The dictionary defines existence as "the state or fact of existing," leading to exist, which is defined as "to have being." It never said anything about requiring time, and it never specified what kind of being (physical, imagined, etc.) something needed to have in order to exist. Also, about your question as to why God would want to create even though he is perfect, God wants something else in existence. And so, he created the reality which we all know. What I can't tell you, however, is why he chose to create something imperfect.
I believe I have disproven Atheism. Tell me, do you see any flaws?
- Thread starter Jadebrain_Prime
- Start date
- Status
The dictionary defines existence as "the state or fact of existing," leading to exist, which is defined as "to have being." It never said anything about requiring time, and it never specified what kind of being (physical, imagined, etc.) something needed to have in order to exist. Also, about your question as to why God would want to create even though he is perfect, God wants something else in existence. And so, he created the reality which we all know. What I can't tell you, however, is why he chose to create something imperfect.
Also, (Q), I do not mean to be rude, or to insult your intelligence, but do you know what the word "metaphor" means? No, you do not have to answer, this is a rhetorical question.
Rokkon,
One part where I think you are starting off on the wrong foot is that simple justification of a pre-conceived set of conditions without offering further evidence or a new light to examine under equates to nohing more than an apology - not proof.
Justification is not proof.
For example, I could offer up an explanation as to how God could exist, why, what the underlying reality of his existence is, why he created existence, why humans are imperfect and explain a few more things along the way.
Not only would all of it be supported by the holy books of multiple religions, but none of it could be refuted with scientific fact.
If I offered ALL of that, it STILL wouldn't be proof of God's existence - it would simply be the imagination of a creative mind offering up an apology of God's existence.
One part where I think you are starting off on the wrong foot is that simple justification of a pre-conceived set of conditions without offering further evidence or a new light to examine under equates to nohing more than an apology - not proof.
Justification is not proof.
For example, I could offer up an explanation as to how God could exist, why, what the underlying reality of his existence is, why he created existence, why humans are imperfect and explain a few more things along the way.
Not only would all of it be supported by the holy books of multiple religions, but none of it could be refuted with scientific fact.
If I offered ALL of that, it STILL wouldn't be proof of God's existence - it would simply be the imagination of a creative mind offering up an apology of God's existence.
You do have a point there, One Raven. I am aware that in order for a fact to be proven, other facts must be disproven. I have actually tried to do that with my (attempted) explaination that anything that exists inside and goes forward in time cannot have an infinite past, which would mean that it would have to be created somehow. I just happen to believe in the whole prima materia theory, which explains why I would say that even if something was something else before, it still would have a past beyond the event in which it transformed.
If the big bang were the beginning of time and space, nothing could be said to have preceded it.
Then why would it have happened? The law of cause and effect would rule out a spontaneous and reasonless explosion of suddenly materialized matter.
Who says causes have to precede effects? Perhaps the cause lies far in the future.
Yes, but in order for there to BE a future, the past must have something in it.
Isn't there something now?
look, we are all living in a matrix (a computer program). the user is the creator. and then the question pops up which came first the chicken or the egg??? god created this universe, then who created god, then who created gods god, then who created gods gods god and so forth.
I'll just ignore what mackmack said. Spidergoat, the fact that there is anything at all right now does not change the fact that in a stable reality, an empty past leads to an empty present, leading to an empty future. And since the future would be empty, no one would exist at that point to change the past.
If nothing can exist outside of time, and the big bang was the beginning of time, then one conclusion remains, the universe caused itself.
Actually, part of my stance in this arguement was that God DID exist out of time, and that the Big Bang is NOT the correct universe creation theory. Perhaps you'd best be paying attention to who says what.
I can't buy that, since there would be no means for something outside of time to interact with time. There is no meeting point.
It's like a painter making a picture. The painter, assuming that they have perfect skill and every color of paint that they needed, could edit any part of the picture to their will. A more accurate description would be the author of a fiction novel. A novel, essentially being a book with a general plot, has a fictional storyline that the author has complete control over at all times. This control is not mutual in any way, so nothing can come out of the novel and change the author's fate. And now we apply this to reality. The being that I say exists outside of time is only different than the author in that the being is in a state without change, and thus is only able to change what is inside time, for outside of time, there is no change. The being is simultaneously at all places that it would have to travel one at a time to if it were outside of time, so that is not a problem. Since the being is outside of time, it is making these changes simultaneously in its perception, whereas in our time-controlled perception, they could be far apart. It is definitely possible to categorize all differences between an in-time being and an out-time being under one difference: the being's entire existence is basically simultaneous and eternal, and ours is sequential and limited, leading to lives that are near impossible to come close to the same experience.
It could be the beginning of this cycle time and space.
Another cycle could have preceded it.
Also, ROKKON, what is the law of cause and effect?
The only law of cause and effect I know of is a buddhist idea, not a tenet of science.
There is no law of cause and effect, so you either need to establish one, or take that out of your theory.
Or else I am going to establish a theory based on the law of "because I said so".
So, your entire theory is merely a metaphor?
I thought you were here to learn something when you asked to have your flaws pointed out, obviously not. My mistake.
Carry on with your gibberish.
No, (Q), my ENTIRE theory isn't a metaphor. I simply replaced a few words with words other than what I meant because I couldn't think of any better words to describe what I meant.
And Cole Grey, the law of cause and effect is not just in religion, it is practically in every academic subject known to man. The Revolutionary War happened because the British Colonies in America were angry with how they were being governed and also wanted their own country. America is becoming fat because of various things such as overly convenient and horrifyingly unhealthy fast food. Person A was short because they inherited a certain gene that makes them short from their parents. Person B was in debt because he spent more money than he had. Chemical C, when mixed with Chemical D, turns color E because of some wierd chemistry gobbledygook that I'll probably never understand. The law of cause and effect is blatant EVERYWHERE.
And Cole Grey, the law of cause and effect is not just in religion, it is practically in every academic subject known to man. The Revolutionary War happened because the British Colonies in America were angry with how they were being governed and also wanted their own country. America is becoming fat because of various things such as overly convenient and horrifyingly unhealthy fast food. Person A was short because they inherited a certain gene that makes them short from their parents. Person B was in debt because he spent more money than he had. Chemical C, when mixed with Chemical D, turns color E because of some wierd chemistry gobbledygook that I'll probably never understand. The law of cause and effect is blatant EVERYWHERE.
It matters not, you appear to be continuing with your line of flawed reasoning, hence you're ignoring the flaws pointed out to you.
Are you still functioning under the premise of cause/effect?
There is no cause and effect, only relationships/interaction/flow.
Cause and effect insinuates a separation between cause and effect, a distance which many use to prove a beginning or a God.
Your problem is that you take a dictionary definition and you run with it.
There is no being nor a here nor a now, as there are no absolutes.
There is only becoming. Our concepts of ‘here’ and ‘now’ are based on a looking back. They are references to an arbitrary, imprecise past.
We never occupy a here we are always flowing towards it.
We never occupy a now we are always moving towards it.
This is why everything is infinitely divisible. There is nothing there and our divisions are human degrees of awareness.
Have you read any philosophy?
I gave you my definition.
Now, perhaps, before you advance into your speculations further you can offer me your definition.
What “fact of existing”. What is being?
Explain how something can exist without being temporal or spatial.
Explain how you came to know of what you’ve never experienced.
The word “wants” denotes an absence a lack a need.
Therefore you are claiming that God is lacking or needful or wanting and so not perfect.
I ask again, and this time try to think and not pull things out of your ass:
Why…WHY OH WHY?...would a perfect omniscient, omnipotent, creature (forget the temporal and spatial issues for the moment and let us assume he does “exist”) want anything?
If it wants then it is not perfect.
You are using yourself as a template and projecting your weaknesses upon an imagined existence. Humans want and need and create because they are flawed and weak and incomplete.
Creation is an act. Action is the product of need. Need is a product of lack. Lack is the flux.
You are using the universe you exist within to imagine an existence which is not within it.
Does this not give you reasons to pause and think and reappraise your original conclusions?
Read a book besides scripture and dictionaries, better yet, look at the world and think before you read anything.
- Status