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.”


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

Eloise wrote:

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. 

off topic but I'm sure the op won't mind

I never got round to physics in school, just general science, my interest in physics started with an old chess opponent, Steve he used to write the physics page in the Mensa magazine, incredibly bright but a tellable chess player

Anyway in a vacuum Dyson or hover

The possibility that the velocity of light, c, is not a fixed constant, ooh my  http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml

Go on say frames, I know you dying to

Eloise wrote:

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

Yes ish, once we reach the extremes, extreme heat extreme cold extreme gravity, funky stuff starts happening light itself can become confused and not kown were it is or what it's doing as the force's themselves combine or drift apart,

So we have C which is relatively constant from your point of view but only if you're observing it, and only if it is parsing through a vacuum, and only if it doesn't decide to tunnel through faster than the speed of light, while realizing that you and the speed of light are probably simultaneously slowing down

The laws are not fixed or constant, but from your point of view they are ish

? would you like to learn more

 


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Unfortunately, whether light

Unfortunately, whether light is a constant or not is only interesting to scientists and people interested in science. Theists can claim that God made light a constant or didn't.

In their Cartoon Universe, God can do anything, so it doesn't matter what the facts are, they will change their tune to always allow their belief to stand.

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


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote:off topic

Rev_Devilin wrote:

off topic but I'm sure the op won't mind

I never got round to physics in school, just general science, my interest in physics started with an old chess opponent, Steve he used to write the physics page in the Mensa magazine, incredibly bright but a tellable chess player

Anyway in a vacuum Dyson or hover

The possibility that the velocity of light, c, is not a fixed constant, ooh my  http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml

Go on say frames, I know you dying to

 

That link showed no evidence that light was 'non-fixed.'

 

Quote:

Yes ish, once we reach the extremes, extreme heat extreme cold extreme gravity, funky stuff starts happening light itself can become confused and not kown were it is or what it's doing as the force's themselves combine or drift apart,

So we have C which is relatively constant from your point of view but only if you're observing it, and only if it is parsing through a vacuum, and only if it doesn't decide to tunnel through faster than the speed of light, while realizing that you and the speed of light are probably simultaneously slowing down

The laws are not fixed or constant, but from your point of view they are ish

? would you like to learn more

 

 

If c isn't constant, you'll have a hell of a time explaining special relativity.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Yes ish, once we reach

Quote:

Yes ish, once we reach the extremes, extreme heat extreme cold extreme gravity, funky stuff starts happening light itself can become confused and not kown were it is or what it's doing as the force's themselves combine or drift apart,

So we have C which is relatively constant from your point of view but only if you're observing it, and only if it is parsing through a vacuum, and only if it doesn't decide to tunnel through faster than the speed of light, while realizing that you and the speed of light are probably simultaneously slowing down

The laws are not fixed or constant, but from your point of view they are ish

? would you like to learn more

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm getting at.  You're giving me a physics lesson which isn't really addressing the underlying point.  EVEN IF c is not a constant, the question would be are its reactions constant?  For instance, C doesn't change for no reason.  Whether or not C is determined to be non-constant or not, science still presupposes that there are constants.  It is this presupposition, I contended, which allow for science to infer that current experiments and studies can shed light on future ones.


albedo_00
albedo_00's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello lifewhispers, good to

Hello lifewhispers, good to see you created an account, you see I dislike talking to people through an intermediary, without even a screenname to go by, it just one of my quirks. And welcome to the forums.

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.

So, the creator and the created are one and the same, yes?. Very zen of you, but creator denotes a relationship of causality. Now, while there is a thing as reciprocal causation, I have never heard of anything that is both cause and effect, and I actually think that violates some rule of logic, something about things being the same in the same way or by means of the same function...

Also, could you explain how a being can be omniscient but not be intelligent? Or for that matter, to be a creator while being exempt of will? To me, to posses knowledge and be able to use that knowledge in order to create something involves not only the capacity to understand and utilize that knowledge for the task of creation (intelligence), but the will in order to decide to carry out said task.

lifewhispers wrote:
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.

So basically what you're saying is that any possible origin for the universe, say for instance, the extremely dense and hot state that preluded the big bang, was omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and that it can be called god, or all that is true in the universe? Quite frankly that seems to be the direction your god creator is heading, to arbitrarily granting a somewhat anthropomorphisized name to a natural phenomena that is truly exempt of volition, intelligence and sentience. But such natural phenomena are also exempt of all the omni qualities you grant.

Oh, and another thing, there's no need to keep repeating the "All that is true in the universe is God" thing, that already has a proper name, is called pantheism.

lifewhispers wrote:
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.

No, it is not an axiom, nor an axiomatic syllogism, just plain old syllogism:

lifewhispers wrote:

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.

Like I said, and will continue to say until I get a satisfying response, this is only axiomatic within the bounds of it's syllogistic, circular logic, but outside of it, there's nothing self evident about it, merely because it fails to provide arguments to support that the universe is a creation that does not require the unchallanged acceptance of that presupposition.

Now, I might be wrong or I might be just too obtuse to see this, so if you, lifewhispers, or anyone else, could walk me through the rational process which leads to the self evident conclusion that the universe is indeed a creation, without relying in unlikely presuppositions, or at least doing so only as necessarily as possible, then please, I'm willing to give it a swing. (This is not sarcasm)

lifewhispers wrote:
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!

Indeed I cannot, but on the other hand, I cannot fathom any thought process which could conclude in the existence of any deity ("creator" or otherwise) without relying in the element of the supernatural or without basing conclusions upon unsubstantiated presuppositions, because that's pretty much when my mind starts shouting at me: "does not compute".

lifewhispers wrote:
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.

I didn't said, anywhere, you were misusing those terms, just wanted to formally establish the definitions used for the words creator and creation, so as to avoid any misunderstandings, ironically, it just caused more. By my use of the phrase "youtuber, this is for you" I meant to say that, from there on, I would be addressing you.

lifewhispers wrote:
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?

Well, fucking excuse me for using the exact same source you yourself used for the definitions. As for your correct usage of the word "creator", it is only correct when used as a synonym of cause, as in causation. And while I agree there was a process of cause and effect that brought about the universe, I am not convinced there was an active creator, i.e. an omni-everything creator, that created the universe. Refer to my differentiation of natural process vs manufactured process of creation.

lifewhispers wrote:
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?

Well, how's this for objectiveness for you: In heavy metal production, there's no omniscience, omnipotence nor omnipresence involved at all. In your proposed god creator proof, all said qualities are present. If you're gonna make an analogy, then please at least make it consistent with the point you're making. And what else could I had undestood from "There's your argument for the Universe being a creation" other than exactly that? Certainly due to the phrase and the way you presented it I wouldn't understand that as "It was just an EXAMPLE". Hell, I'm not even a native english speaker and I still know enough of the language to know the difference between the two.

Moving on. To me the biggest hole in your proof is that there's no convincing argument that the universe is a creation, and when I read that heavy metal "argument", I acted accordingly to it's validity and intelligence. Fair enough? But very well, I recognize I can be quite crude and belligerent in my way of speaking, so I'll tone down things for the sake of civility.

 

lifewhispers wrote:
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.
 

As I have said, I see no creator without will nor intelligence. I see natural processes which can create (produce) things, but at the same time I don't go around saying this natural phenomena have omni-qualities. Now, if you can rationally argument the existence of one such creator then I'll recognize mi error in saying otherwise. Oh, but remember, just because you use the dictionary and ad populum arguments to do so doesn't mean it exists outside our minds (as the construct it is). 

 

lifewhispers wrote:
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.

No they're not, at least according to you:

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

(...)

 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.

(...)

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.

So, is God = All that is True in the Universe or you're just juggling with the words? Or, if this is just another of those pesky language misunderstandings, would you kindly explain what do you mean by "coincidental"?

A little side note, be careful when you use the quote tags, I said the things you quote, not Rhad.

lifewhispers wrote:
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.

Very well, I'll rephrase it: Based on what rational argument do you adhere omni-qualities to the natural phenomena of the universe? And, how is this "all that is true in the universe" is any different than pantheism?

 

lifewhispers wrote:
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.

Commendable effort, and I honestly congratulate you for it. Except for one thing. The belief in god is irrational in and on itself. There's no rational god. Philosophers have always struggled with this issue and they can only get to the point of arguing that the universe must have a beginning, so as to avoid eternal regression. That's all. Other than that any effort done in order to prove god has always fallen in unsubstantiated presuppositions and/or supernatural claims.

lifewhispers wrote:
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?

I think you have failed to present convincing arguments for the universe being a creation. Regarding the endeavor itself, I would be willing to call this solution of yours as a step stone towards a no god undestanding of the world, rather than a definitive explanation of the origin of the universe.

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

I agree on this, so long as we leave it as a construct.

lifewhispers wrote:
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?

(...)

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.

And to this I would respond: "but your 'all that is true in the universe' rest upon shaky presuppositions, and if it proves nothing, then why present it in the first place?" and this thing would drag itself on. So I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this.

lifewhispers wrote:
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."

When I say that this particular effort does as much as religion, I mean that in the end it also falls back on saying "all that is true in the universe (aka god) created the universe". Even if this god, or all that is true in the universe, basically is just a causation of the universe and nothing more, it still falls back on answering questions with conclusions based upon doubtful premises, which in turn hinders the advancement of humanity by means of discovering and truly understanding the universe of which we are a part of.  And that is my bone to pick here.

[Edit] Edited 3 times because of my clumsy use of the quote tags! I knew that would come back to bite me on the ass.

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


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

daedalus wrote:

Unfortunately, whether light is a constant or not is only interesting to scientists and people interested in science. Theists can claim that God made light a constant or didn't.

In their Cartoon Universe, God can do anything, so it doesn't matter what the facts are, they will change their tune to always allow their belief to stand.

True

? have you noticed though they are not overly keen on a mad chaotic unpredictable universe,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

That link showed no evidence that light was 'non-fixed.'

If c isn't constant, you'll have a hell of a time explaining special relativity.

Frames of reference Cpt, and try reading it again not speed reading but reading

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm getting at.  You're giving me a physics lesson which isn't really addressing the underlying point.  EVEN IF c is not a constant, the question would be are its reactions constant?  For instance, C doesn't change for no reason.  Whether or not C is determined to be non-constant or not, science still presupposes that there are constants.  It is this presupposition, I contended, which allow for science to infer that current experiments and studies can shed light on future ones.

Non-local realism

http://www.quantum.at/news/detailview/article/7/losing-a-grip-on-reality.html

Keep going


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Is there any particular

Is there any particular reason you are ending your posts with "want to know more?," "want me to keep going?," or "keep going"? It's slightly bothering me.. silly as that might sound.  I know it could have a really neutral meaning, still, I'm taking it as "I know everything, aren't you convinced yet? or do I have to keep talking."

Something like that.. I apologize for my thin skin.

So now, first off:

http://www.quantum.at/news/detailview/period/1175378400/2591999/archived/select/quantum/article/295/losing-a-grip-on-reality.html

That link worked for me.. yours did not.  I just had to run a search for non-local realism line one the website.. wamo, found it.

Secondly, I'm not really sure how the article addresses my presupposition, it still stands in my opinion.

The article merely states that scientists are confused about what to do with these "spooky effects"--it does not suggest that scientists are assuming that the "reason" for the results of these experiments is because there is some "underlying construct which is inherently non-constant or unpredictable."

The moment that becomes admitted or assumed, I do not see how "science" loses all relevance in the matter.  If the exact same experiment has a truly random result, then my recording of results is no more than historical.  No science involved at all..

So.. I state again, in order for science to remain relevant (whose practically is based in its ability to predict) it must presuppose these can be predicted and things can only be predictable if they have some sort of constant involved--if you want a more specific definition of what I mean by constant it is merely that "x cause will bring about y effect."  I DO NOT mean that "constant" means some number or measurement... I thought I made that clearer earlier.. but perhaps not.  Yet, still, maybe I am wrong on even this issue.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

That link showed no evidence that light was 'non-fixed.'

If c isn't constant, you'll have a hell of a time explaining special relativity.

Frames of reference Cpt, and try reading it again not speed reading but reading

I read through it, realized the author is a YEC trying to reconcile the distance of stars with a 6,000 YO Earth

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Setterfield

 

Oh, and if the speed of light changed so dramatically, we would have seen numerous effects.

 

E=mc^2 for example would denote that stars gave off MORE energy when light was faster.

 

This simply hasn't been observed.

 

 


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
daedalus wrote:So, you call

daedalus wrote:

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".

Well, I like mine better.  It's shorter and serves my specific purposes in a way that, "Everything that is True in the Universe" does not.  Strange, but true.

daedalus wrote:

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

So is the word, "Universe" meaningless, then.  But, you wouldn't argue that, would you?  No, you are quite mistaken.  My definition of God is not meaningless.  It means what I have defined it to mean.

Of course, I realize you weren't really thinking about this when you posted.  You were just frustrated and emotional.  I understand completely.  It can be difficult to lay down your old fallacious ideas, can't it?

daedalus wrote:

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.).

That's funny!  First, you claim my definition of God to be superfluous and meaningless - then, you go on to explain that there are two different meanings to the word, "Universe" that have totally different applications (Philosophical and scientific).  Well, I like using the term, "God" in the philosophical context and "Universe" in the scientific context.   You can stick with the confusion of trying to apply the same term in two different ways, if you like.

daedalus wrote:

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

Well, words are intended to communicate ideas  That often requires "playing with definitions."  As long as we are stuck with using words to communicate ideas, we will "play" with their definitions.

daedalus wrote:

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.

Thank you!  Then, I'll take that a as a concession on your part.  Too bad, it took so much effort from both of us to get you to finally see the light.  I thought I had been clear from the start.  There must have been some ego involved, somewhere.

daedalus wrote:

 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".

And, I have not called "God" something that may be something else, either.  God has a specific meaning, and not just what people arbitrarily decide it means.  As a word, "God" carries the meaning of "Creator of the Universe" for so many people as to make that the defacto standard definition.  For that to be tenable, the definition must be "fleshed out" to explain why God is Creator of the Universe.  I have done that, where the average theist cannot.


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:Nothing

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.

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Looks like implied consciousness to me Smiling

Well, it was intended to look like consciousness; but, it isn't - and, it doesn't have to be consciousness, either.  The definition of "omniscience" is tenable without consciousness.  But, in the context of the purpose of the proof, it was important to pander to that illusion; because, the intended audience already embraces this idea.  All that is then needed is to explain to the theist why omniscience does not necessarily imply a conscious entity; while, preserving, for them, the possibility of such a consciousness.  They can lay that silly notion down later.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

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

Actually, my thinking had not gone in that direction; but, you make a valid point.  Of course, that does not in any way invalidate the characteristics or the definition.  The only difference would be that, in the very beginning, "omniscience" would simply refer to a much smaller body of knowledge, growing in accordance with experience over time.

 

 


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

daedalus wrote:

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.

daedalus wrote:

So, you have defined god as the universe? why?

Actually, more precisely, I have defined God as All that is True in the Universe.  This definition has philosophical implications that the simple word, "Universe" does not have.  It implies a process of discernment, rather than simple existence.  To know God, requires that you know what is True in the Universe.   It is a subtle difference, but one worth maintaining.

daedalus wrote:

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.

I also explained the irrelevance of the ad populum to my primary arguments.  For the intended audience that believes God to be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, it is important for them to see the relationship of my definition of God to their preconceived notions about God.  Otherwise, they would simply dismiss it without going any further through a process of critically examining it.  It was an easy thing to "give" them the three "O's', so why not give them?

daedalus wrote:

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, that is not what I've done at all.  I've started with a standard definition of God, as Creator of the Universe, and then, provided a rational foundation for it.  Surely, you would agree that to be a better approach, than to simply make unfounded assertions, like the theists do, wouldn't you?

daedalus wrote:

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.

*I* have no need for a construct of God outside of my stated goals; but, to accomplish my goals, I DO need a rational construct of God.  It's not just because it works for me, but because it has proven to work for theists.  It's not a "private language."  It is purposefully similar to existing language, yet rational, instead of irrational.  That subtle distinction is important, in this case.

daedalus wrote:

the universe is the universe (which IS descriptive - why do you think the term is meaningless?),

I never said it was meaningless; nor, do I think it to be meaningless.  It is simply insufficient for my purposes.

daedalus wrote:

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 have added nothing and explained nothing.  It's perfectly fine for people to not embrace a construct of God.  I would never force such a construct on anyone. Passive atheism is tenable.  Strong atheism simply isn't.  That is about all that my proof establishes - but, it DOES establish that.

daedalus wrote:

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

Perhaps, you see it as a mediocre job of describing Pantheism; because, it doesn't describe Pantheism.  The ideas are similar, but not the same.  Pantheism maintains that God is the physicality of the Universe and the processes involved in its creation.  The idea that I present goes beyond Pantheism, in that it implies a process of discernment(what is true, and what is not) that Pantheism does not.  Furthermore, there are physically intangible processes taking place in the Universe that are true, yet have nothing to do with the physical Universe. 

An example of such an intangible and non-physical process that is true, yet has only an indirect relationship with the creation of the physical Universe would be the simple exchange of ideas between people and the effects those ideas have on those people.  Is it physical?  No.  Is it tangible?  No.  Is it true?  Yes.  Is it Pantheism?  No.  Is it God?  Yes.  Why?  Because, it is true. 

My definition of God might be more closely alligned with Panentheism - but, even still, there are sufficiently different ideas presented that render that label inappropriate, as well. 

 

 

daedalus wrote:

 

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.

It was never intended to encompass any religion.  Although, it was/is targeted at monotheists with cartoon like characterizations of God that they embrace through belief by faith, rather than logic, reason, rationality, evidence, and/or proof.


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

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

That link showed no evidence that light was 'non-fixed.'

If c isn't constant, you'll have a hell of a time explaining special relativity.

Frames of reference Cpt, and try reading it again not speed reading but reading

I read through it, realized the author is a YEC trying to reconcile the distance of stars with a 6,000 YO Earth

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Setterfield

 

Oh, and if the speed of light changed so dramatically, we would have seen numerous effects.

 

E=mc^2 for example would denote that stars gave off MORE energy when light was faster.

 

This simply hasn't been observed. 

Oh ok find a big wet fish and slap me for my stupid I didn't check the source and I speed read it

Try this

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/07/1028157961167.html

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  YEAH going DEEP ! that's

  YEAH going DEEP ! that's what I promised her !


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

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Is there any particular reason you are ending your posts with "want to know more?," "want me to keep going?," or "keep going"? It's slightly bothering me.. silly as that might sound.  I know it could have a really neutral meaning, still, I'm taking it as "I know everything, aren't you convinced yet? or do I have to keep talking."

Something like that.. I apologize for my thin skin.

I'm just trying to provoke your curiosity,  and no I don't know everything, well not yet, every time I try I keep finding new stuff I'm completely ignorant about, but I'll keep trying

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

So now, first off:

http://www.quantum.at/news/detailview/period/1175378400/2591999/archived/select/quantum/article/295/losing-a-grip-on-reality.html

That link worked for me.. yours did not.  I just had to run a search for non-local realism line one the website.. wamo, found it.

Secondly, I'm not really sure how the article addresses my presupposition, it still stands in my opinion.

The article merely states that scientists are confused about what to do with these "spooky effects"--it does not suggest that scientists are assuming that the "reason" for the results of these experiments is because there is some "underlying construct which is inherently non-constant or unpredictable."

The moment that becomes admitted or assumed, I do not see how "science" loses all relevance in the matter.  If the exact same experiment has a truly random result, then my recording of results is no more than historical.  No science involved at all..

So.. I state again, in order for science to remain relevant (whose practically is based in its ability to predict) it must presuppose these can be predicted and things can only be predictable if they have some sort of constant involved--if you want a more specific definition of what I mean by constant it is merely that "x cause will bring about y effect."  I DO NOT mean that "constant" means some number or measurement... I thought I made that clearer earlier.. but perhaps not.  Yet, still, maybe I am wrong on even this issue.

Yes I understand where you're coming from, I'm just trying to lay the groundwork bear with me if you will

Next we have a that cannot be true can it ? moment, the double slit experiment enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

 


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

lifewhispers wrote:

Well, it was intended to look like consciousness; but, it isn't - and, it doesn't have to be consciousness, either.  The definition of "omniscience" is tenable without consciousness.  But, in the context of the purpose of the proof, it was important to pander to that illusion; because, the intended audience already embraces this idea.  All that is then needed is to explain to the theist why omniscience does not necessarily imply a conscious entity; while, preserving, for them, the possibility of such a consciousness.  They can lay that silly notion down later.

 

 Shaky lifewhispers and extremely dubious if I might say, which I'm sure you won't  admit to openly, ? have you had much success


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

Well, it was intended to look like consciousness; but, it isn't - and, it doesn't have to be consciousness, either.  The definition of "omniscience" is tenable without consciousness.  But, in the context of the purpose of the proof, it was important to pander to that illusion; because, the intended audience already embraces this idea.  All that is then needed is to explain to the theist why omniscience does not necessarily imply a conscious entity; while, preserving, for them, the possibility of such a consciousness.  They can lay that silly notion down later.

 

Shaky lifewhispers and extremely dubious if I might say, which I'm sure you won't  admit to openly, ? have you had much success

 

It's fine that you think it to be shaky and extremely dubious; but, absent any explanation of why you feel that way, your comment really doesn't have any meaning to me.  My first thought, after reading your response, was that either:

A - You do not really see it as shaky and extremely dubious - and therefore, sure that I would not admit to that openly

or

B - You have decided that my ego will not permit me to admit when I am mistaken about something.

I can assure you that my ego is not involved in this.  If you have an argument to present, I'm open to it.  But, I will tell you that I do not just arbitrarily accept contrary arguments - you will have to support them.  I am supporting my arguments, you can support yours.  So, at this point, why would I openly admit to your claim that it's shaky and extremely dubious?  You have yet to support that claim.

From my perspective, I see omniscience as a perfectly acceptable term to ascribe to all that is true in the Universe; since, ALL knowledge is necessarily contained within that set.  That the Universe has proven itself capable of producing intelligent life is a compelling argument for the intelligence of the Universe - unless, you have some argument that permits intelligence to be a product of non-intelligent processes.  And, that, in my opinion, would be extremely dubious.

Furthermore, there is the very real possibility of a consciousness to the Universe.  Perhaps, I will write a proof of it - once I wrap my head around the problem sufficiently.  My first idea of how that might be done would be to point out that the entire Universe is quite clearly "aware" of everything in it and responds to everything in it.  Maybe, not in the conventional sense to which we have become accustom, but that all matter interracts with all other matter is quite clear.   For example, the Earth is quite "aware" of the presence of the Sun, by virtue of its gravitational influence and other affects it has on the Earth (and, vice-versa).  It responds in a predictable manner, rather than randomly, as well.  But, we'll postpone that discussion for another day, when I am better prepared for it.

As to your question about success, yes, I have had some success with the proof currently under discussion.  I have also, of course, had some utter failures, when dealing with people who simply will not consider anything that is outside of their chosen religious beliefs.  And, surprisingly enough, I have encountered a number of atheists who will not accept it, either.  But, that's the problem with beliefs - they are typically not based on facts and maintained by ego, instead.

What remains lacking is any arguments that unseat mine in a definitive and conclusive way.  Anyone who has any contrary arguments to present is welcome to present them.

I actually enjoy the process of debating such topics.  It sharpens my debating skills and clarifies my thinking in ways not possible otherwise.  So, bring on the arguments.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:Nothing

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.

 

Rev-Devilin wrote:

Looks like implied consciousness to me Smiling

lifewhispers wrote:

Well, it was intended to look like consciousness; but, it isn't - and, it doesn't have to be consciousness, either.  The definition of "omniscience" is tenable without consciousness.  But, in the context of the purpose of the proof, it was important to pander to that illusion; because, the intended audience already embraces this idea.  All that is then needed is to explain to the theist why omniscience does not necessarily imply a conscious entity; while, preserving, for them, the possibility of such a consciousness.  They can lay that silly notion down later. 

lifewhispers wrote:

It's fine that you think it to be shaky and extremely dubious; but, absent any explanation of why you feel that way, your comment really doesn't have any meaning to me.  My first thought, after reading your response, was that either:

A - You do not really see it as shaky and extremely dubious - and therefore, sure that I would not admit to that openly

or

B - You have decided that my ego will not permit me to admit when I am mistaken about something.

I'll take B please lifewhispers, 

"Nothing in my discussion implied consciousness"

"Well, it was intended to look like consciousness"

ie implied consciousness ? unless that was a mistake

 

 


Badbark
Posts: 94
Joined: 2008-01-14
User is offlineOffline
LifewhispersI’ve

Lifewhispers

I’ve followed this discussion with interest as I initially posted on your behalf. I have to admit to seeing your ideas in a different light compared to my initial reaction. I now understand that your essay is primarily written for theists in an attempt to have them question their cartoon view of God. I commend you for this as I think we can all agree that extreme religious beliefs are the real danger.

Might I suggest that in the future you explain to atheists your motives behind the essay from the onset? You did after all tell an atheist (me) that you had proof God exists, so you have to expect a negative and critical reaction to something as profound as that.

Ultimately, what I see is a version of Pantheism - your version of Pantheism. This may be enlightenment for you but it is trivial to most everyone else. I’ve no problems with Pantheism or Deism and I’m quite happy for people to have these beliefs.

I wish you success in your endeavours. Anyone trying to bring people away from religious superstition is fine with me.

 

 


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

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.

 

Rev-Devilin wrote:

Looks like implied consciousness to me Smiling

lifewhispers wrote:

Well, it was intended to look like consciousness; but, it isn't - and, it doesn't have to be consciousness, either.  The definition of "omniscience" is tenable without consciousness.  But, in the context of the purpose of the proof, it was important to pander to that illusion; because, the intended audience already embraces this idea.  All that is then needed is to explain to the theist why omniscience does not necessarily imply a conscious entity; while, preserving, for them, the possibility of such a consciousness.  They can lay that silly notion down later. 

lifewhispers wrote:

It's fine that you think it to be shaky and extremely dubious; but, absent any explanation of why you feel that way, your comment really doesn't have any meaning to me.  My first thought, after reading your response, was that either:

A - You do not really see it as shaky and extremely dubious - and therefore, sure that I would not admit to that openly

or

B - You have decided that my ego will not permit me to admit when I am mistaken about something.

Rev-Devilin wrote:

I'll take B please lifewhispers, 

"Nothing in my discussion implied consciousness"

"Well, it was intended to look like consciousness"

ie implied consciousness ? unless that was a mistake

 

 

 

You make a valid point about that.  But, an argument for consciousness is not necessary for the proof to be valid.  Did you have any other support for your contention that it was "shaky and extremely dubious?"


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

Badbark wrote:

Lifewhispers

I’ve followed this discussion with interest as I initially posted on your behalf. I have to admit to seeing your ideas in a different light compared to my initial reaction. I now understand that your essay is primarily written for theists in an attempt to have them question their cartoon view of God. I commend you for this as I think we can all agree that extreme religious beliefs are the real danger.

Might I suggest that in the future you explain to atheists your motives behind the essay from the onset? You did after all tell an atheist (me) that you had proof God exists, so you have to expect a negative and critical reaction to something as profound as that.

I fully expect a negative and critical reaction from most people who read it.  I invite such reactions, as a part of my process of rigorously testing my ideas and beliefs.  And, I HAVE proven the existence of the God of MY understanding.  That was my entire goal - and, I achieved it.  What is surprising to me is that any atheist would deny the truth of it in the first place.  I started from reality and worked backward, rather than making presumptions that cannot be proven.  That virtually guaranteed that the proof would be sound. 

Badbark wrote:

 

Ultimately, what I see is a version of Pantheism - your version of Pantheism. This may be enlightenment for you but it is trivial to most everyone else. I’ve no problems with Pantheism or Deism and I’m quite happy for people to have these beliefs.

Perhaps, you should study pantheism and panentheism a little more.  Because, my proof does not conform to either of them - it's not based on belief, mere existence, or mere physical processes.  It goes beyond them by including intangible processes that are not represented by either.  

 

 


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

lifewhispers wrote:
 

You make a valid point about that.  But, an argument for consciousness is not necessary for the proof to be valid.  Did you have any other support for your contention that it was "shaky and extremely dubious?"

Without consciousness you have information not knowledge

lifewhispers wrote:

"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"

lifewhispers wrote:

knowl·edge -

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.

This is why I said shaky and extremely dubious, 


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:
 

You make a valid point about that.  But, an argument for consciousness is not necessary for the proof to be valid.  Did you have any other support for your contention that it was "shaky and extremely dubious?"

Without consciousness you have information not knowledge

lifewhispers wrote:

"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"

lifewhispers wrote:

knowl·edge -

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.

This is why I said shaky and extremely dubious, 

Reference definitions 5 and 7 of "knowledge."

The Earth is "aware" of the presence of the Sun and the moon and reacts to them, as well as the other cellestial bodies in the solar system, even if only in small measure.   The reactions between cellestial bodies demonstrates an awareness that the  term "information" does not convey.  Of course, this is only one example of such an awareness.  There an infinite number of other such examples throughout the Universe.

Definition 7 provides for knowledge simply being a body  of truths or facts.

Now, let's look at the definition of information:

in·for·ma·tion      /ˌɪnfərˈmeɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fer-mey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun
1.knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.
2.knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.
3.the act or fact of informing.
4.an office, station, service, or employee whose function is to provide information to the public: The ticket seller said to ask information for a timetable.
5.Directory Assistance.
6.Law.
a.an official criminal charge presented, usually by the prosecuting officers of the state, without the interposition of a grand jury.
b.a criminal charge, made by a public official under oath before a magistrate, of an offense punishable summarily.
c.the document containing the depositions of witnesses against one accused of a crime.
7.(in information theory) an indication of the number of possible choices of messages, expressible as the value of some monotonic function of the number of choices, usually the logarithm to the base 2.
8.Computers.
a.important or useful facts obtained as output from a computer by means of processing input data with a program: Using the input data, we have come up with some significant new information.
b.data at any stage of processing (input, output, storage, transmission, etc.).

 

Furthermore, from the same source:

1. data, facts, intelligence, advice. 2. Information, knowledge, wisdom are terms for human acquirements through reading, study, and practical experience. Information applies to facts told, read, or communicated that may be unorganized and even unrelated: to pick up useful information. Knowledge is an organized body of information, or the comprehension and understanding consequent on having acquired and organized a body of facts: a knowledge of chemistry. Wisdom is a knowledge of people, life, and conduct, with the facts so thoroughly assimilated as to have produced sagacity, judgment, and insight: to use wisdom in handling people. " According to this brief discussion,  "knowledge is an organized body of information, or the comprehension and understanding consequent on having acquired and organized a body of facts."  It can be argued that the Universe not only contains mere information, but also acts upon it in an extremely organized fashion - at every level of observation, thus justifying the use of the term "knowledge" and all associated operators, such as "omniscience."

Still shaky?


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

lifewhispers wrote:


acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

ie consciousness required

lifewhispers wrote:

2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

ie consciousness required

lifewhispers wrote:

3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.

ie consciousness required

lifewhispers wrote:

4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

ie consciousness required

lifewhispers wrote:

5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

ie consciousness required

lifewhispers wrote:

6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.

ie consciousness required

And I'm getting bored

Remember this is your stuff, you're denying consciousness, yet your providing definitions that require consciousness, to support your claim that no consciousness is required ? and you think this isn't shaky

lifewhispers wrote:

B - You have decided that my ego will not permit me to admit when I am mistaken about something.

I'll take a B again please lifewhispers

 


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
here's my standard

here's my standard documentation on theist arguments for god:

 

Top 10 arguments for the existence of God

It pretty much covers everything IMO.

 


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:


 

acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:

ie consciousness required

 

If you all of a sudden found yourself at a subatomic size, but inside a human body (with all of your cognitive abilities still intact - just hypothetically speaking), you would perceive the Universe in a similar way to the way we perceive the Universe.  You would see yourself as a discreet being surrounded by an enormous amount of space and countless other objects at unfathomable distances away.  And, you might ask the same question about the presence of a consciousness that is a part of everything you survey.  And, you would likely come to the same chosen perspective that you have, now - that there is no consciousness.  But, you would be WRONG.  Why?  Because, you are inside a conscious being, called a human.  But, you would have no way to perceive such a consciousness - even being surrounded and actually a part of it.  Yet, the consciousness is there, is it not?

So, how might we go about looking for evidence of this consciousness that we know is there (because, we're just involved in a hypothetical situation in which we are in total control of all the parameters. including knowing that the human consciousness exists - we just need to figure out a way to discern the evidence from this subatomic perspective).  So, what would constitute as "evidence" from this perspective?

Would it be the obvious order of everything we see?  Would it be in the predictability of the physical laws controlling everything?  Would it be in the incredibly detailed intricasies and relationships between everything we see, despite the vast amounts of space between everything?  Could we even see those relationships from that perspective?    How might we perceive the consciousness that we KNOW is there?

And, if we denied it, would it make the consciousness any less "real?"

I would submit that the entire Universe exhibits the same kind of interconnectivity that our own human bodies exhibit at a subatomic level - just on a vastly different scale.  And, the same evidence for consciousness is available to us at our current size as would be available to us at a subatomic level inside a human body.  So, is it a stretch to posit the consciousness of a Universe that exhibits the orderliness and predicability, along with incredible complexity, that our Universe exhibits?  Would it not be an even bigger stretch to discount the possibility of such a consciousness for lack of evidence?


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:While debating on

Quote:
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.

I have to ask: Where's the proof? I see a lot of theorizing on what the word "God" can be defined to mean, but no proof at all there that the universe had to have any kind of creator, let alone one that fits that definition.

 

Sorry if I'm yanking the topic back onto topic, but really, this is supposedly proof. It's not. Where's the proof?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Thanks PILE, I needed

  Thanks PILE, I needed that for my 'God' files ..... Top 10 arguments for the existence of God  (of Abe)

I read every word of it ..... and sent it to my email people ..... what a bad sad joke that god of abe is  ..... geezzz our consciousness ? ..... What is it for ? It's purpose ? Would that be god ? ...... now what, pray ? fight ? ..... Wow amazing ! Our gods of religion ? I thank god for science , and I AM science , killing the god of abe ......     AWAKE said a Buddha !  This is god ! .......    I love smilelys  .... me god ..... fuck abe ..... 

 


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Quote:While

BMcD wrote:

Quote:
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.

I have to ask: Where's the proof? I see a lot of theorizing on what the word "God" can be defined to mean, but no proof at all there that the universe had to have any kind of creator, let alone one that fits that definition.

 

Sorry if I'm yanking the topic back onto topic, but really, this is supposedly proof. It's not. Where's the proof?

If I define "rain" as liquid precipitation that falls to Earth from the clouds,  and it can be demonstrated that liquid precipitation falls to the Earth from clouds, then have I not presented a self-evident and axiomatic definition of "rain" that proves itself?

If I define "God" as All that is True in the Universe and All that is True in the Universe can be demonstrated to be Creator of the Universe, then have I not presented a self-evident and axiomatic definition of "God" that proves itself?

If not, why not?


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

lifewhispers wrote:


 

If you all of a sudden found yourself at a subatomic size, but inside a human body (with all of your cognitive abilities still intact - just hypothetically speaking), you would perceive the Universe in a similar way to the way we perceive the Universe.  You would see yourself as a discreet being surrounded by an enormous amount of space and countless other objects at unfathomable distances away.  And, you might ask the same question about the presence of a consciousness that is a part of everything you survey.  And, you would likely come to the same chosen perspective that you have, now - that there is no consciousness.  But, you would be WRONG.  Why?  Because, you are inside a conscious being, called a human.  But, you would have no way to perceive such a consciousness - even being surrounded and actually a part of it.  Yet, the consciousness is there, is it not?

So, how might we go about looking for evidence of this consciousness that we know is there (because, we're just involved in a hypothetical situation in which we are in total control of all the parameters. including knowing that the human consciousness exists - we just need to figure out a way to discern the evidence from this subatomic perspective).  So, what would constitute as "evidence" from this perspective?

Would it be the obvious order of everything we see?  Would it be in the predictability of the physical laws controlling everything?  Would it be in the incredibly detailed intricasies and relationships between everything we see, despite the vast amounts of space between everything?  Could we even see those relationships from that perspective?    How might we perceive the consciousness that we KNOW is there?

And, if we denied it, would it make the consciousness any less "real?"

I would submit that the entire Universe exhibits the same kind of interconnectivity that our own human bodies exhibit at a subatomic level - just on a vastly different scale.  And, the same evidence for consciousness is available to us at our current size as would be available to us at a subatomic level inside a human body.  So, is it a stretch to posit the consciousness of a Universe that exhibits the orderliness and predicability, along with incredible complexity, that our Universe exhibits?  Would it not be an even bigger stretch to discount the possibility of such a consciousness for lack of evidence?

Hi lifewhispers nice to see yar-again

lack of evidence would be the stumbling block here, one might be able to argue the definition of consciousness and the definition of the universe overlap at the present time, but during the initial stages of the big bang, it's just not there


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

lifewhispers wrote:

If I define "God" as All that is True in the Universe and All that is True in the Universe can be demonstrated to be true, then have I not presented a self-evident and axiomatic definition of "God" that proves itself?

If not, why not?

Are infinite's ture ?, can they be proved true ?

Certain things that are true cannot be proved


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:


 

 

If you all of a sudden found yourself at a subatomic size, but inside a human body (with all of your cognitive abilities still intact - just hypothetically speaking), you would perceive the Universe in a similar way to the way we perceive the Universe.  You would see yourself as a discreet being surrounded by an enormous amount of space and countless other objects at unfathomable distances away.  And, you might ask the same question about the presence of a consciousness that is a part of everything you survey.  And, you would likely come to the same chosen perspective that you have, now - that there is no consciousness.  But, you would be WRONG.  Why?  Because, you are inside a conscious being, called a human.  But, you would have no way to perceive such a consciousness - even being surrounded and actually a part of it.  Yet, the consciousness is there, is it not?

So, how might we go about looking for evidence of this consciousness that we know is there (because, we're just involved in a hypothetical situation in which we are in total control of all the parameters. including knowing that the human consciousness exists - we just need to figure out a way to discern the evidence from this subatomic perspective).  So, what would constitute as "evidence" from this perspective?

Would it be the obvious order of everything we see?  Would it be in the predictability of the physical laws controlling everything?  Would it be in the incredibly detailed intricasies and relationships between everything we see, despite the vast amounts of space between everything?  Could we even see those relationships from that perspective?    How might we perceive the consciousness that we KNOW is there?

And, if we denied it, would it make the consciousness any less "real?"

I would submit that the entire Universe exhibits the same kind of interconnectivity that our own human bodies exhibit at a subatomic level - just on a vastly different scale.  And, the same evidence for consciousness is available to us at our current size as would be available to us at a subatomic level inside a human body.  So, is it a stretch to posit the consciousness of a Universe that exhibits the orderliness and predicability, along with incredible complexity, that our Universe exhibits?  Would it not be an even bigger stretch to discount the possibility of such a consciousness for lack of evidence?

Hi lifewhispers nice to see yar-again

lack of evidence would be the stumbling block here, one might be able to argue the definition of consciousness and the definition of the universe overlap at the present time, but during the initial stages of the big bang, it's just not there

But, we don't have a lack of evidence.  We actually have a preponderance of evidence.  Why?  Because, we KNOW that the human consciousness exists.  At a different level of perspective, we can see the evidence more clearly, but at ALL levels, the evidence IS there.  To claim that we have no evidence, just because we cannot perceive it from the "proper" perspective, would be an error.  Remember, we're starting with the knowledge that the human consciousness exists before we shrink ourselves down to a subatomic size and then try to discern the evidence of that consciousness from that perspective.  We KNOW the evidence is there - the task is to discern it from that new perspective.

Furthermore, "consciousness" is still not a requirement for my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe to be tenable.  All that is true in the Universe, or God, is STILL responsible for the creation of the Universe, whether it is the result of consciousness, or not.

And,  the initial stages of the Big Bang are completely irrelevant, here.  My definition encompasses that event and anything and everything that might have caused it.


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

If I define "God" as All that is True in the Universe and All that is True in the Universe can be demonstrated to be true, then have I not presented a self-evident and axiomatic definition of "God" that proves itself?

If not, why not?

Are infinite's ture ?, can they be proved true ?

Certain things that are true cannot be proved

It is true that not all things that are true can be proven to be true - but, that does not make them any less true.  And, my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe is not predicated on the provability of that which is true - it is predicated upon it being true, whether it can be proven to be true, or not.


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Here's a little gratuitous

Here's a little gratuitous religious rhetoric to go along with my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe:

Have faith in the truth and have faith in God.  For, to have faith in the truth IS to have faith in God.  And, to have faith in God IS to have faith in the truth.

Thou shalt know the Word of God by its truth and by the truth shalt thy come to know God.

As a part of All that is True in the Universe, you are a Part of God, in Partnership With God in the Creation of the Universe - and, so is everyone else.  Therefore, that which you do to another you do to yourself and that which you do for another you do for yourself.

God will never leave you.  For, the Truth is present everywhere and at all times.

God will never require your faith.  For,  the Truth always stands on its own, whether you have faith in it, or not.

God will share all of His Great Truths in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them.  That is to say, All that is True in the Universe will be revealed to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive it.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:If I

lifewhispers wrote:

If I define "rain" as liquid precipitation that falls to Earth from the clouds,  and it can be demonstrated that liquid precipitation falls to the Earth from clouds, then have I not presented a self-evident and axiomatic definition of "rain" that proves itself?

If I define "God" as All that is True in the Universe and All that is True in the Universe can be demonstrated to be true, then have I not presented a self-evident and axiomatic definition of "God" that proves itself?

If not, why not?

No.

Why not? Because assigning a random definition that fits your premise is not valid. All you're doing is moving the goalposts.

Furthermore, you're not defining "God" as 'All That is True in the Universe', you're defining "God" as 'All That is True in the Universe, Which Happens to Be Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent'.

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."

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.

You've attempted to claim that being the Universe automatically grants these qualities, but despite a worthy attempt at a semantic shell-game, you've failed to demonstrate that the Universe can, as is required by Omniscience, 'know' anything. You've used 'knowledge' under shifting meanings, both in the cognitive sense (as in Omniscience) and the dative sense (as in a body of facts). However, Omniscience is distinctly cognitive knowledge. Within the subset of 'what you know', you are omniscient. You know all of what you know. A library, however, is not Omniscient within the subset of the knowledge it contains. It is not aware. It does not know. Thus, it is not Omniscient.

Next is Omnipotence. The Universe is not Omnipotent. The Universe functions under physical laws. Under those physical laws, the Universe cannot suddenly decide that an electron and a positron will not annihilate one another just this once. Thus, it is not Omnipotent.

Omnipresence I'll grant you, because let's face it, Omnipresence means being everwhere, present at all locations, and 'Universe' means 'all that is'. Well, if you're 'all that is' then you are everywhere... beyond even being present at all locations, you ARE all locations. So that's one for you.

Still, you've failed to prove God exists, and more, you've even failed to move the goalposts convincingly.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


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

lifewhispers wrote:

Furthermore, "consciousness" is still not a requirement for my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe to be tenable.  All that is true in the Universe, or God, is STILL responsible for the creation of the Universe, whether it is the result of consciousness, or not.

And,  the initial stages of the Big Bang are completely irrelevant, here.  My definition encompasses that event and anything and everything that might have caused it.

Consciousness is in your original draft, and it is required for your definition of omniscient

If it is not required then you loose omniscience, and the argument falls apart

If it is required then you keep omniscience, and the argument falls apart

? which will be


 


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

lifewhispers wrote:

It is true that not all things that are true can be proven to be true - but, that does not make them any less true.  And, my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe is not predicated on the provability of that which is true - it is predicated upon it being true, whether it can be proven to be true, or not.

? if it cannot be proven true, then how is one to know it is true

Without proof you have assumption and speculation not truth

 


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

lifewhispers wrote:

If I define "rain" as liquid precipitation that falls to Earth from the clouds,  and it can be demonstrated that liquid precipitation falls to the Earth from clouds, then have I not presented a self-evident and axiomatic definition of "rain" that proves itself?

If I define "God" as All that is True in the Universe and All that is True in the Universe can be demonstrated to be true, then have I not presented a self-evident and axiomatic definition of "God" that proves itself?

If not, why not?

BMcD wrote:

No.

Why not? Because assigning a random definition that fits your premise is not valid. All you're doing is moving the goalposts.

Why is it not valid?  Various definitions for the word, "God" have been offered up throughout the history of mankind.  Why can I not offer one?  At least, mine works.  At least, mine allows God to exist AND be Creator of the Universe.  And, it's not "random."  It is extremely well thought out; which is more than I can say for your response.  Try, again.

BMcD wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

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.

You've attempted to claim that being the Universe automatically grants these qualities, but despite a worthy attempt at a semantic shell-game, you've failed to demonstrate that the Universe can, as is required by Omniscience, 'know' anything.

Nonsense!  You're just ignoring what I've presented.  But, I'll present it, again - just for  you:

The Universe has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate overwhelmingly that it is not just a body of facts, but is also quite capable of organizing, storing, retrieving, and acting upon the information contained within it.  Furthermore, it "figures out" what "works" and what doesn't.   If the Universe were merely a non-cognitive body of facts, we would not be here to discuss it.  But, through billions of years of trial and error, storing what works, and discarding what doesn't, it has produced intelligent, sentient, conscious life.  Mere bodies of facts cannot do that.

BMcD wrote:

You've used 'knowledge' under shifting meanings, both in the cognitive sense (as in Omniscience) and the dative sense (as in a body of facts). However, Omniscience is distinctly cognitive knowledge. Within the subset of 'what you know', you are omniscient. You know all of what you know. A library, however, is not Omniscient within the subset of the knowledge it contains. It is not aware. It does not know. Thus, it is not Omniscient.

No, but as I just pointed out, the Universe IS.  It is not just an idle body of facts for reference.  It is a dynamic, interactive entity that functions in response to the information contained within it - ALL of the information contained within it.  It IS aware.  It DOES know.  Thus, it IS omniscient.  Or, can you demonstrate the existence of knowledge outside the Universe?

BMcD wrote:

Next is Omnipotence. The Universe is not Omnipotent. The Universe functions under physical laws. Under those physical laws, the Universe cannot suddenly decide that an electron and a positron will not annihilate one another just this once. Thus, it is not Omnipotent.

"Omnipotence" is a worthless and ridiculous concept when used as you just used it.  What makes more sense is to use the word in a way that it can actually apply to something.  I have qualified and clearly stated the definition of omnipotence that I am employing.  In this case, it is the ability to do ALL that can be done; and, if that doesn't qualify as "omnipotent," then nothing does.   Everything that is done in the Universe is done IN the Universe.  It is contained by it and a part of it.  How does that not meet the definition of "omnipotent?" 

Here, just a reminder:

om·nip·o·tent      /ɒmˈnɪpətənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[om-nip-uh-tuhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

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

 

 

BMcD wrote:

Omnipresence I'll grant you, because let's face it, Omnipresence means being everwhere, present at all locations, and 'Universe' means 'all that is'. Well, if you're 'all that is' then you are everywhere... beyond even being present at all locations, you ARE all locations. So that's one for you.

Gee, thanks! <rolling my eyes>

BMcD wrote:
Still, you've failed to prove God exists, and more, you've even failed to move the goalposts convincingly.

On the contrary, the definition and proof of it still stands.  Did you have any valid arguments to offer against it?  Mere contrarianism isn't going to cut it. 


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

It is true that not all things that are true can be proven to be true - but, that does not make them any less true.  And, my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe is not predicated on the provability of that which is true - it is predicated upon it being true, whether it can be proven to be true, or not.

? if it cannot be proven true, then how is one to know it is true

Without proof you have assumption and speculation not truth

 

It does not matter whether, or not, you can know something is true for it to be true.  Remember, the definition of God I have offered is not predicated upon YOUR ability to prove anything as true.  I can fart and it not be possible to prove that I farted; but, I still farted.  That's not assumption or speculation.  That's just the truth.  You didn't even have to know about it for it to be true.

 


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

Furthermore, "consciousness" is still not a requirement for my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe to be tenable.  All that is true in the Universe, or God, is STILL responsible for the creation of the Universe, whether it is the result of consciousness, or not.

And,  the initial stages of the Big Bang are completely irrelevant, here.  My definition encompasses that event and anything and everything that might have caused it.

Consciousness is in your original draft, and it is required for your definition of omniscient

If it is not required then you loose omniscience, and the argument falls apart

If it is required then you keep omniscience, and the argument falls apart

? which will be


 

 

My ultimate definition of God is that God is All that is True in the Universe.  For that definition to "fall apart," you would have to be able to demonstrate how the Universe could be Created by anything less than or just different than All that is True in the Universe.  Can you do that, or not?

They are separate arguments, as to whether "omniscience" requires consciousness, or not, and whether the Universe is "omniscient," or "conscious," or not.  Although, I think I have presented some compelling arguments for that position that have yet to be addressed.

I have presented the argument that the Universe far transcends a mere body of information - so much so, that I think the term "omniscient" applies.  Why shouldn't it?  Mere bodies of information cannot produce intelligent life that is capable of conceiving and discussing it.  For that, you need more - a LOT more.  In fact, you have to KNOW how to do it AND you have to be ABLE to do it.  The Universe DOES know how to do it and CAN do it - it IS doing it.  If that does not qualify as omnipotent and omniscient, then nothing does.


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:



Consciousness is in your original draft, and it is required for your definition of omniscient

If it is not required then you loose omniscience, and the argument falls apart

If it is required then you keep omniscience, and the argument falls apart

? which will be  

lifewhispers wrote:

They are separate arguments, as to whether "omniscience" requires consciousness, or not, and whether the Universe is "omniscient," or "conscious," or not.  Although, I think I have presented some compelling arguments for that position that have yet to be addressed.

I have presented the argument that the Universe far transcends a mere body of information - so much so, that I think the term "omniscient" applies.  Why shouldn't it?  Mere bodies of information cannot produce intelligent life that is capable of conceiving and discussing it.  For that, you need more - a LOT more.  In fact, you have to KNOW how to do it AND you have to be ABLE to do it.  The Universe DOES know how to do it and CAN do it - it IS doing it.  If that does not qualify as omnipotent and omniscient, then nothing does.

Evolution requires no consciousness

And here we go again, (me) is it omniscience or not , (you) yes, no, neither, both simultaneously, both separately,  it's not necessary, even if it was necessary it's not necessary, unless it is necessary and then it's not necessary but it is anyway just in case it's necessary

I'd asked for a straight answer, is it omniscience or not, but let's face it there isn't going to be one is there

lifewhispers wrote:

My ultimate definition of God is that God is All that is True in the Universe.  For that definition to "fall apart," you would have to be able to demonstrate how the Universe could be Created by anything less than or just different than All that is True in the Universe.  Can you do that, or not?

? have you given up on your original draft, silly question I know as I can hardly expect a straight answer

All that is True

Well I could be extremely clever and give a yes and no answer and then run-around switching between yes and no in the same sentence, dodging a straight answer

But I just look silly doing that wouldn't I

? is all that is true in the universe, all that is true in the universe, why yes it is, in the same way that, all that is all in the universe, is all in the universe, but this proves itself nothing more, ie if I were to suggest that all in the universe is the flying spaghetti monster it holds no validity, and no amount of word play can make it so, ie the flying spaghetti monster is all in the universe, without justification and proof this is meaningless speculation

 


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers

lifewhispers wrote:

Nonsense!  You're just ignoring what I've presented.  But, I'll present it, again - just for  you:

The Universe has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate overwhelmingly that it is not just a body of facts, but is also quite capable of organizing, storing, retrieving, and acting upon the information contained within it.  Furthermore, it "figures out" what "works" and what doesn't.   If the Universe were merely a non-cognitive body of facts, we would not be here to discuss it.  But, through billions of years of trial and error, storing what works, and discarding what doesn't, it has produced intelligent, sentient, conscious life.  Mere bodies of facts cannot do that.

Omniscience requires cognition. Cognition is a mental process.

lifewhispers wrote:

No, but as I just pointed out, the Universe IS.  It is not just an idle body of facts for reference.  It is a dynamic, interactive entity that functions in response to the information contained within it - ALL of the information contained within it.  It IS aware.  It DOES know.  Thus, it IS omniscient.  Or, can you demonstrate the existence of knowledge outside the Universe?

Can you demonstrate awareness? Or simply adherance to physical laws? So far, nothing you've offered has demonstrated any awareness.

lifewhispers wrote:

"Omnipotence" is a worthless and ridiculous concept when used as you just used it.  What makes more sense is to use the word in a way that it can actually apply to something.  I have qualified and clearly stated the definition of omnipotence that I am employing.  In this case, it is the ability to do ALL that can be done; and, if that doesn't qualify as "omnipotent," then nothing does.   Everything that is done in the Universe is done IN the Universe.  It is contained by it and a part of it.  How does that not meet the definition of "omnipotent?" 

Here, just a reminder:

om·nip·o·tent      /ɒmˈnɪpətənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[om-nip-uh-tuhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

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

 

And yet, 'all that can be done' and 'infinite in power' are not the same. In fact, omnipotence indicates an ability to violate physical laws.

lifewhispers wrote:
 

BMcD wrote:

Omnipresence I'll grant you, because let's face it, Omnipresence means being everwhere, present at all locations, and 'Universe' means 'all that is'. Well, if you're 'all that is' then you are everywhere... beyond even being present at all locations, you ARE all locations. So that's one for you.

Gee, thanks! <rolling my eyes>

You're very welcome.

 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:



 

Consciousness is in your original draft, and it is required for your definition of omniscient

If it is not required then you loose omniscience, and the argument falls apart

If it is required then you keep omniscience, and the argument falls apart

? which will be  

lifewhispers wrote:

They are separate arguments, as to whether "omniscience" requires consciousness, or not, and whether the Universe is "omniscient," or "conscious," or not.  Although, I think I have presented some compelling arguments for that position that have yet to be addressed.

I have presented the argument that the Universe far transcends a mere body of information - so much so, that I think the term "omniscient" applies.  Why shouldn't it?  Mere bodies of information cannot produce intelligent life that is capable of conceiving and discussing it.  For that, you need more - a LOT more.  In fact, you have to KNOW how to do it AND you have to be ABLE to do it.  The Universe DOES know how to do it and CAN do it - it IS doing it.  If that does not qualify as omnipotent and omniscient, then nothing does.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Evolution requires no consciousness

And here we go again, (me) is it omniscience or not , (you) yes, no, neither, both simultaneously, both separately,  it's not necessary, even if it was necessary it's not necessary, unless it is necessary and then it's not necessary but it is anyway just in case it's necessary

I'd asked for a straight answer, is it omniscience or not, but let's face it there isn't going to be one is there

First of all, you will not find "consciousness" anywhere in my original post - not once.   You have simply decided that I meant to imply consciousness through my use of the word, "omniscience"; yet, you have failed to demonstrate how omniscience requires consciousness, rather than a mere intelligent process that takes everything that is true in the Universe into account.  Or, would you claim that intelligent processes dictate consciousness, as well?  It is clear that evolution is an intelligent process.  Is it conscious, in your opinion, or not?

It really doesn't matter one way, or the other.  It is STILL clear that All that is True in the Universe is responsible for the Creation of the  Universe.  Did you have a rebuttal to that, or not?  Now, it's time for YOU to offer a STRAIGHT ANSWER!

lifewhispers wrote:

My ultimate definition of God is that God is All that is True in the Universe.  For that definition to "fall apart," you would have to be able to demonstrate how the Universe could be Created by anything less than or just different than All that is True in the Universe.  Can you do that, or not?

Rev_Devilin wrote:

? have you given up on your original draft, silly question I know as I can hardly expect a straight answer

Have you given up on being rational?  Because, your response to my question of whether, or not, you can demonstrate how the Universe could be Created by anything less than or just different than All that is True in the Universe isn't responsive to the question or rational.  Try answering that question, rather than tossing out an irrational red herring.

Here, I'll ask it, again:

Can you demonstrate how the Universe could have been Created by anything other than All that is True in the Universe, or not?  If yes, then get to it.  If no, then accept and ADMIT that All that is True in the Universe is a TENABLE DEFINITION of "God."

Once you have admitted that I have presented a tenable definition of God or demonstrated how it is not tenable, then we'll get to the other arguments of whether, or not, omniscience requires consciousness, or not.  Because, that is a different issue.  It is a red herring to this discussion.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

All that is True

Well I could be extremely clever and give a yes and no answer and then run-around switching between yes and no in the same sentence, dodging a straight answer

,But I just look silly doing that wouldn't I

Probably - but, no sillier than you look, now, evading the issues I've raised.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

? is all that is true in the universe, all that is true in the universe, why yes it is, in the same way that, all that is all in the universe, is all in the universe, but this proves itself nothing more, ie if I were to suggest that all in the universe is the flying spaghetti monster it holds no validity, and no amount of word play can make it so, ie the flying spaghetti monster is all in the universe, without justification and proof this is meaningless speculation

"God" is the common and generally accepted term used for the Creator of the Universe, not "Flying Spaghetti Monster."  "Flying Spaghetti Monster" represents a DEFINITION of God that MAKES NO SENSE.  It references a being that cannot possibly exist with "noodly appendages" and other characteristics that render it an IMPOSSIBLE being.  It's just patently ridiculous for you to even attempt to compare such an idiotic concept of God to the one I have presented.   Or, can you demonstrate, as I have done, how the Flying Spaghetti Monster could have Created the Universe?

 


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

lifewhispers wrote:

Nonsense!  You're just ignoring what I've presented.  But, I'll present it, again - just for  you:

The Universe has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate overwhelmingly that it is not just a body of facts, but is also quite capable of organizing, storing, retrieving, and acting upon the information contained within it.  Furthermore, it "figures out" what "works" and what doesn't.   If the Universe were merely a non-cognitive body of facts, we would not be here to discuss it.  But, through billions of years of trial and error, storing what works, and discarding what doesn't, it has produced intelligent, sentient, conscious life.  Mere bodies of facts cannot do that.

BMcD wrote:

Omniscience requires cognition. Cognition is a mental process.

And, your point would be?

 

 

lifewhispers wrote:

No, but as I just pointed out, the Universe IS.  It is not just an idle body of facts for reference.  It is a dynamic, interactive entity that functions in response to the information contained within it - ALL of the information contained within it.  It IS aware.  It DOES know.  Thus, it IS omniscient.  Or, can you demonstrate the existence of knowledge outside the Universe?

BMcD wrote:

Can you demonstrate awareness? Or simply adherance to physical laws? So far, nothing you've offered has demonstrated any awareness.

What would constitute evidence of awareness to your satisfaction?  Let's get that out of the way, before I waste my time further proving awareness, only to have you then deny that I've done it.  Fair enough?

lifewhispers wrote:

"Omnipotence" is a worthless and ridiculous concept when used as you just used it.  What makes more sense is to use the word in a way that it can actually apply to something.  I have qualified and clearly stated the definition of omnipotence that I am employing.  In this case, it is the ability to do ALL that can be done; and, if that doesn't qualify as "omnipotent," then nothing does.   Everything that is done in the Universe is done IN the Universe.  It is contained by it and a part of it.  How does that not meet the definition of "omnipotent?" 

Here, just a reminder:

om·nip·o·tent      /ɒmˈnɪpətənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[om-nip-uh-tuhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

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

 

BMcD wrote:

And yet, 'all that can be done' and 'infinite in power' are not the same. In fact, omnipotence indicates an ability to violate physical laws. 

"All that can be done" represents "very great" power, as indicated in definition 2.  Omnipotence does not indicate an ability to violate physical laws in any way, shape, or form.  That's just a straw man characterization of the word.

Furthermore, "infinite" means:

in·fi·nite      /ˈɪnnɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fuh-nit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective
1.immeasurably great: an infinite capacity for forgiveness.
2.indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money.
3.unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space.
4.unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: God's infinite mercy.
5.Mathematics.
a.not finite.
b.(of a set) having elements that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset that is not the given set.
–noun
6.something that is infinite.
7.Mathematics. an infinite quantity or magnitude.
8.the boundless regions of space.
9.the Infinite or the Infinite Being, God.

 

If it is so great that you cannot measure it, it is "infinite."  So, all that can be done in the Universe IS infinite.   So, you are incorrect.

 


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:And, your

lifewhispers wrote:

And, your point would be?

That Omniscience requires a mind, ie: a perceptive and intentional directing guidance beyond simple stimulus-response.

lifewhispers wrote:

What would constitute evidence of awareness to your satisfaction?  Let's get that out of the way, before I waste my time further proving awareness, only to have you then deny that I've done it.  Fair enough?

Fair enough. Show me something that points irrefutably to intentional direction of effort.

lifewhispers wrote:

"All that can be done" represents "very great" power, as indicated in definition 2.  Omnipotence does not indicate an ability to violate physical laws in any way, shape, or form.  That's just a straw man characterization of the word.

I see. So would you then say a 747 is omnipotent? It certainly can be said to have 'very great power'. If not, why not?

lifewhispers wrote:

Furthermore, "infinite" means:

in·fi·nite      /ˈɪnnɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fuh-nit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective
1.immeasurably great: an infinite capacity for forgiveness.
2.indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money.
3.unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space.
4.unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: God's infinite mercy.
5.Mathematics.
a.not finite.
b.(of a set) having elements that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset that is not the given set.
–noun
6.something that is infinite.
7.Mathematics. an infinite quantity or magnitude.
8.the boundless regions of space.
9.the Infinite or the Infinite Being, God.

If it is so great that you cannot measure it, it is "infinite."  So, all that can be done in the Universe IS infinite.   So, you are incorrect.

A)Who says it can't be measured? What scale would such a measurement be made on? The total mass? The total effective energy contained in all of the universe?

B)If the universe is one of the definitions of 'infinite' (see 8.), then 'infinite' cannot be used as part of any definition of 'the universe' that is to have meaning other than the tautological 'it is it'. Try again.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:And, your

lifewhispers wrote:

And, your point would be?

BMcD wrote:

That Omniscience requires a mind, ie: a perceptive and intentional directing guidance beyond simple stimulus-response.

Why?  Because, you say so?  The accepted definitions of omniscience disagree with you.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

om·nis·cience      /ɒmˈnɪʃəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[om-nish-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1.the quality or state of being omniscient.
2.infinite knowledge.
3.(initial capital letter) God.

[Origin: 1605–15; < ML omniscientia, equiv. to L omni- omni- + scientia knowledge; see science]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
om·nis·cient       (ŏm-nĭsh'ənt)  Pronunciation Key 
adj.   Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

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


[Medieval Latin omnisciēns, omniscient- : Latin omni-, omni- + Latin sciēns, scient-, present participle of scīre, to know; see skei- in Indo-European roots.]

om·nis'cience, om·nis'cien·cy n., om·nis'cient·ly adv.
 
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
omniscience 
 

1612, from M.L. omniscientia "all-knowledge," from L. omnis "all" (see omni-) + scientia "knowledge" (see science). Adj. omniscient is attested from 1604.


Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
omniscience

noun
the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge 

All that is True in the Universe, or God, contains, maintains, and acts upon all knowledge.  How is that not omniscient?  Why does that require a mind ie: a perceptive and intentional directing guidance beyond simple stimulus-response? 

lifewhispers wrote:

What would constitute evidence of awareness to your satisfaction?  Let's get that out of the way, before I waste my time further proving awareness, only to have you then deny that I've done it.  Fair enough?

BMcD wrote:

Fair enough. Show me something that points irrefutably to intentional direction of effort.

You are a part of All that is True in the Universe, or God.  You intended to write your criteria for awareness and did so.  That demonstrates irrefutably an intentional direction of effort, as you specified.

Remember, you, as a conscious and sentient being are aware of yourself only through your brain; but, that in no way invalidates the rest of your existence.  The fact that your finger is not capable of awareness does not mean that you are not capable of awareness.  One need only demonstrate that any part of you has intent or direction of effort to establish your awareness, as you have specified.

Furthermore, we have countless other examples of awareness of various parts of All that is True in the Universe, or God.  The Red Hat Society, the NAACP, the government of the United States, and virtually any other organized group of people exhibit a collective awareness that also meets your criteria of demonstrating irrefutably an intentional direction of effort.

And, we as the human race are becoming increasingly aware of the farthest reaches of space and many of the processes and events that are taking place within it.  And, guess what?  We're ALL part of All that is True in the Universe, or God.

And, at its most basic level, awareness is simply a result of physical processes.  So, if mere physical processes are qualified to meet your criteria of awareness, then why not the other physical processes in the Universe, like the Earth being "aware" of the presence of the Sun and perturbing its trajectory through space in response to its presence, because of gravitational influences?  Doesn't gravity "communicate" the presence of masses to each other?  Don't the nerves in your body communicate sensory input to your brain?  That's a physical process, isn't it?  And, isn't everything your brain does with the information also a physical process?

Of course, despite your specifying your criteria and my meeting it, I am willing to bet that you are still unsatisfied with my response.  But, you specified the criteria and I met it.  Thanks, for making it so easy.

ON EDIT:

Perhaps, scattering sentient beings throughout the Universe is God's way of becoming aware of Himself?  If we are aware of the Universe in which we live, how many other possible sentient beings throughout the Universe must also be aware of it - and, much more so than ourselves?

If you were God, and you wanted to come to truly know yourself, how would you go about it? Maybe, exactly the way we see it happening?

lifewhispers wrote:

"All that can be done" represents "very great" power, as indicated in definition 2.  Omnipotence does not indicate an ability to violate physical laws in any way, shape, or form.  That's just a straw man characterization of the word.

BMcD wrote:

I see. So would you then say a 747 is omnipotent? It certainly can be said to have 'very great power'. If not, why not?

No.  Why?  Because, the power of a 747 can be easily quantified, unlike All that is True in the Universe.  And, I also pointed out to you that All that is True in the Universe is infinite.  The power of a 747 isn't infinite.

lifewhispers wrote:

Furthermore, "infinite" means:

in·fi·nite      /ˈɪnnɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fuh-nit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective
1.immeasurably great: an infinite capacity for forgiveness.
2.indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money.
3.unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space.
4.unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: God's infinite mercy.
5.Mathematics.
a.not finite.
b.(of a set) having elements that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset that is not the given set.
–noun
6.something that is infinite.
7.Mathematics. an infinite quantity or magnitude.
8.the boundless regions of space.
9.the Infinite or the Infinite Being, God.

If it is so great that you cannot measure it, it is "infinite."  So, all that can be done in the Universe IS infinite.   So, you are incorrect.

BMcD wrote:

A)Who says it can't be measured? What scale would such a measurement be made on? The total mass? The total effective energy contained in all of the universe?

I am saying it cannot be measured.  And, so are you, if you're being rational.  Indeed, how would one measure All that can be done in the Universe? 

BMcD wrote:

B)If the universe is one of the definitions of 'infinite' (see 8.), then 'infinite' cannot be used as part of any definition of 'the universe' that is to have meaning other than the tautological 'it is it'. Try again.

But, definition 8 says no such thing.  It references the "boundless regions of space" (as an example), not the Universe.  Just because space is contained within the Universe does not mean that space represents the totality of the Universe.  It is just a part of it.  Part of the Universe includes our ideas.  And, it is abundantly clear to any rational person that the intention was not to equate "infinite" with the Universe, itself.

Indeed, try again.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:Why?

lifewhispers wrote:

Why?  Because, you say so?  The accepted definitions of omniscience disagree with you.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

om·nis·cience      /ɒmˈnɪʃəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[om-nish-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1.the quality or state of being omniscient.
2.infinite knowledge.
3.(initial capital letter) God.

[Origin: 1605–15; < ML omniscientia, equiv. to L omni- omni- + scientia knowledge; see science]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
om·nis·cient       (ŏm-nĭsh'ənt)  Pronunciation Key 
adj.   Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

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


[Medieval Latin omnisciēns, omniscient- : Latin omni-, omni- + Latin sciēns, scient-, present participle of scīre, to know; see skei- in Indo-European roots.]

om·nis'cience, om·nis'cien·cy n., om·nis'cient·ly adv.
 
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
omniscience 
 

1612, from M.L. omniscientia "all-knowledge," from L. omnis "all" (see omni-) + scientia "knowledge" (see science). Adj. omniscient is attested from 1604.


Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
omniscience

noun
the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge 

All that is True in the Universe, or God, contains, maintains, and acts upon all knowledge.  How is that not omniscient?  Why does that require a mind ie: a perceptive and intentional directing guidance beyond simple stimulus-response?

How is that not omniscient? Because it occurs in the dative sense of 'knowledge', not the cognitive.

lifewhispers wrote:

You are a part of All that is True in the Universe, or God.  You intended to write your criteria for awareness and did so.  That demonstrates irrefutably an intentional direction of effort, as you specified.

Remember, you, as a conscious and sentient being are aware of yourself only through your brain; but, that in no way invalidates the rest of your existence.  The fact that your finger is not capable of awareness does not mean that you are not capable of awareness.  One need only demonstrate that any part of you has intent or direction of effort to establish your awareness, as you have specified.

Furthermore, we have countless other examples of awareness of various parts of All that is True in the Universe, or God.  The Red Hat Society, the NAACP, the government of the United States, and virtually any other organized group of people exhibit a collective awareness that also meets your criteria of demonstrating irrefutably an intentional direction of effort.

And, we as the human race are becoming increasingly aware of the farthest reaches of space and many of the processes and events that are taking place within it.  And, guess what?  We're ALL part of All that is True in the Universe, or God.

And, at its most basic level, awareness is simply a result of physical processes.  So, if mere physical processes are qualified to meet your criteria of awareness, then why not the other physical processes in the Universe, like the Earth being "aware" of the presence of the Sun and perturbing its trajectory through space in response to its presence, because of gravitational influences?  Doesn't gravity "communicate" the presence of masses to each other?  Don't the nerves in your body communicate sensory input to your brain?  That's a physical process, isn't it?  And, isn't everything your brain does with the information also a physical process?

Of course, despite your specifying your criteria and my meeting it, I am willing to bet that you are still unsatisfied with my response.  But, you specified the criteria and I met it.  Thanks, for making it so easy.

Sorry, none of these demonstrates cognition on the part of the universe, only on the part of discrete units within the larger set. Your example of my finger was a nice touch, but flawed. I am aware not only through my brain, but through my entire nervous system. All of me is part and parcel of the complete package of awareness.

lifewhispers wrote:

BMcD wrote:

Quote:

"All that can be done" represents "very great" power, as indicated in definition 2.  Omnipotence does not indicate an ability to violate physical laws in any way, shape, or form.  That's just a straw man characterization of the word.

I see. So would you then say a 747 is omnipotent? It certainly can be said to have 'very great power'. If not, why not?

No.  Why?  Because, the power of a 747 can be easily quantified, unlike All that is True in the Universe.  And, I also pointed out to you that All that is True in the Universe is infinite.  The power of a 747 isn't infinite.

But wait! You didn't require 'infinite', you required 'very great'. You can't go changing which parts of the definition you're adhering to in midstream.

lifewhispers wrote:

BMcD wrote:

Quote:

Furthermore, "infinite" means:

in·fi·nite      /ˈɪnnɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fuh-nit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective
1.immeasurably great: an infinite capacity for forgiveness.
2.indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money.
3.unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space.
4.unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: God's infinite mercy.
5.Mathematics.
a.not finite.
b.(of a set) having elements that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset that is not the given set.
–noun
6.something that is infinite.
7.Mathematics. an infinite quantity or magnitude.
8.the boundless regions of space.
9.the Infinite or the Infinite Being, God.

If it is so great that you cannot measure it, it is "infinite."  So, all that can be done in the Universe IS infinite.   So, you are incorrect.

  

A)Who says it can't be measured? What scale would such a measurement be made on? The total mass? The total effective energy contained in all of the universe?

I am saying it cannot be measured.  And, so are you, if you're being rational.  Indeed, how would one measure All that can be done in the Universe?

Any number of ways. Indeed, the simple phrase 'all that can be done in the universe' is a measurement of sorts. But all that's true isn't all that can be done. Shall we measure it in terms of a number of facts? Shall we measure it in terms of energy expended? Mass? All of these things can be measured, it's just that doing so would require more time than the heat death of the universe. They are, however, not infinite, just as in a factual sense, definition 2 is not truly 'infinite', but rather simply a colloquial usage of the term.

Quote:

BMcD wrote:

B)If the universe is one of the definitions of 'infinite' (see 8.), then 'infinite' cannot be used as part of any definition of 'the universe' that is to have meaning other than the tautological 'it is it'. Try again.

But, definition 8 says no such thing.  It references the "boundless regions of space," not the Universe.  Just because space is contained within the Universe does not mean that space represents the totality of the Universe.  It is just a part of it.  Part of the Universe includes our ideas.

Indeed, try again.

Space is not contained within the universe, but is the fundamental fabric of it. Moreover the definition does not say 'boundless regions of space' but 'the boundless regions of space', which explicitly means the entire set of all space and all that is contained within it.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:Why? 

lifewhispers wrote:

Why?  Because, you say so?  The accepted definitions of omniscience disagree with you.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

om·nis·cience      /ɒmˈnɪʃəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[om-nish-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1.the quality or state of being omniscient.
2.infinite knowledge.
3.(initial capital letter) God.

[Origin: 1605–15; < ML omniscientia, equiv. to L omni- omni- + scientia knowledge; see science]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
om·nis·cient       (ŏm-nĭsh'ənt)  Pronunciation Key 
adj.   Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

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


[Medieval Latin omnisciēns, omniscient- : Latin omni-, omni- + Latin sciēns, scient-, present participle of scīre, to know; see skei- in Indo-European roots.]

om·nis'cience, om·nis'cien·cy n., om·nis'cient·ly adv.
 
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
omniscience 
 

1612, from M.L. omniscientia "all-knowledge," from L. omnis "all" (see omni-) + scientia "knowledge" (see science). Adj. omniscient is attested from 1604.


Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
omniscience

noun
the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge 

All that is True in the Universe, or God, contains, maintains, and acts upon all knowledge.  How is that not omniscient?  Why does that require a mind ie: a perceptive and intentional directing guidance beyond simple stimulus-response?

BMcD wrote:

How is that not omniscient? Because it occurs in the dative sense of 'knowledge', not the cognitive.

Excuse me?  We're not discussing a pile of books, here.  THAT would be using "knowledge" in a "dative" sense.  The Universe actually does exhibit cognitive use of the information contained within it.  YOU are just one small example.  Or, are  you neither a part of the Universe or not cognitive? 

"Knowledge" ultimately only has relevance to that which is capable of using it.  The Universe uses ALL of the knowledge contained within it - in an infinitely varying number of ways and at all observable scales.  Isn't that exactly what an omniscient being would do with the knowledge?

What exactly would be the point of having total knowledge(omniscience), if not to experience it?  And, isn't the Universe an expression of the experience of all the knowledge contained within it?

THINK!!!

lifewhispers wrote:

You are a part of All that is True in the Universe, or God.  You intended to write your criteria for awareness and did so.  That demonstrates irrefutably an intentional direction of effort, as you specified.

Remember, you, as a conscious and sentient being are aware of yourself only through your brain; but, that in no way invalidates the rest of your existence.  The fact that your finger is not capable of awareness does not mean that you are not capable of awareness.  One need only demonstrate that any part of you has intent or direction of effort to establish your awareness, as you have specified.

Furthermore, we have countless other examples of awareness of various parts of All that is True in the Universe, or God.  The Red Hat Society, the NAACP, the government of the United States, and virtually any other organized group of people exhibit a collective awareness that also meets your criteria of demonstrating irrefutably an intentional direction of effort.

And, we as the human race are becoming increasingly aware of the farthest reaches of space and many of the processes and events that are taking place within it.  And, guess what?  We're ALL part of All that is True in the Universe, or God.

And, at its most basic level, awareness is simply a result of physical processes.  So, if mere physical processes are qualified to meet your criteria of awareness, then why not the other physical processes in the Universe, like the Earth being "aware" of the presence of the Sun and perturbing its trajectory through space in response to its presence, because of gravitational influences?  Doesn't gravity "communicate" the presence of masses to each other?  Don't the nerves in your body communicate sensory input to your brain?  That's a physical process, isn't it?  And, isn't everything your brain does with the information also a physical process?

Of course, despite your specifying your criteria and my meeting it, I am willing to bet that you are still unsatisfied with my response.  But, you specified the criteria and I met it.  Thanks, for making it so easy.

BMcD wrote:

Sorry, none of these demonstrates cognition on the part of the universe, only on the part of discrete units within the larger set. Your example of my finger was a nice touch, but flawed. I am aware not only through my brain, but through my entire nervous system. All of me is part and parcel of the complete package of awareness.

Excuse me, but your criteria specified that I demonstrate awareness, as you defined as "an intentional direction of effort."  That was your criteria.  I met it.  If you meant something different, you should have said something different.  And, everything in the Universe is "part and parcel of the complete package of awareness."  We're aware of the Universe around us.  We are a part of the Universe.  Therefore, the Universe is aware of itself.

Anyway, how are we to differentiate between the Universe, as it is, being an intentional expression of will, versus anything else?  I can say, "The Universe is God's expression of His Will."  And, you can say it isn't.  How can we determine which is the correct perspective?   What if it is God's Will that some processes be random and some be orderly?  What if it is God's Will that it be divided and distributed through sentient species, such as ourselves?  What if our will IS God's Will?  What if there is only one being in the Universe that IS the Universe and we're a part of it - the part of it that can think and conceptualize, as well as rationalize and attempt to understand itself?  The very existence of free will of any kind disqualifies your perspective of the Universe not exhibiting cognition.  Why?  Because, everything in the Universe is "part and parcel of the complete package of awareness" (YOUR words).

The methods your body uses to communicate sensory input to permit your awareness are really quite irrelevant.  They in no way preclude any other methods that would permit awareness, as I have already demonstrated through the example of gravity.

lifewhispers wrote:

BMcD wrote:

Quote:

"All that can be done" represents "very great" power, as indicated in definition 2.  Omnipotence does not indicate an ability to violate physical laws in any way, shape, or form.  That's just a straw man characterization of the word.

I see. So would you then say a 747 is omnipotent? It certainly can be said to have 'very great power'. If not, why not?

No.  Why?  Because, the power of a 747 can be easily quantified, unlike All that is True in the Universe.  And, I also pointed out to you that All that is True in the Universe is infinite.  The power of a 747 isn't infinite.

BMcD wrote:

But wait! You didn't require 'infinite', you required 'very great'. You can't go changing which parts of the definition you're adhering to in midstream.

Stop with the stupid red herring and get back on topic.  I'm not playing your game.

lifewhispers wrote:

BMcD wrote:

Quote:

Furthermore, "infinite" means:

in·fi·nite      /ˈɪnnɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fuh-nit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective
1.immeasurably great: an infinite capacity for forgiveness.
2.indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money.
3.unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space.
4.unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: God's infinite mercy.
5.Mathematics.
a.not finite.
b.(of a set) having elements that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset that is not the given set.
–noun
6.something that is infinite.
7.Mathematics. an infinite quantity or magnitude.
8.the boundless regions of space.
9.the Infinite or the Infinite Being, God.

If it is so great that you cannot measure it, it is "infinite."  So, all that can be done in the Universe IS infinite.   So, you are incorrect.

BMcD wrote:

A)Who says it can't be measured? What scale would such a measurement be made on? The total mass? The total effective energy contained in all of the universe?

I am saying it cannot be measured.  And, so are you, if you're being rational.  Indeed, how would one measure All that can be done in the Universe?

BMcD wrote:

Any number of ways. Indeed, the simple phrase 'all that can be done in the universe' is a measurement of sorts...

Nonsense. Period.

 

BMcD wrote:

But all that's true isn't all that can be done.

Straw man.  I never made any such claim. 

BMcD wrote:

Shall we measure it in terms of a number of facts? Shall we measure it in terms of energy expended? Mass? All of these things can be measured, it's just that doing so would require more time than the heat death of the universe. They are, however, not infinite, just as in a factual sense, definition 2 is not truly 'infinite', but rather simply a colloquial usage of the term.

More nonsense.  You need to study your terms.  All that can be done in the Universe is definitely infinite.  All that is True in the Universe is definitely infinite.  See if you can find anyone that agrees with you that they aren't.  Come on, try.

BMcD wrote:

B)If the universe is one of the definitions of 'infinite' (see 8.), then 'infinite' cannot be used as part of any definition of 'the universe' that is to have meaning other than the tautological 'it is it'. Try again.

But, definition 8 says no such thing.  It references the "boundless regions of space," not the Universe.  Just because space is contained within the Universe does not mean that space represents the totality of the Universe.  It is just a part of it.  Part of the Universe includes our ideas.

Indeed, try again.

BMcD wrote:

Space is not contained within the universe, but is the fundamental fabric of it. Moreover the definition does not say 'boundless regions of space' but 'the boundless regions of space', which explicitly means the entire set of all space and all that is contained within it.

Whatever.   Did you have a point to make?  If so, it has escaped me - probably, because of all of your red herrings and straw men.

Did you have any other logical rebuttals to my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe?


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

lifewhispers wrote:

First of all, you will not find "consciousness" anywhere in my original post - not once.   You have simply decided that I meant to imply consciousness through my use of the word, "omniscience";

 

lifewhispers wrote:

Well, it was intended to look like consciousness;

You said " it was intended to look like consciousness" ? and now you're blaming me for what you said ?, let's read on this is becoming amusing

lifewhispers wrote:

yet, you have failed to demonstrate how omniscience requires consciousness, rather than a mere intelligent process that takes everything that is true in the Universe into account.

You imply consciousness, for your definition of omniscience, and then I fail to demonstrate how omniscience requires consciousness, ? huh I'm getting blamed for your mistakes again am I not

lifewhispers wrote:

  Or, would you claim that intelligent processes dictate consciousness, as well?  It is clear that evolution is an intelligent process.  Is it conscious, in your opinion, or not?

Evolution requires no consciousness, 

lifewhispers wrote:

It really doesn't matter one way, or the other.  It is STILL clear that All that is True in the Universe is responsible for the Creation of the  Universe.  Did you have a rebuttal to that, or not?  Now, it's time for YOU to offer a STRAIGHT ANSWER!

 

Well yes....  all that is in the universe did not create the universe, all that is in the universe is a byproduct of the creation it is not the cause of the creation, ? how's that

lifewhispers wrote:

My ultimate definition of God is that God is All that is True in the Universe.  For that definition to "fall apart," you would have to be able to demonstrate how the Universe could be Created by anything less than or just different than All that is True in the Universe.  Can you do that, or not?

All that is in the universe did not create the universe, all that is in the universe is a byproduct of the creation not the cause of the creation

Rev_Devilin wrote:

? have you given up on your original draft, silly question I know as I can hardly expect a straight answer

And did I get a straight answer, ...............of course not, I got blamed for your mistakes, and I'm just about to be called irrational to boot you are funny

lifewhispers wrote:

Have you given up on being rational? 

 There you go. 

lifewhispers wrote:

Because, your response to my question of whether, or not, you can demonstrate how the Universe could be Created by anything less than or just different than All that is True in the Universe isn't responsive to the question or rational.  Try answering that question, rather than tossing out an irrational red herring.

But there your red herring's,  and you're blaming me for them

lifewhispers wrote:

Here, I'll ask it, again:

Can you demonstrate how the Universe could have been Created by anything other than All that is True in the Universe, or not?  If yes, then get to it.  If no, then accept and ADMIT that All that is True in the Universe is a TENABLE DEFINITION of "God."

All that is in the universe did not create the universe, all that is in the universe is a byproduct of the creation it is not the cause of the creation, the spaghetti monster was the cause admit the truth of it

lifewhispers wrote:

Once you have admitted that I have presented a tenable definition of God or demonstrated how it is not tenable, then we'll get to the other arguments of whether, or not, omniscience requires consciousness, or not.  Because, that is a different issue.  It is a red herring to this discussion.

You said it, not me, stop blaming me for your red herring's

Rev_Devilin wrote:

All that is True

Well I could be extremely clever and give a yes and no answer and then run-around switching between yes and no in the same sentence, dodging a straight answer

,But I just look silly doing that wouldn't I

lifewhispers wrote:

Probably - but, no sillier than you look, now, evading the issues I've raised.

Huh ? I look silly for not correcting your contradictions

Rev_Devilin wrote:

? is all that is true in the universe, all that is true in the universe, why yes it is, in the same way that, all that is all in the universe, is all in the universe, but this proves itself nothing more, ie if I were to suggest that all in the universe is the flying spaghetti monster it holds no validity, and no amount of word play can make it so, ie the flying spaghetti monster is all in the universe, without justification and proof this is meaningless speculation

lifewhispers wrote:

"God" is the common and generally accepted term used for the Creator of the Universe, not "Flying Spaghetti Monster."  "Flying Spaghetti Monster" represents a DEFINITION of God that MAKES NO SENSE.  It references a being that cannot possibly exist with "noodly appendages" and other characteristics that render it an IMPOSSIBLE being.  It's just patently ridiculous for you to even attempt to compare such an idiotic concept of God to the one I have presented.   Or, can you demonstrate, as I have done, how the Flying Spaghetti Monster could have Created the Universe? 

 

Infidel, ye shall burn in spaghetti hell for-ever for such blasphemy

Come clean on consciousness, in or out you can't have both

 


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:  Or,

lifewhispers wrote:

  Or, would you claim that intelligent processes dictate consciousness, as well?  It is clear that evolution is an intelligent process.  Is it conscious, in your opinion, or not?

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Evolution requires no consciousness, 

Then, why would omniscience require it?

lifewhispers wrote:

It really doesn't matter one way, or the other.  It is STILL clear that All that is True in the Universe is responsible for the Creation of the  Universe.  Did you have a rebuttal to that, or not?  Now, it's time for YOU to offer a STRAIGHT ANSWER!

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Well yes....  all that is in the universe did not create the universe, all that is in the universe is a byproduct of the creation it is not the cause of the creation, ? how's that

Well, it doesn't work.  Why?  Because, the Universe is STILL in the process of being Created.  The event is not yet over.  You wouldn't claim a pile of bricks and lumber are already a house, would you?  And, unless you want to posit some interference from outside the Universe, what's happening inside of it is because of what's inside of it.  That means, the Universe is Creating itself, unless you can prove otherwise.  Can you?  If you think the Creation is over, when was it completed?

You're a part of a big explosion that isn't finished exploding, yet.

lifewhispers wrote:

My ultimate definition of God is that God is All that is True in the Universe.  For that definition to "fall apart," you would have to be able to demonstrate how the Universe could be Created by anything less than or just different than All that is True in the Universe.  Can you do that, or not?

Rev_Devilin wrote:

All that is in the universe did not create the universe, all that is in the universe is a byproduct of the creation not the cause of the creation

That is a straw man representation of my position.  All that is True in the Universe, not just all that is in the Universe, is responsible for its Creation.

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:

? have you given up on your original draft, silly question I know as I can hardly expect a straight answer

And did I get a straight answer, ...............of course not, I got blamed for your mistakes, and I'm just about to be called irrational to boot you are funny

lifewhispers wrote:

Have you given up on being rational? 

 There you go. 

lifewhispers wrote:

Because, your response to my question of whether, or not, you can demonstrate how the Universe could be Created by anything less than or just different than All that is True in the Universe isn't responsive to the question or rational.  Try answering that question, rather than tossing out an irrational red herring.

But there your red herring's,  and you're blaming me for them

lifewhispers wrote:

Here, I'll ask it, again:

Can you demonstrate how the Universe could have been Created by anything other than All that is True in the Universe, or not?  If yes, then get to it.  If no, then accept and ADMIT that All that is True in the Universe is a TENABLE DEFINITION of "God."

All that is in the universe did not create the universe, all that is in the universe is a byproduct of the creation it is not the cause of the creation, the spaghetti monster was the cause admit the truth of it

lifewhispers wrote:

Once you have admitted that I have presented a tenable definition of God or demonstrated how it is not tenable, then we'll get to the other arguments of whether, or not, omniscience requires consciousness, or not.  Because, that is a different issue.  It is a red herring to this discussion.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

You said it, not me, stop blaming me for your red herring's

Nope, sorry, from the time I told you that consciousness was irrelevant to my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe, they became YOUR red herrings.

It just doesn't matter.  Got it?  Omniscience does not require consciousness, but it does not preclude it, either. So, it does not matter in the context of the discussion.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

? is all that is true in the universe, all that is true in the universe, why yes it is, in the same way that, all that is all in the universe, is all in the universe, but this proves itself nothing more, ie if I were to suggest that all in the universe is the flying spaghetti monster it holds no validity, and no amount of word play can make it so, ie the flying spaghetti monster is all in the universe, without justification and proof this is meaningless speculation

lifewhispers wrote:

"God" is the common and generally accepted term used for the Creator of the Universe, not "Flying Spaghetti Monster."  "Flying Spaghetti Monster" represents a DEFINITION of God that MAKES NO SENSE.  It references a being that cannot possibly exist with "noodly appendages" and other characteristics that render it an IMPOSSIBLE being.  It's just patently ridiculous for you to even attempt to compare such an idiotic concept of God to the one I have presented.   Or, can you demonstrate, as I have done, how the Flying Spaghetti Monster could have Created the Universe? 

  

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Infidel, ye shall burn in spaghetti hell for-ever for such blasphemy

Come clean on consciousness, in or out you can't have both

 

If you're going to force me into a position, I'll choose to make the claim that the Universe exhibits "consciousness."  Why?  Because, there are basically two possibilities:

1 - The Universe produced conscious intelligent life (humans) through unconscious, non-intelligent processes

or

2 - The Universe produced intelligent life through conscious, intelligent processes.

I just think that number two is far more plausible and supported by the evidence we have at hand better than it supports number 1.  And, since we are all a part of the Universe; and, we exhibit consciousness, therefore, the Universe exhibits consciousness.

But, it still doesn't matter; because, All that is True, or God, is STILL Creating the Universe.

Now, can you drop this issue of consciousness or demonstrate how it matters?

And, I'm not ignoring your first cause argument - it's just not relevant.  Which is of greater relevance to us in our own lives:

A - What initiated the Big Bang?

or

B - Everything that has happened since?

When we finish figuring out "B," we can work on "A."

Regardless of "A," my definition of God encompasses it.

 


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers

lifewhispers wrote:

Whatever.   Did you have a point to make?  If so, it has escaped me - probably, because of all of your red herrings and straw men.

Did you have any other logical rebuttals to my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe?

You're changing which definitions you're using to form the underpinnings of your umbrella definition, shifting your explanations of each of those subordinate definitions, and moving your goalposts around so much you might as well be juggling an entire football field, and I'm the one offering red herrings and straw men?

Go away.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid