Final: Existence of God

Please read this, if you intent on starting a thread concerning the existence of God.

The existence of God CAN NOT be proven by means of reason.

Define God

Answer: “???”

One must define ALL the features of God, in order for any proof to work. Since one does not know ALL the features of God, any proof for/against is nonsense.

Futile attempts

1. Reductio - X implies Y, Y is absurd, X must be absurd. God implies Y, Y is absurd, God is absurd. Can anyone define the ENTIRE Y? If not, reductio fails.

2. Design - Design may imply X, but what is X? If X is God, what do we know about God from Design? Do we know the ENTIRE design?

All arguments are futile.

Why I believe? Because I “feel like it!”

Then I have, literally, no reasons to talk to you, for you are, by definition, unreasonable, but only ‘feel-able’. Maybe that’s why you get banned so often.

Now as to God, just consider this: Jesus=God. Then can we know God?

Didn’t we already discuss all this in another thread?

If you want to believe in a god and yet can’t prove of its existence, but still demand proof, then you are either a Deist or an Agnostic.

However, if you continue this, I must ask of who’s god do you believe in? You say you believe in god because you feel like it, yet you have not defined anything about this god. Should it be called PoR’s God?

Pinnacle, it’s un-necessary to prove the existence of God. Mankind instinctually knows He exists.

Those who indicate otherwise are rejecting their own personal concept of God…not actually God Himself. If you, and I were burdened with an improper concept of God, we may search for a reason to dismiss His existence as well.

There is a concept of God a man thinks is right…but in the end…is wrong!

A bold statement don’t you think, Dust? I would suppose that one could say that he believes in a God of some form, but what about Athiests? Confuscionism?

Logic=Reason

The world is logic (I may may repeating Wittgenstein here, but perhaps here is some clarification he did not give) The world must be logic for this is the reason it exists, when computers are built, they run on a system of logic, they must use logic or they would not exist as computers for a thing without logic must be a thing which thinks and may question logic. The world exists from series of events, and once these series of events is set in motion, the series defines a system, hence the logic of the world.

Therefore anything in harmony with relatios to the world must operate on the logic which the world is, hence anything in relation to the world may be explained through this system of logic.

It is logical that man has basic instincts.

It’s also observable thought-out history, and from culture to culture, to isolated culture, that God’s existence is instinctual.

Bold? Is the truth bold?

Try this for a bold statement…You know God exists, but choose to deny that knowledge based on an accepted conceptual misrepresentation(s) in which you feel you have something to gain physically and/or emotionally by dening His existence.

Actually, there is a rational explanation for the existence of God. It is commonly referred to as the Cosmological Argument: Reassessed within systematic theology.

It follows that (The ImmanuelAy Argument):

1. A contingent being exists.
   a. This contingent being is caused either (1) by itself, or (2) by another.
   b. If it were caused by itself, it woulld have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible.

2. Therefore this contingent being (2) is caused by another, i.e. depends on something else for its existence.

3. That which causes (provides sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (3) another contingent being, or (4) a noncontingent (necessary) being.
   c. If 3, then this contingent cause must itself be caused by another, and so on to infinity (ad infinitum).

4. Therefore, that which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (5) an infinite series of contingent beings, or (4) a necessary being.

5. An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being.

6. Therefore, a necessary being (4) exists.

or (The M. C. hawking Argument):

Axiom 1: All contingent things require some explanation for their existence; e.g., there must be something responsible for a given contingent-existence existing rather than not existing. All necessary things require no explanation, since necessary things, by definition, can not be non-existent.

I will cover infinite regressions (or unremitting contingent occurrences).

Say we are concerned with the foundation of a stack of bricks. If we begin with a brick that we know is on the ground, we can proceed to stack an infinite number of bricks on top of that brick, and each of the infinite number of bricks will have a foundation. This is a “harmless” regression.

By contrast, say we begin with a brick that is suspended in mid air, and we then try to find its foundation. We are then told that each brick has another brick under it, to infinity. Despite the infinite number of bricks, this stack of bricks still lacks a foundation. This is a “vicious” regression. I don’t know that I necessarily like this analogy, but it apparently helps people to understand this.

Axiom 2: Harmless infinite regressions are legitimate, whereas vicious ones are not.

In order to discuss the existence of G-d, we of course need to know what we are talking about. I decided that in order for something to appropriately be called “G-d”, two attributes are necessary: 1) it must exist necessarily, and 2) it must be directly or indirectly responsible for the existence of the universe. Attribute (1) is motivated so that the question “What caused G-d to exist?” is avoided, and attribute (2) is motivated by the notion of G-d as the Creator. G-d, if it exists, may have other attributes as well, but an initially unknown entity need only have these two attributes to be appropriately called “G-d”.

so:

1. The universe exists, empirically.

2. The universe is contingent (shown above).

3. By axiom (1), since the universe is contingent, there must be some mechanism “X” to account for its existence.

4. Either that mechanism “X” is necessary, or it is not necessary (i.e. contingent). If it is necessary, then we have found an entity that is necessary and responsible for the existence of the universe, and we are done. If it is contingent, it must have a mechanism “Y” responsible for its existence. Repeat as needed.

5. By axiom (2), this repetition can not proceed infinitely, since it would be a vicious infinite regression. Thus this repetition must be finite.

6. Since the repetition is finite, and since the repetition does not end until it results in a necessary entity, the entity at the end of the repetition must exist necessarily and is indirectly responsible for the existence of the universe. Thus, by definition, it is G-d. QED.

Lots of things in the universe are viscous infinite regressions. Take the large scale structure of matter. It is arranged in (presumably infinite) arrays of clusterings composed of smaller clusterings by degree of scale.

While I accept option 6, it doesn’t invalidate the possibility of option 5.

if you can’t prove god why believe?

I mean if you couldn’t prove I was trustworthy would you give me 10,000 dollars? so why give your life to a god you can’t prove?

ASEI: There are vicious regressions in the universe. But the rationality of the creation of these vicious regressions cannot be an infinite series of vicious regressions.

Yes, the structure of matter would ultimately be a vicious regression. But the Cosmological Argument does not make reference to the structure of things; it makes reference to the direct or indirect causality of contingencies (dependencies) or things.

“What caused matter to be”? as it were.

Scythekain: Ultimately nothing in the natural world can be proven infallibly. Everything, from “Fact” to God is based on faith.

I, as someone wonderfully put it to me one day, using Solipsism, cannot prove that anything outside of “I” exists. I happen to have great faith–in my senses–that what I see, what I feel, what I converse with and smell are what reality is. Believing in the Material is a sign of faith.

I don’t like to call it “giving” my life to God. I have faith in the belief that a God exists. This God might not be the God of heaven, the God of good, or the God that religion places on such a high pedestal. But there must be a necessary being for a contingent being to exist.

Most Atheists have disregarded a religious God, it isn’t as much the name that they disregard; it is the religious conception behind it. This shows the common Atheist’s ignorance towards theology. It is the irrational dogma of (especially Christianity, since most Atheists–let’s be honest–don’t argue much against the Hindu Gods or the Sikh conception, or the Islamic conception, as adamantly as they rebel against Christianity.) religion that turns most people off.

God might not be omnipotent in that God can do all things. God, by its definition of “being-itself” cannot cease to exist. God can’t make a stone that God cannot move. God might be omnipotent, however, in the sense that God can do whatever it is that God can do. This might very well mean that God has a finite amount of powers, which does not indicate that God is anything except God. I had accepted this notion long ago. SO ultimately God can be omnipotent.

God might not be omniscient in the sense that God literally knows everything. Secondly, if God was omniscient, then God would have know that the devil would rebel and end up in Hell–which ultimately means that God created certain human beings whose definitions are “those who are going to hell” simply because God knew that these people would choose not to believe. It might be, then, that God becomes aware of the things that do happen because everything that occurs within the universe has literally-universal implications–everything affects everything else. A ripple of infinite size and existence can still be forced to compensate for counter-ripples.

So:

God might not be benevolent. That would preclude God from being omniscient, because as Thomas Aquinas puts it: Determinism leads to pre-destination. If God was benevolent then it would be impossible for it to create an entity that had evil in its heart or allow certain people to make the wrong decisions that would lead to them going to hell.

So we can conclude that God is omnipotent in nuance and not dogma. God is omniscient in that God becomes aware of the decisions we make because we affect the infinite ripple that God is.

But, refuting the dogmatic definitions that religion has put on God only means that the religious God has been refuted, and not the theological God.

Pinnacle of Reason-

Why I believe? Because I “feel like it!”

This has no place in intelligent discussion.

Dust of the Earth-

Mankind instinctually knows He exists.

I strongly disagree with this. Mankind does, however, instinctively want answers to questions without them. Mankind wants to understand his own life, and assign purporse to an existence without one. Delusions of grandeur, I suppose. But the instinct toward answering these questions prompts Man to lessen his need for proof, thereby giving answers that would be pathetic in any other public forum, and somehow logic is overlooked.

Those who indicate otherwise are rejecting their own personal concept of God…not actually God Himself.

I assure you I openly reject ANY concept of God, not just my own. For you to claim otherwise is poor manners.

Apocalypse of War-

Therefore anything in harmony with relatios to the world must operate on the logic which the world is, hence anything in relation to the world may be explained through this system of logic.

Exatly. Anything which can be said to affect the world HAS to be explainable in relation to it.

Dust of the Earth-

It is logical that man has basic instincts.

There is NO instinct towards God. Someone who grows up in a bubble would not believe in God. But, on the toher hand, put 12 people in a bubble, they will want to sound better and cooler than the others, and will start a (as I am wont to say) a religous pissing contest. Hey! There’s God!

Plus, instincts are things that keep us alive in a evidence/experience less situation. Believing in God/lessening your level of evidence needed for belief does NOTHING for us.

It’s also observable thought-out history, and from culture to culture, to isolated culture, that God’s existence is instinctual.

Isn’t it also observable that every religion in every one of these societies you speak of started with ignorant barbarians trying to define an existence that was beyond their grasp? Is that an instinct as well?

Bold? Is the truth bold?

He is not questioning whether Truth is bold or not. Just that your statement was true.

You know God exists, but choose to deny that knowledge based on an accepted conceptual misrepresentation(s) in which you feel you have something to gain physically and/or emotionally by dening His existence.

Again, poor manners. You do not know Apocalypse of War. How can you know how he thinks unless you believe that your little maxim is the the way of the world? How egoistic is that?

ImmanuelAy-

Scythekain: Ultimately nothing in the natural world can be proven infallibly. Everything, from “Fact” to God is based on faith.

But, we go on probabilities, not proof. Nothing can be proven, but I am not about to waste my life by believing in a God who (probably) doesn’t exist. Seeing as I just know Sythekain from ILP, I would not trust him with my $10,000. Seeing as I (nor anyone) has ever met God, I will not put my life into him. It’s plain stupid, in my opinion. But, to each his own. At least Pinnacle of Reason has stopped trying to prove the existence of God.

(especially Christianity, since most Atheists–let’s be honest–don’t argue much against the Hindu Gods or the Sikh conception, or the Islamic conception, as adamantly as they rebel against Christianity.)

That’s because Christianity has oppressed and killed WAY more people than any other religion. The Crusades and Missions only happened with Jesus, not Shiva. Is it any wonder people hate Christianity more than other religions? (Hey, let’s go beat up that Bhuddist! He is being all nice and amenable. He is actually listening to other points of view! He is actually admitting that he COULD BE WRONG!!!)

But, refuting the dogmatic definitions that religion has put on God only means that the religious God has been refuted, and not the theological God.

I agree with this.

As for your Cosmological Argument:

Examine this:

An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being.

Why? This argument wants to slip this past us, I think.

Sincerely,

Floyd

try this on for size.

You believe in god to gain a way into heaven.

you deny yourself your humanity on the promise of the unknowable afterlife, from an unknowable god.

I think I’ve devised the best reason yet to not believe in god.

no ImmanuelAy. NOT true, and I think PFloyd answered it brilliantly with this:

true pfloyd, but he’ll come back and say that I might be worth trusting your life savings with so god is worth giving your life too.

even though his answer was good I’m going to add to that with my own.

let’s speak in scientific factual theory like gravity. I say If I have faith I can fly.

Can you prove me wrong? OBVIOUSLY, I mean I jump off of a building NO MATTER HOW MUCH FAITH I HAVE, I’m gonna fall flat on my face. Tell me that’s not veritable.

Let’s talk about a different fact now. The earth is a globe that travels around the sun. Do you think you need “faith” to believe that fact? again you can prove it, like right now approaching winter here in seattle the sun sets around 4:50. In LA it sets about 5:40. Think that’s because the earth is flat? Think the seasons of the earth change because the sun goes around the earth?

ok let’s take this one step further now. Lets say you drop all this presumptious crap about god, and you just say he created all the chemical processes in our universe and the phyisical and started the big bang.

BAM, you just hit the wall of reality. You can measure physical and chemical processes so it stands to reason that you can measure the creator of said processes.

so in conclusion… you could wallow your life living for a god who promises an eternal afterlife. Or you could accept reality that we don’t know that there is an afterlife and live your life HAPPY, and FREE of dogma helping mankind achieve true happiness.

then why dont you go reject the omnisoul, cause i know you cant unless you dont use any proof (or if you attack the assumption that ~“the golden rule is humanitys mission”. and please do). if you deny that the omnisoul exists and he wants us to do selfless good, then you deny that all humans should be treated equally, and that there is an afterlife. for no reason. just like a christian.

meh, really just to live forever and feel like im more important than some electron somewhere.

now your just talking about christians, or any people who throw away their resources on rituals with no empirical benefit. once again a “disproof of god” has turned out to be a disproof of christianity. congratulations. now go treat your neighbor like the average level of human happiness or consider yourself a disgusting animal whose existence only brings pain.

if you agree that living forever and meaning more than an electron is a good thing, and that humans should not suffer more than the average person does, then you believe that either the omnisoul exists, or that all evidence possibly points to the existence of that system.

what you defientely cant say is that believing in it will bring you any sort of bad whatsoever. unless of course you are one of those stupid materialistic selfish animals on top of the lcurve, in which case die, painfully, soon.

nobody (except stupid christians and the like, who will have quite a hard time defending themselves against any kind of argument) is telling you to donate your resources for something that has no empirical benefit.

donating towards the equal treatment of the unfortunate is not without empirical benefit, just possibly witout empirical benefit for you specifically in the traditional, non-fuzzy-feeling-acknowledging way. it benefits others, and not just an invisible god who doesnt seem to care. eating special bread for $20 a week, thats a waste, yes.

just to make sure, believing jesus farted on friday and that you need to donate any amount of resources to anybody besides humans is not the same as believing in god. its believing in a pyramid scheme and i dont think those believers know how to work computers yet.

anyway, whats happier, knowing that everything that you do in the next 20-40 years is everything that you will ever do, or knowing that this specific life is what we should be living, and soon we will have a different life and we can focus on all the good stuff in that one then.

today, we should focus on this life, and not ALL possible life experiences.

if you believe in continuing experience then you probably believe in reincarnation. if your a rich sheltered person and you never got a chance to do heroin and beat the shit out of a back talker or score winning touchdowns or lots of stuff, which feels better: knowing that you will have another if not infinite chances to do those things next time; or knowing that if you dont hurry the hell up and experience every single thing that is worth experiencing, you never will.

i prefer the former, it helps me appreciate my life now instead of desperately trying to experience things that my life wasnt made for, and lamenting the infinite loss of those experiences that i am unable to participate in.

should you waste your time on donations to an invisible god? no.
should you waste your time trying to cram ALL life experiences into one that wasnt supposed to do that? no.

what again do you gain by not believing in the omnisoul? the selfish gains to be had by not selflessly donating your unfair advantages? yeah sure fine, but i disagree that it feels good to play golf on top of the lcurve, and if i was a poor worthless bum, id make it my lifes mission to murder you if you did. not joking.

God as a force, can be proven. God as an Omnipotent, Omniscient, being, has already been disproven times and times again.

Have you ever felt a strong love for someone? Ever hear someone say: God is love?

Ever hated someone with all your heart? And you felt like you would stop at NOTHING to get your justified revenge?

Both are natural forces. Natural, in the fact that they were created by no human or higher being. The Higher Being IS these natural forces. There is no question about it. That is where the logic of life is, Pinnacle of Reason.

…because he said…“I feel like it.”

They say god is love…but love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind…therefore Ray Charles is god.

Yes, many people are comfortable with the notion of a ‘‘heavenly father’’ staring down upon demanding worship and belief. What I do not get if let us say someone named Timmy is extremely mentally handicapped and has no capacity to understand/interpret most things around him, how would he ever have a relationship with a god and be saved w/o knowing about it? I guess those are just one of the ‘‘problems’’ of theological beliefs.

haha could u even imagine what god looks like? It’s just complete madness. But you can neither prove nor disprove his existence. But if we could one day stop ageing, become immortal. What then is god?

wrong. Any belief in the supernatural is a donation of your time. Your time is your absolutely most valuable resource. Even your omnisoul, or Aviemus’ definition of god, require the time of belief.

I say, why waste your time believing in something you can’t prove? would you waste your money on someone you don’t have faith in? (a physical person not god.)

I’m beginning to disagree with that more and more everyday. I watched this incredible movie last night touching the void a tale of two climbers who run into trouble, one breaks his leg and is ultimately left up on the mountain to get down himself. while up there, (he was already atheist, born protestant) he answered his question, if when the shit hits the fan, he would turn back to god.

He was facing certain death, on the edge of a precipice that he had no idea how far down it went. Instead of praying to god for help that wouldn’t have come (his friend got down the mountain and thought he was dead.) He perservered with a will to survive, because as I’ve said before only the true atheist knows how precious life truly is.

Do you think someone who believed in god wouldn’t have sat there praying to god, saying “god please help me”.

well, in those situations I think we all know what would’ve happened. The same thing that happens when you jump off a building with enough faith to fly.

so if god as a force can be proven don’t you think the athiest facing CERTAIN death, ALONE, would feel god’s presence?