Proof of the existence of God

[Jan Ardena]

That's exactly a claim that god exists. Just because you're lying doesn't make it true.

Oh, so now I'm lying?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The existence of sort of higher being is beyond doubt. All life forms have evolved to their own potential so far. Life has an inherent intelligence. All life does

I just don't refer to this intellegence as a god.

What do you refer it to?

jan.

 

[Write4U]

@Jan,
God exists. It is just completely unaware of OUR existence.

With respect (as atheist), God (by ANY other name) is a mathematical abstraction. The Universe can be mathematically explained, not emotionally. Thia is the very reason for the total "confounding of languages", which interpret God in as many ways as there are believers.

There can only be ONE single explanation for the universe and that is through mathematics.

 

[Jan Ardena]

God exists. It is just completely unaware of OUR existence.

Why is it?

With respect (as atheist), God (by ANY other name) is a mathematical abstraction. The Universe can be mathematically explained, not emotionally. Thiis the very reason for the total "confounding of languages", which interpret God in as many ways as there are believers.

Emotions is a property of life, and life is a property of the universe, as is mathematics.
Reason is also a property of the universe, via, life. It is reason, not emotion (I presume) that led you to this conclusion. So do you think it is possible that reason can lead one to a different conclusion that states God is an intelligent agent, without emotion? If not, why not?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

So you imagine a circle, then add that circle to something that never ends?
So when ask imagine a world where God does not exist, you imagine this?

No.
When asked to imagine a world where God does not exist, I imagine this world.
When asked to imagine a world where God does exist, I imagine this world.
Whether God exists or not (I do not know which is the reality), this world exists.
The circle is merely a means of imagining eternity - it has no end to it.

I've defined path B (using the definition we all agree on), not taken it. There is absolutely no assumption that taking path B is correct, only that it's definition is correct. Applying a correct definition, in a thought experiment is not an a prori assumption.

It is when you assume that the definition is applicable to something that exists rather than imaginary.

If the experiment was: imagine what would happen to Superman if he fell into an ocean full of kryptonite, and for some reason was not able to free himself. My answer would be that he would die. Not because I assume that he is real, but, that his character is allergic to kryptonite.

That is because you assume within that scenario that Superman exists.
Which is to be expected because the question also includes that assumption.
Both the question/task and your answer have the same a priori assumption.
When asked to imagine that God does not exist, however, you are being asked to not start with such an a priori assumption.
{quote]No it doesn't. It simply appears because of the definition of God. but it is not my definition. It is a standard definition, which form the basis of atheism, and to a lesser extant, theism. When asked to imagine God, that definition must be at the basis of all imaginings, otherwise you are not imagining God. God IS and always was, defined as the original cause/creator.[/quote]And this speaks to your a priori assumption: you can not imagine God as defined without imagining that God exists.
To you the two are inseparable.
To others they are not.
They can imagine something as defined that simply does not exist - where the definition simply does not apply to anything that actually exist in reality.

I don't need to shed anything. The definition stands, whether you like it or not, and I am using that definition. You, on the other hand, have to deny that definition so that you come to conclusion that you are okay with. Then charge me with making a priori assumptions, because you uncomfortable with the definition.

Where have I denied the definition?
God is defined as the Original Cause.
What is so uncomfortable about that?
Noone has said you are not using that definition.
All you are doing is assuming that it relates to something that actually exists.
Such that when you are asked imagine the non-existence, you first assume it exists, build your scenario around that, then remove it from that scenario.
As a result you conclude that if God does not exist then nothing could exist.

My belief is irrelevant.

Not when it results in an a priori assumption that is unfortunately at the heart of this matter.

If God (according to THE definition) didn't exist, then the world wouldn't exist.

Your response is based on the a priori assumption that God exists, as explained above.

Others, have used their belief that God doesn't exist, to conclude that the world would be the same, because for them God doesn't exist. No one has given an account of the world without the actual existence of God. They have simply denied any attributes that the definition of God upholds.

They have not denied anything of the such.
They have merely not assumed that the definition applies to anything that exists.
Since they do not know whether or not God exists, it is logical to conclude that if God actually does not exist then we still would.
Likewise, it is logical to conclude that if God actually does exist then we still would.
Those who have an a priori assumption of God's non-existence might conclude that if God (as defined) were to actually exist then things might be different.
But that can only stem from an a priori assumption.
The reverse of yours.
And they would be in the same position as you with regard the criticism.

No it's not.
And you cannot show that it is.

I have shown that it is.
Others have shown that it is.
You are simply refusing to accept it.
You are in denial.
Further efforts are thus unlikely to prove constructive and thus futile.

The last 15 pages clearly show that there is a deep and psychological problem among the atheists here, when it comes to God, which runs much deeper than mere atheism.

This last statement of yours is simply you needing to feel better about yourself.
You are trying to discredit all criticism levied at you by claiming it to be the fault of them and not you.
It does you a great disservice to insult everyone so broadly.
But if this is how you truly feel then I actually pity you.
If for nothing else than your apparent inability to withdraw from the futility.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It is when you assume that the definition is applicable to something that exists rather than imaginary.

The definition is applicable to the request that was made.

That is because you assume within that scenario that Superman exists.
Which is to be expected because the question also includes that assumption.

The request also included that assumption. It asked us to imagine a world where God did not exist. It assumes that God has some kind of purpose, and attributes that we know of.

Since they do not know whether or not God exists, it is logical to conclude that if God actually does not exist then we still would.
Likewise, it is logical to conclude that if God actually does exist then we still would.

It didn't ask whether or not you know that God exists, it asked you to imagine such a world. IOW, it asked us to use a definition of God, and apply that definition to our imaginative task. You can not, or, have not offered any reason as to why this world be remain the same, because God does not exist. To do that you will need to define God, then use that definition as the basis of your conclusion.

And this speaks to your a priori assumption: you can not imagine God as defined without imagining that God exists.

And neither can you, without denying the definition. The definition more or less states that God is the explanation for existence, and would still say that whether I believed it to be true or not.

To you the two are inseparable.
To others they are not.
They can imagine something as defined that simply does not exist - where the definition simply does not apply to anything that actually exist in reality.

Then you fail task.

All you are doing is assuming that it relates to something that actually exists.
Such that when you are asked imagine the non-existence, you first assume it exists, build your scenario around that, then remove it from that scenario.
As a result you conclude that if God does not exist then nothing could exist.

I don't need to assume it's relation to anything, as it is already defined.

We're weren't asked to imagine non-existence. We were asked to imagine a world where it is a fact that God does not exist. God is the subject matter.

Not when it results in an a priori assumption that is unfortunately at the heart of this matter.

You're simply time wasting.

Your response is based on the a priori assumption that God exists, as explained above.

No it's not. It's based on the bog standard definition of God, as explained above.
No belief is necessary.

They have not denied anything of the such.
They have merely not assumed that the definition applies to anything that exists.

The definition applies to God, the subject matter of the thought experiment, and you continuosly deny that. Your conclusion that the world would be the same if God didn't exist, is based on your belief that God does not exist. You haven't evenoffered an explanation as to why/how the world would look the same, based on the definition of God, the actual subject matter of the exercise.

Since they do not know whether or not God exists, it is logical to conclude that if God actually does not exist then we still would.

So a world in which God does not exist would be the same as this world because ''they do not know whether or not God exists''? That's the reasoning? Really?

Likewise, it is logical to conclude that if God actually does exist then we still would.

And this logical conclusion is based on not knowing whether or not God exists?
So when asked to imagine such a world, you have no idea of what God is, or is supposed to be? It is just simply a word?

What is it about God's existence, that makes you think there is a lack of evidence for it?

Those who have an a priori assumption of God's non-existence might conclude that if God (as defined) were to actually exist then things might be different.
But that can only stem from an a priori assumption.

If they were being honest (like Harry T), yes.
But it wouldn't be an a priori assumption, it would be based on the information they were given. They wouldn't be concerned/anxious with having talk as though God existed, in order to come to a conclusion, for the purpose of the exercise.

Further efforts are thus unlikely to prove constructive and thus futile.

And that's exactly where you want to take it.

This last statement of yours is simply you needing to feel better about yourself.
You are trying to discredit all criticism levied at you by claiming it to be the fault of them and not you.
It does you a great disservice to insult everyone so broadly.
But if this is how you truly feel then I actually pity you.
If for nothing else than your apparent inability to withdraw from the futility.

It's a concern, not an insult.
The level of denial is shockingly, and brazenly, apparent.
You seem psychologically incapable of hold a discussion about God in any meaningful way. It is as if you don't want God to exist.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Apologies, Jan.
That post attributed to Sarkus was actually mine.
We share a flat, and I forgot to log him out before replying to your post.
So apologies if there is any confusion.

The definition is applicable to the request that was made.

The definition is.
The assumption you make is not.

The request also included that assumption. It asked us to imagine a world where God did not exist. It assumes that God has some kind of purpose, and attributes that we know of.

There is simply no such assumption in the request.
If anything, from the very wording of the request, one should assume that God has no purpose, and that the definition only applies to an imagined thing.

It didn't ask whether or not you know that God exists, it asked you to imagine such a world. IOW, it asked us to use a definition of God, and apply that definition to our imaginative task.

Here you are still conflating definition with existence.
I can imagine a world where the God is still as defined, but where God is no more real than superman.
How does that not comply with the request?

You can not, or, have not offered any reason as to why this world be remain the same, because God does not exist.

IF God actually exists then his non-existence would mean that nothing exists.
But IF God actually does not exist, has never existed as anything other than in our imagination, then the non-existence of God has no bearing on our existence.
Can you not understand this?
Every time you jump on the "God is defined as..." as if that means that only the former of those options is possible, as if the latter somehow denies that God is as defined.
That is simply not the case.
In both cases, God is defined as the Original Cause, but only in the former scenario does God ACTUALLY exist.

To do that you will need to define God, then use that definition as the basis of your conclusion.

As has been done.
The definition of God, as has been told to you numerous times, and as you yourself have agreed, does not imply existence.
You do need to stop doing that.

And neither can you, without denying the definition. The definition more or less states that God is the explanation for existence, and would still say that whether I believed it to be true or not.

I am denying no definition.
I am just not applying it to anything actually existing when I imagine that God does not exist.

Then you fail task.

Yet we are the ones that can imagine what you can not?
Is this just another case of "disagree with Jan and you're wrong!"

I don't need to assume it's relation to anything, as it is already defined.

Definition does not necessitate existence, even if it is defined as the original cause of existence.
You have previously agreed to this principle, yet you go back on it every time you revert to the issue of definition.

We're weren't asked to imagine non-existence. We were asked to imagine a world where it is a fact that God does not exist. God is the subject matter.

God as defined, yes.
You are simply assuming the existence of God a priori before considering God's non-existence.
Please don't.
There was no request to do so.
There is a definition of God.
No assumption of existence is needed.

You're simply time wasting.

Trying to explain things to you certainly seems like a waste of my time.

No it's not. It's based on the bog standard definition of God, as explained above.
No belief is necessary.

You are jumping from definition to assumption of existence.
If it is not because of your belief then why is it, especially when you have previously agreed that definition does not necessitate existence?

The definition applies to God, the subject matter of the thought experiment, and you continuosly deny that.

I have not denied it.
I have used it throughout my involvement here.

Your conclusion that the world would be the same if God didn't exist, is based on your belief that God does not exist.

The conclusion is based on the fact that if God does not exist, and it is not certain that God was the cause of existence, then our existence is due to something else.
Since I have no certainty that God, as defined, was the cause (i.e. actually exists in reality) then since we are here, since we exist, our existence in the absence of such a God would be due to that other thing, whatever it may be.

You haven't evenoffered an explanation as to why/how the world would look the same, based on the definition of God, the actual subject matter of the exercise.

It has been explained - see post #1039.

So a world in which God does not exist would be the same as this world because ''they do not know whether or not God exists''? That's the reasoning? Really?

That is not quite it, no.
If one does not start with an a priori assumption of existence then being at point X could have been the result of path A or path B.
If we are asked to imagine what our world (point X) would look like without path A, well without path A we would have had to have gotten to where we are (point X) via path B.
If we are asked to imagine what our world (point X) would look like had we taken path A, well we would have ended up at point X (our world).
It is only when you make an a priori assumption as to the path taken will you deviate from this thinking, or when you have certainty that only one of those paths could have possibly led to point X, and not the other one.

And this logical conclusion is based on not knowing whether or not God exists?

Yes.

So when asked to imagine such a world, you have no idea of what God is, or is supposed to be? It is just simply a word?

No, I know what God is supposed to be.
You have provided the definition.
That is the definition you constantly claim that I have denied.

What is it about God's existence, that makes you think there is a lack of evidence for it?

I have not seen any that I can logically attribute to path-A or path-B.
I am not aware of any such evidence that can be attributed in such a manner.
At best one will be left with appeals to authority, or perhaps with the unexplainable.
But currently God is simply not a necessity.

If they were being honest (like Harry T), yes.
But it wouldn't be an a priori assumption, it would be based on the information they were given.

In the absence of being given such information, any assumptions brought to the table would, by definition, be a priori.

And that's exactly where you want to take it.

Not at all.
I'd rather there be no hindrance to constructive conversation.
I am just warning of where I currently view the thread, and where it has probably been for the past 15 pages or so.

It's a concern, not an insult.

A concern is rarely couched in such a way as to discredit every criticism against you.

The level of denial is shockingly, and brazenly, apparent.

If that is the way you see it.
One could flippantly view your ineptitude in the face of logic in the same way, and your lack of understanding would also explain why you see the other side as denial.
But I won't go there.

You seem psychologically incapable of hold a discussion about God in any meaningful way. It is as if you don't want God to exist.

Want doesn't come into it.
God can be discussed meaningfully, but with atheists you simply can't start with the a priori assumption that God exists.
This is what you do.
If you want to discuss God meaningfully with atheists then start with God as a concept, an imagined notion, and progress from there.
As soon as you introduce any a priori assumption it is you who brings the conversation to a halt, whether that be through a curt closure or 15 pages of interminable nonsense as you seek to defend your position.
Remember, you believe, the atheist has no such belief.
Your belief, whether you realise it or not, has a habit of bringing to the table that which is not relevant or required.
Plus you must also look at yourself and ask if you are actually capable of having a meaningful conversation with an atheist on the subject of God, not through the issues you perceive they have, but issues you have with getting your points across, and with your method of discussion.

 

[spidergoat]

The last 15 pages clearly show that there is a deep and psychological problem among the atheists here, when it comes to God, which runs much deeper than mere atheism.

And what's that? After repeated questioning, you apparently refuse to explain why you believe in God. Isn't that a problem?

 

[Write4U]

Why is it?



Emotions is a property of life, and life is a property of the universe, as is mathematics.
Reason is also a property of the universe, via, life. It is reason, not emotion (I presume) that led you to this conclusion. So do you think it is possible that reason can lead one to a different conclusion that states God is an intelligent agent, without emotion? If not, why not?

jan.

You are confusing CDT (causal dynamical triangulation) with God (a motivated sentient creative being).

It is true the Universe and Life display a fractal functon, but that does not make a Fractal itself sentient.

A fractal is a natural phenomenon or a mathematical set that exhibits a repeating pattern that displays at every scale. If the replication is exactly the same at every scale, it is called a self-similar pattern. An example of this is the Menger Sponge.[1] Fractals can also be nearly the same at different levels. This latter pattern is illustrated in the magnifications of the Mandelbrot set

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

 

[Jan Ardena]

The definition is.
The assumption you make is not.

Using a definition is not making an assumption.
I am not assuming Superman is real because I describe one of his attributes as being able to almost travel at the speed of light.

There is simply no such assumption in the request.
If anything, from the very wording of the request, one should assume that God has no purpose, and that the definition only applies to an imagined thing.

An a priori assumption. It assumes that God does not exist (by your analysis.

I'm afraid you're wrong. It implies a specific idea of what God is (hence the need to imagine His non existences)

It didn't ask whether or not you know that God exists, it asked you to imagine such a world. IOW, it asked us to use a definition of God, and apply that definition to our imaginative task.

Here you are still conflating definition with existence.

Where exactly?
The definition isn't mine.

I can imagine a world where the God is still as defined, but where God is no more real than superman.
How does that not comply with the request?

That's not imagining a world where God does not exist.
That is simply the world you live in. Where is the distinction?

IF God actually exists then his non-existence would mean that nothing exists.
But IF God actually does not exist, has never existed as anything other than in our imagination, then the non-existence of God has no bearing on our existence.
Can you not understand this?

We (JBrendonK to be exact) was asked to imagine a world in which it is a fact that there is no God. Now look at our world and it looks the same as that world you just imagined."
With facts comes reasons. Agreed? Simply affirming God's non existence as fact, is not ACTUALLY acceptable. You have to explain why it is a fact. The same is expected in an imaginary scenario.
This was in response to the claim that God exists because the universe exists (or something in that region).

As has been done.
The definition of God, as has been told to you numerous times, and as you yourself have agreed, does not imply existence.
You do need to stop doing that.

The definition implies existence, but I'm not implying that God exists by using that definition. That is what you fail to understand. You and others have failed to use the definition to support your imagined world. Simply asserting that there is an alternative to God's definition, but not how this alternative works (what are, or could be, the points that lead to this fact), is so poor, that it warrants being described as an a priori assumption.

Trying to explain things to you certainly seems like a waste of my time.

Because you're only seeing it from your perspective.
I am offering another perspective with a view to looking at proof of God's existence.
If you are going to stick with your pov, then at least explain how it could be a fact that God does not exist. At least we'll move on from here.

The conclusion is based on the fact that if God does not exist, and it is not certain that God was the cause of existence, then our existence is due to something else.
Since I have no certainty that God, as defined, was the cause (i.e. actually exists in reality) then since we are here, since we exist, our existence in the absence of such a God would be due to that other thing, whatever it may be.

That ''other thing'' would fall under the definition of God. Wouldn't it?
What could be regarded as a fact that God doesn't exist, what with the definition of God being what it is and all?
That's what you were asked to imagine.

But currently God is simply not a necessity.

Why?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And what's that? After repeated questioning, you apparently refuse to explain why you believe in God. Isn't that a problem?

I've explained in another thread (is faith a reliable path to knowledge), go look see.
Why is it so important that I divulge this info?

jan.

 

[Write4U]

Jan Ardena said: ↑
The last 15 pages clearly show that there is a deep and psychological problem among the atheists here, when it comes to God, which runs much deeper than mere atheism.

And what's that? After repeated questioning, you apparently refuse to explain why you believe in God. Isn't that a problem?

Perhaps a deep psychological problem?

 

[Spellbound]

You are confusing CDT (causal dynamical triangulation) with God (a motivated sentient creative being).

It is true the Universe and Life display a fractal functon, but that does not make a Fractal itself sentient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

You should see what the CTMU has to say about Hology:


)']


(Click for animation - large file)

Hology is a logical analogue of holography characterizing the most general relationship between reality and its contents. It is a form of self-similarity whereby the overall structure of the universe is everywhere distributed within it as accepting and transductive syntax, resulting in a homogeneous syntactic medium.

http://www.teleologic.org/

I.e. the contents of reality are replicated everywhere within it as reality itself and nothing less.

 

[spidergoat]

I've explained in another thread (is faith a reliable path to knowledge), go look see.
Why is it so important that I divulge this info?

jan.

Isn't it a central question?

 

[Write4U]

You should see what the CTMU has to say about Hology:


)']


(Click for animation - large file)

Hology is a logical analogue of holography characterizing the most general relationship between reality and its contents. It is a form of self-similarity whereby the overall structure of the universe is everywhere distributed within it as accepting and transductive syntax, resulting in a homogeneous syntactic medium.

http://www.teleologic.org/

I.e. the contents of reality are replicated everywhere within it as reality itself and nothing less.

Ok, so far that seems to confirm my proposition.

I do have a problem with the "assumption" that this function must be caused by a sentient intelligence. I will go as far as pseudo-intelligence, but that isn't proof of a intentionally motivated God. It is just a natural function, a mathematical abstraction.

By the same logic the earth itself would be a motivated intelligent being. Gaia?

 

[spidergoat]

Jan,

OK, so you read the Bhagavad Gita and it was just like, logical and stuff. Good answer.

 

[James R]

I've assumed nothing. I've stated that there would be no world to imagine if God didn't exist, based entirely on the definition. It's not a claim that God exists. You need to get over it. How many times must I explain this.

Similarly, there would be no working computers to imagine if Arkfunkle didn't exist, based entirely on the definition. This is not a claim that Arkfunkle exists.

Agree?

If God (according to THE definition) didn't exist, then the world wouldn't exist.

And if Arkfunkle the pixie (as previously defined by THE definition) didn't exist, then no working computers for you!

This seems clear enough.

Next question: can we imagine a world without Arkfunkle the pixie? Seems easy enough. Such a world would be a world without working computers.

If we then use the definition of God as "whatever it is that causes the world to exist", can we imagine a world without God? It seems not, because without this God there could be no world, by definition.

At this point, we've dealt with Jan Ardena's arguments to this point in the thread and reached consensus, I believe. You agree? This might then be the end of this thread.

Let me suggest a jumping-off point for a new thread, then.

Now, let's stop imagining possible worlds and consider our real world. What are the important questions now?

Arkfunkle the pixie is, by definition, whatever it is that causes computers to work. Computers demonstrably work in our world. Ergo, Arkfunkle the pixie exists. That's watertight logic right there.

Similarly, God is whatever causes the world to exist. The world demonstrably exists, therefore God exists. Again, watertight logic.

Final question: given that we have established that Arkfunkle the pixie and God both inarguably exist, what is their nature?

It might conceivably turn out that Arkfunkle is not a magical pixie at all - that was a primitive notion we had back in the old days when we didn't know science. It might turn out that Arkfunkle is really shorthand for something to do with electricity and integrated circuits and other complicated sciency things.

Similarly, it might turn out that God is not a magical, supernatural being as is the traditional conception. Instead, it might turn out that God is just shorthand for a sciency thing to do with big bangs and collapsing clouds of hydrogen gas and geophysics and stuff.

These conclusions seem reasonable. Any problems here?

 

[Baldeee]

Using a definition is not making an assumption.
I am not assuming Superman is real because I describe one of his attributes as being able to almost travel at the speed of light.

Correct, using a definition is not per se making an assumption.
But when you insist that the definition is applied to an existant thing rather than an imagined thing then you are making an assumption.

An a priori assumption. It assumes that God does not exist (by your analysis.

It is an assumption, yes, because, as stated, the nature of the request lends itself to begin with that assumption - i.e. that God does not exist - rather than the one you are using of God existing.

I'm afraid you're wrong. It implies a specific idea of what God is (hence the need to imagine His non existences)

No, it states what God is defined as, not that God necessarily exists.
Again you are jumping from the definition to assumed existence.
This is despite you previously accepting that definition does not imply existence, yet you can not shake this with regard the definition of God.

Where exactly?
The definition isn't mine.

The definition is not yours, no.
You have made that abundantly clear, but it is the definition we are using.
You are assuming existence based upon this definition, and such an assumption is unwarranted.

That's not imagining a world where God does not exist.
That is simply the world you live in. Where is the distinction?

Why does there need to be a distinction in the world in which we live?
The imagination is in the path by which we arrived at where we are.
If you are blindfolded and taken on a car-journey, blindfolded, unable to hear or sense any movement (i.e. without any knowledge of which route you had taken) and then told you either went via one route or another - but told to imagine the two routes... would you end up anywhere else than where you are at the end of that journey??
You would imagine the two routes.
They might be very different.
But you would still end up where you are.

We (JBrendonK to be exact) was asked to imagine a world in which it is a fact that there is no God. Now look at our world and it looks the same as that world you just imagined."
With facts comes reasons. Agreed? Simply affirming God's non existence as fact, is not ACTUALLY acceptable. You have to explain why it is a fact. The same is expected in an imaginary scenario.
This was in response to the claim that God exists because the universe exists (or something in that region).

Sure, we could possibly prove, one day, that the universe is actually on an eternal cycle of bang-crunch-bang-crunch.
It hasn't been discounted fully yet, and later findings might even support / prove that hypothesis.
And such a hypothesis being proven would mean that it would be a fact that there was no "original cause".
And none of that changes the fact that we are where we are currently.

The definition implies existence,...

No it doesn't.

... but I'm not implying that God exists by using that definition. That is what you fail to understand.

It is certainly what you seem to be doing, or else your a priori assumption comes simply from your belief.
The wording of your responses suggests the former.
Your denial of such then suggests the latter, but then you return to the former.

You and others have failed to use the definition to support your imagined world. Simply asserting that there is an alternative to God's definition, but not how this alternative works (what are, or could be, the points that lead to this fact), is so poor, that it warrants being described as an a priori assumption.

You don't describe something as an a priori assumption simply because you find the detail of the alternative being poor.
That there is the possibility of an alternative is sufficient.
One does not need to detail every aspect of it for it to be a valid position.
And from what I have read, most if not all have used the definition of God in imagining their world in which God does not exist.
They have simply imagined that the definition does not apply to anything that actually exists.
They have imagined that the universe, that existence, arose from some other means than an "original cause" - such as always having existed.
That is all that is required.

Because you're only seeing it from your perspective.

No, I see it from yours.
Which is why I can spot your a priori assumptions, and where it seems you are jumping from definition to implied existence.

I am offering another perspective with a view to looking at proof of God's existence.
If you are going to stick with your pov, then at least explain how it could be a fact that God does not exist. At least we'll move on from here.

See above.
If you want to prove that God is necessary, you need to prove that there is no alternative than an "original cause".

That ''other thing'' would fall under the definition of God. Wouldn't it?
What could be regarded as a fact that God doesn't exist, what with the definition of God being what it is and all?
That's what you were asked to imagine.

Eternal existence would not qualify as requiring an "original cause".
The universe going through a cyclical life-time would be an example of such.

Why?

Because we simply do not yet know, and possibly will never be able to know, whether there needs to be an "original cause" or not.
When such is shown to be necessary, God - as defined as simply as "original cause" with no further embellishments, attributes, properties etc - would be shown to be a fact.
It is doubtful whether life within a universe can ever know of anything outside of that universe - or else that universe would not be closed.
And ours certainly seems to be.
Hence the knowledge (of the necessity or otherwise of God) is likely to be impossible.

But since the label "God" has far more baggage associated with it than simply "original cause", even if such knowledge was attained it would undoubtedly be referred to as a different, more sterile label that avoids confusion with the myriad embellishments that the label "God" currently has.

We are not at that stage yet, however.

 

[Sarkus]

If we then use the definition of God as "whatever it is that causes the world to exist", can we imagine a world without God? It seems not, because without this God there could be no world, by definition.

At this point, we've dealt with Jan Ardena's arguments to this point in the thread and reached consensus, I believe. You agree? This might then be the end of this thread.

I don't dispute your intention here, James R, but one small point: Jan's... sorry... THE definition of God is "Original Cause" rather than "whatever it is that causes the world to exist". Therefore there remains the possibility that there was no "original cause", and thus no God even as defined. Had Jan begun by using a definition along the lines you state, then this thread would undoubtedly have been much shorter, and probably gone down the track you are taking.
Just thought I'd throw that our there.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The definition is not yours, no.
You have made that abundantly clear, but it is the definition we are using.
You are assuming existence based upon this definition, and such an assumption is unwarranted.

Are you saying that because I have used the definition, which obviously implies existence, I have therefore assumed that God exists?

Why does there need to be a distinction in the world in which we live?

Currently ''God does not exist'' is not a fact. But we are to imagine that it is a fact. So unless we have experience of it being classed as a fact, our imaginings must differ from the world we live, even if we arrive at the conclusion that it would be non different.

If you are blindfolded and taken on a car-journey, blindfolded, unable to hear or sense any movement (i.e. without any knowledge of which route you had taken) and then told you either went via one route or another - but told to imagine the two routes... would you end up anywhere else than where you are at the end of that journey??
You would imagine the two routes.
They might be very different.
But you would still end up where you are.

That's a good point.
But the task is to imagine the two routes, not to state where you end up.

To imagine a world where it is a fact that God does not exist, requires an explanation of that world.
Otherwise how are we to know that world represents a fact that God does not exist?
Using 'the world would be the same as it is now' as an explanation, suggests that you have used your current belief as a basis for that conclusion.

Sure, we could possibly prove, one day, that the universe is actually on an eternal cycle of bang-crunch-bang-crunch.
It hasn't been discounted fully yet, and later findings might even support / prove that hypothesis.
And such a hypothesis being proven would mean that it would be a fact that there was no original cause".
And none of that changes the fact that we are where we are currently.

Sure. But we are asked to imagine a world where it is a fact that God does not exist. How is it that your world ends up being the same as the world you live in?
You may well argue that ''if God actually doesn't exist...blah! blah! blah!''... great. But how did that become a fact in your imagined world? And how is it possible to imagine the non existence of God, as being fact, without reason?

No it doesn't.

Then what does he mean by God?

How is it possible to imagine the fact of God's non existence, without acknowledging the claim of His existence?

You don't describe something as an a priori assumption simply because you find the detail of the alternative being poor.
That there is the possibility of an alternative is sufficient.

And what is that alternative? ''If God doesn't actually exist...''
That is just imagining God's existence, then inferring non.
What other alternative is there, to God existing, that you can imagine?

And from what I have read, most if not all have used the definition of God in imagining their world in which God does not exist.

No they haven't. They imply that God can be defined as anything, by making up things like sentient location who depend on gardeners, or pixie's that make computers work. IOW they don't take the definition of God seriously. Which is why they conclude that the world would be the same if God didn't exist. An a priori assumption.

They have simply imagined that the definition does not apply to anything that actually exists.
They have imagined that the universe, that existence, arose from some other means than an "original cause" - such as always having existed.
That is all that is required.

No they haven't. They've simply denied the definition, which is what they do in the world.
Any ''original cause/creator'', is God, by definition. So to imagine a world where it is a fact that God does not exist, is not a world that came into being, unless they deny the definition. Now the question is, how do you imagine a world with no end?

If you want to prove that God is necessary, you need to prove that there is no alternative than an "original cause".

It doesn't matter whether or not God is deemed necessary, with regard to imagining His factual non existence . What does matter is how it is you imagine the only other alternative (eternal existence in the material world).

Eternal existence would not qualify as requiring an "original cause".
The universe going through a cyclical life-time would be an example of such.

How would one go about imagining eternal existence?
Or is merely saying it, good enough for you?

jan.