The Prince James Argument for the Existence of God

My answer to this will become clear in a bit, so sit tight.

And one cannot have nothing either. This brings us to the whole point of why it is false to say that reality is a scale between somethingness and nothingness. There does not exist nothingness, there does not exist anti-somthingness. All that exists is that which exists. ALL points of measurement occur WITHIN existence, and ALL measurements can be reduced to the principle of cause and effect, a movement from potentiality to actuality, and then a reversion back to potentiality. Oppositional forces are polarities that have reality within existence. Nothingness is not an oppositional force that can have any kind of influence on existence (none at all, zip, zero nadda). The precise middle point between polarities is the point of equilibrium. All of existence operates on this notion of movement between polar opposites. All wave forms function on this principle (and yes, this does include color). The present is the equilibrium point between the past and the future. A thing moves from potentiality to actuality to potentiality. The past and the future are simply polar opposites of potential, while the present is the equilibrium point between, it is actuality. The point to note is that all points of time are points of equilibrium, and points of polarity. Yesterday was once the future and the unactualized potential, today will soon be the past, the once-actualized potential, and tomorrow will come to be the present, actual.

And so we realize the universe is actually liminocentric, that is, all points as limits can also be central points of focus. This is the nature of thought, this is the nature of time, this is the nature of cause and effect principle, as well as the nature of oppositional forces. This is because no oppositional scale is absolutely fixed, and because all things are interconnected and continually, cyclically flowing.

Opposites are a principle of reality, existence. Since zero is merely the relatoinal equilibrium between polarities, non-existence does not fit as a polarity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prince_James,

Why is that silly?

Eh? And what is your culture's view of God?
It's not written and codified anywhere what our culture's view on God is, mind you.

Depending on the person who is making the assessment, the God of the Bible could either be some abstract entity, or a whimsical skydaddy, or something else.
The interpretation of religious texts depends on the spiritual discernment the reader is capable of. The texts are so versatile in themselves, often seemingly full of contradictions and inconsistencies that much interpretation space is open.

How is philosophy not a personal bias? It's not like philosophy were a unified method for assessing reality -- you can always choose which philosophical school you'll take as your norm.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How do you know it is necessary and real? How do you realize you are dealing with something that is necessary and real?

Validly for whom? Scientific explanations change as time goes by. Not so long ago, they claimed spinach was good for you, now they claim it isn't, for example.
Is an explanation that is inherently relativistic, valid? Why rely on relativistic explanations?

Do you actually know what most other people view as God?

As for opposites: In our practical experience, opposites are a matter of traditional agreement, and are inherently relativistic.
Opposition and/or antonymy is one of the principles which we use to organize our vocabulary (mental contents); other frequent organizing principles are gradation (lukewarm - warm - hot), hypernymy (flower - rose), hyponymy (rose - flower), synonymy (to procrastinate - to put things off).

For someone, pain may be opposite to pleasure -- but this is not necessary. Then, the opposite of forgiveness may be ill will. The opposite of slow may be fast. Some concepts seem to form easily definable oppositions, but some others may not. Is the opposite of love, hatred? Hard to say, there may be books of explanations behind this.

On the other hand, if we go for pairs like love - non-love, hatred - non-hatred, clumsy - non-clumsy, we may come up with severly useless words.

If I told you that you are non-clumsy, what would you think of it? I'd rather that people speak straight and call me either clumsy or clever, but non-clumsy or non-clever are useless words.

And in my opinion, a similar problem is with existence and non-existence. These musings may be philosophically challenging and demanding, but I don't know what use there is to them. A pair like existence - annihilation is meaningful, but I don't think that the pair existence - non-existence has any other than theoretical value and application.

Okay. But does such an opposite exist? Hah!

Axioms cannot be proven.

This is a good example where merely theoretical conceptions of God lead to: God becomes a pastime for philosophers.

I'm not saying this to deride you, but I do have a very critical position against concepts which are alien to our everyday experience of life.

Then such a god is useless.

Why are you wondering about God? What are your motivations, your intentions in your wonderings about God?



And this --

I can't get my mind around.
How is "non-" the same operator as "anti-"?
Does being a non-German make one an anti-German and vice versa?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

beyondtimeandspace:

Can do.

If we cannot have nothing, why can we speak of non-existence? See my The Ontontological-Epistemological Link argument. Other questions:

1. From whence comes potentiality and actuality?
2. From whence comes eternity?
3. From whence comes the possibility to exist?
4. How can both infinities, small and large, come to be?

Also, what is potentiality but the midpoint betwixt somethingness and nothingness? If something is only a potentiality, it does not currently exist, yes? So does not it "not exist"? Yet, as a potentiality, it has the capacity to exist, and will exist one time, no? So does not it also have a notion of existence in it?

Also, I'd ask you in what way can ultra-violet radiation and gamma radiation have opposites?

In what way is that the nature of thought, time, cause and effect, and oppositional forces? I am not following?

Yet what of the evidence I have offered to suggest otherwise? Both somethingness and nothingness can be presented as opposites of one another. Also, I await a response to the Ontological-Empirical link, as I offer another argument there.

Moreover, which polarity has zero as its "relational equilibrium"?

water:

For logic discerns things which could not be any other way. I hate to use this -again-, as I use this so much, but can one envision a square-circle at the same time and in the same manner?

Predominately Christian, anthromorphic, bearded-guy in the sky with a son.

Orthodox religious viewpoints tend to arise that impact the culture as a whole due to the lack of theological speculation.

One has to come to believe in the philosophical school's assertions based in logical consideration before one can truly be apart of said school.

Well first off, if GOd is not real, then he is not necessary (positively) at all, no. If God is not necessary, then he can never be known logically and is simply a contingent being which is something to be studied empirically.

The more and more science discerns what is going on in things, and this is verified empirically and under laboratory conditions, the more one can be sure of it. It is relativistic only so long as the knowledge is not completely known. We thus far do not have a complete knowledge of biology, hence the spinach issue.

I know what monotheists and polytheists do, yes.

Traditional agreement? Are you then to claim that good and evil, for instance, could be viewed other than as opposites?

One must simply define one and then define the other as the precise opposite of this in order to determine opposites.

This is true.

This is also true.

Ah, but tehse are absolutes, not relative conceptions. See my Ontological-Epistemological link.

No, it does not exist, hence precisely why it is the opposite of existence and an absolute.

The souls it not an axiom, it is an empirical claim. Also, axioms can be proven to be true or not, if their opposites are absurd.

So?

Is it not worth while to understand existence? Or should we only focus on how to get our next meal?

If God is existence, he is the very essence of usefulness.

The love of wisdom.

Long and short are necessarily linked, so one can only be one or the other at the same time and in the same manner, hence to be one is to be anti the other.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I will simply say again. I will only agree with this if "nothingness" "non-existence" are relegated to the realm of possibility and potentiality.

The only impossible things are the meaningless, and thus correlate neither to existence nor non-existence.

Oh... and to answer those four questions.
1. Potentiality has always been, it has no origin.
2. Eternity has always been, it has no origin.
3. The possibility for things to exist has always been, it has no origin.
4. Infinities can't come to be.

 

BeyondTimeAndSpace:

And when something is impossible, how do we determine it is?

Yes? Present the argument, please.

Yes? Present the argument, please.

Ditto.

So they've always existed? Or they don't exist? And have you any proofs for infinities existing if they do?

 

We determine that something is impossible by showing that it has no meaning.

P1: Potentiality is an aspect of existence (where there exists anything there exists the potential for something else).
P2: If existence has no origin, then potentiality also has no origin.
P3: If there was ever nothing, nothing there would still be.
P4: There exists something. Therefore, there has never been nothing.
P5: Therefore, existence has always been, and has no origin.
Ergo: Potentiality also has no origin.

Eternity is, by definition, without beginning, hence it has no origin.

So either they've always existed, or they have never existed. I do not have a proper argument for existing infinities as yet, however that there is anything at all can be an indication that at least one infinity exists.

 

Prince_James,

From the mind.

"Small" and "large" are relational terms that per se don't have an object of desigantion.
A mouse is small in comparison to an elephant.
An elephant is large in comparison to a mouse.
An ant is small in comparison to a mouse, or an elephant.

But per se, you can't say that an ant is small.
With relational terms like large, small, wide, narrow, heavy, light, etc. we can indeed make sentences like "An ant is a small animal" or "The Universe is big beyond comperehension" -- but all of them IMPLY that the element of comparison is the human, even though this is not explicitly stated.
So, again, these relational terms are designed to refer to humans (in one way or another, be it body or mind.)

The chromatic spectrum is another good example how humans measure the world by their experience of it.
We are literally tuned into the conditions that exist on planet Earth, and based on our abilities to perceive these conditions, have we build our understanding of the universe.
If, for example, the light on Earth would be green (green as in accordance to our present understanding of green), then this would be the colour we wouldn't see, and think it neutral. This way, also the way we think of completementary colours would change.
(Note that if we kept the same eye structure, with the same kind of colour-sensitive cells, we'd probably have problems of feeling blinded by all the green.)

There is a lot to say about colours, and maybe it would be interesting for you to study up on them.
But the bottomline is that we are tuned into this universe, into life on planet Earth, and we are tuned into it biologically and mentally, and we can't speak of an objective reality of things "as they are" regardless of us.

The way I understand it, it is that "you can pick up anywhere and go from there". You never run out of space, time, thought, cause and effect, no matter where you begin.

(What do you think, Beyondtimeandspace? Is my interpretation in accord with yours?)

You still haven't answered my question. You assume that logic (as you, or humans in general, presently understand it) has the highest priority.

This is what many non-Christians and atheists think, yes. But no decent Christian thinks this way of God.
You are arguing form a non-Christian strawman.

That orthodox religious viewpoints arise and impact the culture as a whole I agree. But I doubt this is so due to a lack of theological speculation. lack of theological speculation on whose part?
Do you think anyone can think for himself?

And? It is still a personal bias.
I assure you that the constructivists think they are right, and the realists think they are right, and they think eachother biased.

A tentative question: Which one would you prefer: the god that can be logically known, or the god that is a contingent being, to be studied empirically?

Science is famous for dealing with things that don't really mater to us, it is famous for answering questions that aren't really important to us.
Ask, What is the meaning of life? And science will deride it, or write it off in terms of the chemical soup. Does that answer satisfy you? Can you wake up in the morning, repeat that chemical soup answer, and gladly go on with your day?

And what is that?

Of course.

Except that such definitions are elusive, context-bound, and often impossible.

How are they absolute? Because you called them so?

If you say so, then you simply must also accept that presently, science does not have the empirical means to measure the soul. This is a fault of techology, not of the soul.

What is "absurd" is a matter of traditional agreement. You can't actually prove that something is absurd.

So ... so waste of time, so waste of efforts.

It is in focusing on how to get our next meal that we should try to understand existence, so to speak.

Philosophical pursuits tend to take for granted our actual experiences and strivings in life, and they tend to take for granted that life on Earth takes effort, actual physical effort.

If God is existence? Why operate with identities? How meaningful is it to have two words for the same thing?

Alright.

But what makes you think that the same relational principle as you perceive it between "long" and "short" also applies to "existence" and "non-existence"?

"Long" and "short" are attributes.
What are "existence" and "non-existence"? Things, attributes, or relations?


"Non-" and "anti-" are two different operators; "non-" is a negation, and "anti-" is an opposition. Negation and opposition are not the same. A non-German is not an anti-German.

Unless, of course, you are implicitly applying a particular ethical understanding of negation and opposition: "He that is not with me is against me". This is when negation becomes opposition.

 

And, James, we are not lab rats. What is true in the lab may not be true in everyday life. We do not live in labs.

 

beyondtimeandspace:

If it has no meaning, it does not exist, yes? A square-circle is impossible. What does this mean? It has no meaning, you say. If something has no meaning, then it does not exist, no? For all that exists as truth has meaning, nay? And also has existence, no?

Whence comes existence, then? Moreover, if there exists a triangle, does that mean there must be a square? Suppose everything was essentially "triangle", could not then a square be an impossibility?

You'll have to demonstrate that existence has no origin.

Yet all which exists has a cause. What caused somethingness? Indeed, would not nothingness be more of a "default" than somethingness?

Yet there is also impossibility, is there not? Something which can never exist. Where do these things go?

But you shall have to demonstrate that eternity is real and what conditions could produce it.

Yet you also speak of potentiality. Could not existence be simply a finite potentiality?

water:

Demonstrate this?

I mean the infinitely small as in, the true atomic particle, from which nothing further can be divided. As regards large, I mean, well, something which is infinitely large, which encompases all things.

Ah, but largeness and smallness need not be simply relational. We can speak of absolutes of both, as demonstrated by the infinitely small and infinitely large. These are -absolute- notions of space.

Yet we have found other things, nay? Things we do not experience directly, such as radio waves, gamma radiation, et cetera.

This is not verified by our capacity to go beyond our senses via instruments, not to mention that all our stimuli have sources in the natural world which, even if not picked up by other things, would exist.

This is true, yes.

It isn't an assumption, because one gets absurdities which could not possibly be true with logic, or truth. For instance, this statement is wrong because it contradicts itself:

There are no absolutes.

The majority of Christians I have come upon view God in this way. The Bible certainly describes God in such a manner. Only a few theologians would differ.

Churches tend to take -one- belief and the masses, not being very fond of rational thought, tend to simply accept. People can and do think for themselves, but most people are content not to think, or not think on that level. I'd say less than one in one hundred thousand people is a philosopher at heart.

Rational thought cannot be a bias, because it does not seek, first and foremost, a satisfaction of self, but a correspondence to truth.

I'd prefer the logical. Considering you'd be dealing with simply a powerful entity otherwise, who one day will cease to exist, and was one day created.

The meaning of life, itself, is a stupid question. It implies that meaning is objective, when meaning can -only- be subjective. But yes, I have no problem living in a meaningless universe, for I know that meaning can only be made by conscious, finite beings, based on subjective wants.

Monotheism: See above for Christianity, minus the son for Judaism, add Muhammad for Islam.

Polytheism: A bunch of super-human anthromorphic deities, sometimes with some animal characteristics, but mostly human.

Might you then demonstrate how good and evil could be viewed that way? or tall and short?

Most relative opposites are context bound, yes, but opposites deal with pairs. For instance, you mention a mouse, an elephant, and an ant before. A mouse is smaller than an elephant, but larger than an ant. It is both large -and- small, but -not- at the same time, nor in the same manner, and htus it is is small and large differently. Moreover, to give definitions of something is very easy, once one looks at what constitutes it. Love, for instance, can indeed be demonstrated to be the opposite of hate, once you determine what it is.

Can you have something which does not either exist or not-exist? Or something which can do both at once? Moreover, is not nothingness absolute? For one can not have degrees of it, can one?

Or it does not exist. We have no reason to think it does right now.

Surely you can. A square-circle is absurd. It's contradictory and could not be.

Is truth ever a "waste of time"? It allows us to know what is real.

And how can we do this?

And "actual physical effort", does not take into consideration questions of existence and reality. One is simply of more practical knowledge.

True. We might dispense with this God notion and be done with it.

One can either exist, or not-exist.

Absolutes and, in another way, attributes. Something can the have the attribute of existence, that is tos ay, it partakes of existence, but we can also speak of existence in the absolutes.

Is not shortness at the same time non-longness and anti-longness?

This is true, but both laboratory and field tests, and not simply field tests, have their usages to determine the truth of empirical matters.

 

K, I don't know about you, but I'm tired of running in circles.

 

BeyondTimeAndSpace:

I don't think we're going around and around in circles at all.

 

Sure feels like it.

 

here are my thoughts on this. if we are part of this non concious, non thinking being. in a way that it encompasses all. and this being is all knowing, then we are greater then it. for we created consciousness and in turn created this being.

basically this being would have to be something and nothing, all in one, but that cant be. for the second that something is. nothing vanishes. but when everything is gone nothing reappears. but that would be changing. and that cant happen since god has to be infinite, and as PJ said, infinite cant change. so it could not have ever been nothing, in fact nothing is impossible, for we can clearly see, there is something.
and if infinite cannot change it could never have been nothing and then something for that would mean changing.

question: you can be non something but not be anti, whatever it is? like the german thing. im part (well just about everything) german, but not part polynesian(it took me a long time to think of a nationality that i dont have in me) so im non poynesian but not against them or anti-polynesian, or am i interpreting this incorrectly?

the part in here about, you starting from nothing then something then back to nothing. QQ already touched on but i'd like to bring it back up if i may. what makes up you has been in existance since back at the onset of the beginning of the universe. so really then, you have been since the begining of time and will be untill it ends. so you never were nothing and will continue to be something long after your flicker of consciousness is extinguished.

PJ: what do you think of the notion that duality is an illusion? for the reason that our brain is seperated in two hemispheres. so our organic brains need opposites to make sense of the world that we live in? if we saw everything as one, as does the energy, our brains couldnt handle it. in fact its the reason we precieve in this way. cause our connection to the energy(god) has already expierienced everything as a whole or one. but now disperses into peices to expierience reality in opposites. and our purpose is not to do anything other then be. im sure this has been pondered before, but i only recently started pondering that.

is there any philosophies of that nature that i could read about? sorry to get off track.

 

gratitude&love:

Well, as noted, this is not a being, nor is he all knowing in a true sense. In fact, I might just erase that section of omniscience and place a refutation of the concept in the refutation area.

How would this being have to be something and nothing all at once? Moreover, if nothing does not exist, how do we say that something is impossible? Also, whence comes something?

Logically, German and Polynesian are not opposites. There are no opposite nationalities.

On an energetic level, yes, but quantum and above levels are all new combinations.

The concept of duality is full illusion is fundementally fallacious, as is the concept that duality is full reality. The answer is that both duality and oneness are right, but not in the same manner and in the same way. All is one in the sharing of existence, sharing of energy, et cetera, but all is seperate, in that it is composed of different quantum particles, different atoms, different cells, exist apart from one another in time and space...

The East is heavily non-dual. Try Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism.

 

Prince,


I'll get to this thread once I figure out some things about brevity.

 

Water:

I look majorly forward to your responses. Always a pleasure to discuss things with you.

 

Golly, you fellas sure are deep.

I'd like to see to what end this intellectualizating might help you with if you were faced with the reality of a gun towards your nose? ..While on the other end of it, someone you once believed to be a friend who you trusted and found security, not to mention safety in. This is the same person who, in case you forgot, shared what you believed to be an equal sense of humor about life.

What if his brief past in prison could be your future potentially? Then you might just find your mind to be preoccupied with taking precautionary measures against acts of rape and brutality.

What if your life situation was a kill or be killed one?

 

is there a case you can show me were nothing exists? perhaps something has no opposite for nothing is a square circle.

 

nicholas1M7:

What does this have to do with anything?

gratitude&love:

Sorry, I used the wrong term. Nothing surely does not exist, but it does noixst. That is, it is part of reality, but it does not have existence. But anyway, forgive my lapse, and let's get onto this. Nothing is a square-circle, you are right, but you also must realize that a square-circle is part of nothing. Something which does not exist muts necessarily not exist, yes? Can not one say that it partakes of that non-existence?

 

This is the sense I am trying to instill in James.
I'm trying to be considerate, this is why things are taking me awhile.