Do you believe in God?

[WVUscion]

Imply.



And I've pointed out repeatedly that it isn't scaleable. It applies only to leptons. The clue is in the phrase "quantum physics". It doesn't apply to cells, deities or bedposts - or indeed chandeliers, bowls of porridge, Wurlitzers and ring-tailed Lemurs which I directly cited and you clearly brushed aside without a second thought.

It. Isn't. Scaleable. "God can arise from nothing because a lepton can" is not a valid argument - nothing can arise from nothing except leptons.




You're mistaking a rigid, proven model of quantum physics for an opinion. You're also mistaking disagreeing with it for an opinion.

As it is, your philosophy may be immensely personally satisfying but from a scientific point of view it's even less viable than the Genesis account. The OT/NT/Qu'ran tales at least have the consistency of "I am the Alpha and the Omega", while still suffering from the same problem of turtles.

If its true that this unique and special behavior of leptons is basic truth; something that can't be refuted by any type of scientific advancement or revolution then the only thing that I am able to do is concede.

 

[Touring Mars]

For instance the notions of the big bang, expanding/accelerating universe, black holes, dark matter and dark energy seem to me very unlikely to be validated by rigorous observation.

I'm not sure how you can say this in view of what "rigorous observation" has already revealed - and I wonder where you reckon these "notions" come from, if not from observation. By dismissing these things as mere "notions", you do a tremendous disservice to what 'rigorous observation' has told us already. These are not mere ideas plucked from thin air, but are rational explanations for real observations. I'm not sure why you think they are "very unlikely to be validated" when most of them have already been validated in one way or another, despite being predicted a long time ago.

 

[Dotini]

Basically comes down to the same thing. So endulge me some more: why would it be suggestive of a higher power or creator? Why would anything we don't understand now, be attributed to a godly being? I don't understand many tricks David Copperfield does, and he is very handsome man, but that still doesn't mean that he is devine.

Talk for yourself, I'm already 42yo and the clock is ticking....

Do they have big, black, oval-shaped eyes? (sorry, couldn't resist)

Again, thanks for your questions, Denur. It ought, it seems to me, be self-evident that proof of consciousness after death and proof of the existence and human access to a super-consciousness of all events, everywhere, at all times, means that man is much, much more than his physical body, and is in fact a spiritual being. These powers, to me, are what we mean when we say "higher powers". If we have these higher powers, and we all connected to each other and everything both physically as Mach says, and through consciousness as observation is beginning to disclose, then it is less difficult to accept the notion of god as a universal intelligence of which we are a small part, or sort of node.

Beings encountered in altered states vary. Small and blue are what you find with DMT.

I'm not sure how you can say this in view of what "rigorous observation" has already revealed - and I wonder where you reckon these "notions" come from, if not from observation. By dismissing these things as mere "notions", you do a tremendous disservice to what 'rigorous observation' has told us already. These are not mere ideas plucked from thin air, but are rational explanations for real observations. I'm not sure why you think they are "very unlikely to be validated" when most of them have already been validated in one way or another, despite being predicted a long time ago.

Yes, Touring Mars, in my enthusiasm I admit to have gotten a mite ahead of myself here. Using my chisel and hammer approach I had hoped to build this edifice in more solid fashion over in the Astronomy thread, and that is where I'll take my tools for answering your objections. I will stand by my assertions, but readily concede that I am beginning in the position of serious underdog.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[niky]

1.) If God exists, then he is all powerful
2.) If he is all powerful, then he has the power to do all things possible
3.) If he has the power to do all things possible, then he has the power to create "something from nothing" in a similar fashion as illustrated numerous times by Famine on the subject of Quantum Physics.
4.) God Exists
_______________________

5.) He has the power to create "something from nothing" in a similar fashion as illustrated numerous times by Famine on the subject of Quantum Physics.

This follows the valid and sound logical pattern:

If A then B
If B then C
If C then D
A
________
D

Your logical argument is missing one step.

And you're missing your own fallacy.

"If A then B" does NOT mean "If B then A". There is a big difference there.

Reformulated:
If A then B
If B then C
If C then D
A

If Z then B
If B then C
If C then D
Z

Can both be true at the same time? This is going from a purely logical standpoint.

-

The gist of your argument is:

1.) If Willy Wonka exists, he is a great chocolatier.
2.) If he is a great chocolatier, he can make great chocolates.
3.) If he can make great chocolates, he can make a Hershey's Kiss.
4.) Hershey's Kisses exist.
5.) Wonka Exists.

Now... does it still make sense?

And I've pointed out repeatedly that it isn't scaleable. It applies only to leptons. The clue is in the phrase "quantum physics". It doesn't apply to cells, deities or bedposts - or indeed chandeliers, bowls of porridge, Wurlitzers and ring-tailed Lemurs which I directly cited and you clearly brushed aside without a second thought.

Not to mention spontaneously generated whales and bowls of petunias.

 

[Alan_G]

The problem with humans is that we have a very human way of looking at everything. Even when talking about a 'God', we use words like "him" and "he". We also imply some kind of existence in time of a God, when people say things like "In the old testiment, God was more annoyed", or "...God will be annoyed" (time, with a past/present/future, as we know it only exists in our universe).

If there is a 'God', I believe it is just a kind of entity, or existence, which possibly goes beyond our comprehension. Or maybe 'God' is everything; all matter, universe, time - it all is 'God'?

But I think the best thing people can do for a start is lose this nonsense of God being kind of a male/man-like figure who is "up" in the clouds (why up? What's up there?), possibly as far as being a big giant with a gray beard or something.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Wow... quite a pop today! I only have this to say:

Causality aside (and I must side with Famine on this one - one lepton does not a self-creating god proclaim), there's no purpose to proposing such a reconciliation on the potential origin of God beyond philosophical masturbation. Those of religious conviction hold that conviction dear in most cases precisely because it is grounded in faith and not logical premises. The unknowable quality of religious faith is held as a virtue, not a problem to be solved.

Given that, the proper dialectic framework for this discussion is not a (convoluted, presupposing) hypothesis for a self-generating diety that no average religious individual would really care about. The average religious individual is far more scripturally motivated than I think you care to acknowledge WVU, and a body of such believiers gives a sort of ideological shelter to the real fringe nuts that like to blow things up, while offering nothing of value to society that couldn't come from secular institutions. This is the dialectical context that matters.

 

[NLxAROSA]

"If A then B" does NOT mean "If B then A". There is a big difference there.

Exactly, the analogy I always use is the following: That a golfball is always round does not mean something round is always a golfball.

It's a very common mistake, and often misused by politicians: E.g. '75% of all hard drug users use soft drugs' does not equal '75% of all soft drugs users use hard drugs'! Unfortunately, most people can't tell the difference.

To add to the discussion: I believe religion (and the gods with them) are created by man. So no, I don't believe in God. In that sense, you can call me an atheist. But, like Alan_G already points out: depending on your definition of 'God', you can also call me agnostic.

 

[Denur]

Again, thanks for your questions, Denur. It ought, it seems to me, be self-evident that proof of consciousness after death and proof of the existence and human access to a super-consciousness of all events, everywhere, at all times, means that man is much, much more than his physical body, and is in fact a spiritual being. These powers, to me, are what we mean when we say "higher powers". If we have these higher powers, and we all connected to each other and everything both physically as Mach says, and through consciousness as observation is beginning to disclose, then it is less difficult to accept the notion of god as a universal intelligence of which we are a small part, or sort of node.

You put so many ifs and assumptions there, that the whole conclusion becomes meaningless. But it is an interesting notion nonetheless, if all those assumptions were to hold true, than we could very well be God ourselves.

 

[DK]

But it is an interesting notion nonetheless, if all those assumptions were to hold true, than we could very well be God ourselves.

Well, we do have the power to create (with science) and destroy (with science). And by destroy, I mean nuke the planet to Kingdom Come.

 

[Dotini]

You put so many ifs and assumptions there, that the whole conclusion becomes meaningless. But it is an interesting notion nonetheless, if all those assumptions were to hold true, than we could very well be God ourselves.

Denur, thanks for your very positive and insightful words. I'm as excited as you are by the compelling potential for human development, growth, maturation, and yes, evolution, offered by this line of investigation.

As you so correctly point out, I've proved nothing yet. However - and here's the good news - all these ifs and assumptions are readily validated or falsified by nothing more complicated than honest scientific observations coupled with a willingness to follow where the evidence leads.

The biggest hurdle to face is the required paradigm shift in academic science. Great insight into paradigm change can be had by reading the landmark book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas S Kuhn. Sometimes it takes the dying off of a generation before the prevailing views can change. But often these kinds of revolutions are precipitated by anomalies which attract the attention of a scientific community, or the emergence of crises brought on by the repeated failure to make the anomalies conform.

I'm confident we're on the right track and the winning side. There is everything to gain and nothing to lose. If I am right and all humans are spiritual beings endowed with a global consciousness, then we might even have the means at hand to unite mankind in greater global awareness and peace. Not a half bad prospect for a little honest but entertaining work.

Yours in peace and love,
Dotini

Edit: Here's a couple of links with recent input on the evidence for an afterlife:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585955,00.html

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2010/02/its-a-belief-system.html

 

[WVUscion]

Your logical argument is missing one step.

And you're missing your own fallacy.

"If A then B" does NOT mean "If B then A". There is a big difference there.

Reformulated:
If A then B
If B then C
If C then D
A

If Z then B
If B then C
If C then D
Z

Can both be true at the same time? This is going from a purely logical standpoint.

-

The gist of your argument is:

1.) If Willy Wonka exists, he is a great chocolatier.
2.) If he is a great chocolatier, he can make great chocolates.
3.) If he can make great chocolates, he can make a Hershey's Kiss.
4.) Hershey's Kisses exist.
5.) Wonka Exists.

Now... does it still make sense?



Not to mention spontaneously generated whales and bowls of petunias.

EDIT
I think I see your point of confusion regarding the symbolic logic of my argument, maybe I didn't make myself clear. This is an online forum and doesn't exactly lend itself well to symbolic logic lol. A is not the conclusion, A is the 4th premise. It kind of "sets off the chain reaction" so to speak. Because it will go "If A exists...." and then I say "A is true" as the fourth premise. You may say "how do you know A is true?" which is a valid question. For the sake of argument I was assuming A to be true. Obviously I cant prove such a thing, but it needed to be true in order to logically proceed.


In my original argument I never went from B to A. As you stated my argument was symbolically as follows:

A to B
B to C
C to D
A
______
D

Your Willy Wonka Example is symbolically as Follows

A to B
B to C
C to D
D
______
A

Which you are correct in stating is a fallacy, because D does not lead back to A. Also you're two arguments (Second one starting with Z), If All A's are Z's then they would be causally connected as well. Now what Z is idk, because I only made one argument, but if they were connected that would be how.
My A was "If God Exists". For the sake of my argument I assumed that God existed. That is the proof that God is causally connected to D, which has to do with leptons.

For probably the billionth time. This argument does not allow for causal connection between bedposts and leptons. So such an analogy is useless. Since a bedpost does not share the characteristics of God I could not see how it would do things that God can do. I don't see why people are getting so caught up on this.

Famine is saying that there is something thats possible, the creation of leptons, that ONLY leptons can do. This is fine since leptons are not a complex system like we're assuming "God" is. But it leads to something that I have never been comfortable with accepting. If leptons, or even a single lepton, can possibly do something and exert a behavior that God cannot do, then what about the lepton makes it more powerful then God?

My opinion on this is that it doesn't matter. Leptons are particles, while humans and dieties are complex systems (assumedly). A lepton can not be spatial to a bedpost because a bedpost is not a lepton particle. But the characteristics of said particle brings it to the realm of God. Famine doesn't agree with this. Unfortunately these two ideas do not agree. If God is all powerful, which I have been assuming for the sake of argument all this time, then there is no limit (by atom or by complex system) to his power. If there is something that is possible to happen, but God cannot himself do, then God isn't all powerful. That is the bottom line.

This also does assume that God is a complex system. The idea that "God is in all things" would suggest that God could be a lepton itself, or a particle itself, or whatever. But God, by nature would still be God.

 

[Famine]

Famine is saying that there is something thats possible, the creation of leptons, that ONLY leptons can do. This is fine since leptons are not a complex system like we're assuming "God" is. But it leads to something that I have never been comfortable with accepting. If leptons, or even a single lepton, can possibly do something and exert a behavior that God cannot do, then what about the lepton makes it more powerful then God?

Leptons are able to do this because they are less powerful than anything else. In a way, this is a behaviour that an all-powerful God cannot replicate - being less powerful... They also generate the corresponding lepton anti-particle - which begs the question "Where's the anti-universe?" and "If God actually can do this too, what about anti-God?"

Much though I hate to bring up an oft-used query to omnipotence, I shall. Can an all-powerful God create a rock he cannot lift?

 

[Denur]

Denur, thanks for your very positive and insightful words. I'm as excited as you are by the compelling potential for human development, growth, maturation, and yes, evolution, offered by this line of investigation.

As you so correctly point out, I've proved nothing yet. However - and here's the good news - all these ifs and assumptions are readily validated or falsified by nothing more complicated than honest scientific observations coupled with a willingness to follow where the evidence leads.

The biggest hurdle to face is the required paradigm shift in academic science. Great insight into paradigm change can be had by reading the landmark book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas S Kuhn. Sometimes it takes the dying off of a generation before the prevailing views can change. But often these kinds of revolutions are precipitated by anomalies which attract the attention of a scientific community, or the emergence of crises brought on by the repeated failure to make the anomalies conform.

I'm confident we're on the right track and the winning side. There is everything to gain and nothing to lose. If I am right and all humans are spiritual beings endowed with a global consciousness, then we might even have the means at hand to unite mankind in greater global awareness and peace. Not a half bad prospect for a little honest but entertaining work.

Yours in peace and love,
Dotini

Edit: Here's a couple of links with recent input on the evidence for an afterlife:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585955,00.html

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2010/02/its-a-belief-system.html

To me it is a very interesting thought experiment, nothing more, nothing less. Like any line of thought one can start with: "what if....".

About NDA, have you read Niky's post regarding his experiences? https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3748890&postcount=1656. I have never believed that NDAs have any divine impact or reason and have a simple scientific explanation: The brain goes into panic mode and sends an overdose of pulses to all its parts, like we would try to get a failing heart working correctly again by using defibrillators.

I think you might be interested in "The World as Myth" and the multiverse it refers to. By the way, the Number of the Beast by Heinlein is very fun reading as well. 👍

 

[Danoff]

Here is my argument.

1.) If God exists, then he is all powerful
2.) If he is all powerful, then he has the power to do all things possible
3.) If he has the power to do all things possible, then he has the power to create "something from nothing" in a similar fashion as illustrated numerous times by Famine on the subject of Quantum Physics.
4.) God Exists
_______________________

5.) He has the power to create "something from nothing" in a similar fashion as illustrated numerous times by Famine on the subject of Quantum Physics.

This follows the valid and sound logical pattern:

If A then B
If B then C
If C then D
A
________
D

I see God existing listed in your assumptions. Which is an important point.

Assume God exists and you can conclude that he can create something from nothing (as defined). Yes, this is logical. Basically if you assume God exists, anything follows. This is not surprising or helpful in this discussion.

 

[WVUscion]

Leptons are able to do this because they are less powerful than anything else. In a way, this is a behaviour that an all-powerful God cannot replicate - being less powerful... They also generate the corresponding lepton anti-particle - which begs the question "Where's the anti-universe?" and "If God actually can do this too, what about anti-God?"

Much though I hate to bring up an oft-used query to omnipotence, I shall. Can an all-powerful God create a rock he cannot lift?

I think I might have used the word "more powerful" a bit to liberally when describing leptons. Maybe this example can help explain myself better.

Say there are two vats sitting on a table. The first vat is labeled "The Vat of Possibility". There is one marble in this vat for each thing that is possible in the universe. As you can imagine this is a very very verrrrrry large vat lol.

The second vat is labeled "God's Ability". If we are to say that God is "all powerful" then this vat must have the same amount of marbles in it as the vat of possibility. This is deduced by sheer definition of all powerful.

I think this is a good point to move forward. It seems, at least to me anyway that the vat example is good for illustrating that God is NOT all powerful. There seems to be many things that are in the first vat that don't reside in the second.

What kind of implications would this have? Believing that God is not all powerful creates a large kink in the whole concept of God. What purpose would a non-omnipotent being serve for the universe if there were things outside of its control? Further if there are things outside of his control then the idea that he created everything would be false. I'm interested in where this will lead us.


EDIT***

I see God existing listed in your assumptions. Which is an important point.

Assume God exists and you can conclude that he can create something from nothing (as defined). Yes, this is logical. Basically if you assume God exists, anything follows. This is not surprising or helpful in this discussion.

Sorry I didn't see your post before I replied to Famines.

The purpose of the argument wasn't to prove that God exists. It's purpose was that if God exists, this is how he was created. I think that is very important to the conversation, because it has been kind of a sticking point for many "Assuming God exists, how was he created."

You are very right in saying that God existing is a huge assumption.

 

[Denur]

Believing that God is not all powerful creates a large kink in the whole concept of God. What purpose would a non-omnipotent being serve for the universe if there were things outside of its control?

Well, there are things out of His control. Take the Devil and the Fallen for example. From your definition of God:

If God exists he is:

a. All Powerful (Omnipotent)
b. All Knowing (Omniscient)
c. Perfectly Good

What is perfectly good? Something/someone can only be good when compared to something else and in this case that would be bad or evil or something like that. Like up needs down, dark needs light, etc..
Therefore, 'c' in itself makes 'a' impossible. And it makes 'b' doubtfull, for does He know all that the Devil is upto? Those who wrote the Bible already realized that a good story needs a Bad Guy and that the Hero needs his limitations to draw a large audience.

To come back to your question: A non-omnipotent being can still serve us quite well, regardless of his limitations. Just like an even more powerfull version of Superman.

 

[WVUscion]

Well, there are things out of His control. Take the Devil and the Fallen for example. From your definition of God:



What is perfectly good? Something/someone can only be good when compared to something else and in this case that would be bad or evil or something like that. Like up needs down, dark needs light, etc..
Therefore, 'c' in itself makes 'a' impossible. And it makes 'b' doubtfull, for does He know all that the Devil is upto? Those who wrote the Bible already realized that a good story needs a Bad Guy and that the Hero needs his limitations to draw a large audience.

To come back to your question: A non-omnipotent being can still serve us quite well, regardless of his limitations. Just like an even more powerfull version of Superman.

This is interesting. I would say that the existence of the devil, as is the existence of God, is not a certainty. It is also possible to make God exist without the existence of the devil.

If you are looking for an opposite to God, you may be able to use free will as God's opposite. It is therefore possible for God to be all knowing and perfectly good, and for us to have free will. This is because our actions would be independent of God's, so all of those claims could remain strong.

Where does this leave God being all powerful? This is where I am interested to see what you guys think. Is God all powerful, but just abstains from using said power? Or is he not all powerful?

One argument that has been brought up in defense of God is by John Hicks. He calls it his "Soul Building Theodicy". He thinks of God as the father figure making his children chop wood to build character. He says that the only way for us to know how to do the right is if we have experienced and are fully knowledgeable of what is wrong.

What do you guys think about this?

 

[Denur]

This is interesting. I would say that the existence of the devil, as is the existence of God, is not a certainty.

Wholeheartedly agreed, but assuming that they do, makes a topic like this so much more interesting.

It is also possible to make God exist without the existence of the devil. If you are looking for an opposite to God, you may be able to use free will as God's opposite. It is therefore possible for God to be all knowing and perfectly good, and for us to have free will. This is because our actions would be independent of God's, so all of those claims could remain strong.

I was talking about opposite to Good, not God in general. Maybe we can just agree that your definition of God is flawed. I don't see how having free will can be opposite to God. You are looking for excuses, moving the goalpost someone called it. I would go so far as not being allowed to have a free will being a bad thing, something like the Devil would come up with.

Where does this leave God being all powerful? This is where I am interested to see what you guys think. Is God all powerful, but just abstains from using said power? Or is he not all powerful?

I think you're looking for a redefinition of the concept of god. Have you ever watched The Matrix trilogy?

One argument that has been brought up in defense of God is by John Hicks. He calls it his "Soul Building Theodicy". He thinks of God as the father figure making his children chop wood to build character. He says that the only way for us to know how to do the right is if we have experienced and are fully knowledgeable of what is wrong.

Ah yes, why do we exist?

 

[Dotini]

If you are looking for an opposite to God, you may be able to use free will as God's opposite. It is therefore possible for God to be all knowing and perfectly good, and for us to have free will. This is because our actions would be independent of God's, so all of those claims could remain strong.

I'm surprised you don't already know the answer here. Is it not true that most all philosophers and theologians agree that man must have free will? Otherwise, God would be spending 24/7 mediating each man's every decision, and would leave man no choice but to worship him, thus spoiling God's little game.

Yours,
Dotini

 

[Public'sTwin]

I'm surprised you don't already know the answer here. Is it not true that most all philosophers and theologians agree that man must have free will?

Not at all, to be frank.

Otherwise, God would [...] leave Man no choice but to worship Him

Exactly as intended.

 

[Dotini]

Not at all, to be frank.



Exactly as intended.

Public' Twin, I interpret your cursory answers to indicate that you do not think man has free will. But if he does not, why then do not all men worship God??

Yours,
Dotini

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Public' Twin, I interpret your cursory answers to indicate that you do not think man has free will. But if he does not, why then do not all men worship God??

Yours,
Dotini

All that can be interpreted from his answer is that there's no consensus on free will.

Also, just like the self-creating god concept, the imperative for man to worship god in the absence of free will presupposes the existence of god, which again I feel obligated to say might be an idea that's philosophically interesting to tinker with, but has little to do with one's belief or disbelief. Likewise, if as Denur strangely posits, we are god, then the very idea of god becomes useless, as we are already it.

 

[WVUscion]

Most of my most recent responses have been more for exploring the many ideas that can branch out from the definition of God.

I was talking about opposite to Good, not God in general. Maybe we can just agree that your definition of God is flawed. I don't see how having free will can be opposite to God. You are looking for excuses, moving the goalpost someone called it. I would go so far as not being allowed to have a free will being a bad thing, something like the Devil would come up with.

I was never disagreeing with you, so thus I am not "looking for excuses". Free will can hypothetically be opposite to claim 1.) That God is all powerful. If God is all powerful then we wouldn't be able to make such decisions for ourselves, unless of course he is just using restraint. As I said, there is nothing about God that requires there to be a devil, so hypothetically God could exist while the devil could not. This would place the burden of the "Problem of Evil" as it is called, on either God's or Man's shoulders. One can philosophically argue that the addition of the devil would be a "cop out".

I think you're looking for a redefinition of the concept of god. Have you ever watched The Matrix trilogy?

I think a redefinition of God is not only desired, but is necessary. The definition that I had provided wasn't my own, just the one classically used. I'm hoping that we can mold it into something that is more applicable to modern scenarios. Lets say that my post that you are quoting was meant not counter anything you said, but to help develop new ideas for the conversation.

Yes I have seen the matrix trilogy. It actually presents a very legitimate problem that is an extension upon Descartes ideas about existence. Descartes presents his own argument that is used to refute the idea of skepticism, which is one of the largest foundations for the matrix argument. His argument I'll list here. It assumes that God exists, which I've seen how that goes around here

1.) God Exists
2.) If (1), then I cannot be the victim of a massive deception.
------> Intermediate Conclusion: 3.) I cannot be the victim of a massive deception
4.) If (3) then I am justified in believed the Skeptical Hypothesis is false.
____________________________
5.) I am justified in believing the Skeptical Hypothesis is false

Can anyone see the problem with premise 2?

I'm surprised you don't already know the answer here. Is it not true that most all philosophers and theologians agree that man must have free will? Otherwise, God would be spending 24/7 mediating each man's every decision, and would leave man no choice but to worship him, thus spoiling God's little game.

Yours,
Dotini
Today 1:23 PM

This is actually a very interesting point. While no, not all philosophers think free will exists, it is interesting that you said that if we didn't then we would all be worshiping God all the time. While obviously there is no definitive answer to this question, it seems to me that God is not working to his own self interest, but to everyone else's as well. I would imagine that you would not particularly enjoy doing one thing for your entire life, and would agree doing such a thing would be highly unproductive. I would think that God would want humanity to grow and develop and make something of themselves. If all God wanted to do was create complex beings to worship him, then why do we have so many unique qualities that are good for other things then worship? This is a controversial claim of course, but it is what I would think would be a fair reason to explain things.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry I didn't see your post before I replied to Famines.

The purpose of the argument wasn't to prove that God exists. It's purpose was that if God exists, this is how he was created. I think that is very important to the conversation, because it has been kind of a sticking point for many "Assuming God exists, how was he created."

You are very right in saying that God existing is a huge assumption.

Sorry, I don't understand how your post does what you were aiming to do. It doesn't seem to explain how he was created at all - unless you're claiming that he created himself... which isn't any more satisfying than claiming that he wasn't created.

 

[WVUscion]

Sorry, I don't understand how your post does what you were aiming to do. It doesn't seem to explain how he was created at all - unless you're claiming that he created himself... which isn't any more satisfying than claiming that he wasn't created.

You can take it in two directions. It either says that he created himself, or that he was created from nothing. Since there was an extended conversation about not only if God existed, but if he did how he came to be, that argument can help a great deal. You can say, rather correctly I might add, that I haven't really proved anything. If God doesn't exist, or if he doesn't have the attributes that are classically applied to him then my argument is out of luck. I have brought us no closer to proving the existence of god, and if you look at this thread as being used solely to this end then I haven't really added anything. However if you look at the entire concept of what God could be and how such a being could operate assuming his existence, then the argument is a nice step in the right direction. I'm sorry that you don't find it very satisfying, but you are not alone. When talking about things of this nature, it is immensely hard to walk away with anything of absolute substance.

One thought that might be interesting using this train of thought was presented by St. Augustine. He views God not as something that exists or is created, but something that is entirely above all of those concepts. If you would ask Augustine how God was created, then he would simply respond that he wasn't and never will be. He would say that God is and always has been everything, and that it wouldn't be possible to define or observe him on terms of the universe.

As I'm sure you can imagine not many people enjoy hearing this opinion, let alone support it. But it opens up a nice window of discussion as to if God exists, then where does such a thing reside and what qualities does such a being have.

 

[niky]

EDIT
I think I see your point of confusion regarding the symbolic logic of my argument, maybe I didn't make myself clear. This is an online forum and doesn't exactly lend itself well to symbolic logic lol. A is not the conclusion, A is the 4th premise. It kind of "sets off the chain reaction" so to speak. Because it will go "If A exists...." and then I say "A is true" as the fourth premise. You may say "how do you know A is true?" which is a valid question. For the sake of argument I was assuming A to be true. Obviously I cant prove such a thing, but it needed to be true in order to logically proceed.

No, it doesn't. The evidence given is D, and yet, you've inferred that since A -> B, B -> C, C-> D, then D -> A... which is an even worse fallacy than B -> A.

In my original argument I never went from B to A. As you stated my argument was symbolically as follows:

A to B
B to C
C to D
A
______
D

Your Willy Wonka Example is symbolically as Follows

A to B
B to C
C to D
D
______
A

Which you are correct in stating is a fallacy, because D does not lead back to A. Also you're two arguments (Second one starting with Z), If All A's are Z's then they would be causally connected as well. Now what Z is idk, because I only made one argument, but if they were connected that would be how.
My A was "If God Exists". For the sake of my argument I assumed that God existed. That is the proof that God is causally connected to D, which has to do with leptons.

You're assuming, but the evidence given is D, not A. Thus your assumption cannot logically follow.

It's even sillier if you formulate the Wonka argument in this regard. You're saying that since Willy Wonka exists, we have Hershey's Kisses?

The existence of an omnipotent God does not assure the existence of self-generating particles. (apparently self-generating, since we don't know why they do)

That argument can be used as:

"Since God exists, there are Flying Spaghetti Monsters that go around smiting people with lightning bolts." This is because, according to your argument, God makes all things possible.

You're using an assumption in your proof for the given evidence, which is the exact opposite of what classical logical argumentation is supposed to do. In logic, you use the evidence given to formulate a proof for the assumption.

 

[Joel]

One thought that might be interesting using this train of thought was presented by St. Augustine. He views God not as something that exists or is created, but something that is entirely above all of those concepts. If you would ask Augustine how God was created, then he would simply respond that he wasn't and never will be. He would say that God is and always has been everything, and that it wouldn't be possible to define or observe him on terms of the universe.

It is a very real possibility, and if there is a God, I would probably say that it would be out of our comprehension. You brought up a good point earlier about how we still are limited by how we can only see things from our human point of view (eg. calling god 'he', etc.). I think when most people think of God and the universe they think of a 500 foot tall super human that can make worlds, planets, etc move with a wave of his hands. Perhaps, if there is a God, it's something more? Perhaps there's truth to the "Jesus is in every one of us" that the Catholic Church has been regurgitating since the Bible was written? If anything, this thread hasn't made me think that a God does exist, but it's made me have more difficulty in saying that God does not exist. Of course, there is no way to say "God exists", or "God doesn't exist" with 100% certainty.



However, in my opinion, there is really no way of knowing if there is or isn't a God, however, evolution, natural selection, etc. can adequately explain our current world (for the most part), however, I'm still going to live my life as if there isn't a God. Remember, Atheism is not defined as "God doesn't exist", it's defined as "rejection of belief in a deity". I don't really think it's worth our time to pray to a God, when we have a needle in a haystack chance of being right. Lets say tomorrow, I go to church, confess my sins, renounce my atheism, and accept Jesus as my saviour. Great, I now have a 1 in 10000000 chance of going to heaven. Scratch that, i'd probably be better off being atheist. I think most religions would rather have me not believe in ANYTHING, than be a member of another.



All I hope that we can do as a species, is get religious people to drop their claim that God DOES exist, and atheists to drop their claim that God DOESN'T exist. I will however, remain an atheist, and a skeptic, because there has NEVER been a proven example of any form of divine intervention.


In conclusion, there might be a God, there probably isn't, and if there is, we have a snowball's chance in hell of knowing who, and more importantly, what that God is, so I'm not wasting my time praying to Jesus, Allah, Thor, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because those "Gods" have a next to 0% chance of being correct.


(sorry if this is kinda all over the place, I'm really tired)

 

[WVUscion]

No, it doesn't. The evidence given is D, and yet, you've inferred that since A -> B, B -> C, C-> D, then D -> A... which is an even worse fallacy than B -> A.



You're assuming, but the evidence given is D, not A. Thus your assumption cannot logically follow.

It's even sillier if you formulate the Wonka argument in this regard. You're saying that since Willy Wonka exists, we have Hershey's Kisses?

The existence of an omnipotent God does not assure the existence of self-generating particles. (apparently self-generating, since we don't know why they do)

That argument can be used as:

"Since God exists, there are Flying Spaghetti Monsters that go around smiting people with lightning bolts." This is because, according to your argument, God makes all things possible.

You're using an assumption in your proof for the given evidence, which is the exact opposite of what classical logical argumentation is supposed to do. In logic, you use the evidence given to formulate a proof for the assumption.

I'm sorry but none of that is true. The evidence is NOT D. this is how the argument would follow if the evidence was D.

1.) If God exists, then he is all powerful
2.) If he is all powerful, then he has the power to do all things possible
3.) If he has the power to do all things possible, then he has the power to create "something from nothing" in a similar fashion as illustrated numerous times by Famine on the subject of Quantum Physics.
4.) He DOES have the power to create "something from nothing" in a similar fashion as illustrated numerous times by Famine on the subject of Quantum Physics.
_______________________

5.) God has the power to create "something from nothing" in a similar fashion as illustrated numerous times by Famine on the subject of Quantum Physics.

This follows the illogical pattern:

A to B
B to C
C to D
D
_________
D

Just in case you don't agree with my originial pattern, assign the letters to the claims.

If God exists is A

He is all powerful is B

He has the power to do all things possible is C

Leptons are a possible thing is D

Claim four is the evident statement

Premise Four is "God Exists", so thus it is also A, not D.

Premise 4 is the truth statement. Premise 3 is just a claim.

Think about an argument that you already know the answer:

If you have a car, it has four wheels
If it has four wheels, it has an engine
If it has an engine, it has cylinders
You have a car
________________
Your car has cylinders

This follows the same pattern.

If A then B
If B then C
If C then D
A
_______
D

Are you saying that the car has no cylinders because the D is the last claim you make? If you agree that this argument about the car is correct then my argument must be correct since it follows the same exact pattern.

Premises B and C are just using the definition of God. If you disagree with the definition of God that is perfectly fine, but I am using the classical definition so such an objection does not apply.

Premise A follows the same regard as Premise B and C. If you disagree that God exists, that is perfectly fine, but that has nothing to do with my argument. I am assuming that God exists to make a point about how he could possibly come into existence.

Premise D was confirmed by famine among others. There is plenty of scientific research to back up the behavior of leptons. If you disagree with this premise then I'm sorry you are just misinformed.

That argument can be used as:

"Since God exists, there are Flying Spaghetti Monsters that go around smiting people with lightning bolts." This is because, according to your argument, God makes all things possible.

This is not true either. Notice Premise 2:

2.) If he is all powerful, then he can do all things possible.

Are flying spaghetti monsters possible? No

Is there any evidence of people spontaneously shooting lightning bolts out of their hands? No

So such claims would not pass premise 2.

God does not MAKE all things possible, he can do ALL things that are possible. He can not create flying spaghetti monsters, because to the best of my knowledge they do not exist. He cannot make 2+2=5, because that is not possible. He can not make a circle with four sides, because that is not possible. Nowhere in my argument, and nowhere have I said that he can make all things possible.

It's even sillier if you formulate the Wonka argument in this regard. You're saying that since Willy Wonka exists, we have Hershey's Kisses?

If willy wonka is all powerful and can do all things possible, then yes you're right. However to my knowledge Willy Wonka does not have such qualities. Therefore he can not follow the same argument.

Let me reiterate the vat example that I have already stated. It may help clear up your logic qualms as well.

There are two vats sitting on the table. The first one is labeled "Vat of Possibilities". Inside is a marble for each thing that is possible. Notice that since a spaghetti monster and a square circle are not possible, they do not have a marble in the vat.

The second vat is labeled "God's Ability". If God is all powerful, then the second vat should have the exact same amount of marbles in it then the first vat.

This is a story that illustrates through words my point. If God exists he can do all things that are possible. Leptons do a specific thing. God can do what leptons do.

Bedposts can't do what leptons do because they are not God and do not have his properties.
Petunias can't do what leptons do because they are not God and do not have his properties.
Willy Wonka can't do what leptons do because they are not God and do not have his properties.

God cannot create flying spaghetti monsters because they are not possible. They violate premise 2
God cannot create square circles because they are not possible. They violate premise 2
God CAN create zebras because zebras are possible using this argument
God CAN create turtles because turtles are possible using this argument

I don't think there is any clearer way to explain this. I hope this helps.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Public' Twin, I interpret your cursory answers to indicate that you do not think man has free will. But if he does not, why then do not all men worship God??

Yours,
Dotini

Not having free will is predicated upon the acceptance of God; I don't believe in God or a god, leaving the concept of free will entirely subjective and personal: I only know through my own thought that I make my choices and am responsible for them. Whether they were 'destined' to happen or not, I don't care - because if they were, it wouldn't matter if I did care. If they weren't 'destined' to happen, I similarly don't care since I made that choice because it's what I wanted to make.

I can't answer your question because it assigns an abstract authority to One who has reportedly granted our freedom to commit such actions.

In reverting back to my original point, however, perhaps it would be clearer if I simply said thus: Not all theologians and philosophers agree that man has free will. Your claim that it's fallacious to assume God would be beholden to Man ensuring we are worshiping him is, in actuality, virtually guaranteed if we are to only slightly differently interpret some passages in the Bible.

Nothing before Me, he said, after all.

 

[WVUscion]

It is a very real possibility, and if there is a God, I would probably say that it would be out of our comprehension. You brought up a good point earlier about how we still are limited by how we can only see things from our human point of view (eg. calling god 'he', etc.). I think when most people think of God and the universe they think of a 500 foot tall super human that can make worlds, planets, etc move with a wave of his hands. Perhaps, if there is a God, it's something more? Perhaps there's truth to the "Jesus is in every one of us" that the Catholic Church has been regurgitating since the Bible was written? If anything, this thread hasn't made me think that a God does exist, but it's made me have more difficulty in saying that God does not exist. Of course, there is no way to say "God exists", or "God doesn't exist" with 100% certainty.

This is a very interesting point. I actually have heard this argument used in opposite. Have you ever heard the saying "the only way you can win the lottery if you play"? While yes you are right in saying you have a 1 in 100000000 chance of being right if you play the lottery, you have a 0 in 100000000 chance of being right if you don't play the lottery.

I'm interested in what kind of atheism you adhere to? Do you believe that after life there is absolutely nothing? That we just die and everything is over? Or do you believe in some sort of afterlife that is independent of any higher power? I've known a few atheists in the past and the coolest thing about them is that each one has a different take on what atheism is, and what specific beliefs they have.