From God's inexistence it follows God's existence

[duendy]

IF i had a pound/dollar etc for every 'God' writ here, i'd be a rich dude. but if i was lookin for pickens from the word 'Goddess' i'b be in the dirt

the premise is 'God' right? hod did 'HE' 'create' (before?) time, etc

But if we was to understand the Goddess who preceded the idea of a creator-god-male, we'd know that Earth and Cosmos/Yoniverse was her BODY. an organism....of course 'She'=Androgyny

As with Nature there is constant change. and change = organic time. ORGANIC time, not mechanical time, which is the kind of time wees pushed by the patriarchal sky-god creators

Organic time is spontaneous and it is not cut-off from eternity. it is simply two ways of looking at the same process

 

[Medicine*Woman]

duendy: the premise is 'God' right? hod did 'HE' 'create' (before?) time, etc
*************
M*W: duendy, you continually amaze me with the depth of your understanding of these matters.
*************
duendy: But if we was to understand the Goddess who preceded the idea of a creator-god-male, we'd know that Earth and Cosmos/Yoniverse was her BODY. an organism....of course 'She'=Androgyny
*************
M*W: My belief on androgyny is that is the direction in which our evolution is going. I believe we were androgynous at an ancient time pre-dating the patriarchy. In fact, I believe the myth of Adam and Eve was written in a way trying to explain that when Adam was first created, s/he was androgynous. I believe the name "Adamu" simply means the earth. But when Eve (wisdom) was taken out of Adam's side, wisdom was removed from the earth and they became separate.
*************
duendy: As with Nature there is constant change. and change = organic time. ORGANIC time, not mechanical time, which is the kind of time wees pushed by the patriarchal sky-god creators
*************
M*W: I'm sure you are as observant as I am. Androgyny is well integrated in societies all over the world. When the human race reaches a total blending of all races, colors, ethnicities and genders, we will then live in what I shall call paradise.

 

[MarcAC]

did existence just happen, or did god decide to create it,

We first have to clarify the nature of non-existence. What is existence anyway? Who says it can be created? Existence is a term we apply to being. God must be that being which has always been or else we have infinite causation.

so we can say that god was aware of his decision to create it,

...and God can say "I AM aware of My decision to create... [whatever he created]". We in our 3/4 D existence say was and will. Those terms are not a necessity when God speaks, so to spoeak.

and while he was making this decision was time standing still,

That's not the question. The real question is this: Is time a necessary precursor to a decision being made due to awareness? Does time have to be before the decision or at the beginning of the decision and throughout the making of the decision? Like the car tyre trail being there before the car is driven. Draygomb is assuming that and that's a pretty crappy assumption.

" NO " so therefore he needed time to make a decision, and he had to be aware also.

From our view, yes, but before the decision or during?

...so you decide to make that trail, and in order to make the trail, you need time else you stand still.

Yes. But does time have to BE before you start from point a? No. You can apply Occam's Razor if you want - keep the situation we're trying to analyse in mind; Creation. Did time have to be before creation or can/does it start at the instant of creation? Nowhere has this been addressed in the paradox. You're trying to say that the tyre trail comes before the car is driven in the dirt when you say time is a precursor to creation. It's not gospel really (I'm no preacher), but I had to make is look like a sermon.

 

[MarcAC]

Decisions require Time.

Before the decision is made or during? I think you guys need Draygomb to come listen in and give you some tips.

 

[MarcAC]

Why do you think that they should have an equal amount of members, for all reasonable considerations?

Because that's what inifnity implies. It can mean anything. Until it is defined or recognised for what it represents; as South Star once implied (the limits imposed on the human perception). In other words the sets can be reasonably equal and reasonably unequal. Crap yeah, but that's infinity and humanb reasoning for you.

If God is the cause of all that is, he is also the cause of this little deception I just conjured.

You must be joking. LOL. Are you serious? No He isn't. LOL. You know the truth of brown eyes exsting. You wrongfully and deceitfully choose to apply that truth to yourself (if you don't have brown eyes). You are trying to say that God created that deception? Let's blame 9/11 on the Wright brothers then why don't we?

Not to mention that we have completely side stepped the discussion how to recognize truth to begin with,

Daniel has proven that irrelevant in this argument. Regardless of what truth there is there is truth and truth points to ultimate truth which should be the source of all that is (all truth); God.

Taking this into consideration, I suppose the concept of God was an appealing model for explaining nature, but I think we can find better models today.

Such as?

 

[mouse]

In other words the sets can be reasonably equal and reasonably unequal.

This makes no sense, and certainly is not a valid statement about two infinite sets. What do you mean by "reasonably" in this context?

You must be joking. LOL. Are you serious? No He isn't. LOL. You know the truth of brown eyes exsting. You wrongfully and deceitfully choose to apply that truth to yourself (if you don't have brown eyes). You are trying to say that God created that deception? Let's blame 9/11 on the Wright brothers then why don't we?

Yes, I agree with you that it is a bogus argument. Nonetheless, I used the line of reasoning simular to what this thread was started with.

Daniel has proven that irrelevant in this argument. Regardless of what truth there is there is truth and truth points to ultimate truth which should be the source of all that is (all truth);

How does the truth about the colour of my eyes point to the ultimate truth? And how does that point to God? You have not yet given a compelling argument why God is the source of everything, other than defining that he just is. That makes this reasoning rather circular: you start with assuming that God is the source of truth, you assume that there is a truth, you assume that every truth leads to another and then you conclude that there is a God. That's not a proof. That's a shaky set of assumptions.

Such as?

Depends on which area of nature you are looking at.

 

[MarcAC]

This makes no sense, and certainly is not a valid statement about two infinite sets. What do you mean by "reasonably" in this context?

Meaning, considering what infinity is... we don't really know. So whatever we state about the equality in the number of elements of inifinite sets can be true or false depending on which argument we use.

Yes, I agree with you that it is a bogus argument. Nonetheless, I used the line of reasoning simular to what this thread was started with.

Well, similar but not exactly the same. As I said, that would mean deception is a truth which doesn't make sense to me. Regardless, truth exists. You can try to say that deception points to God using your argument but the crux of it is totally different from what Daniel was proving (where deception is a bad thing and God would have bad things in His nature). The whole point of Daniel's demonstration was to show the absurdity of truth not existing (if you defined it as non-existent that would be a truth anyway). He didn't include good or bad in his post. I agree he did not answer, well, how truth points to God. But let me try to clarify, again.

How does the truth about the colour of my eyes point to the ultimate truth?

You said it yourself. Obviously? Truth about the colour of you eyes? Sure you aren't smoking some cheese there dude? ...Or else you want to say there doesn't have to be a source of truth and truth just is. Why does there have to be an ultimate source? As Daniel showed(?) all truths lead to another [see proving 1]. 1=1. 2=2 (defined truths). 1+1 = 2 (one truth to another). So if you have 2,000,000,000 it's the same as 1+1+ ... +1+1 = 2,000,000,000 or 1+2+3+4+ ... = 2,000,000,000. It's a truth and it points to Ultimate Truth which is a unifying source. Notice? Cause all truths are linked. The truth of 2,000,000,000 can be expressed by an infinite number of equalities I'm guessing - all truths in themselves. So there is a unifying Ultimate Truth or else 1 = 2,000,000,000 could be a truth. Get it? There's something behind the logic wich restricts it. And he said he was thinking in terms of a tree trunk and you have truths branching out sort of but all linked back to the source.

Or...

You can just say truth exists, it either just is or there's a unifying restrictive source (or else 1=2 x 10 ^ 9).

And how does that point to God? You have not yet given a compelling argument why God is the source of everything, other than defining that he just is.

And you have a problem with that? How about saying it this way? Truth points to an Ultimate Source of Truth and you can replace the 4 terms in the statement with God or... see below... It's like noticing that you are here and defining that as existence.

That makes this reasoning rather circular: you start with assuming that God is the source of truth, you assume that there is a truth, you assume that every truth leads to another and then you conclude that there is a God. That's not a proof. That's a shaky set of assumptions.

Every mode of reasoning can be reduced to a circle as there must be a base assumption. However, from above... the assumption: "'God' or 'The Creator' or the 'First Cause' defined as the Creator of everything is the Source of Everything" is a valid one right? Your question is similar to asking: Why is a computer called a computer? Or Why is existence called existence? Theists use the term God to refer to the Source of All Things. Truth (everything that is) points to Ultimate Truth (the 'First Cause' or 'Source') which as shown above and above can be called 'God'. God is the Source; The First Cause; The Alpha; The Omega; The Creator; The Sustainer; The Source of All Truth (that which is); The Ultimate Truth; God is God; God is

Depends on which area of nature you are looking at.

Interesting. Any would do really.

 

[the preacher]

so marc, do you believe god to be the first cause.

 

[Nasor]

To say that something is ‘true’ is merely to say that it is in line with reality. Truth or falseness is simply one of the many properties that ideas or propositions can have. Ideas can be true or false, just like they can be offensive, helpful, distracting, confusing, or appealing.

How are you defining ‘true’ as ‘god’? God is a noun, while truth is more of an adjective. Truth has no context outside of the idea or contention to which it is attached.

You can say “it is true that god exists,” and your sentence makes logical sense; you are attaching the modified ‘true’ to the idea ‘god exists’. However to simply say “God is truth” doesn’t make any more sense than saying “God is yellowness” or “God is tallness.”

 

[MarcAC]

so marc, do you believe god to be the first cause.

That question looks like; "Do you believe God to be God?" Hope that helps.

 

[MarcAC]

To say that something is ‘true’ is merely to say that it is in line with reality.

I fully agree here.

...Ideas can be true or false, just like they can be offensive, helpful, distracting, confusing, or appealing.

Here, I disagree. A truth is always true. A non-truth is always false. That's the only way it can be seen unless you are going to say reality has 'context'. In other words turth is objective. Offensive, helpful, distracting are all subjective. They are all based on the individual human experience. Something won't be absolutely offensive to everyone; "Damn you've got a nice ass!" *WHACK*. Some people might find that offensive while others live for it. I can't see a truth in line with such a variable. A truth, to me, has to be above and beyond human whims.

How are you defining ‘true’ as ‘god’? God is a noun, while truth is more of an adjective. Truth has no context outside of the idea or contention to which it is attached.

Not really that. But it is shown that there must be a source of truth (reality). I and Daniel I guess, define that Source as God.

You can say “it is true that god exists,” and your sentence makes logical sense; you are attaching the modified ‘true’ to the idea ‘god exists’. However to simply say “God is truth” doesn’t make any more sense than saying “God is yellowness” or “God is tallness.”

God is Truth (ultimate) would mean God is the source of all truth (the necessity of a source' is illustrated in the first post). As you defined above (I think) truth in itself must be reality (not what humans say it is). God is the Ultimate Reality and the Source of all that is Real. God is the Source. God is Truth... not simply truth.

 

[Nasor]

MarcAC: I agree that there is an objective reality that exists regardless of our perceptions or opinions. However, you seem here to be saying that what is true can’t change, which clearly isn’t the case. It might not be true at the moment that I have a red car, but it might be true tomorrow should I go out and buy a red car this afternoon.

When I say that truth has no context outside of the idea to which it’s attached, what I mean is that the label ‘true’ is a merely a descriptive modifier that must be applied to something in order to have meaning. So again, I don’t see what you mean by saying that ‘god is truth’.

God is Truth (ultimate) would mean God is the source of all truth (the necessity of a source' is illustrated in the first post). As you defined above (I think) truth in itself must be reality (not what humans say it is). God is the Ultimate Reality and the Source of all that is Real. God is the Source. God is Truth... not simply truth.[/color]

Even if god is the creator of reality, I still don’t think that ‘god is truth’ makes any sense. You could say “God is the creator of the one reality that we use as our baseline for measuring truthfulness or falsehood” but that isn’t the same as saying that god is truth. Truth is a descriptor, not a noun. You seem to regard truth to be an actual thing, rather than a concept.

When you say ‘god is the ultimate reality,’ that seems like a pretty empty statement to me. It is apparent that reality exists – but if you chose to define that reality as ‘god,’ it doesn’t really serve any useful purpose.

 

[MarcAC]

However, you seem here to be saying that what is true can’t change, which clearly isn’t the case. It might not be true at the moment that I have a red car, but it might be true tomorrow should I go out and buy a red car this afternoon.

True. Here, I, and Daniel I think, define truth as a fundamental unchanging principle. Like 1=1, or your red car is red. It can never be blue. Truth is a noun.

Even if god is the creator of reality, I still don’t think that ‘god is truth’ makes any sense. You could say “God is the creator of the one reality that we use as our baseline for measuring truthfulness or falsehood” but that isn’t the same as saying that god is truth. Truth is a descriptor, not a noun. You seem to regard truth to be an actual thing, rather than a concept.

True is an adjective: Truth is a noun. When we say God is Truth. We mean God is "the creator of the one reality that we use as our baseline for measuring truthfulness or falsehood" It's like applying a name to something that we observe.

When you say ‘god is the ultimate reality,’ that seems like a pretty empty statement to me. It is apparent that reality exists – but if you chose to define that reality as ‘god,’ it doesn’t really serve any useful purpose.

I don't think it is. Ultimate Reality would be a term which applies to the creator of reality. It's just - as above - applying a name to that which is observed.

 

[Nasor]

I don't think it is. Ultimate Reality would be a term which applies to the creator of reality. It's just - as above - applying a name to that which is observed.

But how is this useful? It is pretty self-evident that reality exists, so it must have come into being somehow. Labeling whatever is responsible for the creation of reality as ‘God’ doesn’t tell you any more about reality, or about God.

 

[mouse]

Meaning, considering what infinity is... we don't really know. So whatever we state about the equality in the number of elements of inifinite sets can be true or false depending on which argument we use.

I've looked it up. They do have the same number of elements, see here. My excuses for the whole confusion about infinite sets.

Why does there have to be an ultimate source? As Daniel showed(?) all truths lead to another [see proving 1]. 1=1. 2=2 (defined truths). 1+1 = 2 (one truth to another). So if you have 2,000,000,000 it's the same as 1+1+ ... +1+1 = 2,000,000,000 or 1+2+3+4+ ... = 2,000,000,000. It's a truth and it points to Ultimate Truth which is a unifying source. Notice? Cause all truths are linked

One truth to another? 1+1=2, because it complies to a set of rules and definitions of which we have mutual consensus about. It's an equation. As such, it does not "point" to any "ultimate truth".

The truth of 2,000,000,000 can be expressed by an infinite number of equalities I'm guessing - all truths in themselves. So there is a unifying Ultimate Truth or else 1 = 2,000,000,000 could be a truth. Get it? There's something behind the logic wich restricts it.

I have difficulty understanding how "truth" applies to a randomly chosen number, but obviously I agree with you that there is a reason why 1 is not equal to 2,000,000,000: it does not conform to the rules and definitions we use when doing calculations.

Truth points to an Ultimate Source of Truth and you can replace the 4 terms in the statement with God

"God" has of course a biblical connation. It implies a creator who consciously made the decision to create the universe as it is. For that, there is no proof. What we can state is that things around us seem to be governed by some set of rules. However, these rules do not necessarily need a creator, let alone a concious one. These rules may very well just be.

 

[Cyperium]

cyperium: it's called indoctrination/brainwashing, and from birth religious zealots force it on theirs and others children.
they should be allowed to be children, and decide what they want when there old enough.
I and millions of others have reason, sense, and intellect, in our brains there's no area devoted to a god/gods, we're not that stupid, we're not sheep.( after all jesus called you all his flock)

as godless and mouse said irichc
You equal God with truth, Why? try non-entity.
however as it has come from a believer, then there's no wonder it completely baffling and meaningless.

We believe what feel is true. Just as anyone else. There is great comfort in believing in God. But I agree that children must choose for themselves what to believe in, and shouldn't be influenced so much by atheist or theist (or society for that matter).

But of course they should be given the option. In any age. Cause it is the reality we live in, we shouldn't blind them to it but have a acceptence for it. Most children do have a idea of God. Surely they have heard Him mentioned, and have considered if He exists or not.

If you as an atheist, say that God doesn't exist to a child that has taken it as a truth, then you may do him much harm.

However, some things are for adults and some things are for children, we should teach love and understanding nevertheless.

 

[Godless]

Cype... I agree with much of what you said. except;

If you as an atheist, say that God doesn't exist to a child that has taken it as a truth, then you may do him much harm.

There's no harm in teaching a kid objective reality, fact is kids without the dogmatic notion of gods, agels, leprechauns, unicorns, devils, MYSTICISM in general are better suited for studies in intelectual fields such as science, mathematics, physics. Than kids with the notion of an easy answer for everything. "god did it".

Godless.

 

[mis-t-highs]

well put Godless, well put.

and also if the child has taken it as truth, then it has been indoctrinated.
you give a child two balls both exact in every way and you never tell them that one is better then the other.
they will make a choice, there is no doubt, try it.
and yes we all should teach love and understanding.

 

[MarcAC]

But how is this useful? It is pretty self-evident that reality exists, so it must have come into being somehow. Labeling whatever is responsible for the creation of reality as ‘God’ doesn’t tell you any more about reality, or about God.

Interesting. I'm more thinking on the lines of identity. To me, that's like saying it doesn't tell you any more about a computer to call it a computer (so why not call it a stove?). Sure. But if you see the phenomenon you need to identify it. What does calling gravity gravity tell you about gravity and it's effect? Daniel adressed this in his post. There must be identity and "opposition" was the term I think he used. If you see evidence for a creator and call it God; why not? Maybe you have a prob with what 'properties' God would have? That's where reality informs us. So, it's not about calling the 'Creator of all' God telling you more about reality. It's more about reality telling you that there is a Creator and telling you what that Creator may be or is like. Creator... God... ?

 

[MarcAC]

One truth to another? 1+1=2, because it complies to a set of rules and definitions of which we have mutual consensus about. It's an equation. As such, it does not "point" to any "ultimate truth".

Interesting. I like BMWs. You don't like BMWs. I want 1 = 2. You want 1 = 1. What's the difference between these "rule systems" that it's o.k. for me to like BMWs but not o.k. for me to want 1 = 2 and define 1 = 2?

However, these rules do not necessarily need a creator, let alone a concious one. These rules may very well just be.

All rule systems that we know of have had a creator(s)... except one... reality itself. I think the rules of reality are governed by a Source. Why do you disagree?