An argument for God's existence

Thank you. I read the first part and I already know I agree.
When I was drunk on my birthday long ago in Tuscon I talked to a fortune teller who was living in the street if he knew God. He said: we could know God exactly we would also know how to create a world and living souls. But we don’t so we don’t know God so well that we can deny him entry in our heart, and that is the whisper of the Holy Spirit. Since then I believe in the Trinity.

Silhouette,

I observe some things which appear to have purpose, but I’m naturally a sceptic, so I keep an open mind. Doubt, as you say, can serve us well. I understand an atheist’s choice and a theist’s choice, but I remain on the fence. I agree, when it comes to finding out if patterns are actually patterns, the scientific method is the most suited and the best. I couldn’t say whether that applies to religious considerations though, because of their purported nature. It seems to me that they would be a fuzzy area for the scientific method, and even logic to get into.

Hilarious, Desiny! :laughing:

Certainly real,

Rightly or wrongly, my ability to comprehend stops at infinite regression. I don’t know if existence is infinite or finite, both suppositions apparently have illogical aspects to them, so my conclusion is that I don’t know. Can we just leave it there, please?

The problem with this is that perfection has three aspects, not one:

  1. the highest degree of proficiency, skill, or excellence, as in some art.
  2. a perfect embodiment or example of something.
  3. a quality, trait, or feature of the highest degree of excellence.

So perfection isn’t just that which can’t be conceivably improved, it is the embodiment of something. It is that which achieves a pre-disclosed quality or trait. You have to disclose what that quality or trait should be before acknowledging perfection.

The second thing is, what is perfect existence? Existence is:

  1. the state or fact of existing; being.
  2. continuance in being or life; life: a struggle for existence.
  3. mode of existing: They were working for a better existence.
  4. all that exists: Existence shows a universal order.
  5. something that exists; entity; being.

So do you mean an existence that embodies a certain quality or trait? Or do you mean an entity that has a feature of highest excellence?

So you want everybody to get what they truly/perfectly deserve – what does that mean? How will you know? How do you know that this isn’t what we experience already?

You see, you have to clear a lot of questions up before you embark on defining perfect existence. That is why the ancients wrote their complex mythologies and why not all mythologies are “perfect”, because they leave too much unclear. We tend to leave these attempts at clarity behind us and assume it is easy. It isn’t.

I keep finding your statement that “so much is at stake”. Considering all the things you protest about, why don’t you just ignore everybody and get on with your life, making it as best you know how to? In the confusion of religions, which are superficially so diverse, it might be the best way to take what you find best in any tradition and stick to that. There is no point in trying to find the perfect one, if you have struggled for so long. Life is short my friend.

Your obsession with “judgement day” seems to be the big problem. How many traditions have that? Where do they conflict? Why are the Christian/biblical requirements named so problematic? Do you feel the need to repent? Why don’t you do that and trust in the love of God? I think the reason is that you are stuck in a vicious circle and can’t make the step that takes you out of it.

I believe that the “right” way to read the Bible is in the way it was meant, and there are indications showing that the symbolic meaning opens up the stories to show a deeper meaning than just the story on the surface. Maybe I’m wrong, but that is the way I have decided to approach it rather than turning in vicious circles and not knowing how to go ahead. But that is it! You have to have the courage of your convictions, make a choice and go down that road.

I can leave you in your circle of desperation – sure. I just thought I’d give you an idea of how to move on.

I’m not gonna force someone into a conversation that they don’t want to have. I disagree that there is any illogical aspect to Existence Being Infinite for reasons I’ve already stated. You think it is illogical because your ability to comprehend stops at infinite regression. I want to highlight the following from you so that you may see why I continued to discuss with you:

You have said you can conceive of infinity. You have said you can conceive of existence. You have not said you can conceive of something coming from nothing. Yet you say you don’t know if existence is finite or infinite.

If you are happy leaving it at this, then so be it. But given what I’ve highlighted, I think such a move would either be insincere to truth and reason and logic and semantics, or lacking in attention/focus, or just lazy. It is never good/right for someone to be insincere to truth and reason, or to be lazy. Insincerity, unreasonableness, and laziness, are always bad/wrong. Sometime lack of attention/focus is not wrong. When something is not important, there is nothing wrong with not giving it your full attention. Regarding matters of God and morality, the more attention you give It, the morally better. The less, the morally worse.

Perfection has many aspects to it. We are not in disagreement on this. But my question to you is the following:

Is there anything better than a perfect existence? I don’t know if you are a yes, or no, or I don’t know on this question. Your reply seems more like ‘I don’t know’. Can you really think of anything that is better than a perfect existence to be I don’t know on this? I mean if you picture a perfect life or a perfect car or a perfect anything, surely if it is within a perfect existence, it is better isn’t it? As in it’s better for your perfect car or your perfect life, or yourself, to be in a perfect existence with no injustice in it than to be in an imperfect existence with some injustice in it. So clearly there is nothing better than a perfect existence, right?

Call that which everything exists in, Existence. Existence Is Omnipresent. If it is not Perfect, then logically speaking Perfection is hypothetically impossible because that which no greater than can be conceived of is Existence Being Perfect, or Perfection Being Omnipresent, and if It Is not Perfect, then Perfection is absurd/hypothetically impossible.

For example, if in Existence you have one instance of injustice, then Existence is imperfect because it would be better for there to be no instances of injustice in Existence. So Existence would then not be that which no greater than can be conceived of when there is injustice within it.

I know this is what we experience already (as in I know everyone is getting what they deserve) because per the dictates of pure reason, Existence Is Perfect and I am in It. It is paradoxical to deny Existence Being Perfect. An imperfect existence is absurd. Thus everyone is getting what they deserve is a certainty like triangles having three sides is a certainty.

I don’t know what a perfect existence is. I know what existence is, but what quality or trait must it have to be perfect? It seems to me that what I regard as perfect is something that we could disagree on.

Okay, if existence is one, why does one person curse their existence and another praise it? It is a matter of perspective. However, we all exist, whatever perspective we have and have no influence on that. It just is. By using the word perfect, you are assuming some trait or quality, which we would have to agree upon.

Okay, so now (because injustice exists) existence is imperfect.

But you said that that it is imperfect because of injustice, which exists.

What I’m trying to show you is that to make such statements, you have to start at the beginning and clarify things before you try to use logic to prove those claims.

If in any given existence injustice exists, then that existence is imperfect. We cannot empirically know if injustice exists in our existence or not because we are not Omniscient. We don’t have all the premises. However, since it is paradoxical to reject Existence Being Perfect, it is paradoxical to believe that there is injustice in our Existence.

Existence is such that everyone gets what they truly deserve. The one that curses their Existence (or Lord as I would like to call It) is clearly unhappy with their manner of existing. Them being unhappy with their manner of existing is what they deserve. What does one person hating existing and another person loving existing have anything to do with what I’m arguing here?

Existence = that which is Omnipresent.

Compare two existences A and B. There is no injustice in A. There is some injustice in B. Can we not objectively agree that B is certainly not Perfect and that A may be Perfect? With this being the case, can we not say that it’s perfection for everyone to get what they truly deserve? Such that if x is such that it is imperfect or encompassed by imperfect (in this case B) then x is certainly not Perfect. With this being the case, can you see how you have some idea of what a perfect existence is?

In order for everyone to get what they truly deserve, then Existence (the Omnipresent) must be Omniscient (so that It Knows who has good/evil intent) and Omnipotent (so that It Handles all affairs). If It lacks one of these traits, It cannot bring about the condition of everyone getting what they truly deserve.

And with that being said, hopefully an objective idea of Perfection begins to form.

Hi CR,
I think that your “Perfect Existence” doesn’t work as you would like it to. I would suggest that there are other ways to name God.

This is, of course, all based on Christian theology. The Bible, however, never sees a human being outside of mankind and so, anything that we see other people as needing, we need the very same. You can just build on this, unless you have objections.

Hi Bob,

Why not? Where is there a problem with the following:

  1. Perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived.
  2. Nothing is better than a perfect existence, therefore perfection = a perfect existence

You then said you don’t know what a perfect existence, to which I said:

Existence = that which is Omnipresent.

Compare two existences A and B. There is no injustice in A. There is some injustice in B. Can we not objectively agree that B is certainly not Perfect and that A may be Perfect? With this being the case, can we not say that it’s perfection for everyone to get what they truly deserve? Such that if x is such that it is imperfect or encompassed by imperfect (in this case B) then x is certainly not Perfect. So 3) With this being the case, can you see how you have some idea of what a perfect existence is?

In order for everyone to get what they truly deserve, then Existence (the Omnipresent) must be Omniscient (so that It Knows who has good/evil intent) and Omnipotent (so that It Handles all affairs). If It lacks one of these traits, It cannot bring about the condition of everyone getting what they truly deserve.

  1. And with that being said, has an objective idea of Perfection (a perfect existence/being) began to form?

So that I understand you better, between 1-4, which is problematic?

If you say that Existence equates to Being (with a capital B) you have no quality or trait that you can use on it. Perfection means ideally fitting requirements. What requirements can we make on Existence? It is as it is. If you say it isn’t perfect, it means nothing, other than your requirements of it are flawed. You have no choice therefore you cannot claim that Existence has any quality at all. You either have Existence or not.

The “Ground of Being” is a phrase that says that God underlies Being and consequently everything in existence. Without God there is no existence, so there is no comparison to make and therefore no way to call it perfect or not. For that reason, the idea of saying a perfect existence would be …. Is null and void.

Is Omnipresence a quality or trait? Can it denote anything other than Existence? I say this because Existence exists everywhere. What else exists everywhere?

Something which is omnipresent is everywhere at the same time. It is an adjective and describes something, so it is a quality or trait. It is usually said of God, the Ground of Being, without which there is no existence.

So you say “Something which is omnipresent is everywhere at the same time”. I agree. Is it not true of Existence that It exists everywhere at the same time? Would it not be absurd for us to say ‘there is no Existence there’, or that ‘there is non-existence there’ ?

Do you believe God to be Omnipresent? If not, do you believe God to be Omnipotent?

Once again, in my view, you simply avoid/evade my points above. Given that, for most religious denominations, embodying God’s will as mere mortals is encompassed in obeying His commandments big and small, they choose, in regard to issues like “abortion, the role of government, war and peace, social and economic justice, human sexuality, ‘value voter’ issues etc.” behaviors they are convinced will serve them well on Judgment Day.

How is that not “for all practical purposes” religion in a nutshell?

Now, some get around this by embracing one or another ecumenical approach to religion. The God of all faiths who allows the faithful to choose cafeteria style the behaviors that they think will forward them to immortality and salvation. And if those choices clash with others? Well, the God of all faiths just works it out somehow.

Sure, with morality here and now and immortality there and then, we can all “just ignore everybody and get on with our life, making it as best we know how to.”

But explain that to all of the various orthodox religious communities. Those folks who are absolutely adamant regarding what does or does not please a God, the God, their God.

My obsession?

worldfuturefund.org/Articles/Jday/Jday.html

[b]Many of the world’s great religions and philosophies have a larger, more cosmic view of life and time.

Religions like Christianity and Islam believe that this life is a test, meant to determine a person’s fate in an eternal afterlife.

Hindus believe that a person will be reincarnated over a cycle that can take thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years.

Buddhism has many different aspects, but there are various Buddhist sects that believe in reincarnation as well.

The pagan, Pre-Christian religions like Norse Paganism believe in Valhalla, an honorable afterlife for warriors.

But the point is that in many of these religions there is a concept of judgment, that the actions you take in this life matter, for better or for worse.

We are not here to debate the theological realities of whether this is true or not.

But we will simply state that religions have a long term view of man’s purpose that extends beyond a single lifespan.

And that if a person doesn’t accept their purpose, there will be a harsh punishment to come.[/b]

Or in Christianity: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judg … ristianity

Once again, however, from my own frame of mind, this is an entirely vague “spiritual contraption”. What of the courage of your own convictions in regard to “abortion, the role of government, war and peace, social and economic justice, human sexuality, ‘value voter’ issues etc.”, when they come into conflict with the faiths of others? When they read their own Scriptures in a different “right way”? In the way they insist God meant it to be read? What of God’s judgment then?

But, in my view, you are not willing to explore the points I raise in a substantive manner relating in particular to the manner in which I construe religious faith itself as an existential fabrication rooted in dasein…given the trajectory of the life that you have lived.

And only with respect to that discussion does there seem a possibility that I might be convinced that there is a way to move on.

On the other hand, I still respect the amount of time and effort you have put into exploring all of this introspectively. And the “edge” that often pervades my own reactions above is, again, more in the way of how I wish I could figure out a way to think myself up out of the truly bleak hole that my own honest introspection has brought me down into.

If God didn’t exist, I would invent one right now. Life is better when there is a God.

Certainly real,

Obviously, the limits of human-beings comprehension, do not necessitate the constitution of reality. Therefore, when I (or anyone else) say that I can conceive of infinity, that does not mean that it is possible or impossible. As far as I am aware, experientially or empirically, we have no way of knowing for sure. Given that this is the case, I see no reason to claim that existence is infinite. Of course, existence coming from nothing doesn’t seem logical, I cannot conceive of how that could occur. But given that the choice presented is between something coming from nothing, a first cause or something along those lines, and an infinite regress of causes for existence, from my perspective, both of these ideas are very problematic, so I don’t know.

If I were going to posit that existence was infinite, there should be something tangible that could always have existed. My knowledge in this area is not extensive, so the only thing I can think of that could have always existed is energy because it cannot be created or destroyed. I don’t know how existence could have occurred from energy alone, that is as far as my knowledge takes me.

You cannot count to Infinity. Nor can you expand to the point of becoming Infinite. However, this does not mean nothing is Infinite. This does not mean non-existence is Infinite because Existence is necessarily Infinite (otherwise we commit to something coming from nothing). The Infinite is not non-existent. If Existence has no beginning and no end, then there is no counting to Infinity happening. There is also no expanding to the point of becoming Infinite happening. There is also no something coming from nothing. Existence just Is Infinite. This is not absurd. Again, counting or expanding to Infinity is absurd. So now I see why you think an infinite regress of causes is absurd. Forgive me for not seeing this earlier. With that in mind, consider the following:

You cannot have an infinite number of regressing causes to the Infinite because you cannot count to infinity. So the idea of an ‘infinite regress of causes resulting in Existence Being Inifnite’ is absurd. Anything that is absurd/illogical/paradoxical must be rejected. So we have the following options:

  1. Existence came from non-existence
  2. There is an infinite regress of causes but Existence is not Infinite
  3. Existence Is Infinite (Existence had no beginning and has no end)
  4. 1, 2, and 3, are all paradoxical.
  5. I cannot makes sense of 1, 2, 3, and 4, yet I do not think them to be paradoxical.

Which do you think is correct?