof comes in is when we start making unprovable assertions about God, Creator of the Universe. That is what Christians and other God worshippers have done. They have arbitrarily assigned unprovable and nonsensical characteristics to the Creator of the Universe, thus rendering the entity to which they refer as "God" non-existent. But, that in no way invalidates the existence of a God that has created, or is creating the Universe. It just invalidates their definition of God.

For the purposes of establishing a workable definition of God, we must first familiarize ourselves with some integral terms and their definitions and conditions that ensure that the God we define is worthy of the title, "God."

So, what sort of characteristics must an entity have in order to qualify for the title of "God?"

First, and foremost, any entity qualified for the title of "God" must be provably able to Create the Universe. Anything less would, at most, make such an entity only one of possibly many gods. So, what qualities must an entity have in order for it to be able to Create the Universe?

Such a being must be:

Omnipotent - that is to say, God must be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

Omniscient - that is to say, God must contain sufficient knowledge to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

Omnipresent - that is to say, God must be able to be present at all places and at all times to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

These are the bare minimum requirements for any entity that we might ever choose to label as "God." If the being lacks omnipotence, it will be unable to Create the Universe. If it lacks omniscience, it will be unable to Create the Universe. And, if it lacks omnipresence, it will be unable to Create the Universe.

This seems like a tall order, until we realize that the Universe IS being Created - so, we can KNOW FOR CERTAIN that something meets the criteria we just listed - otherwise, we would not be here to contemplate the question. This entity may possess other characteristics about which we may have no knowledge; but, it absolutely will possess these three characteristics.

Now, let's review some standard definitions of words that will be integral to the process of proving God's existence, shall we? (source: www.dictionary.com)

knowl·edge -

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic. sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
10. creating, involving, using, or disseminating special knowledge or information: A computer expert can always find a good job in the knowledge industry.

om·nis·cient -

adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

n.
One having total knowledge.
Omniscient God. Used with the.

omniscience

noun
the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge

omnipotent -

1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
3. an omnipotent being.
4. the Omnipotent, God.

omnipresent -

--adjective present everywhere at the same time: the omnipresent God.

It should be noted that, included within the definitions of omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent is a direct reference to God - indicating general consensus on the characteristics we have ascribed to God. We're not just making up God as we go along and just for ourselves. These characteristics really are the bare minimum requirements for God.

Interestingly enough, the bare minimum requirements for God also point us to exactly who and what God really is. Let's analyze this by looking at one of the characteristics, shall we?

Omnipresent -

In order for God to be omnipresent, God must be at all places and at all times. This would necessarily include the actual space and time occupied by everything in the Universe - and, the space between everything in the Universe. This tells us, quite clearly, that God IS the Universe and that everything in the Universe is representative of Parts of God, in Partnership with God in the Creation of the Universe. In the instant that anything extant or non-extant (space) in the Universe is not God, God ceases to be omnipresent - and, ceases to be God. Because, omnipresence is a requirement for God, remember?

But, how can God be space? How can God be something that isn't? Well, you are mostly made up of space, aren't you? There is far more space between the subatomic particles in the atoms that make up your body than the space they actually occupy - by an enormous margin. Actual matter represents a minuscule portion of the Universe. But, still, the existence of the Universe depends on the space that holds things Here and There. Therefore, the existence of God depends on space, too.

Omnipotence also carries the same implication - the only way you can do anything and everything there is to do attendant to the Creation of the Universe is to BE the Universe and all the processes involved in its Creation. In the instant that anything in the Universe that is not God does anything, God is rendered non-omnipotent - and, therefore, not God. Because, omnipotence is a requirement for God, remember?

To further clarify this point: If I throw a rock at a wall at 2:00PM EST, and I'm not God, then I did something God could not do - throw that particular rock at that particular wall at that particular time and place. That renders God neither omnipotent, nor omnipresent. And, the fact that God could not experience the throwing of the rock at the wall at that time and place, means that He also could not know about it - because, knowledge is acquired through experience - an experience He didn't have; because, something that was not God had it, instead.

This brings us to omniscience. For clarity, I'll repeat the definitions of knowledge, omniscient, and omniscience:

knowl·edge -

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic. sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
10. creating, involving, using, or disseminating special knowledge or information: A computer expert can always find a good job in the knowledge industry.

om·nis·cient -

adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

n.
One having total knowledge.
Omniscient God. Used with the.

omniscience -

noun
the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge

If God IS the Universe and all of the processes involved in its Creation, as is required by the characteristics of omnipotence and omnipresence(which we have already established), then God is necessarily experiencing all there is to experience in the Universe - and, therefore, able to acquire the acquaintance or familiarity attendant to meeting the definition of knowledge.

And, since God IS the Universe, and all knowledge of any kind is contained within it, God, by definition, possesses all knowledge of any kind, and is, therefore, omniscient.

Of course, these three simplistic terms do an injustice to God - the reality of God is far more complex than the simple acknowledgement of three fundamental characteristics. It would be more accurate and meaningful to say that God is All that is True in the Universe. That necessarily includes all of the matter in the Universe, as well as the space in between. It also necessarily includes all of the processes, circumstances, and events that take place anywhere and at any time in the Universe.

There, I've given you a proof for the existence of God and three of His/Her/Its fundamental characteristics. But, I would point out that, for every characteristic you would ascribe to God, you must be able to prove it - otherwise, you render the being to which you refer non-existent. That means that, as soon as you say something like, "God has promised that all those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour will spend eternity in Heaven with Him, " you render God non-existent. Why? Because, you cannot prove that He made any such promise or that He could or would follow through with it - and, if you would assert that He did, then you MUST be referring to a different entity that cannot be proven to exist.

So, you can choose to accept a provable definition of God and one that requires no faith or belief; because, He/She/It makes no promises or threats and is self-evident and is provably Creating the Universe. Or, you can choose to believe in a God of your imagination, or the imaginations of others, that requires faith and belief. Or, you can choose to believe in no God at all. The choice is yours - and, God doesn't care one way, or another, which way you would choose. Any and all choices you make are attendant to God experiencing all there is to experience in the Universe - which is attendant to God's omniscience.

The bottom line is that God is a human construct. This is necessarily true. Why? Because, you are not capable of fully comprehending the entity that you would call "God." Why? Because, you cannot comprehend how to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail. So, the best you can do is imagine what God must be like to be able to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail. And, God makes that clear to us through all that is True in the Universe. God hides nothing from us. God will reveal any and all of His Great Truths to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them. That is to say, the Universe and the processes responsible for its Creation, will reveal all of its truths to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them.

Please, let me know what you think.”


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Badbark wrote: While

Badbark wrote:

While debating on YouTube a guy told me he had proof that God exists. I was intrigued and he seemed like a decent fellow so I asked for his proof. This is what I was sent. I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s views.

“The most fundamentally important thing to understand about God is that God is a human construct. It is a label that we have assigned to something. Before there were humans to conceive of God, all there was in the Universe was all there was in the Universe.

 All that there is in the universe is still all that there is in the universe. Humans can't make 'all that there is in the universe' not 'all that there is in the universe' or make 'more in the universe' than 'all there is in the universe'. What does he even think he's saying above except stating an obvious tautology in a manner as if to suggest that humans, in some way, can make A=A untrue?

 

Quote:
"God" is a variable. What I mean by that is that it means exactly what the person using the word wants it to mean.

Every word means exactly what the person using it wants it to mean. Its just that if they want to be able to exchange information with other humans they are going to have to agree to common meanings. The word 'god' is no different.

Quote:
When a Christian refers to God, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by their Bible and their imagination. When a Muslim refers to Allah, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by the Quran and their imagination. But, when a scientist refers to God, they are not referring to either definition, are they? They have their own ideas about who and what God is. And, so do atheists.

 What about a Christian or Muslim scientist? So far this is all just silliness.

Quote:
But, what is so often missing in discussions about God is the particular definition to which they are referring. When an atheist says, "God cannot possibly exist," to exactly WHAT are they referring that they would claim does not exist?

A conscious creator of the universe, or any conscious entity or otherwise existing thing that is labeled as immaterial or supernatural. 

Quote:
So, even an atheist MUST DEFINE GOD, before they can make ANY meaningful comments or assertions about God. And, if they have not defined God, how can they claim God does not exist?

It isn't up to the atheist to define god. We do not define things that don't exist in order to state they don't exist. No one does this. It is the theist who needs to define god and then whether or not each specific god exists can be addressed. We need not worry about whether or not undefined gods exist as we do not ever concern ourselves with the existence of undefined entities.  

Quote:
They can't! So, their position can be summarily dismissed - as easily as they dismiss the God they have not defined. This renders active atheism (the idea that God does not exist) to be fallacious, in that it is a position that cannot be proven. It's untenable.

 All this guy is trying to do is shift the burden of proof with a really bad argument based in definitions. So far he has said nothing worthy of consideration.


Quote:
Of course, the concept of God rubs both ways - neither those who believe in God nor those who do not believe in God can possibly fully conceive of anything that is worthy of the title, "God."

He just stated everyone makes their own definition of 'god' and now he states that no one can fully conceive of something worthy of the title 'god' which assumes they are using his definition. Weird, huh?  

Quote:
The best that any of us can do is attempt to discern what characteristics such a being must have in order to be Creator of the Universe and define God in accordance with that.

 How could one possibly know the characteristice required to create a universe. If a pre-universe state is inherently unstable then a pre-universe state could be said to have the necessary characteristics to create a universe. He is simply trying to set up arbitrary requirements by which he can sneak in his personal god definition/concept.

Quote:
But, fundamentally, it can be agreed by virtually all that God is defined as Creator of the Universe. Fair enough? So, if that is our definition of God, then the existence of the Universe MUST NECESSARILY be evidence of such a Creator. After all, without the Creation, why bother considering who/what Created it? And, if the Creation exists, then it must have been Created - by something. We can simply choose to call that God.

 Wow. When you call the universe a creation then you can require it has a creator because creations have creators. Brilliant. It's like a personal audience with Einstein. 


Quote:
And, if we leave our definition at that, as God is Creator of the Universe, we technically have no burden of proof -- it's an axiom, a self-evident truth, and certainly not an extraordinary claim.

No. There is a hidden assumption that the universe requires creation. It is not at all axiomatic.  

Quote:
Where the burden of proof comes in is when we start making unprovable assertions about God, Creator of the Universe.

No, it comes in when one states the universe is a creation or that it requires a creator. 

Quote:
That is what Christians and other God worshippers have done. They have arbitrarily assigned unprovable and nonsensical characteristics to the Creator of the Universe, thus rendering the entity to which they refer as "God" non-existent. But, that in no way invalidates the existence of a God that has created, or is creating the Universe. It just invalidates their definition of God.

 He has just arbitrarily assigned a creator to the universe and then arbitrarily and without proof assigned it the quality of being an entity.

Quote:
For the purposes of establishing a workable definition of God, we must first familiarize ourselves with some integral terms and their definitions and conditions that ensure that the God we define is worthy of the title, "God."

 That's all I'm responding to. The guy has contorted logic and reasoning so badly that nothing that follows is of any impotance. Another person who thinks they have the ultimate proof simply because they actually have no idea what they are talking about. Self confused to the point of thinking they have the ultimate answers.   


“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


K9sByte
Posts: 51
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
If someone were to tell me

If someone were to tell me they could prove the existence of any god to me, I would expect to see empirical evidence that can be verified by observation.  What this guy gave you is basically just a waste of time.  Vessel explained very well why the guy's arguments do not work.  Another kind of argument that I think is a waste of time is when they use the "god equation" or what ever that is to try to prove gods existence mathematically.  It does not hold water.  I would go back to that guy and thank him kindly for wasting my time and ask for some real evidence now please.  =)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
You're too polite, hun.  I

You're too polite, hun.  I would never thank someone for wasting my time.


K9sByte
Posts: 51
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
I don't know if that came

I don't know if that came out quite right - if I were speaking it aloud you would surely hear my voice dripping with sarcasm.  Sticking out tongue


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
 It's was ok up to this

 It's was ok up to this point

Badbark wrote:

Such a being must be:

Omnipotent - that is to say, God must be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

Omniscient - that is to say, God must contain sufficient knowledge to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

Omnipresent - that is to say, God must be able to be present at all places and at all times to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

These are the bare minimum requirements for any entity that we might ever choose to label as "God."

If one wishes to call that which created our universe god fair enough, but that which created our universe is not necessarily conscious, so to assume it is an entity rather than non-conscious energy is just irrational, to then subscribe Omnipotent Omniscient Omnipresent to what may be non-conscious energy again is a rational,

Energy is all that is required to create our universe one can call this energy god, the flying spaghetti monster, bob, toaster, rolled up newspaper, whatever

It isn't necessarily conscious, therefore it isn't necessarily an entity

Tell him nice try but no cigar


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"God" is a construct as

(EDIT) 

"God" is a construct as much as peanut butter can lubracate a Corvette engine.(STRIKE THIS), my ADD READING missed the word "human construct".  SILLY ME.

 Let me rephrase that. Saying god is real is like saying you can use peanut butter to lubricate a Corvette engine.

"god/God/super natural" are utterances of ignorance. They are an attempt to fill in a gap of knowlege. Unfortunatly it merely fills the gap with fantacy.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


albedo_00
albedo_00's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Did someone noticed this

Did someone noticed this "proof" is unnecessary lengthy? As if the mere effort of a circular logic could become solid proof by it's mere act of repetition? But ok, I'll play along with the youtuber.

Quote:
“The most fundamentally important thing to understand about God is that God is a human construct. It is a label that we have assigned to something. Before there were humans to conceive of God, all there was in the Universe was all there was in the Universe.

That was beautiful, specially the last part. If it had stayed at that I'd had buy the youtuber a drink.

Quote:
"God" is a variable. What I mean by that is that it means exactly what the person using the word wants it to mean.

(...)

But, what is so often missing in discussions about God is the particular definition to which they are referring. When an atheist says, "God cannot possibly exist," to exactly WHAT are they referring that they would claim does not exist? So, even an atheist MUST DEFINE GOD, before they can make ANY meaningful comments or assertions about God. And, if they have not defined God, how can they claim God does not exist? They can't! So, their position can be summarily dismissed - as easily as they dismiss the God they have not defined. This renders active atheism (the idea that God does not exist) to be fallacious, in that it is a position that cannot be proven. It's untenable..


Yes and no. Different people give different definitions of god in order to meet their particular criteria/needs/beliefs. However, most atheists I've known are very careful in their use of the word god, this is to say, they (we) use the term the claimant use and the characteristics they ascribe to their alleged deity, when debating it's existence. To try and disproof the alleged existence or the validity of someone's construct by redefining it as seen fit is a dishonest form of argumentation, one, by the way, we see used and abused in this kinds of discussions.


Quote:
But, fundamentally, it can be agreed by virtually all that God is defined as Creator of the Universe. Fair enough? So, if that is our definition of God, then the existence of the Universe MUST NECESSARILY be evidence of such a Creator. After all, without the Creation, why bother considering who/what Created it? And, if the Creation exists, then it must have been Created - by something. We can simply choose to call that God.

Sigh... can anyone say "not this sh*t again"? The universe is evidence of two (2) things: that the universe exists and that it had to have a beginning. PERIOD. Furthermore, this arguments presents the same blatant creationist assumption: the universe was created, i.e. that a voluntary effort by a conscious being took place in order for the universe to come into being. Thus far there are nothing but speculation and dishonest (false) proof to support that claim.

Quote:
And, if we leave our definition at that, as God is Creator of the Universe, we technically have no burden of proof -- it's an axiom, a self-evident truth, and certainly not an extraordinary claim.

Yes, it is an Axiom, but only within the syllogistic logic of the youtuber argumentation, because in order for the creation of the universe to be an argument of god's creation, you have to blindly accept the assumption that the universe is a creation. Discard that unsubstantiated claim and the "axiom" falls apart.


Quote:
First, and foremost, any entity qualified for the title of "God" must be provably able to Create the Universe. Anything less would, at most, make such an entity only one of possibly many gods. So, what qualities must an entity have in order for it to be able to Create the Universe?

So this guy starts by saying "all of our definitions/alleged attributes of god are fallible due to our incapability to acknowledge perfection", and then goes on to suggest he inferred god's true attributes? And worst, they are nothing but the same old god characteristics. And even worst, they rely on even more assumptions. Let's see here:

Quote:
Omnipotent - that is to say, God must be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

Assumption:That the universe (or rather, this known universe)is everything and nothing exists outside of it.

Quote:
Omniscient - that is to say, God must contain sufficient knowledge to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

Same assumption. Just because I know everything about every possible problem a mustang 68 could have and every possible solution to those problems doesn't mean I am an omni-car repairman.

Quote:
Omnipresent - that is to say, God must be able to be present at all places and at all times to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

Assumption: The universe in it's entirety was created all at the same time. Oh really? And there's proof of this, yes? or is this another "axiom"? And since we're on the subject, I wonder how does the expansion of the universe fits in that assumption. I've often mused at the thought of god, in a sweat stained t-shit and a pair of over-revealing jeans, bent over at the edges of the universe, overtiming in order to finish the parts of a galaxy he putted aside for tomorrow.

From here on there's nothing more than the same old re-heated bs, but one thing caught my attention, and it was too much a piece of a mental jewel to be passed:

Quote:
It should be noted that, included within the definitions of omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent is a direct reference to God - indicating general consensus on the characteristics we have ascribed to God. We're not just making up God as we go along and just for ourselves. These characteristics really are the bare minimum requirements for God.

So, these characteristics, by definition, point out to be a part of god, and therefore gods exists? Really? And since, oh, lets say, all characteristics pertaining to magical properties, by definition, point out to be a part of magical beings, that means faeries and gnomes and whatnot also exists? Well if so I want me a dragon, and I better hear none of you saying I'm irrational about dragons, the dictionary says they exists, not me. At best this is an argumentum ad populum, but even then is a suck balls argument.

Tell that youtuber that imaginary beings also have imaginary properties, and their appearance in a dictionary is not a validation for their existence. This all started just fine, saying that the label "god" was all too subjected to arbitrary claims by all sides, but cowers in the end by proposing a poor excuse of a religion-free description of god, and it fails just as much as the DSM in it's approach of a theory-free categorization of mental illnesses.

Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  geezzz K9sByte , that

  geezzz K9sByte , that was perfect, You are so beautiful, ohhh those eyes and words !  

I love you .... get your girl friends pissed too , RRS needs ya .... do it for god !   Smile  kill god of abe .....


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hi Vessel,



Hi Vessel,

I think a lot of the problems you're seeing with this guys statement is that he is compounding his use of the word 'God' within sentences. more below:

Vessel wrote:
Badbark wrote:


While debating on YouTube a guy told me he had proof that God exists. I was intrigued and he seemed like a decent fellow so I asked for his proof. This is what I was sent. I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s views.

“The most fundamentally important thing to understand about God is that God is a human construct. It is a label that we have assigned to something. Before there were humans to conceive of God, all there was in the Universe was all there was in the Universe.


All that there is in the universe is still all that there is in the universe. Humans can't make 'all that there is in the universe' not 'all that there is in the universe' or make 'more in the universe' than 'all there is in the universe'. What does he even think he's saying above except stating an obvious tautology in a manner as if to suggest that humans, in some way, can make A=A untrue?



What I read here is that he is attempting to say, A always has equalled A and it is humans that have labelled it A then expounded upon that label. In the absence of humans there is no exponentiation of abstract meaning upon A, there's just A.

The problem to me is that he has used his "God" label twice in the sentence to mean different things. He has once applied it as a variable and then once applied it under his (yet to be announced) definition.

I'm supposing this wouldn't be so much of a problem if he had indicated it thus:

The most fundamentally important thing to understand about the [variable] God is that it is a human construct. It is a label that we have assigned to something.

Before there were humans to conceive of a God/ [universe], all there was in the Universe was all there was in the Universe, [this was not labelled nor attached to the label "God"].

What do you think?

He then goes on to explain his proposition of the variable God.



Vessel wrote:


Quote:
"God" is a variable. What I mean by that is that it means exactly what the person using the word wants it to mean.


Every word means exactly what the person using it wants it to mean. Its just that if they want to be able to exchange information with other humans they are going to have to agree to common meanings. The word 'god' is no different.


Variables are assigned according to the prescribed operation by the operator, so in my view you guys are saying the same thing here precisely.

I don't think this guy is trying to claim that "God" is the one and only exclusive variable in the english language, but rather pointing out that it is merely a variable like any other variable label constructed in human minds.



Vessel wrote:


Quote:
When a Christian refers to God, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by their Bible and their imagination. When a Muslim refers to Allah, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by the Quran and their imagination. But, when a scientist refers to God, they are not referring to either definition, are they? They have their own ideas about who and what God is. And, so do atheists.


What about a Christian or Muslim scientist? So far this is all just silliness.






I'm sorry Vessel I just don't get your point at all, what about a muslim scientist?

I figure I agree with this guy in principle here, anyone using a word in any context has some conception of meaning to the word, and by de facto that meaning is ostensibly individual to that mind. Anything more than that just doesn't seem relevant to me.



Vessel wrote:



Quote:
But, what is so often missing in discussions about God is the particular definition to which they are referring. When an atheist says, "God cannot possibly exist," to exactly WHAT are they referring that they would claim does not exist?


A conscious creator of the universe, or any conscious entity or otherwise existing thing that is labeled as immaterial or supernatural.



Excuse me for bringing up Quantum science where it's not invited, but it's not right to ignore the very real philosophical conundrum for this word 'immaterial' presented by our knowledge of the microscopic world.

An event on a quantum scale, say for a simple example a scattering process with an electron and positron, can happen to be 'caused' in more than one way, problem is if we try to establish which process is happening via observation, due to the measurement problem, it is impossible. So we are left to take the probability that the scattering event will occur. You'd think that means we take a basic distributive probability, right? ABS(probability of process A^2) + ABS(the probability of process b^2) but, No, that is not the case. The actual probability is ABS(probability of process A + probability of process B) ^2 And there is a major difference in what that means interpretatively.

A normal classical distribution |A^2 + B^2| is a mathematical expression for classical causality: the weight of deterministic factors generalised over the degrees of freedom of the outcome.

The Quantum distribution says no such thing on the other hand, what |A+B|^2 actually says is that the result comes from the distribution of both processes sharing the same timespacereality position, ie both causes happened together and bumped against each other.

In classical determinism there is only room for one process in one place at one time, but this scattering effect insists upon two or more processes superimposed upon each other. In a classical view of the universe there is no material 'place' for the second process to occur within, therefore quantum probability necessitates something not natural to the classical physical world.

So, then, it is not right to summarily dismiss the existence of immaterial things if your definition of immaterial is confined to what can be deduced from classical reality. In the terms of classical reality, the quanta units of the universe cross over into immaterial. In terms of quantum reality, the jury is still out on whether these parts of the universal wavefunction are materially real (multiverse) or not materially real (hidden variables), so again, an opinion informed by certain specific physical phenomena does not summarily discount immateriality or supernaturalism, it simply keeps them in perspective.

Vessel wrote:


Quote:
So, even an atheist MUST DEFINE GOD, before they can make ANY meaningful comments or assertions about God. And, if they have not defined God, how can they claim God does not exist?


It isn't up to the atheist to define god. We do not define things that don't exist in order to state they don't exist. No one does this. It is the theist who needs to define god and then whether or not each specific god exists can be addressed. We need not worry about whether or not undefined gods exist as we do not ever concern ourselves with the existence of undefined entities.


I agree with you. The atheist should be in a position to say that they know what they are dismissing, but it is up to the theist to provide that information. Without that information there is no obligation on the atheist to not dismiss it. The atheist position can always fairly claim neutrality.

Vessel wrote:


Quote:
The best that any of us can do is attempt to discern what characteristics such a being must have in order to be Creator of the Universe and define God in accordance with that.


How could one possibly know the characteristice required to create a universe. If a pre-universe state is inherently unstable then a pre-universe state could be said to have the necessary characteristics to create a universe. He is simply trying to set up arbitrary requirements by which he can sneak in his personal god definition/concept.

 

Fair statement. I think you're right that he has pushed his God concept quite arbitrarily from here.

His proof of an extant 'creator' can be rescued, but first we have to stamp out the wrinkles in his application of the word 'creation'.

To do that we need to clarify our use of the word 'universe'- two things that people take it to mean.

1. we can think of the universe as a lump of energy. The law of conservation of energy clearly states such energy is not created or destroyed, and this law holds in the farthest and deepest reaches of the visible universe which we can observe. As far as we know, this lump of energy-mass does not need a creator. It has, moreover, transformative abilities up to and including acts which we would consider utterly impossible or supernatural, like Quantum tunneling, and therefore it needs no outside help, either, to achieve the most fantastic ends... such as creation of a giant interactive universe of properties.

2. not all people think (1) when they say universe. Many, indeed most, define their personal concept of the universe by its seemingly endless properties. Space, Time, Physical objects and physical action. All of these properties which are tangible and conceivable to the average person, DO require a creative force (conscious or unconscious) in order to exist.

Now the reality is, to the best of our human knowledge, the 'creator' of (2) is (1)

Therefore, when we speak of an entity creating the universe, and we mean, by "universe" the visible matter interacting over time and space as we know it then the entity we are referring to is The collection of energy which is also the universe.

So then we need not define the properties necessary to the creator of the universe according to definition (2), we can instead take the ageless unchanging properties of definition (1) and they churn out pretty much indentical answers-
The body of energy which is the universe, is everywhere. Omnipresence.
The body of energy which is the universe can do/be anything up to and including paradoxical things. Omnipotence.

We can then say an omnipotent, omnipresent entity is the 'creator' of the universe. This entity is however, for all intents and purposes, the body of substance of the universe itself.



Vessel wrote:

Quote:
But, fundamentally, it can be agreed by virtually all that God is defined as Creator of the Universe. Fair enough? So, if that is our definition of God, then the existence of the Universe MUST NECESSARILY be evidence of such a Creator. After all, without the Creation, why bother considering who/what Created it? And, if the Creation exists, then it must have been Created - by something. We can simply choose to call that God.


Wow. When you call the universe a creation then you can require it has a creator because creations have creators. Brilliant. It's like a personal audience with Einstein.


I'm with you here Vessel, DIE 'first cause/prime mover argument' !! please die you are embarrassment to all theists.

The first cause argument is like saying you were born the ocean and because you are immersed in water you know that water is the basis of all existence; but in reality to someone born on land you know jack-sh*t.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Quote: “The most

Quote:
“The most fundamentally important thing to understand about God is that God is a human construct. It is a label that we have assigned to something. Before there were humans to conceive of God, all there was in the Universe was all there was in the Universe.

This implies coherency and comprehensibility. Old gods were anthropomorphizations of nature, but the current idea just seems to be the bare label, shepherded to evade definition and falsification.

Quote:
"God" is a variable. What I mean by that is that it means exactly what the person using the word wants it to mean.

In a given circumstance to make a certain point, if only for the concept's self-preservation. An ad hoc.

Quote:
When a Christian refers to God, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by their Bible and their imagination.

I don't agree that it's well defined. I recall a joke on an RRS show about asking a hundred Christians about their god, and getting as many different answers.

Quote:
When a Muslim refers to Allah, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by the Quran and their imagination. But, when a scientist refers to God, they are not referring to either definition, are they? They have their own ideas about who and what God is.

Echoing Vessel here that the implied mutual exclusivity between scientists and standard adherents is unjustified.

Quote:
And, so do atheists.

I don't, which is why I self-identify ignostic/noncognativist, and I think this assertion is unjustified.

Quote:
But, what is so often missing in discussions about God is the particular definition to which they are referring. When an atheist says, "God cannot possibly exist," to exactly WHAT are they referring that they would claim does not exist? So, even an atheist MUST DEFINE GOD, before they can make ANY meaningful comments or assertions about God.And, if they have not defined God, how can they claim God does not exist? They can't! So, their position can be summarily dismissed - as easily as they dismiss the God they have not defined.

I agree, and don't think any meaningful definitions have been offered, let alone meaningful assertions. The scriptural material is entertained to discredit it on a logical or historical basis; but to say that god is something that has to be literally argued out of existence is a shifting of the burden of proof.

Quote:
This renders active atheism (the idea that God does not exist) to be fallacious, in that it is a position that cannot be proven. It's untenable.

Of course, the concept of God rubs both ways - neither those who believe in God nor those who do not believe in God can possibly fully conceive of anything that is worthy of the title, "God." The best that any of us can do is attempt to discern what characteristics such a being must have in order to be Creator of the Universe and define God in accordance with that.

Why are we looking for this traits? It begs the question.

Quote:
But, fundamentally, it can be agreed by virtually all that God is defined as Creator of the Universe. Fair enough?

You're contradicting your previous statements about inadequate definition.

Quote:
So, if that is our definition of God, then the existence of the Universe MUST NECESSARILY be evidence of such a Creator.

Specious reasoning.

Quote:
After all, without the Creation, why bother considering who/what Created it?

Begging the question.

Quote:
And, if the Creation exists, then it must have been Created - by something. We can simply choose to call that God.

So... stupid. Begging the question again.

Quote:
And, if we leave our definition at that, as God is Creator of the Universe, we technically have no burden of proof -- it's an axiom, a self-evident truth, and certainly not an extraordinary claim.

Presuppositionalist dreck. You're stuck with an ineffectual, non-explanatory pantheistic label stuck on nature, or trying to work out how an unsubstantiated mythological Abrahamic god is "axiomatic."

Quote:
Where the burden of proof comes in is when we start making unprovable assertions about God, Creator of the Universe. That is what Christians and other God worshippers have done. They have arbitrarily assigned unprovable and nonsensical characteristics to the Creator of the Universe, thus rendering the entity to which they refer as "God" non-existent. But, that in no way invalidates the existence of a God that has created, or is creating the Universe. It just invalidates their definition of God.

You've gotten around it by redefining it as nothing. It adds nothing, does nothing, explains nothing, and is totally superfluous.

[...]

Fuck this shit. It goes on an on, and it hasn't earned the privilege of continued reading, having tripped over its assumptions out of the gate.


Badbark
Posts: 94
Joined: 2008-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for all your

Thanks for all your replies. I’ve sent the author the link to this page and invite him to reply. He's having trouble getting an account setup so I'll post his reply myself.

“Post this to Vessel's attention. When I get an RR password, I'll be there myself. Do they not accept hotmail addresses, or what? I've not received a single email from the site with instructions for completing registration.

Anyway, here is my first response:

I had said, ""The most fundamentally important thing to understand about God is that God is a human construct. It is a label that we have assigned to something. Before there were humans to conceive of God, all there was in the Universe was all there was in the Universe."

Vessel says, "All that there is in the universe is still all that there is in the universe. Humans can't make 'all that there is in the universe' not 'all that there is in the universe' or make 'more in the universe' than 'all there is in the universe'. What does he even think he's saying above except stating an obvious tautology in a manner as if to suggest that humans, in some way, can make A=A untrue?"

Well, I wrote it in plain english; and, it still seems pretty clear to me. Are you confused? Is what I said not true? Or, are you just desperate to criticize it for no reason at all?

Vessel says, "Every word means exactly what the person using it wants it to mean. Its just that if they want to be able to exchange information with other humans they are going to have to agree to common meanings. The word 'god' is no different."

Yes, the word, "God" is different. "Rain" is the same to everyone. There's generally no confusion about what someone means, when they use the word, "rain." But, when people start talking about God, they start talking nonsense. Why? Because, not everyone uses the same definition of "God." So, they argue and argue over it, until they get angry and then hate the others that define God differently than they define God. And then ,they seek to DESTROY those who believe differently about "God." That's an ENORMOUS difference with the word, "God." A difference worth discussing.

Vessel says, "What about a Christian or Muslim scientist? So far this is all just silliness."

What is silliness is for you to be picking apart insignificant minutia in an effort to elude the entire point of the post. And, it's ad hominem - doesn't establish anything, except your own petty arrogance. Let's continue, shall we?

I had said, "But, what is so often missing in discussions about God is the particular definition to which they are referring. When an atheist says, "God cannot possibly exist," to exactly WHAT are they referring that they would claim does not exist?"

Vessel says, "A conscious creator of the universe, or any conscious entity or otherwise existing thing that is labeled as immaterial or supernatural"

So says you - and, for yourself. But, not others. Unless you specify the definition to which you are referring, your comment is meaningless. So, you must say something like, "The Christian God cannot possibly exist..." and then, go on to prove why He does not exist. It's a bit pedantic; but, you don't mind, do you? I thought not. Let's move on.


Vessel says, "It isn't up to the atheist to define god."

If the atheist is going to make assertions about God, it is. Look, you're typically debating with people who do not think logically. If you want them to respect logic, you have to follow it, too. That means defining terms clearly in the context of your assertions - especially, when referring to something as nebulous and variable as "God."

Furthermore, if even ONE definition of God can be proven to be tenable, active atheism (the idea that God does not exist, as opposed to never having considered the possibility or concept of such a thing) becomes untenable. The definition I present as God being All that is True in the Universe is a tenable definition of God. It allows God to be:

1 - Creator of the Universe.

2 - Omnipresent

3 - Omnipotent

4 - Omniscient

Furthermore, it is axiomatic - it proves itself. An axiom IS a proof. Saying A = A is axiomatic. It proves itself. Saying that God = All that is True in the Universe is also axiomatic. It proves itself. If it's not true, it's not God. If it's true, it is God. If it is God, it is True. If the Truth exists, then the God we have defined as Truth exists. For this God to NOT exist, Truth would also have to NOT exist.

Now, theists typically ascribe these same attributes to their Gods; but, they cannot prove their much more specific definitions. Therefore, they are required to exercise faith and belief for their God. To present a tenable and provable definition of God to one who has previously had to exercise faith can be quite persuasive in getting them to dump their ridiculous ideas about God. That is the whole point in the exercise you're criticizing. It wasn't meant for you. But, since you like criticism, let's see how you like it when it's turned on you. Moving on:

Vessel says, " All this guy is trying to do is shift the burden of proof with a really bad argument based in definitions. So far he has said nothing worthy of consideration."

Ad hominem. No further response needed. Why would you waste keystrokes on meaningless drivel, such as that? It established only your own arrogance and inability to rationally debate the topic at hand. To wit:
You say it is a "bad argument." But, WHY is it bad? If you weren't going to say what was "bad" about it, why did you open your pie hole in the first place? Huh?

Vessel says, "He just stated everyone makes their own definition of 'god' and now he states that no one can fully conceive of something worthy of the title 'god' which assumes they are using his definition. Weird, huh?"

No, it's not weird. It's a truism. And, it doesn't assume that they are using any particular definition of the word. I've not once encountered anyone who would claim to be able to fully comprehend "God." Have you? Are you such a person that can fully comprehend "God?" You don't seem to be able to comprehend even the simplest of ideas communicated in the simplest of language for the simplest of people. You have my pity (not really, I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine).

I said, "The best that any of us can do is attempt to discern what characteristics such a being must have in order to be Creator of the Universe and define God in accordance with that."

Vessel says, " How could one possibly know the characteristice required to create a universe."

I didn't make any claim to any such ability. Note the phrase. "...attempt to discern."

But, it is fair to say that, in order to create the Universe, any Creator would need to meet the following basic criteria:

1 - They must be ABLE to Create the Universe (omnipotent)

2 - They must KNOW HOW to Create the Universe (omniscient)

and

3 - They must be PRESENT to Create the Universe (omnipresent)

This is pretty basic stuff. And, I already explained it once. If you can't understand it, you might consider remaining silent and sparing yourself the embarrassment you just suffered. (I can argue ad hominem, too - isn't it fun?)

Vessel says, "If a pre-universe state is inherently unstable then a pre-universe state could be said to have the necessary characteristics to create a universe."

Well, get to the business of proving that - whatever it is. I am forced to wonder why you posted this? I have not been discussing theories - only what is observably true. You seem to be prattling about some imaginary theoretical nonsense that escapes me. Perhaps, you could make an attempt to explain yourself? I'll be patiently awaiting - but, not holding my breath (since, it is clear you have no idea what you're talking about).

Vessel says, "He is simply trying to set up arbitrary requirements by which he can sneak in his personal god definition/concept. "

Isn't that what EVERY person does when they use the construct of "God?" The question then becomes, "does this definition of God make sense?"

Well, that was an utter waste of time responding to that drivel. There wasn't even one point worthy of my effort. Oh, well. After wiping the slobber from your chin, see if you can come up with something intelligent to say.

You're a complete joke! You seem to think that mindless nit-picking passes for rational discussion. It doesn't.”


albedo_00
albedo_00's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: But, fundamentally,

Quote:

But, fundamentally, it can be agreed by virtually all that God is defined as Creator of the Universe. Fair enough?

Dear Youtuber: 

Thus far your whole argument is based upon the pressuposition that the construct "god" is the creator of the universe, but as I have stated, this is an axiom only in the same manner "Aristotle was a cat" is an axiom:

-All cats are mortal, Aristotle died, therefore Aristotle was a cat. 

-All things must have a creator, God created everything, therefore God must be the creator. (short version, godidit)  

Your defined god is not an axiom, is a syllogism, because for it to be an axiom we are obliged to accept, without any reasonable argument, the presupposition that the universe is a creation, and until you provide any reasonable argument for us to accept this, this discussion is just as useful as to argue the defining characteristics of unicorns. 

Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Hey Albby.

Hey Albby.

You are not "obliged" to accept an axiom. Only certain axioms are required to be accepted because they are "self evidence." The other two categories are those that are "universally accepted" and those that are "accepted for the sake of argument."

Yet the latter two categories are by no means mutually exclusive. Even more so, syllogisms and axioms are not mutually exclusive.

For instance:

Physical laws allow for predictability.

Science uses physical laws.

Therefore, science allows for predictability.

This whole syllogism is something that is assumed for the sake of argument.  A great majority of the human population accept it for the sake of argument (or at least don't even question it) and so it is "universally accepted."

By no means, however, is the major premise necessary. It's something that is merely assumed because the alternative scenario would neither allow for predictability nor, if it actually was the state of things, could even be understood.

The way I see it is, if universal laws actually weren't universal or constant.. my mind would either explode because I would never know if I would fall up or spontaneously combust... or, my mind would merely try to "create" a fictious construct by which to make everything appear as if it followed some rule (kind of like the old astronomers did with retro and retroretrogress, for the heliocentric model).

(Hmm.. heliocentric? I think that's right).

So.. what I guess I'm saying is.. even if his syllogism is not "self evidence" it is still something that can be accepted for the sake of argument.  For many people, e.g. theist, it is just accepted--like scientist do with the aforementioned syllogism. 


Slayne
Slayne's picture
Posts: 91
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Damn youtuber,  I just read

Damn youtuber,
  I just read all that and still see no proof. just the same shizzle repeated long story is summed up by using technical Creationist bullshizam so he was just spiraling the web of  god as a christian. you know how I realized that? is the whole omni-spiel only the abrahamic religions have the singular god

If God didn't want atheists than we wouldn't exist..


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Badbark wrote: The bottom

Badbark wrote:


The bottom line is that God is a human construct. This is necessarily true. Why? Because, you are not capable of fully comprehending the entity that you would call "God." Why? Because, you cannot comprehend how to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail. So, the best you can do is imagine what God must be like to be able to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail. And, God makes that clear to us through all that is True in the Universe. God hides nothing from us. God will reveal any and all of His Great Truths to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them. That is to say, the Universe and the processes responsible for its Creation, will reveal all of its truths to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them.

Please, let me know what you think.”

Horrible from the start. Ill defined, presuppositionalist apologetics which have been rebutted a million times. That's what I think.

Oh, and the author should try to learn some basic logic. 

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


DeathMunkyGod
atheist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-09-15
User is offlineOffline
Badbark wrote: But, what is

Badbark wrote:
But, what is so often missing in discussions about God is the particular definition to which they are referring. When an atheist says, "God cannot possibly exist," to exactly WHAT are they referring that they would claim does not exist? So, even an atheist MUST DEFINE GOD, before they can make ANY meaningful comments or assertions about God. And, if they have not defined God, how can they claim God does not exist? They can't! So, their position can be summarily dismissed - as easily as they dismiss the God they have not defined. This renders active atheism (the idea that God does not exist) to be fallacious, in that it is a position that cannot be proven. It's untenable.

This paragraph contains a fallacy known as Loki's Wager, an irrational insistence that any concept that is not clearly defined or at all defined cannot be discussed.

The paragraph also contains an explicit assumption that all atheists assert that god cannot exist.  This is false.  Agnostic atheists never make such a claim, thus agnostic atheists are not limited to any specific definition of a god concept.  It also assumes that atheists cannot accept as their definition of god the same definition as the person to whom the atheist is speaking.

Badbark wrote:

Of course, the concept of God rubs both ways - neither those who believe in God nor those who do not believe in God can possibly fully conceive of anything that is worthy of the title, "God." The best that any of us can do is attempt to discern what characteristics such a being must have in order to be Creator of the Universe and define God in accordance with that.

This is an argument from ignorance.  Assuming that currently no one alive can possibly fully concieve of anything worthy of the title "God" this person is assuming that it isn't possible.  What does the person base this conclusion on?  If it is based solely on the fact that we currently cannot, assuming also that this is true, then it is based solely on what we don't know and not at all on why we can't know.  This is no way to conclude the possibility of us understanding anything.

Also an objective method to discern the characteristics a god concept must necessarily have to be considered the creator of the universe is necessary, but insufficient to prove the existence of such a concept.  We cannot take existence as a property, afterall.  It is possible to concieve of a concept and concieve of that concept not existing without it telling us any less about the concept.

In the end you see that very likely there are no characteristics which are truely necessary except that such a god be powerful enough to create the universe, and intelligent enough to create the universe.  This is still pretty powerful and intelligent, but nowhere near omnipotent and omniscient.

Badbark wrote:

But, fundamentally, it can be agreed by virtually all that God is defined as Creator of the Universe. Fair enough? So, if that is our definition of God, then the existence of the Universe MUST NECESSARILY be evidence of such a Creator. After all, without the Creation, why bother considering who/what Created it? And, if the Creation exists, then it must have been Created - by something. We can simply choose to call that God.

This very definition almost makes god absolutely necessary.  We would need a method to establish that this definition is actually good.  Did god actually create the universe?  If so what evidence of that creation did he leave behind?  One could point to the existence of the universe, however the existence of the universe is only unequivocal evidence that the universe exists.  What evidence did god leave that he created the universe as opposed to the universe coming into existence by natural means?  One could point to design, but design implies intent.  When you look at the universe can you derive objectively the intent of the creator?  Design implies purpose.  When you look at the universe can you derive objectively its purpose based solely on its structure?  A single designer will often use a similar design for a similar function, this is not seen very much in nature.  Esspecially not in biology.  Also if the universe has but a single designer then all structures that perform a similar function in nature will exhibit a similar design.  Again something we do not observe in nature.

The definition is simply begging the question.  In order to accept the premise that god is the creator of the universe we must accept the conclusion that god exists.  Here the arguer attempts to make existence a property of god.  Invalid as I have already demonstrated.

Badbark wrote:

And, if we leave our definition at that, as God is Creator of the Universe, we technically have no burden of proof -- it's an axiom, a self-evident truth, and certainly not an extraordinary claim. Where the burden of proof comes in is when we start making unprovable assertions about God, Creator of the Universe. That is what Christians and other God worshippers have done. They have arbitrarily assigned unprovable and nonsensical characteristics to the Creator of the Universe, thus rendering the entity to which they refer as "God" non-existent. But, that in no way invalidates the existence of a God that has created, or is creating the Universe. It just invalidates their definition of God.

It would be philosophically acceptable to assume god as an axiom.  However occam's razor demands that in all axiomatic systems the system must contain only necessary axioms.  Necessary axioms are axioms which add something useful to the system in a tangible way.  We must be able to make verifiable predictions based on every one of the axioms, and none of the axioms should be deriveable from any other set of axioms.  This is the foundation of science.  Accepting god as axiomatic may be philosophically acceptable, but untill we can falsify god, it will never be scientifically acceptable.  In the end it comes down to an unjustifiable assumption.

Badbrad wrote:

First, and foremost, any entity qualified for the title of "God" must be provably able to Create the Universe. Anything less would, at most, make such an entity only one of possibly many gods. So, what qualities must an entity have in order for it to be able to Create the Universe?

For reasons that I hope are obvious this assertion completely falls flat and basically singlehandedly dismantles this person's entire argument.  No entity known to exist is provably able to create the universe.  Again the arguer is begging the question.

Badbark wrote:

Omnipotent - that is to say, God must be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

Omniscient - that is to say, God must contain sufficient knowledge to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

Omnipresent - that is to say, God must be able to be present at all places and at all times to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

These are the bare minimum requirements for any entity that we might ever choose to label as "God." If the being lacks omnipotence, it will be unable to Create the Universe. If it lacks omniscience, it will be unable to Create the Universe. And, if it lacks omnipresence, it will be unable to Create the Universe.

Again this is just outright false.  An entity powerful enough to create the universe does not need to be infinitely powerful, allknowing and omnipresent.  It only needs to be powerful enough,  knowledgeable enough and really only in one place as far as anyone can determine.  I see no reason why such a being would necessarily have to exist simultaneously everywhere to create the universe.  We don't have to occupy the entire volume of a house to build a house do we?  Perhaps the arguer has a good reason why an entity would have to be infinitely powerful to create a finite universe, or have complete knowledge of absolutely everything to create a universe that does not contain every possible concept? 

Badbark wrote:

This seems like a tall order, until we realize that the Universe IS being Created - so, we can KNOW FOR CERTAIN that something meets the criteria we just listed - otherwise, we would not be here to contemplate the question. This entity may possess other characteristics about which we may have no knowledge; but, it absolutely will possess these three characteristics.

Here the arguer has just assumed the truth of a proposition he earlier asserted.  I have actually so far seen not a single valid argument which proves or even makes plausable that the universe is in fact created.  Nor has the arguer presented a valid reason to conclude that we would not be here if the universe were not created.  He's begging the question again.

Badbark wrote:

It should be noted that, included within the definitions of omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent is a direct reference to God - indicating general consensus on the characteristics we have ascribed to God. We're not just making up God as we go along and just for ourselves. These characteristics really are the bare minimum requirements for God.

Here is a nice argumentum ad populuum, or appeal to popularity.  Yes it may very well be the concensus, however it neither makes it true, nor does it make any sense to conclude that these are actually minimum requirements, rather than religious assumptions based on the need for what humans worship to be good and perfect.  It's far more likely psychological than it is physically necessary.

Badbark wrote:

Interestingly enough, the bare minimum requirements for God also point us to exactly who and what God really is. Let's analyze this by looking at one of the characteristics, shall we?

Omnipresent -

In order for God to be omnipresent, God must be at all places and at all times. This would necessarily include the actual space and time occupied by everything in the Universe - and, the space between everything in the Universe. This tells us, quite clearly, that God IS the Universe and that everything in the Universe is representative of Parts of God, in Partnership with God in the Creation of the Universe. In the instant that anything extant or non-extant (space) in the Universe is not God, God ceases to be omnipresent - and, ceases to be God. Because, omnipresence is a requirement for God, remember?

But, how can God be space? How can God be something that isn't? Well, you are mostly made up of space, aren't you? There is far more space between the subatomic particles in the atoms that make up your body than the space they actually occupy - by an enormous margin. Actual matter represents a minuscule portion of the Universe. But, still, the existence of the Universe depends on the space that holds things Here and There. Therefore, the existence of God depends on space, too.

Omnipotence also carries the same implication - the only way you can do anything and everything there is to do attendant to the Creation of the Universe is to BE the Universe and all the processes involved in its Creation. In the instant that anything in the Universe that is not God does anything, God is rendered non-omnipotent - and, therefore, not God. Because, omnipotence is a requirement for God, remember?

To further clarify this point: If I throw a rock at a wall at 2:00PM EST, and I'm not God, then I did something God could not do - throw that particular rock at that particular wall at that particular time and place. That renders God neither omnipotent, nor omnipresent. And, the fact that God could not experience the throwing of the rock at the wall at that time and place, means that He also could not know about it - because, knowledge is acquired through experience - an experience He didn't have; because, something that was not God had it, instead.

This smacks of pantheism and once again merely begs the question.  The arguer has not sufficiently proven his assertions that omnipotence nor omnipresence are absolutely necessary for a being who created the universe.  I suppose it would be easier for us to design and build cars if we were cars?  He's assuming that the universe must necessarily have been created and by a particular class of god concept.

Badbark wrote:

If God IS the Universe and all of the processes involved in its Creation, as is required by the characteristics of omnipotence and omnipresence(which we have already established), then God is necessarily experiencing all there is to experience in the Universe - and, therefore, able to acquire the acquaintance or familiarity attendant to meeting the definition of knowledge.

And, since God IS the Universe, and all knowledge of any kind is contained within it, God, by definition, possesses all knowledge of any kind, and is, therefore, omniscient.

The arguer then proceeds to beg the question again concerning omniscience another property which he asserted as necessary but never sufficiently proved to be absolutely necessary.  The universe is finite and does not contain within it every concept which we as humans have been able to concieve of.  Why is it necessary that whatever entity created the universe, assuming such an entity does exist and did create the universe, should have infinite knowledge?

Badbark wrote:

Of course, these three simplistic terms do an injustice to God - the reality of God is far more complex than the simple acknowledgement of three fundamental characteristics. It would be more accurate and meaningful to say that God is All that is True in the Universe. That necessarily includes all of the matter in the Universe, as well as the space in between. It also necessarily includes all of the processes, circumstances, and events that take place anywhere and at any time in the Universe.

Actually I would argue that these three simplistic terms assume much more about the god the arguer defined than are minimally necessary for such a god to fit his definition.  I would guess based on this assertion that the arguer has a specific god concept in mind when he argues and is not trying very hard to formulate a truely objective argument in defense of his preferred concept.  Then it is again begging the question to now redefine god as all that is true in the universe.  The definition assumes the truth of the concept it defines.  He once again seeks to prove the existence of godm and his specific concept of god, by definitional fiat.

Badbark wrote:

There, I've given you a proof for the existence of God and three of His/Her/Its fundamental characteristics. But, I would point out that, for every characteristic you would ascribe to God, you must be able to prove it - otherwise, you render the being to which you refer non-existent. That means that, as soon as you say something like, "God has promised that all those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour will spend eternity in Heaven with Him, " you render God non-existent. Why? Because, you cannot prove that He made any such promise or that He could or would follow through with it - and, if you would assert that He did, then you MUST be referring to a different entity that cannot be proven to exist.

So, you can choose to accept a provable definition of God and one that requires no faith or belief; because, He/She/It makes no promises or threats and is self-evident and is provably Creating the Universe. Or, you can choose to believe in a God of your imagination, or the imaginations of others, that requires faith and belief. Or, you can choose to believe in no God at all. The choice is yours - and, God doesn't care one way, or another, which way you would choose. Any and all choices you make are attendant to God experiencing all there is to experience in the Universe - which is attendant to God's omniscience.

The bottom line is that God is a human construct. This is necessarily true. Why? Because, you are not capable of fully comprehending the entity that you would call "God." Why? Because, you cannot comprehend how to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail. So, the best you can do is imagine what God must be like to be able to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail. And, God makes that clear to us through all that is True in the Universe. God hides nothing from us. God will reveal any and all of His Great Truths to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them. That is to say, the Universe and the processes responsible for its Creation, will reveal all of its truths to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them.

This is a long winded way to say that if you're going to do what he did, and attribute characteristics to god, you have to be able to do what he didn't, that is prove the necessity of these characteristics.  The arguer also this time explicitly makes the erroneous assertion that an atheist cannot possibly use a theist's definition of god, or choose to accept even just for the sake of argument the accuracy of a theist's definition of god...one has to wonder why the arguer even attempted to give and "prove" his own definition.

In reality I would accept a proveable definition of god.  It would have been interesting if the arguer had presented one.  The arguer ends by begging the question again and making another argument from ignorance.  The arguer is assuming that god exists and is too complicated for the human mind to fully understand, he also assumes that no human can possibly fully comprehend the concept of god because he cannot.  Either that or the assumption that you cannot fully comprehend the concept of god is based on you not believing in god.  Either way the arguer ends with a series of assertions which are based not on anything you've said, but instead on what the arguer needs to believe in order to understand why you wouldn't agree with him.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   Yo daedalus, That was

   Yo daedalus, That was Eleanor Roosevelt that said , "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." ???

Anyway,  GOD is one thing and freaking RELIGION is another .... I AM GOD <<< all is god. Now what ? Figure out some way to pray?, sheezzz, for god's sakes religion is stupid; science is working on all of this; it's all we got worth a hoot.

Thanks for coming aboard  Badbark and your friend ..... God is a "no brainer", Religion is bad brains. God of abe crap is still going strong, God GOD damn it!

Embarrassing it is. That's why I say as the best jesus/buddha character said "I am ONE with the father". What is it with stupid religious loons and even atheists that mix god and religion. We must find a way to fix this crap .... shit I will be long dead before that happens. Cry  

Religion has nothing to do with GOD ....

Damn words .... really freaks me out

a zillion quotes from the greatest human minds and we are still stuck in the dark age. The internet is helping, and so fix the freaking TV ASAP. GOD save US ! (from unnecessary suffering) and only WE god can ..... Surprised Smile 

GOD ? no problem. GOD of ABE ? FUCK OFF ! Yell


 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

The way I see it is, if universal laws actually weren't universal or constant.. my mind would either explode because I would never know if I would fall up or spontaneously combust... or, my mind would merely try to "create" a fictious construct by which to make everything appear as if it followed some rule

Errr the universal laws actually aren't universal or constant, stands back and wait's patiently for an explosion Smiling, if you'd like more information about this just ask

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

.So.. what I guess I'm saying is.. even if his syllogism is not "self evidence" it is still something that can be accepted for the sake of argument. For many people, e.g. theist, it is just accepted

Arrr

The flying spaghetti monster created everything

The universe was created

Therefore the flying spaghetti monster created the universe

So theist would accept this without question, expecting that everybody else would also except without question that the universe itself is self-evident proof of the flying spaghetti monster's existence

Somebody should gently tell this Youtuber that this is neither universally excepted or proof of itself

 

I'd like to see the Youtuber answer albedo_00 last post


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  .... so God was just

  .... so God was just there with nothing better to do than too create this ?.  Really ? WOW. How'd you know ? Wow that's so smart, and how shall I pray ?  Some Gods scare me Surprised  nahhhhhh , NOT .... but some people sure the fuck do .... so "godless", so clueless ..... religion is mostly devil shit .....


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Errr the universal

Quote:
Errr the universal laws actually aren't universal or constant, stands back and wait's patiently for an explosion Smiling, if you'd like more information about this just ask

Sure.  As long as it doesn't relate to some hypothetical point and time in the past.  Meaning.. observable in life right now.

Just a point, to me, "constant/universal laws" does not have to mean "static."  Acceleration is not static but it still "accelerates" based upon constants.  Meaning, based upon certain variables, acceleration will be the same everytime.

I just can't imagine that science would be able to put into a model anything that didn't have an X Y relation that was based upon some constant (as I am using the word).  If it wasn't constant/universal, how the heck could it be described in a model? Any "model" would, I would guess, just be a list of independently occuring events.

 

Quote:

Arrr

The flying spaghetti monster created everything

The universe was created

Therefore the flying spaghetti monster created the universe

So theist would accept this without question, expecting that everybody else would also except without question that the universe itself is self-evident proof of the flying spaghetti monster's existence

Somebody should gently tell this Youtuber that this is neither universally excepted or proof of itself

For the sake of argument? Yes, he would.  Would he expect everyone else to accept it without question? Yes, if he though they wanted to be involved in the argument.

..this is what is implied by "for the sake of argument."  The axiom is accepted, the argument goes from there.  For instance, the question wouldn't be "does the FSM exist?" but "why does he do X or Y? or not Y or B? what relevance does Z have?" etc.

Hmm.. what was albys last post? Yah.. I'm not going to argue him.  I was just pointing out a particular point that I considered with regard to syllogisms and axioms. 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Oh yah.. and "I AM GOD AS

Oh yah.. and "I AM GOD AS YOU" is going off the deep end.  I'm sensing a theme... and I feel it may burst into something deep at any moment.  Sort of like an advertising campaign..


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   All in gods plan !

   All in gods plan !


Badbark
Posts: 94
Joined: 2008-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Here's another reply from

Here's another reply from the author -

 

I'm still unable to login to RR. If you would, please, post this, too:

albedo_00 wrote:
Quote:
<p class="MsoNormal">But, fundamentally, it can be agreed by virtually all that God is defined as Creator of the Universe. Fair enough?
</p><p class="MsoNormal">Dear Youtuber: </p><p class="MsoNormal">Thus far your whole argument is based upon the pressuposition that the construct &quot;god&quot; is the creator of the universe, but as I have stated, this is an axiom only in the same manner &quot;Aristotle was a cat&quot; is an axiom:</p><p class="MsoNormal">-All cats are mortal, Aristotle died, therefore Aristotle was a cat. </p><p class="MsoNormal">-All things must have a creator, God created everything, therefore God must be the creator. (short version, godidit) </p><p class="MsoNormal">Your defined god is not an axiom, is a syllogism, because for it to be an axiom we are obliged to accept, without any reasonable argument, the presupposition that the universe is a creation, and until you provide any reasonable argument for us to accept this, this discussion is just as useful as to argue the defining characteristics of unicorns. </p>


You seem to be stuck on one particular definition of "creation." The following characteristics are NOT required for Creation:

1 - Sentience
2 - Intelligence

High pressure creates heavy metals. All that is True in the Universe (God) Creates the Universe.

There's your argument for the Universe being a creation. I am under no obligation to be bound by the cartoon characterization of God of which atheists seem to be so fond. And, I am under no obligation to be bound by your chosen definitions of "creation" and "creator, "either.

Within the context of the terms I have defined in my proof, I have succeeded in establishing its truth. Unless, you have some other logical arguments to present.

And, I have to tell you, you would be wasting your time. Why? Because, I'm not making extraordinary claims that bear a burden of proof and because I'm not saying anything that is inconsistent with reality as can be readily observed by anyone and because, I'm not seeking approval or followers; nor, does anything I am saying require faith or belief.

Of course, the endeavor does beg the question, "Why bother defining God?" The answer is that God-belief is an enormous problem on this planet. Virtually all of the God-believers do so out of faith. When you prattle on and on about how and why God could never exist, they just shut you down. You cannot defeat their faith with contrarianism - and, they will not listen to your logic, if you assault their faith directly. To asault their faith is to assault their ego. To assault their ego is to have them shut you and your message out. So, you are wasting your time with a conventional approach.

I am employing an alternative approach that has proven itself effective on multiple occasions. I have actually had people lay down their faith in response to the line of reasoning you are so desperate to pick apart. I am getting results. It's working.

It works; because, it concedes the existence of God. You'll never get anywhere with a God-believer, when you start off by telling them that God does not exist. They will just point out, correctly, that you cannot prove that God does not exist. To which you will respond that you cannot be expected to prove a negative. And, that's usually about as far as that gets.

On the otherhand, I affirm the existence of God, Creator of the Universe. That piques their curiosity in the face of my objections to Christianity - but, they don't shut me down. I go so far as to tell them that I can prove the existence of God, when they cannot. I point out that they need faith, while I don't.

They invariably want to see the proof I claim to have- so, I give it to them. Now, I don't care whether they accept it, or not. The main thing is to get them to read it in the privacy of their own thoughts. While they are reading my proof of God, their ego is not being assaulted. They will recognize the truth of what I am saying - even if they will not admit it to me. Planting a seed of doubt is all that is needed to displace faith.

Even if they disagree vehemently with my position, they are still being dragged through the process of critically examining the subject.

And, I do not expect immediate results, either. The times this has worked, it has always been a time-delayed reaction, where they come back to me later and concede that it was my line of reasoning that finally got them to take a critical look at their own beliefs.

And, that is the best that you can hope to do to combat the very real problem of God-belief. If you can get them to critically examine their own beliefs, you've won the battle.

Now, you're welcome to continue trying to disprove something that you cannot disprove, if you like. But, my entire premise is based on All that is True in the Universe. You cannot defeat that. But, have fun trying.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Badbark wrote: You seem

Badbark wrote:

You seem to be stuck on one particular definition of "creation." The following characteristics are NOT required for Creation:

1 - Sentience

2 - Intelligence

High pressure creates heavy metals. All that is True in the Universe (God) Creates the Universe.

Ooh, bye-bye goal posts, we hardly knew ye.

Badbark wrote:

There's your argument for the Universe being a creation. I am under no obligation to be bound by the cartoon characterization of God of which atheists seem to be so fond. And, I am under no obligation to be bound by your chosen definitions of "creation" and "creator, "either.

The theistic concept of creation does, of course, imply a deliberate agency. If it did not, it would not only add nothing to an explanation of the universe -- as it currently doesn't -- but it would also be undifferentiated from a natural explanation. The claim ceases to be unique, but an anthropomorphized redundancy.

Badbark wrote:

[...]

I am employing an alternative approach that has proven itself effective on multiple occasions. I have actually had people lay down their faith in response to the line of reasoning you are so desperate to pick apart. I am getting results. It's working.

Quitting ciggys to take up drinking can also 'work.'

Badbark wrote:

It works; because, it concedes the existence of God.

Using poor logic -- you're affirming poor logic. At best, they're trading blind faith for a fatuous explanation, which leaves them in no position to think for themselves -- if that's your goal. New age people believe they're explaining things when they talk about prana, and chi, and energy, but they're saying nothing.

Badbark wrote:
You'll never get anywhere with a God-believer, when you start off by telling them that God does not exist. They will just point out, correctly, that you cannot prove that God does not exist. To which you will respond that you cannot be expected to prove a negative. And, that's usually about as far as that gets.

Theirs is an argument from ignorance, but that assumes logic is important, which it isn't necessarily to that side of such an example.

Badbark wrote:

On the otherhand, I affirm the existence of God, Creator of the Universe. That piques their curiosity in the face of my objections to Christianity - but, they don't shut me down. I go so far as to tell them that I can prove the existence of God, when they cannot. I point out that they need faith, while I don't.

Novel approach, terrible argument.

Badbark wrote:

[...]

OK, tl;dr the rest. Too tedious, too smug, too redundant.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Badbark wrote: Vessel

Badbark wrote:



Vessel says, "All that there is in the universe is still all that there is in the universe. Humans can't make 'all that there is in the universe' not 'all that there is in the universe' or make 'more in the universe' than 'all there is in the universe'. What does he even think he's saying above except stating an obvious tautology in a manner as if to suggest that humans, in some way, can make A=A untrue?"

Well, I wrote it in plain english; and, it still seems pretty clear to me. Are you confused? Is what I said not true? Or, are you just desperate to criticize it for no reason at all?

 If you think I misunderstood it then explain what you mean. Of course it seems clear to you, you wrote it.

 

Quote:
Yes, the word, "God" is different. "Rain" is the same to everyone. There's generally no confusion about what someone means, when they use the word, "rain." But, when people start talking about God, they start talking nonsense. Why? Because, not everyone uses the same definition of "God." So, they argue and argue over it, until they get angry and then hate the others that define God differently than they define God. And then ,they seek to DESTROY those who believe differently about "God." That's an ENORMOUS difference with the word, "God." A difference worth discussing.

 

Why is it worth duiscussing?  Why bother with the term god at all?

Quote:
What is silliness is for you to be picking apart insignificant minutia in an effort to elude the entire point of the post. And, it's ad hominem - doesn't establish anything, except your own petty arrogance. Let's continue, shall we?

 You can continue if you like, but I read ahead and it isn't getting much better. The entire point of the post is basically saying God exists if we define God as a an orange root vegetable often enjoyed by Bugs Bunny, so I'm not overly worried about trying to elude the point. This also isn't ad hom, nor is any part of my post. If you want to reference fallacies, get to know them first. They can be your friends if you know when to reference them correctly.   




Quote:
So says you - and, for yourself. But, not others. Unless you specify the definition to which you are referring, your comment is meaningless. So, you must say something like, "The Christian God cannot possibly exist..." and then, go on to prove why He does not exist. It's a bit pedantic; but, you don't mind, do you? I thought not. Let's move on.

 I'm pedantic? You present this argument and I'm pedantic? Name a theistic god from any religion that is not said to be conscious. 


Quote:
Vessel wrote:
says, "It isn't up to the atheist to define god."


If the atheist is going to make assertions about God, it is. Look, you're typically debating with people who do not think logically. If you want them to respect logic, you have to follow it, too. That means defining terms clearly in the context of your assertions - especially, when referring to something as nebulous and variable as "God."

 Again, it isn't up to the atheist to define god. I don't refer to any god except when referencing a particular religions deity as defined by that religion, or the conscious entity creator of the universe they all seem to posit. There is no other way to refer to god, as aside from those instances, the word god has no use. We don't need to make up a definition. We simply need to realize all the present ones are referencing fictions and therefor these gods are not actually existing things.


Quote:
Furthermore, if even ONE definition of God can be proven to be tenable, active atheism (the idea that God does not exist, as opposed to never having considered the possibility or concept of such a thing) becomes untenable. The definition I present as God being All that is True in the Universe is a tenable definition of God. It allows God to be:

 If I define god as a carrot then god exists and atheismbecomes untenable. Yeah!!!!

 


Quote:
1 - Creator of the Universe.

Creator implies intent. 


Quote:
2 - Omnipresent

 So if the universe was spawned by a parent universe then the  parent universe has to be everywhere?  But the parent universe isn't this universe so it can't be where this universe is. If it was where this universe is, then they would be the same universe.


Quote:
3 - Omnipotent

So whatever created our universe can do something beside create universes? How do you know that? I don't think the definition  of omnnipotence is able to create universes. But then again your whole argument is based in redefining words so...


Quote:
4 - Omniscient

 Knowledge requires consciousness. Your back to a conscious entity. 


Quote:
Furthermore, it is axiomatic - it proves itself. An axiom IS a proof. Saying A = A is axiomatic. It proves itself. Saying that God = All that is True in the Universe is also axiomatic. It proves itself. If it's not true, it's not God. If it's true, it is God. If it is God, it is True. If the Truth exists, then the God we have defined as Truth exists. For this God to NOT exist, Truth would also have to NOT exist.

Actually axioms don't prove themselves, but that is probably a side discussion. 

We already have a word for truth, its spelled t-r-u-t-h. Saying that god = all thats true in the universe is only axiomatic if one defines god as all thats true in the universe. We are then saying all thats true in the universe is all thats true in the universe, a tautology. 

 

Quote:
Now, theists typically ascribe these same attributes to their Gods; but, they cannot prove their much more specific definitions.

One of which is consciousness. 

Quote:
Therefore, they are required to exercise faith and belief for their God. To present a tenable and provable definition of God to one who has previously had to exercise faith can be quite persuasive in getting them to dump their ridiculous ideas about God. That is the whole point in the exercise you're criticizing. It wasn't meant for you. But, since you like criticism, let's see how you like it when it's turned on you. Moving on:

 Why bother with trying to redefine their god? If what they refer to as god is untenable then the concept should be dropped altogether. I would be happy to drop my atheism (because it becomes meaningless once all god concepts have been dropped) once all theists have dropped the gods they have defined.  

By the way, I love criticism turned on me when it can show me that I am holding some incorrect belief or position. Let's move on.




Quote:
Ad hominem.

Please learn what this means. 

Quote:
No further response needed. Why would you waste keystrokes on meaningless drivel, such as that? It established only your own arrogance and inability to rationally debate the topic at hand. To wit:

It wasn't meaningless. The words "it is a really bad argument from definitions" have meaning. 


Quote:
You say it is a "bad argument." But, WHY is it bad? If you weren't going to say what was "bad" about it, why did you open your pie hole in the first place? Huh?

 My whole response tells you what's bad about it. By the way, I don't eat pie. I'm not big on sweets. Anyway, read back through and you should be ableto see why I think its a bad argument. 

 

Quote:
No, it's not weird. It's a truism. And, it doesn't assume that they are using any particular definition of the word. I've not once encountered anyone who would claim to be able to fully comprehend "God." Have you?

Yes. I've met people who have tried to define god as the universe, or even as whatever created the universe (cough, cough) and even though they are not presently fully known there is no reason to think it is impossible to fully comprehend them. There is no reason to think we are necessarilly unable to fully comprehend these things. We could some day have a theory of everything.

Quote:
Are you such a person that can fully comprehend "God?"

I can comprehend God as far as people define it. After that there is nothing to conprehend. 

Quote:
You don't seem to be able to comprehend even the simplest of ideas communicated in the simplest of language for the simplest of people. You have my pity (not really, I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine).

And yet, I do wonderfully. 



Quote:
I didn't make any claim to any such ability. Note the phrase. "...attempt to discern."

 Firstly, you refer to god as a being. Secondly,

But, it is fair to say that, in order to create the Universe, any Creator would need to meet the following basic criteria:

Quote:
1 - They must be ABLE to Create the Universe (omnipotent)

 Something like a quantum fluctuation may be capable of creating the universe. Is a quantum fluctuation all powerful? that something is capable of creating the universe does not imply it is capable of doing anything else whatsoever.

 

Quote:
2 - They must KNOW HOW to Create the Universe (omniscient)

 Knowledge implies consciousness. Whatever created the universe, if anything,  need not be conscious therefor need not know anything.
 

Quote:
3 - They must be PRESENT to Create the Universe (omnipresent)

 Omnipresent means everywhere, always, not simply present at a specific point at the time the universe came to be.


Quote:
This is pretty basic stuff. And, I already explained it once. If you can't understand it, you might consider remaining silent and sparing yourself the embarrassment you just suffered. (I can argue ad hominem, too - isn't it fun?)

Its not basic stuff its ridiculous stuff. Its like the musings of a lonely teenager. Believe me, I'm not embarrassed in the least. Now, can you not see how silly your argument is?



Quote:
Well, get to the business of proving that - whatever it is. I am forced to wonder why you posted this? I have not been discussing theories - only what is observably true. You seem to be prattling about some imaginary theoretical nonsense that escapes me. Perhaps, you could make an attempt to explain yourself? I'll be patiently awaiting - but, not holding my breath (since, it is clear you have no idea what you're talking about).

 Its simple. You are making claims about what is necessarilly required if something is to create a universe. I am giving an example of a possible scenario which runs contrary to your requirements.  Your requirements are thereby shown not to be necessary. Your definition of god is just as arbitrary as anyone elses and no better supported.

I probably won't waste more time on this but feel free to respond all you like. if you say something that I find compelling I will acknowledge it. 


“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
Errr the universal laws actually aren't universal or constant, stands back and wait's patiently for an explosion Smiling, if you'd like more information about this just ask

Sure. As long as it doesn't relate to some hypothetical point and time in the past. Meaning.. observable in life right now.

Just a point, to me, "constant/universal laws" does not have to mean "static." Acceleration is not static but it still "accelerates" based upon constants. Meaning, based upon certain variables, acceleration will be the same everytime.

I just can't imagine that science would be able to put into a model anything that didn't have an X Y relation that was based upon some constant (as I am using the word). If it wasn't constant/universal, how the heck could it be described in a model? Any "model" would, I would guess, just be a list of independently occuring events.

" I would guess, just be a list of independently occuring events ". sound's like quantum physics  Smiling which is just mad absolutely off the scale in pure silliness, with expressions like strange weird colors flavor's dualism non-local realism superposition quantum tunneling  Bose–Einstein condensate normal rules do not necessarily apply on the quantum level it is all just probabilities, ? if you'd like kown more just ask

? were referring to classical physics and laws of motion and such 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: " I would guess,

Quote:
" I would guess, just be a list of independently occuring events ". sound's like quantum physics  Smiling which is just mad absolutely off the scale in pure silliness, with expressions like strange weird colors flavor's dualism non-local realism superposition quantum tunneling  Bose–Einstein condensate normal rules do not necessarily apply on the quantum level it is all just probabilities, ? if you'd like kown more just ask

It is pure silliness!

Quote:
? were referring to classical physics and laws of motion and such

I wasn't referring to anything in particular.. merely suggesting what I thought to be true, that in order for science to have any sort of relevance (in my book) it would have to have the ability to predict.  In order to predict, it is necessary that there are laws that are universal/constant or not-random/not ever-changing at a non-predictable rate.

Something like that.

And yes, I know a certain amount of "randonmess" is suggested in quantum physics--yet, I still think my earlier contention applies.  The randonmess is just inconsequential--small enough that it still allows for the ability of predictability.

Of course.. maybe I'm wrong.  I was just making a general contention.  I'd be happy to learn more though. 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  YEAH , why use the "GOD"

  YEAH , why use the "GOD" term at all !  

Geezz GOD ! what a stinking mess we are in. Religion is our greatest lesson of our stupidity. When buddha was asked "what about god" he say "who the fuck cares", probably with a giggle. Buddhists are often a humorous bunch. Smile 

 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:I wasn't

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

I wasn't referring to anything in particular.. merely suggesting what I thought to be true, that in order for science to have any sort of relevance (in my book) it would have to have the ability to predict. In order to predict, it is necessary that there are laws that are universal/constant or not-random/not ever-changing at a non-predictable rate.

Something like that.

And yes, I know a certain amount of "randonmess" is suggested in quantum physics--yet, I still think my earlier contention applies. The randonmess is just inconsequential--small enough that it still allows for the ability of predictability.

Of course.. maybe I'm wrong. I was just making a general contention. I'd be happy to learn more though.

There are three scales ish, quantum which is just pure silliness, our scale which is far more predictable and the cosmic scale lots of unknowns, there is a certain amount of silliness out there to be found but it's looking mostly stable

C is used as the universal constant C is the speed of light, but we can slow light down to about 18 miles per hour we can also make light travel faster than the speed of light between two points

? what interest you more quantum or cosmic

 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Okay Rev.. it really seems

Okay Rev.. it really seems like we're getting off topic here but whatever..

Quote:
C is used as the universal constant C is the speed of light, but we can slow light down to about 18 miles per hour we can also make light travel faster than the speed of light between two points

Does the speed of light change proportionally to "force" of that which is making it change?  Fine, we call speed of light of a constant.. but all it really was was a speeding car which no one could figure out how to put the breaks on before (analogy).

I don't think the speed of light "constant" really undercuts my presupposed syllogism.  In anycase.. tell me about whatever level of quantum you find most interesting..


albedo_00
albedo_00's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey Rhad, hello to everyone.

Hey Rhad, hello to everyone. Nice paint job on the forum, it has a more "official" feel to it, and goes easier on the eyes too.

Now, back to the subject at hand.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Hey Albby.

You are not "obliged" to accept an axiom. Only certain axioms are required to be accepted because they are "self evidence." The other two categories are those that are "universally accepted" and those that are "accepted for the sake of argument."

I didn't meant we are under the obligation to accept an axiom. An axiom, being as it is self-evident, is to be taken as that, self-evident. Our youtuber here (btw, would you mind making an account or at least identifying yourself by a name?) is attempting to pass his god creator as an axiom, which as I have said, it is not, it is a syllogism. I stress this out because, depending on the outcome, some syllogisms can only be true within the bounds of it's premises and logic; take for instance the example of the Aristotle was a cat syllogism, this is only true within the syllogism, but outside of it, i.e. in the real world, that is mere bull.

Same thing happens with the god creator syllogism. It is not self-evident, it does not proves itself, and it could only be taken as truth if we accept it's main presupposition as truth, that the universe is a creation, something which, in and on itself, is neither an axiom nor there are any conclusive evidence to support it. Therefore, no axiom, no self evident, no truth, no proof, and no cookie.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
This whole syllogism is something that is assumed for the sake of argument.  A great majority of the human population accept it for the sake of argument (or at least don't even question it) and so it is "universally accepted."

I completely agree on this. It is something accepted "for the sake of argument". But, and here's the catch, if something merely hypothetical (and god is no more than this, a hypothesis to explain the universe) is accepted for the sake of argument then it cannot be passed as truth latter on since, thinking back, we accepted it only as a tool to make a point. If we accepted, for the sake of argument, the existence of the invisible pink unicorn to address god's supernatural capability to be beyond contradictions, it doesn't mean the IPU exists.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
So.. what I guess I'm saying is.. even if his syllogism is not "self evidence" it is still something that can be accepted for the sake of argument.  For many people, e.g. theist, it is just accepted--like scientist do with the aforementioned syllogism.

Indeed. I don't think many syllogisms are meant to be taken neither literally nor as self-evident. If this is just to have a nice talk about hypothetical stuff, then bring the drinks and chips and let's chat. But if the youtuber wants me to accept this as "truth", then he's gonna have a hard time. Hell, I wouldn't take the "because I said so" arguments from my mom, think I'm gonna blindly accept this from him?

 

 

Now, this is for you youtuber (again, a name please?)

cre·a·tor

n.  

  1. One that creates: the creator of a new television series; a born creator of trouble.
  2. Creator God. Used with the.

cre·a·tion

     1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.

     2. the fact of being created

     3. something that is or has been created

     4. the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God

     5. the world; universe

     6. creatures collectively

     7. an original product of the mind, esp. an imaginative artistic work: the creations of a poetic genius

     8. a specially designed dress, hat, or other article of women's clothing, usually distinguished by imaginative or unique styling: the newest Paris creations (source: www.dictionary.com)

Quote:
You seem to be stuck on one particular definition of "creation." The following characteristics are NOT required for Creation:

1 - Sentience
2 - Intelligence

Ok, since I think I know where you're going, I'll grant you that much.


Quote:
High pressure creates heavy metals. All that is True in the Universe (God) Creates the Universe.

There's your argument for the Universe being a creation. I am under no obligation to be bound by the cartoon characterization of God of which atheists seem to be so fond. And, I am under no obligation to be bound by your chosen definitions of "creation" and "creator, "either.

"High pressure creates heavy metals". By this I can infer your use the word "create" means "to cause to exist" yes? I really hope you don't believe (or try to prove) high pressure has a will of it's own, or that it posses knowledge about making high metals. In this argument you're committing the error of comparing a natural process, which occur without the need of any willful decision and/or action taken place for it's happening, and an event which needs of both a decision and an action from an entity in order for it to take place. Even worst, you're labeling them as equivalent in their origin, and that's just as fallacious as comparing the birth of a wild tree with the production of a Ferrari as natural events: while one was a the product of a natural process which required no will or intended action at all, the other is a manufactured event which required the intervention of willful, knowlegeable, capable entities to do it, or to put it in one word, of creators. 

If heavy metal "creation" is your argument to prove the universe is the product of a creator, then my friend, your argument has been shown erroneous. Therefore no proof, until you come up with a way to prove the universe is the product of such an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. And let us clear a loophole someone might use: the aforementioned definition of creation, specifically "1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering." One thing is to cause to exist (e.g. heavy metal production) and other, far different a thing, is to willfully act upon the creation of a thing, as defined in the definition of creator: 1. ONE THAT CREATES, meaning the creator decides to create something and takes action to do so. So please, don't try to anthropomorphisize natural phenomena and then call it all that is true in the universe. All that is true in the universe is this: 1) The universe exists. 2) The universe had a beginning.

 

As for the rest of your post, regarding people doubting the capabilities their dogma grant to god and the results you'd had with this and so on. I don't want to comment on your motives for doing so, simply because I don't know them. I could infer some of them but I prefer to hear them from you. Regardless of that I can say one thing: God the Creator is, at best, only an hypothesis for the creation of the world (not theory, hypothesis), one which has been proven to have enough holes to sink the titanic and it's two sisters. And while your proof might seem elegant and lead to question the ficticious characteristics people often claim for their god, thus clearing the way for a more rational view of such a being, it still relies on that very ficticious, hypothetical entity to answer the old question of how did everything got here.

To call the universe a creation, the product of the willful effort, is to rely in an answer which answers nothing, but rather gives the illusion of an answer. The problem with this is that the need to ask about that particular question is then "sated", and the progress of humanity is therefore hindered. We are the curious-sapiens, we thrive and prosper answering the unknown. Religion only trade down the opportunity to learn and advance as a species in exchange of platitude and false self-reassurence. Your proof does as much.

Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   COOL , and god needs

   COOL , and god needs booze, so we got booze ! God is great , my god that is !


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Okay

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Okay Rev.. it really seems like we're getting off topic here but whatever..

Quote:
C is used as the universal constant C is the speed of light, but we can slow light down to about 18 miles per hour we can also make light travel faster than the speed of light between two points

Does the speed of light change proportionally to "force" of that which is making it change? 

Yes, kind of, you slow light down that much by passing it through a Bose-Einstein Condensate.

C is the constant speed of light in a vacuum your high school physics teacher would have beat you round the head with those last three ultra important words, right? Even a pane of glass will slow light a little.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Eloise rocks, Karma

  Eloise rocks, Karma proven again, as math says WTF ! What time is it !


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote: It's was

Rev_Devilin wrote:

 It's was ok up to this point

Badbark wrote:

Such a being must be:

Omnipotent - that is to say, God must be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

Omniscient - that is to say, God must contain sufficient knowledge to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

Omnipresent - that is to say, God must be able to be present at all places and at all times to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

These are the bare minimum requirements for any entity that we might ever choose to label as "God."

If one wishes to call that which created our universe god fair enough, but that which created our universe is not necessarily conscious, so to assume it is an entity rather than non-conscious energy is just irrational, to then subscribe Omnipotent Omniscient Omnipresent to what may be non-conscious energy again is a rational,

Energy is all that is required to create our universe one can call this energy god, the flying spaghetti monster, bob, toaster, rolled up newspaper, whatever

It isn't necessarily conscious, therefore it isn't necessarily an entity

Tell him nice try but no cigar

1 - Nothing in my discussion implied consciousness. 

2 - I made no assumptions.  That any being capable of Creating the Universe must have omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence is patently obvious.  Furthermore, anything possessing those three characteristics would NECESSARILY BE THE UNIVERSE.  Why?  Because, the Universe is the only thing that COULD possess such characteristics.  Therefore, God, Creator of the Universe, IS the Universe.

3 - The word, "entity" does not require consciousness.

From www.dictionary.com

entity - en·ti·ty      /ˈɛnti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[en-ti-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -ties.
1.something that has a real existence; thing: corporeal entities.
2.being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained: He conceived of society as composed of particular entities requiring special treatment.
3.essential nature: The entity of justice is universality.

 

Unless you have some logic, reason, rationality, evidence, and/or proof that the Universe is not and cannot be considered an entity, the proof stands up to your scrutiny.  But, you can keep the cigar.

 


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
K9sByte wrote:If someone

K9sByte wrote:

If someone were to tell me they could prove the existence of any god to me, I would expect to see empirical evidence that can be verified by observation.  What this guy gave you is basically just a waste of time.  Vessel explained very well why the guy's arguments do not work.  Another kind of argument that I think is a waste of time is when they use the "god equation" or what ever that is to try to prove gods existence mathematically.  It does not hold water.  I would go back to that guy and thank him kindly for wasting my time and ask for some real evidence now please.  =)

 

1 - You need only look around you and actually think about what I wrote to see your empirical evidence that can be verified by observation.  You clearly spent no time thinking about this before you posted your response.

2 - What was a waste of time was reading and responding to your response - it said nothing and established nothing.


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

(EDIT) 

 "god/God/super natural" are utterances of ignorance. They are an attempt to fill in a gap of knowlege. Unfortunatly it merely fills the gap with fantacy.

 

 

No, what you wrote was an utterance of ignorance. 

"God" is merely a human construct.  It is a label that we have arbitrarily assigned to something.  We must define "God" before "God" has any meaning at all. 

You, apparently, have a very foolish definition of God that serves no purpose, except, to help you pander to your own self-important arrogance.  The definition of God I present attempts to fill no gaps, explains nothing, and preserves an honest Process of Discovery.  It is merely a conceptualization - but, that does not render it invalid or in reference to anything unreal or supernatural.

Consider thinking, or remaining silent.

 

 


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Vessel

Eloise wrote:






Vessel wrote:

Quote:
But, fundamentally, it can be agreed by virtually all that God is defined as Creator of the Universe. Fair enough? So, if that is our definition of God, then the existence of the Universe MUST NECESSARILY be evidence of such a Creator. After all, without the Creation, why bother considering who/what Created it? And, if the Creation exists, then it must have been Created - by something. We can simply choose to call that God.


Wow. When you call the universe a creation then you can require it has a creator because creations have creators. Brilliant. It's like a personal audience with Einstein.


I'm with you here Vessel, DIE 'first cause/prime mover argument' !! please die you are embarrassment to all theists.

The first cause argument is like saying you were born the ocean and because you are immersed in water you know that water is the basis of all existence; but in reality to someone born on land you know jack-sh*t.

 

You seemed to actually have a grasp on my proof of God; but then, something happened.  You seemed to have become irrational and emotional with your ad hominem attack at the end.

I am presenting no "first cause" argument.  If there is one thing that the Universe makes very clear at every level is that it repeats virtually everything it does that works.  If one Big Bang is possible, then an infinite number of Big Bangs are possible - over an infinite amount of time (or, through the creation, destruction, and recreation of time).

Finally, I am no theist.  The terms theist, atheist, and agnostic are all terms that reference belief, or the lack, thereof, in the existence of God.  I understand that the existence of God has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with definition.  Therefore, none of those labels apply to me.

Of course, my comments are predicated on the most basic definition of God as Creator of the Universe.  It would make no sense at all, if I had defined God as a glass of water.  

It may not make any sense to you to define God at all.  And, that's OK.  I'll be the first to admit that no construct of God is necessary - neither is the human construct of the Universe; but, we maintain it, anyway, don't we?  We do so; because, we have determined a purpose for doing so - and, so have I determined a purpose for maintaining a construct of God.  And, as long as there are billions of people on this planet who are causing problems as a result of their irrational God belief, I will continue to maintain a rational construct of God to present to them as an alternative.  I trust that you do not have any problem with that?


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
I had said, "&ldquo;The most

I had said, "“The most fundamentally important thing to understand about God is that God is a human construct. It is a label that we have assigned to something. Before there were humans to conceive of God, all there was in the Universe was all there was in the Universe."

LOL RON says, "This implies coherency and comprehensibility. Old gods were anthropomorphizations of nature, but the current idea just seems to be the bare label, shepherded to evade definition and falsification."

Well, not today.   I said what I meant.   Keep your straw men to yourself.  Thanks.

I had said, ""God" is a variable. What I mean by that is that it means exactly what the person using the word wants it to mean."

LOL Ron says,  "In a given circumstance to make a certain point, if only for the concept's self-preservation. An ad hoc."

Ok, and your point in essentially repeating me would be?  You seemed to have some reason for saying this.  What was it?

I had said, "When a Christian refers to God, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by their Bible and their imagination."

LOL RON says, "I don't agree that it's well defined. I recall a joke on an RRS show about asking a hundred Christians about their god, and getting as many different answers."

I didn't claim that God was well-defined.  I essentially said the opposite.  It is defined as much by the imaginations of God-believers as their Holy books.  Was I not clear enough? 

I had said, "When a Muslim refers to Allah, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by the Quran and their imagination. But, when a scientist refers to God, they are not referring to either definition, are they? They have their own ideas about who and what God is."

LOL RON says, "Echoing Vessel here that the implied mutual exclusivity between scientists and standard adherents is unjustified."

What implied mutual exclusivity?  And, you seem to be going out of your way to:

A - Miss the entire point of the exercise

and

B - Scrutinize minutia to the point of absurdity

What you're doing is like criticizing a 1001 piece puzzle for the shape of its pieces, and not the finished puzzle.  That establishes exactly what?  How can you conduct a meaningful discussion, when you bog yourself down in such ridiculousness?

LOL RON says, "...but to say that god is something that has to be literally argued out of existence is a shifting of the burden of proof."

If an atheist is going to assert, "God does not exist."  or, "God cannot exist," then the burden of proof has correctly shifted to the atheist.  Likewise, if the theist is going to assert, "God exists," or "God can exist," then the burden of proof is correctly shifted to the theist.  Both are extraordinary claims that bear a burden of proof - that most cannot meet. 

To meet the burden of proof, the atheist must be able to prove a negative, based on the definition of God involved in the dispute.  This is not impossible - it can be quite easily dispensed with logically, if there are contradictions that preclude that God's existence.   We know that invisible Pink Unicorns do not exist; because, if they're pink, they're not invisible; and, if they're invisible, they're not pink.

Also, to meet the burden of proof, the theist must be able to prove that their God exists, based on the definition they would assert.  I've done that.

I had said, "This renders active atheism (the idea that God does not exist) to be fallacious, in that it is a position that cannot be proven. It's untenable.

"Of course, the concept of God rubs both ways - neither those who believe in God nor those who do not believe in God can possibly fully conceive of anything that is worthy of the title, "God." The best that any of us can do is attempt to discern what characteristics such a being must have in order to be Creator of the Universe and define God in accordance with that."

LOL RON says, "Why are we looking for this traits? It begs the question."

Of course, it begs the question.  The construct of God is quite superfluous.  It is not needed.  But, there is no reason why one cannot exist.  "Universe" is a superfluous human construct, too.  But, we maintain it, don't we?

I had said, "But, fundamentally, it can be agreed by virtually all that God is defined as Creator of the Universe. Fair enough?"

LOL RON says, "You're contradicting your previous statements about inadequate definition."

And, you are nit-picking minutia.   What is the point of maintaining a construct of God that is not Creator of the Universe?  That is the most basic common element of a definition of God that we can hope to have.   And, it is the most basic characteristic of God held by literally billions of people around the planet.  So, that makes it the only one that is of any importance at all.  But, important, it absolutely IS.

YOU may not see any reason for a construct of God; but, billions of other people do.  We have to deal with these people on their own terms, if we expect to deal with them at all.   And, we must deal with them, if we are to deal with the problems they are causing.  Wouldn't you agree?  And, isn't that a better approach than extermination?  So, let's stop being ridiculous and accept that God is Creator of the Universe, shall we?  That's the most widely accepted definition.  Deal with it.

I had said, "So, if that is our definition of God, then the existence of the Universe MUST NECESSARILY be evidence of such a Creator"

LOL RON says, "Specious reasoning."

Of course, it's specious reasoning.   Billions of people want to believe in God, Creator of the Universe.  If they are going to define God as Creator of the Universe, they are correct in maintaining that the existence of the Universe is evidence of that Creator.  But, it is specious in that they have chosen the construct, when it isn't needed.  They have done so to address some other need that has nothing to do with creating the Universe.

I had said, "After all, without the Creation, why bother considering who/what Created it?"

LOL RON says, "Begging the question."

The same question is asked by scientists.  What is the problem?  It's that word, "who," isn't it?  It does seem to presume an intelligence where one presumably does not exist, doesn't it?

Well, consider this:

Wikipedia presents a couple of different definitions of intelligence:

"Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person’s intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen somewhat different definitions"

and,

"A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on", "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do."

Evolution exhibits intelligence.  It determines what works and what does not.  It remembers and repeats what works and discards what does not.  This positive ratcheting effect of evolution causes it to constantly be in the process of improvement and increasing complexity.  Evolution "knows" what works, and what doesn't.  And, the process is present everywhere in the Universe, wherever matter and energy can be found.  Sometimes, it produces life - intelligent life.  So, evolution can even know when to produce intelligence and when not to produce intelligence.  It, like all other evolutionary endeavors, is just a tool for survival that may, or may not, work.  If it doesn't, evolution will discard it.

Perhaps, some questions should be begged - if for no other reason than to get you to think about them.

I had said, "And, if the Creation exists, then it must have been Created - by something. We can simply choose to call that God."

LOL RON says, "So... stupid. Begging the question again."

Ad hominem.  I would have thought a moderator of a site, such as this, would know better.  Oh, well.

I had said, "And, if we leave our definition at that, as God is Creator of the Universe, we technically have no burden of proof -- it's an axiom, a self-evident truth, and certainly not an extraordinary claim.

LOL RON says, "Presuppositionalist dreck. You're stuck with an ineffectual, non-explanatory pantheistic label stuck on nature, or trying to work out how an unsubstantiated mythological Abrahamic god is "axiomatic."

Ad hominem.  Straw man.  You should be embarrassed.

I had said, "Where the burden of proof comes in is when we start making unprovable assertions about God, Creator of the Universe. That is what Christians and other God worshippers have done. They have arbitrarily assigned unprovable and nonsensical characteristics to the Creator of the Universe, thus rendering the entity to which they refer as "God" non-existent. But, that in no way invalidates the existence of a God that has created, or is creating the Universe. It just invalidates their definition of God."

LOL RON says, "You've gotten around it by redefining it as nothing. It adds nothing, does nothing, explains nothing, and is totally superfluous."

I have defined God as All that is True in the Universe.  That is not "nothing."   And, it doesn't have to explain anything.  The word, "Universe" adds nothing, does nothing, explains nothing, and is totally superfluous.  Your point?  This is a proof of the existence of God, conditioned upon MY specific definition of God.  It works.  You don't have to embrace it, accept it, or pay it any attention; but, IT WORKS.   That's all it has to do.

LOL RON prattles, "Fuck this shit. It goes on an on, and it hasn't earned the privilege of continued reading, having tripped over its assumptions out of the gate."

Well, fuck you, too!  Wasn't that fun?  Too bad, that you're too fucking stupid to understand why I would do this.   Of course, not bothering to read the rest of it condemned you to your ignorance.  Idiot. 

Now, would you care to continue this discussion in a civilized manner?  Or, should we continue slinging shit at one another?  Your choice.  I'll play the game either way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
daedalus wrote:Badbark

daedalus wrote:
Badbark wrote:


The bottom line is that God is a human construct. This is necessarily true. Why? Because, you are not capable of fully comprehending the entity that you would call "God." Why? Because, you cannot comprehend how to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail. So, the best you can do is imagine what God must be like to be able to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail. And, God makes that clear to us through all that is True in the Universe. God hides nothing from us. God will reveal any and all of His Great Truths to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them. That is to say, the Universe and the processes responsible for its Creation, will reveal all of its truths to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them.

Please, let me know what you think.”

Horrible from the start. Ill defined, presuppositionalist apologetics which have been rebutted a million times...

Well, not today - and, certainly not by you.


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:I have

lifewhispers wrote:

I have defined God as All that is True in the Universe.  That is not "nothing."   And, it doesn't have to explain anything.  The word, "Universe" adds nothing, does nothing, explains nothing, and is totally superfluous.  Your point?  This is a proof of the existence of God, conditioned upon MY specific definition of God.  It works.  You don't have to embrace it, accept it, or pay it any attention; but, IT WORKS.   That's all it has to do.

So, you have defined god as the universe? why? You made an argument ad populum earlier, so here is one back at ya. More people call the universe the universe then they call it god.

 

Make up all the words you want, for all the things you want. All you'll do is make it impossible to have meaningful conversations with people who use standard definitions for things.

but maybe thats your goal: to step out of normalcy and establish your own privatized language, and then ask us to adjust ... just because it works for you.

 

the universe is the universe (which IS descriptive - why do you think the term is meaningless?), and god doesn't exist. this works for many people.  It seems that you have done nothing more than swapped the terms "god" and "universe", except added some agency of creation.

I don't know if you done anything of value except that you have done a mediocre job of describing your version of pantheism.

 

 

 

edit: btw, I would also add that your definition hardly encompasses all religions. If Xianity is true, then so is Satan. So, by your definition, God = Satan, too. ("Everything True in the Universe&quotEye-wink. Also, sin, evil, Hell, nothingness, etc.

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
DeathMunkyGod wrote:Badbark

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

Badbark wrote:
But, what is so often missing in discussions about God is the particular definition to which they are referring. When an atheist says, "God cannot possibly exist," to exactly WHAT are they referring that they would claim does not exist? So, even an atheist MUST DEFINE GOD, before they can make ANY meaningful comments or assertions about God. And, if they have not defined God, how can they claim God does not exist? They can't! So, their position can be summarily dismissed - as easily as they dismiss the God they have not defined. This renders active atheism (the idea that God does not exist) to be fallacious, in that it is a position that cannot be proven. It's untenable.

This paragraph contains a fallacy known as Loki's Wager, an irrational insistence that any concept that is not clearly defined or at all defined cannot be discussed.

No, it does not.  It says that an atheist must define God, in order for any of his comments about God to have any meaning.  Now, the atheist can choose the definition of God used by the theist with whom he is conversing - or, it can be some straw man characterization of that definition.  But, without that definition, there can be no meaningful discussion.  Note the word, "meaningful."  People prattle past each other all the time without ever accomplishing anything meaningful - but, they are definitely "discussing."

So, you're mistaken.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

The paragraph also contains an explicit assumption that all atheists assert that god cannot exist.  This is false.  Agnostic atheists never make such a claim, thus agnostic atheists are not limited to any specific definition of a god concept.  It also assumes that atheists cannot accept as their definition of god the same definition as the person to whom the atheist is speaking.

It was an EXAMPLE, not an explicit assumption.  You are the one making the assumptions, here.   To read any more into what I said than what I said is to construct a straw man.

Badbark wrote:

Of course, the concept of God rubs both ways - neither those who believe in God nor those who do not believe in God can possibly fully conceive of anything that is worthy of the title, "God." The best that any of us can do is attempt to discern what characteristics such a being must have in order to be Creator of the Universe and define God in accordance with that.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

This is an argument from ignorance.  Assuming that currently no one alive can possibly fully concieve of anything worthy of the title "God" this person is assuming that it isn't possible.  What does the person base this conclusion on?  If it is based solely on the fact that we currently cannot, assuming also that this is true, then it is based solely on what we don't know and not at all on why we can't know.  This is no way to conclude the possibility of us understanding anything.

You have reasoned yourself into absurdity.  In the context of the discussion, I am forced to wonder why you would do that?  We're discussing the Creator of the Universe, or God.  Can you fully conceive of anything capable of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail?  Have you ever known anyone capable of doing that?  How might that even be possible?  For my assumption to be ill-conceived and illogical, you MUST be able to demonstrate how it could be false.  Can you do this?

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

Also an objective method to discern the characteristics a god concept must necessarily have to be considered the creator of the universe is necessary, but insufficient to prove the existence of such a concept.  We cannot take existence as a property, afterall.

You can, if the argument is axiomatic.  God = All that is True in the Universe = Creator of the Universe is axiomatic.  Existence can safely be assumed, or we would not be here to discuss it.

Furthermore, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are all axiomatic characteristics of the Creator of the Universe, or God.  It is not by simple choice that those characteristics are ascribed to God.  They are, indeed, necessary. 

Test this for yourself.  See if you can come up with a way to Create the Universe in its most intricate detail without being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. 

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

In the end you see that very likely there are no characteristics which are truely necessary except that such a god be powerful enough to create the universe, and intelligent enough to create the universe.  This is still pretty powerful and intelligent, but nowhere near omnipotent and omniscient.

You contradict yourself - and, repeat me.  For, what is, "powerful enough to create the universe and intelligent enough to create the universe," if not omnipotent and omniscient?  The only one you left out is omnipresent; and, that one is required for obvious reasons.

You seem to think that "omnipotent" means being able to do anything.  It doesn't.  It only means being able to do all that can be done.  That's the only way the term has any practical meaning.  Otherwise, it's just a nonsensical term with no reasonable application.  And, I was quite specific in my definition and use of the term in my original discussion.

Badbark wrote:

But, fundamentally, it can be agreed by virtually all that God is defined as Creator of the Universe. Fair enough? So, if that is our definition of God, then the existence of the Universe MUST NECESSARILY be evidence of such a Creator. After all, without the Creation, why bother considering who/what Created it? And, if the Creation exists, then it must have been Created - by something. We can simply choose to call that God.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

This very definition almost makes god absolutely necessary.  We would need a method to establish that this definition is actually good.  Did god actually create the universe?

By definition, yes.  God is Creator of the Universe.  That is a definition.  It in no way addresses how or why.  It is just a definition - an extremely common definition held by billions of people all over the world.  It doesn't say anything else - not about methods, not about intent.  Neither does it make any implications in and of itself.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

 ...If so what evidence of that creation did he leave behind?  One could point to the existence of the universe, however the existence of the universe is only unequivocal evidence that the universe exists.  What evidence did god leave that he created the universe as opposed to the universe coming into existence by natural means? 

 

In the context of MY definition of God, which is currently under discussion, what would be the difference?  I am stating that God = All that is True in the Universe.  I am also stating that All that is True in the Universe, or God, is Creator of the Universe.  That is axiomatic and can be taken at face value, with no burden of proof .  Why?  Because, it proves itself.  It is patently obvious that All that is True in the Universe is responsible for its creation.

Even if you would posit a prior cause from "outside" our Universe, in the instant that we became aware of it, our concept of the Universe would be adjusted to include it.  Because, that is the point of the construct.  But, even that would in no way invalidate my axiomatic definition of God- it, too, would automatically be adjusted to include any new discoveries.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

One could point to design, but design implies intent.  When you look at the universe can you derive objectively the intent of the creator?  Design implies purpose.  When you look at the universe can you derive objectively its purpose based solely on its structure? 

Yes.  That's trivial and obvious.  The Purpose of the Universe is for it to experience ALL that is possible to be experienced.  If it is possible to be experienced, the Universe WILL experience it.  If it is not possible to be experienced, the Universe will NOT experience it.  These comments, too, are axiomatic and can be taken at face value with no burden of proof.

It is also merely a chosen perspective - one that you need not choose.  But, that in no way invalidates it. 

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

A single designer will often use a similar design for a similar function, this is not seen very much in nature.  Esspecially not in biology.  Also if the universe has but a single designer then all structures that perform a similar function in nature will exhibit a similar design.  Again something we do not observe in nature.

Your reasoning, here, is fallacious.  You are attempting to extend an arbitrary example to apply to the Creator of the Universe, but you have failed to justify that extension.  Just because some single designers will often use a similar design for a similar function in no way constrains them to do so; nor, does it constrain other designers from employing different methods to accomplish the same goals.

Furthermore, your implication that I am arguing in favor of a designer with conscious intent is a straw man characterization of my position that is not justified. 

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

The definition is simply begging the question.  In order to accept the premise that god is the creator of the universe we must accept the conclusion that god exists.

Yes, you must.  If the definition of God is Creator of the Universe, then the Universe is NECESSARILY conclusive evidence of that Creator.  It is an axiomatic definition.  It cannot be refuted.

Again, the truth of this argument does not hinge upon any particular methods.  Furthermore, it does not hinge upon intelligence, sentience, or volition.

 

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

Here the arguer attempts to make existence a property of god.  Invalid as I have already demonstrated.

No, it's not invalid, as I have already demonstrated.

 

Badbark wrote:

And, if we leave our definition at that, as God is Creator of the Universe, we technically have no burden of proof -- it's an axiom, a self-evident truth, and certainly not an extraordinary claim. Where the burden of proof comes in is when we start making unprovable assertions about God, Creator of the Universe. That is what Christians and other God worshippers have done. They have arbitrarily assigned unprovable and nonsensical characteristics to the Creator of the Universe, thus rendering the entity to which they refer as "God" non-existent. But, that in no way invalidates the existence of a God that has created, or is creating the Universe. It just invalidates their definition of God.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

It would be philosophically acceptable to assume god as an axiom.  However occam's razor demands that in all axiomatic systems the system must contain only necessary axioms.  Necessary axioms are axioms which add something useful to the system in a tangible way.  We must be able to make verifiable predictions based on every one of the axioms, and none of the axioms should be deriveable from any other set of axioms.  This is the foundation of science.  Accepting god as axiomatic may be philosophically acceptable, but untill we can falsify god, it will never be scientifically acceptable.  In the end it comes down to an unjustifiable assumption.

No, in the end, it comes down to definition.  The existence of God is wholly dependent on the definition of God, and whether, or not, that definition is tenable.  The definition I have presented is tenable and falsifiable.  To wit:

My definition of God = Creator of the Universe = All that is True in the Universe.

Now, while this definition, itself, is not falsifiable, it can be falsified by deductive reasoning.   We need only change it to its opposite:

God = Creator of the Universe =  All that is NOT True in the Universe.

We can falsify this statement by merely presenting one example of something true being responsible for creating any portion of the Universe.  So, the logical consequences of this are that All that is NOT True in the Universe could not have possibly created the Universe; but, All that IS True in the Universe COULD.

Badbrad wrote:

First, and foremost, any entity qualified for the title of "God" must be provably able to Create the Universe. Anything less would, at most, make such an entity only one of possibly many gods. So, what qualities must an entity have in order for it to be able to Create the Universe?

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

For reasons that I hope are obvious this assertion completely falls flat and basically singlehandedly dismantles this person's entire argument.  No entity known to exist is provably able to create the universe.  Again the arguer is begging the question.

No, YOU are the one making the unfounded assertion that, "No entity known to exist is provably able to create the universe. "  I have just defined such an entity as All that is True in the Universe.  An entity need not conform to a straw man characterization, such as your comment implies. 

We can call the Universe an "entity," if we like - and, it is axiomatic.  Therefore, we can call God, Creator of the Universe, an entity, if we like - and it, too, is axiomatic.

You seem to be stuck with an idea about God that is a straw man, when compared to what I have clearly defined God as being.  Your logical objections are based on that straw man idea YOU have about God, not on what I have actually presented as my definition of God.  If I were positing an overriding intelligence that interferes with our lives in accordance with its own individual will, I would be begging the question.  But, I'm not positing any such thing.  Try to remain focused  on what I am actually saying, please.

Badbark wrote:

Omnipotent - that is to say, God must be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

Omniscient - that is to say, God must contain sufficient knowledge to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

Omnipresent - that is to say, God must be able to be present at all places and at all times to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

These are the bare minimum requirements for any entity that we might ever choose to label as "God." If the being lacks omnipotence, it will be unable to Create the Universe. If it lacks omniscience, it will be unable to Create the Universe. And, if it lacks omnipresence, it will be unable to Create the Universe.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

Again this is just outright false.  An entity powerful enough to create the universe does not need to be infinitely powerful, allknowing and omnipresent.  It only needs to be powerful enough,  knowledgeable enough and really only in one place as far as anyone can determine.  I see no reason why such a being would necessarily have to exist simultaneously everywhere to create the universe.  We don't have to occupy the entire volume of a house to build a house do we?  Perhaps the arguer has a good reason why an entity would have to be infinitely powerful to create a finite universe, or have complete knowledge of absolutely everything to create a universe that does not contain every possible concept? 

1 - The Universe is STILL BEING CREATED.  You seem to be functioning under the illusion that it was a discreet event that happened some time in the past.

2 - Omnipotence IS required to create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.  Or, perhaps, you could present some alternative way it could happen?  Of course, you also seem to be attempting to constrain me to one particular definition of omnipotence that you have chosen that incorporates one particular definition of "infinite" that is not justified.

"Infinite" need only mean "immeasurably great."  And, anything able to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail is certainly going to fit into that category.

Badbark wrote:

This seems like a tall order, until we realize that the Universe IS being Created - so, we can KNOW FOR CERTAIN that something meets the criteria we just listed - otherwise, we would not be here to contemplate the question. This entity may possess other characteristics about which we may have no knowledge; but, it absolutely will possess these three characteristics.

 

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

Here the arguer has just assumed the truth of a proposition he earlier asserted.  I have actually so far seen not a single valid argument which proves or even makes plausable that the universe is in fact created.  Nor has the arguer presented a valid reason to conclude that we would not be here if the universe were not created.  He's begging the question again.

Then, you have not been paying attention or actually thinking about any of this. 

If you go into a cave and witness a stalagtite, it is a FAIR statement that is was CREATED by erosion, is it not?  This establishes that neither sentience, nor intelligence are required for creation, but only a process or set of processes that can create are necessary.  And, that is patently obvious.  Again, please, keep your straw man characterizations to yourself and stick to the subject at hand.  That the Universe is a creation that is a result of a set of processes is patently obvious to any rational and objective observer.  Or, would you argue against that?

Badbark wrote:

It should be noted that, included within the definitions of omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent is a direct reference to God - indicating general consensus on the characteristics we have ascribed to God. We're not just making up God as we go along and just for ourselves. These characteristics really are the bare minimum requirements for God.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

Here is a nice argumentum ad populuum, or appeal to popularity.  Yes it may very well be the concensus, however it neither makes it true, nor does it make any sense to conclude that these are actually minimum requirements, rather than religious assumptions based on the need for what humans worship to be good and perfect.  It's far more likely psychological than it is physically necessary.

What is with you and the straw men?  That it is a matter of consensus that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent does not prove that God has those characteristics(it is merely coincidental); but, there is NO WAY the Universe could be created by any being that did not have them.  So, the argumentum ad populum is not only not the main thrust of my argument, it is totally irrelevant.  My arguments continue to stand on their own with this entire paragraph excised.  So, I am forced to wonder why you even pointed it out?

Badbark wrote:

Interestingly enough, the bare minimum requirements for God also point us to exactly who and what God really is. Let's analyze this by looking at one of the characteristics, shall we?

Omnipresent -

In order for God to be omnipresent, God must be at all places and at all times. This would necessarily include the actual space and time occupied by everything in the Universe - and, the space between everything in the Universe. This tells us, quite clearly, that God IS the Universe and that everything in the Universe is representative of Parts of God, in Partnership with God in the Creation of the Universe. In the instant that anything extant or non-extant (space) in the Universe is not God, God ceases to be omnipresent - and, ceases to be God. Because, omnipresence is a requirement for God, remember?

But, how can God be space? How can God be something that isn't? Well, you are mostly made up of space, aren't you? There is far more space between the subatomic particles in the atoms that make up your body than the space they actually occupy - by an enormous margin. Actual matter represents a minuscule portion of the Universe. But, still, the existence of the Universe depends on the space that holds things Here and There. Therefore, the existence of God depends on space, too.

Omnipotence also carries the same implication - the only way you can do anything and everything there is to do attendant to the Creation of the Universe is to BE the Universe and all the processes involved in its Creation. In the instant that anything in the Universe that is not God does anything, God is rendered non-omnipotent - and, therefore, not God. Because, omnipotence is a requirement for God, remember?

To further clarify this point: If I throw a rock at a wall at 2:00PM EST, and I'm not God, then I did something God could not do - throw that particular rock at that particular wall at that particular time and place. That renders God neither omnipotent, nor omnipresent. And, the fact that God could not experience the throwing of the rock at the wall at that time and place, means that He also could not know about it - because, knowledge is acquired through experience - an experience He didn't have; because, something that was not God had it, instead.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

This smacks of pantheism and once again merely begs the question.  The arguer has not sufficiently proven his assertions that omnipotence nor omnipresence are absolutely necessary for a being who created the universe. 

If the definition of God is Creator of the Universe, then God MUST be EVERYWHERE and at ALL TIMES for that to be true.  In the instant that anything were created anywhere in the Universe by something that was not God, the entire construct falls apart.  But, I realize you just haven't bothered to think about any of this, have you?  Even though, I explained it in language that  a child could understand, the entire exercise has eluded you.   I guess it's my fault for not being clear enough?

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

I suppose it would be easier for us to design and build cars if we were cars?  He's assuming that the universe must necessarily have been created and by a particular class of god concept.

The Universe IS necessarily being Created - by a set of processes, many of which are currently beyond our understanding.  Do you have a problem with that statement?  If so, what might that be?  Because, that's ALL that I've been saying. 

This entire exchange between us seems to be because you have chosen a straw man characterization of God to claim that I have not proven its existence.  You have completely ignored the thrust of my arguments and my motivations for presenting them.

Badbark wrote:

If God IS the Universe and all of the processes involved in its Creation, as is required by the characteristics of omnipotence and omnipresence(which we have already established), then God is necessarily experiencing all there is to experience in the Universe - and, therefore, able to acquire the acquaintance or familiarity attendant to meeting the definition of knowledge.

And, since God IS the Universe, and all knowledge of any kind is contained within it, God, by definition, possesses all knowledge of any kind, and is, therefore, omniscient.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

The arguer then proceeds to beg the question again concerning omniscience another property which he asserted as necessary but never sufficiently proved to be absolutely necessary. 

At some level, the Universe "knows" how to Create itself.  Those processes that work are "remembered" and repeated.  Those processes that don't are discarded.  The process of Creating the Universe "learns" as it goes along.  It responds to everything that happens within it. Furthermore, this process "knows" when to create life and when not to create life.  This process is always moving in the direction of an increase in complexity and order.  Sometimes, this process even produces intelligent life.  And, this process is responsible for everything in the Universe.  This "knowing" how to Create itself is what I have labeled as omniscience - and, it is the only term in the English language that I can find that even remotely fits what is actually happening.   Some might call it "evolution."  So, if you would like to substitute "evolution" for "omniscience," be my guest. 

Ultimately, my definition of God is ALL that is True in the Universe.  See if you can find fault with that.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

The universe is finite and does not contain within it every concept which we as humans have been able to concieve of.  Why is it necessary that whatever entity created the universe, assuming such an entity does exist and did create the universe, should have infinite knowledge?

The question is, how could an entity capable of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail NOT have infinite knowledge?   It would glean its knowledge through the processes it employs and its experiences; but, it absolutely will have the knowledge.  Not so much as a flower could be produced without the knowledge encapsulated in the DNA that is responsible for it.  And, that is also a part of the Universe, is it not?  It is a representation of an intelligent process that "figured out" how to create a flower.

Badbark wrote:

Of course, these three simplistic terms do an injustice to God - the reality of God is far more complex than the simple acknowledgement of three fundamental characteristics. It would be more accurate and meaningful to say that God is All that is True in the Universe. That necessarily includes all of the matter in the Universe, as well as the space in between. It also necessarily includes all of the processes, circumstances, and events that take place anywhere and at any time in the Universe.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

Actually I would argue that these three simplistic terms assume much more about the god the arguer defined than are minimally necessary for such a god to fit his definition. 

Then, get to it.   This should be interesting

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

I would guess based on this assertion that the arguer has a specific god concept in mind when he argues and is not trying very hard to formulate a truely objective argument in defense of his preferred concept. 

Huh?  I have provided, perhaps, the most rational and objective definition of God possible.  If you think you could improve upon it, I would be happy to see what you have to offer. 

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

Then it is again begging the question to now redefine god as all that is true in the universe.  The definition assumes the truth of the concept it defines. 

That's what axioms do.

Badbark wrote:

There, I've given you a proof for the existence of God and three of His/Her/Its fundamental characteristics. But, I would point out that, for every characteristic you would ascribe to God, you must be able to prove it - otherwise, you render the being to which you refer non-existent. That means that, as soon as you say something like, "God has promised that all those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour will spend eternity in Heaven with Him, " you render God non-existent. Why? Because, you cannot prove that He made any such promise or that He could or would follow through with it - and, if you would assert that He did, then you MUST be referring to a different entity that cannot be proven to exist.

So, you can choose to accept a provable definition of God and one that requires no faith or belief; because, He/She/It makes no promises or threats and is self-evident and is provably Creating the Universe. Or, you can choose to believe in a God of your imagination, or the imaginations of others, that requires faith and belief. Or, you can choose to believe in no God at all. The choice is yours - and, God doesn't care one way, or another, which way you would choose. Any and all choices you make are attendant to God experiencing all there is to experience in the Universe - which is attendant to God's omniscience.

The bottom line is that God is a human construct. This is necessarily true. Why? Because, you are not capable of fully comprehending the entity that you would call "God." Why? Because, you cannot comprehend how to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail. So, the best you can do is imagine what God must be like to be able to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail. And, God makes that clear to us through all that is True in the Universe. God hides nothing from us. God will reveal any and all of His Great Truths to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them. That is to say, the Universe and the processes responsible for its Creation, will reveal all of its truths to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

This is a long winded way to say that if you're going to do what he did, and attribute characteristics to god, you have to be able to do what he didn't, that is prove the necessity of these characteristics. 

Exactly, how have I not done that?  Can you demonstrate how God could Create the Universe without being ALL that is True in the Universe?  If you think you can, then get to it. 

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

The arguer also this time explicitly makes the erroneous assertion that an atheist cannot possibly use a theist's definition of god, or choose to accept even just for the sake of argument the accuracy of a theist's definition of god...one has to wonder why the arguer even attempted to give and "prove" his own definition.

1 - I did no such thing - not even remotely.  You're just plain mistaken - period.  On the contrary, I INSISTED that an atheist MUST employ a definition of God, in order for any of his comments to be meaningful.  At no time did I ever say that an atheist could not use a theist's definition of God. 

2 - I'm glad you asked why I did this; because, it was never meant for you.  The exercise was meant to be presented to those who maintain cartoon like characterizations of God.  Well, on second thought, I guess it was meant for people, like you.  Because, you seem to embrace the same ridiculous notions of God that theists do - only you do so as an excuse to ridicule others, and not because you believe in them.  This is evident in your quite obvious and deliberate effort to completely ignore the thrust of the arguments presented, in favor of continuing to find fault with cartoon like characterizations of God that I am not maintaining.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

In reality I would accept a proveable definition of god.

No, I don't think so.  I think you're positively allergic to the concept of God, to the point that you will engage in wholesale rejection of any and all logic, reason, rationality, evidence, and/or proof that anyone might ever present to you - no different than the average theist, except, from the opposite perspective.  It matters not to you that I have gone to great lengths to formulate a workable definition of God that is both rational and provable.   Your judgement of my motives (of which you were totally ignorant and unconcerned) makes that quite apparent.

But, your opinions are quite irrelevant, here.  What is relevant, here, is whether my definition of God, Creator of the Universe,  as All that is True in the Universe is tenable, or not.  You have failed to demonstrate how it is not tenable.  Care to try, again?  But, this time, leave the straw men out of it, OK?

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

It would have been interesting if the arguer had presented one. 

What I find interesting is that you would reject my definition of God.  It proves itself.  That's why it is interesting that you would reject it.  Ask yourself why you might do such a thing.  I really don't care.   I only care about any logical rebuttal you might have to offer.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

The arguer ends by begging the question again and making another argument from ignorance.  The arguer is assuming that god exists and is too complicated for the human mind to fully understand,...

No, I have defined God into existence using a rational and self-evident axiom.  There's a difference that seems to have eluded you.

Furthermore, humans are physiologically incapable of conceiving of all that is true in the Universe, or God.  That is a safe assumption and one that is beyond logical reproach.  But, you didn't think about it enough to realize that, did you? 


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
I don't think we know if

I don't think we know if humans won't be able to understand all that is true in the universe. It's not illogical to reason that the universe could be simpler than we ever imagined and fall under a single law, etc.  Whether that is true or not seems to hardly be appropriate to the discussion. It's a speculation that has no sign of being answered soon (but, could). Whether we would know that we know everything about the universe is another matter, but reduces to absurdity. If this is what you mean, fine, we can't know what we can't know.

Anyhow, The problem is that you are simply taking the minimum requirements of what God might be, presuppose those conditions exist, and call them God.  Why not throw in another universe while you are at it?

Besides, you still fall under the problem of what caused your God?

You also use the term "creation". We know of nothing that has decidedly been created out of nothing, we only know that things change states. While we can't know what happened before the first Planck time, we have no reason to believe or disbelieve it was a Creation ex nihilio; intelligently or not (though, it appears unlikely that it was by an intelligent agent for a number of reasons).

So, you may be calling the act that created the universe "god" but which act? The one that directly caused it, or the possibly infinite causes along the causal chain. Again, you are defining your god into existence by creating an arbitrary stopping point and presupposing it exists.

To say "whatever started the universe is god" is like saying, "whatever crapped in my yard was a pixie... whether it was a dog, squirrel, or homeless guy". You are just creating a nebulous definition of something you can't be accurate about - and you even claim that you can NEVER know anything about it (which presupposes that you know that this is a quality of the thing you are defining). 

"Whatever caused a boulder to fall in the Bad Lands, the New York Yankees and Anarchy is called Gtiiigyu"  See, anyone can create arbitrary collections of words and name them. For what purpose? Can I show that Gtiiigyu was responsible for all those things? How? What evidence do I have to show that they are connected? Or do I just claim they are connected by the simple fact that I connected them?

"God is the cause and truths of the Universe" (I'm paraphrasing you).

OK, you called something "god".

 

The true level of coffee in my mug and the cause of erosion, I call God.

 

Now, My definition of God differs from yours, but is every bit as true.  How do you claim you have a better lock on the term?  Can I now claim that I have proved God exists? I'll be famous!


 

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Proof that God exists:M&M's,

Proof that God exists:

M&M's, shampoo, and moshing = God.

All those things exist, so God exists!

I will now claim the many prizes that await the person who proves God exists.

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
daedalus wrote:I don't think

daedalus wrote:

I don't think we know if humans won't be able to understand all that is true in the universe. It's not illogical to reason that the universe could be simpler than we ever imagined and fall under a single law, etc.

 

You need to expand your idea of what constitutes "understanding all that is true in the universe" - by an enormous margin.  I'm talking about including even the most intimate details of circumstances and events, as well as beings, as far away as the other end of the Universe.  We will quite simply never reach that point - ever.  At least, if we do, discussions like this will be so insignificant as to not even be quaint.  But, for now, it's a safe assumption that we are incapable of fully comprehending All that is True in the Universe, or God.

daedalus wrote:

 Whether that is true or not seems to hardly be appropriate to the discussion. It's a speculation that has no sign of being answered soon (but, could).

Well, you brought it up - and, I answered it.

daedalus wrote:

Anyhow, The problem is that you are simply taking the minimum requirements of what God might be, presuppose those conditions exist, and call them God.  Why not throw in another universe while you are at it?

When we discover another Universe, I will.  For now, and always, I will define God as All that is True in the Universe.  That is the only construct and definition of God that works and allows God to be Creator of the Universe.  If you can come up with another definition that is tenable, I would be happy to hear it.  Can you do this?

daedalus wrote:

Besides, you still fall under the problem of what caused your God?

No, I don't fail on that at all.  That question need not even be addressed for the definition to be tenable.  WHATEVER is responsible for the Creation of the Universe will automatically be incorporated into the definition of God, as a part of All that is True in the Universe - along with everything else that is true in the Universe.  Even if we discover other Universes, we would adjust our definition of the Universe to incorporate them.  That is the point of the construct of "Universe."

daedalus wrote:

You also use the term "creation". We know of nothing that has decidedly been created out of nothing, we only know that things change states.

So, what?  That is not relevant.  I am making no assertions about the origins of the Universe, except to state that it is quite obviously creating itself as a result of All that is True in the Universe, or God.

daedalus wrote:

While we can't know what happened before the first Planck time, we have no reason to believe or disbelieve it was a Creation ex nihilio; intelligently or not (though, it appears unlikely that it was by an intelligent agent for a number of reasons).

We don't have to know to have a workable definition of God that allows God to be Creator of the Universe.  We need only define God as All that is True in the Universe.  The questions surrounding how the Universe is being Created and what started it can be answered in due time, and in accordance with our willingness and ability to learn them. 

daedalus wrote:

So, you may be calling the act that created the universe "god" but which act? The one that directly caused it, or the possibly infinite causes along the causal chain. Again, you are defining your god into existence by creating an arbitrary stopping point and presupposing it exists.

 

I have done no such thing. 

1 - The Universe is STILL being Created.  Its creation was not a discreet event in the past.  In actuality, it is like an explosion that is still exploding (or, possibly, one of many in a sequence of explosions).  The "event" has not finished.

2 - ALL of the processes involved in the Creation of the Universe are necessarily encompassed by All that is True in the Universe, or God.

daedalus wrote:

To say "whatever started the universe is god" is like saying, "whatever crapped in my yard was a pixie... whether it was a dog, squirrel, or homeless guy".

Well, then it's good that I never said any such thing, isn't it?  I said, God is ALL that is True in the Universe, not just some unknown causal event.

daedalus wrote:

You are just creating a nebulous definition of something you can't be accurate about ...

No, I have created the most accurate definition of God possible.   Its accuracy even surpasses our abilities to comprehend.

daedalus wrote:

- and you even claim that you can NEVER know anything about it

I never made any such claim.  But, the definition I have crafted is not dependent on our own understanding.

daedalus wrote:

"Whatever caused a boulder to fall in the Bad Lands, the New York Yankees and Anarchy is called Gtiiigyu"  See, anyone can create arbitrary collections of words and name them. For what purpose? Can I show that Gtiiigyu was responsible for all those things? How? What evidence do I have to show that they are connected? Or do I just claim they are connected by the simple fact that I connected them?

"God is the cause and truths of the Universe" (I'm paraphrasing you).

OK, you called something "god".

 

The true level of coffee in my mug and the cause of erosion, I call God.

 

Now, My definition of God differs from yours, but is every bit as true.  How do you claim you have a better lock on the term?  Can I now claim that I have proved God exists? I'll be famous!

Pardon me for being blunt; but, your definition of God could never be proven to be Creator of the Universe.  That is the most common definition of God.  If your more specific definition of God does not allow for God to be Creator of the Universe, then it's merely a private definition that will have no meaning to anyone else.  The definition that I provided allows God to be Creator of the Universe.  That is how I can claim to have a "better lock" on the term.  If you're going to maintain a construct of God, it should at least be provably able to Create the Universe.  Otherwise, you are just engaging in fantasy.


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:daedalus

lifewhispers wrote:

daedalus wrote:

I don't think we know if humans won't be able to understand all that is true in the universe. It's not illogical to reason that the universe could be simpler than we ever imagined and fall under a single law, etc.

 

You need to expand your idea of what constitutes "understanding all that is true in the universe" - by an enormous margin.  I'm talking about including even the most intimate details of circumstances and events, as well as beings, as far away as the other end of the Universe.  We will quite simply never reach that point - ever.  At least, if we do, discussions like this will be so insignificant as to not even be quaint.  But, for now, it's a safe assumption that we are incapable of fully comprehending All that is True in the Universe, or God.

daedalus wrote:

 Whether that is true or not seems to hardly be appropriate to the discussion. It's a speculation that has no sign of being answered soon (but, could).

Well, you brought it up - and, I answered it.

daedalus wrote:

Anyhow, The problem is that you are simply taking the minimum requirements of what God might be, presuppose those conditions exist, and call them God.  Why not throw in another universe while you are at it?

When we discover another Universe, I will.  For now, and always, I will define God as All that is True in the Universe.  That is the only construct and definition of God that works and allows God to be Creator of the Universe.  If you can come up with another definition that is tenable, I would be happy to hear it.  Can you do this?

daedalus wrote:

Besides, you still fall under the problem of what caused your God?

No, I don't fail on that at all.  That question need not even be addressed for the definition to be tenable.  WHATEVER is responsible for the Creation of the Universe will automatically be incorporated into the definition of God, as a part of All that is True in the Universe - along with everything else that is true in the Universe.  Even if we discover other Universes, we would adjust our definition of the Universe to incorporate them.  That is the point of the construct of "Universe."

daedalus wrote:

You also use the term "creation". We know of nothing that has decidedly been created out of nothing, we only know that things change states.

So, what?  That is not relevant.  I am making no assertions about the origins of the Universe, except to state that it is quite obviously creating itself as a result of All that is True in the Universe, or God.

daedalus wrote:

While we can't know what happened before the first Planck time, we have no reason to believe or disbelieve it was a Creation ex nihilio; intelligently or not (though, it appears unlikely that it was by an intelligent agent for a number of reasons).

We don't have to know to have a workable definition of God that allows God to be Creator of the Universe.  We need only define God as All that is True in the Universe.  The questions surrounding how the Universe is being Created and what started it can be answered in due time, and in accordance with our willingness and ability to learn them. 

daedalus wrote:

So, you may be calling the act that created the universe "god" but which act? The one that directly caused it, or the possibly infinite causes along the causal chain. Again, you are defining your god into existence by creating an arbitrary stopping point and presupposing it exists.

 

I have done no such thing. 

1 - The Universe is STILL being Created.  Its creation was not a discreet event in the past.  In actuality, it is like an explosion that is still exploding (or, possibly, one of many in a sequence of explosions).  The "event" has not finished.

2 - ALL of the processes involved in the Creation of the Universe are necessarily encompassed by All that is True in the Universe, or God.

daedalus wrote:

To say "whatever started the universe is god" is like saying, "whatever crapped in my yard was a pixie... whether it was a dog, squirrel, or homeless guy".

Well, then it's good that I never said any such thing, isn't it?  I said, God is ALL that is True in the Universe, not just some unknown causal event.

daedalus wrote:

You are just creating a nebulous definition of something you can't be accurate about ...

No, I have created the most accurate definition of God possible.   Its accuracy even surpasses our abilities to comprehend.

daedalus wrote:

- and you even claim that you can NEVER know anything about it

I never made any such claim.  But, the definition I have crafted is not dependent on our own understanding.

daedalus wrote:

"Whatever caused a boulder to fall in the Bad Lands, the New York Yankees and Anarchy is called Gtiiigyu"  See, anyone can create arbitrary collections of words and name them. For what purpose? Can I show that Gtiiigyu was responsible for all those things? How? What evidence do I have to show that they are connected? Or do I just claim they are connected by the simple fact that I connected them?

"God is the cause and truths of the Universe" (I'm paraphrasing you).

OK, you called something "god".

 

The true level of coffee in my mug and the cause of erosion, I call God.

 

Now, My definition of God differs from yours, but is every bit as true.  How do you claim you have a better lock on the term?  Can I now claim that I have proved God exists? I'll be famous!

Pardon me for being blunt; but, your definition of God could never be proven to be Creator of the Universe.  That is the most common definition of God.  If your more specific definition of God does not allow for God to be Creator of the Universe, then it's merely a private definition that will have no meaning to anyone else.  The definition that I provided allows God to be Creator of the Universe.  That is how I can claim to have a "better lock" on the term.  If you're going to maintain a construct of God, it should at least be provably able to Create the Universe.  Otherwise, you are just engaging in fantasy.

So, you call "Everything that is True in the Universe" God.  Great.

I also have a term for it: "Everything that is True in the Universe".

I know you think you have come upon some great idea, but it is meaningless.

You: "God is Everything that is True in the Universe"

Me: what is that?

You: God.

Me: Which is?

You: Everything that is True in the Universe.

Me: Yes, but what IS true in the Universe?

You: Whatever is True.

Me: Which is?

You: God.

Me: So you don't know, you are just putting a title on an unknown and the Universe. The Universe IS the Set of everything that is Actual, including how the universe began We have a term for it: the Universe. (Philosophically, the Universe includes everything as opposed to the other idea of the Universe which is the physical entity that exists now Two different definitions for two specifically different things.).

You aren't doing anything more than playing with definitions.

Example: "A Rogth is anything I look at." "Every movement ever made in the y-axis to Mecca is a Frof."

 

Congrats, you have defined your God into existence by collecting a few things (cause of the universe and all truths) and putting them into 1 Set.

Stunning.

 

 

BTW: x is a variable. Why not just call God "x"? What difference would it make to the final reality of whatever it is you are talking about?

It wouldn't, whereas using Actual definitions actually matter.  We don;t call a Cat something that may be something else. Cat has a specific meaning, and not just "whatever it turns out what a cat may be, but something feline".

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
albedo_00 wrote:Hey Rhad,

albedo_00 wrote:

Hey Rhad, hello to everyone. Nice paint job on the forum, it has a more "official" feel to it, and goes easier on the eyes too.

Now, back to the subject at hand.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Hey Albby.

You are not "obliged" to accept an axiom. Only certain axioms are required to be accepted because they are "self evidence." The other two categories are those that are "universally accepted" and those that are "accepted for the sake of argument."

I didn't meant we are under the obligation to accept an axiom. An axiom, being as it is self-evident, is to be taken as that, self-evident. Our youtuber here (btw, would you mind making an account or at least identifying yourself by a name?) is attempting to pass his god creator as an axiom, which as I have said, it is not, it is a syllogism.

It is a syllogism of the form:

God is Creator of the Universe.  All that is True in the Universe is also Creator of the Universe.  Therefore, God is All that is True in the Universe.

Now, it is axiomatic that All that is True in the Universe is Creator of the Universe.  Therefore, it is axiomatic that God is Creator of the Universe.

So, it is an axiomatic syllogism.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

I stress this out because, depending on the outcome, some syllogisms can only be true within the bounds of it's premises and logic; take for instance the example of the Aristotle was a cat syllogism, this is only true within the syllogism, but outside of it, i.e. in the real world, that is mere bull.

Same thing happens with the god creator syllogism. It is not self-evident, it does not proves itself, and it could only be taken as truth if we accept it's main presupposition as truth, that the universe is a creation, something which, in and on itself, is neither an axiom nor there are any conclusive evidence to support it. Therefore, no axiom, no self evident, no truth, no proof, and no cookie.

Ahh, but, here, you are mistaken.  It is axiomatic that the Universe is a creation - it is a creation of All that is True in the Universe.  "Creation" does not presuppose, nor does it require sentience, intelligence, or volition.  It only requires a process capable of creation.  And, that those processes exist is patently obvious for all rational and objective observers.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

This whole syllogism is something that is assumed for the sake of argument.  A great majority of the human population accept it for the sake of argument (or at least don't even question it) and so it is "universally accepted."

But, that's OK, if the syllogism is also axiomatic.  It is not conditioned upon anything external to it.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

I completely agree on this. It is something accepted "for the sake of argument". But, and here's the catch, if something merely hypothetical (and god is no more than this, a hypothesis to explain the universe)...

Again, you are mistaken.  The God I have defined is not merely hypothetical.  It has been defined into existence, using an axiom.  It explains nothing.  The explanations come from a rational process of discovery that is not even a part of the discussion. 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
So.. what I guess I'm saying is.. even if his syllogism is not "self evidence" it is still something that can be accepted for the sake of argument.  For many people, e.g. theist, it is just accepted--like scientist do with the aforementioned syllogism.

That's just it - it IS self-evidently true - by definition. 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Indeed. I don't think many syllogisms are meant to be taken neither literally nor as self-evident.

Well, this one is.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

If this is just to have a nice talk about hypothetical stuff, then bring the drinks and chips and let's chat. But if the youtuber wants me to accept this as "truth", then he's gonna have a hard time. Hell, I wouldn't take the "because I said so" arguments from my mom, think I'm gonna blindly accept this from him?

I don't expect you to take anything I'm saying, just because I say so.  Here's your challenge:

Come up with a definition of God that allows God to be Creator of the Universe in all of its most intricate detail, but does NOT require that God be All that is True in the Universe.  Your definition must also not require any faith or belief and be self-evidently true.

When you discover that you cannot do this, then you should reconsider your position and accept mine.  I look forward to your attempt!

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Now, this is for you youtuber (again, a name please?)

You might at least wait until another post to remind me, yet AGAIN, to get a screen name.  It's lifewhispers.  Satisfied?  And, I would have had one long ago, if the site had any way to contact its administrators or had actually sent me the login information I needed to my hotmail address.  I had to give my comcast address to gain access - and, I didn't like having to do that.  I get enough junk email, as it is.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

cre·a·tor

n.  

  1. One that creates: the creator of a new television series; a born creator of trouble.
  2. Creator God. Used with the.

 cre·a·tion

   1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.

     2. the fact of being created

     3. something that is or has been created

     4. the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God

     5. the world; universe

     6. creatures collectively

     7. an original product of the mind, esp. an imaginative artistic work: the creations of a poetic genius

     8. a specially designed dress, hat, or other article of women's clothing, usually distinguished by imaginative or unique styling: the newest Paris creations (source: www.dictionary.com)

Quote:
You seem to be stuck on one particular definition of "creation." The following characteristics are NOT required for Creation:

1 - Sentience
2 - Intelligence

Ok, since I think I know where you're going, I'll grant you that much.

Gee, thanks!  As if I needed your permission.  Please, stick to your own arguments and attempting to refute mine.  It's not like you had a snowball's chance in Hell of convincing me that I had misused the terms, anyway - I know better.

Despite your cherry-picked definition of "creator," it is acceptable to ascribe the word "creator" to a thing that has no sentience or intelligence.  You almost had to have skimmed past a definition that includes my usage in order to find the one you posted.  That's only slightly dishonest.  A more honest approach would have been to scrutinize all common definitions and when you discovered that I had used the word acceptably in accordance with at least one of them, dropped the subject.  After all, it netted you exactly what?

RhadTheGizmo wrote:


Quote:
High pressure creates heavy metals. All that is True in the Universe (God) Creates the Universe.

There's your argument for the Universe being a creation. I am under no obligation to be bound by the cartoon characterization of God of which atheists seem to be so fond. And, I am under no obligation to be bound by your chosen definitions of "creation" and "creator, "either.

"High pressure creates heavy metals". By this I can infer your use the word "create" means "to cause to exist" yes?

Yes, of course. 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

I really hope you don't believe (or try to prove) high pressure has a will of it's own, or that it posses knowledge about making high metals.

What have I said in ANY of my comments that would imply that I would ever do any such thing?   My point was obvious.  High pressure is simply part of a process that can create heavy metals.  At least, make some attempt to remain objective.  And, yes, I will ridicule you every time you do shit, like this.  Got it?  Good.

I'll make a deal with you:

Don't insult my intelligence; and, I won't insult yours.  Fair enough?

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

In this argument you're committing the error of comparing a natural process, which occur without the need of any willful decision and/or action taken place for it's happening, and an event which needs of both a decision and an action from an entity in order for it to take place.

I have done no such thing.  Nothing in any of my discussions has implied decision on the part of any entity.  I know you are desperate to find fault with my reasoning; but, you will have to stick to what I've actually said and not some silly straw men you want to pummel. 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Even worst, you're labeling them as equivalent in their origin, and that's just as fallacious as comparing the birth of a wild tree with the production of a Ferrari as natural events: while one was a the product of a natural process which required no will or intended action at all, the other is a manufactured event which required the intervention of willful, knowlegeable, capable entities to do it, or to put it in one word, of creators. 

I will simply acknowledge the silliness of your ridiculous straw man argument and move on.

 

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

If heavy metal "creation" is your argument to prove the universe is the product of a creator, then my friend, your argument has been shown erroneous.

Well, it isn't.  It was just an EXAMPLE.  I thought I was clear enough about that.  It totally obliterates the notion that I am attempting to posit an intelligent, sentient God that makes choices and interferes with our lives.  That IS the straw man argument that keeps coming up - although, why, remains a mystery.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Therefore no proof, until you come up with a way to prove the universe is the product of such an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being.

Those characteristics are merely coincidental to the definition of God as All that is True in the Universe. 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

And let us clear a loophole someone might use: the aforementioned definition of creation, specifically "1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering." One thing is to cause to exist (e.g. heavy metal production) and other, far different a thing, is to willfully act upon the creation of a thing, as defined in the definition of creator: 1. ONE THAT CREATES, meaning the creator decides to create something and takes action to do so. So please, don't try to anthropomorphisize natural phenomena and then call it all that is true in the universe.

I have done no anthropomorphizing - outside of employing a simple pronoun that is as innocent as labeling a sailboat a "she."  If you want to take issue with that, then you need to capitulate now; because, that is about as lame of an argument against my definition of God as there is.  If you have real arguments, present them; but, let's leave this one out of it.  I'm not making the claim you imply I am making; so, just drop it.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

All that is true in the universe is this: 1) The universe exists. 2) The universe had a beginning.

I will leave you to your own devices to figure out why that statement is fallacious.  That's even more simplistic than the typical theist would posit.  And, it's an insult to any rational process of discovery.  There's a whole lot more to it than that - and, you know it.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

As for the rest of your post, regarding people doubting the capabilities their dogma grant to god and the results you'd had with this and so on. I don't want to comment on your motives for doing so, simply because I don't know them. I could infer some of them but I prefer to hear them from you.

My motivation is to provide an alternative and rational definition of God that allows God to have the characteristics God believers most often attribute to God, but without the dogma and primitive superstitious nonsense.  When they see that it's possible to prove the existence of God, they will realize that faith is not required to know God, or All that is True in the Universe.

This is absolutely essential in combatting irrational God belief.  And, the typical methods employed by atheists are not working.   Why?  Because, atheists do not believe in God; and, God believers will not listen to them.  If they will not listen to them, then they are impotent in educating them out of their ignorance.

If you think I've failed in my endeavor, I invite you to attempt to improve upon it.  Can you come up with a more rational definition of God that can be proven to be Creator of the Universe?  Or, not?

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Regardless of that I can say one thing: God the Creator is, at best, only an hypothesis for the creation of the world (not theory, hypothesis),

It is neither hypothesis, nor theory.  It is merely a human construct that is either tenable, or not, based on its definition.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

one which has been proven to have enough holes to sink the titanic and it's two sisters. And while your proof might seem elegant and lead to question the ficticious characteristics people often claim for their god, thus clearing the way for a more rational view of such a being, it still relies on that very ficticious, hypothetical entity to answer the old question of how did everything got here.

No, it does not rely on any such thing.  It explains nothing.  It merely stands as evidence of itself.  And, that's all it has to do.  I trust I won't have to repeat myself on this point, again?

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

To call the universe a creation, the product of the willful effort, is to rely in an answer which answers nothing, but rather gives the illusion of an answer. The problem with this is that the need to ask about that particular question is then "sated", and the progress of humanity is therefore hindered.

But, my definition of God does no such thing.  It fully preserves an honest process of discovering All that is True in the Universe, or God.  Only your straw man characterization of God does what you claim it does.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

We are the curious-sapiens, we thrive and prosper answering the unknown. Religion only trade down the opportunity to learn and advance as a species in exchange of platitude and false self-reassurence. Your proof does as much.

I have presented nothing "religious."  Nothing I have presented makes any extraordinary assertions, promises, or threats.  There is no dogma, no superstition, no faith, and no belief involved.  It fully preserves an honest process of discovery.  It provides no false self-assurances.  So, you're just plain WRONG about that.  Ordinarily, I would only claim you to be mistaken or incorrect; but, there is a moral component to your distortion of my position that merits the use of the word, "WRONG."

 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:Unless

lifewhispers wrote:


Unless you have some logic, reason, rationality, evidence, and/or proof that the Universe is not and cannot be considered an entity, the proof stands up to your scrutiny.  But, you can keep the cigar. 

 

The universe can indeed be consider an entity, although I meant conscious entity my apologies

lifewhispers wrote:

Nothing in my discussion implied consciousness.

 

lifewhispers wrote:

  Omniscient - that is to say, God must contain sufficient knowledge to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

 

Looks like implied consciousness to me Smiling

I think I see were you are going with this God=universe universe=God

If one defines that which created us as God the universe also fits these parameters

And it could be argued that the universe itself is a conscious thinking entity as all parts of the universe are intimately connected on a quantum level, and we are proof of conscious thinking entity and in an enclosed connected system one part of the hole is the hole kinder thing

So God/universe starts dead and stupid eventually becoming alive and aware of itself

? is this your direction with this

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:Eloise

lifewhispers wrote:

Eloise wrote:


Vessel wrote:

Quote:
But, fundamentally, it can be agreed by virtually all that God is defined as Creator of the Universe. Fair enough? So, if that is our definition of God, then the existence of the Universe MUST NECESSARILY be evidence of such a Creator. After all, without the Creation, why bother considering who/what Created it? And, if the Creation exists, then it must have been Created - by something. We can simply choose to call that God.


Wow. When you call the universe a creation then you can require it has a creator because creations have creators. Brilliant. It's like a personal audience with Einstein.


I'm with you here Vessel, DIE 'first cause/prime mover argument' !! please die you are embarrassment to all theists.

The first cause argument is like saying you were born the ocean and because you are immersed in water you know that water is the basis of all existence; but in reality to someone born on land you know jack-sh*t.

 

You seemed to actually have a grasp on my proof of God; but then, something happened.  You seemed to have become irrational and emotional with your ad hominem attack at the end.

I think you've taken that bit too literally, lifewhispers. I'm kidding around there mostly. the first cause argument - everything must have a cause therefore the universe must have a cause therefore God. is something I find embarrassing to theists and just stupid really. The problem with what you've written above is not really that it resembles the first cause argument in saying creator therefore God, so excuse my facetious reply.  In truth your reasoning is circular, what you've said is creator therefore created therefore creator, similar circular reasoning is used to as a base for prime mover/first cause argument.

The first cause argument also invokes the premise that the universe was caused, similarly you have invoked the universe as a creation. As I pointed out in my post we can know the universe by it's substance or by it's properties. Only the properties of the universe require a cause or creator. The substance of the universe, and, therefore - the universe, doesn't. So there is no basis for calling the universe summa summarum 'caused' or a 'creation', the universe is most definitely made up of uncreated uncaused substance, the first cause argument fails therein because it states everything must have a cause, that is patently untrue, fundamentally in our universe, some things just are, like vacuum fluctuation.

The way you have presented your proof fails in the same way, although I agree strongly with your principle, I must admit your argument has a hole where you call the universe a 'creation'.

Now, before this gets missed, I do see that you are starting your argument with the proposition 'God is the creator of the universe', from there I agree your reasoning is fairly sound. You say God is the creator - in order to be God then it must have the ability to create - state requirements for creator.

Up until this point I'm following you just fine. When you get to your conclusion, it is arbitrary and unsound and I don't follow anymore.  You have required the creator artificially in your argument, which is fine, you can do that.  But you cannot then conclude from your own requirement that the creator exists .

 

When you then import that God is the universe, you have set up a problem for yourself your artificial requirement of a creator now applies to God. You have said the Universe requires creator, the creator is God, God is the universe.  And thus you've stolen your own concept and broken your argument.

 

Quote:

 And, as long as there are billions of people on this planet who are causing problems as a result of their irrational God belief, I will continue to maintain a rational construct of God to present to them as an alternative.  I trust that you do not have any problem with that?

 

You trust wisely, I don't have a problem with that at all. I just think it could use a little work Smiling

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:It is a

lifewhispers wrote:

It is a syllogism of the form:

God is Creator of the Universe.  All that is True in the Universe is also Creator of the Universe.  Therefore, God is All that is True in the Universe.

Now, it is axiomatic that All that is True in the Universe is Creator of the Universe.  Therefore, it is axiomatic that God is Creator of the Universe.

So, it is an axiomatic syllogism.

You still aren't defining God, you are just playing with words.  "Creator" is a Relational quality not Primary. It is relational because it only describes the relationship of the creator to the creation and not the creator itself. It is a vaguery. (which I think you intend, in order to make your point.)

Plus, Everything in the Universe that is True also includes things that didn't create the universe. But you claim that they are one and the same. This is a contradiction - not an axiom.

Or, you are just claiming basic pantheism: everything is God. Nature, the act of creation, the continued creation, Brittney Spears, the idea of pixies, are all part of making the universe what it is: everything.

Plus, it is not axiomatic that God is all that is True in the Universe. You are making this up.  I am not God, but I am very possibly a Truth of this Universe.

By calling something a Creator, you are separating it from other things, but then you claim it is also everything.

(Everything is NOT the Creator of the Universe, since, by rule, the creation of something must include things that are created BY the creator/creation.)

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov