John,
I’m really lazy today. I’ll just say, “you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about”
“Natural or not natural”. Everything! Is natural! Duh!
Even the “supernatural” is just natural.
Again!, ask yourself this question:
Is your consent being violated right now?
The ONLY omnistate that anyone cares about god is “omni-benevolence”
If your consent is being violated in any way, shape or form. God is not real yet !
You didn’t read the argument closely. The cause of nature cannot be nature, because that would be circular reasoning. Duh! The cause must be supernatural.
But then a supernatural cause can’t be its own cause, either, and you’d need to posit another super-supernatural cause to be the cause of it… and then another super-duper-supernatural cause for that one… ad in fin nit tum.
If there is some special thing that doesn’t need to have a cause other than itself to exist, and that thing isn’t nature, you now gotta explain what it is about that thing that gives it this special feature.
You can’t even think!
What’s the cause of supernatural by your logic? It can’t be supernatural because that “would be circular” by your own admission!
John, do you really think that a puny mind who can’t even see such a simple thing can prove god?
You didn’t read it closely. The supernatural cause is uncaused and timeless. There isn’t a cause of an uncaused supernatural timeless cause.
You didn’t read it closely. The supernatural cause is uncaused and timeless. There isn’t a cause of an uncaused supernatural timeless cause.
John, let me ask you this.
What’s greater ? God or a triangle.
God is greater.
So you’re really stating (for the record) that god created triangleness. I just want to be clear here on who you are as a person
Well that makes sense since you’re not interested in why your conclusions are not necessitated by your argument as I covered in detail.
What doesn’t make so much sense is that you’re nonetheless using the language of logic (such as the “necessity” of an uncaused Creator etc.)
The only thing that rubs me up the wrong way here is that this may go over the head of the layman, who could easily mistake the language of your argument as a credible indication of 100% certainty when, as you just said, that’s not even your intention.
I did just go through the entire narrative of your argument in great detail and found nothing to suggest proof of the existence of God.
So no, it is founded, but I can’t force you to “care about achieving 100% certainty with the argument (e.g. through syllogistic format)” and thus be mentally ready to see this. So we’re at an impasse.
I mean, you literally repeat the same fallacy that you just denied right here.
You’re defining physical reality as impossible without God, and anything other than absolute nothingness as being God. With this premise, of course you can “beg the question” and conclude God, because you defined Him as being impossible to not exist before any argument even began. You could do this with anything: given that unicorns are the most common mammal on earth, x, y, z and therefore unicorns exist. It’s simply logically unsound. If you want to prove the existence of God, you have to begin with other premises that don’t assume His existence from the start, yet prove his existence by the end of the argument. That’s how well-formed argument works.
So you see I’m not confused here - far from it. I’d worry that you were confused if you thought your argument was remotely close to 100% certain, but at least we cleared that up.
Yeah I’m just trippin on the whole SUPER natural thing. Basically what kant is saying is that we are not equipped to reason about existing things that have ineffable properties. Like if he… god I mean… don’t exist in time and space and have a body and shit, you can’t do any inductive investigating to find him… and he certainly can’t be known to exist a priori.
Triangleness is an idea in God’s uncaused mind.
Triangles are uncaused. Triangles are eternal forms (platonic forms). I just wanted to see what type of human that you were.
Silhouette,
You didn’t read it closely.
“Because potential physical realities can be created, there must be a reason for the existence of physical reality and the creation of any or all infinite potential physical realities. This reason must be uncaused, because the creation of any or all physical realities is contingent on this reason which leaves this reason without anything else to cause it.”
Proof of God.
I found a way to prove He doesn’t exist a priori.
It’s actually basically founded on what you were just saying about humans not being equipped to reason about existing things that have ineffable properties.
Major premise:
All definitions of God (that don’t simply use and define the word interchangeably with anything natural that already has some other name e.g. the universe) define God as at least in part beyond human conception to some degree or in some way. Otherwise, God is nothing more than mundane and simply another word for some physical phenomenon that is possible to observe in its entirety and without issue, without implying/being anything more than that. And certainly we don’t seem to come across definitions of God as “less than” nature e.g. not supernatural but subnatural.
Minor premise:
That of which humans are able to conceive will necessarily be less than “beyond human conception” and therefore at least in part less than God in His entirety. Some beliefs present God as fully beyond human conception, some believe in divine revelation or an “immanent” quality or ability of God such that we have limited access to knowing Him to some degree (but never full access, else, as covered in the previous premise, God would no longer be at least in part beyond human conception and therefore not be God).
Conclusion:
That of which humans are able to conceive will necessarily be less than God, and therefore not God, but something less than God.
No knowledge, argument or anything allegedly concerning God is therefore able to actually be about God, and so all such things necessarily fail whatever they are, no matter how convincing they might at first seem - by definition, God belief and proof is false. To humans, it has never been God that has presented Himself, but something ungodly, non-divine and mundane - and any attempt by humans to fill in the gaps or access anything more that could qualify as God will necessarily be insufficient and wrong. Even abstract extrapolation that “the rest that’s beyond us is what completes God” will always likewise be within human conception, and thus fall short. Faith in God is entirely within human conception, and therefore not of God, but something less that isn’t God.
Note that this doesn’t that the experience of God belief can’t be a “high” one, just that no matter how high it is, it’s always entirely mundane and not belief in God - but a belief in something else, something worldly and humanly accessible. So “god belief” in inverted commas still exists, it’s just a logical mistake to think it’s actually of God. So this doesn’t detract from all religious belief, it just reframes it correctly. God never came into it, ever - for anyone, and He never will by the same logical necessity.
Unlike all these 14 flawed Cosmological Arguments, atheism just needs these simple ingredients to be proven necessarily logically correct. It’s that simple.
Unfortunately Silhouette,
God made us in his own image (early genesis)
No I really did read it closely and in fact already addressed this passage.
To reiterate for your benefit, a “reason for the existence of physical reality” is contingent upon “potential physical realities” necessarily being created. Your first line says “can be created”, which presents physical reality/realities being created as a possibility. Not a necessity.
If you could validly prove it was necessity, or if you qualified the possibility of created physical reality as “given the possibility of a created physical reality (for argument’s sake)”, only then could you progress to any “reason” for the existence of physical reality. And even if you did, reason requires agency when causation does not necessarily require agency.
So already you have two critical hurdles glossed over: the necessity of created physical realities, and the necessity of an agent to perform the creation. Only then can we get to the second half of your first sentence that jumps to “there must be a reason for the existence of physical reality and the creation of any or all infinite potential physical realities”.
The second sentence lays out the uncaused creation of physical realities as contingent on this reason, which as I’ve just explained is contingent upon agency, which is contigent upon the necessity of physical reality being initially created.
So quite hilariously, if uncaused creation is contingent upon “a reason”, which is contingent upon agency, which is contingent upon initial creation, which is back where we started - this “Proof of God” is in fact entirely circular.
I can assure you that you don’t need to keep repeating yourself, and that I have read your argument in detail - so spare yourself the repetition if you won’t do it for me. The argument is just flawed at a fundamental level, that’s all. I’ve been very clear and unequivocal, so it does nobody any favours to claim otherwise. If it’s your intention to believe in your arguments regardless, then I can’t stop you. If you’re interested in why they’re wrong, just do your best to get your head around my criticisms - they’re not mistaken no matter how difficult it might be for you to accept this.
Yeah I know the line - it says nothing about being made His equal. An image is superficially similar, not identical. God is intended to be greater than humans, and humans less than God. It’s even a commandment to forbid the worship of anyone but Him - so certainly we are not on a level playing field here, no matter how similar our image is claimed to be.
John, Ecmando and Sillouette:
Instead of show ing how Leibnitz incorporated St. Augustine, rather then St. Thomas, it maybe could be useful to represent rational argument with set theory.
Especially to illustrate the notion of the reduction that super-naturalism suffers, in the natural development of man’s hyper-mirroring.
I am not merely going back into a place where mere definitions of reasonableness tries to determine
the content and the form of ‘proofs’ , but actually draws limits in a topography that even Leibnitz could not support.
Sufficient reason can not place God within an image that man can apprehend , reflecting a ideal model( best of all possible worlds), where that reflection can adapt an image which is reasonable.
Man’s self image can not translate via some magic mirror into a transcending authentic copy.
God may be able to single him out, as he said , but certainly, it is not God that is reason ing out man’s existence. It really then, is a one way mirror.
God can see and understand man singularly, but man can not apprehend God.
The reasonable image is not considered in terms simply of optical identification, nor in a narrow sense of making sense (reasonable) , but in the widest inclusive sense of all traits that has been correlated between man and god down through the ages, and up through the unfathomable spaces that time co-creates between man and god.
Do they not talk of that covenant between them?
I think literal images of a kind father type god worked in the darkest of middle ages, when scholastic were owned exclusively by abbots and friars copying texts on bright and illuminated texts. But that was 700-500 years ago, when Man did ascribe to today’s version of god being an opium to suppress the fears that were suppressed.
What fears?
The fear of animals, which we once were, and the millanea of development it took to overcome , the fear ok loosing parents, the fear of genetic inferiority that came out of the unintended consequences of natural selection.
Man overcame most but the most archaic parts of those and other blockers, by developing the arts .
The art of philosophy, of mathematics, of the sciences, and the art of art it’self. Art for set’s sake was really not for set’s sake, it was primarily for God, and then after man got enlightened, it became art for man germain man, and finally for man, reestablished in the likeness of God.
This reason can only postulate, if he doesent exist, he must be created, and created for 1 reason, 1 reason one: so he can survive!
Silhouette,
chuckles
Yeah the 10 commandments kinda fucks that up!
God is unimaginable. But, a proof need not be.