Proof of the existence of God

Glad we cleared that up!

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You know there is more than one God even in the bible?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really?

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I envy you your ability to live in the world of ignorance that you so aptly demonstrate, Jan. You say that it is not claiming God exists and then proceed to explain exactly why it is a claim. I sometimes wish I could just avoid all logic and be as pig-ignorant as you.

If you are claiming that if God does not exist then nothing would exist, you are claiming that God therefore exists - because we exist.

Your singular failure to accept that you claim this, and to keep denying what you implicitly claim, is bordering on the delusional, questionably deliberate dishonesty on your part, or simply utter ignorance of logic.

Your inability to see what your words logically imply is astounding.

So it is further evidence that you have an appalling inability to comprehend the implications of what you write.

No it doesn't.
As I thought - you have no idea what it means.
Something is necessary if there is no possibility of it's existence being excluded and still reaching the conclusion.
You have contended that if God does not exist then we would not exist.
This is thus you claiming that God is necessary.

Irrelevant given your lack of understanding of what it means to be considered necessary.

Sure, if it is only eternal in the future, but not if it is eternal in the past.

Now, go away and actually try to comprehend the words being used.
It will make conversations that much more meaningful.

 

So if I say that a vampire will burn in sunlight, am I claiming that vampires are real?

I have not contended that, that is part of the definition.
An original cause is necessary for further cause and effects to take place, and it itself does not come into, or go out of being. Neither is it dependent of anything else for it's exitense.
God is defined as the original cause/creator, therefore the definition implies necessity.

Ah! Don't be such a baby.

jan.

 

Your question has no bearing on the nature of arguments thus put forth.

Which you contend exists, through not only the arguments you have so far put forth but including the one below.

No it is not.
Do you not understand what eternal means? An eternal chain of cause and effect is simply that: eternal - no beginning, no end.

Well, other than introducing another attribute for God, how do you imagine that something that is supposedly the original cause but does not come into being is able to interact with anything?

Who said it had to be?

Firstly, stating that the definition implies necessity is a claim that the definition exists - that there is no possibility of it not existing.
Having had necessary explained to you, do you therefore now accept that you have claimed that God exists?

Secondly, the definition still does not imply necessity. You have simply failed to deal with the possibility of something being eternal. You have ignored it. And until you address such things you can not claim that you have shown God, as defined, to be necessary, irrespective of your bleatings to the contrary.

So again you seem to think it other people's fault for your failings.

 

Totes for reals.

 

Spacetime is the result of CDT. If you want to equate God as the artist, then God is a self iterating fractal.

btw. FW is an illusion, created by our belief of having choice. The problem is that the choices we make are always in the direction of greater satisfaction and therefore no choice at all.

Sometimes this choice in the direction of greater satisfaction turns out to have "unintended consequences", and we say, "he made the wrong choice from free will.", but he made the only choice he could make under the circumstances. It is true he could have made a different choice, but only if the circumstances had been appropriately different.

That is the Deterministic aspect of natural law. God's law?

 

And who defined God, or is it just a Word used by humans to define something they don't understand? Do you understand God's mysterious ways?

That expression alone negates any claimed understanding of how things really work.

 

Why not?

I contend that the definition exits, of course.

Do you not understand what is meant by original cause?

How would you able to imagine such a universe to know that it is a fact that God does not exist?
Isn't it a case of wishful thinking?

I imagine that if we have consciousness, then it would be likely that the original cause/creator had consciousness. And through that conscious interplay we could interact with the creation, and the creator.

The definition does exist, I've never denied that. But I don't have to believe God exists to use the definition as it is it's own thing, which is why I don't have to make any claims. Other than the definition exists.

Definition - a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.

I beg to differ. The definition smacks of necessity.
You have no idea of what eternality is, because you have no experience of it, in any way.

You are simply applying the term to the universe because you are pretty sure the universe had a beginning, and it makes you uncomfortable, because it could mean that God's definition may be correct after all. And you can't have that. Can you?

And to make it worse science says it had to have a beginning (at least at present),

jan.

 

Jan, you may be interested in this link; it argues in your favor (I think). : http://reality.org.uk/

You are right, but the introduction of Original Cause in the definition of God, presents a lot of logical problems, IMO.

Is this "sensation" experienced by God?

Yes but science does not say that God was responsible. After all this time, no measurable indications.

But in the end science does ask the question if "being" implies a sentient Motivated Condition or a purely Mathematical Condition.
Is a "field" a being? Of course it is a (mathematical) being, it's just not sentient or motivated. The "being" we call God must obey It's own laws, they are immutably mathematical and we DO know, these laws are mathematical in Expression andd measurable.

Can we define God as a non-sentient mathematical being which is expanding exponentially. Yes we can.
Can we define God as a motivated sentience. Not in my opinion. It's too complicated for a primal cause. It introduces implications of "Desire".

I just go straight to, "Beginning was Inevitable".

This is why I am really interested in the implications of the Deterministic concept of "decision (movement) in the direction of greater satisfaction". Is this concept applicable to a Sentient motivation (Need) , or a permitted hierarchical Mathematical unfolding of Reality ?[/quote]

 

Jan, how about you try answering questions for a change instead of just deflecting them? It makes you look dishonest.

 

Are you defining vampires as necessary for existence?

The definition exists. But as soon as you say that the definition implies necessity you are claiming that the thing exists, whether you admit to it or not, whether you explicitly state it or not. Or, now that you know (or should know) what necessity actually means, are you withdrawing the assertion that the definition implies necessity?

I do. Do you understand why something eternal does not need one?

The same way we are able to imagine such a universe to know that it is a fact that God does exist.
If that, to you, involves wishful thinking then so be it. But to me it would involve looking at the logical conclusion of the definitions provided and going from there.
As to how, in either scenario, it could be established as fact that God does or does not exist... I am in the camp that simply doesn't know what it would entail to establish either as factual.

First: this doesn't answer the question I asked: "how do you imagine that something that is supposedly the original cause but does not come into being is able to interact with anything?". Care to have another go?
Second: How does consciousness allow us to have an interplay with the creator, a creator that does not come into being?
Third: Why "then it would be likely"? On what basis do you make that assumption? Why do you think that which causes has to have the same attributes as that which is caused? Cold air cause water to turn solid? Is air solid? Again you just seem to be bringing in unwarranted assumptions without explanation.

Yet you claimed necessity. Are you still sticking to the notion that God is necessary, given that you have been corrected about what being necessary means?
But be that as it may, the definition does not imply necessity, as previously has been explained.

And you'd be wrong, as explained. Are you still sticking to that notion that God, as defined as "original cause" is a necessity.

I don't need to experience it to have an idea of it. That is just a pathetic fallacy of fake precision on your part. All one needs is a definition of it to have an idea. From that definition one can work with the logical conclusions that follow. Not the half-baked additive assumptions that you tend to drag in from nowhere without explanation, but simple logical conclusions.
Eternal: having no beginning or end.
God: Original cause.
Conclusion: Eternal things have no need of God (if one has no beginning, one needs no original cause as one has always been) - God is thus not necessary.
QED.

If you intend to have an argument on your own then feel free to make stuff up, feel free to argue the strawmen you have raised here, and feel free to argue ad hominem, again as you have done here. But while there are still other actual people in the discussion, please stick to what they have written. Their motives, whatever they may be, are irrelevant. Whether it makes them uncomfortable, or as comfortable as lying in a deck-chair in the Bahamas, is irrelevant.

No, it doesn't. You have been shown why the BVG does not say what you think it says. What else do you have to offer that shows that "science says it had to have a beginning"?
So if you have nothing else, please stop lying.

 

What is CDT?

My dear you complicate things, if you were a piece of code in my virtual simulation, then somehow you were curious as to what your origin is. Then you decide to do research on all the moving points and parts of the system. You cut of piece of your body and put it under a microscope. You take data, you now know how your body works functionally and a little about what it is made of, but yet you still remain empty, hungry, and even more confused. You have many material riches but still desire love and companionship.Why should this be, did you ever asked yourself what made you curious in the first place? After all you had no choice. We often think we can find the mind by looking in the brain, to be blind is a beautiful thing.

 

Yes they do for the mind knows only belief...

 

The definition of true
Freedom. No self responsibility ...hmm

 

Because if you begin to see you are witnessing a miracle.

 

Understood

But rather than miracle ; just our plain old Human intellect working as it should.

 

And why should it work at all? I hope you see the beauty in it all its artistic genius if you ask me. A unified system evolving as distinct seperate parts all having a common origin.

 

Complete thought

"Blindness is a beautiful thing, because if you begin to see you are witnessing a miracle."