-
Reality is the absence of the absence of reality.
-
Because the absence of reality cannot cause reality, then reality must be uncaused.
-
We call this uncaused reality God.
Which says :
- Reality is NOT NOT reality.
Okay.
So … reality is God and God is reality.
God is uncaused reality.
If reality is uncaused, then all reality is uncaused.
Therefore God must be (all) reality. If we accept your ‘proof’.
Shouldn’t this be in religion section?
If you actually read the bible you’ll find it acknowledge other gods, so reality does have other gods, so how can your analogy only describe god?
… the “whole of”, not “each bit of”.
Reality is also known as Truth (“God is the Truth itself”).
The real truth determines all that can or cannot be (the definition of The God).
But that depends on whether you separate the map (“Truth”) from the terrain (“Reality”).
I agree. God is all reality. Hence, material reality is also God. But, as all material reality requires a cause, God as uncaused must be more than just material reality.
God is “The Actual Situation” … the inescapable cause of all things.
And to be saved "seek of the Truth and hold to it" (aka “pray” as in “seek the prey of Truth”).
Correct.
You agree that all reality is uncaused. But now you say that material reality requires a cause. What does that mean?
You have now split reality into material and immaterial. But your ‘proof’ is simply about reality. Therefore it must apply to both material and immaterial reality. So … God is material and immaterial reality. God(reality) is uncaused.
He didn’t specify that one half didn’t cause the other.
God is also considered the “ultimate” First Principle involved.
So it is a matter of semantic definition.
His ‘proof’ only has one statement, which is number 2.
Number 1 is a tautology.
Number 3 renames ‘uncaused reality’ to ‘God’.
Number 2 says that reality is uncaused.
His entire ‘proof’ is the statement that God is reality.
Yes, I split them. So what? My proof only has to do with unsplit reality. It says nothing about the effect of splitting reality. One does not need to logically conclude that because an unsplit reality is uncaused, then all components of that reality must likewise be uncaused. That would be similar to saying that because I took the door off a car, that this door must also be able to drive me to the airport on its own.
All proofs are no more than clarifying associated definitions.
Except that ‘caused’ means that there is a connected sequence. If the sequence can be traced to an uncaused starting point, then the entire sequence is effectively uncaused.
Proofs are more than one unjustified statement.
Number 1 is not a tautology. Take a coin for example. One could say, “heads is the absence of the absence of heads”. One could shorten this to “heads is the absence of tails”. One could further shorten this to “heads is heads”. But, because the statement “heads is the absence of tails” gives us more information by mentioning tails than just “heads is heads”, then the two cannot be a tautology. Similarly, saying “the absence of reality” is giving us more information, because “the absence of reality” is pure nothingness, which is a concept distinct from reality, just as the concept of tails is distinct from heads.
Number 2 is justified because there is nothing else besides the absence of reality that could cause reality. Hence, by process of elimination, reality must be uncaused because there is nothing left to cause it.
Recently approved post
Because ‘tails’ tells you what is on the flip side. By removing the word ‘tails’ and inserting another negation, you lose that information. So ‘heads is not tails’ has some meaning and ‘heads is not not heads’ has no meaning.
There is a difference between “The God” and “a god”.
And this is a discussion of proofs, more than of gods.
If reality exists and
If God is the uncaused and
Reality is uncaused, then
God exists.