So you say. Do you agree that the mystery of atheism is greater than your mystery then, since your thesis can’t understand it?
I mean, I just proved it to you, no one being can exist without otherness.
So you threw the “mystery” card at me.
Who has the simpler mind? Me or you? Who has the least intelligent explanation / mystery ? Me or you?
Think about it John…
Maybe you need a day to cool off, maybe not.
Sounds like you’ve got some clues then. But I don’t think humans quite have a handle on what nothing is or is not. I will always picture black. And black is something.
Eh, you just don’t like mysterious but necessary uncaused reality.
Cool off? You’re putting me to sleep.
Ahh… chuckles you made a Freudian slip, you used the word “reality” instead of “creator”. That’s a word I’d use!
Oh, caused be the one who said you have to choose! Did Faust fall for that old line?
Is not the bestest, that we call agnostic? Is it a sin to hedge all options? Yes You say. for did He not say that " I will not tolerate other gods before me?"
To choose is the primal error. To be chosen, well, is commendable.
No, reality is a proper word. I didn’t say physical reality.
Reality implies other. This is the simplest proof in all of existence. You nor any being is ever going to refute it.
I believe in spirits.
I believe in gods.
I know for a fact that THEE god as theists portray it (even as a paganistic trinity) doesn’t and cannot exist.
Again, my mystery is greater than your mystery (and mines also actually true)
Reality means real. An uncaused creator is also a reality, because it is real.
Without another uncaused, how does any existent possibly exist? All existents in all of existence and “beyond” need contrast. All of it John. Even god.
I’m going to keep hammering on this because I know you have no refutation for it.
The refutation is the OP.
No John… it doesn’t work that way.
This thread is 14 pages of disproofs of the OP. You don’t get to just refer to the OP when points addressing the OP and disprove it make you feel uncomfortable. Threads don’t work that way.
Can anything exist without otherness?
Very simple question.
The power to create the entire universe, but certain powers are too “illusory” for Him…
Whatever happened to miracles, eh?
Omnipotent, doesn’t mean polypotent, 100% of 50% is 50% - He’s not omnipotent.
But yeah, “You’re tired, you’re bored, God is just mysterious okay?”
Mysterious i.e. I know for sure, but I know that nobody knows for sure… a nothing-claim if I ever heard one.
There’s no content here from you, and now you’re just saying go back to the OP, which was the problem in the first place. You’re going round and round, getting nowhere… - we’re trying to help you here.
Come on, John, you gotta give me more than that. Work with me.
Your first statement is just an assertion pulled out of nowhere. The second is much the same.
I’m not asking to be taken on a journey through your world. I’m looking for a debate. I’m asking for you to prove your arguments.
I’m not a theist in the traditional sense, though I do believe in a sort of God, but I have trouble believing that the classic arguments for God’s existence–cosmological, ontological, design–hold any merit. You have your work cut out for you with me. You’re gonna have to try harder than that.
And so far, you haven’t addressed any of my questions, particularly the one you asked for at the beginning: why does the world require an uncaused cause?
I think it’s illusory in the sense that it’s a contradiction. You can’t create something that is uncaused because that would mean causing an uncaused thing.
Oh man, you guys (and possibly ladies) want a real mindfuck?
Anytime something becomes something else, it came about from nothing (it’s novel, never seen before in existence (No precedence!)). BUT! If it always existed, it could never have come to be in the first place!
I think it’s fun to get inside my head, some people may disagree though!
Yes, I get the obvious logic that it’s a contradiction to cause something that is uncaused.
The objection is that even if John’s argument for an uncaused Creator was valid, which I’ve explained it is not, there is something that God cannot do by virtue of contradiction, and due to this contradiction even He cannot have the power to do it. If you can’t do the impossible, you are not all powerful - if He can create a universe that has things in it then at best he used initial omnipotence to compromise his potency, and there’s no evidence that he could have done otherwise with a different universe.
It’s like that “unstoppable force being applied to an immovable object” quandry. If God has the power to create both, and the application of one to the other shows He failed to be able to create at least one of them, or He wasn’t powerful enough to create one or both such things in the first place - either way His power is limited and He is shown to not be omnipotent.
An objection to this quandry is sometimes that God operates beyond the bounds of human logic - in which case He ought to be able to cause the uncaused. Which is it? You can’t have it both ways - He’s not omnipotent whichever way you slice it.
And further to that, if he did operate beyond the bounds of human logic, why are humans trying to use logic to prove His existence? It wouldn’t be valid.
I’ve heard this before. What you’re thinking of here is identity, which is a mental process. The physical constituency of something becoming something else is just a rearrangement of the same thing - nothing added or taken away. Even the mental process of experiencing novelty is just the rearrangment of the physical that results in that feeling we experience when we come across something an arrangement of the physical that we’ve not encountered before.
Silhouette wrote:
“If you cannot do the impossible then you are not all powerful”
That’s not what John is arguing. That’s a straw man.
What’s the most impossible thing imaginable?
Not existing and doing stuff.
What’s another thing?
Being impotent and controlling everything.
A stupid creationist might argue that straw man though, until they are presented these types of arguments.
John has already been through all that. He’s not a stupid / naive creationist. He has been stating throughout the thread that god can only do (maximally so) what is logically possible.
Yeah so he is constrained by the bounds of logic - He cannot operate beyond the bounds of logic - He’s not omnipotent.
I’m not saying John is arguing differently to this, so there’s no straw man.
I’m saying that given John’s argument that you’ve restated and I’ve acknowledged as it is, there’s a problem with this argument. That’s not a straw man.
And even if God were powerful enough to operate beyond the limitations of logic, attempts to logically prove His existence would therefore be invalid.
Either He’s not omnipotent and logic applies, or He is omnipotent and logic doesn’t apply. Those are the options regardless of any of John’s arguments and how well they’re being represented by anyone - so which is it?
We’ll let both our posts settle and see how John responds.
Per my point: god cannot exist without otherness (always).
He thinks god doesn’t obey the simplest law in existence for all possible beings, but would definitely say, “god can be impotent and control everything” is absurd.
Let’s see where the chips fall.
I know John is trying his best to be logical here.
I’ll be interested to see how much ground he gives up while still defending god “logically”
God is uncaused. The proof that God exists is the OP. Your “objections” to the OP are trivial and nowhere close to disproving God where you need to get below a 50% probability level to win. An uncaused mysterious reality does not require otherness to exist, and we know that from the OP which proves God is real.