PDA

View Full Version : Is it possible to disprove God?


Diogenes the Cynic
01-07-2004, 10:59 PM
No.

olanv
01-07-2004, 11:08 PM
Does this board hide the first post from the person who posted it? I cannot see a first post other than "no".

I'm interested, Diogenes, in what compells you to such certainty that something should either remain uncertain for all time, or that God necessarily exists.

PatriotX
01-07-2004, 11:14 PM
God could only be disproved if "God" were precisely defined. A nebulous definition leaves a nearly infinite amount of wiggle room.


olanv,
The hamsters are chewing on your OP.

olanv
01-07-2004, 11:18 PM
My topic starting post is below.

Apologies if this is the wrong forum for this post!
Do you think that it may be potentially possible to disprove God?


This question fascinates me with regards to how a theist would answer it, being as their arguments tend to fall back on the *possibility* for God to exist.

I'm assuming then, that "they" would suggest that it is completely, totally, utterly, for as long as existence is and all possibility of that existence, that it's not even a remote possibility that such a thing as a disproof of God could ever emerge. This would work to the effect of securing the existence of God in their mind, even if the theist was ever totally convinced that God didn't exist. A strange paradox.

I think it is possible that God is able to be disproven, I believe that this is still open for answer, and that the answer will be "yes" or "no", and that this answer will be a fact in every sense of the word.

laigle
01-07-2004, 11:20 PM
In general, you can't prove a negative. Now, if god were properly defined, it's quite possible that the definition would prove incoherent. But that's the best your'e gonna get.

olanv
01-07-2004, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by SimonX
God could only be disproved if "God" were precisely defined. A nebulous definition leaves a nearly infinite amount of wiggle room.


Thank you SimonX. I re-posted my "op".

I suppose that's true. But then I started thinking, "Ok, so you define God as a loaf of bread. Does that really mean that you've proven the existence of God?". Strange.

olanv
01-07-2004, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by laigle
In general, you can't prove a negative. Now, if god were properly defined, it's quite possible that the definition would prove incoherent. But that's the best your'e gonna get.

Between your use of "properly" and SimonX's use of "precisely", I started thinking, "Is it possible to disprove something defined as being impossible to disprove?". It seems to me that there should be a method of at least falsifying this claim, and thus the possibility to prove or disprove it.

PatriotX
01-07-2004, 11:38 PM
Well, if you could show that it's impossible for a loaf of bread to exist then, you could disprove God.
Generally, since God is assigned an infinite number of superlative qualities, (making for an infinitely nebulous definition ;) ) there's no impossibility possible. Therefore, in such cases, there's no way to "disprove God."

Diogenes the Cynic
01-07-2004, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by olanv
Does this board hide the first post from the person who posted it? I cannot see a first post other than "no".

I'm interested, Diogenes, in what compells you to such certainty that something should either remain uncertain for all time, or that God necessarily exists.
First of all, welcome to the board.

Secondly, since you're new here I should start by saying that I personally don't believe in God or anything supernatural at all.

Disproving God, however, is impossible in any systematic manner since falsifying God would require some hypothesis or theory of "God" which could be subjected to an empirical test. There is no way to "test" for God, so there is no way to falsify it in a scientific sense.


Part of the problem. as SimonX pointed out, is that God is not very clearly defined to begin with.

To use one of the favorite SDMB analogies, can you prove that there is not an Invisible Pink Unicorn floating over your head? How would you prove it?


Asking if God can be disproven is the wrong question. the rel question is can the traditional concept of god be supported with empirical evidence. It cannot. The default presumption in science then, is that something is presumed not to exist until it can be proven to exist.

But non-existence can never be proven in an absolute sense without a testable theory.

olanv
01-08-2004, 12:03 AM
I hope this doesn't change the topic. In light of what you've all said, what would be some bare essential definitions to God?

I'll try some and see if you agree or disagree. I want to see if I can disprove God.

1.)Creator of the earth and everything consisting in it and of it.
2.)Is an intelligent being.
3.)Exists.

That could just describe a colony of extra terrestrials though.

So I'll add a couple more.

4.)Is not a colony of extra-terrestrials.
5.)Cannot be disproven.

That's 5 criteria.

Who would disagree with these criteria? Why?

John Mace
01-08-2004, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
No.
Word!

olanv
01-08-2004, 12:14 AM
I am hoping for criteria that places against me a hopelessness for disproof. Something that both a theist and a logitician would aknowledge, "If this argument can be made convincingly, then I conceed my claim.".

"5.) Cannot be disproven."

I think that's an excellent example of something that places tremendous burden on myself. If anyone can think of others, I'd appreciate adopting them into my definition of God. I will then see if I can disprove this compiled list of attributes.

olanv
01-08-2004, 12:23 AM
6.) People disagree on many critical attributes of God, and all of these disagreements are correct interpretations of god, including the ones that directly contradict each other and ones that self refereentially disagree with this statement.

???

Any others?

Diogenes the Cynic
01-08-2004, 12:30 AM
I think you'll have to wait for someone who believes in God to define it for you. I think we're all non-theists in here right now.

olanv
01-08-2004, 12:34 AM
7.) If this proof infact disproves God, then it is automatically, by definition of God, a proof of God. A statement that declares God's existence as a positive is, by definition of God, proof of God.

God is defined as a being that is proven when disproven, and proven when asserted in any way. Even if all of Gods attributes are shown to be undeniably false (including existence), simply by the act of this disproof, one must accept that it, by definition is a proof for God, and must also accept steps 1-5 unconditionally.


Make it is difficult as the imagination can wander.
Any others? I wanna nail the coffin.

olanv
01-08-2004, 12:35 AM
Diogenes,
Maybe you can devise a clever logical trap for me though! I imagine that non-theists will be better equipped for this task then theists. I'm sure I'm missing many.

olanv
01-08-2004, 12:46 AM
8.) In a disproof of God, it is understood that

a.) God is not being referred to
b.) God cannot be referred to
c.) It cannot be implied that god is being referred to

per, the definition of God.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-08-2004, 12:47 AM
OK, just as an exercise...

God is invisible, immaterial, silent and utterly undetectable either to human senses or to any possible inference from scientific investigation.

Prove it doesn't exist.

Voyager
01-08-2004, 12:49 AM
Well, theists have had two millennia to come up with explanations for pretty much anything we can think of. To echo what others have said, you need to get the theist to start with a definition. If the god is that who created the earth according to Genesis in 4004 BC, the god can be, of not disproven, made unlikely to a very large amount. If the definition is that superior being who floats in the sky watching over us, but not helping, and in general being indistinguishable from chance, you're out of luck.

Theists, when cornered, retreat to faith anyway, so even if they admit there is neither proof nor evidence for their god, they still feel justified in believing.

olanv
01-08-2004, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by Voyager
Well, theists have had two millennia to come up with explanations for pretty much anything we can think of. To echo what others have said, you need to get the theist to start with a definition. If the god is that who created the earth according to Genesis in 4004 BC, the god can be, of not disproven, made unlikely to a very large amount. If the definition is that superior being who floats in the sky watching over us, but not helping, and in general being indistinguishable from chance, you're out of luck.

Theists, when cornered, retreat to faith anyway, so even if they admit there is neither proof nor evidence for their god, they still feel justified in believing.

So, the goal is to start off with all possible outs that a theist takes, and define God by all of those outs, and ONLY those outs, plus the positive claims they make about God. That way, the argument is not vulnerable to the "agreement of definition clause", because all possible modes of defining are covered.

John Mace
01-08-2004, 12:55 AM
I think we can presume that if it could be proven God does not exist, it would have been done by now. And by that I mean a purely logical proof, not one based on physical observations. As has already been clearly stated in this thread, science cannot prove that something does not exist. It can only demonstrate a likelihood that it does not exist.

olanv
01-08-2004, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
OK, just as an exercise...

God is invisible, immaterial, silent and utterly undetectable either to human senses or to any possible inference from scientific investigation.

Prove it doesn't exist.

This is an excellent means of finding more properties to tack on to the definition of God. If an argument works here, then tack it on as an exclusion clause that is not allowed to be used in an argument against God, and have that be a definition of God.

The first question that comes to mind is whether anything can exist that is not able to be discerned in some way by another discerning being, given the proper conditions.

Can God, for example, decide to show God to people if God wills it so? Can God decide to give the impression of Gods existence to people if God wills it so? Can people detect the possibility of God if God is not able to be possibly discerned? If God is not able to be discerned, and yet people hypothesize the existence of God, is this a contradiction? Can people hypothesize the existence of a being that has not willed it's discernability to be present, and equally has the properties of indiscernability at its disposal? If so, then people are able to have a thought that comes from nothing at all. This means that something can come from nothing at all. God, however, is not nothing at all... as that would be non-existence. Therefor, people are recieving a substance from an immaterial body that is not God, not bound by deterministic law, nor conscious in any way.

This allows for numerous scenarios. One, is that at any moment, this immaterial realm that is not God can give us the ability to discern God, as it's not bound by material law, nor conscious law, or rather, a law of intent, such as the kind attributed to an existant immaterial being. At a minimum, one can through this means, disprove the stability of God being able to hold such a state of elusiveness via Gods intent. What's happening here, is to attack the properties of God... so, maybe god is invisible, but is God always going to be invisible, does God always have to be invisible? So, far, this necessity is shown to be a contigency... this definition of God is a contingency. Understand? The steps from here on out are much easier, as one then places the definition squarely on the person doing the defining -- the power transfers to us via this contingency mechanism.

olanv
01-08-2004, 01:34 AM
9.) God controls every aspect of that which comes from nothing at all, such that anything emerging from nothing at all cannot disprove God, and by default, definitions 1-5.

olanv
01-08-2004, 01:54 AM
Voyager, thank you.

10.) Faith is a valid and sound argument when declaring the existence of God. Faith is not valid nor sound when used in any means to effect a disproof of God.

olanv
01-08-2004, 02:03 AM
Addition to definition 10.

Faith is undefined. If one attempts to define faith, by definition of God, this is immediate proof of God, and immediate refutation of any possible proposal of disproof of god.

Those 10 properties of God seem to be quite a task.

Who here would consider that God still exists if this being can be refuted? If you don't or won't, could you please add a definition of your own to the pot?

olanv
01-08-2004, 02:12 AM
Apologies, one more add for the evening, and I'll look forward to input. I think God can be refuted, so please help by supplying irrefutable properties as part of Gods' definition!

When I said "If one attempts to define faith....."

What I meant was, "Only if people who intend to arrive at a refutation of God, or for whatever reason, happen upon a refutation of God by accident, attempt to define faith, then an immediate proof of God is present."

I'm trying to convey that people who believe in God can use faith as an undefined term insomuch as it doesn't allow God to be refuted. If, in defining faith, some sort of refutation emerges, then it is immediate proof for God. This is an excellent amendment to the already stated "Faith is a valid and sound argument when affirming the existence of God. Affirming the existence of God forces unconditional acceptance of properties 1-5. Faith is not a valid or sound argument when used in any means to effect a refutation of God.".

I cannot think of a tighter trap than this one. I must admit that I'm not sure that I can get out of it at this point. If you know how to make it more difficult, please do so.

IWLN
01-08-2004, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by olanv
Can God, for example, decide to show God to people if God wills it so?Yes.Can God decide to give the impression of Gods existence to people if God wills it so?Yes.Can people detect the possibility of God if God is not able to be possibly discerned? If God is not able to be discerned, and yet people hypothesize the existence of God, is this a contradiction?You would have to define "discerned". I think "discernment" would be a matter of personal opinion or experience.Can people hypothesize the existence of a being that has not willed it's discernability to be present, and equally has the properties of indiscernability at its disposal?I can hypothesize anything I want. I can't prove everything I hypothesize.If so, then people are able to have a thought that comes from nothing at all. This means that something can come from nothing at all.The thought doesn't come from nothing. It comes from other people.God, however, is not nothing at all... as that would be non-existence.True and false. He is not "nothing", but it remains to be seen by many whether he is just a concept or a future discovery.Therefor, people are recieving a substance from an immaterial body that is not God, not bound by deterministic law, nor conscious in any way.Big leap. I don't think I understand what you are saying. Define a "substance" that comes from an immaterial body?

You can tack on as many properties you want to the definition of G-d. You can even make him pink if youíd like. The only thing you can really be sure of is that he either does or doesnít exist. Fifty/fifty chance of being right or wrong. You're not going to come up with a workable answer on this one. Unless, you are something more than another SDMB poster. Shall we hypothesize on that?
;)

Mogle
01-08-2004, 06:22 AM
[Lurker mode off]

Originally posted by IWLN
The only thing you can really be sure of is that he either does or doesnít exist. Fifty/fifty chance of being right or wrong. You're not going to come up with a workable answer on this one.

I just rolled a random number of D6s and added the scores together. Now, you do the same.
There are two possible outcomes, you will either beat my score or you wont. Does that mean you have a 50% chance of beating my score ?

[Lurker mode on]

Aeschines
01-08-2004, 08:16 AM
Hi. I'm a pantheist. I believe that the Divine, or God, inheres in all things. Further, I think that a monotheistic big-G GOD not only does not exist, but is also philosophically untenable.

First, if we take the pantheist line, whatever is Divine is synonymous with the original substance and now exists in a near-infinite number of modes by means of That Which Is. This granted, one may question what the purpose of the term "Divine" is if the Divine is synonymous with Reality; but I would hold that just as one light may be brighter than another yet both be light, the Divine can fulfill its purpose better in one mode than another, and thus be Divine to a higher degree (this also helps to explain the origin of evil, but I degree).

To the contrary, monotheism holds that there is one original God that created all things, that nevertheless is separate from His creation and not synonymous with it. To refute the concept of a monotheistic God, then, it is necessary only to refute this aspect of the belief, as any version of monotheism without this tenet is by definition not monotheism.

To repeat, the premise that we must refute is this:

God is existentially primary and anterior to, superior to, and separate from all His creation.

Arguments against this premise:

1. Aquinas struggled with this one. We can see that 2 +2 = 4 must always be true, regardless of whether God exists or not. Further, God could not make 2 + 2 = 5 true. Hence, God is not ontologically superior to the rules of mathematics, nor did He "create" them.

This is not a problem for pantheism, as the Divine is synonymous with That Which Is, including number.

2. If we consider set theory, we can definite a set "All of Reality" and consider it to be equivalent to the set "the Divine," nor is there any contradiction here. But if we consider monotheism, the set "All of Reality" must include both God and His creation, which set would greater in ontological magnitude than the set merely of "God," which is supposed to be greatest.

2. As to whether God is separate from His spiritual and material creation, I would aver that there is no such thing as ontological "separateness," merely separateness by mode. For if we say that God is separate from His creation (that is, God is not equivalent to His creation, nor is it a part of Him), it must follow that he is distinct from every single element of it. For it would be absurd to say that God includes this one mountain, but no other. Hence, God must be distinct from everything else in order to be considered God (according to monotheism). This is unlike a person, who need not be distinct from every element in order to be considered a person. Am I distinct from the air I breathe or the bacteria in my colon? Am I less me if your words are now in my head? No. Nor do we find any object or even mental concept in our experience that is distinct from any other ontologically, but merely by means of modality. In other words, the lines of poetry in my mind are distinct from this refrigerator only because I choose not to paint them onto the refrigerator, thus making them "part" of it.

So, looking at the required distinctness of God from any given thing, it is clear that this "distinctness" is not of a mode that we can conceptualize, as God is not made distinct from any given thing by means of distance, or color, or beauty, or any such thing; contrariwise, there is no danger (by definition) of God merging any of these things by approaching them.

Hence, one necessary concept of monotheism--the distinctness of God from His creation, without which pantheism would hold--is seen to have nothing in common with distinctness as typically conceived. Hence, it were just as true to say, "God has quality X," as to say "God is distinct from His creation." But since "Quality X" is undefined, it is a void concept, pertaining to nothing. Hence, God (as conceived monotheistically) cannot exist.

Q.E.D.

robertliguori
01-08-2004, 08:19 AM
I don't get this can't prove a negative thing.
For all entities that we term God, if they existed, the world wouldn't suck.
The world sucks.
Therefore, they don't exist.
QED by problem of evil and M.T.

hypnoboth
01-08-2004, 08:40 AM
If you want to see how a philosopher thinks about God, and where definitions lead you, I suggest "How to Think about God" by Mortimer J. Adler, one of the great unappreciated philosophers of our time. From a religious point of view it is a dry thing, but from a philosophical point of view it is very clear, and you can at least pinpoint where you disagree with him very easily. No "faith" here.

Aeschines
01-08-2004, 08:42 AM
Robert,

Yep, a crude weapon, but deadly.

Aldebaran
01-08-2004, 09:47 AM
Since you ask for some "definition" from religious point of view to build your case on, I can give you a translation of Al Qur'an, sura al-ichlaas (112):

qul huwa allahu ahadu :
Say: He is God as Only (= God the one and only God)

allahu assamadu :
God the permanent (= God the eternal and absolute)

lam yalid wa lam yulad :
He did not beget and is not begotten (= He has no offspring and is uncreated)

wa lam yakun lahu, kufuwan ahadun :
And not one is equal to Him (= there is no other like Him).


Good luck :)

Salaam. A

Ramanujan
01-08-2004, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by laigle
In general, you can't prove a negative. Now, if god were properly defined, it's quite possible that the definition would prove incoherent. But that's the best your'e gonna get.why do people continue to say this? it's simply not true. for instance:

P -> ~Q
P
:.
~Q

proof of a negative.

i think what you mean is you can't by searching prove the lack of something's existence, since it's possible you just didn't find it. but i wish people would stop saying you can't prove a negative. because you can.

Eindal
01-08-2004, 10:29 AM
This is a piece of one of the ways I used to disprove god (I know a lot of ways. Really nice game to kill time):

1) Something without a meaning doesn't exist.
Therefore, if the word god has no meaning, no god does exist.
(The same as 2, but with the meaning of god without a meaning defined equaling nothing being already defined as no thing; it's postulating that there may be things we have no words for but no words may be allowed if we haven't things for them.)

2) Something meaning the same as something else is something else and nothing of it own.
Therefore, if the word god means the same as the universe, a loaf of bread, etc. god were the same, so no god does exist.
(That means, pantheism is pointless. They just call the universe god, no difference at all (except god does something, see 4); the postulate is, if there is one thing, one word shall be enough.)

3) Something being defined with unique attributes having no effect on the universe doesn't exist.
Therefore, if god means something, but does nothing, no god does exist.
(That means, we can say there is a god omniscent, benevolent etc., but as long as we don't say he does miracles or created the world or interfering with mankind in any other way, he is not needed. Same valid for afterlife: fine if it's there, but we don't know. Seems somewhat similar to ockhams razor to me.)

4) Something being defined as having a certain effect on the universe which is already covered by science does not exist.
Therefore, if god is supposed to do something, but science can explain it someday without god, no god does exist.
(That means, if you have a better explaination, defining better as it can explain other things as well, you will take it. Essentially, that's ockhams razor, I think.)

Aldebaran
01-08-2004, 10:43 AM
Eindal,

Since my religion declares God to be

1. The Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything
2. The Only Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything
3. The Only Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything that has ever been and shall ever be the Only Eternal Absolute Creator of everything

this means also that this Creator has caused everything science has discovered and proved to exist upto now (taking alo in account the relativeness of such proof) or shall discover in the future.
How do you proof that this Creator doesn't exist.

Salaam. A

Aldebaran
01-08-2004, 10:45 AM
Eindal,

Since my religion declares God to be

1. The Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything
2. The Only Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything
3. The Only Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything that has ever been and shall ever be the Only Eternal Absolute Creator of everything

this means also that this Creator has caused/created everything human made/developped science has discovered and proved to exist upto now (taking alo in account the relativeness of such proof) or shall discover in the future.
How do you proof that this Creator doesn't exist.

Salaam. A

Aeschines
01-08-2004, 10:49 AM
By Eindal
That means, pantheism is pointless. They just call the universe god, no difference at all (except god does something, see 4); the postulate is, if there is one thing, one word shall be enough.)

No. The laws of math do not require a universe to be true, therefore the set All That Is is larger than the universe. Hence, All That Is, or the Divine, is not equivalent to the universe.

But let's call that a quibble with your counterargument. Pantheism is not superfluous as a belief set in that it not only states the obvious--What Is, is--but it also makes statements about What Is that might not be so obvious. For example, I believe that there is a fundamental sat-chit-ananda (being-consciousness-bliss) vector within What Is that can make modes of being more divine than others.

Aldebaran
01-08-2004, 11:36 AM
Which can lead to the question:

Is "God" - or what you understand as being the equivalent - supposed to be "conscious" ?

If so, prove it.
If not, prove it.


Salaam. A

Aldebaran
01-08-2004, 11:37 AM
Forgot to add:

If you can't prove either of the two possibilities, is that a proof that there is no God ?


Salaam. A

Revtim
01-08-2004, 12:01 PM
There really is no need to disprove God. This particular one (the God of Abraham, Jesus, and Muhammad) will simply be forgotted someday like the thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) of others throughout history that are no longer worshipped.

No one needed to disprove Odin, and nobody is trying to get public schools to teach the theory that the world was created by the sons of Bor from Ymir's dead body in the middle of Ginnungagap. I hope.

Aeschines
01-08-2004, 12:10 PM
Wha'?

Ramanujan
01-08-2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Aeschines
No. The laws of math do not require a universe to be true, therefore the set All That Is is larger than the universe. Hence, All That Is, or the Divine, is not equivalent to the universe.no, the laws of math do indeed require a universe, they do not exist independently of it. at its heart, even math is empirical. for example, there is no mathematical definition of what "x is true" actually means, that is data gathered from the universe. at its core, math makes assumptions and works with things that must be taken as granted. they are taken as granted because of empirical observation.

also, the universe is defined as "all that is". so unfortunately, there is nothing more.

John Zahn
01-08-2004, 12:32 PM
Since my religion declares God to be

1. The Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything
2. The Only Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything
3. The Only Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything that has ever been and shall ever be the Only Eternal Absolute Creator of everything

this means also that this Creator has caused everything science has discovered and proved to exist upto now (taking alo in account the relativeness of such proof) or shall discover in the future.
How do you proof that this Creator doesn't exist.

Salaam. A

One doesnít. You do. You can declare God to be anything your heart desires, and none of us are going to be any the wiser for it including you. I donít know why some religious people think this is there Ace in the Hole by saying you canĎt prove He does not exist. Often, proving A exists, and proving A does not exist are not equal in what they demand. One good reason scientists often say they donít prove negatives on existence claims on a large scale such as this, is the very likelihood they donít exist in the first place. After all, how do you gather evidence on something that in all likelihood doesn't exist? Negatives can be proved all the time when two things are met: it has a descriptive term, and one limits the domain of the search. This is not the case here. You donít give us anything to work with. Everything you offered up are metaphysical concepts. I could talk about souls, ghosts, spirits, IPU until the cows come home, and still no one couldnít prove they didnít exist either. Give God some descriptive terms and have some falsifiability built into it; then, let's see how far you go with it.

JZ

Aldebaran
01-08-2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Aeschines
Wha'?


I second the above :)


Revkim, you seem to overlook the fact that the discussion doesn't even turn around "the God of Abraham etc..."

But around the "concept God"
as in
"supernatural being/not being, influencing-and/or creating life and being on earth and the universe".

A concetp that seems to have existed in one form or the other for as long as one can trace the history of humanity upto now.


Salaam. A

Aldebaran
01-08-2004, 12:46 PM
John Z

The discussion is about the question if it is possible to proof that God can't exist.
Next there was posted that by necessity one should have a "definition" of "God" before one could fight such definiton in order to gather proof for the non-existence.

Thus I provided for a definition and next clarified a bit its meaning.

It is not my task to provide for the proof of the non existing of God, but the task of those who ask if it is possible to prove that, no?

But you seem to say that I want to prevent this to show up here. I don't. I'm waiting for it to come :)

Salaam. A

TonyJ
01-08-2004, 01:19 PM
IIRC, any definition containing a contradiction is false, and I haven't come across any definition of God (sufficiently God-like) that doesn't have some contradiction. This is in part why I don't believe in God, at least how some define it.

So, for me, there is no need to disprove it; the definition of God (as I've heard it) is false as-is.

Of course, this doesn't mean God doesn't exist; it may just mean that we haven't found the right definition for it yet.

Aldebaran
01-08-2004, 01:23 PM
Tony, It would be interesting to hear what contradiction you see in what I posted to provide for some definition of God.

Salaam. A

olanv
01-08-2004, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Aldebaran
Eindal,

Since my religion declares God to be

1. The Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything
2. The Only Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything
3. The Only Uncreated Eternal Absolute Creator of everything that has ever been and shall ever be the Only Eternal Absolute Creator of everything

this means also that this Creator has caused/created everything human made/developped science has discovered and proved to exist upto now (taking alo in account the relativeness of such proof) or shall discover in the future.
How do you proof that this Creator doesn't exist.

Salaam. A

Number one has some interesting implications. An absolute creator of everything effectively means the only creator of anything. This means, that if you believe you create anything, you must define yourself as your own God. If you do not define yourself as your own God, then problems emerge with regards to the perception of will or the purpose for engaging in any action under the auspices of such a perception of will (such as following a commandment of God -- which would be redundant to the extreme).

olanv
01-08-2004, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by IWLN
Yes.Yes.You would have to define "discerned". I think "discernment" would be a matter of personal opinion or experience.I can hypothesize anything I want. I can't prove everything I hypothesize.The thought doesn't come from nothing. It comes from other people.True and false. He is not "nothing", but it remains to be seen by many whether he is just a concept or a future discovery.Big leap. I don't think I understand what you are saying. Define a "substance" that comes from an immaterial body?

You can tack on as many properties you want to the definition of G-d. You can even make him pink if youíd like. The only thing you can really be sure of is that he either does or doesnít exist. Fifty/fifty chance of being right or wrong. You're not going to come up with a workable answer on this one. Unless, you are something more than another SDMB poster. Shall we hypothesize on that?
;)

"The ability for something to be discerned" is shorthand for "otherness exists".

This does not suggest whether or not it HAS been discerned, or will ever be discerned, only that it is able to be discerned.

The point here is that our hypothesis of a being who by definition is supposed to elude us in every way either calls into question this beings ability to elude us in every way or it calls into question the power for this being to reveal themselves to us.

In the instance that the being can reveal itself to us, the definition is a contingent definition.
In the instance that the being truly does have every property that can elude us, and never reveals itself to us, the only hypothetical rescue for this beings existence is to assume that this hypothesis of its existence in the meme pool of human minds must have come from absolutely nothing at all. Since this being is said to exist, and absolutely nothing at all, by definition does not exist, then it follows that we are recieving something from a "source" other than this immaterial being. Since this source, by definition, has nothing to effect or affect, even an immaterial being cannot "control" the emergence of something from nothing.

Since the emergence of something from nothing has no predictive power, this being can be proven to not be able to control the necessity of it's immateriality with regards to what defines a property of it's being in existence.

What this does, is make the property of immateriality a contingent property to this beings definition. Something that effectively refutes the definition.

Aldebaran
01-08-2004, 01:59 PM
olanv

Since God is uncreated = not even created by Himself because already always there , there is in my view no need for God to define anything about or considering God. And why should or would God have any perception of "will".

The problem is that since we are limited in our description, we define God with human perception, thus including words like "absolute" and all the rest of it.
While God has no language and no emotions and no "will" since God is God, which is something completely incomrehensible for our minds.

Salaam. A

olanv
01-08-2004, 02:09 PM
11.) Using the concept of fraud to refute God, by definition of God, always proves God. A refutation of God cannot discuss the concept of fraud in any form, such a concept is necessary ommitted from any topic of refutation, per the definition of God.

12.) The concept of deception can only be used insomuch as it does not refute God.

Is there anyone here who conceivably objects, that if these twelve properties of God are refuted as stated, that god is effectively refuted? If not, can you submit your own step for refutation?

olanv
01-08-2004, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Aldebaran
olanv

Since God is uncreated = not even created by Himself because already always there , there is in my view no need for God to define anything about or considering God. And why should or would God have any perception of "will".

The problem is that since we are limited in our description, we define God with human perception, thus including words like "absolute" and all the rest of it.
While God has no language and no emotions and no "will" since God is God, which is something completely incomrehensible for our minds.

Salaam. A

Uncreated = property
Exists = Property
Creator = property

Creator is anthropomorphic and connotates perception of existence. Do you mean that God is existence, as opposed to created existence?

Regardless, my reply to you dealt with the issue of ones perception of god who doesn't believe that they are God.
I wasn't relating this argument specifically to Gods perception of self. You can check my reply to your propeties again.

blowero
01-08-2004, 02:40 PM
Which god are we talking about? The Judeo-Christian God? I have heard this god disproved in the following way:

The J.C. God has the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence.

If God is omniscient, He knows if evil exists.

If God is omnipotent, He can remove evil from existence.

If God is benevolent, He cannot allow evil to exist.

Evil exists; therefore God does not.

dakravel
01-08-2004, 02:41 PM
1. Aquinas struggled with this one. We can see that 2 +2 = 4 must always be true, regardless of whether God exists or not. Further, God could not make 2 + 2 = 5 true. Hence, God is not ontologically superior to the rules of mathematics, nor did He "create" them.
God probably could make 2+2=5 true, but in this universe, it simply is not. Aquinas also mentioned that one should not fault God or anyone for not being able to produce something with contradictory qualities, such as a round square.

I don't get this can't prove a negative thing.
For all entities that we term God, if they existed, the world wouldn't suck.
The world sucks.
Therefore, they don't exist.
QED by problem of evil and M.T.
I still don't remember who did this "evil in the world" proof, but it assumes things about God that may or may not be true. Primarily that God would attempt to remove everything that everyone would consider 'suckage' or 'evil'. Of course then TGU or DtC is gonna call me on the "mysterious ways" stuff, but I have no problem with that.
Kinda like kids and shots, kids get hurt by shots, and hate 'em. You might try to explain that while shots hurt, they are ultimately beneficial. If the kid doesn't understand, then it seems like you're inflicting harm upon him for no reason.

IIRC, any definition containing a contradiction is false, and I haven't come across any definition of God (sufficiently God-like) that doesn't have some contradiction. This is in part why I don't believe in God, at least how some define it.
That's how a reductio proof works, simply assume that something is true, and then derive a contradiction. If you can do that, then the assumed positive is false. But like you said, it all depends on the definition of God. Kinda reminds me of the Hitchiker's Guide.

blowero
01-08-2004, 02:55 PM
dakravel:

Primarily that God would attempt to remove everything that everyone would consider 'suckage' or 'evil'. Of course then TGU or DtC is gonna call me on the "mysterious ways" stuff, but I have no problem with that.

Is God benevolent or is He not? If He is benevolent, he cannot allow evil by the definition of benevolence.

Kinda like kids and shots, kids get hurt by shots, and hate 'em. You might try to explain that while shots hurt, they are ultimately beneficial. If the kid doesn't understand, then it seems like you're inflicting harm upon him for no reason.

But parents are not omnipotent. If I had the power to make shots painless, yet chose to inflict pain on my child, it would indeed be "for no reason." Besides which, your analogy assumes that the evil is necessitated by a greater good. What is the greater good that necessitates birth defects, disease, earthquakes, hurricanes, mental illness, etc.?

Staale Nordlie
01-08-2004, 03:20 PM
Diogenes the Cynic: Can you give an example of something that can be disproved?

olanv
01-08-2004, 03:36 PM
But parents are not omnipotent. If I had the power to make shots painless, yet chose to inflict pain on my child, it would indeed be "for no reason." Besides which, your analogy assumes that the evil is necessitated by a greater good. What is the greater good that necessitates birth defects, disease, earthquakes, hurricanes, mental illness, etc.?

Yes, but people presumably have the power to not reproduce. There is no law that says you have to reproduce. You're supposing these hypotheticals as if reproduction is a must and a given. You know that by reproducing, your child will recieve a painful shot. Yet you call this a benefit? Surely not for the child. You are also aware that the child will most likely die. Yet, you would probably state that you would prevent death if you could. But again, you begin twisting an entire morality around some vague idea that reproduction is a given and a must. That simply isn't the case.

TonyJ
01-08-2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Aldebaran
Tony, It would be interesting to hear what contradiction you see in what I posted to provide for some definition of God.

Salaam. A
All right. You say he is the creator of all, which necessarily includes himself, yet he is also un-created. So, this is a false property (and you'll need to redefine).

(This is a tad semantical.)

In a sense, however, this also implies that certain qualities - e.g. omnipotence - cannot hold. I mean, he created almost everything, which means he's not quite unlimited (i.e. all-powerful). He is also not powerful enough or simply unwilling to create another God, per your definition. So, it could be said that there are certain things beyond even God, I suppose.

In any case, I wholeheartedly agree that we may be unable to explain Godly attributes in our un-Godly, human expressions. It may be, as the lyric goes, like trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubble gum. If this is the case, then this entire effort is moot.

Bryan Ekers
01-08-2004, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Aeschines
Hi. I'm a pantheist. I believe that the Divine, or God, inheres in all things.

Including kitchen utensils? Does that make you a frying pantheist?



This joke brought to you by Grant Naylor.

blowero
01-08-2004, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by olanv
Yes, but people presumably have the power to not reproduce. There is no law that says you have to reproduce. You're supposing these hypotheticals as if reproduction is a must and a given.

Huh? I made no such supposition. I merely refuted your analogy that God is like a parent who gets an immunization for his/her child. The difference is that parents are not omnipotent, whereas God ostensibly is. Were God not omnipotent, then yes, He might have to choose the lesser of 2 evils from time to time, as parents do. But since He is omnipotent, your analogy does not hold.

You know that by reproducing, your child will recieve a painful shot. Yet you call this a benefit?

When did I call it a "benefit"? You are the one who made the analogy. I assumed you were making the point that parents have to hurt their child momentarily to protect the child from possible sickness later. What does reproducing have to do with it?

Besides, were I omnipotent, I could conceive the child AND give it a painless shot. For that matter, I could just end disease and render the shot unneccesary. So again, your analogy doesn't hold.

But let me answer you question anyway. When parents conceive a child, they either don't consider the consequences of their actions, or they decide that the benefits outweigh the evils. I think most parents figure that the potential for happiness of their child outweighs the risk of suffering. That's the greater good. If they were omnipotent, they would never have to make such a choice. Now, would you care to answer my question?

What is the greater good that necessitates birth defects, disease, earthquakes, hurricanes, mental illness, etc.?


Surely not for the child. You are also aware that the child will most likely die. Yet, you would probably state that you would prevent death if you could. But again, you begin twisting an entire morality around some vague idea that reproduction is a given and a must. That simply isn't the case.
You're way off track; I made no such assertion. A couple is free to choose not to bring a child into a world that they consider evil. But again, if they were omnipotent, they would not have to make such a choice; they could simply make the world not evil.

IWLN
01-08-2004, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Mogle
[Lurker mode off]



I just rolled a random number of D6s and added the scores together. Now, you do the same.
There are two possible outcomes, you will either beat my score or you wont. Does that mean you have a 50% chance of beating my score ?

[Lurker mode on] Good point. I take the percentage back and make it an either or. :(

IWLN
01-08-2004, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by blowero
Which god are we talking about? The Judeo-Christian God? I have heard this god disproved in the following way:

The J.C. God has the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence.

If God is omniscient, He knows if evil exists.

If God is omnipotent, He can remove evil from existence.

If God is benevolent, He cannot allow evil to exist.

Evil exists; therefore God does not. G-d knows evil exists. He created it. The problem with the J.C. G-d's definition is, it is completely contradictory. You're right. That G-d cannot possibly exist. The Christian explanation of evil explains that someone rebelled against G-d and became evil. It indicates that G-d is not as strong or stronger of a force than evil or he would have known and stopped him.

In your world where G-d doesn't exist, there's still evil. How do you explain the evil? In a world where G-d exists, why is he supposed to rescue us? We have a finite amount of years to achieve all we can(collectively). Why do you want someone else to "fix it" or help you live it? If he's wise enough to let you do it on your own, why does that mean he doesn't exist?

What is the greater good that necessitates birth defects, disease, earthquakes, hurricanes, mental illness, etc.?With no contrast, how could we know what happy and safe feels like. Wait, he could just pre-program us to feel happy and safe. Over-population, poverty. He could just solve that problem for us. Well then we wouldn't have to lift a finger to help anyone else. We would be selfish. No wait, he could take that away. Make us unselfish. People would still die of old age. That's sad. No, he could take that away. Make us live forever. The emotions and all the good things we learn to feel, he could have just programmed in too. Who needs experiences when he could just hard-wire them in? Achievement, pride, increasing our intellect. He could just make us think we should feel a sense of accomplishment. G-d really screwed up when he decided to let us do our own work to become all that we can be? Are you sure that's what you would want, assuming G-d's existence?

John Zahn
01-08-2004, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by IWLN
With no contrast, how could we know what happy and safe feels like. Wait, he could just pre-program us to feel happy and safe. Over-population, poverty. He could just solve that problem for us. Well then we wouldn't have to lift a finger to help anyone else. We would be selfish. No wait, he could take that away. Make us unselfish. People would still die of old age. That's sad. No, he could take that away. Make us live forever. The emotions and all the good things we learn to feel, he could have just programmed in too. Who needs experiences when he could just hard-wire them in? Achievement, pride, increasing our intellect. He could just make us think we should feel a sense of accomplishment. G-d really screwed up when he decided to let us do our own work to become all that we can be? Are you sure that's what you would want, assuming G-d's existence? [/B]

From your description, it sounds much like the way some have described Heaven would be like. If you believe in that sort of thing, have you asked yourself is this what you want?

JZ

IWLN
01-08-2004, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by John Zahn
From your description, it sounds much like the way some have described Heaven would be like. If you believe in that sort of thing, have you asked yourself is this what you want?

JZ Yes. I would want that. But not without this life, this experience first. Grief and pain didn't skip me, but what a great experience overall! Although I'm hoping we won't have some of the grief and pain in the next life, I don't think that means we can't be challenged or excited. I don't believe the "traditional" versions of heaven, well mostly because religion made it up. I do believe we continue, but I'm NOT playing a harp.

dakravel
01-08-2004, 10:58 PM
Is God benevolent or is He not? If He is benevolent, he cannot allow evil by the definition of benevolence.
But parents are not omnipotent. If I had the power to make shots painless, yet chose to inflict pain on my child, it would indeed be "for no reason." Besides which, your analogy assumes that the evil is necessitated by a greater good. What is the greater good that necessitates birth defects, disease, earthquakes, hurricanes, mental illness, etc.?

Humans are just irrational enough that we won't learn from something unless it affects us in an important way, sometimes anyway. I suppose, if we're talking about the J.C. God that he could simply zap the knowledge into our brain and just let us run amok in a perfect world, but then what's the point? Why would anyone create something that idolized it's creator and did little to nothing else? Sometimes some things must be learned by experience? I dunno, I'll have to think about it IWLN

dakravel
01-08-2004, 11:04 PM
Grah, I'm an incompetent. I'll have to think about what blowero said, and I agree with IWLN's last bits.

Diogenes the Cynic: Can you give an example of something that can be disproved?

I'm not Diogenes, but a simple example is that you would assume that a proposition "B" is true. If "B" is true, then "~(~B)" is also true. A proved negative.

IWLN
01-08-2004, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by olanv
This does not suggest whether or not it HAS been discerned, or will ever be discerned, only that it is able to be discerned.It is able to be discerned. But has chosen not to be in a way that would provide empiricle evidence. Because it has not proven to be discernable, does not mean that it can't be.

The point here is that our hypothesis of a being who by definition is supposed to elude us in every way either calls into question this beings ability to elude us in every way or it calls into question the power for this being to reveal themselves to us.There is no reason to posit that this being is supposed to elude us or has not revealed itself in a certain way, that it doesn't have the power.


In the instance that the being truly does have every property that can elude us, and never reveals itself to us, the only hypothetical rescue for this beings existence is to assume that this hypothesis of its existence in the meme pool of human minds must have come from absolutely nothing at all. Since this being is said to exist, and absolutely nothing at all, by definition does not exist, then it follows that we are recieving something from a "source" other than this immaterial being. Since this source, by definition, has nothing to effect or affect, even an immaterial being cannot "control" the emergence of something from nothing.If we are receiving something from a unexplainable "source", then that something is not completely undiscernable.

Since the emergence of something from nothing has no predictive power, this being can be proven to not be able to control the necessity of it's immateriality with regards to what defines a property of it's being in existence.I don't think you can "prove a not".

What this does, is make the property of immateriality a contingent property to this beings definition. Something that effectively refutes the definition.You're coming up with a definition and the being doesn't exist because the definition doesn't work? You lost me there. You would first have to prove you contingent property of immateriality is correct, which isn't possible to do.

And on that note, I'm going to say G-d has been proven to me and others, but there is no method to pass that proof on, or any way to completely "discern" if it is actual proof or delusion. God can't be proven. You can make up different definitions, which also can't be proven and then try and prove the unproven definitions true. You can't prove them false with any real accuracy, since the only real fact you have is man does not have irrefutable proof of G-d.

Aeschines
01-08-2004, 11:33 PM
By Ramanujan
no, the laws of math do indeed require a universe, they do not exist independently of it.

Wrong. So, you're saying that the rules of math require a physical universe to exist? "Yes," you say. But what kind of physical universe? What about an empty void, devoid of matter? "Yes, that would work," perhaps you say. OK, whatabout the raw singularity of the Bing Bang, pre-bang--do the laws exist within that, but could not exist without it? If so, then they can exist without any universe at all, since the raw singularity had no physical, spatial, or temporal properties whatsoever, according to conventional theory.

at its heart, even math is empirical.

Very incorrect. So, you say we understand what pi is (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter) because we observe the value in nature? So, we might turn out to be wrong one day and discover that pi was really exactly 3.15? The conclusion is clearly ludicrous.

for example, there is no mathematical definition of what "x is true" actually means, that is data gathered from the universe.

Unintelligible.

at its core, math makes assumptions and works with things that must be taken as granted. they are taken as granted because of empirical observation.

Indecipherable.

also, the universe is defined as "all that is". so unfortunately, there is nothing more.

That would be true, according to your definition. But number is like the sun; the universe is like a pond reflecting the sunlight. You are trying to argue that, without the pond, the sun does not exist. I am saying that the light shines whether reflected or not.

Aeschines
01-08-2004, 11:44 PM
By Dakravel
God probably could make 2+2=5 true, but in this universe, it simply is not. Aquinas also mentioned that one should not fault God or anyone for not being able to produce something with contradictory qualities, such as a round square.

No, he couldn't. The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 arises from the definition of the terms; it is unalterable.

olanv
01-09-2004, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by IWLN
It is able to be discerned. But has chosen not to be in a way that would provide empiricle evidence. Because it has not proven to be discernable, does not mean that it can't be.

There is no reason to posit that this being is supposed to elude us or has not revealed itself in a certain way, that it doesn't have the power.


If we are receiving something from a unexplainable "source", then that something is not completely undiscernable.

I don't think you can "prove a not".

You're coming up with a definition and the being doesn't exist because the definition doesn't work? You lost me there. You would first have to prove you contingent property of immateriality is correct, which isn't possible to do.

And on that note, I'm going to say G-d has been proven to me and others, but there is no method to pass that proof on, or any way to completely "discern" if it is actual proof or delusion. God can't be proven. You can make up different definitions, which also can't be proven and then try and prove the unproven definitions true. You can't prove them false with any real accuracy, since the only real fact you have is man does not have irrefutable proof of G-d.

Let's rewind here and consider that I'm addressing a very specific set of properties submitted by Aldebaran.

I was basically given properties of "God cannot be detected by humans... God is immaterial...". Stating that something is immaterial is stating that otherness does not exist with regards to this being, that there is no ability for it to be discerned because there is no reference point. The entire point of material is that there is such a thing as otherness and reference-ability.

Material, is synonymous with the ability to be discerned, interacted with... otherness, referenced, difference. Understand?
So, when someone states that something is not material, it's effectively stating that it cannot be referenced, or is not reference-able.

I was given the properties of existence and immateriality. This translates to "exists without otherness", which doesn't make sense. To give the benefit of doubt though, I hypothesized the only way that I know how to hypothesize the existence of a thing without reference-ability (cannot be detected by humans or interacted with by any form of differentiation) -- and that was to suppose that something comes from nothing at all. Instead of simply stopping the argument earlier, I took it an additional step, saying, "Ok, it cannot be detected by humans, but it exists... so how does our hypothesis of it's possible existence emerge, if not from nothing at all?". In stating this, I'm assuming that God must necessarily exist still... I'm taking the conditions at face value.

Do you understand how it is already a contradiction to have a hypothesis in the human meme pool about the existence of a being that is undetectable through human means?

Do you understand why I would have to hypothesize that something comes from nothing at all in order to move an additional step beyond this first contradiction while still assuming that this being exists - since this being was basically defined as "immaterial, exists".

What that statement is effectively saying (immaterial exists) is that singularities exist and interact without the property of referenceability. That's an astonishing claim to make, but I'm taking it at face value.

Urban Ranger
01-09-2004, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by laigle
In general, you can't prove a negative. Now, if god were properly defined, it's quite possible that the definition would prove incoherent. But that's the best your'e gonna get.

You can show that the orthodox Christian attributes for YHWH are in fact contradictory, thus, YHWH cannot exist as defined.

Some might make the completely indefensible assertion that YHWH is not bound by logic, however they just get laughed at.

IWLN
01-09-2004, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by olanv
Let's rewind here and consider that I'm addressing a very specific set of properties submitted by Aldebaran.I'm trying to understand how you came to all of the premises, assumptions and hypothesis from the definition that Aldebaran gave? It doesn't seem to match. Also not discernable is different from incomprehensible. Anyway, I won't butt in anymore. Go for it. Except.....your statement below. Can you tell me how a hypothesis that something comes from nothing helps. This one I don't understand. There is no such thing as nothing. It in itself is an impossibility. There never has been "nothingness" and there never will be.

Do you understand why I would have to hypothesize that something comes from nothing at all in order to move an additional step beyond this first contradiction while still assuming that this being exists - since this being was basically defined as "immaterial, exists".

blowero
01-09-2004, 03:30 AM
Thought I might see you in here, IWLN.:)

Originally posted by IWLN
In your world where G-d doesn't exist, there's still evil. How do you explain the evil? In a world where G-d exists, why is he supposed to rescue us? We have a finite amount of years to achieve all we can(collectively). Why do you want someone else to "fix it" or help you live it?

I don't want God to "fix it", of course (since I don't believe that God exists), but would you agree that since God allows evil to exist (and since God created the universe, he must have created the evil as well), then He cannot be all-benevolent? IOW, if He makes some evil, then we cannot describe him as ALL good.

But since you brought it up, I understand your point about God not helping us and letting us do things on our own (kind of a God 'prime-directive', I guess), but wouldn't you at least expect Him not to go out of His way to hurt us? As an analogy, would you beat your puppy just so he would know how good it feels when you stop beating him?

If he's wise enough to let you do it on your own, why does that mean he doesn't exist?

Like I said, the proof only works for the J.C. God with the 3 characteristics I mentioned. It doesn't prove other gods who are not omnibenevolent might exist.

With no contrast, how could we know what happy and safe feels like.
I've never had a bad orgasm, so how do I know an orgasm feels good with nothing to compare it to? Answer: I just do.

[Sorry, that was the first example that popped into my head.:o]

blowero
01-09-2004, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by Aeschines
No, he couldn't. The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 arises from the definition of the terms; it is unalterable.
Hmmm...I'm going to briefly switch sides here and say that it's true in this universe, but who is to say that if other universe(s) exist, that they might have completely different rules than ours.

IWLN
01-09-2004, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by blowero
Thought I might see you in here, IWLN.:)Yah. Just when I thought it was safe to go back into the water........

I don't want God to "fix it", of course (since I don't believe that God exists), but would you agree that since God allows evil to exist (and since God created the universe, he must have created the evil as well), then He cannot be all-benevolent? IOW, if He makes some evil, then we cannot describe him as ALL good.I did agree that G-d created evil. It's part of our contrast and balance. I would still describe him as good, but only because I don't think I perceive the bad quite like some people do. Good and bad are both the gift of experience. Honestly, I don't talk like that in real life, either.
But since you brought it up, I understand your point about God not helping us and letting us do things on our own (kind of a God 'prime-directive', I guess), but wouldn't you at least expect Him not to go out of His way to hurt us? As an analogy, would you beat your puppy just so he would know how good it feels when you stop beating him?I am extremely compassionate, but I do think what we consider awful is still just our own lack of perspective. Evolution brought us to where we are now and if G-d didn't exist, things were be pretty much the same. I think the other G-d prime directive is not interfering with what we're doing right now. It doesn't seem that harsh to me. What percentage is 80 years to forever? If you give him credit for the bad, he get's it for the good too.:)Like I said, the proof only works for the J.C. God with the 3 characteristics I mentioned. It doesn't prove other gods who are not omnibenevolent might exist.I agree. You're right. I never thought G-d was Christian anyway or at least I didn't want him to be.I've never had a bad orgasm, so how do I know an orgasm feels good with nothing to compare it to? Answer: I just do.
[Sorry, that was the first example that popped into my head.:o]Ouch. Do you suppose one day we can forget I used orgasm in an argument about trying to explain G-d? Okay, I'll bite anyway. Although I have no way of knowing if my "truth" is someone else's; even an orgasm has a range, a degree or variation. I know what a "GREAT" one is because I have had "okay" ones. Admittedly if I only had okay, I wouldn't know I was missing anything, but having a variety of experiences gave me the awareness I needed to strive for uh....the best. :o

Staale Nordlie
01-09-2004, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by dakravel
I'm not Diogenes, but a simple example is that you would assume that a proposition "B" is true. If "B" is true, then "~(~B)" is also true. A proved negative. I don't understand your example. What does "~" mean? ("Not"?)

But let's assume that it's a (seemingly) valid logical proof.

I hereby posit that the reason you and possibly many others mistakenly think it's an example of something that can be disproved is that little green men from Mars are using their mind-control ray on you.

Prove me wrong.

olanv
01-09-2004, 01:53 PM
IWLN,

My sincere apologies. I began with Diogenes' conditions first and then began mixing Diogenes' conditions with Aldebaran's later on because... I believe it's called confusion. The line that we're on is related to my responses regarding Diogenes' conditions moreso than Aldebaran's conditions. I already addressed Aldebaran's conditions with regards to the persons perception who is deciding the claim for themselves.


Diogenses' conditions,
OK, just as an exercise...

God is invisible, immaterial, silent and utterly undetectable either to human senses or to any possible inference from scientific investigation.

Prove it doesn't exist.


Basically, I was taking the conditions of an "absolute eternal creator that is the only absolute eternal creator" (aka Aldebaran's conditions) and melding it with Diogenes' conditions as well, when I was responding to you. It strikes me that you were melding the two seperate arguments in response to me, so as a result, my mind for whatever reason decided to meld them as well instead of differentiating this aspect of what was occurring. You are correct in stating that Aldebaran's condition doesn't explicate the "immateriality" aspect of Diogenes' conditions.

Now, you and I both agree that something coming from absolute nothingness is not sensical. My point however, was that when you have an "immaterial one and only creator of everything that cannot be detected by humans" and you also state that this immaterial being exists... then you don't have any options left except for nothingness if you're going to continue to humor that such a being does actually exist in these conditions.

Exists, material, can be detected by humans
Exists, immaterial, cannot be detected by humans

So, how do we hypothesize a being that exists but cannot be detected by humans, if we are still to assume that this being exists?

The only option left is that the hypothesis (because remember this is the ONLY creator) itself comes from something that does not exist. When this is stated, one can still allow for the existence of this being (at least tenatively) and not contradict the fact that we are able to hypothesize about it. But, on closer analysis, the problem then emerges that if something is coming from nothing at all, outside of this beings defined conditions, then this being cannot control the very part of the definition that defines it. This causes numerous problems... one, it contradicts the "eternal" part of the definition, two it makes the immateriality aspect of the definition contingent.

blowero
01-09-2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by IWLN
I did agree that G-d created evil. It's part of our contrast and balance. I would still describe him as good, but only because I don't think I perceive the bad quite like some people do. Good and bad are both the gift of experience. Honestly, I don't talk like that in real life, either.
I am extremely compassionate, but I do think what we consider awful is still just our own lack of perspective. Evolution brought us to where we are now and if G-d didn't exist, things were be pretty much the same. I think the other G-d prime directive is not interfering with what we're doing right now. It doesn't seem that harsh to me.

Really? Not that harsh? Babies born with horrible deformities; earthquakes killing tens of thousands at a time; millions suffering and dying from AIDs and other diseases? Be honest - you can't blame any of those things on man's actions; you can't say we brought it on ourselves. And you can't say "that's just the cards we were dealt" because God dealt the cards. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a pessimist; I think life is a glorious adventure. But c'mon - you can't honestly say it "doesn't seem that harsh."

What percentage is 80 years to forever? If you give him credit for the bad, he get's it for the good too.:)

Well I don't give him credit for either. YMMV.

Ouch. Do you suppose one day we can forget I used orgasm in an argument about trying to explain G-d?

Oh, geez - sorry about that. You're probably not gonna believe me, but I forgot that you had used that as an example before. It truly was off the top of my head. I swear.

I know what a "GREAT" one is because I have had "okay" ones.
Even so, the range is good, better, better still... There is no "bad" with which to compare, yet we still recognize the good.

And actually, that's the part of Christianity that kind of chaps my hide (no, not orgasms;)) - it's actually a central tenet of the religion that life was supposed to be that way, i.e. only good, and that we now have to pay the price because the first 2 people screwed up. If you believe the story of Adam and Eve, we could ask your question regarding them: Before they tasted the apple, how did they know they were in paradise, with nothing to compare it to? According to the story, at first they knew good but not evil. But you're saying that's impossible.

From what you've written before, IWLN, I'm guessing that you personally don't put a lot of stock in the Adam & Eve story, but for the J.C. God at least, I think the Bible flat-out contradicts the idea that humans can't know good without the existence of evil.

Aldebaran
01-09-2004, 02:41 PM
Creator is anthropomorphic and connotates perception of existence. Do you mean that God is existence, as opposed to created existence?


Where do you get such an idea?

Why should the word "Creator" refer to "anthropomorphic"?

"Creator" is merely a word humans use to describe the non-created that has no beginning and no end. Therefore also named "uncreated".
Uncreated = no beginning and no end = no entity since that implies creation. In my opinion this also excludes "existence" in our limited understanding of what that can be, since every existence implies that it has to be created.


Salaam. A

Aldebaran
01-09-2004, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by TonyJ
All right. You say he is the creator of all, which necessarily includes himself, yet he is also un-created. So, this is a false property (and you'll need to redefine).

See my former post.
No beginning, no end = uncreated = didn't create itself because always was and shall always be.

In a sense, however, this also implies that certain qualities - e.g. omnipotence - cannot hold. I mean, he created almost everything, which means he's not quite unlimited (i.e. all-powerful). He is also not powerful enough or simply unwilling to create another God, per your definition. So, it could be said that there are certain things beyond even God, I suppose.

He created and creates everything.
That there is no other God doesn't prove He can't create an other one or is even unwilling to.

Christians believe God created a God Jesus, yet they claim they are one and the same (a theory that is in my view not supported by the practice by which they worship God. But that is an other discussion )

Salaam. A

olanv
01-09-2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Aldebaran
Where do you get such an idea?

Why should the word "Creator" refer to "anthropomorphic"?

"Creator" is merely a word humans use to describe the non-created that has no beginning and no end. Therefore also named "uncreated".
Uncreated = no beginning and no end = no entity since that implies creation. In my opinion this also excludes "existence" in our limited understanding of what that can be, since every existence implies that it has to be created.


Salaam. A

Creation is a word used to differentiate from neutral concepts like effect or does. Creation is a word that definately is used to describe the bringing into being of something by consciousness. You're more than welcome to personalize your own definition of creation, but then I'll be required to make a up new word to fill in the blank... because, the concept still exists whether or not you decide to remove the word that is used to refer to it. I mean, seriously, think about how the word "creation" is used... basically in art and in attribution to the deity stories. Creation doesn't have a literary precident as a neutral term seperated from consciousness or intent.

It makes no sense to state "Creator is a term used to describe the non-created". Creator is a term used to refer to people who create things. Is english your native language?

TonyJ
01-09-2004, 04:01 PM
I'm nitpicking, but...

God created everything (as you say),
God is an element of the set we call everything, and
God is uncreated (as you say),
:. God did not create everything or God is not uncreated.

This is because:

If God created everything, then he had to have created himself - which contradicts the "uncreated" property.

If God is uncreated, then he did not create everything, becuase he is a part of what we call everything - which contradicts the "created everything" property.

One property or the other must be modified for it to work. It's really just a matter of words, but more traits may follow.

Also, what other explanation do you have for the idea that "God is the only God and forever be the only God"? It seems to me that being unwilling or unable covers the case well enough, but are there alternatives I missed?

IWLN
01-09-2004, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by blowero
Really? Not that harsh? Babies born with horrible deformities; earthquakes killing tens of thousands at a time; millions suffering and dying from AIDs and other diseases? Be honest - you can't blame any of those things on man's actions; you can't say we brought it on ourselves. And you can't say "that's just the cards we were dealt" because God dealt the cards. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a pessimist; I think life is a glorious adventure. But c'mon - you can't honestly say it "doesn't seem that harsh."I don't blame most of those things on man. I hesitate to put myself in front of the firing squad here, but I do think we are responsible for some of the awful things that happen. AIDS wouldn't be quite the widespread tragedy it is, if we weren't so promiscuous. Starvation and some diseases would be controlled if we put the effort into those things that we do, for example, the beauty and diet industry. Earthquakes wouldn't be so devastating if we would help with construction technology and dollars. We have so many resources that could be rechanneled if we weren't so self-absorbed. I guess I just don't expect G-d to rush in and fix the things, when we have the ability to do so much better and we just don't bother. So yes, it does seem harsh, but we must not think a lot of it is that harsh or we would do better.

Oh, geez - sorry about that. You're probably not gonna believe me, but I forgot that you had used that as an example before. It truly was off the top of my head. I swear.Okay, I believe you. It just came right after Urban Ranger made a comment about what a laughable argument "God not being bound by logic" is. Not long since I tried to argue that point. Paranoia that my past was coming back to haunt me, I guess.

Even so, the range is good, better, better still... There is no "bad" with which to compare, yet we still recognize the good.There's without. That's bad.;)

And actually, that's the part of Christianity that kind of chaps my hide (no, not orgasms;)) - it's actually a central tenet of the religion that life was supposed to be that way, i.e. only good, and that we now have to pay the price because the first 2 people screwed up. If you believe the story of Adam and Eve, we could ask your question regarding them: Before they tasted the apple, how did they know they were in paradise, with nothing to compare it to? According to the story, at first they knew good but not evil. But you're saying that's impossible.You would have to just assume that the absence of evil was good.

From what you've written before, IWLN, I'm guessing that you personally don't put a lot of stock in the Adam & Eve story, but for the J.C. God at least, I think the Bible flat-out contradicts the idea that humans can't know good without the existence of evil.No, I don't believe the story was supposed to be anything but a lesson about choice. I find it impossible to believe that the whole purpose of man, G-d's purpose was changed. Something that G-d really intended, was subverted by a stinkin' piece fruit. Not very likely. It goes against omniscience, omnipotence and benevolency. The only reason Christianity gets away with it on such a large scale is that it equates critical thinking with a lack of faith. An act against G-d. Chaps my hide, too. Especially since I believed it for so long.

Ramanujan
01-09-2004, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Aeschines
Wrong. So, you're saying that the rules of math require a physical universe to exist? "Yes," you say. But what kind of physical universe? What about an empty void, devoid of matter? "Yes, that would work," perhaps you say. OK, whatabout the raw singularity of the Bing Bang, pre-bang--do the laws exist within that, but could not exist without it? If so, then they can exist without any universe at all, since the raw singularity had no physical, spatial, or temporal properties whatsoever, according to conventional theory.now don't go putting words into my mouth.

mathematics is a set of rules men made up in order to describe the universe. it can't be any other way. in an empty void, devoid of matter, there are no men to make up mathematics. there is nothing to describe. there is nothing which can be called "true", nor anything which can be said to be noncontradictory. a universe without any description is not a universe at all. so the rest of what you say is irrelevant.


Very incorrect. So, you say we understand what pi is (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter) because we observe the value in nature? So, we might turn out to be wrong one day and discover that pi was really exactly 3.15? The conclusion is clearly ludicrous.pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius. without a circle there is no pi. without a universe there is no circle. how exactly is that ludicrous?

Unintelligible.to you.

Indecipherable.by you.

That would be true, according to your definition. But number is like the sun; the universe is like a pond reflecting the sunlight. You are trying to argue that, without the pond, the sun does not exist. I am saying that the light shines whether reflected or not.if the pond (or anything else) is not reflecting the sunlight, there is absolutely no reason to believe the sun exists.

it seems to me you place mathematics on way too high a shelf. there is nothing divine in numbers. there is generally no reason to believe there can not exist a universe in which our version of mathematics is different, nor that our universe could not have existed with a different sum of 2 and 2. it is not our universe, and we only have the tools we're given. but that does not imply that mathematics exists independently of the universe. as we know it, mathematics does not even exist independently of men.

if you like, i can suggest some good reading in the area of mathematical philosphy and philsophy of mathematics (the two areas are, incidently, not the same). perhaps if you peruse those volumes, some of the things i say will be less unintelligible or indecipherable.

Voyager
01-10-2004, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by Staale Nordlie
I don't understand your example. What does "~" mean? ("Not"?)

But let's assume that it's a (seemingly) valid logical proof.

I hereby posit that the reason you and possibly many others mistakenly think it's an example of something that can be disproved is that little green men from Mars are using their mind-control ray on you.

Prove me wrong.

Things in math are disproven all the time by proof by contradiction, which the above was a sample of. What the statement should have said is that existential negatives can't be proven - that is some type of thing does not exist. The god question is an example of this, not a mathematical proof. If something is defined as having conradictory properties, however, we can be sure it does not exist.

Aeschines
01-10-2004, 04:27 AM
By Ramanujan
mathematics is a set of rules men made up in order to describe the universe.

You're wrong, dammit. Do I have to tell you the same damn thing over and over? The rules of mathematics are not dependent on the physical properties of the universe. For example, if the force of gravity was suddenly 0.999 its current value, would any of the rules of math change? NO.

it can't be any other way. in an empty void, devoid of matter, there are no men to make up mathematics. there is nothing to describe. there is nothing which can be called "true", nor anything which can be said to be noncontradictory. a universe without any description is not a universe at all. so the rest of what you say is irrelevant.

So, before humans existed, the rules of math did not exist or were not true? There is a difference between truth and recognition of truth.

pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius. without a circle there is no pi. without a universe there is no circle. how exactly is that ludicrous?

Well, for one thing it's ludicrous that you got the definition of PI wrong. Not only did you get it wrong, but you provided this definition as a correction of what I had written--the correct definition! It's hard not to flame here, buddy, but I will contain myself.

Just so you get it right, PI is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter.

Do you think that our concept of the circle is dependent on observing circles in the universe? It can't be, since there are no perfect circles in the universe. No universe simply means that there are no people to think about circles; it doesn't mean that the concept itself is voided.

if the pond (or anything else) is not reflecting the sunlight, there is absolutely no reason to believe the sun exists.

The point being that the pond is competely insigificant vis-a-vis the sun, just as our particular instantiation of reality is completely dependent on the truths of mathematics.

it seems to me you place mathematics on way too high a shelf. there is nothing divine in numbers.

Yeah, well, I'm saying there kinda is.

there is generally no reason to believe there can not exist a universe in which our version of mathematics is different, nor that our universe could not have existed with a different sum of 2 and 2.

Do you know what "true by definition" is? That's like saying that, in a different universe PI could = 3.18. It can't. If we grant the base 10 number system and grant the definition of a circle, then PI will be 3.14 etc. in any universe.

Now, you could argue that another universe would be so different from ours (i.e., 8-dimensional, time running in multiple directions, etc.) that our particular mathematics (ie. the way we use symbols, not the truths thereof) would not occur to them; or they may not find it useful (as indeed many truths of advanced math have no practical application). But the truths would remain the same.

it is not our universe, and we only have the tools we're given. but that does not imply that mathematics exists independently of the universe. as we know it, mathematics does not even exist independently of men.

Wrong. True, without someone to think about it, no one would think about it. But without people the sun would still shine, the earth would rotate, and 2 + 2 would = 4.

if you like, i can suggest some good reading in the area of mathematical philosphy and philsophy of mathematics (the two areas are, incidently, not the same). perhaps if you peruse those volumes, some of the things i say will be less unintelligible or indecipherable.

For someone who doesn't know what the fuck PI is, you talk pretty big.

Ramanujan
01-10-2004, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Aeschines
For someone who doesn't know what the fuck PI is, you talk pretty big.wow, you're getting pretty upset over this.

Aeschines
01-10-2004, 12:22 PM
Your goal perhaps? It couldn't have been to say anythign intelligent.

Aldebaran
01-10-2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by olanv
Creation is a word used to differentiate from neutral concepts like effect or does. Creation is a word that definately is used to describe the bringing into being of something by consciousness. You're more than welcome to personalize your own definition of creation, but then I'll be required to make a up new word to fill in the blank... because, the concept still exists whether or not you decide to remove the word that is used to refer to it. I mean, seriously, think about how the word "creation" is used... basically in art and in attribution to the deity stories. Creation doesn't have a literary precident as a neutral term seperated from consciousness or intent.

It makes no sense to state "Creator is a term used to describe the non-created". Creator is a term used to refer to people who create things. Is english your native language?

When I say "UN" created, this means "NOT" created, so how do you delcare it to be part of "creation"?
I already explained that when used to refer to God it is used to express "always was and shall always be".
Creator is in that context not at all a term used to "refer to PEOPLE and not at all a term used to refer to "people" who create things.
It is a term used to refer to God.
I thought we were debating God and the possibility to give proof that God or the concept God doesn't exist.
Or are we debating people who make things = people who are creative and create things.

And no, Enlgish is not among the languages I ever studied.

Salaam. A

Aeschines
01-10-2004, 01:01 PM
Aldebaran,

I like your style. You are correct here. But how do you deal with the question of God and number? It would seem that he did not create those truths; they are independent of any being or anything's nature.

Salaam. A

Aldebaran
01-10-2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by TonyJ
I'm nitpicking, but...

God created everything (as you say),
God is an element of the set we call everything, and
God is uncreated (as you say),
:. God did not create everything or God is not uncreated.

This is because:

If God created everything, then he had to have created himself - which contradicts the "uncreated" property.

If God is uncreated, then he did not create everything, becuase he is a part of what we call everything - which contradicts the "created everything" property.

One property or the other must be modified for it to work. It's really just a matter of words, but more traits may follow.

Also, what other explanation do you have for the idea that "God is the only God and forever be the only God"? It seems to me that being unwilling or unable covers the case well enough, but are there alternatives I missed?

The second point of your interpretation is already wrong :

God is not an element of what we call "everything" that is created or shall ever be created.
God caused and causes creation, which is quite different then being an element of creation itself.

If you make a drawing you cause the drawing to appear on a surface of your choice. That doesn't make you the drawing or an element of it but it makes you the creator of that drawing.
You can now argue that your talent to draw is an element of the drawing, because without that you wouldn't be able to draw.
But your talent is not an element that is part of the drawing itself while at the same time inherent to the drawing itself as it appears on the surface. Your talent is the driving power behind it which makes it possible for you to create the drawing, which on its turn makes it possible for the drawing to appear and become visible.

If there was more then one God we would have a set of creations if these Gods also decided to cause creations.
It is always possible there are such sets since the human mind is extremely limited both in its understanding and imagination.
But if you accept that there is more then one God The Uncreated Creator of All then you need to redefine all what is understood now when talking about "creation" and "universe".

Salaam. A

olanv
01-10-2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Aldebaran
When I say "UN" created, this means "NOT" created, so how do you delcare it to be part of "creation"?
I already explained that when used to refer to God it is used to express "always was and shall always be".
Creator is in that context not at all a term used to "refer to PEOPLE and not at all a term used to refer to "people" who create things.
It is a term used to refer to God.
I thought we were debating God and the possibility to give proof that God or the concept God doesn't exist.
Or are we debating people who make things = people who are creative and create things.

And no, Enlgish is not among the languages I ever studied.

Salaam. A

When you state that "creator = always was and always shall be", this comes back to my original question. Do you mean existence instead of creator?

Creator is a word used to refer to the artistic act of an intentional being that is capable of abstracting existence.

I will state in no uncertain terms, that if you mean to suggest that creator/creation is a synonym for existence, that I will agree with you that there is such a thing as existence.

God = Creator = Existence = perfect synonyms

Ok, I agree that existence exists. So if you define God as existence, I agree that God exists. If you define God as a loaf of bread, I agree that God exists, because I agree that a loaf of bread exists. Do we have that out of the way?

When creator is used to refer to God, in common usage, it is used to refer to the idea of using ones intent to abstract and form the artistic purposes of their being. This is precisely how it is used when referring to God. The only exception, is that when referring to God, as opposed to other intentional beings, the term is used to encompass everything that we interact with as being within the purveiw of Gods artistic expression of being.

There is no necessary correlation between that which God expresses and "always has and always will be", because presumably as the creator of all that we interact with and conceive, God also has the choice to uncreate, or rather, destroy that which God created. If God does not have that choice, then we are not dealing with an intentional being, then the word creator is not anthropomorphic, then it becomes a synonym for existence.

I already stated that I will agree with you that existence exists.

Aldebaran
01-10-2004, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Aeschines
You are correct here. But how do you deal with the question of God and number? It would seem that he did not create those truths; they are independent of any being or anything's nature.

My knowledge in this field stagnated by the calculation 1+2=4. There are still some of my teachers safelylocked way in a madhouse and for which I'm bound to pay the bills for life, since this happened before the discovery of my twinbrother Dyslex.

But when you ask if God created anything of what humans ever discovered or shall dicover in the future:
These discoveries only serve to give humanity insight in creation and if they are correct, then these "truths" you speak of couldn't be discovered if they weren't already part of that creation since the creation of creation.
So yes, if God exists then God caused them as he caused everything that exists or shall exist.

Salaam. A

Aldebaran
01-10-2004, 01:41 PM
olanv,

In my understanding of the word, "existence" refers to" being" which refers to something created.

So no, that can't refer to God.

And what has "artistic expressions" to do with it? I don't think I understand quite well what you mean.
"Creation" used in this context describes a lot more then what we "interact with".

I also don't get where you make the link between "having the possibility to destroy creation" -with of course God has- and "intentional being" and then stretch that again to the word God refering to "being with human characteristics". (I already said it has no reference to that)

Salaam. A

olanv
01-10-2004, 03:04 PM
Aldebran,
Existence is a word that refers to all that is, whatever that is, that which is, everything that is...

Existence is not a word used to refer to something that was created, as "created" is something, and thus a part of existence.
Universe is the next closest word to existence in terms of the all-encompassing summation of "that which is".

To suggest that "that which is" is created is an open question of whether or not God exists.

Existence is considered the default, it's there. The question of God is whether or not God created existence. Existence for example contains motion and otherness. So when someone suggests that God created motion and otherness a clear non-sensical statement arises. As you need to move, and you need something to move from and to in order to create. Existence is generally considered eternal. It doesn't make sense that motion and otherness "came into being" from nothing at all, because motion and otherness are required for that to even occur.
In general, existence is a word used to refer to otherness and motion, and the idea behind this, although it's debated, is whether or not something can exist without motion and otherness, which would be "God".

Existence is the most neutral term that humans use for "what is". It's not implied that existence was created, it is implied that existence is.

If you pay attention to the language, you will notice that there is a tremendous difference between the word is (which is neutral) and created which is solely used to refer to the act of an intentional being. Created, always implies "by something of intent."

We have other words for things that emerge without intent that we may refer to, such as "just is" or "happened" "occured"

The debate is over "John is here" vs. "John created here"

When people state that "John created here", people ask, well not ALL of here.. John didn't create motion for example." To which the theist replies, "but the book says what it says, it says that John created here, and the book is never wrong. So obviously John did create motion itself. It's right there in the book, "John created here.". As in fashioned or made. People get bothered by this, because it's not rational to state that something created motion, only that motion simply is.

But, when you say "God = Motion", that's trivial. Of course I agree that motion exists. or when you say "God = otherness" again, trivial, of course I believe that there is something to be referred to in some way. When you say existence, as in "God = motion and otherness", again, that's trivial. It is also trivial to state that motion and otherness are uncreated. But motion and otherness do NOT create, they are conditions necessary in order for creation to occur. Motion and otherness are defaulted to being neutral terms.. there is no directness other than the fact that direction occurs in some form in order for motion to exist, and that this implies otherness, and that otherness simply is.

Any term using "create" as a base, is specifically referring to some type of directness. Science calls these "natural laws", again, a neutral term. Religion gets into some sense of directed will with regards to all of these neutral terms, an actual intent of some sort that is actually aware of exisetence and is not constrained by any sort of deterministic condition. A deterministic condition would be that motion is pre-required in order to create. A religious person disagrees with statements like this. So, when their super-deity is referred to using this notion of create, they are saying that this is a being of choice and will, and that it is aware of this, aware of itself and aware of existence, and does not require the existence of otherness, being or motion in order to create.

Aldebaran
01-10-2004, 05:17 PM
I don't say God=motion.

Motion is created by God = motion is a human term/understanding for something that was/is part of creating proces.

If there was no God who created everything, there would be nothing. This "nothing" includes motion and everything else you can possibly imagine yourself or possibly describe.

I don't know if you refer to "God" when you talk about "a being of choice and will"?

God is not a "being", not an "existence" and not an "otherness".

God is God. There is nothing like God, there is nothing that can be compared with God. Because God is uncreated, always was and shall always be. Nobody says God "had" to create anything. Everything that exists however is the result of this "decision" to make a creation appear.
The fact that we use words to describe such a process and to describe God, does not mean that God can be described with words or is limited to the words we invent to describe God.
Even the word God has no meaning other then to refer to what can't be named or described.

Salaam. A

olanv
01-10-2004, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Aldebaran
I don't say God=motion.

Motion is created by God = motion is a human term/understanding for something that was/is part of creating proces.

If there was no God who created everything, there would be nothing. This "nothing" includes motion and everything else you can possibly imagine yourself or possibly describe.

I don't know if you refer to "God" when you talk about "a being of choice and will"?

God is not a "being", not an "existence" and not an "otherness".

God is God. There is nothing like God, there is nothing that can be compared with God. Because God is uncreated, always was and shall always be. Nobody says God "had" to create anything. Everything that exists however is the result of this "decision" to make a creation appear.
The fact that we use words to describe such a process and to describe God, does not mean that God can be described with words or is limited to the words we invent to describe God.
Even the word God has no meaning other then to refer to what can't be named or described.

Salaam. A

You state that God is not "being", "existence", "otherness", "motion" etc... That God created these things. You then said that we cannot define God, because God is uncreated. Well, any theory of reasoning that I'm aware of assumes otherness to be uncreated and motion to be uncreated, yet you state that God created these things. Then you state that God is uncreated. The only word I know of that is a synonym for "otherness and motion" is existence. In my understanding, you are equivicating God and existence. Existence by definition is "all that is", this includes God, assuming God does exist, which is the point of the topic! You're working this topic by stating effectively "Ok, so prove that God didn't create existence." By definition, you just stated that God was uncreated, since God is part of the set of existence (existence = all that possibly is or can be), then God created himself, which is much different than stating that God is uncreated.




I already stated that otherness is required in order for creation to occur, and creation requires a creator; also, that otherness is an uncreated condition necessary for the facilitation of creation or the perception of creation. To state that otherness is created completely violates any sense of foundational reasoning. How does a lack of otherness "" ("do anything")? How is anything facilitated when no otherness exists? You're line here is to somehow play with the definition of the word creation.

It has emerged deductively that creation = existence, even though you deny this.

creation = absolutely nothing (which is what a lack of otherness is)

creator refers to that which is uncreated.

Rocks don't create, they aren't considered intelligent. Rocks are also not considered created, they did not spring from some intelligence... rocks just are. We don't say that rocks are created nor do we say that rocks create, unless we are anthropomorphizing the rock with a personality or intelligence of some sort. We don't call rocks a creator or a creation, we call sculptures a creation, and we call the sculptor a creator of the sculpture.

To get back to your original point, I'm also curious how you pull this definition of God, which is basically an unintelligent non-existent being (creator of existence, otherness, motion and intelligence who is uncreated) from your religion? Your religion has things like commandments from God, God interacts presumably, people have a hypothesis of God, this HYPOTHESIS exists.


Even the word God has no meaning other then to refer to what can't be named or described

Yet people are able to fathom commandments, scriptures from the essense of something defined as indescribable. By including this, you're also asserting that God cannot describe God!! You understand that don't you? Or would you like to make ANOTHER condition on the word "God" besides "That which cannot be described."?

In the peculiar way that you're using anthropomorphic terms neutrally, I'll use one as well, in spirit of your philosophy of language. "describe is a synonym for represent, thus by you stating that God cannot be described, you state that God cannot describe God... which de-anthropomorphised, mean that God cannot represent God.".

If you cannot represent your own identity, you are said to not even hypothetically exist.

Aldebaran
01-10-2004, 06:17 PM
Well, maybe I could refute all you bring up here, if I could do it in a language I master.

Taking my words and change their meaning until you have a meaning that fits you, isn't a very sportive thing to do.

Especially not when debating with someone who has a very limited vocabulary in a language he never studied.

If you fail to understand what I try to bring across then I can't help it.

There is nothing "human" about God and nothing humans can invent to describe God. I thought I said that already a few times.
"That which can not be described" by humans since only humans try to describe God. That is not "stating that God can't describe God" or "God can not represent God".

First of all: why should God "need" to describe God when humans can't gain any understanding of what God would describe about God. Next: Why would God "need" to represent God? Why should God need an "identity"?
You continue to project human idea's and words and definitions to God.


Salaam. A

olanv
01-10-2004, 06:22 PM
Your argument in a nutshell just dawned on me, the way that you are coming at the OP. "God doesn't need to exist in order to create." or rather, "God created existence".

And then you say, "Ok, now refute Gods existence.".

I say, "Well, God can only be nothing at all if God does not exist, even creation is something, do you mean that God is creation, or that God is existence, is this Pantheism of some form? absolute equivicationism?

No, God does not equal these things, God is the creator of these things. God is the creator of existence, which means that God doesn't need to exist in order to create. Now refute that God doesn't exist."

Then we go in circles, because I state.. "Well if it doesn't exist, it must be nothing at all, thus Gods' existence is refuted."

to which you again come back with, "Nothing at all does not exist. Nothing at all cannot create, how can creation occur when there is nothing at all? God is the creator of existence, how silly are you to suggest that something comes from nothing at all, it comes from God.".

I then state that you're anthropomorphising "nothing at all", to which you reply, "I'm not anthropomorphising it, where did I state that God is a being of intent? God is the creator of being, the creator of intent the creator of uncreated creations. God created existence and does not need to exist in order to create. It is beyond your mind, just accept that God exists and is not nothing at all and did create the uncreated creator in an uncreated way that was creative, but not.".

olanv
01-10-2004, 06:39 PM
Why would God "need" to represent God? Why should God need an "identity"?

And here we go again. The criteria for whether something exists or not is identity.
That a thing actually represents itself - - -
whatever that may be that constitutes itself.

I thought you were being sarcastic when you replied to my question about english being your native language. So, it's become clear that some concept is not translating between us. I believe that I'm familiar enough with english to suspect that it's an issue relating to your conception of the word "create" and how this may or may not translate in the english language. Which cuases me to be curious about what this concept is that doesn't translate in english, but is aparently motivated by the word "create" as it relates to deities.

Ramanujan
01-10-2004, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Aeschines
Your goal perhaps? It couldn't have been to say anythign intelligent."you're wrong, you don't know a fucking thing!" is not a debate strategy i'm prepared to contend with. good day.

Aeschines
01-11-2004, 03:22 AM
Ramanujan,

Actually, I wasn't trying to debate you at that point. I was saying that if you're going to try to correct me on a matter of FACT in a pompous, condescending manner, you'd better damn well be correct.

Hoist with your own petard, I say. Good day indeed.

Aldebaran
01-11-2004, 12:05 PM
olanv,

I think it is not about the word "create" itself.

It is your understanding of the word "uncreated" which is used to bring across the concept for "what always was and shall always be" without any "creation" of it involved.

As for the uncreated required to represent itself to humanity:

First of all : Why should it be a requirement?

Next: When observing creation - and merely the fact that you are created and thus able to observe it - you see the representation and manifestation of the existence of the Uncreated Creator, since without the Uncreated Creator the Creation wouldn't exist.

Salaam. A

Aldebaran
01-11-2004, 12:17 PM
I shall try to make the concept "uncreated" more clear with an example.

Science now reasons that what is called the Big Bang caused the beginning of the universe = the creation of it.

Suppose this reasoning is correct, then all matter was reduced to extreme density which must have been in complete balance before this Big Bang happened (to say it simple).

Then answer the questions:

1. What was the cause that this "matter" - how extremely densed it might have been - could be there in the first place.
2. What was the cause of this Big Bang that brought disbalance in this density and by this made it expand.

My answer to this is that the Uncreated caused both = created the conditions for both to be there and happen.

Salaam. A

olanv
01-11-2004, 02:11 PM
Why is it so important to you to attribute the uncreated to "God", rather than to "What is necessary for the perception of existence." In secular philosophy, motion and otherness are both considered uncreated.. they always were. This general concept is encompassed by the word "existence" or "all that is". "All that is" reduces ultimately to motion and otherness.

As for your physics example, talking about the Big Bang as causing the universe to emerge is not a scientific statement. There is no sound method of stating that the UNIVERSE emerges from anything. Maybe multiple COSMOSES emerge from the phenomenon that we attribute to what we call the "Big Bang".
When people state that the universe emerges from the Big Bang, this is not a statement made by serious phycisists, it is a political statement used to alter the linguistics in order to harmonize physics with religous 'logic'. It is a phyco-social-linguistic technique used to pacify special interests. It's pop-culture, it's counter-intelligence, it's commissioned work used for this specific purpose.

Aeschines
01-11-2004, 02:18 PM
Olanv,

But didn't our physical universe originate with the Big Bang? I'm trying to understand what's wrong with that statement....

olanv
01-11-2004, 02:34 PM
Aeshines,
The physical is otherness. When someone states that it is material, it is being stated that otherness exists. When someone states that it is immaterial, it is being stated that otherness does not exist. If the universe is defined as material, then all that is, is defined by otherness. Even the prefix UNI is misleading, because if it's material/physical otherness is being implied.

What we see as our cosmos for example could be equivilent to a single seed growing in a garden of cosmoses, a garden populated by numerous seeds. These would be multiple cosmoses, each cosmos, from the inside looking out, looks like a "big bang". From the outside looking in, it simply looks like our "universe" is but one of many cosmoses springing up from this allegorical garden. Since the term universe is meant to be used in an all-encompassing manner for the physical, it doesn't make sense to attribute it to only our "big bang", whatever that may be. Not only is each cosmos material, but so is the ground from which al of these seeds that bloom cosmoses, so is the mechanism which feeds these seeds.

The difference between universe and existence is that existence describes all that is, and is also used to include a tenative abstraction of "all that is possible" or rather, "potential". I say tenative, because if everything is wholly determined, the use of "potential" doesn't ultimately make sense.

olanv
01-11-2004, 02:49 PM
Aeshines,
Do you understand how, in stating that "The universe emerges from the big bang" (universe = aka otherness, aka physical, aka material) that the implication is that material COMES FROM nothing at all? There is no sound method of making the argument that something comes from nothing at all.

Another one of the science quackeries regards indeterminism. Simply stating that something is indeterminant is a determination that suggests that the conclusion refutes itself and thus refutes and purpose for stating or concluding it. This notion of "quantum indeterminancy" is self refuting. If it's indeterminant, then you are admitting that there is no foundation to determine the stability of your statement.

These are not scientific statements, these are pop-culture political statements used to subtly change the linguistics to harmonize with religous veiws of existence.

IWLN
01-11-2004, 03:26 PM
Olanv
I need the condensed version. Did you just say, the universe has always existed, as in all that ever was, is or can be. It's timeless. And it may be a "Big Bang" type event that caused what we physically know to exist as far as time and matter? Or are you saying something else?

olanv
01-11-2004, 04:01 PM
IWLN,
I'm stating that a "big bang" type event does not cause motion and otherness. Motion and otherness are uncaused, required in order for a big bang to occur.