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.”


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

lifewhispers wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

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?

I think you've got it!

nigelTheBold wrote:

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?

You must make the choice to assign a label to something - anything, extant, or not. Not everyone would ever assign the label, "God" to All that is True in the Universe.  For them, "God" does not exist - even if that does not preclude a God of our definition and understanding from existing, based on our choice to employ the construct.  The question then becomes, "Does our construct reference an extant being, or not?"  And, that is based on the tenability of our definition of the construct.  And, that varies from person to person.

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?

nigelTheBold wrote:

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.

Well, "convert," to me, seemed to imply you thought I was seeking followers.  Sorry, if I was mistaken about that.   

Anyway, I do desire that others at least examine the proof, if for no other reason than to get them to critically analyze their own ideas about God in contrast to my own.  If I can accomplish that small feat, I feel I have won the battle.  A seed of doubt is all that is required to displace faith.  A proof of God is a pretty compelling seed of doubt in the minds of those with faith in the Gods of faith-based religions that offer none.

Apart from that goal, I don't care whether anyone embraces my construct of God, or not.  So, no, I am not even seeking converts - although, I have made some.

nigelTheBold wrote:

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.

How so? 

First of all, it is a REAL definition of God, not an artificial definition of God.  THEIRS is the artificial definition of God.  Why?  Because, theirs could never exist - mine can.

Appeasement?  Well, yes and no.  Yes, it appeases them by conceding a God that Created the Universe - without conceding methods or intentions.

Willful ignorance?  Hardly.  To peddle the "God did it" AS an explanation for the Universe is to peddle ignorance.  But, that is not what I am doing at all.  I am defining God as Creator of the Universe, which also happens to be and MUST be All that is True in the Universe.  This DEMANDS a process of discovering what the truth is, in order to know God and how God Created the Universe.  That is a BIG difference, don't you think?

And, what do you mean, "Intellectual dishonesty?"  How is anything I have presented dishonest?

nigelTheBold wrote:

It seems from a theological standpoint, you are attempting to castrate God.

On the contrary, theologically, I have liberated God from the clutches of dishonest fools who would claim to speak for Him.  What I have done is castrate the religions that exploit God for their own purposes.

nigelTheBold wrote:

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.

I really don't care whether atheists accept my definition of God, any more than I do the theists.  Again, my goal is to get them to think more logically and rationally about God.  If I can do that, I have accomplished my goal.

nigelTheBold wrote:

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

Still?  What other questions might you have?


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

lifewhispers wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

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?

I think you've got it!

nigelTheBold wrote:

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?

You must make the choice to assign a label to something - anything, extant, or not. Not everyone would ever assign the label, "God" to All that is True in the Universe.  For them, "God" does not exist - even if that does not preclude a God of our definition and understanding from existing, based on our choice to employ the construct.  The question then becomes, "Does our construct reference an extant being, or not?"  And, that is based on the tenability of our definition of the construct.  And, that varies from person to person.

This is the intellectual dishonesty. You are assigning a label ("God" ) that has been through thousands of years of definition and understanding, to something that does not in any way resemble those previous definitions. That is worse than arbitrary, as it constitutes an intellectual bait-and-switch.

I think I understand that you wish to create a common, neutral ground from which an honest, logical debate might ensue. That is, despite my earlier outburst, a noble goal. However, your definition of God is a tautology. There is no escaping the existence of God, as you've defined God as all of existence. The truth value of your definition evaluates as true under all circumstances and assumptions.

It's a very convoluted tautology, I'll give you that. I think that may be why you fail to recognize it as such. But, when it's all said and done, it can be simply restated as:

God is defined as all the Universe, and all the truth statements that evaluate as true.

God exists, because the Universe and all truth statements that evaluate as true exist.

I just don't see this as a logical, rational, or tenable definition of God.

 

"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

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.

nigelTheBold wrote:

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.

We HAD been having a civil conversation; but, if you'd like to ratchet things up a bit, I can play that way, too!  Now, dipshit, PAY ATTENTION:

IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT IT IS BEGGING THE QUESTION!!!

The FACT REMAINS that the logic is VALID!!!  The conclusion logically follows from the premise!   So, you're just plain fucking WRONG!

nigelTheBold wrote:

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.

BULLSHIT!!!

You didn't even bother to think about this at all, did you?  I've presented what no other religion on the fucking planet has done and that is a tenable definition of God, that neither you, nor any of the other morons on this site can seem to even comprehend, despite it's being so simple that a child could understand it.

So much for the idea that atheists are somehow more rational thinkers than theists.  You just blew that idea to Hell!

I'm not even going to bother repeating this.  Just fucking read it, again, in the proof itself. Shit-for-brains.

Now, would you care to continue this discussion in a civilized manner?  Or, shall we continue to sling shit at one another.  I can assure you, that you will not fare well against me in a shit-slinging contest.

If you ask NICELY, I might be willing to explain what seems to be confusing you so much.


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

nigelTheBold wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

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?

I think you've got it!

nigelTheBold wrote:

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?

You must make the choice to assign a label to something - anything, extant, or not. Not everyone would ever assign the label, "God" to All that is True in the Universe.  For them, "God" does not exist - even if that does not preclude a God of our definition and understanding from existing, based on our choice to employ the construct.  The question then becomes, "Does our construct reference an extant being, or not?"  And, that is based on the tenability of our definition of the construct.  And, that varies from person to person.

nigelTheBold wrote:

This is the intellectual dishonesty. You are assigning a label ("God" ) that has been through thousands of years of definition and understanding, to something that does not in any way resemble those previous definitions. That is worse than arbitrary, as it constitutes an intellectual bait-and-switch.

1 - There is no common definition of God, outside of God is Creator of the Universe.  Apart from that similarity, they are all different.  That's part of the problem.

2 - My definition is in compliance with the common understanding of God as Creator of the Universe.  Why?  Because, All that is True in the Universe IS Creating the Universe.  Just because theists and atheists may have never thought of it that way does not make it false.  And, it is axiomatic.  It PROVES ITSELF - BY DEFINITION.  It cannot be refuted - PERIOD.

Here, try to follow:

ME:  God is Creator of the Universe, which is All that is True in the Universe.

You:  How do you know God Created the Universe?

ME:  Because, I defined God AS Creator of the Universe.

You:  Well, what's that?

ME:  Whatever is Creating it

You:  Well, what's that?

ME:  I don't know; except, that I've decided to call it God.

You:  Well, how do you know that God exists?

ME:  Because, the Universe exists.  SOMETHING has to be Creating it.

You:  So, why are you calling God All that is True in the Universe.

ME:  Because,  only those circumstances, events,  processes, and everything else in the Universe that is actually true COULD have done it - unless, you can come up with another explanation.  Can you tell me how something that is not true could Create the Universe?  If not, then consider that everything that is true in the Universe is creating it.  Which is the more extraordinary claim?:

A - All that is True in the Universe, or God, is Creating the Universe

or

B - All that is True in the Universe, or God, does not exist

Which one should bear the burden of proof?

You:  I say God does not exist and you cannot prove that God does exist. You're just playing word games.

ME:  Then, according to my definition of God, you are saying that all that is true in the Universe does not exist.  Did you really mean to say that?  Do you really think that's true?

nigelTheBold wrote:

God is defined as all the Universe, and all the truth statements that evaluate as true.

God exists, because the Universe and all truth statements that evaluate as true exist.

I just don't see this as a logical, rational, or tenable definition of God.

 

It is logical, rational, and tenable.  It does not say much; but, it IS logical, rational, and tenable.

The conclusion logically follows from the premise - so, it is logical.

It makes no extraordinary claims, arbitrary conclusions, or unfounded assumptions - so, it is rational

It references something extant - so, it is tenable.


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

lifewhispers wrote:

It is logical, rational, and tenable.  It does not say much; but, it IS logical, rational, and tenable.

The conclusion logically follows from the premise - so, it is logical.

It makes no extraordinary claims, arbitrary conclusions, or unfounded assumptions - so, it is rational

It references something extant - so, it is tenable.

Of *course* the conclusion logically follows from the premise.

Because the conclusion is the premise.

"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 wrote:Now,

lifewhispers wrote:

Now, would you care to continue this discussion in a civilized manner?  Or, shall we continue to sling shit at one another.  I can assure you, that you will not fare well against me in a shit-slinging contest.

You do certainly have more shit on your side. You seem to have an endless supply, in fact.

I know I should apologize. What I said was uncalled-for. Well, except for your pedantic attempt to obfuscate your logical fallacies. I know you're not an idiot for the reasons I stated. However, I do believe you have some serious problems with your logic that need addressed. (And I'm not the only one, apparently. But they must be just as stupid as me, right? You must be the smart one. Have you been diagnosed with NPD, by chance?)

It isn't sound logic, no matter how many times you say it is, nor how loudly you say it. It's about like this:

Bert: Hey, Ernie, why do you have the banana in your ear?

Ernie: To keep away the alligators.

Bert: There aren't any alligators around here.

Ernie: I know. It sure works well, doesn't it?

Yeah. It's true. All I know about logic I learned from Sesame Street.

Anyway, good luck. I do mean that sincerely.

"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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Xlint thread ....This is

  Xlint thread ....

This is way I have repeatedly said , say "god of abe" or "god cosmos". Isn't redefining G O D our mission ? The > god < word is not going away ..... so fix it.

And so we are,  .... RRS rocks,  and thanks a bunch lifewhispers.

I AM 100% G AWED D , shit, what ain't ? ..... "god" ain't the problem, Dogma is. Dogma is the Devil ..... kill it , and we are,           and that is what really matters to me ..... go go go science !  ......


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

nigelTheBold wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

It is logical, rational, and tenable.  It does not say much; but, it IS logical, rational, and tenable.

The conclusion logically follows from the premise - so, it is logical.

It makes no extraordinary claims, arbitrary conclusions, or unfounded assumptions - so, it is rational

It references something extant - so, it is tenable.

Of *course* the conclusion logically follows from the premise.

Because the conclusion is the premise.

Like it or not,

God = Creator of the Universe

Universe = exists

therefore,

God = exists

is a VALID syllogistic construct. But, it doesn't say much.

We still need to know what exactly that Creator, or God IS.  So, we must further flesh out the definition, so that it can become tenable in a meaningful way, rather than just logically consistent with our premise.

God = Creator of the Universe

All that is True in the Universe = Creator of the Universe

therefore,

God = All that is True in the Universe

All that is True in the Universe = Creator of the Universe is AXIOMATIC.  IT PROVES ITSELF.  Therefore, when we assign God to that axiomatic definition, our God becomes AXIOMATIC and PROVES ITSELF - BY DEFINITION.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote: 

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

  Xlint thread ....

This is way I have repeatedly said , say "god of abe" or "god cosmos". Isn't redefining G O D our mission ? The > god < word is not going away ..... so fix it.

And so we are,  .... RRS rocks,  and thanks a bunch lifewhispers.

I AM 100% G AWED D , shit, what ain't ..... god an't the problem, Dogma is. Dogma is the Devil ..... kill it           

Dude, I don't know how you do it, but you make the most sense of all of us.

LW: I humbly apologize for my ad-hominem attacks. They were beneath me, and completely undeserved, irrespective of our philosophical differences.

"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:It isn't

nigelTheBold wrote:

It isn't sound logic, no matter how many times you say it is, nor how loudly you say it.

Argue the point with Wikipedia, if you aren't willing to actually think about this.  It IS valid logic - even if it does not establish anything in and of itself.  It need only have a conclusion that logically follows the premise.  It does that.

nigelTheBold wrote:

It's about like this:

Bert: Hey, Ernie, why do you have the banana in your ear?

Ernie: To keep away the alligators.

Bert: There aren't any alligators around here.

Ernie: I know. It sure works well, doesn't it?

Yeah. It's true. All I know about logic I learned from Sesame Street.

If my syllogism is the one that is faulty, why not use it as your example, instead of a ridiculous straw man?  And, then explain why it is faulty. 


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

nigelTheBold wrote:

LW: I humbly apologize for my ad-hominem attacks. They were beneath me, and completely undeserved, irrespective of our philosophical differences.

What philosophical differences?  As far as I can tell, we simply disagree on whether the logic I have employed in my proof of God is valid, or not.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain an alternate definition of God that meets your logical approval.  Do you have one to offer?  Or, is it simply impossible to contrive a tenable definition of God?  Come on, give it a shot.  See if you can come up with a tenable definition for God that allows God to be Creator of the Universe (since that is the most commonly accepted application of the term) and still makes reference to something that both exists and can create the Universe - BUT, is NOT All that is True in the Universe and does not employ the logical fallacies of which you accuse me.  You can't use "All that is True in the Universe"; because, you say it isn't logically sound.

Good luck!


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

lifewhispers wrote:

Like it or not,

God = Creator of the Universe

Universe = exists

therefore,

God = exists

is a VALID syllogistic construct. But, it doesn't say much.

We still need to know what exactly that Creator, or God IS.  So, we must further flesh out the definition, so that it can become tenable in a meaningful way, rather than just logically consistent with our premise.

God = Creator of the Universe

All that is True in the Universe = Creator of the Universe

therefore,

God = All that is True in the Universe

All that is True in the Universe = Creator of the Universe is AXIOMATIC.  IT PROVES ITSELF.  Therefore, when we assign God to that axiomatic definition, our God becomes AXIOMATIC and PROVES ITSELF - BY DEFINITION.

I apologized in a different post, but I will say it again here, directly to you: I apologize for my unseemly and undeserved attacks on your intelligence and your intentions. I know you are not an idiot, and I realize you are merely presenting and defending a logical construct.

This is a rather excellent post, especially considering the timing.

I was in a discussion a couple of weeks back in which I was forced to read Quine, Two Dogmas of Empiricism (http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html). He discusses analytic truths constructed exactly as you are constructing this. His argument is that analytic truths based on synonymy are semantically null, and therefore logically void. (Actually, his argument is much more, but that is part of it; also, I am greatly oversimplifying.) His proof of that is pretty entertaining, in which he employs linguistics to establish semantic meaning of synonymy, and analytic statements.

His metaphysics was based on relative ontologies, and his deconstruction of analytics was designed to create a holistic logic in which analytic statements and synthetic statements were no longer separate. I mention this to provide a little background for his purposes in removing synonymy as a valid logical construct.

Anyway, that was pretty much my biggest objection to your logic. The tautology is completely secondary, actually, as many analytic statements are tautologies, and some are true.

Later, Robert Barrett extended the analysis to include all analytic statements, and not just those of synonymy. This deconstruction has pretty much gutted analytic statements as separate from synthetic statements.

Now, when I read it all, I thought it was all just a bunch of splitting hairs, that really added very little to the concept of empiricism. With this practical example, I understand exactly what they meant. You are right: your construction is valid Kantian logic. I would argue your analytics, but not your technique. Applying the principle of synonymy, the analytics become trivial, and it's easy to see exactly where you and I diverge in our philosophy.

I hope this helps explain my lapse into unreasonableness. What I saw as a flaw in your logic seemed as natural and apparent to me as the logical truth of it to you, and I was frustrated that we seemed to be talking across each other. I attributed this to obtuseness on your part, rather than realizing it was a fundamental difference in analytics.

I'm glad to see you've reduced your logic down to less than a page. That's a big improvement over the original post.

"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 wrote:What

lifewhispers wrote:

What philosophical differences?  As far as I can tell, we simply disagree on whether the logic I have employed in my proof of God is valid, or not.

I hope that was adequately answered in my last post.

Quote:

I'm perfectly willing to entertain an alternate definition of God that meets your logical approval.  Do you have one to offer?  Or, is it simply impossible to contrive a tenable definition of God?  Come on, give it a shot.  See if you can come up with a tenable definition for God that allows God to be Creator of the Universe (since that is the most commonly accepted application of the term) and still makes reference to something that both exists and can create the Universe - BUT, is NOT All that is True in the Universe and does not employ the logical fallacies of which you accuse me.  You can't use "All that is True in the Universe"; because, you say it isn't logically sound.

Good luck!

This is why I am an atheist: there is no logical definition of God. The closest we can get might even be your definition. If not, it'll be something similar. But in the end, it still relies on the definition to achieve the conclusion. Quinian synonymy reduces this to a completely void statement. I believe you know this intuitively, as you've often referenced the limited utility of the proof, other than to establish the existence of a logical God.

That is why I'm a hard atheist. I'm not agnostic at all. I know there can logically be no God. At least, I know it as much as we can know anything. Like Quine, I find I have a relative ontology. Most empiricists do, whether they realize it or not. So, all truths are contingent on understanding, and ontologies can shift. At some point, there may be proof for God. However, with our current knowledge, both philosophically and scientifically, God is an illogical construct. When the proof comes, it will have to rely on objective evidence, and not free-floating logical constructs that are true only by carefully-crafted definition.

You claimed it is atheists' dogmatic denial of God that keeps them from rationally discussing God. I believe that is incorrect. Most atheists have thought considerably about the possibility of God. Most of us have not just rejected the possibility out-of-hand. But when one of the best possible arguments is true only by synonymy, there is very little philosophical ore to mine.

Now, I could get all creative and use quantum mechanics to build up both a creator and universal consciousness, but then I'd just be making shit up. I can spin a tale like nobody's business. I can create entire worlds and universes and populate them with interesting characters. (You'll be one of them.) But in the end, it's just making shit up.

In the end, I rather like iGod's Bronneresque philosophy. Not because its logical or rational, but because he doesn't need it to be. As I see it, the only way to sidestep the philosophic impossibility of God is to completely ignore empirical ontology. Don't even worry about the rationality of it, because in the end, it's illogical anyway.

That may be the curse of being a logical positivist. I just can't accept a logically-complete, semantically void statement as any kind of truth.

"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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Damn cool you guys.

  Damn cool you guys.  Hey, god is an Atheist of course !        

Spread the "Good Word" !  Jesus/Buddha tried ..... and today Carlin/Condell.  God has no god just as me and you .... We are ONE !          

..... just to add, arguing who was the best teacher is something religious WACKS do .......  let's not go there fellow atheists ..... Debating and arguing are different things ..... "The ways of Science vs The ways of Religion" is an example ...... 


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

lifewhispers wrote:

What philosophical differences?  As far as I can tell, we simply disagree on whether the logic I have employed in my proof of God is valid, or not.

nigelTheBold wrote:

I hope that was adequately answered in my last post.

Sorry, but it wasn't.  I still don't understand your perspective.

Quote:

I'm perfectly willing to entertain an alternate definition of God that meets your logical approval.  Do you have one to offer?  Or, is it simply impossible to contrive a tenable definition of God?  Come on, give it a shot.  See if you can come up with a tenable definition for God that allows God to be Creator of the Universe (since that is the most commonly accepted application of the term) and still makes reference to something that both exists and can create the Universe - BUT, is NOT All that is True in the Universe and does not employ the logical fallacies of which you accuse me.  You can't use "All that is True in the Universe"; because, you say it isn't logically sound.

Good luck!

nigelTheBold wrote:

This is why I am an atheist: there is no logical definition of God. The closest we can get might even be your definition...

But, I just provided you with one.  You even concede its logical validity.

What you are claiming is that, despite our ability to logically define countlesss other words with respect to what they reference, we somehow cannot do that with the simple three letter word, "G-O-D."  THAT is not logical.

nigelTheBold wrote:

...If not, it'll be something similar. But in the end, it still relies on the definition to achieve the conclusion.

So, how do our definitions of other words differ in that regard?  Please, provide some examples that illustrate your point.

 

nigelTheBold wrote:

Quinian synonymy reduces this to a completely void statement. I believe you know this intuitively, as you've often referenced the limited utility of the proof, other than to establish the existence of a logical God.

I'm sorry, but I must take issue with Quine on this point.  Quine's skepticism of synonomy necessarily leads to a skepticism of meaning.  Given Quine's argument, discussions about correct or incorrect translations are impossible.  How does he overcome that problem? 

nigelTheBold wrote:

That is why I'm a hard atheist. I'm not agnostic at all. I know there can logically be no God...

Then, get to the business of proving that - with a logically consistent definition of God staring you in the face.   I look forward to your attempt.

And, by the way, exactly what is it that you would say can never exist?  You're claiming that there can logically be no God.  But, exactly what is that you say can never logically exist?

nigelTheBold wrote:

...with our current knowledge, both philosophically and scientifically, God is an illogical construct.

WHAT is an illogical construct?   Be specific - and, avoid synonomy, if you can (since, it is on that basis that you disqualify my proof).

Pretend I've never heard of the word, "God."  How do  you communicate what you are saying to me?  This is Quine's problem, too.

nigelTheBold wrote:

When the proof comes, it will have to rely on objective evidence, and not free-floating logical constructs that are true only by carefully-crafted definition.

Proof of what?  God?  But, what's that?  Remember, I've never heard of the word, "God."  You'll have to DEFINE it for me.

 

nigelTheBold wrote:

You claimed it is atheists' dogmatic denial of God that keeps them from rationally discussing God. I believe that is incorrect. Most atheists have thought considerably about the possibility of God. Most of us have not just rejected the possibility out-of-hand. But when one of the best possible arguments is true only by synonymy, there is very little philosophical ore to mine.

The possibility of what?  God?  But, what's that?  Remember, you and Quine don't like synonomy and definitions involve synonomy.  How do we communicate meaningfully without it?

 

nigelTheBold wrote:

Now, I could get all creative and use quantum mechanics to build up both a creator and universal consciousness, but then I'd just be making shit up. I can spin a tale like nobody's business. I can create entire worlds and universes and populate them with interesting characters. (You'll be one of them.) But in the end, it's just making shit up.

But, what have I made up that is not already there?

 

nigelTheBold wrote:

That may be the curse of being a logical positivist. I just can't accept a logically-complete, semantically void statement as any kind of truth.

But, my statement is not semantically void.

God = All that is True in the Universe is not semantically void.  It has meaning - whatever all that is true in the Universe means.  And, that is certainly not meaningless.  Unless, you are positing that All that is True in the Universe has no meaning and cannot be discerned logically. 


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

lifewhispers wrote:

Sorry, but it wasn't.  I still don't understand your perspective.

Oh, well. It took me a while to understand Quine. He's not easy to follow. But that is the philosophic difference to which I refer.

lifewhispers wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

This is why I am an atheist: there is no logical definition of God. The closest we can get might even be your definition...

But, I just provided you with one.  You even concede its logical validity.

What you are claiming is that, despite our ability to logically define countlesss other words with respect to what they reference, we somehow cannot do that with the simple three letter word, "G-O-D."  THAT is not logical.

Yes, it is perfectly logical, given your analytic statements. Although we often define words with respect to that which they reference, you are doing more than that. First, you are imbueing God with a power, and with intent. This occurs during your first definition, with the creation of the universe. "Creation" is a term that implies construction with intent. I realize you do not mean it that way. However, it holds that meaning.

This creates a duality of meaning within the term "God." For one set (the atheists), "creation" is a material event, devoid of intent or reason. For theists, it becomes the crux of theology, an intentional act by a being able to employ intent to create a universe. So, your definition doesn't hold a single referent, though I know you intend it to do so.

Second, there's the leap of "creator of the the universe" to "the universe and all that is logically true within." This is a logical leap, one which you again creatively employ definition. So, now God holds two distinct referents (creator of the universe, and all that is in the universe), as well as potential relative referents, depending on to whom you are talking. We can even ignore the relative referents, and just focus on the two distinct referents.

The two distinct referents make the definition ambiguous, as both referents are distinct and orthogonal.

Finally, there's the whole question of necessity. Each referent is ontologically redundant. We already have a conception of the beginning of the universe. Applying the word "God" to that beginning without having a distinct referent does not define the word "God" as a distinct concept, and so "God" is a redundant term. And, as the term "God" suffers from lack of an empirical definition, this term becomes not just redundant, but ambiguous in a way that is distinct from its dual referents.

Applying the term "God" to the entire universe, plus all the logical truths within the universe, is probably the most logical step, as there is (as far as I know) no distinct word for that conception. But, once you remove the "creator of the universe" from the "God" concept (which is, as you pointed out, the only point on which most extant definitions agree), it is questionable whether using the word "God" is appropriate.

Here are the problems I see with your logic:

The analytic statement, "God is the creator of the universe," presupposes a God. As you are using this as a basis for proving that God exists, the first statement begs the question. (Going back to the "If you assume that God is the creator of the universe..." then becomes a logical statement about belief, and not about the existence of God. If I assume that God exists, and then follow through, we end up with, "God is the creator of the universe. The Universe exists. Therefore, God exists." This is begging the question, and a tautology, so therefore is logically flawed. This is what I was trying to say when I went off the deep end before.) So, requiring God as the creator of the universe presupposes a creator of the universe, which is not empirically sound.

Second, there's the whole undefined step from "creator of the universe" to "the universe and all that is logically true." This gives not one, but two referents to the concept of "God," which makes the term ambiguous.

Third, you allow personal choice to either allow God to refer to an extant entity with intent and consciousness, or simply all that is. This gives the definition a relative referent, which increases ambiguity.

There. Not one mention of Quine, nor synonymy.

lifewhispers wrote:

 

nigelTheBold wrote:

Now, I could get all creative and use quantum mechanics to build up both a creator and universal consciousness, but then I'd just be making shit up. I can spin a tale like nobody's business. I can create entire worlds and universes and populate them with interesting characters. (You'll be one of them.) But in the end, it's just making shit up.

But, what have I made up that is not already there?

A creator. There need not be a creator, yet you have placed on smack-dab at the top of your list.

lifewhispers wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

That may be the curse of being a logical positivist. I just can't accept a logically-complete, semantically void statement as any kind of truth.

But, my statement is not semantically void.

God = All that is True in the Universe is not semantically void.  It has meaning - whatever all that is true in the Universe means.  And, that is certainly not meaningless.  Unless, you are positing that All that is True in the Universe has no meaning and cannot be discerned logically. 

Since I'm not referencing Quine, I'll simply say: If you *mean* all that is true in the universe, why not just say that? Why take a word that has relative meaning based on personal belief and apply it to a distinct concept?

"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


HeathGresham
HeathGresham's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2008-03-01
User is offlineOffline
this beats all creationist arguments hands down

 

There will always be un-knows, some of them might be answered but others like the origin of the laws of physics wont probably be answered. We as the scientific minority understand that. But you aren't giving me any better of an answer. I think that science is going in the right direction with trying to explain existence. But you are just giving me a throwing up of the hands because you’re giving me a reason that there is utterly no evidence for. If you think there is any evidence of a god please show me. Even if the earth was created in 6 days and the earth is only 6000 years old that does not prove a god it just proves that the earth was created in 6 days and the earth is only 6000 years old. You’re not giving me a shred of evidence for a creator. You’re only giving me evidence that some old book got close. You don't know the answer so you’re throwing a magical being in the mix, well not even in the mix, as you say evolutionists are with our few holes of un-known, your throwing the magical being at the beginning and saying he did it lol. Well good sir I am no longer an atheist I now believe that Ronald McDonald created the earth, he made the double cheese burger and it was good. That argument is just the same as yours I have no evidence for Ronald creating the earth but hey evolution doesn’t explain the full depths of are existence yet so obviously Ronald did it how could I be so stupid.

Heath Gresham


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Right on HG, and thanks.

Right on HG, and thanks. Glad you are here.

This interesting thread is alot about semantics and defininitions.  I often say, "Sure I accept Gawed, but phuck that god of abe, that is devil shit ! " .....         Kill that devil ....   


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

nigelTheBold wrote:

This is why I am an atheist: there is no logical definition of God. The closest we can get might even be your definition...

lifewhispers wrote:

But, I just provided you with one.  You even concede its logical validity.

What you are claiming is that, despite our ability to logically define countlesss other words with respect to what they reference, we somehow cannot do that with the simple three letter word, "G-O-D."  THAT is not logical.

nigelTheBold wrote:

Yes, it is perfectly logical, given your analytic statements. Although we often define words with respect to that which they reference, you are doing more than that. First, you are imbueing God with a power, and with intent. This occurs during your first definition, with the creation of the universe. "Creation" is a term that implies construction with intent. I realize you do not mean it that way. However, it holds that meaning.

So, you're basically saying it's impossible to define God in a logically consistent manner; because, words can have multiple definitions.  And, as long as words continue to have multiple definitions, it will remain impossible.  Have I got that right?

nigelTheBold wrote:

This creates a duality of meaning within the term "God." For one set (the atheists), "creation" is a material event, devoid of intent or reason. For theists, it becomes the crux of theology, an intentional act by a being able to employ intent to create a universe. So, your definition doesn't hold a single referent, though I know you intend it to do so.

Well, just like everyone else, I am constrained to use words to communicate my ideas.  Words can have mulitple definitions; and, the interpretation of them is dependent on the ability of the reader to apply the words in their proper context - not on the ability of the author to put his ideas into words.  In other words, that's not my problem.  If the reader is confused, I will clarify my meaning for them using other words, as necessary.  But, I think the context of my proof is clear to all rational triers of fact.  That's the most I can hope to accomplish using words.  That's all ANYONE can hope to accomplish using words.

I further make clear my context by refining the definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  It is not logical or rational to assume I intend to imbue power and intent to All that is True in the Universe, merely by virtue of my employing the word, "creator."

I understand your SUBJECTIVE objection to my use of the word, "creator"; but, it just doesn't hold water, for the reason I just specified.  And, let me point out that you knew that I did not mean it that way; therefore, your objection that it is ambiguous isn't sound.  Why?  Because, you accurately interpreted my meaning.  Your objection seems to spring from the possibility that others, unlike you, may not be able to accurately interpret my meaning.  But, you cannot demonstrate that to be the case - especially, in light of the fact that you did not misinterpret my message.

nigelTheBold wrote:

Second, there's the leap of "creator of the the universe" to "the universe and all that is logically true within." This is a logical leap, one which you again creatively employ definition. So, now God holds two distinct referents (creator of the universe, and all that is in the universe), as well as potential relative referents, depending on to whom you are talking. We can even ignore the relative referents, and just focus on the two distinct referents.

The two distinct referents make the definition ambiguous, as both referents are distinct and orthogonal.

That really depends on the reader more so than the author.  When taken on the whole, the context of what I am presenting becomes clear.  At least, I have yet to encounter a theist who thought I was positing the consciousness and intent of All that is True in the Universe (on the contrary, they typically are outraged that I would strip God of His personification).  That idea seems to only be coming from atheists.  A strange conclusion, given the clear context I present, and given that atheists typically fancy themselves to be more logical and critical in their thoughts than theists.

And, it is clear that the Universe IS Creating itself.  At least, there is absolutely no evidence of its being created by anything outside of the Universe.  Therefore, in the context of creation of the Universe, to say that All that is True in the Universe is creating the Universe is not a logical leap - it is a natural and perfectly logical conclusion.

nigelTheBold wrote:

Finally, there's the whole question of necessity. Each referent is ontologically redundant. We already have a conception of the beginning of the universe. Applying the word "God" to that beginning without having a distinct referent does not define the word "God" as a distinct concept, and so "God" is a redundant term.

 

But, I am not applying "God" merely to the beginning of the Universe, but to its creation as an ongoing process.  It is clear that the creation of the Universe is not complete.  The "event" is a work in progress.  The Big Bang is not over. 

And, we have many redundant terms in the English language.   But, we maintain them, anyway, because of the subtle differences in their meanings and applications.  Words are particularly crude tools to use for communication; but, we use them.   As long as we do, we will always have that problem.  I cannot do anything about that.

nigelTheBold wrote:

And, as the term "God" suffers from lack of an empirical definition, this term becomes not just redundant, but ambiguous in a way that is distinct from its dual referents.

But, I just gave you one.  All that is True in the Universe IS an empirical definition of God.  It CAN be tested by virtue of applying a test of truth to that which you would ascribe to God.  If it is true, it IS God.  If it is not true, it is NOT God.  How is that not empirical?

nigelTheBold wrote:

Applying the term "God" to the entire universe, plus all the logical truths within the universe, is probably the most logical step, as there is (as far as I know) no distinct word for that conception. But, once you remove the "creator of the universe" from the "God" concept (which is, as you pointed out, the only point on which most extant definitions agree), it is questionable whether using the word "God" is appropriate.

But, why would I remove it?  It's true.  Here, let me make myself more clear:

cre·a·tor      /kriˈeɪtər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kree-ey-ter] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun
1.a person or thing that creates.
2.the Creator, God.

 

Definition 1 allows for a thing that creates.  All that is True in the Universe, or God, is Creating the Universe.  I see no reason I should have to remove it - especially, when the second definition of the word makes a distinct reference to God - and, that is the subject of the discussion.

nigelTheBold wrote:

Here are the problems I see with your logic: The analytic statement, "God is the creator of the universe," presupposes a God. As you are using this as a basis for proving that God exists, the first statement begs the question. (Going back to the "If you assume that God is the creator of the universe..." then becomes a logical statement about belief, and not about the existence of God. If I assume that God exists, and then follow through, we end up with, "God is the creator of the universe. The Universe exists. Therefore, God exists." This is begging the question, and a tautology, so therefore is logically flawed. This is what I was trying to say when I went off the deep end before.) So, requiring God as the creator of the universe presupposes a creator of the universe, which is not empirically sound.

See my explanation, above.  God is DEFINED AS Creator of the Universe.  It assumes only that the Universe is being Created.  WHATEVER is creating the Universe IS creating it - or, we would not be here to discuss it.  That is a FAIR and LOGICAL assumption that cannot be refuted.  It is NOT begging the question.

nigelTheBold wrote:

Second, there's the whole undefined step from "creator of the universe" to "the universe and all that is logically true." This gives not one, but two referents to the concept of "God," which makes the term ambiguous.

But, it is axiomatic that All that is True in the  Universe is creating it.  The Universe IS being created.  All there is in the Universe is All that is True in the Universe.  That leaves room for nothing else that could be responsible for its Creation.  Or, can you demonstrate the existence of something that is not true that is responsible for the creation of the Universe?  From my perspective, you are reasoning yourself into absurdity.  In the absence of any other possible explanation, how does that allow for any ambiguity, here?

I gave you the short form of the syllogism, in an earlier post.  You concede it as valid Kantian logic. 

nigelTheBold wrote:

Third, you allow personal choice to either allow God to refer to an extant entity with intent and consciousness, or simply all that is. This gives the definition a relative referent, which increases ambiguity.

There is still the distinct possibility of an extant entity with intent and consciousness - even if we cannot prove that intent and consciousness.  It would be logically fallacious to just disallow that possibility.   Regardless, of whether such an entity exists, or not, the way things really are remains the same.

nigelTheBold wrote:

Now, I could get all creative and use quantum mechanics to build up both a creator and universal consciousness, but then I'd just be making shit up. I can spin a tale like nobody's business. I can create entire worlds and universes and populate them with interesting characters. (You'll be one of them.) But in the end, it's just making shit up.

But, what have I made up that is not already there?

nigelTheBold wrote:

A creator. There need not be a creator, yet you have placed on smack-dab at the top of your list.

Here is where your logic is flawed.  Yes, there NECESSARILY MUST be a Creator of the Universe (thing that gives rise to, or creates) .  Or, we would not be here to discuss it.  Whatever that might be, it is definitely TRUE and can safely be assumed.

nigelTheBold wrote:

That may be the curse of being a logical positivist. I just can't accept a logically-complete, semantically void statement as any kind of truth.

But, my statement is not semantically void.

God = All that is True in the Universe is not semantically void.  It has meaning - whatever all that is true in the Universe means.  And, that is certainly not meaningless.  Unless, you are positing that All that is True in the Universe has no meaning and cannot be discerned logically. 

nigelTheBold wrote:

Since I'm not referencing Quine, I'll simply say: If you *mean* all that is true in the universe, why not just say that? Why take a word that has relative meaning based on personal belief and apply it to a distinct concept?

1 - Because,  there is no single word that already adequately describes the concept I am presenting

2 - Because, the word "God" seemed the most appropriate term to apply to that concept.

3 - By doing so, I remove the relative meaning of the word and make it specific, thus, removing the ambiguity to which you seem to object.

 


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

lifewhispers wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Yes, it is perfectly logical, given your analytic statements. Although we often define words with respect to that which they reference, you are doing more than that. First, you are imbueing God with a power, and with intent. This occurs during your first definition, with the creation of the universe. "Creation" is a term that implies construction with intent. I realize you do not mean it that way. However, it holds that meaning.

So, you're basically saying it's impossible to define God in a logically consistent manner; because, words can have multiple definitions.  And, as long as words continue to have multiple definitions, it will remain impossible.  Have I got that right?

No -- it's possible to define God however you want. However, you can't use that definition as an analytic statement in a logical proof in which the conclusion involves the definition. Until your conclusions are not part to your initial assumptions, your conclusions are indeterminate.

Basically, you have a definition, which is all well-and-good. But you have no logical proof of God, outside your definition. You have merely proven that your definition of God is internally consistent.

Also, the assertion that the universe is in a constant process of creation is a rather bold, unsupported statement. There's still no link between that which initiated the existence of the universe (in an event colloquially called "the big bang," which is a misnomer) and the process of change following the forward arrow of time (which some have described as entropy). "Change" is not creation, and so the universe is not undergoing constant creation. It's undergoing constant change.

And we do have a single word to represent all that is in the universe, and all the logical truths in the universe. We call it "reality." Although laden with ambiguity of its own, "reality" has much less linguistic and emotional baggage than "God." However, if we were to equate this with your definition of God, God = reality. Which is naturalistic pantheism.

You might be interested in Spinoza. I really enjoyed him when I read analysis of his philosophy many, many years ago, and I mostly read him for epistemology. (Spinoza was a great influence on the sciences, one of the first to consider the universe holistically.) So, my memory of his metaphysics and theology is a bit shaky. However, I remember his deconstruction of reality lead him to natural pantheism, in which there is but one substance in the universe, God, and the various things we consider distinct are but the attributes of this singular substance. There's a lot of similarity between his God, and yours, if I remember correctly. He merely takes it one step farther.

"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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Now I will shout, "For Jesus

Now I will shout, "For Jesus Christ's sakes in the name of gawed, can we now have peace?" ..... LMFAO

This tread has been a riot. Thanks guys. Sorry I AM unable to help much. Me brains are bad.

No wonder in some religions just mentioning god's name??? is a no no !

Wack job Luther said "pluck out the eye of reason" .... but the more I think about that, it can make sense. No one can know the whole reality of god. Buddha said who the heck would worry about that god. Jesus said we are god.            ...... Ummmm , obviously " g AWE d " rules !

Language and even math are obviously inadequate at this time. Some say meditate. Ummm yeah, whatever might help this madness of confusion ..... but I'll just wisely have another beer ..... afterall, I completely trust "G awe D" ..... so let's party !

For some laughs, http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070607092258AAawYNv

http://groups.msn.com/FightingIgnorance2


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

lifewhispers wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Yes, it is perfectly logical, given your analytic statements. Although we often define words with respect to that which they reference, you are doing more than that. First, you are imbueing God with a power, and with intent. This occurs during your first definition, with the creation of the universe. "Creation" is a term that implies construction with intent. I realize you do not mean it that way. However, it holds that meaning.

So, you're basically saying it's impossible to define God in a logically consistent manner; because, words can have multiple definitions.  And, as long as words continue to have multiple definitions, it will remain impossible.  Have I got that right?

nigelTheBold wrote:

No -- it's possible to define God however you want. However, you can't use that definition as an analytic statement in a logical proof in which the conclusion involves the definition. Until your conclusions are not part to your initial assumptions, your conclusions are indeterminate.

Somehow, I don't think you would have the same objection, if I said, "Something" is Creating the Universe.  You seem to have a problem with the word, "God."  Although, I'm still not quite sure why.

Anyway, let's look at this issue of "begging the question," again, shall we?  Let's begin by looking at some other relevant examples:

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

"The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."

How do these examples compare with:

Something is Creator of the Universe

The Universe exists

therefore, Something exists

nigelTheBold wrote:

Basically, you have a definition, which is all well-and-good. But you have no logical proof of God, outside your definition. You have merely proven that your definition of God is internally consistent.

Pardon my ignorance, but I'm still not clear on your point, here.  If I say:

Rain is precipitation that falls from the clouds

We have observed that precipitation does fall from the clouds

therefore,

Rain exists

How is that not a proof that rain exists?  How is the existence of the Universe not proof of the existence of that which is Creating it? (I'll deal with your issue with an ongoing creation of the Universe, below)

nigelTheBold wrote:

Also, the assertion that the universe is in a constant process of creation is a rather bold, unsupported statement. There's still no link between that which initiated the existence of the universe (in an event colloquially called "the big bang," which is a misnomer) and the process of change following the forward arrow of time (which some have described as entropy).

I would say that yours is the unreasonable assertion, here.  You would claim that there is "still no link between that which initiated the existence of the Universe...and the process of change following the forward arrow of time."  THAT is an unsupported assertion.  Why?  Because, there IS a link between that which initiated the existence of the Universe and the process of change following the forward arrow of time.  We just don't know what it is.  BUT, it is a SAFE assumption to posit its existence - safer than to claim that it does not exist, anyway .  I would say that the evidence of such a link is so self-evident as to make it axiomatic.  And, we do not have to know its nature to posit its existence logically (what do you do with the "gap?&quotEye-wink.

nigelTheBold wrote:

"Change" is not creation, and so the universe is not undergoing constant creation. It's undergoing constant change.

You are welcome to your perspective on creation.  The definition of the word is ambigous enough to allow yours and my proper usage of it in different contexts. Here, let me demonstrate how I AM properly using the term, "create."

cre·ate       (krē-āt')  Pronunciation Key 
tr.v.   cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, cre·ates

  1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
  2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
  3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
  4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.

I am employing the word in accordance with definitions 1 and 2, above (although, the complexity and beauty of the Universe could also justify the usage of definition 4, as well - but, not today).  From the instant the Universe began, it has been giving rise to the way things are, now.  Said another way, since the Universe began, it has been creating the way things are, now. 

But, what is clear is that The Universe is Creating itself - in the same manner that you and I are continually creating ourselves in the eternal moment of now (because, that is really all that exists in terms of time).

nigelTheBold wrote:

And we do have a single word to represent all that is in the universe, and all the logical truths in the universe. We call it "reality." Although laden with ambiguity of its own, "reality" has much less linguistic and emotional baggage than "God." However, if we were to equate this with your definition of God, God = reality. Which is naturalistic pantheism.

1 - "God" has a philosophical context that "reality" does not.  I am capitalizing on that fact

2 - "Reality" does not encompass that which is in our imaginations - because, that which is in our imaginations is not real.  But, what is in our imaginations has a real effect on reality.  That which is in our imaginations is part of All that is True in the Universe, or God - not reality.   This is true, even if reality encompasses everything else in the Universe.  So, they are not the same.  Hence, I am not a naturalistic pantheist.

Where we are concerned, there are three levels of Creation:

1 - Thought

2 - Intent

3 - Action

How does "reality" encompass those three levels of Creation?  Are our thoughts a part of reality?  What about their references?  I imagine a house.  Obviously, the thought is represented by a pattern in my brain - that's real.  But, the house is not real, even though it is true that it exists as a thought.  And, should I choose to build a house, that image will influence it - even though, it is not "real."  How does "reality" take that into account?  It's not tangible or measurable, nor does it have any mass or energy - but, it's there.

And, how does "reality" encompass "intent?"  How are my intentions reflected in "reality?"  I HAVE intent; therefore, it is TRUE that I have intent.  So, that I have intent is a part of All that is True in the Universe, or "God" - but, not a part of "reality."

I think it fair to say that "reality" does encompass "action."  But, absent its ability to encompass the non-real abstractions that have a true effect on "reality," it is simply insufficient for my purposes.  All that is True in the Universe, or God, is bigger than "reality."  I cannot imagine a God bigger or more accurately described than that.

So, I am unconcerned about the linguistic and emotional baggage the word carries.  It is the only term that suits my purposes.

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Many do have a problem with

Many do have a problem with the word 'created', as it implies or "suggests" a creator and a beginning of conscious intent.   

Ummm , no beginning , no creator , no first intent .... Seems there is no easy proper simple definition for god. Let's keep guessing and trying anyway.

God is "All that is True in the Universe", hey, works for little me.  

The old phrase,  "God is everything", or "God is what is",  works too.

Therefore "I am god as you". Bingo ???  Buddha laughed , atheist Jesus wept,  I'll get drunk. What matters is that god of abe takes a hike and never returns.  Go go science, the study of awesome gawed .....  LOL and good luck .....  but shit,  what is god ?  (giggles)

First verse of the TAO kind of said give up the question. I say this is god. So what is this ???  Geezzz .....  I hardly got a clue ....    

Tao - The God that can be told
is not the eternal God.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

This debate would be freaking nuts, if it just wasn't for the menace of that god of abe,  which must be annihilated !   

Hey I know,  "god is REAL magic"  ......   

Olivia Newton John - Magic    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvfE-Cf9Qcc

Wow , she's a cute goddess !   

 

 


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

lifewhispers wrote:

Somehow, I don't think you would have the same objection, if I said, "Something" is Creating the Universe.  You seem to have a problem with the word, "God."  Although, I'm still not quite sure why.

Not really. It's the "creating" bit that I have problems with. Yes, I have problems with the word "God," that's true, mostly because of historic baggage. However, I think you've convinced me.

lifewhispers wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but I'm still not clear on your point, here.  If I say:

Rain is precipitation that falls from the clouds

We have observed that precipitation does fall from the clouds

therefore,

Rain exists

How is that not a proof that rain exists?  How is the existence of the Universe not proof of the existence of that which is Creating it? (I'll deal with your issue with an ongoing creation of the Universe, below)

This is what convinced me. I'm really starting to like the elegance and simplicity of your proof-by-defintion method.

1. Kumquats are what kill people.

2. We observe people dieing.

3. Therefore, Kumquats exist.

 

Or:

1. Cthulu is the shining moon

2. We observe the shining moon

3. Cthulu exists

 

My God! It's all-powerful. SOON I WILL BE INVINCIBLE! All I have to do know is define a bunch of robotic henchmen into existence, and I'll be able to TAKE OVER THE WORLD! Ahhh-hahahahahahah!

"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:Pardon my

lifewhispers wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but I'm still not clear on your point, here.  If I say:

Rain is precipitation that falls from the clouds

We have observed that precipitation does fall from the clouds

therefore,

Rain exists

How is that not a proof that rain exists?  How is the existence of the Universe not proof of the existence of that which is Creating it? (I'll deal with your issue with an ongoing creation of the Universe, below)

nigelTheBold wrote:

This is what convinced me. I'm really starting to like the elegance and simplicity of your proof-by-defintion method.

1. Kumquats are what kill people.

2. We observe people dieing.

3. Therefore, Kumquats exist.

 

Or:

1. Cthulu is the shining moon

2. We observe the shining moon

3. Cthulu exists

 

My God! It's all-powerful. SOON I WILL BE INVINCIBLE! All I have to do know is define a bunch of robotic henchmen into existence, and I'll be able to TAKE OVER THE WORLD! Ahhh-hahahahahahah!

Well, I must admit that I failed to notice that I left out "liquid" as a qualifier for rain as being a form of precipitation.  There are, of course, other forms of precipitation that are not rain - but, no other forms of LIQUID precipitation that falls from clouds other than rain.

But, can you address the other example I offered?  Here, I'll repost it for you:

Something is Creating the Universe

The Universe exists

therefore,

Something exists

I gave support for my use of the word, "create."    I understand the ambiguity of the word, "create."  But, how else do I communicate the idea, except by use of words with commonly understood and accepted definitions? In this example, either "something" is Creating the Universe or "nothing" is Creating the Universe.  Which is the more extraordinary claim?  Which claim is axiomatic?

Regardless of the word choice, it is abundantly clear (axiomatic) that the Universe is giving rise to (or, creating) itself.  The only other choice is that something outside the Universe is doing it - and, we have no evidence of that, whatsoever.  Even if we discovered something that is outside of our current definition of the "Universe," we would adjust our definition of the word to accomodate it - because, that is the point of having the construct of "Universe."

This is a special case, very different than the examples you offered.  Both of the examples you offered referenced very specific objects with very specific characteristics.  What I am offering is something that requires testing for it to be true.  "All that is True in the Universe is Creating the Universe" is an axiomatic statement.  It proves itself by observation and testing.  ALL evidence indicates that this is true.  Unless, you can demonstrate  how something else is creating it or that there is no creation happening.  Can you do that?


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

lifewhispers wrote:

Something is Creating the Universe

lifewhispers, a gentleman by the name of Albert Einstein, came up with E=MC squared, roughly translated this means, mass can become energy and energy can become mass, both have been demonstrated, via particle accelerators and atomic bombs, now this universe isn't receiving any new energy or mass, it's all here nothing new just mass becoming energy, and energy becoming mass

? considering there's nothing new in this universe, how would you justify your definition of creates, against the commonly held view of change, ? and do you believe that any word that doesn't fit your definition should be redefined specifically to fit your definitions, ie evolution becomes creation, change becomes creation ect ect


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

Something is Creating the Universe

lifewhispers, a gentleman by the name of Albert Einstein, came up with E=MC squared, roughly translated this means, mass can become energy and energy can become mass, both have been demonstrated, via particle accelerators and atomic bombs, now this universe isn't receiving any new energy or mass, it's all here nothing new just mass becoming energy, and energy becoming mass

? considering there's nothing new in this universe, how would you justify your definition of creates, against the commonly held view of change, ? and do you believe that any word that doesn't fit your definition should be redefined specifically to fit your definitions, ie evolution becomes creation, change becomes creation ect ect

How many times must I support myself on this point?  You are welcome to your own interpretation of "create."  But, that in no way invalidates my use of it.  Got it?


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

lifewhispers wrote:

How many times must I support myself on this point?  You are welcome to your own interpretation of "create."  But, that in no way invalidates my use of it.  Got it?

Just to be absolutely clear, where I would use the widely excepted meaning of any word

You redefine them, to suit your purposes, and this doesn't invalidate (invalidate ? does this also mean create in your personal definitions ? ) your use of any word to mean anything you want

? do you have a name for this new language you have created, or invalidate or evolved or changed or what-ever

 

 


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

lifewhispers wrote:

cre·ate       (krē-āt')  Pronunciation Key 
tr.v.   cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, cre·ates

  1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
  2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
  3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
  4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role. 

Oh I see my apologies, you haven't been creating your own language, you have been using words individually defied out of context

Ie, I've created egg's for breakfast this morning

 

So your Proof ............meaning a trial, or to work dough ( dictionary )

Is just as I've stated, and although you may perceive It differently, this does not invalidate my definition

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Ummm, yes, replace the

  Ummm, yes, replace the word created with maybe "change"  ..... I don't think of anything as being created or designed or composed (as in music ) , as all already was, and only discovered and used.  God is what IS , and amazing ..... geezzzz wow.

Fixing language we do .....    kinda damn slow ......          


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote:Oh I see

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Oh I see my apologies, you haven't been creating your own language, you have been using words individually defied out of context

Ie, I've created egg's for breakfast this morning 

So your Proof ............meaning a trial, or to work dough ( dictionary )

Is just as I've stated, and although you may perceive It differently, this does not invalidate my definition  

See, that's the wonder of his proof-by-definition concept. You can prove anything. It liberates us from the bonds of simple language acceptance. We get to actively create stuff now, instead of being bound by simple and inadequate word use. The realms of understanding are wide open.

1. A giant invisible space chicken is the thing that holds the sun up in the sky

2. We observe the sun in  the sky

2. The giant invisible space chicken exists!

 

See how wonderfully simple it is? I've created a harem of supermodels for myself this morning, as well as made myself rich. Tomorrow I'm going to make myself immortal. No, wait: I'm going to do that now.

1. Immortal people are those who haven't died

2. We have seen people that haven't died

3. Immortal people exist!

 

Ah. That's much better.

"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
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

cre·ate       (krē-āt')  Pronunciation Key 
tr.v.   cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, cre·ates

  1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
  2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
  3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
  4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role. 

Oh I see my apologies, you haven't been creating your own language, you have been using words individually defied out of context

Ie, I've created egg's for breakfast this morning

 

So your Proof ............meaning a trial, or to work dough ( dictionary )

Is just as I've stated, and although you may perceive It differently, this does not invalidate my definition

 

Who are you to declare the proper context of the definition of any words?  As the author, it is up to ME to decide in which context I wish to use the words that I have chosen.  It is up to the reader to determine that proper context.  If they cannot determine that proper context, they need to seek clarification from the author, rather than just arbitrarily choosing it for the author, as you have done.

And, of course, you do realize that, by limiting the use of the word, "create" to ONLY the context that  you wish to assign it - in reference to the creation of matter and/or energy - renders the word worthless for any other application.  Who are you to do that to a word that was collectively defined by the rest of us to allow my context?  You just plain can't do that.

Silliness will not establish anything - except, that you're being silly.  And, that is clear for all readers to see.  If you think demonstrating yourself to be a silly person will serve you in this forum, be my guest.


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

Something is Creating the Universe

lifewhispers, a gentleman by the name of Albert Einstein, came up with E=MC squared, roughly translated this means, mass can become energy and energy can become mass, both have been demonstrated, via particle accelerators and atomic bombs, now this universe isn't receiving any new energy or mass, it's all here nothing new just mass becoming energy, and energy becoming mass

Yes, that's quite an elegant THEORY. 


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

How many times must I support myself on this point?  You are welcome to your own interpretation of "create."  But, that in no way invalidates my use of it.  Got it?

Just to be absolutely clear, where I would use the widely excepted meaning of any word

You redefine them, to suit your purposes, and this doesn't invalidate (invalidate ? does this also mean create in your personal definitions ? ) your use of any word to mean anything you want

? do you have a name for this new language you have created, or invalidate or evolved or changed or what-ever

 

Straw man argument - and, a really pathetic one, at that.  Of course, it was so poorly worded, I couldn't make much sense out of it, anyway.  Care to try, again?

And, you think you're qualified to take issue with MY use of words.  That's funny!


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

nigelTheBold wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Oh I see my apologies, you haven't been creating your own language, you have been using words individually defied out of context

Ie, I've created egg's for breakfast this morning 

So your Proof ............meaning a trial, or to work dough ( dictionary )

Is just as I've stated, and although you may perceive It differently, this does not invalidate my definition  

See, that's the wonder of his proof-by-definition concept. You can prove anything. It liberates us from the bonds of simple language acceptance. We get to actively create stuff now, instead of being bound by simple and inadequate word use. The realms of understanding are wide open.

1. A giant invisible space chicken is the thing that holds the sun up in the sky

2. We observe the sun in  the sky

2. The giant invisible space chicken exists!

 

See how wonderfully simple it is? I've created a harem of supermodels for myself this morning, as well as made myself rich. Tomorrow I'm going to make myself immortal. No, wait: I'm going to do that now.

1. Immortal people are those who haven't died

2. We have seen people that haven't died

3. Immortal people exist!

 

Ah. That's much better.

How do any of your straw man characterizations bear any resemblence to what I have presented?  You have yet to respond to my last post to you.  Did you miss it?  Or, did you just ignore it?


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

lifewhispers wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

Something is Creating the Universe

lifewhispers, a gentleman by the name of Albert Einstein, came up with E=MC squared, roughly translated this means, mass can become energy and energy can become mass, both have been demonstrated, via particle accelerators and atomic bombs, now this universe isn't receiving any new energy or mass, it's all here nothing new just mass becoming energy, and energy becoming mass

Yes, that's quite an elegant THEORY. 

Ah. Clever the way you stressed THEORY, as if it somehow made the proposition questionable.

A theory is a proposition that explains current data and observations, and makes specific and detailed predictions about currently-unknown data. The data is then gathered to "test" the proposition. This is the essence, and most basic essential, of proof. So, as one notable atheist said, "Theories are better than facts."

I'm glad you think Einstein's theory of relativity is elegant. It really is extremely elegant, and quite beautiful in its simplicity.

"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 wrote:How do

lifewhispers wrote:

How do any of your straw man characterizations bear any resemblence to what I have presented?  You have yet to respond to my last post to you.  Did you miss it?  Or, did you just ignore it?

I'm ignoring it. My momma said if you don't have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all.

You seem to have some personal investment in this issue, to the point where you refuse to see reason. My "straw-man" characterizations are exactly what you are doing, but you won't recognize that, and refuse to see how your "proof" is begging the question. And then when presented with the duality of the God you defined, you use "create" in two different ways (to bring into existence out of nothingness, and to shape something that exists into something different) to try to combine the duality of your God into a single attribute.

You mental contortions are beginning to scare me. I'm afraid you will wrap your brain into a pretzel, and will be unable to recover.

When you can define things however you want, including "proof" and "logic," there's no way you can be wrong. You win. You outclassed me. You spanked me. I've been properly curb-stomped, and shall now humbly go away, unfit to even read your posts, let alone respond.

"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


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

lifewhispers wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

cre·ate       (krē-āt')  Pronunciation Key 
tr.v.   cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, cre·ates

  1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
  2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
  3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
  4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role. 

Oh I see my apologies, you haven't been creating your own language, you have been using words individually defied out of context

Ie, I've created egg's for breakfast this morning

 

So your Proof ............meaning a trial, or to work dough ( dictionary )

Is just as I've stated, and although you may perceive It differently, this does not invalidate my definition

 

Who are you to declare the proper context of the definition of any words?  As the author, it is up to ME to decide in which context I wish to use the words that I have chosen. It is up to the reader to determine that proper context

You seem to have contradicted your-self, again, you cannot have both, well maybe you can if you re-define individual words out of context 

 

Giant invisible space chickens  nigelTheBold

 


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

cre·ate       (krē-āt')  Pronunciation Key 
tr.v.   cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, cre·ates

  1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
  2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
  3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
  4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role. 

Oh I see my apologies, you haven't been creating your own language, you have been using words individually defied out of context

Ie, I've created egg's for breakfast this morning

 

So your Proof ............meaning a trial, or to work dough ( dictionary )

Is just as I've stated, and although you may perceive It differently, this does not invalidate my definition

 

Who are you to declare the proper context of the definition of any words?  As the author, it is up to ME to decide in which context I wish to use the words that I have chosen. It is up to the reader to determine that proper context

You seem to have contradicted your-self, again, you cannot have both, well maybe you can if you re-define individual words out of context 

 

No, you just plain misinterpreted what I said.  Is English your first language?  I notice you often put question marks at the beginning of your comments.  That's not proper english.  And, it is often difficult to figure out what you're saying.  I find it ironic that you would presume to be able to criticize my usage of the  English language, when it is abundantly clear that I have far better command of it than you.


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

lifewhispers wrote:

How do any of your straw man characterizations bear any resemblence to what I have presented?  You have yet to respond to my last post to you.  Did you miss it?  Or, did you just ignore it?

nigelTheBold wrote:

I'm ignoring it. My momma said if you don't have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all.

Then, you have invested emotion in this where it is not needed.  I see.

nigelTheBold wrote:

You seem to have some personal investment in this issue, to the point where you refuse to see reason.

You misinterpret my tenacity.  This is not an emotional issue for me.  I welcome any alternative wording or representations that will accomplish the same goal - providing a tenable definition of the word, "God."  As was mentioned in an earlier post, "The "God" word isn't going away.  So, FIX IT." 

That is my goal.  If I have not achieved it, explain to me why I have not achieved it.  If you can improve upon it, please do so.

But, I am not just going to accept what you're saying, if I don't understand it, don't agree with it, or if you have not adequately explained it.  And, I find it exasperating to make a clear point, only to have it distorted into a straw man and ridiculed without further explanation.  If I am guilty of logical fallacy, you have utterly failed to demonstrate why.  I have addressed your objections and you have ignored it.

Now, if you don't understand something I've said, ask me to further clarify it.  Don't just take it upon yourself to distort it.

nigelTheBold wrote:

My "straw-man" characterizations are exactly what you are doing, but you won't recognize that, and refuse to see how your "proof" is begging the question.

I'm sorry; but, you have not demonstrated that, yet.  How can it both be "valid Kantian logic" (your words) and "begging the question" at the same time?  Can you explain that?  Am I really being stubborn?  Or, are you utterly failing to communicate your position? 

nigelTheBold wrote:

And  then when presented with the duality of the God you defined, you use "create" in two different ways (to bring into existence out of nothingness, and to shape something that exists into something different) to try to combine the duality of your God into a single attribute.

Not this straw man, again!  How does defining God as Creator of  the Universe equate to "...bring into existence out of nothingness?"  I never made any such claim.  I only said that it is abundantly clear that the Universe is compelling evidence of the truth of that which Created it - thereby, permitting it to be a part of the set of All that is True in the Universe, in order to be in compliance with the commonly accepted notion that God is Creator of the Universe.  That is an AXIOM.  It PROVES ITSELF by virtue of the existence of the Universe - or, we would not be here to discuss it.

nigelTheBold wrote:

You mental contortions are beginning to scare me. I'm afraid you will wrap your brain into a pretzel, and will be unable to recover.

Well, your inability to understand and accurately interpret what I am saying scares me.  I guess that makes us even.

nigelTheBold wrote:

When you can define things however you want, including "proof" and "logic,"

How have I defined "proof" and "logic?"

nigelTheBold wrote:

there's no way you can be wrong. You win. You outclassed me. You spanked me. I've been properly curb-stomped, and shall now humbly go away, unfit to even read your posts, let alone respond.

You're welcome to leave the discussion, if you like.  If you think congratulations are in order, pat yourself on the back.   But, you failed to establish anything of substance. 


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

nigelTheBold wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:

Something is Creating the Universe

lifewhispers, a gentleman by the name of Albert Einstein, came up with E=MC squared, roughly translated this means, mass can become energy and energy can become mass, both have been demonstrated, via particle accelerators and atomic bombs, now this universe isn't receiving any new energy or mass, it's all here nothing new just mass becoming energy, and energy becoming mass

Yes, that's quite an elegant THEORY. 

Ah. Clever the way you stressed THEORY, as if it somehow made the proposition questionable.

No, only that it does not meet the same burden of proof that I have met in my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  I doubt even Einstein would take issue with that definition.  Strange that you do.

From ctinquiry.org:

In a recent book Max Jammer, Rector Emeritus of Bar Lan University in Jerusalem, a former colleague of Albert Einstein at Princeton, claims that Einstein's understanding of physics and his understanding of religion were profoundly bound together, for it seemed to Einstein that nature exhibited traces of God quite like "a natural theology." Indeed it is with the help of natural science that the thoughts of God may be tapped and grasped. 1 On the subject of Einstein and God Friedrich Dürrenmatt once said, "Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian." 2 I do not believe these references to God can be dismissed simply as a façon de parler, for God had a deep, if rather elusive, significance for Einstein which was not unimportant for his life and scientific activity. It indicated a deep-seated way of life and thought: "God" was not a theological mode of thought but rather the expression of a "lived faith" (eines gelebten Glaubens)."

and, from Einstein himself:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921, Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, Page 502.

and,

"Our situation on this earth seems strange. Every one of us appears here involuntary and uninvited for a short stay, without knowing the whys and the wherefore. In our daily lives we only feel that man is here for the sake of others, for those whom we love and for many other beings whose fate is connected with our own." ... "The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is." Einstein's speech 'My Credo' to the German League of Human Rights, Berlin, autumn 1932, Einstein: A Life in Science, Michael White and John Gribbin, Page 262.

 

So, was Einstein's definition of God "begging the question?"  Do you suppose Einstein's God exists?  Do you think he could prove it?  If so, how might Einstein define God in a provable way?  Any ideas?


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

lifewhispers wrote:

No, you just plain misinterpreted what I said. 

? you may believe so, but this doesn't invalidate what I said

lifewhispers wrote:

Is English your first language?  I notice you often put question marks at the beginning of your comments.  That's not proper english. 

"That's not proper english"

English is indeed my first language, but it's not my only language

As a hobby I trace words back through history, which helps to give me an understanding of the fluidity of the English language, among other languages

There is no such thing as proper English, if you meant what is commonly referred to as the Queen's English, than it should read," this isn't correct English"" That's not proper english" is colonial slang

lifewhispers wrote:

And, it is often difficult to figure out what you're saying.

So sayeth the man, whom uses shifting definitions

lifewhispers wrote:

I find it ironic that you would presume to be able to criticize my usage of the  English language, when it is abundantly clear that I have far better command of it than you.

There that ego again,

? how is your proof.......... meaning dough or first draft. coming along

 

 


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:No, you

lifewhispers wrote:

No, you just plain misinterpreted what I said. 

Rev_Devilin wrote:

? you may believe so, but this doesn't invalidate what I said  

Yes, it does - quite definitely.  There was no contradiction - only your misinterpretation.  Or, would you care to try to prove that what I said was a contradiction?  Come on, try.  I could use a laugh.

lifewhispers wrote:

Is English your first language?  I notice you often put question marks at the beginning of your comments.  That's not proper english. 

Rev_Devilin wrote:

"That's not proper english"

English is indeed my first language, but it's not my only language

As a hobby I trace words back through history, which helps to give me an understanding of the fluidity of the English language, among other languages

There is no such thing as proper English, if you meant what is commonly referred to as the Queen's English, than it should read," this isn't correct English"" That's not proper english" is colonial slang

Then, it is simply grammatically incorrect to place a question mark in the front of a comment written in English.  Of course, we would not be having this discussion, if you bothered to use proper grammar and punctuation.  Such is the consequence of being lazy and sloppy in your dialogue.

lifewhispers wrote:

And, it is often difficult to figure out what you're saying.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

So sayeth the man, whom uses shifting definitions

So says the man of unlimited straw men - like this one. 

lifewhispers wrote:

I find it ironic that you would presume to be able to criticize my usage of the  English language, when it is abundantly clear that I have far better command of it than you.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

There that ego again,

No, not ego - just simple observation. 

Rev_Devilin wrote:

 

? how is your proof.......... meaning dough or first draft. coming along

Oh, it's done - unless, someone can come along to demonstrate how it is fallacious.

 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
No no this all seems

No no this all seems perfectly reasonable to me

You have proof (meaning dough or first draft)

That God ( omniscient without being conscious )

Created ( as in created eggs for my breakfast )

The universe ( meaning all that is logically true )

 

God = All that is True in the Universe

 

There is the incompleteness theorems, and modified set theory

But to somebody who has no ego, and compares himself to Einstein, while not contradicting himself, this should no problem

Please continue, with your antics you are hysterical

 


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote:No no this

Rev_Devilin wrote:

No no this all seems perfectly reasonable to me

You have proof (meaning dough or first draft)

That God ( omniscient without being conscious )

Created ( as in created eggs for my breakfast )

The universe ( meaning all that is logically true )

 

God = All that is True in the Universe

 

There is the incompleteness theorems, and modified set theory

But to somebody who has no ego, and compares himself to Einstein, while not contradicting himself, this should no problem

Please continue, with your antics you are hysterical

 

Did you have a point to make?  The gibberish, above, makes no sense.  As near as I can tell, it is just another straw man characterization of my position.  But, it is so poorly constructed linguistically as to render it utterly meaningless.  Way to go!


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote:No no this

Rev_Devilin wrote:

No no this all seems perfectly reasonable to me

You have proof (meaning dough or first draft)

That God ( omniscient without being conscious )

Created ( as in created eggs for my breakfast )

The universe ( meaning all that is logically true )

 

God = All that is True in the Universe

 

There is the incompleteness theorems, and modified set theory

But to somebody who has no ego, and compares himself to Einstein, while not contradicting himself, this should no problem

Please continue, with your antics you are hysterical

 

You don't like my use of the word, "create" or that I refer to the Universe as an ongoing Creation. 

You would assert that the Universe came into existence by some unknown means that you don't think is fair to consider to be "true."  And, you think it ALL happened some 14 billion years, or so, ago.  Have I got that right?

But, 14 billion years ago, there did not exist the countless processes involved in Creation that exist today.  They just weren't there, right after the beginning of the event colloquially known as the Big Bang.  They came into existence, or were CREATED OVER TIME.   This transcends mere "change."  How many processes were there right after the beginning of the Big Bang?  How many processes are there, now?  How many do you suppose there might be in the future?  Will they be Created?  Or, will they just "change" into existence?  And, what is going to be responsible for them, if not All that is True in the Universe, or God (as I have defined God)?

I look forward to your tap dance around this point.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Geezz, all this nit picking,

Geezz, all this nit picking, but this is a good fun learning process. Wish I could tap dance like you teachers ....

It is nice that we have this freedom without church rulers and dogma threatening us.

The big bang was one event of the unmeasurable infinite eternal. Size and time is an illusion of ours. What a goof of a name, "BIG" bang. ((( Buddha belly laughs and shakes his head ..... " how far, big, small?"  he asks giggling .....

Anyhow, I'm comfortable with many simple god definitions. The problem comes when we hint of a creator, which suggests a deity or controller and a beginning. For lack of a better word, I might say god is "creation",  but must add, without a creator. God is creation without a creator. Ummm  

There can be no creator for what has always been and what will always be of the infinite eternal all that is. That's my best guess ..... 

Instead of the common ambiguous word "creation", it seems universe is a much better choice. "Creation" is a funny word. It can be used as a noun, or as an action word as in theology . "And then there was creation",  says what ! ??? That is so ambiguous and worthless in my head. A beginning ???  NO no, no beginning, no first cause. Was there ever nothing ???  Does it matter ?

All is connected, all is changing, all is ONE.   G = 1 

Calling god "creator" is an error, and therefore "creation" is a poor word choice.

( God is godless, an Atheist of course !  Now that makes sense !?..... (((  

In post 191, Einstein, is great, yet he would obviously agree that his use of "him", should be substituted with "it" . Yup, nit picking is sometimes important ......

About the proper way to write, I say whatever works, be creative, break the rules, and keep improving, and have fun. And yea, I is bad .... hey a larger batch of smileys might help .... I like them things ..... 

"God" is not the enemy, Dogma is ..... and it's a good thing we are smashing to bits, the details of ancient dogmatic / superstitious god definitions ..... go science, "carry on" evolution. Thanks RRS.

My head hurts, ummm I will have a beer ..... L O L     

 

 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
All that is true in the

All that is true in the universe

Is all in the universe true ?, one would assume so, but this is assumption is it not ?

But all in the universe is true, it's obvious, is saying something is obvious proof ?

? can you prove all in the universe is not true, is not being able to disprove something proof of its existence ?

? Can you prove all in the universe is true lifewhispers ?

Of course you can't, but I'm sure this will not stop your continuing antics

 

 

lifewhispers wrote:
 

You don't like my use of the word, "create" or that I refer to the Universe as an ongoing Creation. 

You would assert that the Universe came into existence by some unknown means that you don't think is fair to consider to be "true."  And, you think it ALL happened some 14 billion years, or so, ago.  Have I got that right?

It is not a case of like or fair, it's a case of lack of proof, to back up your hypothesis, and yes I do believe the universe started some 14 billion years ago

lifewhispers wrote:

But, 14 billion years ago, there did not exist the countless processes involved in Creation that exist today.  They just weren't there, right after the beginning of the event colloquially known as the Big Bang.  They came into existence, or were CREATED OVER TIME.   This transcends mere "change."  How many processes were there right after the beginning of the Big Bang?  How many processes are there, now?  How many do you suppose there might be in the future?  Will they be Created?  Or, will they just "change" into existence?  And, what is going to be responsible for them, if not All that is True in the Universe, or God (as I have defined God)?

I look forward to your tap dance around this point.

Processes ? could you clarify what you mean by processes


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:

All that is true in the universe

Is all in the universe true ?, one would assume so, but this is assumption is it not ?

But all in the universe is true, it's obvious, is saying something is obvious proof ?

You really need to work on your interpretation skills - or, stop being so dishonest.  I NEVER said that All in the Universe is True.  I said, All that is True in the Universe is God.

The point is to formulate a tenable definition of God, Creator of the Universe.  In order to do that, you MUST equate God to All that is True in the Universe - unless, you can demonstrate how the Universe could be Created by anything else that IS NOT TRUE.

And, again, your comment was so poorly worded as to make it difficult to interpret.  But, despite your poor wording, I think I got the message - and, it ended up being just a couple of straw men.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

? can you prove all in the universe is not true, is not being able to disprove something proof of its existence ?

Huh?  I could not decipher that comment.  Try, again.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

? Can you prove all in the universe is true lifewhispers ?

Of course you can't, but I'm sure this will not stop your continuing antics

I have no burden of proving that all in the Universe is true.  That's just a lame attempt on your part to move the goal posts.  That, like your straw men, above, is dishonest.

 

lifewhispers wrote:
 

You don't like my use of the word, "create" or that I refer to the Universe as an ongoing Creation. 

You would assert that the Universe came into existence by some unknown means that you don't think is fair to consider to be "true."  And, you think it ALL happened some 14 billion years, or so, ago.  Have I got that right?

Rev_Devilin wrote:

It is not a case of like or fair, it's a case of lack of proof, to back up your hypothesis, and yes I do believe the universe started some 14 billion years ago

But, you also maintain that its creation stopped 14 billion years, or so, ago.  At least, that seems to be the crux of your objection to my referring to it as an ongoing process of Creation.  And, you don't think it is reasonable to assume that whatever initiated the event colloquially known as the Big Bang is true.

So, I have a question for you:

If whatever initiated the Big Bang is not true (not a part of All that is True in the Universe), how are we able to discuss it?

lifewhispers wrote:

But, 14 billion years ago, there did not exist the countless processes involved in Creation that exist today.  They just weren't there, right after the beginning of the event colloquially known as the Big Bang.  They came into existence, or were CREATED OVER TIME.   This transcends mere "change."  How many processes were there right after the beginning of the Big Bang?  How many processes are there, now?  How many do you suppose there might be in the future?  Will they be Created?  Or, will they just "change" into existence?  And, what is going to be responsible for them, if not All that is True in the Universe, or God (as I have defined God)?

I look forward to your tap dance around this point.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Processes ? could you clarify what you mean by processes

From Wikipedia:

A process (lat. processus - movement) is a naturally occurring or designed sequence of changes of properties or attributes of an object or system.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] More precisely, and from the most general systemic perspective, every process is representable as a particular trajectory (or part thereof) in a system's phase space.

It may refer to:

You may now continue your tap dance.


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

lifewhispers wrote:

You really need to work on your interpretation skills - or, stop being so dishonest.  I NEVER said that All in the Universe is True.  I said, All that is True in the Universe is God.

Actually you said it the other way round "God = all that is true in the universe"

You've managed to dishonestly quote your-self einstein

lifewhispers wrote:

The point is to formulate a tenable definition of God, Creator of the Universe.  In order to do that, you MUST equate God to All that is True in the Universe -

Then do it and prove it,  oohh you can't

lifewhispers wrote:

unless, you can demonstrate how the Universe could be Created by anything else that IS NOT TRUE.

It is not for me to demonstrate anything, this is your proof, please prove that the universe was created by something true

Not by speculation

Not by hypothesis

Not by assumption

And not by somebody's inability to disprove a negative

Ie my inability to disprove invisible space chickens, does not confirm their existence

Ie positively prove it,  oohh you can't  

lifewhispers wrote:

And, again, your comment was so poorly worded as to make it difficult to interpret.  But, despite your poor wording, I think I got the message - and, it ended up being just a couple of straw men.

I must have asked you for proof, and your proof is......" just a couple of straw men"

lifewhispers wrote:

I have no burden of proving that all in the Universe is true.  That's just a lame attempt on your part to move the goal posts. 

Arrr you spotted my lame attempt to shift the burden of proof, on-to the person making the claims of proof (this is sarcasm)

 

lifewhispers wrote:
 

But, you also maintain that its creation stopped 14 billion years, or so, ago.  At least, that seems to be the crux of your objection to my referring to it as an ongoing process of Creation.  And, you don't think it is reasonable to assume that whatever initiated the event colloquially known as the Big Bang is true.

I don't think assumption is proof, I believe we disagree on this point

 

lifewhispers wrote:

So, I have a question for you:

If whatever initiated the Big Bang is not true (not a part of All that is True in the Universe), how are we able to discuss it?

Shifting the burden of proof, again

Thing is I don't know, I believe it's outside my understanding, so I remain open-minded but skeptical of all hypothesis

Rev-Devilin wrote:

Processes ? could you clarify what you mean by processes

lifewhispers wrote:

From Wikipedia:

A process (lat. processus - movement) is a naturally occurring or designed sequence of changes of properties or attributes of an object or system.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] More precisely, and from the most general systemic perspective, every process is representable as a particular trajectory (or part thereof) in a system's phase space.

It may refer to:

You may now continue your tap dance.

"Processes ? could you clarify what you mean by processes"

I can see you are having problems here, when somebody uses the word "you" this refers to your-self, if somebody wishes to know what Wikipedia means by processes, then they would word it like this, "Processes ? could you give me a link to Wikipedia for a general definition of Processes ?"

Can you see the difference ?

What processes are you referring to specifically

"an official notice of a legal proceeding" or "A specific recipe" ?