that at least one god exists

Me:

oreso:

 Well, that's what I mean when I say it leaves the original argument untested.  What you are essentially arguing for here is the possibility of some aspects or objects in the Universe being totally unlike what we know about the Universe's contents. That unknown factor maybe God, or it may be something else, but what we can say [i]at least[/i] is that what we know about the natural world does not lead us to believe that natural things can be enternal, or self-existant. God has been suggested to be such all along. 
  Now, before someone points out that God is a concept developed to fill the gap of an unaccounted for existsence, I would remind people that the concept of God (along with the concept of Nature) existed long before this argument. Think of it this way: If we become convinced that there must be a first cause, our options are an unknown, indescribable property of Nature unlike what we already know of Nature, or God, who fits the discription perfectly, and in whom billions of people were already believing in regardless of this argument. So, God is not a gap-filler in this case.

Its not totally unlike the universes contents, and the universes contents have already been revealed to be radically different to what we observe directly. Certain interpretations of Quantum mechanics is precisely what suggests the universe creating itself.
Even given what you say, what is more likely:
Universe created itself.
Strange complex entity created the universe.

You are making an assumption either way to be sure, but the second one assumes a heck of a lot more. The stuff about “people were already believing in it” doesnt help the argument itself.

1- Is Einstein wrong?

About the creation or destruction of matter? Of course, because we now know that the present matter/energy has probably not existed indefinitely and so must have at some point been created (and certain theoretical experiments have proposed other methods of creating or destroying matter/energy).
O- Theoretical? Well then that is far from enough to give you “we now know”.

Quote:
2- Suppose we determine a set, say “planets”.
3- These planets are contained within another set, say a “solar system”.
4- These sets are contained in yet a larger set we call the “universe”.
5- This set is further contained by God.

Since we can only observe the sets contained withing the set universe, why bother speculating about what lays beyond it? What support do you have that such a set which contains the universe exists?
O- I don’t, and I was only trying to repeat the same point yopu made and say it as much in my last post.

Quote:
*6- But God can be reasonable made an individual of yet another set and that set which contains God, further be reasoned to belong to another set and this can continue without end without violating itself.

Nope. If God exists then he is omnipresent and infinite.
O- To a christian perhaps, but to the gnostics that was hardly the case. Besides the point here is that once you introduce what is beyond nature, you have no reason to stop adding to whatever exist…including God #1 out of N.
No set can be greater than him as it would contradict his nature.
O_ It contradict the definition of the concept and nothing more. It offends the vanity of man…especially christian man.

Quote:
7- We do not expand the Circle eternally, but all circles are formed arbitraerly, as if ad hoc. The expansion can and would continue and is only kept in check by concepts like nature, God or universe, all abstractions of the expansion which eludes our experience, leaving out and forgetting or worse denying and delusional what there is.

Of course, i would say that these abstractions are based on the universe as it is perceived
O- Perceive as of now, not absolutetly perceived but provicionally. Thus, what there is or may be, IS dependent on what can be perceived.

Quote:
Last. The biggest philosophical problem is the demonstration that something can come from nothing.
The problem is that again we can regress in the chain of being, yet the end of the rope is a simple nut we tie and say: “that is God. There shall be no more regress”.
Whether we end in God or in Nature or in some Mover, we still can theorize about what was there before.

Nope, we cannot.
O- Yes we can and have. Sorry if you do not like it.

“Before” is a temporal concept, and time BEGAN at the big bang. There was no “before” the big bang and hence there can be no cause to it.
O- That is the dogma of the theory not the proof.

Quote:
Consider the ban Once…some 20 years ago, considered as almost true. Yet now the Bang is but a theory within a larger M-Theory (which is itself but a compilation of theories).

You are abusing m-theory.
O- Far be it from me such heresy.

(Presumably) it will explain the mechanics of how the big bang happened, but i see no support for how it will detail what ‘caused’ it.
O- Did I say anything about whatr caused it? My point is that it may just convince, not prove, the eternity of the universe.
Personally I could never take in the dogma of the Big Bang and feel that even if the M-theory is abandoned, only something similar might convince me. I can only use as my defense the fact that we reason in “categories”, and that one might require such concepts as time and space if the universe is to be declared rational.

Wrong. God is an individual. Not a set.

God can belong to the set of real beings, or to the set of imaginary beings, dependent on your viewpoint.

There is no regress to infinite. We end up with the set of real beings, and the set of unreal beings. We can’t go further.

omar, im no longer clear what you are arguing for. If you want to raise a point i’ll happily answer it, but your not bringing much more than sarcasm to the table at the moment.

Its an expression. In this instance id say you could call it a causal or power hierarchy if you like. The higher set “gives rise to” the sets it contains.

omar, im no longer clear what you are arguing for. If you want to raise a point i’ll happily answer it, but your not bringing much more than sarcasm to the table at the moment.

O- There have been points made and many of then you have similarly raised.

1. If we say:“nothing is self-existent.” Then there is no God, or that God = nothing.
   2.This would lead to an ontological infinite regress of dependant beings
2. Some say that: “Postulating an infinite number of real things leads to all kinds of paradoxa.” But not one is mentioned. THe existence of God leads to other paradoxes and these are ignored. Perhaps they are not paradoxes, but self-imposed limits.
   4.Some said: “Paradoxa cannot exist in reality since it would entail a true logical contradiction.” This is to equate what is with what we can think of.
   This leads to the creation of concepts that serve a role within a rational theory. That is why I say that all religions are magnificently rational, yet their greatest asset is their greatest flaw when placed side by side. Which raises another point that God is more creature than creator a point made long ago by Feuerbach, for example.
   Those are a few points and I hope I have kept my sarcasm to a limit this time.

5- This set is further contained by God.

Wrong. God is an individual. Not a set.
O- What is bigger, the creation or the creator? Was God within nature or outside of it? Is God nature itself rerefied?

Quote:
7- We do not expand the Circle eternally, but all circles are formed arbitraerly, as if ad hoc. The expansion can and would continue and is only kept in check by concepts like nature, God or universe, all abstractions of the expansion which eludes our experience, leaving out and forgetting or worse denying and delusional what there is.
It is the concepts themselves that define our reality, what we tell ourselve “is” or is not, but under creative consideration, or, scepticism we find that our limits are self-imposed restrains.

There is no regress to infinite.
O- Only because we are finite in all attempts. A line can extend infinetly…so can a causal chain. We do not.

We end up with the set of real beings, and the set of unreal beings. We can’t go further.
O- Then Agnosticism is the logical view on the matter. Not theism nor astheism.

How would we have grounds for saying such? Experience can only tell us what is the case, not what cannot be the case.

I wouldnt worry about the sarcasm thing btw, just dont let it get in the way of communication. I’ll leave this for another thread anyway.

I think you need to justify this some more.

I don’t understand how you reason.

omar wrote:
Oreso:

1. If we say:“nothing is self-existent.” Then there is no God, or that God = nothing.
   How would we have grounds for saying such?
   O- It is there all along. “Nothing”, it was said, “is self-existent”. Well then, either Nothing is God or God = nothing, because God is defined as self-existent.

Experience can only tell us what is the case, not what cannot be the case.
O- Experience is more limited and “what is the case” requires constant updating. Once, what was the case was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. What does experience tells us? My granny, God bless her, still goes with experience and common sense and swears that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Quote:

We end up with the set of real beings, and the set of unreal beings. We can’t go further.
O- Then Agnosticism is the logical view on the matter. Not theism nor astheism.
I think you need to justify this some more.
O- I can’t see why. I have re-read what I wrote but I fell comfortable with it. It is commonsensical based on the sentence passed by Sam above. Based on what he says, my conclusion is rational.

[quote=“omar”]

O- What is bigger, the creation or the creator? Was God within nature or outside of it? Is God nature itself rerefied?

This question is irrelevant.
O- Only to you.

What is bigger is not necessarily a set containing the smaller. God is not nature. He is distincted from it. To say that God is outside nature is a spatial metaphor.
O- So is a “set” nothing but another metaphor and with God all you can ever hope for is metaphors.

Quote:
O- Only because we are finite in all attempts. A line can extend infinetly…so can a causal chain. We do not.

No, there is no further level of analysis than reality itself.
O- “Reality itself” is another abstraction. Be it as it may, it makes no connection with my critique. Reality exceeds our senses (or is the sky blue in-itself?) and thus we again force what is before and after us into a narrow at-this-moment-in-time. I disagree with the God-eye-view you promise of Reality, this concept, this meta-empirical concept.

Quote:

We end up with the set of real beings, and the set of unreal beings. We can’t go further.
O- Then Agnosticism is the logical view on the matter. Not theism nor astheism.

I don’t understand how you reason.
O- What don’t you understand? Is God a real being or an unreal idea of a being?

omar I think you are playing fast and easy with the “nothing” bit.The original argument does not argue this.Line 1 mentions the “nothing” but it is in parenthesis.It was used for explanation purposes only.It should not lead you to equivocate.

Er, thats not related at all. Im saying how could one possibly justify the statement: “nothing is self-existent” when there is no possible experience that would support it. It is trying to prove a negative.

So your telling me this is a rational argument:

1. Some beings exist
2. Some beings do not exist.
3. Thus, God is neither?

Eh? Why cant god belong to the category of beings that exist or the ones that dont?

Experience can only tell us what is the case, not what cannot be the case.
O- Experience is more limited and “what is the case” requires constant updating. Once, what was the case was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. What does experience tells us? My granny, God bless her, still goes with experience and common sense and swears that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Er, thats not related at all. Im saying how could one possibly justify the statement: “nothing is self-existent” when there is no possible experience that would support it. It is trying to prove a negative.
O- Then you and I agree. I have been saying the same all along…in my own distorted way, but the idea coincides. Indeed “Nothing is self-evident” is impossible to prove or disprove. However, saying such is to set up the table in a certain way…to prepare it for the daily bread. It is part of a theory, sometimes naked theology, but I dislike meta-physics presented as matter-of-fact, as what is the case, rather than what is the case in our little itty-bitty heads.

We end up with the set of real beings, and the set of unreal beings. We can’t go further.
O- Then Agnosticism is the logical view on the matter. Not theism nor astheism.
I think you need to justify this some more.
O- I can’t see why. I have re-read what I wrote but I fell comfortable with it. It is commonsensical based on the sentence passed by Sam above. Based on what he says, my conclusion is rational.

So your telling me this is a rational argument:

1. Some beings exist
2. Some beings do not exist.
3. Thus, God is neither?
   O- Look at it this way:
   1- God could be like some beings that exist.(In fact I have already discussed as much with Uccissore).
   2- God could be like some beings that do not exist, but as ideas.
   3- Thus, how do you tell which from 1 and 2 is true?

Eh? Why cant god belong to the category of beings that exist or the ones that dont?
O- The either theism or atheism. BHut in regards to three, agnosticism.

and the average human is 1% jewish

Huh?

Dont worry. Soon enough he will learn that you cannot have a debate on your own, and will perhaps start forming arguments with a rational form and content, maybe even with grammar, or else he will go away and bother us no more with pretentious irrelevance.

I see that he has a thread going.There is no title just a sign(sad face). We call him TC now.Go figure!

See thread PHOTOGRAPHS OF GOD to prove that there is at least one God.Maybe more.It seems that the sky is the limit.Go figure!

arisce i doubt that god is smegul lol that is funny though thanks for the good laugh.