God, proof

[MySiddhi]

@Uccisore

I still think the most important point here is that we don’t need an argument that something exists, but the logic itself is faulted too.

Your whole argument hangs on your usage of “Something”. You introduce as the alternative to “Nothing”. If that’s all it is, then fine. But under that definition, ‘something’ could be one thing, or a million things. To prove pantheism or monism, your usage of ‘Something’ has to include a notion of unity (i.e., a reason to say “thing” instead of “things”), and that’s a completely ad hoc addition to your arguement that isn’t supported anywhere in the principles you outlined.

Simply put, you start with “There isn’t nothing.” Then you say “Well, what’s the word for ‘not nothing’? Why, ‘Something’ !” Then you look at the word ‘Something’, see that it’s singular-tense and not plural, and think you’ve discovered something about the monistic nature of the universe, when you didn’t at all.

If it needs to be illustrated better than that, re-read the opening post, and replace the word ‘Something’ with ‘Stuff’ in every instance. Works 100% just as well, and all your points about monism and pluralism evaporate.

(1) Nothing is nonexistence. - Something is existence. [monism]

Can there be multiple "something"s that all have the essence of existence? Lets call such a something that has the essence of existence, substance. And lets see if more than one can exist…

From Spinoza’s proof, I change the wording to help you understand;

PROP. VIII. Note II.

1. The true definition of a thing neither involves nor expresses anything beyond the nature of the thing defined. From this it follows that–
2. No definition implies or expresses a certain number of individuals, inasmuch as it expresses nothing beyond the nature of the thing defined. For instance, the definition of a triangle expresses nothing beyond the actual nature of a triangle: it does not imply any fixed number of triangles.
3. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a cause why it should exist.
4. This cause of existence must either be contained in the nature and definition of the thing defined, or must be postulated apart from such definition.
   It therefore follows that, if a given number of individual things exist in nature, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less. For example, if twenty substances exist in the universe (your example), and we want to account for the existence of these twenty substances, it will not be enough to show the cause of substances existence in general; we must also show why there are exactly twenty substances, neither more nor less: for a cause must be assigned for the existence of each individual substance. Now this cause cannot be contained in the actual nature of substance, for the true definition of substance does not involve any consideration of the number twenty. Consequently, the cause for the existence of these twenty substances, and, consequently, of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual substance. Hence we may lay down the absolute rule, that everything which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the nature of substance, existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible. But from its definition (as we have shown, Notes ii., iii.), we cannot infer the existence of several substances; therefore it follows that there is only one substance of the same nature. Q.E.D.

[Carleas]

Teleology begs the question. It hinges on the assumption that only intelligence can create beauty or order or X particular property. But that’s really the nut of the question, whether X can arise without intelligence. Fractal geometry, cellular automata, and even evolution can be considered occasions where X-like properties come from unintelligent systems.
Furthermore, I don’t think your argument proves anything about cause or origin. The something (or somethings, cf. Uccs) now may have been ‘caused’ be the something/s then, but that doesn’t mean that the something brought itself into being. Cause is, again, out of context when you apply it to the Big Everything, if only because cause is temporal, and the BE is either a-temporal or meta-temporal or some sort of other unrestricted-by-temporal adjective.

As for materialism, I’ve made that thread. Here, you’re offering a logical proof of god. I’m pretty sure we share a logical system, so I’m criticizing your thread from a position you should agree with.

And your response to Uccisore’s objection is lacking. Suppose we define a new term, ‘twubstance’, and we say that a twubstance is one of twenty fundamental somethings. We can then say that, defined as you have, there is no substance, only twubstances. There’s nothing contradictory in this definition, there’s nothing that shows as once that substance must exist and be unique.
I wonder though, Uccs, what it would mean for there to be twubstances, or any more-than-one-something. Would that indicate multiple types of existence? Existence seems to be a binary condition. Though, I suppose you’ve argued before that the monism/dualism debate is without substance (pardon the pun). If it comes down to how ‘substance’ and ‘existence’ are defined, that seems to be the case.

[Bane]

@Anthem

@MySiddhi

(5) Nothing is the cause of nothing. - Something is the cause of all things. [omnipotent, omniscient]

Then what is the cause of something? Something else? Your ‘proof’ does nothing but define the universe, which conveniently fits your definition of God. This is no way proves a Christian god.

@Uccisore

All your argument seems to lead to, from what I can tell, is the conclusion that “There is stuff”.
But…we don’t need an argument to show that stuff exists. We all already knew that.

@Carleas

Teleology begs the question.

A good summary of this thread so far.

[Anthem]

@Bane

A good summary of this thread so far.

Thank ya, Bane

[MySiddhi]

@Carleas

b Teleology begs the question. It hinges on the assumption that only intelligence can create beauty or order or X particular property.[/b] But that’s really the nut of the question, whether X can arise without intelligence. Fractal geometry, cellular automata, and even evolution can be considered occasions where X-like properties come from unintelligent systems.
Furthermore, I don’t think your argument proves anything about cause or origin. b The something (or somethings, cf. Uccs) now may have been ‘caused’ be the something/s then, but that doesn’t mean that the something brought itself into being.[/b] Cause is, again, out of context when you apply it to the Big Everything, if only because cause is temporal, and the BE is either a-temporal or meta-temporal or some sort of other unrestricted-by-temporal adjective.

b As for materialism, I’ve made that thread. Here, you’re offering a logical proof of god. I’m pretty sure we share a logical system, so I’m criticizing your thread from a position you should agree with.[/b]

And your response to Uccisore’s objection is lacking. b Suppose we define a new term, ‘twubstance’, and we say that a twubstance is one of twenty fundamental somethings. We can then say that, defined as you have, there is no substance, only twubstances. There’s nothing contradictory in this definition, there’s nothing that shows as once that substance must exist and be unique. [/b]
I wonder though, Uccs, what it would mean for there to be twubstances, or any more-than-one-something. Would that indicate multiple types of existence? Existence seems to be a binary condition. Though, I suppose you’ve argued before that the monism/dualism debate is without substance (pardon the pun). If it comes down to how ‘substance’ and ‘existence’ are defined, that seems to be the case.

(1) I never used the phrase “beauty or order or X particular property” in my proof. Maybe you need to read it again… and this time note that Demsky didn’t write this proof, I DID. So, you need to respond to ME not some other argument which I have not presented nor implied.

(2) from the fourth proposition we know that something is eternal, which means it could not have created itself as if it didn’t exist before. Rather what we have here is a self evolving system, or a self excited circuit as Wheeler would say.

(3) I don’t believe in materialism, I believe in dual-aspect monism. Let me know if you believe materialism, that I might know where you are arguing from??? We may share logic though, as I am a rational realist.

(4) It was not my objection per say… it was actually Spinoza’s… and you don’t seem to understand his proof. You seem to be confusing definition with proof, they are not the same; wouldn’t that be easy if they were. You would have to prove that multiple substances can even exist.

My first proposition shows that something has the essence of existence. Well in Spinoza’s proof, anything that has the essence of existence is called a substance!

Can there be more than one? That is the question.

Here are Spinoza’s premises;

1. The true definition of a thing neither involves nor expresses anything beyond the nature of the thing defined. From this it follows that–
2. No definition implies or expresses a certain number of individuals, inasmuch as it expresses nothing beyond the nature of the thing defined. For instance, the definition of a triangle expresses nothing beyond the actual nature of a triangle: it does not imply any fixed number of triangles.
3. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a cause why it should exist.
4. This cause of existence must either be contained in the nature and definition of the thing defined, or must be postulated apart from such definition.

Do you disagree with them. Which one do you disagree with?

Here is his argument and conclusion;

It therefore follows that, if a given number of individual things exist in nature, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less. For example, if twenty substances exist in the universe (your example), and we want to account for the existence of these twenty substances, it will not be enough to show the cause of substances existence in general; we must also show why there are exactly twenty substances, neither more nor less: for a cause must be assigned for the existence of each individual substance. Now this cause cannot be contained in the actual nature of substance, for the true definition of substance does not involve any consideration of the number twenty. Consequently, the cause for the existence of these twenty substances, and, consequently, of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual substance. Hence we may lay down the absolute rule, that everything which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the nature of substance, existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible. But from its definition (as we have shown, Notes ii., iii.), we cannot infer the existence of several substances; therefore it follows that there is only one substance of the same nature. Q.E.D.

Where is the mistake?

[Anthem]

@MySiddhi

(2) from the fourth proposition we know that something is eternal, which means it could not have created itself as if it didn’t exist before. Rather what we have here is a self evolving system, or a self excited circuit as Wheeler would say.

Since this guy has ‘foed’ me , will someone ask him how much time, if things are eternal, passed before we got here? An infinite amount of time…how could we have ever got to now? After all, we can never reach infinity, and that’s where we would be on the timeline.

His view of time is flawed. Time was created with our universe. Eternal is a concept that hinges on our conception of time. Whatever existed before the universe as it is now was not eternal. We can say nothing of the nature of that existence in terms of time as we experience it.

[Uccisore]

Carleas

I wonder though, Uccs, what it would mean for there to be twubstances, or any more-than-one-something. Would that indicate multiple types of existence? Existence seems to be a binary condition. Though, I suppose you’ve argued before that the monism/dualism debate is without substance (pardon the pun). If it comes down to how ‘substance’ and ‘existence’ are defined, that seems to be the case.

Yeah, sounds like you know my take on it. I would contend that calling (for example) matter and energy fundamentally one thing, or fundamentally two things, is only meaningful within the pragmatic concerns of whatever it is you're trying to say about them. So, I can talk about matter and energy as 2 to make this point over here, or as 1 to make that point over there, as long as I don't let myself be fooled into thinking it's any more than a linguistic tool.

[MySiddhi]

@Uccisore

Carleas

I wonder though, Uccs, what it would mean for there to be twubstances, or any more-than-one-something. Would that indicate multiple types of existence? Existence seems to be a binary condition. Though, I suppose you’ve argued before that the monism/dualism debate is without substance (pardon the pun). If it comes down to how ‘substance’ and ‘existence’ are defined, that seems to be the case.

Yeah, sounds like you know my take on it. I would contend that calling (for example) matter and energy fundamentally one thing, or fundamentally two things, is only meaningful within the pragmatic concerns of whatever it is you're trying to say about them. So, I can talk about matter and energy as 2 to make this point over here, or as 1 to make that point over there, as long as I don't let myself be fooled into thinking it's any more than a linguistic tool.

Maybe you should define how you are using the terms energy and matter.

When you say matter do you mean, bradyons e.g. protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms, quarks, leptons?

When you say energy do you mean kinetic or do you mean potential? Or are you refering to gauge bosons e.g. photons, gluons, gravitons?

Bradyons can be viewed as potential energy via the mass-energy equivalence; E=mxc^2

Nuclear reactions convert bradyons into gauge bosons. And particle accelerators can convert gauge bosons into bradyons.

So the real issue here is whether you are talking about forms or substance.

There is only one substance, there are many forms.

Forms are related to each other as being the harmonics of substance.

Forms are not conserved.

[Maytacera]

None of those things are the definition of any god I’ve encountered.

It’s commonly accepted that god is a conciousness…none of the so called “proof” you listed mentioned that.

[MySiddhi]

@Maytacera

None of those things are the definition of any god I’ve encountered.

It’s commonly accepted that god is a conciousness…none of the so called “proof” you listed mentioned that.

self-deterministic would be consciousness

as such, consciousness is fundamental… it is not an emergent property of material systems… but rather starts or couples first with material systems through DNA helix

DNA and the liquid crystals of the body are able to resonate with or produce tachyons.

Tachyons are the MIND, Bradyons are MATTER. They are dually related destructive interference of each other (dual-aspect monism)…

I have discovered the definitive and causal mechanism of mind-matter interactions; Mind (scalar temporal energy; tachyons) and Matter (vector spatial energy; bradyons) are the dually related harmonic destructive interference of each other. i.e. The destructive interference of vector potentials creates a scalar wave, and the destructive interference of scalar waves creates a vector potential.

Experiments demonstrating the mind-matter mechanism; (p < = 5x10^-2 is statistically significant)

sense of being stared at (p < 1x10^-25) Biology Forum

telephone telepathy (p = 4x10^-16) Journal of the Society for Psychical Research

telekinesis on REG (p = 3.5x10^-13) Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research

mass psychic control (p = 2x10^-9) Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy

remote viewing (p = 9.1x10^-8) Division of Statistics University of California Davis

[skeptic_griggsy]

Carleas, you make the implicit observation that since theistic evoluton rests on telology , it is an oxymoron. Please see the arguments about God where I show that in detail and also the the ignostic Ockham thread where I show no god need apply. My Siddathi, if God is omnipresent then He is not an individlual - again see the ignostic-Ockham thread. Theists merely guess as to God and His attributes; they do not see the implications of their assertions .

[MySiddhi]

@skepticgriggsy

Carleas, you make the implicit observation that since theistic evoluton rests on telology , it is an oxymoron. Please see the arguments about God where I show that in detail and also the the ignostic Ockham thread where I show no god need apply. My Siddathi, if God is omnipresent then He is not an individlual - again see the ignostic-Ockham thread. Theists merely guess as to God and His attributes; they do not see the implications of their assertions .

How many omnipresent entities are there?

Individual means “existing as a distinct entity”.

We have already covered the fact that there cannot be more than one of such a God. Therefore God is a distinct entity… i.e. God is an individual.

[WorBlux]

@MySiddhi

I have updated my logical proof so that you don’t have to have an IQ of 150 to understand it;

Definition;
By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of my existence.

Five tautologies, five corollaries, [and eight attributes] ;
(1) Nothing is nonexistence. - Something is existence. [monism]
(2) Nothing is made of nothing. - Everything is made of something. [pantheism]
(3) Nowhere does nothing exist. - Something exists everywhere. [omnipresent]
(4) At no time has nothing existed. - Something has always existed. [eternal, invincible, perfect]
(5) Nothing is the cause of nothing. - Something is the cause of all things. [omnipotent, omniscient]

One thing has the essence of existence (1), which everything is made of (2). It is everywhere present (3), as well as eternal, invincible, and perfect (4). This one thing is the all-power-full cause of all things (5) and must also be it’s own cause (1 & 5) making it self-deterministic or teleological. This is the definition of God, therefore God logically exists. QED

Credit for (1 & 2) should go to Parmenides, and credit for (3, 4, 5) should go to Mars Sterling Turner.

.

If nothing does not exist and is made of nothing, how can it fallow that it is the cause of itself?

We can up syllogisms about dragon, but if dragons don’t exist than the argument is meaningless.

Also sense everything is not nothing, the corollary of number one could very well be My fork is existence or Air Force One is existence, or all members of the species Opuntia macrorhiza are existence

Number 2 coralaries… A steel beam is made of a tree. A house is made of sand. Rock is made of everything that is not a rock.

If you rearrange number three to Nothing is Nowhere (for convenience) you can easily see any corollary is meaningless.
The valid corollaries (not a is not b) include: The sun is in Phoenix, Arizona. The ocean is in my lap. I am inside your nose. Hitler’s mustache is glued to my ass.

Are you starting to see how silly the argument is?

Same with number 4.
In the fourteenth century, an man-made spacecraft existed. Before the earth was formed, you existed. A thousand years from now, a jar of peanut butter will exist.

Number five. You are the cause of me. The moon caused the milky way.

Your Logic suffers from contradictions caused by the logical explosions of your corollaries.

[MySiddhi]

@WorBlux

@MySiddhi

I have updated my logical proof so that you don’t have to have an IQ of 150 to understand it;

Definition;
By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of my existence.

Five tautologies, five corollaries, [and eight attributes] ;
(1) Nothing is nonexistence. - Something is existence. [monism]
(2) Nothing is made of nothing. - Everything is made of something. [pantheism]
(3) Nowhere does nothing exist. - Something exists everywhere. [omnipresent]
(4) At no time has nothing existed. - Something has always existed. [eternal, invincible, perfect]
(5) Nothing is the cause of nothing. - Something is the cause of all things. [omnipotent, omniscient]

One thing has the essence of existence (1), which everything is made of (2). It is everywhere present (3), as well as eternal, invincible, and perfect (4). This one thing is the all-power-full cause of all things (5) and must also be it’s own cause (1 & 5) making it self-deterministic or teleological. This is the definition of God, therefore God logically exists. QED

Credit for (1 & 2) should go to Parmenides, and credit for (3, 4, 5) should go to Mars Sterling Turner.

.

If nothing does not exist and is made of nothing, how can it fallow that it is the cause of itself?

We can up syllogisms about dragon, but if dragons don’t exist than the argument is meaningless.

Also sense everything is not nothing, the corollary of number one could very well be My fork is existence or Air Force One is existence, or all members of the species Opuntia macrorhiza are existence

Number 2 coralaries… A steel beam is made of a tree. A house is made of sand. Rock is made of everything that is not a rock.

If you rearrange number three to Nothing is Nowhere (for convenience) you can easily see any corollary is meaningless.
The valid corollaries (not a is not b) include: The sun is in Phoenix, Arizona. The ocean is in my lap. I am inside your nose. Hitler’s mustache is glued to my ass.

Are you starting to see how silly the argument is?

Same with number 4.
In the fourteenth century, an man-made spacecraft existed. Before the earth was formed, you existed. A thousand years from now, a jar of peanut butter will exist.

Number five. You are the cause of me. The moon caused the milky way.

Your Logic suffers from contradictions caused by the logical explosions of your corollaries.

I hope you don’t mind if we take one at a time.

Nothing as a cause results in nothing as an effect.

Do you understand?

[WorBlux]

@MySiddhi

I hope you don’t mind if we take one at a time.

Nothing as a cause results in nothing as an effect.

Do you understand?

Yes but it still seems meaningless. Since nothing is not an actually existing thing. No entity exists that could be classified as nothing.

[MySiddhi]

@WorBlux

@MySiddhi

I hope you don’t mind if we take one at a time.

Nothing as a cause results in nothing as an effect.

Do you understand?

Yes but it still seems meaningless. Since nothing is not an actually existing thing. No entity exists that could be classified as nothing.

Therefore, nothing is the cause of nothing.

Do you understand?

It’s a tautology, don’t let it melt your brain.

[Anthem]

Don’t worry about it, WorBlux. You’re right.

[MySiddhi]

I have updated the proof in the OP

[skeptic_griggsy]

If God is everywhere, then He is not distinct and individual. Anyway, who can show that His attributes are nothing than guesses? Theologians merely aver that He is omnipotent when He could be limited as the imperfections so imply. He cannot be omnibenevolent because of the evils. He cannot be omniscient and know our futures in detail [Some theologians so acknowledge.] There appear to be no facts to indicate He has those attributes.
He adds nothing to explanations and therefore, contrary to Leibniz, He is no sufficient reason. He cannot be a first cause as there really is no first number in eternity. He cannot be the greatest and necessary being as that is Existence itself. And He cannot be the designer, for there is no design but pattern.
We do not need Him for purpose as we make our own, and our purposes are not to serve and praise and kiss His backside eternally.
We cannot find Him behind miracles as they are natural.
We cannot find Him behind the survival of Jews,for He did not ever protect them from pogroms and the Shoa.
We cannot find Him behind religious experience, for that is our own mental phenomena at work.
We cannot find Him as He is so hidden that He cannot exist. We cannot expect Him to answer prayer, for the rain falls on us all indifferently. [I am blessed and some religious go through Hell.]

[Bane]

@skepticgriggsy

If God is everywhere, then He is not distinct and individual. Anyway, who can show that His attributes are nothing than guesses? Theologians merely aver that He is omnipotent when He could be limited as the imperfections so imply. He cannot be omnibenevolent because of the evils. He cannot be omniscient and know our futures in detail [Some theologians so acknowledge.] There appear to be no facts to indicate He has those attributes.
He adds nothing to explanations and therefore, contrary to Leibniz, He is no sufficient reason. He cannot be a first cause as there really is no first number in eternity. He cannot be the greatest and necessary being as that is Existence itself. And He cannot be the designer, for there is no design but pattern.
We do not need Him for purpose as we make our own and our purposes are not to serve and praise and kiss His backside eternally.
We cannot find Him behind miralcles as they are natural.
We cannot find Him behind the survival of Jews,for He did not ever protect them from pogroms and the Shoa.
We cannot find Him behind religious experience, for that is our own mental phenomena at work.
We cannot find Him as He is so hidden that He cannot exist. We cannot expect Him to answer prayer, for the rain falls on us all indifferently. [I am blessed and some religious go through Hell.]

Hit 'em again Grissy! =D> Good grief! That was a pummeling! Good stuff!