Workable systems of god

There are two forms I've seen
1. Everything caused event or thing has a cause
2. There cannot be an infinite chain of causes
3. This requires an Uncaused Cause.

and
1. Everything caused event or thing has a cause
2. The universe has a cause.
3. This requires a Creator / "Causer."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My own proof!

AXIOMS:
1. The universe began with the big bang (BB).
2. There is only one universe, the one in which we exist.
3. The universe is finite and bounded.
4. Every effect has a cause.

LOGICAL DEDUCTION:
A. Nothingness exists
B. God is nothingness,
C. Therefore God exists

Argument for premise A,
Given premises 1 and 2, nothing (or nothingness) existed prior to the BB.

Argument for premise B:
Theorem 1: Given premise 1: Since time began with the BB, the Before/Beyond is eternal (without time)

Theorem 2: Given premise 1: There was no space, time, matter, and energy prior to the BB, the Before/Beyond was formless, therefore immutable.

Theorem 3: Given premise 3: The same nothingness that existed before the BB necessarily still exists beyond our finite universe.

Theorem 4: Given premise 3: The Before/Beyond is necessarily infinite

Theorem 5: Given premise 4: Whatever is possible cannot be created; it must pre-exist actuality; the Before/Beyond is all possibility; therefore the Before/Beyond is omnipotent

Theorem 6: Given theorem 4: The infinite nothingness, the substance of the Before/Beyond, is prescient; it knows all possibilities, and hence is omniscient

Theorem 7: Given premise 4 and theorem 1: The cause of the universe necessarily inhered in the Before/Beyond; it is the source of creation
Since the Before/Beyond is infinite, eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, and the Creator; God is the Before/Beyond; infinite nothingness is the substance of God.

To deny God's existence would require you to show proof

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Corrected.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All this "proves" is that there was a cause for the universe. Some cause: nature unspecified. Is this god? Define god in this context and explain why it requires worship anymore than, say, a billiard cue that causes a ball to start rolling... Why is it "god"? or are you using some weird definition of same?

1 Is an assumption.
2 Is merely assigning a name to that assumption.
3 Is simply tautological: it's exactly what you stated in point 1.

Hmm, assumption.

Supposition.

Even worse supposition.

Supposition piled on supposition.

Great! So where's the Wrurgle Beast? You know, the one actually ate the entire universe last week?

Oh. How do you know? Wrurgle Beast a bit late, is he?

What? How do these follow logically?

Or simply point out the leaps of faith you've presented as "logic".

 

The classic argument against "I" are in no way able to debunk the fundamental truth revealed in Cogito Ergo Sum; that is simply put; "thought" exist. By doubting/concerning of one's own existence - one is then has achieved self awareness and can then establish with absolute certainty that one exist, regardless in whatever form one could be. This is the first fundamental truth.

As for the needlessly pedantic and misunderstood conclusion that Cartesian Dualism isn't Logic, this can be avoided by simply reading my previous posts. Rather than claiming Cartesian Dualism is Logic, I was clearly referring the discussion as ; within the logical construct of Cartesian Dualism - as stated in the text "Remember, we are arguing from Cartesian Dualism logic".

 

Oh dear. You went away and I thought it was to learn something.
And then you come back and make a claim (without evidence or substantiation) that is directly contradicted by the post you're presumably replying to (post #100).

So much for "fundamental truths". And "no assumptions" for that matter.

 

Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?

 

Rather needlessly pedantic, when what I meant was the exact same thing. But allow me to increase the sophisticated show off by saying that Validity is a logical terms that apply to not only argument, but also formula and statement.

Clearly, when I wrote "God is logically valid", I was referring to argument for God within the context of this thread. But judging by your standard, I will try to increase the unnecessary verbose just to avoid myself from stating what I meant twice.

 

What is rediculous?- The only deity I see is me, therefore the universe serves me. We all think It and speak it as if it does, but what is true is we have control over it. We could blow it all to pieces in a manner of hours. Make it fly till it finds the toaster on Mars.

We have already merged humans with machines. How long before Rosetta Stone is downloaded onto some type of supernatural computer and connected to our minds. -How much knowledge would be safe to transmit at a time?

You can't fly completely unaided unless you managed to transform your consciousness into a different state. Dreams are one way, but we don't want you to be asleep for most of your natural life.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Trade consciousness with a bird of prey.

The "Ultimate Challenge", I guess you could say, is to find a natural way to travel thought time. If we can ever manage to reverse the directionality of all subatomic particles in our extension of the universe, then sure it is possible. That also means light is going the opposite direction tho. I know nothing that controls light at that level, therefore this idea is impractical at this time.

 

Too tempting...

Then you have a strange definition of "deity".

This would be false.

As would this.

And both of these.

To what extent and how effectively?

A very long time. Who do you think is working on developing a "supernatural computer"? And what exactly is one of those?

False.

Um, no. Even when dreaming you don't fly.

Is it your role in life to make ridiculous comments?

Or, possibly, get a meaningful post out of you.

What makes you think this is true?

Rest of the sentence not required.

Like the rest of your "ideas". Yup.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...A point I came to is that I couldn't intellectually support the idea of gods, but I was lonely without them...

So I choose to believe in deities for utility, because it greases the mental gears. (Because I have interesting things happen regarding them, too)

My thought is this:if it works for you, you don't have to prove it to anybody else, and it does not have to be logical.
It may just be my impression, but the majority of the religious threads are like "I'm right!" " No you're not!" over and over...

At bottom, though, I believe there is no real intellectual proof for deity to be had. That trying to do so is building castles in air, mental masturbation.
This makes me view people who believe without doubt as a little weird and a little frightening. They don't understand how dangerous they can be, I don't think.
Of course I'm delusive too. Semi-consciously picking, choosing, and shuffling my delusions...but still...

It's Earth, after all. We're all mad around here, Alice.

 

Strange language; I see myself as immoral. I prefer to speak blasphemy rather than imply our system of god is broken. You either know what the word god means in the mind of another person or you don't. Most people like yourself make simple enough assumptions based against the belief structure of another person. Not like it is hard to spot false beliefs about God in general.

how so?

A small extent to what could possibly be done.

Very good question. Let's build something that transfers energy and information just like the universe does. Smaller than the width of a spiders leg, yet sends its light penetratingly deep into the surrounding parts of the universe. Make it as heterogeneous as the universe itself and give it a little space.

Well we would not get too far in the current state of consciousness.

You might not have that much control over your dreams, but some people do. When you dream do you recognize it as sleep or believe it is more or less reality?

Only when people ask me to deify the universe, before they add what the previous poster believes to be a universe. How many places that are too small to see in this sea of molecules hold a conscious form of existence. So much information being tossed around in the universe that we know absolutely nothing about.

There once was a conscious organism called Light. He moved at light speed and dominated the everlasting nothingness... Now he sees through you at every moment. Without light there would be nothing. The light is you and it is all around you.

Lol. I don't, because it would also imply we could make time move foreword, which is increasing light speed. I say some things to satisfy others beliefs, is that so hard to understand?

 

If you see yourself as god (the source of morality, supposedly) then how can you be immoral?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

See previous comment.

And if some idiot can't be bothered to explain exactly what definition he's using the the rest of us are left to take the default definition.

Um, wrong. I merely pointed out that your definition does not accord with any of the usual ones, hence: strange.

You think there are true beliefs about god?

Because, to a great extent, you are subject to it.

Well duh.

Did I ask for a helping of word salad? How does that relate to either of my questions?

And your *cough* thoughts on what another "state of consciousness" would be? And how we'd achieve it? And how it would enable us to fly unaided?

It's not a question of "control over dreams" it's the fact that when you're dreaming it's in your mind. I.e. imagination. You don't fly, you just imagine you do.
When I dream I recognise it as dream, not sleep.

Such as? Who asked you to?

Not many.

Evidence? Anything at all?

Nope.

Rubbish.

And you want to satisfy others' beliefs because...? Whose beliefs do you think you're satisfying exactly?

 

True God is the Universe. If we have killed him how is it that we can bring him to life? Are you ready to roll dice with the universe? See what your imagination creates?

The only workable one I can think of are those where a person is considered god. Natural selection has chosen a person to represent the group.

Not so. We control its pieces. It is also subject to our effects to a greater extent than we realize.

It's the only foundation of God I can think of that works.

What you feel and have no control over when your dead. Till you live again. We don't have much control over it now, but I see many ways for it to happen in the future.

I was just naming off some random examples of omnipotence or what omnipotence should feel like. Perfect control over your entire imagination is an infeasible power.

Satisfying yours is particularly tricky. You hardly hang onto anything.

 

So you have two words for the same thing?
God = the universe.
Wow. What makes it "godlike"? What claimed attributes of god does the universe possess?

Null question, since we haven't killed the universe.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How would "a person being considered god" be a "true belief about god"? Since that person would remain a person, a human, how can it be true that he's god?

Wrong again. We "control" an incredibly small portion of the number of "pieces".

How? Please support this claim.

Yeah, but we've already seen that your "thinking" isn't particularly good.

When you're dead you're dead. Hence not "another state of consciousness".

Supposition.

Yeah?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh good. Instead of answering my questions or replying to my points you decide to go off at a tangent. Why? And are you going to answer my question?

Which has what to do with what I asked?

False. You'd be correct, however, if you'd said I hardly hang to anything that comes from you.
That's because you don't actually present anything of substance.
And it's nothing to do with my beliefs. You're assuming again. Incorrectly as usual.

 

God is but a silly belief of the fearful and ignorant. It is not meant to be taught in school.

 

Do you know what the color yellow looks like in the mind of another person?

Then how on earth are we supposed to communicate effectively about a non-empirical concept?

I note also this is a bunch of westerners here...I wonder what this would look like if someone born Hindu jumped on board...

 

If you don't understand the question then I am sorry. Everyone else here seems to be tackling it ok. Address the question itself, don't link it to an analogous question the subject of which is something that has already been proven to exist.

You are just ducking the question because you don't have a hypothesis. The fact you don't have a hypothesis is fine.

Not asking for proof. Just asking for your take on how a god could exist. A chair COULD exist because a humanoid COULD be in need of something to sit on other than the floor. A hominid species COULD evolve to the point where chairs COULD be invented. Obviously I am having to move into a POV that lives in a world where chairs do not exist yet but be party to the idea a chair could possibly be made/discovered or invented as a concept.

You are assuming that god would not influence physical reality. The whole concept of god revolves around god influencing reality in some way. Don't assume. there are many different concepts of god. In fact any concept of god is welcome in this thread, though there will be examination of its credentials of course. Why not have a go at explaining your 'supernatural' god theory?

This exercise was meant as a bit of fun.

Sounds like you are developing your own theory of a god. How your god is outside the testable and therefore isn't disprovable. Thats fine. Don't assume for everyone else though. And don't attack the question too much because in your attack you are in effect framing your own take/defining a possible god

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Me neither.

It isn't required that you have a theory. You decided to post here.

Don't get lost in philosophy lol. Of course for the sake of answering this question anything goes. Your decision to wish to opt out is noted

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you don't fancy a direct stab at this one no one will think any the lesser of you.

It was just meant as a bit of fun; a cognitive exercise.

 

Duh - by definition a "caused" event has a cause.

Says who?

 

All I wished to do with this thread is remove the issue of proof/belief. I think the question I framed kind of did that, when answerers chose to have a go.

Atheists: If you still haven't had a go at a god theory, why not try it?
Theists: If you still haven't had a go at presenting a god theory here, as a theory, why not have a go?

Just though it may be interesting to see people swap their POVs for a time. You know? a move away from the normal cut and thrust.