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
Badbark wrote:( from your

Badbark wrote:

( from your original draft given to Badbark )

  God is defined as Creator of the Universe.

lifewhispers wrote:

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?

So you are ignoring your own first cause argument

? your arguments hold no validity, this might be a good time to put down the shovel and stop digging

lifewhispers wrote:

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

I'll take B again please


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

BMcD wrote:

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.

So, the answer is, "no," you do not have any logical rebuttals to my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  Your entire response, above, was non-sensical, unsupported  and emotionally charged drivel.

You don't like my use of omnipotent; because, you like to pretend that omnipotent refers to being able to violate physical laws, when there is absolutely nothing in the definition of omnipotent that implies any such thing.  I pointed out clearly that your application was a straw man distortion of the word.

You don't like my use of omniscient; because, you think it requires consciousness, when it doesn't.  And, even if it did require consciousness, I have offered support for that position, as well.  I've even pointed out, repeatedly, how it does not matter. AND, I have clarified my use of ALL of the terms employed AND demonstrated how I have used EVERY ONE of them properly and in accordance with commonly accepted definitions.

You talk about ME moving goal posts; but,  when I had you specify your criteria for my demonstrating awareness and I met it, you immediately moved the goal posts by telling me that I had not demonstrated "cognition" of the Universe.  My definition of God necessarily includes everything in the Universe as parts of God, in partnership with God in the Creation of the Universe.  So, to meet your criteria, I needed only present one example of awareness on the part of God, as *I* have defined God.  I DID THAT!!!  If you meant something different, then you should have said something different.  It's not reasonable to blame ME for moving the goal posts YOU moved.

You're just being egotistically stubborn and irrational.  That's YOUR problem.  It has nothing to do with rebutting my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  The bottom line is that I have presented a tenable definition of God  that you cannot refute.  Too bad, that pisses you off so much.  Sucks to be you.

Now, YOU "go away" or come up with something intelligent to say.  Got it?  Because, so far, you haven't presented ANY valid arguments against my definition.  Or, would you like to try, again?


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Badbark wrote:

( from your original draft given to Badbark )

  God is defined as Creator of the Universe.

lifewhispers wrote:

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?

Rev_Devilin wrote:

So you are ignoring your own first cause argument

I've not made a first cause argument.  Your problem is that you are equating "first cause" with "create" or "creator."  I have already explained to you the context in which *I* am using the word, "creator."  And, I have already explained to you how my use of the words create, creation, and creator are proper and in accordance with widely accepted definitions of those words.  And, I have already explained to you that the creation isn't finished, yet.  We're talking about MY definition of God, and whether it is tenable, or not - not your alternate definitions of terms that I am not using.

Now, my definition of God is All that is True in the Universe.  And, I am saying that All that is True in the Universe, or God, is responsible for its creation.  Did you have a logical rebuttal to that, or not?  If so, then present it.  But, leave out your speculations about "first cause" prior to the Big Bang.  It JUST DOESN'T MATTER, in the context of my definition of God.  WHATEVER caused the Big Bang is a PART of ALL that is True in the Universe.  So, it is automatically included in my definition of God.

I've said this, before.  Why do you keep ignoring it?

Rev_Devilin wrote:

? your arguments hold no validity, this might be a good time to put down the shovel and stop digging

No, now might be a good time for you to come up with a different strategy.  Because, you have utterly failed to assail my logic in my definition of God as All that is True in the  Universe.  Remember, you don't have to like my definition of God or embrace my definition of God; but, unless you can demonstrate how All that is True in the Universe is not responsible for the Creation of the  Universe, then you cannot demonstrate that the God that I have defined as All that is True in the Universe does not exist or is not tenable.

It's pretty simple, really.  It doesn't have a damned thing to do with consciousness, awareness, sentience, volition, or intention.  It doesn't make any claims about what initiated the Big Bang - and, it doesn't have to, to be valid.  All it has to do is allow God to be Creator of the Universe, in accordance with the most widely accepted use of the term, "God."  IT DOES THAT!!!

Unless, you can demonstrate how it doesn't.  Can you?  I don't think you can - because, if you could have, you would have, already.  But, you haven't.

lifewhispers wrote:

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 again please

About what am I mistaken?  Be specific - and, support yourself.


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

lifewhispers wrote:

you have utterly failed to assail my logic


To true old bean, but it is your logic your own personal logic where contradictions are happily excepted as truth, time becomes nonlinear, and fairies dance happily around your computer screen, yes lifewhispers your own personal logic can prove anything you want it to prove, and no one can assail it, as you have so amply demonstrated, even when you do contradict your-self



"God is defined as Creator of the Universe" your word's, and now no it isn't, yes I kown your personal logic covers such contradictions, with a not in that context not as "Creator of the Universe" that first cause and I didn't mean first cause I meant something completely different but the same, and time itself becomes nonlinear in your definition, which is covered in your own personal logic



 



Then we have omniscience,( me ) looks like consciousness, (you) no looks nothing like consciousness, except where it looks like consciousness but it isn't, well it might be, and although it's one of the key components to my argument it doesn't matter, such things are totally irrelevant in my own personal logical context



 



Evolution requires no consciousness, according to all the top world scientists



But according to you"it is clear that evolution is an intelligent process", and I'm sure your own personal logic can prove all those scientists wrong



"the creation isn't finished, yet."



That would be evolution, the evolution hasn't finished yet



The creation of the universe has finished, it happened about 14 billion years ago, all of the energy in the universe is here and was here 14 billion years ago, one cannot create or destroy this energy, it can only be converted thus evolution, but that's just physics and science, I'm sure your own personal logic can assail it



? can I use your personal kind of logic in any future discussion


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

lifewhispers wrote:

you have utterly failed to assail my logic

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:
 

To true old bean, but it is your logic your own personal logic where contradictions are happily excepted as truth, time becomes nonlinear, and fairies dance happily around your computer screen, yes lifewhispers your own personal logic can prove anything you want it to prove, and no one can assail it, as you have so amply demonstrated, even when you do contradict your-self

Umm, how does this establish anything about my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe?   As near as I can tell, it is simply a red herring made up of a bunch of straw man gibberish, completely lacking in support of any kind. Surely, you didn't think you would gain any kind of advantage in our discussion by posting such rubbish, did you?
 

What, exactly, is the logical contradiction contained within the following:

God is All that is True in the Universe.

That is the ONLY relevant question, here - period.  And, you keep dancing around it, while pretending it isn't there.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

"God is defined as Creator of the Universe" your word's, and now no it isn't, yes I kown your personal logic covers such contradictions, with a not in that context not as "Creator of the Universe" that first cause and I didn't mean first cause I meant something completely different but the same, and time itself becomes nonlinear in your definition, which is covered in your own personal logic

I thought I had been extremely clear about that.  God is Creator of the Universe.  That is the most widely accepted definition of "God."  For that to be true, God MUST be All that is True in the Universe.  Unless, you have some logic to present that demonstrates that the Universe could be Created by anything other than All that is True in the Universe.  You have completely avoided that point - repeatedly - despite multiple invitations on my part for you to address it.  Please, do so.

And, what part of this do you not understand?:

If God is All that is True in the Universe, whatever caused the Big Bang is necessarily a part of it - unless, you can demonstrate the existence of some other "place" besides the Universe.

That seems extremely simple to me.   What's your problem with it?

Rev_Devilin wrote:

 

Then we have omniscience,( me ) looks like consciousness, (you) no looks nothing like consciousness, except where it looks like consciousness but it isn't, well it might be, and although it's one of the key components to my argument it doesn't matter, such things are totally irrelevant in my own personal logical context

NO!  ME - CONSCIOUSNESS DOES NOT MATTER in the context of my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  You're just trying to resurrect that idiotic red herring, again.


Rev_Devilin wrote:

 

Evolution requires no consciousness, according to all the top world scientists
 

But according to you"it is clear that evolution is an intelligent process", and I'm sure your own personal logic can prove all those scientists wrong

There is no disagreement on that point.  Evolution IS an intelligent process.   We even have intelligent software programs.  They don't have to be CONSCIOUS to be intelligent.  You are erroneously equating the two.  They aren't the same thing.

 From Wikipedia (again):

At least two major "consensus" definitions of intelligence have been proposed. First, from Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, a report of a task force convened by the American Psychological Association in 1995:

Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person’s intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen somewhat different definitions.[1]

A second definition of intelligence comes from "Mainstream Science on Intelligence", which was signed by 52 intelligence researchers in 1994:

A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on", "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.[2]

It is abundantly clear to all rational observers that evolution exhibits intelligence.  *WE* are examples of evolution exhibiting intelligence.  Or, are you not a product and a part of evolution?  Or, are you not intelligent?  Or, can you demonstrate how non-intelligent processes could produce intelligent life?  DNA holds the knowledge of virtually everything about our physical beings.  How is that possible without an intelligent process?

In fact, evolution is far more intelligent than we are.  We are struggling to merely understand what is happening; while, evolution is actually DOING something with the knowledge that mostly eludes us.  Which is of greater value?

A - Being able to understand an intelligent process

or

B - Being able to perform an intelligent process?

But, of course, it's a RED HERRING! And, YOU brought it up - AGAIN!

Intelligence is not relevant to whether, or not, my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe is tenable.  That makes it a RED HERRING.  Please, stick to the task at hand - that is, if you have any logical rebuttals to my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  Although, I am now convinced you have NONE. 

Rev_Devilin wrote:

 

"the creation isn't finished, yet." 

That would be evolution, the evolution hasn't finished yet

No, the entire Universe is not finished being Created, yet.  Your choice of an alternate perspective in no way invalidates mine.  Of course, yours is as valid as mine; but, yours does not invalidate mine.  I'm still using Create, Creator, and Creation in ways that are consistent with commonly accepted definitions of those terms - even if you don't like it.

Rev_Devilin wrote:
 

The creation of the universe has finished, it happened about 14 billion years ago, all of the energy in the universe is here and was here 14 billion years ago, one cannot create or destroy this energy, it can only be converted thus evolution, but that's just physics and science, I'm sure your own personal logic can assail it

Again, your chosen perspective in no way invalidates mine.  You would not call a pile of bricks and lumber a house, would you?  The house is the Creation, not the pile of bricks and lumber.  I pointed this out to you, before; but, you ignored it.  The Big Bang started out as a "pile of bricks and lumber" and is becoming a "house" over time.  Now, must I explain this to you, again?  I'll try to come up with a Sally, Dick, and Jane story that makes the point, if I have to.

Rev_Devilin wrote:


? can I use your personal kind of logic in any future discussion

By all means!  It's much better than the crap you're using, now.


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

lifewhispers wrote:

If God is All that is True in the Universe, whatever caused the Big Bang is necessarily a part of it - unless, you can demonstrate the existence of some other "place" besides the Universe.

My apologies for not addressing all of your issues, as I was quite content to let you ramble on without correcting you

lets start at the beginning, pre big bang

The universe those shiny lights up in the sky at night

Now this universe started officially when time itself started, time runs in a linear fashion  forwards, you may wish to look at a clock to confirm this, time doesn't run backwards only forwards, it is important to remember this for later

Time is directly related to space, thus space-time, space-time is caused by Mass, anything that has a gravitational field, ie something that creates a dent in space-time

Now pre universe our universe there was no time, because there was no mass thus no space-time, no mass no space-time no universe, 

Now without time or at least time as we understand it, pre big bang is unknown, not just unknown as in I don't know where I put my keys, or even unknown as in ? what's the last number in an infinite, it's completely outside anybody's comprehension

So the cause of our universe is unknown, in a fundamental sense, although we know there was an explosion a very big explosion, much bigger than a atomic bomb, how or what event are unknown and fundamentally unknowable

Until now, now lifewhispers will prove the universe is conscious, which could be plausible from the point where consciousness ie us emerge from the primeval sludge, and this consciousness travels back 14 billion years, to initiate the big bang, take it away lifewhispers

All that is true in the universe, still holds logical validity before, this universe consciousness logic, truth or time itself began, as lifewhispers will now conclusively prove,

 

? shall we do evolution and sugar next ?

 

 


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

If God is All that is True in the Universe, whatever caused the Big Bang is necessarily a part of it - unless, you can demonstrate the existence of some other "place" besides the Universe.

My apologies for not addressing all of your issues, as I was quite content to let you ramble on without correcting you

lets start at the beginning, pre big bang

The universe those shiny lights up in the sky at night

Now this universe started officially when time itself started, time runs in a linear fashion  forwards, you may wish to look at a clock to confirm this, time doesn't run backwards only forwards, it is important to remember this for later

Time is directly related to space, thus space-time, space-time is caused by Mass, anything that has a gravitational field, ie something that creates a dent in space-time

Now pre universe our universe there was no time, because there was no mass thus no space-time, no mass no space-time no universe, 

Now without time or at least time as we understand it, pre big bang is unknown, not just unknown as in I don't know where I put my keys, or even unknown as in ? what's the last number in an infinite, it's completely outside anybody's comprehension

So the cause of our universe is unknown, in a fundamental sense, although we know there was an explosion a very big explosion, much bigger than a atomic bomb, how or what event are unknown and fundamentally unknowable

Thank you, for providing an explanation of YOUR choice of perspective for the Creation of the Universe.  You are welcome to it; but, it utterly fails to address in any meaningful way my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  So, it is a RED HERRING.

Furthermore, you have, again, ignored my own clarifications of how *I* am employing the terms create, creator, and creation (which is the ONLY thing relevant, here).  And, I HAVE demonstrated, repeatedly, that I am using the terms in accordance with their commonly accepted definitions.

So, I will ask you, again:

Do you have any logical rebuttal to my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe?  Can you demonstrate how the Universe could be Created (in the context that *I* am using the word, NOT YOURS) in any other way than through All that is True in the Universe, or not?

I'm sorry; but, you just can't be applying YOUR chosen perspective about what constitutes Creation, Create, and Creator to MY definition of God.  That's a straw man distortion of my position.  But, that seems to be the only way you can come up with a logical rebuttal of any kind  - to rebutt your own straw men.  You aren't fooling anyone.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Until now, now lifewhispers will prove the universe is conscious, which could be plausible from the point where consciousness ie us emerge from the primeval sludge, and this consciousness travels back 14 billion years, to initiate the big bang, take it away lifewhispers

All that is true in the universe, still holds logical validity before, this universe consciousness logic, truth or time itself began, as lifewhispers will now conclusively prove,

I am making no statements about what happened "before" the Universe began.  This is just a blatant attempt at moving the goal posts.  Whatever caused the Big Bang caused the Big Bang.  It is a part of the Truth of the Universe, and is, therefore, included in my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.

How is pre-Big Bang even relevant to my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe?  Why do you keep tossing out this red herring? 

By your own admission, we cannot know what happened before the Big Bang; and, I have already pointed out how utterly irrelevant it is - from multiple perspectives; yet, you continue to trot it out.  Why?

And, if this is the best you can do, you may as well concede, now.  Talk about "shaky!"


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

lifewhispers wrote:

  Whatever caused the Big Bang caused the Big Bang.  It is a part of the Truth of the Universe, and is, therefore, included in my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.

This is your proof that God exists, you have made a claim,

Prove it, or withdrawal it

Prove that it is part of the truth, don't speculate, don't hypothesize, don't theorize, prove it conclusively

 


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

  Whatever caused the Big Bang caused the Big Bang.  It is a part of the Truth of the Universe, and is, therefore, included in my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.

This is your proof that God exists, you have made a claim,

Prove it, or withdrawal it

Prove that it is part of the truth, don't speculate, don't hypothesize, don't theorize, prove it conclusively

 

First of all, you're moving the goal posts.  My proof makes no statements about anything that happened before the Universe began.  It quite specifically includes only that which is IN the Universe.  You, however, are expecting me to prove that "truth" existed before the Universe existed (or, that whatever caused the Big Bang is also a part of the truth of the Universe, and that's patently obvious to any rational observer - it WAS caused to come into existence.  That makes its cause TRUE).  That's moving the goal posts.  It's dishonest and fallacious.

I have no burden of proof.  Why?  Because, my definition of God stands on its own and is self-evident.  Furthermore, it makes no extraordinary claims and can be taken at face value.  I have defined God as All that is True in the Universe.  The only way that could not be a tenable definition in reference to an extant "God" is for there to be NO TRUTH in the Universe.  And, if there were nothing true in the Universe, we would not be here to discuss it.  Unless, you can come up with a way that the Universe can be Created in all of its most intricate detail by anything other than All that is True in the Universe - and, at the same time, demonstrate that there is NO truth in the Universe.  And, despite my open challenge to anyone and everyone to demonstrate how the Universe could be Created in its most intricate detail by anything else, no one has been able to do that - not you, and not anyone else.

Done.

Perhaps, it is time for you to call for support?  Of course, I would have thought that, if your position was the tenable one, there would be other atheists on this site to come in and rescue you from your pitiful and ineffective attempts at refuting my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  But, there's nothing but an eerie silence from the peanut gallery.  Or, do you suppose that there is no one else reading this thread?  I mean, after all, it's just a "boring" proof of the existence of God that atheists refuse to accept - on an atheist web site. 

I presented my proof of God.  Now, it's up to the atheists to rebutt it.  I'm still waiting. 


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

lifewhispers wrote:

whatever caused the Big Bang is also a part of the truth of the Universe, and that's patently obvious to any rational observer

Saying something is patently obvious, isn't proof

Please provide proof for your claims

Please do not speculate hypothesize or theorize

Saying providing proof isn't relevant, is not proof

Please provide proof for your claims, and if you are unable to prove your claims, come clean and admit it

 


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

whatever caused the Big Bang is also a part of the truth of the Universe, and that's patently obvious to any rational observer

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Saying something is patently obvious, isn't proof

No, it is saying that it PROVES ITSELF.  The existence of the Universe is PROOF of the Truth of that which caused it.

You're reasoning yourself into absurdity, here.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Please provide proof for your claims

Please do not speculate hypothesize or theorize

Saying providing proof isn't relevant, is not proof

Please provide proof for your claims, and if you are unable to prove your claims, come clean and admit it 

I HAVE proven my claims.  Or, can you demonstrate how I haven't?   If you can, please do so.  I am defining God as All that is True in the Universe.  Must I prove to you that truth exists for my definition of God to refer to something extant?  Or, are you willing to concede that truth exists in the Universe? 

Is that really your strategy, here?  To move the goal posts,  such as to require me to, not only prove the tenability of my definition of God (which I have already done in a myriad of ways), but to also prove the existence of truth? 

Have you really become that desperate to avoid admitting that I have done what I set out to do, and that is to prove the existence of the God OF MY UNDERSTANDING?  Whose ego is really in the way, here?


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:No, it is

lifewhispers wrote:

 

No, it is saying that it PROVES ITSELF.  The existence of the Universe is PROOF of the Truth of that which caused it.

You're reasoning yourself into absurdity, here.

Using deductive reasoning, I can surmise nothing about the pre matter origin of the universe, you say it's obvious, I'm skeptical as I believe that is fundamentally beyond my understanding

Prove your claim, which should be simple if it's that obvious, although merely saying it's obvious is not proof

Prove your claim


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

 

No, it is saying that it PROVES ITSELF.  The existence of the Universe is PROOF of the Truth of that which caused it.

You're reasoning yourself into absurdity, here.

Using deductive reasoning, I can surmise nothing about the pre matter origin of the universe, you say it's obvious, I'm skeptical as I believe that is fundamentally beyond my understanding

Prove your claim, which should be simple if it's that obvious, although merely saying it's obvious is not proof

Prove your claim

You're employing another straw man.  I am making no claim about the pre matter origin of the Universe - so, I have nothing to prove.

We have exactly two, and only two choices, here:

1 - Whatever is responsible for the Universe IS true

or,

2 - Whatever is responsibile for the Universe is not true

To me, it is obvious that number 2 is impossible.  Why?  Because, it is a logical contradiction (it IS responsible for the Universe, but it isn't?) .  That leaves only number 1.  Furthermore, if number 1 was not true, we would not be here to discuss it.  Why?  Because, there would be no Universe.


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

lifewhispers wrote:
 


We have exactly two, and only two choices, here:

1 - Whatever is responsible for the Universe IS true

or,

2 - Whatever is responsibile for the Universe is not true

3 whatever is responsible for the universe is unknown, and like an infinite has no truth value

4 the flying spaghetti monster is the first cause

You claim no1 prove it


 


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:
 


 

We have exactly two, and only two choices, here:

1 - Whatever is responsible for the Universe IS true

or,

2 - Whatever is responsibile for the Universe is not true

3 whatever is responsible for the universe is unknown, and like an infinite has no truth value

4 the flying spaghetti monster is the first cause

You claim no1 prove it 

Your fallacy is in the presumption that something cannot be true, unless we know about it.  There is truth throughout the Universe about which we know nothing - but, it's still the truth.

Furthermore, we can directly infer the truth of the "first cause" by simply observing that the Universe exists.  That is not an extraordinary leap of faith or any kind of claim bearing any burden of proof.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:So, the

lifewhispers wrote:


So, the answer is, "no," you do not have any logical rebuttals to my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  Your entire response, above, was non-sensical, unsupported  and emotionally charged drivel.

You don't like my use of omnipotent; because, you like to pretend that omnipotent refers to being able to violate physical laws, when there is absolutely nothing in the definition of omnipotent that implies any such thing.  I pointed out clearly that your application was a straw man distortion of the word.

You don't like my use of omniscient; because, you think it requires consciousness, when it doesn't.  And, even if it did require consciousness, I have offered support for that position, as well.  I've even pointed out, repeatedly, how it does not matter. AND, I have clarified my use of ALL of the terms employed AND demonstrated how I have used EVERY ONE of them properly and in accordance with commonly accepted definitions.

You talk about ME moving goal posts; but,  when I had you specify your criteria for my demonstrating awareness and I met it, you immediately moved the goal posts by telling me that I had not demonstrated "cognition" of the Universe.  My definition of God necessarily includes everything in the Universe as parts of God, in partnership with God in the Creation of the Universe.  So, to meet your criteria, I needed only present one example of awareness on the part of God, as *I* have defined God.  I DID THAT!!!  If you meant something different, then you should have said something different.  It's not reasonable to blame ME for moving the goal posts YOU moved.

You're just being egotistically stubborn and irrational.  That's YOUR problem.  It has nothing to do with rebutting my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  The bottom line is that I have presented a tenable definition of God  that you cannot refute.  Too bad, that pisses you off so much.  Sucks to be you.

Now, YOU "go away" or come up with something intelligent to say.  Got it?  Because, so far, you haven't presented ANY valid arguments against my definition.  Or, would you like to try, again?

No, the answer is, "It is impossible to employ logical rebuttal against someone whose tactics are fundamentally dishonest and who continually alters his justifications and underpinnings for it."

You have repeatedly and continually changed which definitions you are using to justify the qualities you are ascribing to your universal deification. First, omnipotence merely requires 'very great' power, then it requires 'all the power in the universe', then 'immeasurable power' without any clear explanation of what, exactly, you are calling 'power'. Is it energy? Science has a rough measurement of the total mass/energy in the universe. That's how we're provided with estimates of whether or not universal expansion will slow and reverse, or continue to accelerate. Is it capability? If so, in what context? If the universe must adhere to natural laws, then what capability does it have, save to follow laws?

Your treatment of omniscience has followed the same pattern.

But instead of actually providing this context, instead of being consistent with your definitions, you employ a lot of smoke and mirrors, and then accuse us of doing the very things that you, yourself are guilty of. Debating the matter on the merits of your argument is impossible, as your argument is mutable and goes through extreme gyrations to avoid being pinned down. And that basic dishonesty in your method is why, I'm sure, so many of us have washed our hands of you. I respect Rev for his persistence, but have little doubt that you will continue your projection and dishonesty.

"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


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers

lifewhispers wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:
 


 

We have exactly two, and only two choices, here:

1 - Whatever is responsible for the Universe IS true

or,

2 - Whatever is responsibile for the Universe is not true

3 whatever is responsible for the universe is unknown, and like an infinite has no truth value

4 the flying spaghetti monster is the first cause

You claim no1 prove it 

Your fallacy is in the presumption that something cannot be true, unless we know about it.  There is truth throughout the Universe about which we know nothing - but, it's still the truth.

Furthermore, we can directly infer the truth of the "first cause" by simply observing that the Universe exists.  That is not an extraordinary leap of faith or any kind of claim bearing any burden of proof.

The two choices you provide beg the question, as it's not been possible to speculate on a pre-big bang cosmos.

Your comment about truth suggests absolute truth, and we don't even know if there is such a thing, or whether it has any relevance to us at all. There could be a point of diminishing returns where little can be gained by delving into a subject more deeply; not that we should give up. We can make probabalistic models of natural things and have them work reliably, but the underlying assumptions could be completely off. Truth, as we know it, is a quality of a given idea -- whether an idea bears out as an accurate representation of the world. So free-floating absolute truths are by definition not relevant to a conversation because they are unknown; so any discussion would rely on an argument from ignorance.

The idea of a "first cause" also begs the question for a religious view, since it assumes this cosmos is the first thing to exist -- or actually the second. This also amounts to an argument from ignorance. A useful conclusion can't be arrived at by virtue of not knowing enough about it.


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

lifewhispers wrote:

Your fallacy is in the presumption that something cannot be true, unless we know about it.  There is truth throughout the Universe about which we know nothing - but, it's still the truth.

No my presumption is there are things with no truth value, an infinite holds no truth value, by its nature it is un-calculable, thus it holds no truth value

If you believe otherwise, please substantiate this belief with proof, not speculation

lifewhispers wrote:

The existence of the Universe is PROOF of the Truth of that which caused it.

That which caused the existence of the universe may have no truth value, you claim otherwise prove it

Provide proof for your claims

Typing proof in capital letters, does not prove your claims

Speculation does not prove your claims

Unsubstantiated hypothesis do not prove your claims

Accusing other people of producing, red herrings/straw men/facetious arguments,  do not prove your claims

Repeatedly doing everything and anything except proving your claims, do not prove your claims

Prove your claims, with proof, undeniable unshakable proof, and nothing less

 


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

BMcD wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

So, the answer is, "no," you do not have any logical rebuttals to my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  Your entire response, above, was non-sensical, unsupported  and emotionally charged drivel.

You don't like my use of omnipotent; because, you like to pretend that omnipotent refers to being able to violate physical laws, when there is absolutely nothing in the definition of omnipotent that implies any such thing.  I pointed out clearly that your application was a straw man distortion of the word.

You don't like my use of omniscient; because, you think it requires consciousness, when it doesn't.  And, even if it did require consciousness, I have offered support for that position, as well.  I've even pointed out, repeatedly, how it does not matter. AND, I have clarified my use of ALL of the terms employed AND demonstrated how I have used EVERY ONE of them properly and in accordance with commonly accepted definitions.

You talk about ME moving goal posts; but,  when I had you specify your criteria for my demonstrating awareness and I met it, you immediately moved the goal posts by telling me that I had not demonstrated "cognition" of the Universe.  My definition of God necessarily includes everything in the Universe as parts of God, in partnership with God in the Creation of the Universe.  So, to meet your criteria, I needed only present one example of awareness on the part of God, as *I* have defined God.  I DID THAT!!!  If you meant something different, then you should have said something different.  It's not reasonable to blame ME for moving the goal posts YOU moved.

You're just being egotistically stubborn and irrational.  That's YOUR problem.  It has nothing to do with rebutting my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  The bottom line is that I have presented a tenable definition of God  that you cannot refute.  Too bad, that pisses you off so much.  Sucks to be you.

Now, YOU "go away" or come up with something intelligent to say.  Got it?  Because, so far, you haven't presented ANY valid arguments against my definition.  Or, would you like to try, again?

BMcD wrote:

No, the answer is, "It is impossible to employ logical rebuttal against someone whose tactics are fundamentally dishonest and who continually alters his justifications and underpinnings for it."

Ad hominem.  It's just more nonsensical, unsupported, emotionally charged drivel.  Surely, you didn't think you would gain anything for having posted it, did you?  Oh, I know - it made you FEEL better, didn't it?  LOL!

BMcD wrote:

You have repeatedly and continually changed which definitions you are using to justify the qualities you are ascribing to your universal deification. First, omnipotence merely requires 'very great' power, then it requires 'all the power in the universe', then 'immeasurable power' without any clear explanation of what, exactly, you are calling 'power'. Is it energy? Science has a rough measurement of the total mass/energy in the universe. That's how we're provided with estimates of whether or not universal expansion will slow and reverse, or continue to accelerate. Is it capability? If so, in what context? If the universe must adhere to natural laws, then what capability does it have, save to follow laws?

It has the ability to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail, as we see it. 

Besides, your argument, here, is both a straw man and a red herring.  It is a straw man; because, *I* have not changed the terms I used in my original proof AND I clarified with no ambiguity how I was applying them and how they complied with standard definitions for them - in multiple ways.  Your insane desire to insist that I pick one definition of a word where multiple definitions can certainly apply is of no concern to me and completely irrelevant and fallacious on its face.

Furthermore, it is a red herring; because, it is not relevant to my ultimate definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.

It is apparent that you wish to try, again.  Well, please, do so.  But, this argument of yours has FAILED.

BMcD wrote:

Your treatment of omniscience has followed the same pattern.

But instead of actually providing this context, instead of being consistent with your definitions, you employ a lot of smoke and mirrors, and then accuse us of doing the very things that you, yourself are guilty of. Debating the matter on the merits of your argument is impossible, as your argument is mutable and goes through extreme gyrations to avoid being pinned down. And that basic dishonesty in your method is why, I'm sure, so many of us have washed our hands of you. I respect Rev for his persistence, but have little doubt that you will continue your projection and dishonesty.

It's really very simple.  I summarized and distilled it down in my original proof.  I define God as All that is True in the Universe.  My proof establishes the existence of the God of my definition by virtue of the existence of truth in the Universe.  But, you're so bogged down in your own minutia that you've missed the point and completely avoided addressing the ultimate definition of God as All that is True in the Universe in any way, shape, or form.

So, not only have you failed to assail the proof, you really have not even begun.  Did you have any logical rebuttal to my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe, or not?

Frankly, I am amused that so many atheists would invest so much ego in avoiding the obvious truth of the proof I presented.  It's kind of like looking at a mirror image of theists.

I defined God as something that, BY DEFINITION, cannot be false.  That makes it self-evident.  If it is true, it IS God.  If it is not true, it is NOT God.  If truth exists, God exists.  This is about as basic as it gets.  We're not talking about quantum theory, here.

The rational observer would concede the validity of the proof, and then, move on to discuss with me more about why I would create and maintain such a construct and how I am applying it.  But, I guess we'll never get to that point, will we?


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

magilum wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:
 


 

We have exactly two, and only two choices, here:

1 - Whatever is responsible for the Universe IS true

or,

2 - Whatever is responsibile for the Universe is not true

3 whatever is responsible for the universe is unknown, and like an infinite has no truth value

4 the flying spaghetti monster is the first cause

You claim no1 prove it 

Your fallacy is in the presumption that something cannot be true, unless we know about it.  There is truth throughout the Universe about which we know nothing - but, it's still the truth.

Furthermore, we can directly infer the truth of the "first cause" by simply observing that the Universe exists.  That is not an extraordinary leap of faith or any kind of claim bearing any burden of proof.

magilum wrote:

The two choices you provide beg the question, as it's not been possible to speculate on a pre-big bang cosmos.

Then, you did not think about the choices; because, they beg no questions about a pre-big bang cosmos.  Furthermore, as I have pointed out, repeatedly, it is not necessary to know what caused the Big Bang for that cause to be true.  The other alternative is that the cause of the Big Bang is false - and, the existence of the Universe contradicts that possibility in a very compelling way.

magilum wrote:

Your comment about truth suggests absolute truth, and we don't even know if there is such a thing, or whether it has any relevance to us at all.

Then, I guess it's a good thing that it really doesn't suggest any such thing and that's just a straw man of yours.  I've been extraordinarily clear about this.

magilum wrote:

There could be a point of diminishing returns where little can be gained by delving into a subject more deeply; not that we should give up. We can make probabalistic models of natural things and have them work reliably, but the underlying assumptions could be completely off. Truth, as we know it, is a quality of a given idea -- whether an idea bears out as an accurate representation of the world.

No, truth represents the way things really are - and, not our ideas about the way things really are.  To wit:

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

truth      /truθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trooth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, –noun, plural truths      /truðz, truθs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[troothz, trooths] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation.
1.the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2.conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3.a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4.the state or character of being true.
5.actuality or actual existence.
6.an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7.honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8.(often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9.agreement with a standard or original.
10.accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11.Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
12.in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.

 

There it is, the first definition, "the true or actual state of a matter."

 

magilum wrote:

So free-floating absolute truths are by definition not relevant to a conversation because they are unknown; so any discussion would rely on an argument from ignorance.

Non-sequitur.  I have already described how and why we can infer the truth of the cause of the Universe - by virtue of its existence.

magilum wrote:

The idea of a "first cause" also begs the question for a religious view, since it assumes this cosmos is the first thing to exist -- or actually the second. This also amounts to an argument from ignorance. A useful conclusion can't be arrived at by virtue of not knowing enough about it.

Well, then it's a good thing that I have made no assertions or claims about "first cause," isn't it?


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

Your fallacy is in the presumption that something cannot be true, unless we know about it.  There is truth throughout the Universe about which we know nothing - but, it's still the truth.

No my presumption is there are things with no truth value, an infinite holds no truth value, by its nature it is un-calculable, thus it holds no truth value

Excuse me; but, what does this have to do with establishing whether, or not, my God as All that is True in the Universe exists?  That is the entire point of this thread.  So, what does your comment have to do with that?  Or, is it just another attempt at getting me to chase a red herring and an opportunity for you to further move the goal posts?

Are you arguing that truth does not exist?  What exactly ARE you arguing?

Rev_Devilin wrote:

If you believe otherwise, please substantiate this belief with proof, not speculation

lifewhispers wrote:

The existence of the Universe is PROOF of the Truth of that which caused it.

That which caused the existence of the universe may have no truth value, you claim otherwise prove it

Provide proof for your claims

Typing proof in capital letters, does not prove your claims

Speculation does not prove your claims

Unsubstantiated hypothesis do not prove your claims

Accusing other people of producing, red herrings/straw men/facetious arguments,  do not prove your claims

Repeatedly doing everything and anything except proving your claims, do not prove your claims

Prove your claims, with proof, undeniable unshakable proof, and nothing less

 

Contrarianism will not win this debate for you.  I HAVE proven my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  It's done.  Period.  I have nothing else to prove. It is beyond logical reproach.  Not one poster on this thread has been able to unseat it.  It stands undefeated.    It's over.  Unless, you can come up with another strategy that DIRECTLY refutes the existence of the God I have defined as All that is True in the Universe.

To do that, you MUST demonstrate that All that is True in the Universe DOES NOT EXIST. Period.  None of the other red herrings, straw men, or other fallacious approaches thus far employed will accomplish that feat.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Is this the proof I

Is this the proof I requested ?

lifewhispers wrote:

None of the other red herrings, straw men, or other fallacious approaches thus far employed will accomplish that feat.


 

 

 

 

 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Not everything in the

Not everything in the universe has a true value, you say it has, and this is your irrefutable proof to back up this claim

lifewhispers wrote:

the Universe DOES NOT EXIST. Period.  None of the other red herrings, straw men, or other fallacious approaches thus far employed will accomplish that


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Is this the proof I requested ?

This whole thread starts with my proof.  You've had it all along.  Your task has been to find fault with it by demonstrating how the God I have defined as All that is True in the Universe does not exist.  You have not begun to do that.  The ball is in your court, not mine.


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote:Not

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Not everything in the universe has a true value, you say it has, and this is your irrefutable proof to back up this claim

No, that's just another straw man of yours.  I never made any such claim - period.

Your task is to demonstrate how All that is True in the Universe DOES NOT EXIST.  That is the ONLY way you can unseat my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  And, you have not even begun to do that.

I've given you my proof.  Refute it, if you can.  I don't think you can.  It would be interesting to see you actually make an honest attempt, instead of tossing out all of your red herrings and straw men, and moving the goal posts.

All of those tactics reflect poorly on you - very poorly.  I'm about at my limit with you.  So far, you've not demonstrated that you're a worthy opponent for me.  I had hoped for better.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers, I'm not going

lifewhispers, I'm not going to bother with the mess you made of quoting me, since you've only reiterated your fallacious reasoning. Have a nice delusion.


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

magilum wrote:
lifewhispers, I'm not going to bother with the mess you made of quoting me, since you've only reiterated your fallacious reasoning. Have a nice delusion.

On the contrary, I made no mess out of quoting you.   I refuted every point you made. Sorry, that pisses you off so much.

But, let me get this straight, here:

You're not going to bother demonstrating how my reasoning is fallacious; but, I'm engaged in delusion?

Is that your argument against my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe?  I hate to break it to you, but that won't cut it.  You'll have to try a lot harder than that.

Oh, but you're running away.  So, I guess we won't be hearing from you, again.  Darn.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
 lifewhispers wrote:

 

lifewhispers wrote:

magilum wrote:
lifewhispers, I'm not going to bother with the mess you made of quoting me, since you've only reiterated your fallacious reasoning. Have a nice delusion.

On the contrary, I made no mess out of quoting you.   I refuted every point you made. Sorry, that pisses you off so much.

Bored sigh.

How To Use The Quote Function | Rational Responders

As a moderator, I should fix your post before responding to it. But it's not worth it.

lifewhispers wrote:

But, let me get this straight, here:

You're not going to bother demonstrating how my reasoning is fallacious; but, I'm engaged in delusion?

Is there meant to be a contradiction in there somewhere? I said it's not worth bothering with, and it is not. Arguing your premise would be like fighting a crackhead for his spot in the dumpster behind Arby's.

lifewhispers wrote:

Is that your argument against my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe?  I hate to break it to you, but that won't cut it.  You'll have to try a lot harder than that.

Your claim is too vague and incoherent to respond to. Maybe try tossing in a few more undefined terms to ad hoc.

lifewhispers wrote:

Oh, but you're running away.  So, I guess we won't be hearing from you, again.  Darn.

In fairness to your vacuous, dictionary-posting ass, I looked at your response again... and came to the exact same conclusion I had before. You made the same vapid assertions, and my response would be the same. If all you have is the conflation of two undefined terms, then fuck it. Have fun in that barren intellectual plain.


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

 

magilum wrote:

Bored sigh.

How To Use The Quote Function | Rational Responders

As a moderator, I should fix your post before responding to it. But it's not worth it.

So, because I didn't use the quote function correctly and to your satisfaction, you're not going to bother attempting to refute my definition?  I fail to see the problem, here.  It is clear who is saying what - at least, I'm not confused. 

 

lifewhispers wrote:

But, let me get this straight, here:

You're not going to bother demonstrating how my reasoning is fallacious; but, I'm engaged in delusion?

 

magilum wrote:

 

 

Is there meant to be a contradiction in there somewhere? I said it's not worth bothering with, and it is not.

 

If you know you would lose, I can see why you wouldn't think it worth your while.

 

magilum wrote:

 

Arguing your premise would be like fighting a crackhead for his spot in the dumpster behind Arby's.

 

 

What a load of crap!  You're really pathetic!  You just waltz in with your shiny little moderator hat on, spew some inflammatory garbage and run away.  You aren't fooling anyone, coward!

 

Now, what did any of that establish about the topic at hand?  You don't have time to respond to the topic; but, you have time to sling insults?  You're really pathetic at that, too, you puerile, one-handed, slack-jawed, drooling meatslapper!

 

lifewhispers wrote:

 

Is that your argument against my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe?  I hate to break it to you, but that won't cut it.  You'll have to try a lot harder than that.

 

magilum wrote:

 

Your claim is too vague and incoherent to respond to. Maybe try tossing in a few more undefined terms to ad hoc.

 

 

More cowardly bullshit on your part!   Why did you even bother posting it?  It didn't say a damned thing about the topic at hand.

 

I've clearly defined all of the terms that have been questioned, using standard commonly accepted definitions and demonstrated how my use of them was appropriate.

 

Where's your logical rebuttal to the proof on the table?  Here, let me remind you of the parameters of the discussion:

 

I have defined God as All that is True in the Universe. 

 

For that definition to not be tenable, all that is true in the Universe would have to not exist.

 

Can you demonstrate how All that is True in the Universe does not exist, or not?  If so, please do.  I'm willing to bet you can't even come close.  I'm further willing to bet that all I'll get out of you is more irrational nothingness that completely avoids the issue.

 

 

lifewhispers wrote:

Oh, but you're running away.  So, I guess we won't be hearing from you, again.  Darn.

 

magilum wrote:

 

In fairness to your vacuous, dictionary-posting ass, I looked at your response again... and came to the exact same conclusion I had before. You made the same vapid assertions, and my response would be the same. If all you have is the conflation of two undefined terms, then fuck it. Have fun in that barren intellectual plain.

If your response would be the same, then you may as well capitulate, now.  Because, your other response didn't establish a damned thing.  And, what terms would you claim I have failed to define?

Your refusal to accept defeat with grace reflects poorly on you.  Your willingness to engage in such puerile and dishonest tactics reflects even worse on you.   That you are a moderator of this site reflects poorly on this site.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers, I regret

lifewhispers, I regret getting into it with you, because now I've put a small amount of investment in something here that is not even remotely compelling, challenging or interesting. That was my mistake, and now I have to try to pick up that turd by the clean end. There are a lot of people on here interested in philosophical debate, but it must be of some substance. They are conspicuously absent. I pegged you as an easy pwn because of the shallowness of your reasoning, and didn't figure on your strident persistence. But if you insist on talking about this, you're going to have to do better than equating one undefined term to another.

Quote:
I have defined God as All that is True in the Universe.

I can argue neither for or against it as stated, but dismiss it as a wholly meaningless assertion. If you want to phrase it in a way that isn't totally worthless, be my guest.

 


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I've clearly defined

Quote:

I've clearly defined all of the terms that have been questioned, using standard commonly accepted definitions and demonstrated how my use of them was appropriate.

No, you've clearly provided multiple definitions for all of the terms that have been questioned, and then repeatedly changed which definitions you're actually using. This means that your usage of the terms is inconsistent, and you build your counter-arguments around whichever definition you feel will best serve your needs at the moment. That is dishonest and shows an intent to knowingly misdirect and confuse. As you have refused to debate in a credible manner, we have refused to consider you credible. Make all the accusations and ad hominem disparagements you like, it doesn't change a thing. This has been explained more than once already, and doubtless, your response will be nothing more than more juvenile 'I know you are, but what am I?' nonsense.

"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
Quote:I've clearly defined

Quote:

I've clearly defined all of the terms that have been questioned, using standard commonly accepted definitions and demonstrated how my use of them was appropriate.

BMcD wrote:

No, you've clearly provided multiple definitions for all of the terms that have been questioned, and then repeatedly changed which definitions you're actually using. This means that your usage of the terms is inconsistent, and you build your counter-arguments around whichever definition you feel will best serve your needs at the moment. That is dishonest and shows an intent to knowingly misdirect and confuse...

Excuse me, but the proof stands at the top of this thread as something I CANNOT CHANGE!!!  The terms and the definitions I am using with them are PERMANENTLY A PART OF THE PROOF UNDER DISCUSSION; and, I could not change them, even if I wanted to change them. It was posted by ANOTHER poster.

And, you have utterly failed to provide even one example of that which you accuse me.  AND, it is perfectly acceptable for multiple definitions of the same word to have application in the same discussion and in the same context.  For example:

"Infinite" can be "very great" and  "unmeasurable" AT THE SAME TIME.  That is not logically fallacious.  You'll just have to get over it, unless you can demonstrate how the various definitions of the words I am using contradict each other.   Can you do this?

and,

"Omnipotent" can be represented by "All that is True in the Universe" AND "All that can be done in the Universe."  BOTH usages apply, here.

and,

"Omniscient" can refer to "knowing how to do all that can be done in the Universe" AND "containing total knowledge."  BOTH usages apply, here.

So, did you have any other examples you'd like to point out - seeing as how *I* pointed out the only ones that you seem to dislike.

Of course, you're too fucking lazy and cowardly to even attempt to support your outrageous claim  Yours is tantamount to a "run by fruiting."

And, what, in my proof of the existence of God implies ANY intent to misdirect or confuse?

BMcD wrote:

As you have refused to debate in a credible manner, we have refused to consider you credible...

Since when do you speak for others? 

And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your  tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a  circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?

 

BMcD wrote:

Make all the accusations and ad hominem disparagements you like, it doesn't change a thing. This has been explained more than once already, and doubtless, your response will be nothing more than more juvenile 'I know you are, but what am I?' nonsense.

Look, this isn't a private discussion.  ALL of the comments are there for ALL to see.  YOU are embarrassing yourself; unless, you are too fucking stupid to realize it.

Now, here is an OPEN INVITATION TO ANYONE AND EVERYONE to attempt to refute the proof at the  TOP OF THIS THREAD.  Any takers?  Just leave your straw men, red herrings, non-sequiturs,  ad hominem attacks, and goal post moving OUT OF IT! 


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I've clearly defined

Duplicate post removed...


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

magilum wrote:

lifewhispers, I regret getting into it with you, because now I've put a small amount of investment in something here that is not even remotely compelling, challenging or interesting. That was my mistake, and now I have to try to pick up that turd by the clean end.

Yes, it was your mistake.   Any rational trier of fact would have immediately recognized the futility in even attempting to refute something so obviously logically sound as the proof under discussion.

This proof represents a logical exercise.  It doesn't have to be even remotely compelling, challenging, or interesting for it to be valid.  And, it IS valid.    It stands on its own as what it purports to be - a proof of the existence of God, as I have defined, "God."  Or, can you demonstrate how All that is True in the Universe DOES NOT EXIST?  Or, can you demonstrate how All that is True in the Universe is NOT responsible for its Creation?  To unseat the proof, you MUST do one of those two things.  And, you must do so within the confines of what IS KNOWN, and not speculations about pre Big Bang conditions, or anything from outside the Universe; since, we can know NOTHING about anything outside the Universe.

I've defined God as All that is True in the Universe.  It is clear that All that is True in the Universe exists.  Therefore, God, as I have defined God, exists.

This is a proof of the existence of God, and NOTHING ELSE.  It doesn't make presuppositions.  It doesn't make speculations.  It does not present theories.  It's not hypothetical.  It makes no extraordinary claims that might bear a burden of proof.  It says nothing about methods or intent.  It requires no faith.  It requires no belief.  By definition, it CANNOT BE FALSE.

It's just too bad, for you, that you did not recognize this, before you embarrassed yourself in a public forum.  Indeed, pick up that turd from the clean end - if there is one.

magilum wrote:

There are a lot of people on here interested in philosophical debate, but it must be of some substance...

The existence of God is a substantial debate.   This is an atheist site.  I would think that it would be greeted with open arms and tackled with zeal and enthusiasm.

And, we have yet to begin to discuss the philosophy behind my construct of God.  We cannot do that, until it has been acknowledged as VALID.  And, it would seem that ego is in the way of that.

This is my first foray into an atheist forum.  I usually haunt theist forums and debate Christians, mostly.  What I find most interesting is the striking similarities in the debating tactics on both sides.  Both sides seem to allow their egos to get in the way of rationality - so much so, that they lose the ability to discern the truth staring them squarely in the face.  And, both sides do not hesitate to employ overtly dishonest logical fallacies in their tactics.

I defined God as something that, by definition, CANNOT BE FALSE.  And, people on BOTH sides of the "God question" have been  blinded by their ego to the truth of it.

magilum wrote:

...I pegged you as an easy pwn because of the shallowness of your reasoning, and didn't figure on your strident persistence. But if you insist on talking about this, you're going to have to do better than equating one undefined term to another.

And, if you insist on talking about this, you will have to do better than making unfounded and patently and obviously false assertions, such as the one you just made.  I have not once equated one undefined term to another - and, you KNOW IT.  That's just a straw man you created to pummel; because, you have NO VALID ARGUMENTS TO OFFER.  I DARE you to present even ONE example of how I have done what you just accused me of doing.

And, if you cannot refute my "shallow reasoning," as you have accused it, you should be ashamed.  Or, you should be ashamed of yourself for making the accusation.

Quote:
I have defined God as All that is True in the Universe.

magilum wrote:

I can argue neither for or against it as stated, but dismiss it as a wholly meaningless assertion. If you want to phrase it in a way that isn't totally worthless, be my guest.

Bullshit!  There is NO argument against it.  THAT is why you cannot argue against it.  And, it's not meaningless - it's a DEFINITION!!!  How can you be so blind to that obvious FACT?

And, your subjective assessment of it being "worthless" is completely irrelevant.  I really don't give a damn whether you want to keep playing, or not.  But, if you're going to play, I'm going to play to WIN.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
I was just skimming through

I was just skimming through this waste of time and I thought perhaps that lifewhispers could explain to me what he means by his 'definition' of god. 

Unless I am totally ignorant, and I may well be, 'All (sic) that is True (sic) in the Universe (sic)' is not a definition at all. 

What exactly, lifewhispers, do you mean by 'True (sic)'?  I am asking you, lifewhispers, to also tell me what you mean by 'All (sic) that is True (sic) in the Universe (sic)'. 

Please, don't beat around the bush, adhominen me, or suggest that your 'definition' is, as you've given it, either complete or evidently so because I simply would not be asking you if your 'definition' was comprehensible. 

Perhaps you would find it easier to carry on in this thread without having to repeat yourself and without having other people repeat themselves when you explain your 'definition' of god.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote:What fantasy do you

Quote:
What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your  tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a  circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?

Amen !  We're on the same page, brother.  It's so refreshing to find a fellow traveler as eager to reject "fantasy" as you and I seem to be.

One quick question before I try to answer the "bite of the snake" question quoted above...Would this be the bite of a talking snake ?

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:I was just

Thomathy wrote:

I was just skimming through this waste of time and I thought perhaps that lifewhispers could explain to me what he means by his 'definition' of god. 

Unless I am totally ignorant, and I may well be, 'All (sic) that is True (sic) in the Universe (sic)' is not a definition at all. 

What exactly, lifewhispers, do you mean by 'True (sic)'?  I am asking you, lifewhispers, to also tell me what you mean by 'All (sic) that is True (sic) in the Universe (sic)'. 

Please, don't beat around the bush, adhominen me, or suggest that your 'definition' is, as you've given it, either complete or evidently so because I simply would not be asking you if your 'definition' was comprehensible. 

 

"All that is True in the Universe" implies a process of discernment as a qualifier for being a Part of God.  That necessarily defines, or limits God to being only that which is True, and not just whatever we feel like calling God, including the ridiculous imaginary beings posited by primitive superstitious bronze age religions.

This definition of God gives us a tenable construct, upon which we can base sound philosophies, while preserving an honest process of discovery.  It is only for philosophical reasons that I would maintain a construct of God.  

One philosophical reason for maintaining this construct of God is to be able to demonstrate to both theists and atheists that they are being irrational and/or illogical in their assertions about God.

Furthermore, it can illustrate to both the theist and the atheist how their own ego has interfered with their ability to objectively analyze the subject of "God." (review this entire thread for multiple examples)

And, as long as you are honest and civil in your discourse with me, I will respond in kind.  I can debate at all levels.  I'll let you set the tone of our exchange.


Rev-Devilin (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:I've

lifewhispers wrote:

I've defined God as All that is True in the Universe.  It is clear that All that is True in the Universe exists.  Therefore, God, as I have defined God, exists.

This is a proof of the existence of God, and NOTHING ELSE.  It doesn't make presuppositions.  It doesn't make speculations.  It does not present theories.  It's not hypothetical.  It makes no extraordinary claims that might bear a burden of proof.  It says nothing about methods or intent.  It requires no faith.  It requires no belief.  By definition, it CANNOT BE FALSE.

lifewhispers wrote:

This proof represents a logical exercise

I can only assume you have now abandoned this

lifewhispers wrote:

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

 

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

"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.”

For this

 

God=All that is True in the Universe

All that is True in the Universe exists

Therefore God exists

 

? is this correct

 

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:"All that

lifewhispers wrote:

"All that is True in the Universe" implies a process of discernment as a qualifier for being a Part of God.  That necessarily defines, or limits God to being only that which is True, and not just whatever we feel like calling God, including the ridiculous imaginary beings posited by primitive superstitious bronze age religions.

This definition of God gives us a tenable construct, upon which we can base sound philosophies, while preserving an honest process of discovery.  It is only for philosophical reasons that I would maintain a construct of God.  

It seems you are using the definition of God as your proof of God. Is this not a tautology? There seems to be some begging of the question here (though that might be my poor understanding).

Is the purpose of maintaining this God-construct separate from your belief in this God-construct? Is there a practical application of belief in this God-construct?


Finally, how is your definition of God distinct from pantheism?

I ask, as I would like some clarity on your beliefs. Not that I will ever believe them, mind you. I don't want you to think you have a potential convert. I am most decidedly a positivist. However, I am also an avid student of human belief. That, and UFOs. And Bigfoot. And conspiracy theories in general.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:"All that

lifewhispers wrote:

"All that is True in the Universe" implies a process of discernment as a qualifier for being a Part of God.  That necessarily defines, or limits God to being only that which is True, and not just whatever we feel like calling God, including the ridiculous imaginary beings posited by primitive superstitious bronze age religions.

This definition of God gives us a tenable construct, upon which we can base sound philosophies, while preserving an honest process of discovery.  It is only for philosophical reasons that I would maintain a construct of God.  

nigelTheBold wrote:

It seems you are using the definition of God as your proof of God. Is this not a tautology?

No, it is a logical contingency, based upon truth.

God is All that is True in the Universe, or not,  is a tautology - that allows for the statement to be true in all instances; which, makes it a vacuous and meaningless statement.

God is All that is True in the Universe is a logical contingency - contingent upon the ability to pass a test of truth.

It seems that there are a number of people around here who suffer from confusion on this point (I'm not naming names - you folks know who you are).

nigelTheBold wrote:

There seems to be some begging of the question here (though that might be my poor understanding).

No, it is not begging the question.  Why?  Because, the definition requires, as a logical contingency, that the proposition be true - which allows for an honest process of discerning that, rather than using the proposition to prove itself; which, is, of course, logically fallacious.

I have defined as God as All that is True in the Universe.  In order to determine what that is, you must test for truth - not assume it.  if it is not true, it is not God, as I have defined, "God."

nigelTheBold wrote:

Is the purpose of maintaining this God-construct separate from your belief in this God-construct? Is there a practical application of belief in this God-construct?

No, there is no practical application of belief in this God construct.  It specifically disqualifies belief and requires a process of discernment of that which is true, or not.  Unless, you want to consider "belief in the truth" to be a practical application of belief in this God construct.  It is certainly a rational belief and one that can certainly not cause any problems.

nigelTheBold wrote:

Finally, how is your definition of God distinct from pantheism?

Pantheism defines God simply as the Universe, in a physically extant sense and the physical processes that are responsible for it.  The definition I present goes far beyond that to also include all logical and philosophical truths that are not otherwise addressed, as well as implying a process of discernment of that which is true, or not that is not addressed by pantheism.

Furthermore, there are two fundamental flavors of pantheism, both of which entail an active belief that either:

A -  God is a personal, conscious, and omniscient being and they see this God as uniting all true religions (classical pantheism)

or

B - God is an unconscious, non-sentient being, which, while being holy and beautiful, is seen as being a God in a non-traditional and impersonal sense (naturalistic pantheism)

I don't subscribe to either notion.  Since my definition of God is All that is True in the Universe, my relationship with God would be in direct correlation with my relationship with the truth.  That's a personal application of the concept of God; but, does it represent an overriding consciousness, as posited by classical pantheism?

As to there being an overriding consciousness to the Universe, the question remains unanswered; so, I will not subscribe to either position and leave the question unanswered.  Pantheists don't do that.  They choose to believe in a personal conscious God or choose to believe in a non-sentient, non-conscious God.

I have no beliefs about God - except, that the existence of God is wholly based on the tenability of the definition of God being employed and the choice to embrace the construct - period.

nigelTheBold wrote:

I ask, as I would like some clarity on your beliefs. Not that I will ever believe them, mind you. I don't want you to think you have a potential convert. I am most decidedly a positivist. However, I am also an avid student of human belief. That, and UFOs. And Bigfoot. And conspiracy theories in general.

I seek no followers.  The subject of God is purely academic, as far as I am concerned.  It is a human construct that is causing many problems on our planet.  I'm just doing what I can to alleviate the problems it causes - starting with maintaining a rational and tenable definition of God to offer as an alternative to the combatants.

I trust you have no problem with that?


Rocas511
Scientist
Rocas511's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
What a load of horse shit! 

What a load of horse shit!  God is that which created the universe therefore the universe is evidence that there is a god?  I don't think that even qualifies as circular logic.  This is "logic" that never even gets off the starting block!

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

-James Madison-


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Defintions

I'm gonna break this into two messages, as I see two distinct threads emerging.

lifewhispers wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

It seems you are using the definition of God as your proof of God. Is this not a tautology?

No, it is a logical contingency, based upon truth.

God is All that is True in the Universe, or not,  is a tautology - that allows for the statement to be true in all instances; which, makes it a vacuous and meaningless statement.

God is All that is True in the Universe is a logical contingency - contingent upon the ability to pass a test of truth.

It seems that there are a number of people around here who suffer from confusion on this point (I'm not naming names - you folks know who you are).

nigelTheBold wrote:

There seems to be some begging of the question here (though that might be my poor understanding).

No, it is not begging the question.  Why?  Because, the definition requires, as a logical contingency, that the proposition be true - which allows for an honest process of discerning that, rather than using the proposition to prove itself; which, is, of course, logically fallacious.

I have defined as God as All that is True in the Universe.  In order to determine what that is, you must test for truth - not assume it.  if it is not true, it is not God, as I have defined, "God."

Okay. I think I'm following you.

Here's where I get the idea this is a tautology:

lifewhispers wrote:

"All that is True in the Universe" implies a process of discernment as a qualifier for being a Part of God.  That necessarily defines, or limits God to being only that which is True, and not just whatever we feel like calling God, including the ridiculous imaginary beings posited by primitive superstitious bronze age religions.

This definition of God gives us a tenable construct, upon which we can base sound philosophies, while preserving an honest process of discovery.  It is only for philosophical reasons that I would maintain a construct of God.  

You are defining "All that is True in the Universe" as a "process of discernment as a qualifier for being a Part of God." And then you are defining God as "All that is True in the Universe." So, God is therefore a "process of discernment as a qualifier for being a Part of God." I guess this is where I'm getting confused, as I'm definitely seeing that as a tautology.

Hold it. I think I see the problem. You say that "All that is True in the Universe" implies a "process of discernment as a qualifier for being a Part of God." So it isn't a definition. Gotcha.

So-- what is the definition for "All that is True in the Universe?"

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers

lifewhispers wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Finally, how is your definition of God distinct from pantheism?

Pantheism defines God simply as the Universe, in a physically extant sense and the physical processes that are responsible for it.  The definition I present goes far beyond that to also include all logical and philosophical truths that are not otherwise addressed, as well as implying a process of discernment of that which is true, or not that is not addressed by pantheism.

Furthermore, there are two fundamental flavors of pantheism, both of which entail an active belief that either:

A -  God is a personal, conscious, and omniscient being and they see this God as uniting all true religions (classical pantheism)

or

B - God is an unconscious, non-sentient being, which, while being holy and beautiful, is seen as being a God in a non-traditional and impersonal sense (naturalistic pantheism)

I don't subscribe to either notion.  Since my definition of God is All that is True in the Universe, my relationship with God would be in direct correlation with my relationship with the truth.  That's a personal application of the concept of God; but, does it represent an overriding consciousness, as posited by classical pantheism?

As to there being an overriding consciousness to the Universe, the question remains unanswered; so, I will not subscribe to either position and leave the question unanswered.  Pantheists don't do that.  They choose to believe in a personal conscious God or choose to believe in a non-sentient, non-conscious God.

I have no beliefs about God - except, that the existence of God is wholly based on the tenability of the definition of God being employed and the choice to embrace the construct - period.

Interesting. So, let me perception-check.

You are creating a definition of God, knowing that God is merely an artificial construct. In your definition, God is all that is, and all we can conceive that is logically true. This is distinct from pantheism, in that pantheism defines God as "all that is," and actually assigns true theistic attributes to that God.

So, the God of your definition is not theistic per se, correct? Or have I missed something there?

The last sentence is interesting. You are claiming that a truth statement (the existence of God) is based on the definition of God, and the choice to embrace the construct. How does choice enter into existence of God?

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

I ask, as I would like some clarity on your beliefs. Not that I will ever believe them, mind you. I don't want you to think you have a potential convert. I am most decidedly a positivist. However, I am also an avid student of human belief. That, and UFOs. And Bigfoot. And conspiracy theories in general.

I seek no followers.  The subject of God is purely academic, as far as I am concerned.  It is a human construct that is causing many problems on our planet.  I'm just doing what I can to alleviate the problems it causes - starting with maintaining a rational and tenable definition of God to offer as an alternative to the combatants.

I trust you have no problem with that?

I didn't say "follower." I said "convert." There's a distinct difference. And it seems you do desire converts, as that is the only path to viability for your alternative. I just wanted to clarify that my interest is merely intellectual.

And I'm not sure if I have a problem with it yet. It seems to me you are constructing an artificial definition of God using a tautology, for the sole purpose of appeasement. This appears to be peddling wilful ignorance at best, and intellectual dishonesty at worst.

It seems from a theological standpoint, you are attempting to castrate God. From an atheistic standpoint, you are attempting to legitimize a terminology that is fraught with thousands of years of superstitious baggage. I don't see it as in the interest of either side to accept your redefinition.

So, from my (perhaps quite flawed) understanding of both your logic and your intent, there are some issues yet to resolve.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Rocas511 wrote:What a load

Rocas511 wrote:

What a load of horse shit!  God is that which created the universe therefore the universe is evidence that there is a god?  I don't think that even qualifies as circular logic.  This is "logic" that never even gets off the starting block!

<sigh>

If the definition of God is Creator of the Universe, then the Universe is necessarily evidence of that Creator.  That is sound logic.  Sorry, it went right over your head.  But, that's your problem, not mine.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:<sigh>If

lifewhispers wrote:

<sigh>

If the definition of God is Creator of the Universe, then the Universe is necessarily evidence of that Creator.  That is sound logic.  Sorry, it went right over your head.  But, that's your problem, not mine.

No. That's begging the question, which is not sound logic.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:I'm gonna

nigelTheBold wrote:

I'm gonna break this into two messages, as I see two distinct threads emerging.

nigelTheBold wrote:

It seems you are using the definition of God as your proof of God. Is this not a tautology?

lifewhispers wrote:

No, it is a logical contingency, based upon truth.

God is All that is True in the Universe, or not,  is a tautology - that allows for the statement to be true in all instances; which, makes it a vacuous and meaningless statement.

God is All that is True in the Universe is a logical contingency - contingent upon the ability to pass a test of truth.

It seems that there are a number of people around here who suffer from confusion on this point (I'm not naming names - you folks know who you are).

nigelTheBold wrote:

There seems to be some begging of the question here (though that might be my poor understanding).

lifewhispers wrote:

No, it is not begging the question.  Why?  Because, the definition requires, as a logical contingency, that the proposition be true - which allows for an honest process of discerning that, rather than using the proposition to prove itself; which, is, of course, logically fallacious.

I have defined as God as All that is True in the Universe.  In order to determine what that is, you must test for truth - not assume it.  if it is not true, it is not God, as I have defined, "God."

nigelTheBold wrote:

Okay. I think I'm following you.

Here's where I get the idea this is a tautology:

lifewhispers wrote:

"All that is True in the Universe" implies a process of discernment as a qualifier for being a Part of God.  That necessarily defines, or limits God to being only that which is True, and not just whatever we feel like calling God, including the ridiculous imaginary beings posited by primitive superstitious bronze age religions.

This definition of God gives us a tenable construct, upon which we can base sound philosophies, while preserving an honest process of discovery.  It is only for philosophical reasons that I would maintain a construct of God.  

nigelTheBold wrote:

You are defining "All that is True in the Universe" as a "process of discernment as a qualifier for being a Part of God." And then you are defining God as "All that is True in the Universe." So, God is therefore a "process of discernment as a qualifier for being a Part of God." I guess this is where I'm getting confused, as I'm definitely seeing that as a tautology.

Hold it. I think I see the problem. You say that "All that is True in the Universe" implies a "process of discernment as a qualifier for being a Part of God." So it isn't a definition. Gotcha.

So-- what is the definition for "All that is True in the Universe?"

All of that which conforms to the way things really are, as opposed to the way we might think they are AND that which can be logically tested and/or surmised to arrive at a logical truth value of 1, as opposed to 0, which would be a falsehood. 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers

lifewhispers wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

So-- what is the definition for "All that is True in the Universe?"

All of that which conforms to the way things really are, as opposed to the way we might think they are AND that which can be logically tested and/or surmised to arrive at a logical truth value of 1, as opposed to 0, which would be a falsehood. 

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks.

So, you are saying God is the Universe, and the sum of all possible true knowledge. Is that a fair summary? I'm just trying to accomplish two things: perception-check, and arrive at a simpler statement that doesn't change the nature of your definition. It's quite a mouthful, as stated.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


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

nigelTheBold wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

<sigh>

If the definition of God is Creator of the Universe, then the Universe is necessarily evidence of that Creator.  That is sound logic.  Sorry, it went right over your head.  But, that's your problem, not mine.

No. That's begging the question, which is not sound logic.

I'm going to quote from Wikipedia:

[edit] An example

"That begs the question" is an apt reply when a circular argument is used within one syllogism. That is, when the deduction contains a proposition that assumes the very thing the argument aims to prove; in essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which in its simplest form is not very persuasive. For example here is an attempt to prove that Paul is telling the truth:

  • Suppose Paul is not lying when he speaks.
  • Paul is speaking.
  • Therefore, Paul is telling the truth.

These statements are logical, but they do nothing to convince one of the truthfulness of the speaker. The problem is that in seeking to prove Paul's truthfulness, the speaker asks his audience to assume that Paul is telling the truth, so this actually proves "If Paul is not lying, then Paul is telling the truth."

Such arguments are logically valid. That is, the conclusion does in fact follow from the premises, since it is in some way identical to the premises. All self-circular arguments have this characteristic: that the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument.

END WIKI QUOTE

The logic IS valid, even if it is not, in and of itself, persuasive.

And, in this instance, there is a conditional statement:

"IF God is defined as Creator of the Universe," NOT, "God is Creator of the Universe"

Begging the question:

God IS Creator of the Universe

The Universe Exists

Therefore, God Created it

This is an entirely unpersuasive form of the syllogism - even if it is logically valid.

BUT, what I am employing is:

IF God is DEFINED as Creator of the Universe

THEN the Universe is necessarily evidence of the existence of the God we have defined.

This is a persuasive form of the syllogism that is conditioned upon the choice to define God as Creator of the Universe, rather than an arbitrary statement that attempts to prove itself.  And, again, the logic is sound.

 


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

nigelTheBold wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

So-- what is the definition for "All that is True in the Universe?"

All of that which conforms to the way things really are, as opposed to the way we might think they are AND that which can be logically tested and/or surmised to arrive at a logical truth value of 1, as opposed to 0, which would be a falsehood. 

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks.

So, you are saying God is the Universe, and the sum of all possible true knowledge. Is that a fair summary? I'm just trying to accomplish two things: perception-check, and arrive at a simpler statement that doesn't change the nature of your definition. It's quite a mouthful, as stated.

Well, that's why I defined God as All that is True in the Universe - because, All that is True in the Universe IS a mouthfull. Eye-wink

But, yes, you have the idea.

Once we have settled on a common definition, we CAN use the shorthand, "God."   


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers

lifewhispers wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

<sigh>

If the definition of God is Creator of the Universe, then the Universe is necessarily evidence of that Creator.  That is sound logic.  Sorry, it went right over your head.  But, that's your problem, not mine.

No. That's begging the question, which is not sound logic.

I'm going to quote from Wikipedia:

[edit] An example

"That begs the question" is an apt reply when a circular argument is used within one syllogism. That is, when the deduction contains a proposition that assumes the very thing the argument aims to prove; in essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which in its simplest form is not very persuasive. For example here is an attempt to prove that Paul is telling the truth:

  • Suppose Paul is not lying when he speaks.
  • Paul is speaking.
  • Therefore, Paul is telling the truth.

These statements are logical, but they do nothing to convince one of the truthfulness of the speaker. The problem is that in seeking to prove Paul's truthfulness, the speaker asks his audience to assume that Paul is telling the truth, so this actually proves "If Paul is not lying, then Paul is telling the truth."

Such arguments are logically valid. That is, the conclusion does in fact follow from the premises, since it is in some way identical to the premises. All self-circular arguments have this characteristic: that the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument.

END WIKI QUOTE

The logic IS valid, even if it is not, in and of itself, persuasive.

And, in this instance, there is a conditional statement:

"IF God is defined as Creator of the Universe," NOT, "God is Creator of the Universe"

Begging the question:

God IS Creator of the Universe

The Universe Exists

Therefore, God Created it

This is an entirely unpersuasive form of the syllogism - even if it is logically valid.

BUT, what I am employing is:

IF God is DEFINED as Creator of the Universe

THEN the Universe is necessarily evidence of the existence of the God we have defined.

This is a persuasive form of the syllogism that is conditioned upon the choice to define God as Creator of the Universe, rather than an arbitrary statement that attempts to prove itself.  And, again, the logic is sound.

No. It is begging the question. Pure and simple. The little pussy-assed "If" at the beginning doesn't change the fact that the suppositions of the syllogism hold the conclusion of the syllogism. What you have a word-game, not a valid conclusion. Leaving out a tiny step in the syllogism ("if you choose to accept that as your definition of God" ) doesn't invalidate the self-referential nature of your statement.

You can define God any way you like, but the instant that definition references the thing you are trying to prove, it is begging the question.

(edit: additional)

You seem to think that by commuting the internal self-reference to the "If you assume the definition of God as the Creator of the Universe..." that you are saved from begging the question. In that case, you suffer from intentional obfuscation as well as circular logic. That, Sir, makes you intellectually dishonest.

All you do is play word-games with definitions, and think we won't notice. And that makes you an idiot.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers