The irrefutable existence of God

[Qlip]

Not one person has quoted my rebuttal post, which is interesting as its on the first page and rebuts the first cause needs a cause etc. Nicodemus its wonderful how you manage to vomit your 5 proclivities without combating any of my substance, your prejudice does not make you above an argument that you have proven on vent you have no ability to refute. Your condescending posits are presumptuous, it is interesting all of my detractors have not entered the arena, it is easy to comment rather than refute.

Sorry we're boring you by not addressing your OP, Zang, but there are so many assumptions in your OP. I'd point them out, but others have indicated them already and it's obvious you're not receptive to the criticisms.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Sorry we're boring you by not addressing your OP, Zang, but there are so many assumptions in your OP. I'd point them out, but others have indicated them already and it's obvious you're not receptive to the criticisms.

My rebuttal post is not my OP, such simple things escape you? The people that bitch about assumptions cant follow the flow of a solitary thread of reason, that is not hard to pick out; as I said, I'm not going to reformulate my words for those too stupid to see an argument, as those are definitely not the people who have the ability to contribute in any case.

But please, tell me of my assumptions, which premise is doubtful to you? Don't just blather words that have no meaning...

 

[Tamske]

You want me to quote your rebuttal?

The difference between objects in this universe and things outside, we know we are all contingent on a prior state of affair occurring and producing us, the only answer to this chain of contingency is to invoke a necessary being. I don't believe its true that God breaks the causation principle, the only reasonable answer to the predicament one finds oneself (the one above) is to implore an eternal and infinite being. God is the answer to lack caused through the contingency issue, if you reduce the same argument to him is forgetting why you invoked him in the first place... lets not forget what consistency truly means...

Okay. What's the definition of "universe"? I thought that meant "every existing thing"... From your post, I understand you don't mean that with "universe". So let's define "reality" as the set of ALL existing things. So if God exists, it must be inside Reality, okay?
Now Reality consists - let's take your theistic view - out of Universe and God.
Almost all things in Reality have got a cause. There is only one exception - God.
Almost all things in Reality go from simple to complex. Matter started as loose particles, cluttered together to form hydrogen, cluttered together to stars, and inside the stars all other elements formed. Life started as chunks of matter able to copy themselves, probably haphazardly with the elements around them, and the most able to copy themselves found themselves copied many times... at the expense of the simpler ones... until you've got copy-matter as complex as a human being. Again, only one exception - God is infinitely complex and came at the very beginning.
Almost all things in Reality are observable, whether directly or indirectly. Again one exception.

I assume one thing about Reality. It's simple. It follows straightforward rules. Not whimsical ones. Following that assumption, I'll discard that one thing upsetting the whole straightforward build of Reality. To me, Reality is equal to the Universe.

If you are allowed to assume there exists a complex being without a cause, I'm allowed to assume there exists simple matter without a cause.
I don't understand how a universe can exist without a cause. Really, I don't. But a universe without a cause is less problematic than a wilful, powerful god without a cause. "Outside the universe, so doesn't follow the rules" is not an argument. You expect from me that I should seek for a cause for the star's motion (and you're not happy with conservation of angular momentum, either), and yet you claim God ("first cause") is immune for the same question?
Why wouldn't matter be the first cause, rather than God?

 

[Nicodemus]

Nicodemus its wonderful how you manage to vomit your 5 proclivities without combating any of my substance

I did that on Vent ad nauseam. It seems the fact that you will not allow 'I have no answer' as an answer leads, no, forces you to invoke a god, apparently the only eternal thing you can come up with. If you really need something supernatural to make sense of the natural, why not invoke, say, a supernatural big bang that caused the natural big bang?

your prejudice does not make you above an argument that you have proven on vent you have no ability to refute.

It is not my prejudice, it is my scepticism which makes me above your argument. It is true: I will not allow a supernatural cause as an answer, but only for the simple reason that it can never be proven and, even if it were made plausible, would have no meaning at all. Does it not bother you that the answer to the biggest question ever has absolutely no ramifications?

 

[Mal12345]

My friends, did not Jesus Christ live and die on the cross? We have historical evidence of this (the Romans were excellent record-keepers).

"This is one of the problems with the story. We have no writings from the days of Jesus himself. Jesus never wrote anything, nor do we have any contemporary accounts of his life or death. There are no court records, official diaries, or newspaper accounts that might provide firsthand information. Nor are there any eyewitnesses whose reports were preserved unvarnished. Even though they may contain earlier sources or oral traditions, all the Gospels come from later times. Discerning which material is early and which is late becomes an important task. In fact, the earliest writings that survive are the genuine letters of Paul. They were written some twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus. Yet Paul was not a follower of Jesus during his lifetime; nor does he ever claim to have seen Jesus during his ministry."

White, L. Michael. From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 3–4

Apparently the records were lost. Or did you happen to find them?

 

[Zangetshumody]

I did that on Vent ad nauseam. It seems the fact that you will not allow 'I have no answer' as an answer leads, no, forces you to invoke a god, apparently the only eternal thing you can come up with. If you really need something supernatural to make sense of the natural, why not invoke, say, a supernatural big bang that caused the natural big bang?


It is not my prejudice, it is my scepticism which makes me above your argument. It is true: I will not allow a supernatural cause as an answer, but only for the simple reason that it can never be proven and, even if it were made plausible, would have no meaning at all. Does it not bother you that the answer to the biggest question ever has absolutely no ramifications?

Science needs something to observe to serve as proof, philosophy is not so constrained, so you can claim the title of Scientist and miss out on the conclusions a philosopher can extrapolate with ease. The lack of scientific proof is no bar to the search for truth, your thinking that it does is a prejudice, and the sign of someone who does not understand the potency of philosophy; because one does not understand the limits of science or the stupidity of the choice to be similarly limited thinker.

 

[Santosha]

Can god exist outside of logic?

"You seem to be talking about a State of Being, which is beyond a our mere State of Knowledge.
A State of Knowledge is the usual object-subject separation; the separation of the Knower from the Known.
A State of Being, on the other hand, reflects the Taoist wisdom that 'only those who don't know truely know'.
In other words, you must be the wind to know the wind.
Knowledge in itself is just a secondary by-product of one's State of Being.
A State of Being is often refered to as a State of Nature where one is alive like a child in the Natural Spontaneous Perfection of the Moment.
This is a Wholistic State of Enlightenment where one does not separate, individuate, nor alienate one's self from Nature.
Alienation, however, is the one word most often used to describe the condition of Civilized Man.
This arises from Civilized Man's fear-driven fight-or-flight dualistic interpretation of Causal Relations.
You and I are trapped in this dualistic mental mode in which we simplistically objectify and individuate every experience and relationship we will ever have in life.
You and I, because we have already been Civilized, will never be able to experience this GOD-thing you mention that's beyond mere definition or logic.
You and I will never be alive to that spirit.
All we can do is speculate in futility.
Every idea we conceive is already contaminated with the alienated flesh of our ubiquitous death-drive.
So why bother, unless we enjoy holding our nose."

Zang, I don't know why you bother arguing it. Your ideas would be better discussed on a different forum. And I think thats pretty sad. =(

 

[Zangetshumody]

You want me to quote your rebuttal?

Okay. What's the definition of "universe"? I thought that meant "every existing thing"... From your post, I understand you don't mean that with "universe". So let's define "reality" as the set of ALL existing things. So if God exists, it must be inside Reality, okay?
Now Reality consists - let's take your theistic view - out of Universe and God.
Almost all things in Reality have got a cause. There is only one exception - God.
Almost all things in Reality go from simple to complex. Matter started as loose particles, cluttered together to form hydrogen, cluttered together to stars, and inside the stars all other elements formed. Life started as chunks of matter able to copy themselves, probably haphazardly with the elements around them, and the most able to copy themselves found themselves copied many times... at the expense of the simpler ones... until you've got copy-matter as complex as a human being. Again, only one exception - God is infinitely complex and came at the very beginning.
Almost all things in Reality are observable, whether directly or indirectly. Again one exception.

I assume one thing about Reality. It's simple. It follows straightforward rules. Not whimsical ones. Following that assumption, I'll discard that one thing upsetting the whole straightforward build of Reality. To me, Reality is equal to the Universe.

If you are allowed to assume there exists a complex being without a cause, I'm allowed to assume there exists simple matter without a cause.
I don't understand how a universe can exist without a cause. Really, I don't. But a universe without a cause is less problematic than a wilful, powerful god without a cause. "Outside the universe, so doesn't follow the rules" is not an argument. You expect from me that I should seek for a cause for the star's motion (and you're not happy with conservation of angular momentum, either), and yet you claim God ("first cause") is immune for the same question?
Why wouldn't matter be the first cause, rather than God?

God is not part of reality, or he would need a cause, including him in reality and giving him but one exemption is not an elegant portrait of the scenario. I don't understand why you think matter would be an adequate first cause, matter isn't supernatural therefore it is not immune to the question, what 'caused the matter'? God is invoked because he is a very special sort of entity, necessarily a being of infinite real qualities that we're able to postulate. I do not accept that God is infinitely complex, I believe he could be quite 'logically simple'... Absolute virtue; love(virtues and the intent to nourish) incarnate. I think you catch the point...

 

[Nicodemus]

Science needs something to observe to serve as proof, philosophy is not so constrained, so you can claim the title of Scientist and miss out on the conclusions a philosopher can extrapolate with ease. The lack of scientific proof is no bar to the search for truth, your thinking that it does is a prejudice, and the sign of someone who does not understand the potency of philosophy; because one does not understand the limits of science or the stupidity of the choice to be similarly limited thinker.

Answer the questions, please.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Answer the questions, please.

Your question is presumptuous and invalid.

 

[Mal12345]

Science needs something to observe to serve as proof, philosophy is not so constrained, so you can claim the title of Scientist and miss out on the conclusions a philosopher can extrapolate with ease. The lack of scientific proof is no bar to the search for truth, your thinking that it does is a prejudice, and the sign of someone who does not understand the potency of philosophy; because one does not understand the limits of science or the stupidity of the choice to be similarly limited thinker.

What you have extrapolated is not easy, even for philosophy, and your conclusion does not amount to an existence as your thread title claims, only the necessity of postulating an existence.

 

[Nicodemus]

Your question is presumptuous and invalid.

Why?

 

[Zangetshumody]

What you have extrapolated is not easy, even for philosophy, and your conclusion does not amount to an existence as your thread title claims, only the necessity of postulating an existence.

What is the difference? Is that seriously the level your on; pitiful.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Why?

If there is a God, one can conclude further things about the nature of existence, through the use of inductive arguments one can conclude a sympathetic creator, that is just one of the answers an affirmative to the question produces.

 

[Nicodemus]

If there is a God, one can conclude further things about the nature of existence, through the use of inductive arguments one can conclude a sympathetic creator, that is just one of the answers an affirmative to the question produces.

Since you believe to know that there is a god, please go right ahead and show me, by means of inductive reasoning, that he is also a sympathetic creator. That was, more or less, one question.

Here is the other one: If you really need something supernatural to make sense of the natural, why not invoke, say, a supernatural big bang that caused the natural big bang? Your argument, if it were correct, would give you a supernatural cause x. There is, however, no reason for you to name x 'god' and presume that x has a will, a consciousness, any power over the natural once it has been created or sympathy.

 

[onemoretime]

If there is a God, one can conclude further things about the nature of existence, through the use of inductive arguments one can conclude a sympathetic creator, that is just one of the answers an affirmative to the question produces.

Once could also inductively conclude a brutal and capricious creator.

Science needs something to observe to serve as proof, philosophy is not so constrained, so you can claim the title of Scientist and miss out on the conclusions a philosopher can extrapolate with ease. The lack of scientific proof is no bar to the search for truth, your thinking that it does is a prejudice, and the sign of someone who does not understand the potency of philosophy; because one does not understand the limits of science or the stupidity of the choice to be similarly limited thinker.

Yet, philosophic conclusions by their very nature only point out further questions that we haven't considered. There is no objective truth to be found in philosophy, as there is none in science. That's only logical, since science is a branch of philosophy. The best philosophy can do is to point out that it could be one way. It cannot definitively conclude any objective truths, as everyone's existence is per se subjective.

God is not part of reality, or he would need a cause, including him in reality and giving him but one exemption is not an elegant portrait of the scenario.

Ascribing solely one exemption would in fact paint a highly elegant portrait of the scenario, as it would eliminate any need for further unprovable constructs.

I don't understand why you think matter would be an adequate first cause, matter isn't supernatural therefore it is not immune to the question, what 'caused the matter'? God is invoked because he is a very special sort of entity, necessarily a being of infinite real qualities that we're able to postulate. I do not accept that God is infinitely complex, I believe he could be quite 'logically simple'... Absolute virtue; love(virtues and the intent to nourish) incarnate. I think you catch the point...

All these qualities are subjective human values, though, while the existence of matter is something that people necessarily agree upon, given the strong evidence. As far as a first cause goes, we do not, and perhaps cannot, understand the essence of existence; without such an understanding, we cannot effectively postulate on causation or even the temporality of the universe.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Since you believe to know that there is a god, please go right ahead and show me, by means of inductive reasoning, that he is also a sympathetic creator. That was, more or less, one question.

Here is the other one: If you really need something supernatural to make sense of the natural, why not invoke, say, a supernatural big bang that caused the natural big bang? Your argument, if it were correct, would give you a supernatural cause x. There is, however, no reason for you to name x 'god' and presume that x has a will, a consciousness, any power over the natural once it has been created or sympathy.

The universe, from the beginning has had built into it finite specifications, there are at least 40 of these specifications,- forces constants, values of powers for things, all of which make life possible, a finely tuned cosmos and a creator, of course he most likely has no interest in life, that would be to misread the point of creation, totally.

To your second question, since I've already covered this: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48247&p=1575759&viewfull=1#post1575759

 

[Mal12345]

What is the difference? Is that seriously the level your on; pitiful.

That was an undiscriminating and trite comment. In fact, I have 25 years experience dealing with philosophical issues. Do you have any real arguments? Any at all?

 

[Zangetshumody]

Once could also inductively conclude a brutal and capricious creator.



Yet, philosophic conclusions by their very nature only point out further questions that we haven't considered. There is no objective truth to be found in philosophy, as there is none in science. That's only logical, since science is a branch of philosophy. The best philosophy can do is to point out that it could be one way. It cannot definitively conclude any objective truths, as everyone's existence is per se subjective.



Ascribing solely one exemption would in fact paint a highly elegant portrait of the scenario, as it would eliminate any need for further unprovable constructs.



All these qualities are subjective human values, though, while the existence of matter is something that people necessarily agree upon, given the strong evidence. As far as a first cause goes, we do not, and perhaps cannot, understand the essence of existence; without such an understanding, we cannot effectively postulate on causation or even the temporality of the universe.

A rule with an exemption is not a very good rule, and it would be a poor distinction to draw where the exemption could be manifest as a deeper structural distinction that brings to light greater ramifications that you have skillfully truncated with that quote of me.

 

[Zangetshumody]

That was an undiscriminating and trite comment. In fact, I have 25 years experience dealing with philosophical issues. Do you have any real arguments? Any at all?

yes, I don't discriminate between things that are the same, that's something that didn't take me years to learn.