In a thread which specifically asks you to testify, yes. But otherwise, no. It get's in the way because people start to focus on the wrong thing.
jan.
Proof of the existence of God
- Thread starter Jason.Marshall
- Start date
In a thread which specifically asks you to testify, yes. But otherwise, no. It get's in the way because people start to focus on the wrong thing.
jan.
The definition does not imply existence, since God as defined has not been shown to be necessary.
It is merely a definition that may or may not be applied to something that either does or does not exist.
That you see within it an implication of existence is thus either the cause of your assumption, or a result of your assumption.
It is difficult to see whether the chicken or the egg came first.
So our imaginings must differ from the world, even if we arrive at the conclusion it [the world] would be non-different????
Surely you see how what you have typed is nonsense?
Furthermore the path by which the world was arrived at might be different, but the world itself need not be.
And in fact, as was raised previously, the only way you could argue that it would be different is to make an unwarranted assumption on the reality of whether or not God does actually exist.
I.e. to say that the world would be different (if God did not exist) than it currently is, is to assume that God does exist - and thus if God didn't then the world would be different (e.g. would not exist at all).
Likewise if you conclude that the world would be different if God did exist.
No, the task was to imagine the world... i.e. the current position, where we have ended up.
It was to imagine the world (the current position) if it was a fact that God did not exist (i.e. if we had taken one path and not the other).
No need to actually imagine either path unless you are arguing that only one path necessarily leads to our current position, and thus following the other would necessarily lead elsewhere.
If you can not do that, can not show that God as defined is necessary, then your position and your arguments in this regard appear invalid, as detailed.
If you can show God to be necessary, however, then all bets are off and you're onto a winner.
This speaks to James R's post where he redefined God as "whatever it is that causes the world to exist" which is by definition alone necessary if not exactly informative, since eternal existence could be argued as its own cause.
It requires nothing more than to know that it was arrived at without recourse to an "original cause".
No it doesn't.
Unless you are claiming that "God exists" is a fact, or that "God does not exist" is a fact, we are all stuck with simply not knowing.
It is that lack of knowledge upon which my conclusion is reached.
And as I have hopefully argued quite clearly, any deviation from that conclusion would be due to unwarranted assumptions.
By showing that the universe is cyclical in nature would be one way.
There may be others.
Our world, as it currently stands, does not necessarily preclude God's existence or not from being demonstrably a fact.
We simply do not yet know.
We may never know.
"Original cause" would be what I thought we all mean by God?
It is possible to imagine the fact of God's non-existence simply by not attributing the definition to anything, and deeming God not necessary - i.e. existence is/was/will be eternal and needed no original cause.
Eternal existence would be one: if something is without an original cause then it must always have been.
I can't speak for them as to how seriously or not they take it.
But given that they have used the same definition as you, and have formulated arguments that stack up, it seems you are dismissing them for not taking it seriously simply because they do not agree with you.
And from what I can see they are not taking any a priori assumptions - of either existence or non-existence.
They are simply able to see both options when you can only see one.
Now, if you can explain how God is necessary, then this would categorically prove God to be a fact, as anything that is a necessity is necessarily factual.
If you can't do this then you appear to have no grounds upon which to dismiss those who simply do not take God to be necessary, and any assumption of existence is an unwarranted assumption, whether you think it implied or not.
What they do in the world is as irrelevant as you want your own beliefs to be held to be.
Please avoid any hypocrisy in that regard.
And I agree, given the definition of God, anything deemed to be the original cause / creator would indeed be God as defined.
But you have not shown such to be necessary.
If existence is eternal in nature then there is no necessity of a God, and if our universe is cyclical then our world was created through a mere change in form of energy.
I'm sorry, but the necessity of God is the only way your position would stack up.
One imagines oneself as merely a temporary form of energy, energy that is neither created nor destroyed.
Sure, I myself would not be eternal, I would not exist forever, but existence itself would in such an imagining.
Existence itself would need no original cause.
It simply would always be.
Sarkus:
Maybe we'd better ask Jan to explain exactly what he means by "original cause".
Most likely, so the evidence suggests, through the process of evolution.
That's begging the question. Unless you mean merely that the concept of God exists, which is uncontroversial.
It looks like you haven't fully understood my pixie example. In my post above, I accept your conclusion that using your/THE definition of God, it is impossible to imagine a world without God, because your definition makes the world contingent on there being something called "God". My pixie example is an exact parallel to your argument, almost word-for-word. If you don't accept the logic of the pixie argument, then you don't accept your own God logic either.
And anything that makes a computer work is Arkfunkle the Pixie, by definition.
And to imagine a world where it is a fact that Arkfunkle the pixie does not exist is not a world that came into being, unless you deny the definition of Arkfunkle.
Now, the question is, how do you imagine a world with working computers but no pixies?
Imagine existence, then imagine it going on for a really really long time?
God does not exist in an absurd unscientific or unrealistic box. In my experience, God is a conscious and formless (yet can manifest a form but not in the way we are familiar with) spirit that serves a purpose but does not intrude on the biological and chemical functioning of the universe. He can make Himself known in meaningful but not apparently obvious ways.
Yes. That is exactly what Juno did: Took the shape of bull to rape the mortal Europa. (cameras did not exist back then so all we have is paintings):
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Paintings_of_the_Rape_of_Europa
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I prefer; God is an implaccable hierarchy of pseudo-intelligent functions. Any notion that this bestows Life into those functions is "unnecessary" (Ockham)
Moreover, that statement can be defended in mathematical terms (see Bohm)
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Sentience is a emergent property of complexity in processing external stimuli through the efferent and afferent neural networks of the living orgnism.
If the object (such as elements) does not have these properties it is not alive, it has no sentience, but it may display "compatibility"
Would you say that the oceans are living organisms or dynamic bodies (fields of molecules)?
H2O is not sentient, the components that make up water are "compatible", but no emotional involvement is necessary, don't you agree?
Last edited:
God has to be necessary for the exercise, otherwise there is no point in imagining His non existence as a fact. That is to say that the entire
spectrum of comprehension of God, must be utilised.
Imagining that God does not exist as fact, in no different to imagining God does exist, it is purely a mental exercise. If I wish to choose to imagine God as a necessary being,
then it is my prerogative, as it is your prerogative to imagine God not existing as a fact. At the centre of the exercise is GOD, and God's definition implies necessity, whether you think it has been shown or not.
I can choose to see an implication of existence, just as you choose not to. It is a mental exercise after all.
It's like thinking you know someone, only to realise that you never knew them at all, due to something they said or did.
Or, something that is hidden in plain sight.
It is a mental exercise, I can argue within the parameters of the rules (in this case imagination). It is already assumed that God does not exist as a fact, and one can only imagine there is a reason behind this assumption (even though there doesn't appear to be). Now what is this reasoning based on? Did we all of a sudden find out how the universe came to be, or did we find out that the universe is eternal (therefore no need of a cause), did we travel to various of universes, and realised that we were just one of a few that created these conditions???
My point is, it had to based on real science (to be regarded as fact), and that science had to be based on a priori assumptions (as no science exists that can perform the above experiments), or just plain imagination.
And this is the notion that God does not exist as a fact, meaning that there still remains, or remained, contentions that God existed, but it is now proven false.
For it to been proven false, would mean that the definition of God, is a false notion, because if would have been proven to be so. Such a proof would have to include the notion of God's necessary existence (as it would have to be necessary in order to prove it false).
If one can imagine A world, not THE world, in which it is a fact that God does not exist (without explanation of how it came to be so), then I can imagine a world where God is a necessary being (as His definition suggests) without explanation of how it came to be.
That's an affirmation, not imagining a world. What is the point of the exercise, if you limit your imagination to mere affirmation, which require no detail. Imagine the movie 'The Matrix'', if it had no detail, but was simply based on what someone affirmed. It would be as dry as what you're proposing.
You act as though it is a level playing field, i.e. God may or may not exist.
You require God's existence to be proven on your terms, God exists on other peoples terms. So you can only credit yourself, and people who share your worldview with ''simply not knowing''.
How would one imagine a cyclical universe as the factual reason for the world?
Wouldn't it just be a case of articulating that ''the universe is cyclical''?
You mean by simply affirming it without the need to explain it?
Isn't that what atheists do now?
How is this an imagined world, unless you are currently in that state of imagination?
How could this be regarded as fact, imaginary or otherwise?
How is an original cause, not necessary by definition, in an imagination exercise, where the plot is to be assumed to be a fact, itself without explanation.
All that reveals is that your ideology cannot even prevail in the imaginary world let alone the real one.
If the universe came into being, then it is necessary by default. So all you have to do now is show that the universe somehow never came into being. Good luck.
You wouldn't need to imagine that. It is already accepted as fact
If you (I) exist, and existence just is, then why would you not also always exist?
jan.
So this is who we are, just products of randomness, that just happened to turn out the way it did?
Are you glad that it turned out this way, or are you indifferent?
jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Oh, I feel very lucky that the Potential inherent in the universe resulted in my existence. Should I thank someone for that, or just try to make the most of my "once around"?
All I have heard here is a definition of God as the prime causality. What if I said the FSM is the prime causality and is self evident because I exist? Would you accept that? Of course not, because FSM is pasta. But all claims of God are without any property at all other than that God must exist and is self evident because we exist.
OTOH, I've got a real definition of a prime causality; Potential (That which may become reality). Look it up and be astounded by the profound implications contained in the definition of the noun Potential.
Every argument made for the claim of the existence of God can be made for the existence of Potential. Moreover, Potential is a proven functional property, unlike God, which is some sort of holy ghost.
The biggest difference is that I can prove Potential as an identified true inherent ability of all things (the wholeness), whereas you cannot prove anything about God, because there are as many definitions and interpretations of God as there are "believers", which renders the entire concept as a product of the imagination. A Word. And the word is/was God. By who's authority?
Last edited:
How do you come to realise that you are lucky as opposed to being unlucky, or indifferent?
Does the inherent potential also include free will, or individual emotions, or is this just an illusion?
How does the inherent potential inform you that only have a ''once around''?
You have to start from somewhere.
Did the notion of the potential inherent in the universe start from somewhere?
jan.
God has not shown to be necessary other than through a priori assumption.
By insisting upon necessity you simply bring in an unwarranted assumption.
Of course it is your prerogative.
I'm sure had you stated up front that you view God as a necessary being then the discussion would have taken a different course.
All you would then have to do... and do now... is show how God is necessary.
Or is this simply your belief?
Indeed.
Now, please show God to be necessary.
That doesn't clarify what seems like the nonsense you wrote: "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 it is fact then there would be no a priori assumptions.
Facts can not be such if they are reliant upon a priori assumptions, unless they are understood to be conditional upon that assumption.
So I'm afraid I disagree with your thinking here.
Not at all.
If God is simply defined as that which created the universe, and it is proven that the universe was not created, then God would be proven to not exist.
There is no need to assume or include the notion of God's necessity.
Thus I disagree with you again.
Of course, but this would be outside the definition of God as provided by you for this exercise, which was simply "Original Cause".
If you wish to introduce the assumption of necessity then you are embellishing the definition, moving the goalposts.
Then you misunderstand where the imagination is applied.
You seem to require imagination to require a change to the end product.
As previously explained by myself and other, one can merely imagine a change in path to get to the end result.
To me it is.
I am an agnostic.
I bring no a priori assumptions to the table.
This is a separate matter to the discussion at hand.
What I require is irrelevant.
The discussion at hand is with regard simply imagining that it is fact.
Maybe.
But the imagination is in going from that statement to how it might affect other aspects, other notions etc.
For example, if we imagine we took another path in our journey, we have seen different sights along the way.
But the end point is the same.
In imagining a cyclical universe I would possibly imagine that the universe will eventually start to contract, or that while we understand that there was a Big Bang, then inflation, then expansion, that there might be a further stage toward the end of the cycle that we are simply unaware of yet.
You again seem to misunderstand what it is to imagine.
One merely needs to postulate and assess how things might be different.
To imagine something there does not need to be a difference in the result, merely in how the result was arrived at.
I do not know.
Knowing how it could be fact is not necessary - although such lack of knowledge limits our ability to imagine the what the effect of its factual nature might be.
An eternal cycle needs no original cause.
Something that has always existed needs no original cause.
But there was you previously accepting that the definition of something does not mean it exists - yet here you are seeming to argue that it is necessary by definition.
Is that your argument, that God is necessary by definition?
It prevails quite well actually, thanks.
Your inability to imagine what others can now seems to be our fault, though.
No.
Necessity is not conditional.
You have said "IF..."
You wish to claim necessity.
Please show God to be necessary.
Otherwise it is just an a priori assumption.
If you accept it as fact then you are admitting that it is eternal.
If something is neither created nor destroyed then there are two possibilities:
(1) it does not exist.
(2) it is eternal.
Which one are you opting for?
Given that our own existence is the one thing that is self-evident then you would have to opt for (2), but somehow I think you will not agree.
Because I (you) are just a specific pattern of what exists. The underlying substrate may continue to exist, but once the pattern deteriorates then the I/you is lost.
Our own existence begins when the pattern forms, and we die when the pattern disperses.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I have already answered that question. Sentience is an emergent property. How sentient the organism becomes is dependent on its potential for sentience..
When My body dies, My sentience dies, never to be duplicated again.
Obviously you have not understood the implications of the word Potential. Potential existed before the advent of the universe. The very definition of Potential is "That which may become reality", including this or any other universe.
Potential always precedes reality. Not all potential becomes reality, but all reality is, was, and will be preceded by Potential. Sounds a lot like God, doesn't it?
But this can be tested and proved, in fact it is used in every expression and function of the universe, unlike God, which will always act in mysterious ways. The hand of God? Give me a break.
We have defined Potential. The concept of God is just a redundant spiritual facsimile. Wishful thinking "in the direction of greatest satisfaction". btw, that is the part of Determinism, which we like to think of as Free Will. That is the "illusion".
Last edited:
Jan Ardena:
To imagine a really long time, you might like to start with thinking about your parents, then grandparents, then great-grandparents and so on. Go back about 40,000 generations, and your direct ancestors were not human. But you can't really imagine 40,000 generations. Intellectually, you can grasp the concept, but to really think about 40,000 of your direct ancestors being born, living their lives, having children and then dying is asking too much. What was your 80-times-great-grandfather doing when Jesus was born? Can your really grasp those 80 generations between then and your life here, now?
Even with this kind of exercise, you're not going to start to get a grip on geological time. People tend to assume that people in the past weren't that different to how they are now. They also assume that the Earth was never very much different to how it is now. Both notions are wrong. Take the Earth, for example. Consider the time of the dinosaurs, a couple of hundred million years ago or so. The map of that Earth looked very different to how the map looks now, because all the continents have broken and drifted apart or come together. That Earth had much more oxygen in the air than we have now, and less carbon dioxide. That Earth had no grass; grass hadn't evolved yet. Even the length of the day was different: the day was only about 10 hours long rather than the current 24. The Earth in the Cretaceous Period was not as case of "Take the Earth today and add dinosaurs". It was fundamentally different in lots of important ways. And that's not something we would be likely to imagine without input from science.
How do you imagine eternity then - time that never begins or ends? We can describe it in various ways. Ideas from mathematics can be useful, for example. But to really imagine it? That's tough.
We're not products of randomness. There are the laws of physics that determine how atoms can go together. Then there's 3.9 billion years of evolution that eventually produced human beings (and lots of other kinds of life too). The universe is ordered, not random. And evolution is very far from being a random process. Witness natural selection.
I appreciate the fact that I exist, because the a priori chance of my existence is very very small. A whole bunch of chance events had to go on over literally billions of years to produce me (and you). [And that doesn't contradict what I said above, by the way.]
Now that you mention it, it's very tough to really understand very long times. At one level, it is easy to throw around terms like "billions of years", as I just did above. But to really get what that means is a different problem. Human beings live for an average of about 80 years (in afluent societies like ours). But Homo sapiens has been around for about 1 million years. Our recorded history is only several thousand years old, so it doesn't even cover 1% of of our history as a species. And our history as a species is nothing when compared to the history of life on Earth, which is where we start talking about geological time. The itself Earth has been around for about 4.5 billion years, which is about one-third of the lifetime of the known universe.
To imagine a really long time, you might like to start with thinking about your parents, then grandparents, then great-grandparents and so on. Go back about 40,000 generations, and your direct ancestors were not human. But you can't really imagine 40,000 generations. Intellectually, you can grasp the concept, but to really think about 40,000 of your direct ancestors being born, living their lives, having children and then dying is asking too much. What was your 80-times-great-grandfather doing when Jesus was born? Can your really grasp those 80 generations between then and your life here, now?
Even with this kind of exercise, you're not going to start to get a grip on geological time. People tend to assume that people in the past weren't that different to how they are now. They also assume that the Earth was never very much different to how it is now. Both notions are wrong. Take the Earth, for example. Consider the time of the dinosaurs, a couple of hundred million years ago or so. The map of that Earth looked very different to how the map looks now, because all the continents have broken and drifted apart or come together. That Earth had much more oxygen in the air than we have now, and less carbon dioxide. That Earth had no grass; grass hadn't evolved yet. Even the length of the day was different: the day was only about 10 hours long rather than the current 24. The Earth in the Cretaceous Period was not as case of "Take the Earth today and add dinosaurs". It was fundamentally different in lots of important ways. And that's not something we would be likely to imagine without input from science.
How do you imagine eternity then - time that never begins or ends? We can describe it in various ways. Ideas from mathematics can be useful, for example. But to really imagine it? That's tough.
Last edited:
Necessity is defined through the definition.
Without the cause there can be no effect, and the definition defines God as the original cause/creator.
It is necessary by default, whether I believe it to be or not.
Same as above.
Same as above.
So what you're saying is, just accept it as a fact that God doesn't exist.
Therefore the notion that God exists has been scientifically defeated with substantial evidence, and carry on from that point?
Isn't that an atheist wet dream?
God is defined as ''the original cause/creator''.
Not the same as that which created the universe.
Of course you do, but that's besides the point.
The original cause implies everything that is percievable, not just the creation of this universe.
Without such a cause nothing exists. That is the definition of God, and that is what I use within my imagination to counter the imaginary notion that God doesn't exist as a fact. Bear in mind facts aren't truth, and can be challenged.
If there is no original cause, there is nothing. I think that accounts for necessity, and you know that as well. I am not assuming anything by adding that into the mix (it is after all, imaginary), which assumes it as a fact that God does not exist. In the imaginary world, anything goes.
How would the fact, God does not exist, factor into this imagination?
So how do you assess God's non existence as a fact?
So far no one has explained this. Or are we to just accept that it is a fact?
Then explain how an eternal cycle can be imagined, because this is the very evidence that would have rendered God non existent.
The definition implies necessary existence. It is not problem that you refuse to accept it.
My input into this discussion is the basic definition of God, which is the subject of the exercise.
Is your argument, simply God doesn't exist because we say so?
It doesn't prevail well at all.
I can imagine what you imagine, but it amounts to wishful thinking, and wilful ignorance.
I accept that matter and energy are eternal.
What do you mean by lost?
jan.
Last edited:
How did the laws come about?
And please explain whatever brought them about, until you get to the original cause of these laws.
How and why is it, that you apreciate it?
It's not tough at all, you simply look at time from your own perspective, and experience. But there is no way you can imagine eternity as it is. If I'm wrong. Prove it.
This has nothing to do with imagining time, only foreparents that may have lived in a time that has gone.
The reality is, you can't do it, anymore than you can imagine it to be a fact that God does not exist.
jan.