1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God's existence (vid. 2).

4) So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "God doesn't exist", as far as it is asserted as a truth (vid. 3), it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.

5) However, if God exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if God doesn't exist, it is false too, because in that case the Truth (i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn't exist and, then, single truths wouldn't exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God exists.

Greetings.

Daniel.

Theological Miscellany (in spanish):

http://www.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm

And for an encore he goes on to prove that black = white and is killed on the next zebra crossing. From the Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Every truth leads to another one. Why? This is a baseless assertion. What is your proof? Sorry I don’t read Spanish.

Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, Nonsense. If a truth doesn’t lead to another truth then it can simply lead nowhere, a dead end. That is quite different to a falsehood.

in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.Invalid since the original premise is invalid.

Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.Not necessarily – a chain of truths leads to greater truth none of which in practical history have led anywhere near to the concept of a god being a truth.

By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); Something got lost in translation I suspect. Gibberish.

we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God's existence (vid. 2).Or based on the same reasoning – lead to recognizing God’s non-existence.

So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "God doesn't exist", as far as it is asserted as a truth (vid. 3), it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.Just like black=white, and left=right, and north=south.

However, if God exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if God doesn't exist, it is false too, because in that case the Truth (i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn't exist and, then, single truths wouldn't exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God exists.Riiight!! Dream on.

Kat

A jesuit I once knew explained that as god was omnipotent, god need not do anything so mundane as actually exist.

Irichc : with truth must also come proof, otherwise truth cease's to be truth and becomes theory, assumption, Inaccuracy and even doubt.

Dont u have to exist in some form to be omnipotent ?

Well, that depends.
From all we know, the gods people today pray to could be unexistent.
But still those gods have great power, gained through their followers.
The power of their religion could be seen as the power of the gods.
But it would be logical that an omnipotent god does exist. Otherwise his
omnipotence is useless. If he does not exist he cannot act, as a result he
cannot be omnipotent.

do u belive in a God, Gods, or no God !
P.S. Good point on your last post, didnt see it that way.

Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

the truth is everyone is born atheist, ;)
how does that lead to god?

did you come to conclusion theres gods out there somewhere on your own,or did someone put this idea in your head?

one thing and a rigorous proof and all that.

truth leads to another truth. even in the most liberal interpretation of that as in via proof all truths lead to another truth is false. See Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Essentially, he proved that out of truths via proof you can arise at contradictions. Not all truths can be proved, and not all falsehoods can be disproved.

oh and Hitch Hiker's Guide Rules!! that is all.

Proving 1).

Arithmetic is a kind of language formed by numbers and operations. Every number is also a truth, and we express them as a tautology: "1 = 1"; "2 = 2"; "3 = 3", etc.

We know that "1" links to "2", and the same for the remaining infinite figures, from the fact that they are all related to each other. For instance: "2" is "1 + 1"; "3" is "2 + 1" or "1 + 1 + 1", etc.

So, if we change the meaning of a single number (let's say, "1 = 2"), all of them and their infinite possible operations would be affected. Thus, by limiting the enchainment of truths with a non-truth, no arithmetical operation would be true. And that happens in our natural language too, since every word gets its meaning by opposing the other ones.


Proving 2).

I.

In an infinite succession of eternal truths (since the nature of the truth as not contradiction is immutable), the last truth, that at the same time is the first one, guarantees the coherence between all of them.

If there were infinite truths and, nevertheless, we were lack of last truth, we could not affirm that “the truth is the truth”, since every truth links to another one, none that is not over all of them is capable of embrace them at the same level.

Any truth that one affirms presupposes, then, this deep truth: “the truth is the truth”. And that, far from being a tautology, indicates us that the truth can exist by itself, that is to say, without real concern, or ideal.

NB: By "first and last truth" I mean a primordial truth that presupposes every single one, and that is itself presupposed by all of them. I'm not thinking in a circle, but in a common trunk with infinite ramifications.

II.

1. The set of true statements is finite or infinite.

1.1. If it is finite, it is limited by a truth or by a non-truth.

1.1.1. If it is limited by a truth, that truth is an unlimited one, that is, God.

1.1.2. If it is limited by a non-truth, we are speaking of pseudo-truths which cover an unavoidable contradiction. In that case, the proposition "An infinite set of true statements limited by a non-truth exists" is false too, being nonsensical to claim such a thing.

1.2. If it is infinite, it has or it has not a first Truth.

1.2.1. If it has a first Truth at the beginning of the whole succession, then this Truth is self-referent, it is its own cause and, therefore, it is God. Its truth value doesn't need neither logic demonstration nor empirical verification, as far as it is self-depending.

1.2.2. If it has not a frist Truth, then the proposition "the truth is the truth" is false, which would abolish every single truth, sending us back to point 1.1.2.


The reasoning in 3), 4) and 5) follows from 1) and 2) as indicated in the first message. It doesn't need a further explanation.

Greetings.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm

there are several mistakes, in you theory

argumentum ad Rebition

Argumentum ad Hoefication

Orfatii ad ergo pas

1) Every truth leads to another one... [whew] ...So, in any case, God exists.So... if truth exists, God (defined as the ultimate Truth) exists. Truth must exist (as demonstrated), therefore God exists. If I got it right, I think so too.:)

Otherwise I'm as lost as the rest obviously are. Regardless, it is fun seeing some bona fide atheists trying to pick this apart; fun and funny (the ridiculous objections).:D

What if we replaced God in that utterly baffling and meaningless rhetoric, with 'non existence'?

irichc,

Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

You equal God with truth. Why?

You equal God with truth. Why?

That's exactly what I was thinking last knight when I read his post. However his post about god being truth sounds much like the first cause argument.

Truth is a word that can be altered in many ways, Truth does not necessarily mean honesty, it's based on opinions.

Thus his opinion is that god is ultimate truth, but if that's the case and he regressed thus far, why stop at god? Thus god requires another truth, another god that created it, and so on ad infinitum!.

Godless.

You equal God with truth. Why?That, I agree, is the most pertinent question with regards to this thread. Why would a theist equate God with truth?

What Daniel did was illustrate that if there is truth (and there has to be) then there must be an ultimate truth which needs no proving. Like, say, existence; You exist; prove it.;)

God as defined by the theist would either be Truth (the ultimate) or be even greater than truth itself and be the source of it (since God is[would be] the source of all that is). What "truth" is must be what is actual and not necessarily what us humans say it is.

"Gravity exists." Is that a truth? I think it's an uncertainty (although the seasoned/religious physicist might disagree and call me a heretic). Gravity is an observed effect of what actually is and we define that effect. Would it be there if we didn't define it? I liken it to the centripital force that keeps things moving in a circle (it has many actual causes but all keeps the things moving in a circle). What if we just ignored/didn't notice the fact that different phenomena keep things moving in a cirlce (say a circle wasn't defined)? Would there be anything called a centripital force? I doubt it.

Either way, the existence of truth points to the existence of an ultimate Truth (as opposed to infinte truths) or source of truth which fits God's bill quite well.

Thus his opinion is that god is ultimate truth, but if that's the case and he regressed thus far, why stop at god? Thus god requires another truth, another god that created it, and so on ad infinitum!I think that's the prcoess he dismissed (or attempted to[?]) in Proving 2 above.;) He illustrated (or tried to[?]) the fact that there must be an ultimate truth (uncaused and independent).

Truth: is the product of recognition (i.e., identification) of facts of reality. Man identifies and intergrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions--and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of his definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or the falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics. Ayn Rand.

Italics my imput. to emphasise my point. Thus his ultimate truth may also be rationalizations to arrive at ultimate (truth) being a god, however he lacks "facts" evidnecence and also emperical proof that god is ultimate truth. Existence exists that's an axiom, no one can dispute that existence does not exist, in order to say such an absurdity, one would have to claim it from non-existence. What "definition" can we give god? god is a word with no identity, an entity with no identity is non existent.

Godless.

the truth is everyone is born atheist, ;)
how does that lead to god?

did you come to conclusion theres gods out there somewhere on your own,or did someone put this idea in your head?We don't know if we are born with an idea of God or not. We know however that we have a area in the brain devoted to it though. So, yes, maybe someone put this idea in our heads.

cyperium: it's called indoctrination/brainwashing, and from birth religious zealots force it on theirs and others children.
they should be allowed to be children, and decide what they want when there old enough.
I and millions of others have reason, sense, and intellect, in our brains there's no area devoted to a god/gods, we're not that stupid, we're not sheep.( after all jesus called you all his flock)

as godless and mouse said irichc
You equal God with truth, Why? try non-entity.
however as it has come from a believer, then there's no wonder it completely baffling and meaningless.

We don't know if we are born with an idea of God or not. We know however that we have a area in the brain devoted to it though. So, yes, maybe someone put this idea in our heads.

We are born atheists, hence no knowledge of god, devils, mysticism in general. The mind of a child is empty, there's no such thing as inate knowledge from the woumb. Tabula Raza=empty slate.

The idea of gods come from ancient ignorance. That area of the brain you speak off?. It's the reminicense of the bicameral mind. see this (http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/conscious/conscious3.html)

Godless.

I found this and it might make you think irichc.


Without Time God didn't have enough Time to decide to create Time.


DRAYGOMB's PARADOX

Definitions:

God is defined as The Conscious First Cause - St. Thomas Acquinas
The First Cause is That which caused Time.
Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision.
A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
Time is the measure of change.

Premises:

Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.

Conclusions:

Time is required for Change.
A Decision is a Change.
Decisions require Time.
Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
Consciousness requires Time.
God is Conscious.
God requires Time.
God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
God isn't the cause of Time.
God isn't The First Cause.
If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.

God doesn't exist.

does that clarify anything

God as defined by the theist would either be Truth (the ultimate) or be even greater than truth itself and be the source of it (since God is[would be] the source of all that is).
How can a creator be equalled with something it supposed to have created? If I were to create a drawing of a flower, am I equal to that drawing?

How can a creator be equalled with something it supposed to have created? If I were to create a drawing of a flower, am I equal to that drawing?How can 1/3 of infinity be equal to 1/2 of inifnity and still be equal to infinity?
--
It's really more looking at truth as a part of God's Nature and it is reflected in His creation.

DRAYGOMB's PARADOX... The First Cause is That which caused Time.Which time? (http://www.mkaku.org/articles/hyper_sci_odyssey.shtml) If we consider time as a dimension, String Theory would imply that our time could have been caused within a higher 'time dimension' if you wish; God's time dimension (which may or may not be integral to God Himself)?
Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision.Consciousness makes one aware, then one can make decisions based on his awareness. Does awareness require time or does awareness result in the perception of time? Can God be aware and make a decision which is the Genesis of time itself? Seems workable to me.

I think those a relevent concerns which should be addressed before any conclusions are drawn.

How can 1/3 of infinity be equal to 1/2 of inifnity and still be equal to infinity?

It is not in a literal sense. Take for a moment all integer numbers > 0. That's an infinite set.

Take every odd number out of that set. That's still an infinite set, but not equal to the set of all integer numbers > 0.

Take every third number in the set of all integer numbers > 0. That's still an infinite set, but not equal to the set of all integer numbers > 0, nor is it equal to the set of all odd integer numbers > 0.

It's really more looking at truth as a part of God's Nature and it is reflected in His creation.

So God does not equal truth? You can not be equal to truth and at the same time have it as a part of your nature.

Moreover, to state that truth is in God's nature is yet another assumption rather than a proof. If you are going to use that assumption, it needs some kind of justification; why is truth in God's nature? what, exactly, does it mean?

Which time? If we consider time as a dimension, String Theory would imply that our time could have been caused within a higher 'time dimension' if you wish; God's time dimension
yes lets, for all intents and purposes, lets call them time a,time b,time c, and so to infinity and beyond.
and lets also while we are at it, use your word awareness rather than Consciousness, now lets chose any one of your different times, randomly lets call it time t, or t time.
now lets reprint draygomb's paradox, with the new stuff added.



Without T Time God didn't have enough T Time to decide to create T Time.


DRAYGOMB's PARADOX version 2

Definitions:

God is defined as The Conscious First Cause - St. Thomas Acquinas
The First Cause is That which caused T Time.
awareness is that which lets one make a decision.
A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
T Time is the measure of change.

Premises:

Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.

Conclusions:

T Time is required for Change.
A Decision is a Change.
Decisions require Time.
awareness can't let one make a decision without T Time.
awareness requires T Time.
God is aware.
God requires T Time.
God can't be the cause of T Time if God requires T Time.
God isn't the cause of T Time.
God isn't The First Cause.
If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.

God doesn't exist.

WOW Still works for me.

awareness can't let one make a decision without T Time.Is there a problem with time resulting from awareness? I don't think so. The only reason you perceive 'time' at all is because you are aware. But, would you be aware if there was no time? So which is the prerequisite then? I would see awareness as simply recognising that one object is at point A as opposed to point B at an instant. Time starts when object A undergoes some sort of motion from point A to point C say. Thus you are aware, then you see time. Thus there is still a problem with the G-'Paradox'. Any objections? I'm all eyes.

Take every odd number out of that set. That's still an infinite set, but not equal to the set of all integer numbers > 0.The only way you can conclude this is if you have a definite value for infinity. Otherwise they can both be equal. Makes no sense? I agree. It's logical though.:pSo God does not equal truth? You can not be equal to truth and at the same time have it as a part of your nature.It's either one or the other. Some might define "Truth" as God. I don't. Regardless, truth points to God as seen by the Theist.

Moreover, to state that truth is in God's nature is yet another assumption rather than a proof. If you are going to use that assumption, it needs some kind of justification; why is truth in God's nature? what, exactly, does it mean?If truth was not in the Creator's Nature then His creation would have no value of truth associated with it. That's what Daniel was illustratiing (or trying to[?]) above. Theists see God as the creator. If truth is at all in the creation it must be at least a part of God's Nature.

Is there a problem with time resulting from awareness? I don't think so. The only reason you perceive 'time' at all is because you are aware

that is what it says.(see red writing)

It's beyond me and proberly millions of others why you cant see this.
time is time is time, whatever name you wish to call it
how many TIMES do we have to reworded this
whatever happens to the universe, time is effected
whatever happens to an aleged creator, time is effected
time can be an instant, time can be a millennium,
depending on your perspective.



Without Time God didn't have enough Time to decide to create Time.


DRAYGOMB's PARADOX version 3

Definitions:

God is defined as The Conscious First Cause - St. Thomas Acquinas
The First Cause is That which caused Time.
awareness/Consciousness is what is needed for one to make a decision.
A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
Time is the measure of the change/decision.

Premises:

Something which is caused can't be needed by that which causes it.

Conclusions:

Time is needed to make a Change.
A Decision is in essense a Change.
Decisions need Time.
awareness/Consciousness needs Time to make a decision.
awareness/Consciousness needs Time.
God is aware/Conscious.
God needs Time.
God could not have caused Time, if God needs Time.
God isn't the cause of Time.
God isn't The First Cause.
If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.

God doesn't exist.

and it Still works for us.

all three work for me, but you cant expect marcac to accept it he's a believer we should agree to disagree.

The only way you can conclude this is if you have a definite value for infinity. Otherwise they can both be equal.
No. The sets are not equal, regardless whether there exists a definite value for infinity (which doesn't). To proof you this, I should find an element of one set that is not in the second set. In our example, it's very easy. I take the number 2. It is obviously in the set of integer numbers > 0, but not in the set of odd integer numbers > 0.

Regardless, truth points to God as seen by the Theist.
Yes, but there is no proof that truth does point to God. This thread was started with an attempt to proof it. Which failed.

Theists see God as the creator. If truth is at all in the creation it must be at least a part of God's Nature.
In God's creation there is also deception. Was deception a part of God's nature? Perhaps you would argue that it is part of the Devil's nature, but was not even he created by God to begin with?

awareness/Consciousness is what is needed for one to make a decision.
A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
Time is the measure of the change/decision.Yeah but you still haven't shown, here, how awareness requires time. The decision requires consciousness and awareness... sure... but... still you fail to show where awareness requires a decision which requires time. You cool with that?

You see it's like this; You drive a car in dirt and the wheels leave a trail. A trail from point A to B we conveniently call time. What you are saying is that the car needs that trail it left to start driving. Or like thiis; you are saying D requires A and T. In no way does that imply that A requires T. So can you show me how awareness requires a decision?

did existence just happen, or did god decide to create it, so we can say that god was aware of his decision to create it, and while he was making this decision was time standing still, was he stuck in a micro second, not going forward or backward, up or down, left or right, thinking or not, stuck right there not doing anything.
" NO " so therefore he needed time to make a decision, and he had to be aware also.
are you cool with that.


You see it's like this; You drive a car in dirt and the wheels leave a trail. A trail from point A to B we conveniently call time. What you are saying is that the car needs that trail it left to start driving. Or like thiis; you are saying D requires A and T. In no way does that imply that A requires T. So can you show me how awareness requires a decision?
no, it's your aware, if you drive a car in the dirt, it will leave a trail, from a to b.
so you decide to make that trail, and in order to make the trail, you need time else you stand still.

@ the preacher

How can God need something that He created. That statement evinces a logical inconsistency. Considering He created time before there was time, that to the human perspective there would be past, present and future.

In our example, it's very easy. I take the number 2. It is obviously in the set of integer numbers > 0, but not in the set of odd integer numbers > 0.I get you perfectly and you're right... but in terms of members they're still infinite sets and for all reasonable considerations have to have equal amounts of members and yet cannot have equal amounts of members. Infinity is undefined, sure, and that's the reason for the nonsesense... the question is does it really exist? It's everywhere you look. So it demands consideration. It's like trying to deny you exist. It might look to the mathematician like God does to the atheist; Everywhere you look but you can't understand it so you try to deny its existence.In God's creation there is also deception. Was deception a part of God's nature? Perhaps you would argue that it is part of the Devil's nature, but was not even he created by God to begin with?Deception is just that. It is what is not. Truth is what is. God didn't create what isn't there. Get me? He created what is. Deception must be due to our wrongful interpretations of what is there. You know? Our flat earths and our earth centred universes. Otherwise deception is a truth (which really doesn't make sense to me), and not a bad thing. That's my rationalisation. It's a very good question though. The fact God is all knowing means he saw it coming. Why'd he allow it? What good does it do? I think it's all a consequence of us beling allowed choices. We choose what to believe.

§our§tar: "@ the preacher

How can God need something that He created.
*************
M*W: "Necessity is the mother of invention."
*************
SourStar: That statement evinces a logical inconsistency. Considering He created time before there was time, that to the human perspective there would be past, present and future.
*************
M*W: God didn't create time as we know it. Time is a measurement invented by humans. God created life cycles that are manifested in and of creation itself, like the orbiting of Earth around the sun, length of gestations of all mammals, birth, puberty, menopause, death; the sun directly overhead at 12:00 Noon (unless interupted by man's creation of DST); the ebb and flow of the tides. Cycles of life are found in all creation. Man created the measurement of the life cycles.

@ the preacher

How can God need something that He created. That statement evinces a logical inconsistency. Considering He created time before there was time, that to the human perspective there would be past, present and future.
that exactly the point.
look at mistys post below.

Without Time God didn't have enough Time to decide to create Time.


DRAYGOMB's PARADOX

Definitions:

God is defined as The Conscious First Cause - St. Thomas Acquinas
The First Cause is That which caused Time.
Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision.
A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
Time is the measure of change.

Premises:

Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.

Conclusions:

Time is required for Change.
A Decision is a Change.
Decisions require Time.
Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
Consciousness requires Time.
God is Conscious.
God requires Time.
God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
God isn't the cause of Time.
God isn't The First Cause.
If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.

God doesn't exist.

thank you Southstar.
now do you see it MarcAC, southstar does.

I get you perfectly and you're right... but in terms of members they're still infinite sets and for all reasonable considerations have to have equal amounts of members and yet cannot have equal amounts of members.
Why do you think that they should have an equal amount of members, for all reasonable considerations?

It is what is not. Truth is what is. God didn't create what isn't there. Get me?
Yes, but the act of deception and the deception itself are not negated. I can tell you that the colour of my eyes is brown. That would be lie, but nonetheless the lie exists, just as much as the truth exists. If God is the cause of all that is, he is also the cause of this little deception I just conjured. If we follow your rationale, that implies deception must have been also a part of his nature. Personally, I do not agree with that, very much like I do not agree with stating that every truth points to God.

Not to mention that we have completely side stepped the discussion how to recognize truth to begin with, if all we have are unreliable senses, an imperfect mind and instruments made by the same imperfect beings. The scientific method is an example of how to cope with all those uncertainties which could make research prone to error. Yet, even a scientist would probably not claim so boldy to have found the "truth". Rather, he or she would claim to have found a model with more predictive value than the previous one.

Taking this into consideration, I suppose the concept of God was an appealing model for explaining nature, but I think we can find better models today.

IF i had a pound/dollar etc for every 'God' writ here, i'd be a rich dude. but if i was lookin for pickens from the word 'Goddess' i'b be in the dirt

the premise is 'God' right? hod did 'HE' 'create' (before?) time, etc

But if we was to understand the Goddess who preceded the idea of a creator-god-male, we'd know that Earth and Cosmos/Yoniverse was her BODY. an organism....of course 'She'=Androgyny

As with Nature there is constant change. and change = organic time. ORGANIC time, not mechanical time, which is the kind of time wees pushed by the patriarchal sky-god creators

Organic time is spontaneous and it is not cut-off from eternity. it is simply two ways of looking at the same process

duendy: the premise is 'God' right? hod did 'HE' 'create' (before?) time, etc
*************
M*W: duendy, you continually amaze me with the depth of your understanding of these matters.
*************
duendy: But if we was to understand the Goddess who preceded the idea of a creator-god-male, we'd know that Earth and Cosmos/Yoniverse was her BODY. an organism....of course 'She'=Androgyny
*************
M*W: My belief on androgyny is that is the direction in which our evolution is going. I believe we were androgynous at an ancient time pre-dating the patriarchy. In fact, I believe the myth of Adam and Eve was written in a way trying to explain that when Adam was first created, s/he was androgynous. I believe the name "Adamu" simply means the earth. But when Eve (wisdom) was taken out of Adam's side, wisdom was removed from the earth and they became separate.
*************
duendy: As with Nature there is constant change. and change = organic time. ORGANIC time, not mechanical time, which is the kind of time wees pushed by the patriarchal sky-god creators
*************
M*W: I'm sure you are as observant as I am. Androgyny is well integrated in societies all over the world. When the human race reaches a total blending of all races, colors, ethnicities and genders, we will then live in what I shall call paradise.

did existence just happen, or did god decide to create it,We first have to clarify the nature of non-existence. What is existence anyway? Who says it can be created? Existence is a term we apply to being. God must be that being which has always been or else we have infinite causation.so we can say that god was aware of his decision to create it,...and God can say "I AM aware of My decision to create... [whatever he created]". We in our 3/4 D existence say was and will. Those terms are not a necessity when God speaks, so to spoeak.and while he was making this decision was time standing still,That's not the question. The real question is this: Is time a necessary precursor to a decision being made due to awareness? Does time have to be before the decision or at the beginning of the decision and throughout the making of the decision? Like the car tyre trail being there before the car is driven. Draygomb is assuming that and that's a pretty crappy assumption." NO " so therefore he needed time to make a decision, and he had to be aware also.From our view, yes, but before the decision or during?...so you decide to make that trail, and in order to make the trail, you need time else you stand still.Yes. But does time have to BE before you start from point a? No. You can apply Occam's Razor if you want - keep the situation we're trying to analyse in mind; Creation. Did time have to be before creation or can/does it start at the instant of creation? Nowhere has this been addressed in the paradox. You're trying to say that the tyre trail comes before the car is driven in the dirt when you say time is a precursor to creation. It's not gospel really (I'm no preacher), but I had to make is look like a sermon.:D

Decisions require Time.Before the decision is made or during? I think you guys need Draygomb to come listen in and give you some tips.

Why do you think that they should have an equal amount of members, for all reasonable considerations?Because that's what inifnity implies. It can mean anything. Until it is defined or recognised for what it represents; as South Star once implied (the limits imposed on the human perception). In other words the sets can be reasonably equal and reasonably unequal. Crap yeah, but that's infinity and humanb reasoning for you.If God is the cause of all that is, he is also the cause of this little deception I just conjured.You must be joking. :eek: LOL. Are you serious? No He isn't. LOL. You know the truth of brown eyes exsting. You wrongfully and deceitfully choose to apply that truth to yourself (if you don't have brown eyes). You are trying to say that God created that deception? Let's blame 9/11 on the Wright brothers then why don't we?Not to mention that we have completely side stepped the discussion how to recognize truth to begin with,Daniel has proven that irrelevant in this argument. Regardless of what truth there is there is truth and truth points to ultimate truth which should be the source of all that is (all truth); God.Taking this into consideration, I suppose the concept of God was an appealing model for explaining nature, but I think we can find better models today.Such as?:)

In other words the sets can be reasonably equal and reasonably unequal.
This makes no sense, and certainly is not a valid statement about two infinite sets. What do you mean by "reasonably" in this context?

You must be joking. :eek: LOL. Are you serious? No He isn't. LOL. You know the truth of brown eyes exsting. You wrongfully and deceitfully choose to apply that truth to yourself (if you don't have brown eyes). You are trying to say that God created that deception? Let's blame 9/11 on the Wright brothers then why don't we?
Yes, I agree with you that it is a bogus argument. Nonetheless, I used the line of reasoning simular to what this thread was started with.

Daniel has proven that irrelevant in this argument. Regardless of what truth there is there is truth and truth points to ultimate truth which should be the source of all that is (all truth);
How does the truth about the colour of my eyes point to the ultimate truth? And how does that point to God? You have not yet given a compelling argument why God is the source of everything, other than defining that he just is. That makes this reasoning rather circular: you start with assuming that God is the source of truth, you assume that there is a truth, you assume that every truth leads to another and then you conclude that there is a God. That's not a proof. That's a shaky set of assumptions.

Such as?:)
Depends on which area of nature you are looking at.

This makes no sense, and certainly is not a valid statement about two infinite sets. What do you mean by "reasonably" in this context?Meaning, considering what infinity is... we don't really know. So whatever we state about the equality in the number of elements of inifinite sets can be true or false depending on which argument we use.Yes, I agree with you that it is a bogus argument. Nonetheless, I used the line of reasoning simular to what this thread was started with.Well, similar but not exactly the same. As I said, that would mean deception is a truth which doesn't make sense to me. Regardless, truth exists. You can try to say that deception points to God using your argument but the crux of it is totally different from what Daniel was proving (where deception is a bad thing and God would have bad things in His nature). The whole point of Daniel's demonstration was to show the absurdity of truth not existing (if you defined it as non-existent that would be a truth anyway). He didn't include good or bad in his post. I agree he did not answer, well, how truth points to God. But let me try to clarify, again.How does the truth about the colour of my eyes point to the ultimate truth?You said it yourself. Obviously? Truth about the colour of you eyes? Sure you aren't smoking some cheese there dude? ...Or else you want to say there doesn't have to be a source of truth and truth just is. Why does there have to be an ultimate source? As Daniel showed(?) all truths lead to another [see proving 1]. 1=1. 2=2 (defined truths). 1+1 = 2 (one truth to another). So if you have 2,000,000,000 it's the same as 1+1+ ... +1+1 = 2,000,000,000 or 1+2+3+4+ ... = 2,000,000,000. It's a truth and it points to Ultimate Truth which is a unifying source. Notice? Cause all truths are linked. The truth of 2,000,000,000 can be expressed by an infinite number of equalities I'm guessing - all truths in themselves. So there is a unifying Ultimate Truth or else 1 = 2,000,000,000 could be a truth. Get it? There's something behind the logic wich restricts it. And he said he was thinking in terms of a tree trunk and you have truths branching out sort of but all linked back to the source.

Or...

You can just say truth exists, it either just is or there's a unifying restrictive source (or else 1=2 x 10 ^ 9).And how does that point to God? You have not yet given a compelling argument why God is the source of everything, other than defining that he just is.And you have a problem with that? How about saying it this way? Truth points to an Ultimate Source of Truth and you can replace the 4 terms in the statement with God or... see below... It's like noticing that you are here and defining that as existence.That makes this reasoning rather circular: you start with assuming that God is the source of truth, you assume that there is a truth, you assume that every truth leads to another and then you conclude that there is a God. That's not a proof. That's a shaky set of assumptions.Every mode of reasoning can be reduced to a circle as there must be a base assumption. However, from above... the assumption: "'God' or 'The Creator' or the 'First Cause' defined as the Creator of everything is the Source of Everything" is a valid one right? Your question is similar to asking: Why is a computer called a computer? Or Why is existence called existence? Theists use the term God to refer to the Source of All Things. Truth (everything that is) points to Ultimate Truth (the 'First Cause' or 'Source') which as shown above and above can be called 'God'. God is the Source; The First Cause; The Alpha; The Omega; The Creator; The Sustainer; The Source of All Truth (that which is); The Ultimate Truth; God is God; God isDepends on which area of nature you are looking at.Interesting. Any would do really.

so marc, do you believe god to be the first cause.

To say that something is ‘true’ is merely to say that it is in line with reality. Truth or falseness is simply one of the many properties that ideas or propositions can have. Ideas can be true or false, just like they can be offensive, helpful, distracting, confusing, or appealing.

How are you defining ‘true’ as ‘god’? God is a noun, while truth is more of an adjective. Truth has no context outside of the idea or contention to which it is attached.

You can say “it is true that god exists,” and your sentence makes logical sense; you are attaching the modified ‘true’ to the idea ‘god exists’. However to simply say “God is truth” doesn’t make any more sense than saying “God is yellowness” or “God is tallness.”

so marc, do you believe god to be the first cause.That question looks like; "Do you believe God to be God?" Hope that helps.

To say that something is ‘true’ is merely to say that it is in line with reality.I fully agree here....Ideas can be true or false, just like they can be offensive, helpful, distracting, confusing, or appealing.Here, I disagree. A truth is always true. A non-truth is always false. That's the only way it can be seen unless you are going to say reality has 'context'. In other words turth is objective. Offensive, helpful, distracting are all subjective. They are all based on the individual human experience. Something won't be absolutely offensive to everyone; "Damn you've got a nice ass!" *WHACK*. Some people might find that offensive while others live for it. I can't see a truth in line with such a variable. A truth, to me, has to be above and beyond human whims.
How are you defining ‘true’ as ‘god’? God is a noun, while truth is more of an adjective. Truth has no context outside of the idea or contention to which it is attached.Not really that. But it is shown that there must be a source of truth (reality). I and Daniel I guess, define that Source as God.You can say “it is true that god exists,” and your sentence makes logical sense; you are attaching the modified ‘true’ to the idea ‘god exists’. However to simply say “God is truth” doesn’t make any more sense than saying “God is yellowness” or “God is tallness.”God is Truth (ultimate) would mean God is the source of all truth (the necessity of a source' is illustrated in the first post). As you defined above (I think) truth in itself must be reality (not what humans say it is). God is the Ultimate Reality and the Source of all that is Real. God is the Source. God is Truth... not simply truth.

MarcAC: I agree that there is an objective reality that exists regardless of our perceptions or opinions. However, you seem here to be saying that what is true can’t change, which clearly isn’t the case. It might not be true at the moment that I have a red car, but it might be true tomorrow should I go out and buy a red car this afternoon.

When I say that truth has no context outside of the idea to which it’s attached, what I mean is that the label ‘true’ is a merely a descriptive modifier that must be applied to something in order to have meaning. So again, I don’t see what you mean by saying that ‘god is truth’.
God is Truth (ultimate) would mean God is the source of all truth (the necessity of a source' is illustrated in the first post). As you defined above (I think) truth in itself must be reality (not what humans say it is). God is the Ultimate Reality and the Source of all that is Real. God is the Source. God is Truth... not simply truth.[/color]Even if god is the creator of reality, I still don’t think that ‘god is truth’ makes any sense. You could say “God is the creator of the one reality that we use as our baseline for measuring truthfulness or falsehood” but that isn’t the same as saying that god is truth. Truth is a descriptor, not a noun. You seem to regard truth to be an actual thing, rather than a concept.

When you say ‘god is the ultimate reality,’ that seems like a pretty empty statement to me. It is apparent that reality exists – but if you chose to define that reality as ‘god,’ it doesn’t really serve any useful purpose.

However, you seem here to be saying that what is true can’t change, which clearly isn’t the case. It might not be true at the moment that I have a red car, but it might be true tomorrow should I go out and buy a red car this afternoon.True. Here, I, and Daniel I think, define truth as a fundamental unchanging principle. Like 1=1, or your red car is red. It can never be blue. Truth is a noun.Even if god is the creator of reality, I still don’t think that ‘god is truth’ makes any sense. You could say “God is the creator of the one reality that we use as our baseline for measuring truthfulness or falsehood” but that isn’t the same as saying that god is truth. Truth is a descriptor, not a noun. You seem to regard truth to be an actual thing, rather than a concept.True is an adjective: Truth is a noun. When we say God is Truth. We mean God is "the creator of the one reality that we use as our baseline for measuring truthfulness or falsehood" It's like applying a name to something that we observe.When you say ‘god is the ultimate reality,’ that seems like a pretty empty statement to me. It is apparent that reality exists – but if you chose to define that reality as ‘god,’ it doesn’t really serve any useful purpose.I don't think it is. Ultimate Reality would be a term which applies to the creator of reality. It's just - as above - applying a name to that which is observed.

I don't think it is. Ultimate Reality would be a term which applies to the creator of reality. It's just - as above - applying a name to that which is observed.But how is this useful? It is pretty self-evident that reality exists, so it must have come into being somehow. Labeling whatever is responsible for the creation of reality as ‘God’ doesn’t tell you any more about reality, or about God.

Meaning, considering what infinity is... we don't really know. So whatever we state about the equality in the number of elements of inifinite sets can be true or false depending on which argument we use.

I've looked it up. They do have the same number of elements, see here (http://pirate.shu.edu/projects/reals/infinity/). My excuses for the whole confusion about infinite sets.

Why does there have to be an ultimate source? As Daniel showed(?) all truths lead to another [see proving 1]. 1=1. 2=2 (defined truths). 1+1 = 2 (one truth to another). So if you have 2,000,000,000 it's the same as 1+1+ ... +1+1 = 2,000,000,000 or 1+2+3+4+ ... = 2,000,000,000. It's a truth and it points to Ultimate Truth which is a unifying source. Notice? Cause all truths are linked

One truth to another? 1+1=2, because it complies to a set of rules and definitions of which we have mutual consensus about. It's an equation. As such, it does not "point" to any "ultimate truth".

The truth of 2,000,000,000 can be expressed by an infinite number of equalities I'm guessing - all truths in themselves. So there is a unifying Ultimate Truth or else 1 = 2,000,000,000 could be a truth. Get it? There's something behind the logic wich restricts it.

I have difficulty understanding how "truth" applies to a randomly chosen number, but obviously I agree with you that there is a reason why 1 is not equal to 2,000,000,000: it does not conform to the rules and definitions we use when doing calculations.

Truth points to an Ultimate Source of Truth and you can replace the 4 terms in the statement with God

"God" has of course a biblical connation. It implies a creator who consciously made the decision to create the universe as it is. For that, there is no proof. What we can state is that things around us seem to be governed by some set of rules. However, these rules do not necessarily need a creator, let alone a concious one. These rules may very well just be.

cyperium: it's called indoctrination/brainwashing, and from birth religious zealots force it on theirs and others children.
they should be allowed to be children, and decide what they want when there old enough.
I and millions of others have reason, sense, and intellect, in our brains there's no area devoted to a god/gods, we're not that stupid, we're not sheep.( after all jesus called you all his flock)

as godless and mouse said irichc
You equal God with truth, Why? try non-entity.
however as it has come from a believer, then there's no wonder it completely baffling and meaningless.We believe what feel is true. Just as anyone else. There is great comfort in believing in God. But I agree that children must choose for themselves what to believe in, and shouldn't be influenced so much by atheist or theist (or society for that matter).

But of course they should be given the option. In any age. Cause it is the reality we live in, we shouldn't blind them to it but have a acceptence for it. Most children do have a idea of God. Surely they have heard Him mentioned, and have considered if He exists or not.

If you as an atheist, say that God doesn't exist to a child that has taken it as a truth, then you may do him much harm.

However, some things are for adults and some things are for children, we should teach love and understanding nevertheless.

Cype... I agree with much of what you said. except;

If you as an atheist, say that God doesn't exist to a child that has taken it as a truth, then you may do him much harm.

There's no harm in teaching a kid objective reality, fact is kids without the dogmatic notion of gods, agels, leprechauns, unicorns, devils, MYSTICISM in general are better suited for studies in intelectual fields such as science, mathematics, physics. Than kids with the notion of an easy answer for everything. "god did it".

Godless.

well put Godless, well put.

and also if the child has taken it as truth, then it has been indoctrinated.
you give a child two balls both exact in every way and you never tell them that one is better then the other.
they will make a choice, there is no doubt, try it.
and yes we all should teach love and understanding.

But how is this useful? It is pretty self-evident that reality exists, so it must have come into being somehow. Labeling whatever is responsible for the creation of reality as ‘God’ doesn’t tell you any more about reality, or about God.Interesting. I'm more thinking on the lines of identity. To me, that's like saying it doesn't tell you any more about a computer to call it a computer (so why not call it a stove?:p). Sure. But if you see the phenomenon you need to identify it. What does calling gravity gravity tell you about gravity and it's effect? Daniel adressed this in his post. There must be identity and "opposition" was the term I think he used. If you see evidence for a creator and call it God; why not? Maybe you have a prob with what 'properties' God would have? That's where reality informs us. So, it's not about calling the 'Creator of all' God telling you more about reality. It's more about reality telling you that there is a Creator and telling you what that Creator may be or is like. Creator... God... ?

One truth to another? 1+1=2, because it complies to a set of rules and definitions of which we have mutual consensus about. It's an equation. As such, it does not "point" to any "ultimate truth".Interesting. I like BMWs. You don't like BMWs. I want 1 = 2. You want 1 = 1. What's the difference between these "rule systems" that it's o.k. for me to like BMWs but not o.k. for me to want 1 = 2 and define 1 = 2?However, these rules do not necessarily need a creator, let alone a concious one. These rules may very well just be.All rule systems that we know of have had a creator(s)... except one... reality itself. I think the rules of reality are governed by a Source. Why do you disagree?

The most strange suggestion I can ever hear or see is the one which states you should allow a child to grow up without any sort of bias to one system of belief or the other. I guess Amoebas don't believe anything, so why not let them raise the kid(s)?!?!?!?!

I guess Amoebas don't believe anything, so why not let them raise the kid(s)?!?!?!?!


That just plain stupidity!.

A child does not understand the concept of god, existence, or religious dogma.

As a child I was the one kid who asked in Suday school.

Who created god? then!.

As a child I had doubt, that I was created and that I was great, and that god is great but not created. That did not make any sense at all at the tender age of 8. Though when I questioned religious dogma I was suppose to just believe what the elders tought me. However they couldn't answer plain questions from a child. I.E. the genesis BS. If we all came from Adam and Eve, why are there black people, chinese, and they all look different?.

I was more confused by religious dogma through my whole life that latters I just became a drug addict. Becuase I wanted to find my self? Idiotic I know that know, however it led me to searh for truth through drugs, so I can be enlighten. Considring that most families in the US are religious and there seems to be a problem with teen drug addicts, I wonder if they are not going through the same kind of psychological problems?.

Religion has done nothing but confuse the hell out of kids.

Godless.

The most strange suggestion I can ever hear or see is the one which states you should allow a child to grow up without any sort of bias to one system of belief or the other.


the child is born without bias, if it starts that way, why should it not stay that way.
only a moron, would want to make something so pure, so dirty.

all amoebas are religious.

Interesting. I like BMWs. You don't like BMWs. I want 1 = 2. You want 1 = 1. What's the difference between these "rule systems" that it's o.k. for me to like BMWs but not o.k. for me to want 1 = 2 and define 1 = 2?

"1" and "2" are just labels, you are not obstructed to define them in any way you want whether it is sensible or not. Nonetheless, we both were educated with a specific one in mind and it makes sense to use that one to prevent ourselves for being misunderstood.

All rule systems that we know of have had a creator(s)... except one... reality itself. I think the rules of reality are governed by a Source. Why do you disagree?

We can point at a moment in time where a model didn't exist. We can point at a moment in time where a model did exist. I'm not sure I can do the same with reality.

That just plain stupidity!.Glad you agree.As a child I was the one kid who asked in Suday school.

Who created god? then!.Heh. That's a classic question from Sunday school kids (at least when I taught). I've taught a few. The best questions they can ask me are those. The difficult ones - cause those are the ones which will dtermine if the abandon the faith or stick with it.If we all came from Adam and Eve, why are there black people, chinese, and they all look different?.The answer to that question has no religious implications.Religion has done nothing but confuse the hell out of kids.I wouldn't say Religion alone. All the conflicting views of science, religion, and anti-realism confuse the hell out of kids and adults alike... atheism and agnosticism included.

"1" and "2" are just labels, you are not obstructed to define them in any way you want whether it is sensible or not. Nonetheless, we both were educated with a specific one in mind and it makes sense to use that one to prevent ourselves for being misunderstood.I don't think so. Are you telling me that if I saw one elephant and then looked behind me and saw two elephants I could regard the numbers as equal? I'm not referring words*. I'm talking reality here.

The point is all humans have belief systems. It is part of your definition as a human being to believe. Thus bias to one system of belief or another is unavoidable. Unless you want religious amoebas raising your kids.

hence why atheist dont indoctrinate there children.
I have two little boys living next to me, thay have no toys, and no tv to watch.
they never have friends around to play, as it frowned upon they are jehovah witnesses
and have to sit and study the bible, this is child abuse, not christianity.
let them be children first, they can be bible punchers later if there wish.
there parents are most definitely amoebas.

hence why atheist dont indoctrinate there children.In other words you don't allow them to believe any religious nonesense am I right? Because you don't believe any 'religious nonesense'. What if an atheist's child wanted to go to church? Would they allow them that freedom of choice? Think about that. Anyway, this thread is dead. I'm out.

I don't know if anyone here has taken formal logic, but in it truth is defined as "the way things actually are." Whether a "statement" is true or not depends on whether or not it describes the way things actually are. Any given "truth" is then simply an affirmation of a part of reality. If there is an ultimate truth, then it would be an affirmation of all of reality, and all possible realities. If that truth is to be independant, and needing no explanation (cause), as is claimed by the theist, then that truth must simply "be." Being is reality, and simply to be, is the quintessential of reality. Truth is what actually is.

Consider this, if I am a truth, then I am composed of truths. The truth that I am is the person writing the post. The composition of that truth is several more necessary truths (atoms, and energy, etc..). It can be seen that the truths that compose me, are also part of the composition of other truths (the people who wrote the other messages on this thread). It may also be shown, perhaps, that these truth that compose me, and others, may also be composed of several other truths, and so on. An ultimate truth would be composed entirely of that which could be made into anything. If this were true, then that ultimate truth would have to be infinite, and contain within itself the possibility for any constructed thing. I am a truth because I am part of what is real. The utterance of my name, therefore, in conjunction with the intent that it is me that is being spoken of, therefore is a true utterance, since it describes (perhaps in an incomplete way) what is real. If God is real, then God is a truth. To simply say "God" with the intent of referring to that existing thing which we call God, is therefore to affirm a truth , and the utterance "God" would be a true utterance. Truth needs no affirmation to be true, truth simply is what is. The truth of a statement is simply an affirmation of what is already true.

freedom of choice, and freedom of mind, freedom from fear, and pure love for our fellow man regardless of his beliefs.
humanity first and formost.