Proof of the existence of God

Not illogical, as God is at least a valid logical conclusion. But the soundness of any conclusion about the origins of existence simply can not be tested. So we must go with what we consider rational. For me that would be to conclude "I don't know" - and to live life at a practical level as if God does not exist... it is the simpler theory (as in notion rather than anything scientific) - especially once you add in more attributes than just "Original Cause".

Exactly! It's the difference between what is logical and what is rational.
If something does not follow valid logic then it goes no further. But out of two competing notions, both of which are valid, that's when rationality kicks in. Unfortunately rationality is rather subjective - based on our own experiences, education, situation etc. So we may not all come to the same conclusion - but at least we would (or at least should) be able to agree on where we differ.

I agree that that is what Jan is saying, but that is a trivial matter - one which few disagree on - and Jan only keeps trying to repeat it so as to avoid addressing the mess already made through his constant denials of the logical implications of his posts.

What Jan said at the outset is equivalent to "because God is defined as such, if God does not exist, nothing could exist." But this is only the case IF one assumes that God actually exists, or is at least necessary.
Otherwise, if God does not exist (however God is defined) and we are still here, it merely shows that while the definition still applies to God, God is not necessary (because we are still here in the absence of God).
Thus our existence, the way the world looks now - with us having imagination - is not an argument for or against the existence of God defined as the "Original Cause".
Sure, a definition helps - and was provided by Jan very early on, and which the discussion has mostly adhered to (although some discussion is ongoing about whether that definition is sufficient for what is referred to as God, whether it is just the core attribute etc). So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to placate here - given the acceptance already of the definition for purposes of the majority of the discussion with Jan, and the agreement/acceptance that definitions are needed to be able have such discussions.

To explain the issue in a hopefully clearer way, which is not about the need for definition, but about how definition does not equate to existence (which while some might give lip service to they can't seem to back that up with anything else):

So imagine that there is a large rock in a field. The Gardener is defined as "The Man Who Put The Rock There".
Okay - so the rock is there, that much is certain.
So we can imagine a world in which The Gardener does exist: the rock is there. Thus the Gardener put it there - as defined - the definition can be applied to the existent Gardener.
Now, can we imagine a world in which The Gardener does not exist?
Jan's position is that the rock would not be there, because his view, his assumption, is that the rock could only have been put there by the Gardener - due to the definition of the Gardener, and that if something else put it there and not the Gardener then the Gardener is not as defined, and Jan would go down the whole "but then we're not talking about the same Gardener, and it's a waste of time" tactic etc.
But if you don't start with that a priori assumption of the Gardner being necessary, however, you could conclude that the rock is still there - but that it wasn't put there by anyone (if it was put there by another Man, that Man would be the Gardener - because that is who the Gardener is defined as).
In such a scenario where the Gardener does not exist, the Gardener is still defined as "The Man Who Put The Rock There", but because the Gardener is a fiction in this scenario (i.e. we've imagined that The Gardener does not exist), his definition does not apply to anything in reality.

Jan can't grasp this latter point because, as hopefully shown in this example, he is stuck with an a priori assumption of existence.

It goes nowhere while logical fallacies are thrown around with abandon, while people deny the logical implications of what they have previously written, and while people write with inconsistent claims and notions.
The fact that one person in this thread seems to do all three of these things... I hope you don't wonder why furthering discussion with that person is indeed a struggle.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're basically a buddhist.
I don't know if you've come to that conclusion yourself, but it is a good position because it encourages love, compassion, and empathy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Like every conversation with Jan. Jan doesn't want to commit to God actually having any attributes other than being a creator, even while sanctioning scriptures as informed documents about god. And Jan won't tell us any of Jan's personal reasons why Jan believes in God. It's pretty pathetic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This perfectly describes my experience of oneness in which the light in the room responded to my thoughts:

• [Co-Respondent]: “Richard, what is your description of enlightenment as you experienced it 20 years ago? (My understanding of the same event can be found in an earlier post)”.
• [Richard]: “And my answer is to be found in response to that earlier post: there was only The Absolute

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(God by whatever name) and nothing else existed. Howsoever, I can flesh it out a little ... my experience, for eleven years in the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’, was an on-going ecstatic state of rapturous, ineffable and sacred bliss: unconditional Love Agapé and Divine Compassion poured forth for all suffering sentient beings twenty four hours of the day. It was a truly euphoric state of being”.

 

We all know what a Gardner and a rock is.

Yes. The Gardener is not intrinsically connected to the rock.
Both exist independently of each other, this is our experience. So we can imagine that scenario, no trouble.

It is due to the definitions of these two agents that, help make us able to imagine them.
Otherwise, why choose them?

More importantly, he is defined as a man.

There is one way to imagine a world where God does not exist. That is to pretend that God does not exist, by denying everything whether it makes sense or not.
Then again, we don't have to imagine it.

jan.

 

Not really.

jan.

 

Thus, languages are ultimately self-processing; they must either contain their processors in their expressions, or be expressed in terms of a more basic language fulfilling this requirement. Accordingly, the expressions of SCSPL are dynamic informational configurations of information-processors, implying that SCSPL everywhere consists of information and acceptive-transductive syntax in a state of logical intersection. Together, information and syntax comprise infocognition, self-transducing information in the form of SCSPL syntactic operators that cross-absorptively "communicate" by acquiring each other’s informational states as cognitive-syntactic content. It is to the common basis of these two components that information may be reduced in the SCSPL context. Where the term telesis denotes this common component of information and syntax, SCSPL grammar refines infocognition by binding or constraining telesis as infocognition.
To the extent that any grammar functions by the recursive application of syntactic rules, SCSPL grammar is recursive ("self-calling"). However, SCSPL grammar is not merely deterministically or nondeterministically recursive, but telic-recursive. While an ordinary grammar recursively processes information or binds informational potential to an invariant syntax that distributes over its products, Γ grammar binds telesis, infocognitive potential ranging over possible relationships of syntax and state, by cross-refining syntax and its informational content through telic recursion. Telic recursion is the process responsible for configuring the syntax-content relationships on which standard informational recursion is based; its existence is an ontological requirement of reality. The telic-recursive cross-refinement of syntax and content is implicit in the "seed" of Γ-grammar, the MU form, which embodies the potential for perfect complementarity of syntax and state, law and matter.

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

The CTMU proposes a new mathematical entity, SCSPL. A self-processing "language of languages" that is real.

 

I find there is point in going beyond the most comprehended definition of God.

I've given my reasons. Just not (directly) in this thread.

jan.

 

On what basis do you "go beyond" scriptures?

 

I don't know. What basis do you "go beyond'' scripture?

jan,

 

We know what a rock is, but I have defined The Gardener for you (not sure why you italicised an incorrect spelling?). Please adhere to the example as given.

No, again, according to the analogy the rock's location is intrinsically linked to The Gardener.
Please adhere to the analogy as given. Do not read into it more than is there. Are you not able to cope?

Again, you are using your understanding of a gardener, not The Gardener as defined.
Let me make it clear again: the location of the rock in the analogy is intrinsically linked to The Gardener, by definition. The same way that God is intrinsically linked to everything by being defined as the Original Cause.

So what? He is defined as the man who put the rock where it is. He is defined as intrinsically linked to the location of the rock.
The analogy is quite clear in that, and clearly shows where you hold/apply your assumption of God's existence, as previously explained.

We don't need to deny everything or anything, we just need to imagine the non-existence of God and not hold an a priori asumption that God exists.

 

Please don't avoid the question if at all possible.

 

On Jan's behalf, if I am correct I would like to make an inference that she doesn't know everything just like the rest of us. We are all in this category multidemensional biengs as well. We are all temporal biengs existing inside space time these issues cannot be resolved unless ones perspective can be transcended beyond time and space. But at least she is trying that's all a temporal bieng can do the rest you must leave to God, for He is the only form of existence that experiences a state of bieng that is not affected by probability.

 

If you are all scientist I can vouch that an understanding of God will greatly inhance your comprehension of science. The most difficult questions asked by temporal biengs actually have answers if you choose to believe this or not. But the answers don't come easy it takes hard work intense focus and sincere dedication, so authentic intentions is the true way of all ways even if you are wrong you will at some point in time self correct yourself as long as you are able to defeat your ego.

 

Most people are aware of their own thought process. Can it really be the case that someone believes in God and doesn't know why?

 

'The Gardner' describes a person who does gardening.
Putting a rock somewhere is something that a gardener may do.
Putting a rock somewhere is not something that can only be done by a person who does gardening.
A rock can be there without somebody putting it there.
''There'' is not, and cannot be defined as a person, and cannot be imagined.
If it can, explain.

I'm not the one who is hissy-fitting about a mis-spelling.

The man, putting the rock in that location, does not make the rock contingent on the man's existence.
Therefore it is easy imagine the rock, without the gardener, and just as easy to imagine other ways the rock could have got there.

So the location of the rock IS the gardener, and gardener is the location of the rock? I'm just trying to get a picture of the definition.
It seems to me you are making up some nonsense, and thinking it is non different to the universally accepted concept of God.
It seems you are implicitly claiming that the concept of God, is no different to any concept, anyone can muster.
The problem is, you're just taking the concept of God, and applying different names to it. Quite silly really. But do go on...

And as a man, he is able to put the rock there, but he is incapable of being a location, unless you just want to call a location a man. I concede, I cannot imagine a location to be a man. Neither can you.

You can't imagine the non existence of God, unless you have experience of God not existing. In order to do that you have to define God, and when you define God, you realise that you don't accept the definition. So for you God does not exist, hence you don't have to imagine, it is already in your waking reality.

jan.

 

I don't understand the question, let alone avoiding it.

jan.

 

Of course it can we live in a probable universe, for me however this is not the case.

 

"There" - context 1 temporal
Some location that can be defined by x,y,z, coordinates inside time and space.

"There" - context 2 atemporal
Conservation of energy, creation of time and space.

The gardener - kenetic force - energy
The rock - potential force - mass