Proof of the existence of God

[Sarkus]

It doesn't follow that a world where imagination exists, is a definite claim of God' existence, it means that if we are to imagine God not existing as a fact, we would not exist because God doesn't exist, based on the definition of God. One does not need to believe, or lack belief to comprehend that.

It does follow - at least those who can follow logic can follow that what you stated is a definite, albeit implicit, claim of God's existence being a fact.
To reiterate: you have stated that "we would not exist because God doesn't exist". We exist ergo you are claiming that God exists.
Period. There really should be nothing more to discuss here - and in fact we are no longer discussing it: you have resorted to merely bleating "you're wrong".

I've explained to you that it's not a priori assumption, but a definition, one that is accepted by anyone who reads scripture, or do research into what God is.

There is no issue with the definition, but something does not exist purely because it is defined to be necessary. There is the simple matter of the definition not being applicable to anything other than a fiction.
Due to this definition and near-perfect circular reasoning you have an a priori assumption that God exists, because the definition itself does not logically lead to the necessary existence of God - it merely gives a definition to something that may or may not exist.

It seems you are dead set on not accepting that, which is why I believe you have some kind problem with discussing God. You seem predisposed to derailing such discussion by crying fallacy at every turn, and when pushed to show such fallacy, we find you make stuff up to bolster your position.

What am I making up, Jan? The only derailing is by you continually refusing to accept your demonstrably circular reasoning, and by you continually spouting logical fallacies and hoping to get away with them.

I meant it in the same way Seattle meant it, imagine the world I live in. IOW imagine living in a world where we didn't breath.

Given that it is a demonstrable fact that we need to breath, your analogy is inadequate compared to something we don't know exists or not and for which we only have a definition of (perhaps in much the same way as Bilbo Baggins has a description/definition in The Hobbit). Show that God's existence as the original cause is an equivalent fact, rather than mere belief or claim, and you may be on to something. But you can't. Not without an a priori assumption.

God IS defined as the original cause.
It doesn't matter how the world looks now based on God' definition, I'm not trying to prove God' existence.

Is defined as, sure, but not necessarily existent. And that is the key point, not the definition.

I cannot imagine a world where God is not defined as the original cause, it would be like trying to imagine a world where I did not exist at all.
Can you imagine such a world? If yes, can you share?

I can imagine a world where God is not defined as the original cause. Let's define God as a marshmallow. There. Easy. Tasty as well. Your inability in this regard is due to your a priori assumption, as previously detailed.
As for imagining that I don't exist - yes, I can do that. I can imagine that my parents did not conceive me. I have to put myself in someone else's pov due to my imagined non-existence, but I can do it. It may not be an exact representation but it would be close: unfortunately the world would have progressed rather much as it has done, which merely speaks to my current unimportance in world affairs. Yet you struggle to be able to imagine the world without you?

 

[Sarkus]

A- God is defined as the original cause
B- Human beings are part of the effects
C- No cause, no effect.

Is C supposed to be the conclusion reached from premises A and B, or just another premise?

If asked to imagine a world where God does not exist, I would conclude that we wouldn't exist based on the definition of God.

You would be correct only if you were asked in the first instance to assume that God's existence should be taken as the current state of affairs.
Unfortunately for you you have simply assumed this a priori.
After all, one can quite happily follow the following logic:
A - God is defined as the original cause
B - Human beings are part of the effects.
Imagine God does not exist: either (as you argue) there would be nothing, or A is wrong.
Your inability to comprehend the latter as an option is due to your a priori assumption. You can deny it all you want, but it is prevalent throughout your arguments and demonstrable (as here).

I haven't claimed that God is the original cause. I have claimed that God is defined as the original cause, and I have been asked to imagine a world where God does not exist. Based on His definition, we would not exist.

Only if God exists in the first instance. Definitions do not imply or necessitate existence of that which is defined.
Yet more circular reasoning, Jan. And so we wash, rinse, repeat.

Like I said your so called logical assumption is something you made up, most probably to sheild you from having to discuss God in an intelligent manner.

Yet more bleating of "you're wrong", Jan? Anything else to offer? Like a non-fallacious argument?

I've pointed it out in every response to you, but you refuse to listen.

You have merely said words to the effect of "you're wrong". Nothing else that has not repeatedly been rebutted with detailed explanations (as here above).

 

[Sarkus]

Your so called logical assumption is nothing more than an evasion tactic. That has been pointed out, demonstrated to you serveral times.

To quote JamesR yet again: "Looks like we've reached that unproductive phase of the cycle again."

That you have a problem discussing God, is not my problem.

I have no problem with such - other than with the logical fallacies that some prefer to use.

Like I said you can imagine anything that you're able to, but you cannot imagine something that doesn't exist.

I can imagine anything that doesn't exist. It's relatively simple (at least for me, which is why I can't understand why you struggle - other than through you having an a priori assumption of that thing's existence).

You can of course concoct some kind of imagery, but that is a pointless exercise and a waste of energy IMO.

Not really - if it is defined as required then it could look like anything that fits that definition. It is simply imagined as not existing.

But if you say can imagine God not existing, then that means you have some of God, and absolutely no idea of no God. The only people who can imagine a world where God does not exist, are people for whom God does not exist.
And that's not imagination

So you admit you struggle! So why not just say that at the outset, or when last suggested of you.
The only people who can imagine a world where God does not exist are those who do not start with the a priori assumption that God exists. And hence we move along to the cycle of believing to believe.

Nonesense. I've simply used a known definition, a claim can be backed just by looking at definitions, or asking people who believe in God, what their defintion of God is.

So according to you, if there is a definition of God that someone comes across that says "original cause", and you come across someone who believes in God what their definition is and they say "original cause" then this is sufficient reason for you to consider that claim of God being (i.e. existing as) the "original cause" as supported??
Wow. I would consider that as supremely irrational.

You can't show where I have made any assumption of existence. You have to make it up. Why don't you dismiss you baseless accusation and carry on with the discussion? Let's see if it's logic or fear that motivates your tactics.

I do not make it up; it is as clear as daylight to anyone who cares to read. I now have no intention to repeat it. Just refer to posts #676, #683, #686 and #687 to name a few.

It may have seemed that way to you, but it's not that way. That's what I'm trying to tell you. I know my own intent. I am not writing from the perspective of a theist, but as an observer. See it is as some kind of exercise if it helps. But based on what I am saying your so called logical assumptions aren't correct.

More bleating of "you're wrong" with no actual meaningful explanation.

My imagination doesn't work like that. If I try to force something like that, I will still know what I'm trying to distort, so I can never truly get into the zone, so I don't waste energy on it. As a musician who writes music and lyrics, I have gone passed that stage of forced imagination. I find the quality of the song/music to be lacking, compared to sponteneity. For me imagination works best when you don't force it. Maybe for you it's different.

So you struggle. That's fine. You should have just said that rather than start on some cyclical reasoning to try and justify what you could imagine.

I didn't ask about what you couldn't imagine.
You can't imagine it, can you?
Just as I thought this is no thought experiment.

I forget you struggle with English. To say "I can't imagine it would be..." is the same as saying "I imagine it would not be..."
You asked about what I could imagine... and now you have my answer: I imagine it would be much the same as it is now. So yes, I can imagine it.

It would only have to be so, because it is so in your imagination.
Look, you're not kidding anyone. You are incapable of using your imagination as instructed by the trojan horse.

It would have to be so because for God to be factual, as commonly understood, it would have to be observed to demonstrate that which it is defined as capable of. And to do that in a closed universe would not be possible - hence an open universe, hence the laws of physics and chemistry would have to be re-written.
And your continued reference to his request as a Trojan horse is rather ironic, given that the Trojans lost that argument rather badly.

Yes, it should be the end of it, but no doubt you'll continue to pretend that you have provide evidence, when you know you haven't.
You should face your fears instead of covering them up with lies and deceit. You'll find that once you free yourself up, you will be able to discuss God without having to believe in Him, if not believing in Him is your desire.

"Looks like we've reached that unproductive phase of the cycle again." (JamesR)

Not if I don't have some idea of him. That would be a pointless exercise.

Pointless or not, humour me. Or is this just you restating your inability?

It's an assumption, you said it yourself. You tried to wash over it by claiming it a logical assumption, but your faulty logic has been dealt with.

Where did I say it was an assumption?? I claimed it was a logical deduction! That is rather different. And where is my logic faulty? This is just yet more of your bleating of "you're wrong".

You have a fear of discussing God.

If you say so.

Irrelevant. Belief is not a requirement for discussing God.

But it is relevant when it permeates all your discussions and hinders your ability to start a discussion without the assumption of God's existence.

There is a definition of God, whether I accept/believe it or not. I am simply using that/those definition(s).

As have we all.

Why would you fear it? I don't know, but I have my assumptions.
We'll trade. You stop evading the progress of this discussion, and I'll share my assumptions with you, once that has been established.

I'll stop what you think of as evading the progress of this discussion once you stop arguing with demonstrable logical fallacies. And I honestly don't care what your assumptions are of me, Jan.

As I don't know ALL atheists, I cannot answer that question. But I have met quite a few atheists who are fearful of hearing about God.

I have met none. Apathetic, bored, not interested, eager, excited, intellectually curious, but never fearful.

 

[gmilam]

Like I said you can imagine anything that you're able to, but you cannot imagine something that doesn't exist.

Quite frankly, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

 

[spidergoat]

Quite frankly, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

Like Jan said, you CAN imagine things that don't exist, but it's a pointless waste of energy. For some reason. Sci-fi writers take note.

 

[sideshowbob]

The baby simply accepts.

Well, no. The baby ignores - because the concept of god has no effect on its reality.

In time the baby comes to know that things are created, and begins to be able to discriminate between that which is created, and that which is not created.

And many people come to know that the concept of gods was created by people.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Imagine God does not exist: either (as you argue) there would be nothing, or A is wrong.

'A' is not an imagination, because no one can imagine a world where God does not exist, unless they go outside of the definition. Then we're not talking about God anymore. The real task is to imagine a world where God, with definition in tack, does not exist.

But I guess that would mean you have to discuss God, a prospect you do not relish.

Given that it is a demonstrable fact that we need to breath, your analogy is inadequate compared to something we don't know exists or not and for which we only have a definition of (perhaps in much the same way as Bilbo Baggins has a description/definition in The Hobbit).

Can you imagine living in a world and not breathing? Would it be like this world? You bet it would, because you never used your imagination in the first place. The trojan horse exercise is sham.

You asked about what I could imagine... and now you have my answer: I imagine it would be much the same as it is now. So yes, I can imagine it.

Of course it would be, because you never imagined it in the first place.

I have met none. Apathetic, bored, not interested, eager, excited, intellectually curious, but never fearful.

I doubt you'd recognize it, as you would already be firmly implanted into their mindset/camp.

Blind leading the blind comes to mind.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Well, no. The baby ignores - because the concept of god has no effect on its reality.


And many people come to know that the concept of gods was created by people.

The baby doesn't ignore. It accepts.

Knowing that something is created is not a externally learned skill, it is natural.

jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

The baby doesn't ignore. It accepts.

"Nuh uh" is not a very powerful argument. A baby is not even aware of the concept of gods, much less accepting.

Knowing that something is created is not a externally learned skill, it is natural.

If it's "natural" why do things that are not created often look created? e.g. snowflakes?

 

[Jan Ardena]

"Nuh uh" is not a very powerful argument. A baby is not even aware of the concept of gods, much less accepting.


If it's "natural" why do things that are not created often look created? e.g. snowflakes?

Who's talking about gods?

Even if a snowflake is not created, it looks created because we know and understand what characteristics created things have.

jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

Who's talking about gods?

I am. It's the topic.

Even if a snowflake is not created, it looks created because we know and understand what characteristics created things have.

So we can be wrong when we think things are created. What's your point?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I am. It's the topic.


So we can be wrong when we think things are created. What's your point?

So what's your point?

jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

So what's your point?

My point is that, "From a baby`s perspective, there`s no such thing as a creator." A baby doesn't look at a snowflake and conclude that there's a creator. The concept of a creator is not one we are born with. It's something we created.

 

[Jan Ardena]

My point is that, "From a baby`s perspective, there`s no such thing as a creator." A baby doesn't look at a snowflake and conclude that there's a creator. The concept of a creator is not one we are born with. It's something we created.

Once the intelligence develops, it becomes obvious if something is created or not (snowflake probably an exception), due to our experience. We don't need to know that a van was made by Citroen, to know that it is created

jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

Once the intelligence develops, it becomes obvious if something is created or not (snowflake probably an exception), due to our experience.

But snowflakes are only one of many "exceptions". We really can not tell "created" from "natural" with any reliability.

 

[James R]

Here's Jan's argument in a nutshell:

... [N]o one can imagine a world where God does not exist, unless they go outside of the definition. Then we're not talking about God anymore. The real task is to imagine a world where God, with definition in tack, does not exist.

This argument is given in the face of a world in which, in fact, millions of people do not believe that God exists. That is, a world where certain people not only can conceive of a world where God does not exist, but who honestly believe that is the true nature of the world.

Jan's argument is that people who actually do imagine a world in which God doesn't exist, and believe in the truth of that world, are wrong because they don't know what God really is. That is, Jan thinks that atheists and so on are denying the true definition of God - Jan's definition - and that if they really accepted what God actually is - i.e. accepted Jan's conception of God - then they'd have no choice but to believe in God.

To put it in simpler terms, Jan would like atheists to accept that his God is a logical necessity because Jan's universe needs a God-like creator or else his house of cards falls down. The problem is that for his God to be a logical necessity we all first need to accept that his definition of God as the Creator etc. is the only possible conception of God, and that God is essentially synonymous with the universe. Therefore, no God = no universe. Apparently Jan is stuck in his own little box here and can't see out.

Can you imagine living in a world and not breathing? Would it be like this world? You bet it would, because you never used your imagination in the first place.

Is it really so hard to imagine a world in which living things didn't breathe? It seems clear to me that such a world would be very different from this one, not the same, but such a world is conceivable. I'm not sure what the issue is with imagining such a thing.

 

[spidergoat]

Jan never answered my question. How can someone be sure that their experience of God is real?

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

''I'' haven't defined God.

You mean all that stuff about God being the initial cause and stuff isn't a kind of definition? Or do you mean that it's not your definition, and you want to distance yourself from it? Or do you mean that you think that definition has power and authority because you read it in a "scripture"?

If it's true that God is as He is defined, then it is so whether scientists accept it or not.

Well, yes, it's logically possible that God is so well hidden from us that there's simply no evidence that he exists. But that's not what you believe, and it seems a strange thing to argue given what you believe.

God IS defined as the original cause, it is not a priori assumption.

In other words, God = the universe. If there is a universe, therefore there is God. Ok. I have no problem with that argument. You can define God to be the same as the universe if you like. But, once again, I thought you wanted more from your God than for him to merely be equivalent to the physical universe. You talked about him be a separate Creator, after all.

Let me just be clear here. As far as I can tell, your line of reasoning goes like this:

1. The universe exists.
2. God is defined as the original cause of the universe.
3. Therefore God exists.

As somebody pointed out earlier, an equally valid argument would be:

1. The universe exists.
2. The Great Green Arkleseizure's dog is defined as the original cause of the universe.
3. Therefore, the Great Green Arkleseizure's dog exists.

And, of course, we have the corollary: "It is impossible to imagine a universe without the Great Green Arkleseizure's dog in it, because of premise (2), above."

Is that what your argument boils down to, Jan?

The laws of physics are a product of science? Are you kidding me?

Not at all. As I said, the laws of physics encapsulate human understanding of the workings of the natural world. They are a human-created set of principles, a product of science. No people, no laws of physics. No science, no laws of physics (actually, no physics, even).

Another pointless exercise. If you want a definition of God, then go find one.

I'm happy to use yours: God = the universe. For the purposes of this discussion.

I didn't use the term 'ultimate cause'.
God is defined as the God of gods.

What does that mean, exactly?

 

[river]

Jan never answered my question. How can someone be sure that their experience of God is real?

Not god but a Being.

 

[James R]

Jan never answered my question. How can someone be sure that their experience of God is real?

I would like to put in a blatant self-promoting advertisement for my new thread here:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-faith-a-reliable-path-to-knowledge.152142/