The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

[sandorski]

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am obviously logically correct.

You must either accept that there is a "God," or that you are literally nothing. Those are your two options. I have not made my selection yet, personally. I could see myself going either way. But, as I said, those are the only two possible options.

Oh forgot to mention, and "God" would be the first thing. I think you are misconstruing "God." Think of it like this: "God" isn't the first thing, the first thing is always "God" because it is the thing for which you must accept the impossible. Or nothing would be the only thing, whichever you choose :O

What utter nonsense. We are something, "God(s)" are a completely unsubstantiated Hypothesis.

 

[mrjminer]

What utter nonsense. We are something, "God(s)" are a completely unsubstantiated Hypothesis.

Well, I'll toss one more option in, raising my options to three. You could accept that we are "God." We are the first and only thing because our existence itself is impossible.

Otherwise, I can't think of anything else. I've made the logical arguments, you can choose not to accept them and remain ignorant if you so desire. Your argument that "we are something ... um... just because we are something... everything else is a hypothesis because we are something because we... um.. are something" is ridiculous. You have absolutely no logical way to back your claim.

You can call the things I've said hypotheses, and that is fine. However, one of the three things I've mentioned is true --- because there is no other option. You offer nothing, and you can offer no more than I have. There is no hypothesis you could possible make that passes the test of logic and can transition into fact without accepting one of the the impossibilities I mention as possible truths that defy logic, but must be true, regardless.

 

[WelshBloke]

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am obviously logically correct.

You must either accept that there is a "God," or that you are literally nothing. Those are your two options.

Learn how to logic.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am obviously logically correct.

No, you obviously are not.

You must either accept that there is a "God," or that you are literally nothing.
Those are your two options. I have not made my selection yet, personally. I could see myself going either way. But, as I said, those are the only two possible options.

It's a false dichotomy. There simply may be no first thing.

Oh forgot to mention, and "God" would be the first thing. I think you are misconstruing "God." Think of it like this: "God" isn't the first thing, the first thing is always "God" because it is the thing for which you must accept the impossible. Or nothing would be the only thing, whichever you choose :O

No, you have given no sufficient reason to believe that there must be a "first thing." You must first demonstrate that this thing exists, and only then can you argue that this thing should be called "god." That there exists a first thing is not a given, and it is not anywhere evident.

 

[mrjminer]

Learn how to logic.

Then please teach me how to logic with a masterfully logical response.

No, you obviously are not.


It's a false dichotomy. There simply may be no first thing.



No, you have given no sufficient reason to believe that there must be a "first thing." You must first demonstrate that this thing exists, and only then can you argue that this thing should be called "god." That there exists a first thing is not a given, and it is not anywhere evident.

Pretty funny. I don't think I really need to spend time explaining away the ridiculousness of your claim if your claim is that "nothing existed, then something existed... magically all at one time" when you offer nothing else other than a vague comment, but let's roll with that. Let's say that instead of something coming first, everything came instantaneously at once -- please explain how this happened and how that theory is in disagreement with the same tenants by which I based the only possible options.

Let's make this generic so you don't get hung up on the use of the word "God," and to identify the basic tenants you seem to fail to accept: something came from nothing somehow, and we are something that came along afterwards, we are literally nothing, or we are the something that came from nothing, and nothing has come after us.

The way that I see it, the claim you make is basically identical to mine, except you are claiming that instead of one thing existing first, everything came to be at once. I would accept that as a valid hypothesis if this is the case, however, by the definition of "God" (don't forget the "God's) I gave, it seems the only disagreement you have is due to your failure to comprehend the defined use of the word "God" I gave as simply the first thing (or, in this case, "Gods" and "things")

I guess the problem I am seeing is that you are arguing semantics and trying to force me to explain every little detail of every possibility to account for things like "hey man, maybe TWO things came at the start from nothing, and therefore you are wrong!" So, if this is the main issue, I think we are in agreement, but go ahead and elaborate if this is not the case because I am genuinely interested in how you think existence came about if for not one of the only, limited set of possible generic tenants I have spelled out that could possibly have occurred.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't think I really need to spend time explaining away the ridiculousness of your claim if your claim is that "nothing existed, then something existed... magically all at one time"

That is not my claim, so none of your arguments against that claim pertain to me.

Do you want to try again?

when you offer nothing else other than a vague comment, but let's roll with that. Let's say that instead of something coming first, everything came instantaneously at once

No, let's not, since that isn't my claim, either.

something came from nothing somehow...

Says who? And according to what evidence? When did nothing exist?

{Snip}

I guess the problem I am seeing is that you are arguing semantics and trying to force me to explain every little detail of every possibility to account for things like "hey man, maybe TWO things came at the start from nothing, and therefore you are wrong!"

No, I'm trying to point out that there's no evidence that there ever was a start, there was no time that nothing existed, and so there is no first thing.

 

[MongGrel]

Redacted.

I need to not bother here.

 

[mrjminer]

That is not my claim, so none of your arguments against that claim pertain to me.

Do you want to try again?


No, let's not, since that isn't my claim, either.


Says who? And according to what evidence? When did nothing exist?

{Snip}


No, I'm trying to point out that there's no evidence that there ever was a start, there was no time that nothing existed, and so there is no first thing.

Thanks for elaborating. I see what you are saying. I think we are saying some of the same things, but we are looking at it from different angles using different words. If we remove the literal semantics of the words, it is clearer that when I say literally nothing in one instance, we are talking about the same thing: "thing A" has always been there, and we are, or are a part of "thing A". I am thinking of this thing as "the first thing," but also the possibility that it is "nothing" (or, as you seem to be referring, "something").

It's hard to explain what I mean; words are hard in philosophical subjects. I guess I mean something along the lines of we are both suggesting the possibility that we are that thing, or part of that thing that is just there with no explanation of what or why it came to be because it just is and has always been (you're just labeling it something, I'm just labeling it nothing).

So, probably my fault; I think I'm also doubling up on some of the things I'm saying sometimes because I am conceptualizing things differently due to the concept of words behind them, but I am really talking about the same thing (ie: if we are "God" and "God" is the thing that exists, we could be "God" -- this would also just be the "nothing" or the "something" to which we refer) and that I am sometimes mixing phrasing up due to the complexity and my primitive mind.

Let me see if I can clarify and expand my hypotheses by doing some better wording:

1. We are an existence that has been and will always be. We were not created; we are simply there. There could be, but are not necessarily, other existences or entities that have been and will always be, or those that have been created by other existences, or even by ours. If there are other things that exist, they may or may not effect or interact with us in some manner; they could be relevant or irrelevant to our existence.
2. Our existence did not exist before it was created directly or indirectly by something best conceptualized in #1. Whatever created us may or may not still exist, or may exist in a different state than when our existence was created. There could be multiple things that created us separately or in unison. If there are other things that exist through creation or that are simply there, they may or may not interact with or be relevant to us in some manner, which may or may not be dependent in some way on whether they had a role in creating our existence.

What this boils down to, overall is: I think we are eternal, or we were created by something eternal, either directly or indirectly. I think those are the only two options.

 

[sandorski]

Well, I'll toss one more option in, raising my options to three. You could accept that we are "God." We are the first and only thing because our existence itself is impossible.

Otherwise, I can't think of anything else. I've made the logical arguments, you can choose not to accept them and remain ignorant if you so desire. Your argument that "we are something ... um... just because we are something... everything else is a hypothesis because we are something because we... um.. are something" is ridiculous. You have absolutely no logical way to back your claim.

You can call the things I've said hypotheses, and that is fine. However, one of the three things I've mentioned is true --- because there is no other option. You offer nothing, and you can offer no more than I have. There is no hypothesis you could possible make that passes the test of logic and can transition into fact without accepting one of the the impossibilities I mention as possible truths that defy logic, but must be true, regardless.

You keep tossing in "God" into your arguments, when there is no such thing in evidence. That's where your arguments fail. "God" is an assertion. So no, we are not "Gods" if there is no "God". We are just humans, regardless if there is a "God" or not.

You make the same mistake other Theists and Deists make. Which is, thinking that a God or Consciousness solves the Infinite regress problem. It does not, because a "God" or Consciousness is still a Thing that requires Something in order to exist. That "God" or Consciousness can not just magically make other Somethings to exist without forming it out of other Something.

The most logical explanation as to why we are here and the Universe is here is that Something has always existed. What that Something is, we don't know, but it is the most simplest of Things that can form into Energy, Matter, Universes, and even Consciousness. It is not in itself Conscious, it is far to basic to have that ability in itself.

 

[mrjminer]

You keep tossing in "God" into your arguments, when there is no such thing in evidence. That's where your arguments fail. "God" is an assertion. So no, we are not "Gods" if there is no "God". We are just humans, regardless if there is a "God" or not.

You make the same mistake other Theists and Deists make. Which is, thinking that a God or Consciousness solves the Infinite regress problem. It does not, because a "God" or Consciousness is still a Thing that requires Something in order to exist. That "God" or Consciousness can not just magically make other Somethings to exist without forming it out of other Something.

The most logical explanation as to why we are here and the Universe is here is that Something has always existed. What that Something is, we don't know, but it is the most simplest of Things that can form into Energy, Matter, Universes, and even Consciousness. It is not in itself Conscious, it is far to basic to have that ability in itself.

You should read the post above this one, which clarifies my hypotheses

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Thanks for elaborating. I see what you are saying. I think we are saying some of the same things, but we are looking at it from different angles using different words. If we remove the literal semantics of the words, it is clearer that when I say literally nothing in one instance, we are talking about the same thing: "thing A" has always been there, and we are, or are a part of "thing A". I am thinking of this thing as "the first thing," but also the possibility that it is "nothing" (or, as you seem to be referring, "something").

No, we are not saying anything at all similar, and I don't understand how you could possibly get that idea. Your claim is that nothing is something. That is a plain contradiction.

It's hard to explain what I mean; words are hard in philosophical subjects. I guess I mean something along the lines of we are both suggesting the possibility that we are that thing, or part of that thing that is just there with no explanation of what or why it came to be because it just is and has always been (you're just labeling it something, I'm just labeling it nothing).

First: "we," as in "human beings" are not a thing, but we are a collection of many things. Second: there's no reason whatsoever that it must be one thing that has always been. There may simply be an endless procession of things that have begotten the thing after them.

So, probably my fault; I think I'm also doubling up on some of the things I'm saying sometimes because I am conceptualizing things differently due to the concept of words behind them, but I am really talking about the same thing (ie: if we are "God" and "God" is the thing that exists, we could be "God" -- this would also just be the "nothing" or the "something" to which we refer) and that I am sometimes mixing phrasing up due to the complexity and my primitive mind.

When I read the paragraph above, all I draw from it is "this person is very, very confused about a lot of things."

Let me see if I can clarify and expand my hypotheses by doing some better wording:

Oh boy, I can't wait.

1. We are an existence that has been and will always be. We were not created; we are simply there. There could be, but are not necessarily, other existences or entities that have been and will always be, or those that have been created by other existences, or even by ours. If there are other things that exist, they may or may not effect or interact with us in some manner; they could be relevant or irrelevant to our existence.

Existence is not a thing. Existence is a property of things. It is what things do by being.

2. Our existence did not exist before it was created directly or indirectly by something best conceptualized in #1. Whatever created us may or may not still exist, or may exist in a different state than when our existence was created. There could be multiple things that created us separately or in unison. If there are other things that exist through creation or that are simply there, they may or may not interact with or be relevant to us in some manner, which may or may not be dependent in some way on whether they had a role in creating our existence.

[/quote]
I've tried several different ways of attempting to explain the tangle of absurdities that you've woven above, but the simplest thing to say is, "no." None of what you have said above is at all meaningful. I understand that this may be due to a lack of understanding of how to express your ideas, but suffice it to say that your expression so far has fallen far short of making the slightest sense.

What this boils down to, overall is: I think we are eternal, or we were created by something eternal, either directly or indirectly. I think those are the only two options.

Again, a totally uninformed false dichotomy. Why can't we have been created by something that wasn't eternal? And that thing could've been created by something else that wasn't eternal. And on, and on, and on. Why should there be any one thing that is eternal? You have no answer to that question.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Again, a totally uninformed false dichotomy. Why can't we have been created by something that wasn't eternal? And that thing could've been created by something else that wasn't eternal. And on, and on, and on. Why should there be any one thing that is eternal? You have no answer to that question.

It's turtles all the way down!


What is missing from this discussion is the concept of time. You can't have verbs like 'to be' and 'created' with out time. Events, verbs, happen in time. So, we have to have had time before anything could be created. That means that time could not itself have been created, because it would have taken time to create it. So, we have found at least one possible solution to our infinite regression problem. Time has always existed.

Now, I make a few postulates; with enough time anything possible is certain; We are possible.

So, with nothing but time existing we were certain to come about.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's turtles all the way down!

Indeed.

What is missing from this discussion is the concept of time. You can't have verbs like 'to be' and 'created' with out time. Events, verbs, happen in time. So, we have to have had time before anything could be created. That means that time could not itself have been created, because it would have taken time to create it. So, we have found at least one possible solution to our infinite regression problem. Time has always existed.

The most useful definition for "always" I've found to be "for all real time values." Things like "before time" or "outside time" are not real time values because they don't make sense. I'm just contributing to your point; I don't have any disagreement with it.

Now, I make a few postulates; with enough time anything possible is certain; We are possible.

So, with nothing but time existing we were certain to come about.

I feel like I'd quibble a bit by saying that we "approach certainty," or "come arbitrarily close to certainty." There's no natural probability distribution over an infinite set so it's hard to make arguments about odds with any true certainty if we're talking about an infinite past.

 

[alcoholbob]

IMO the strongest argument of God is actually the argument that we live in a simulated reality. In that case, by definition, we have a creator, itself existing either in base reality or another simulated reality of its own (i.e., being itself a construct of someone or something else).

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

IMO the strongest argument of God is actually the argument that we live in a simulated reality.

Ok, let's see that "argument."

 

[agent00f]

Thanks for elaborating. I see what you are saying. I think we are saying some of the same things, but we are looking at it from different angles using different words. If we remove the literal semantics of the words, it is clearer that when I say literally nothing in one instance, we are talking about the same thing: "thing A" has always been there, and we are, or are a part of "thing A". I am thinking of this thing as "the first thing," but also the possibility that it is "nothing" (or, as you seem to be referring, "something").

It's hard to explain what I mean; words are hard in philosophical subjects. I guess I mean something along the lines of we are both suggesting the possibility that we are that thing, or part of that thing that is just there with no explanation of what or why it came to be because it just is and has always been (you're just labeling it something, I'm just labeling it nothing).

So, probably my fault; I think I'm also doubling up on some of the things I'm saying sometimes because I am conceptualizing things differently due to the concept of words behind them, but I am really talking about the same thing (ie: if we are "God" and "God" is the thing that exists, we could be "God" -- this would also just be the "nothing" or the "something" to which we refer) and that I am sometimes mixing phrasing up due to the complexity and my primitive mind.

Let me see if I can clarify and expand my hypotheses by doing some better wording:

1. We are an existence that has been and will always be. We were not created; we are simply there. There could be, but are not necessarily, other existences or entities that have been and will always be, or those that have been created by other existences, or even by ours. If there are other things that exist, they may or may not effect or interact with us in some manner; they could be relevant or irrelevant to our existence.
2. Our existence did not exist before it was created directly or indirectly by something best conceptualized in #1. Whatever created us may or may not still exist, or may exist in a different state than when our existence was created. There could be multiple things that created us separately or in unison. If there are other things that exist through creation or that are simply there, they may or may not interact with or be relevant to us in some manner, which may or may not be dependent in some way on whether they had a role in creating our existence.

What this boils down to, overall is: I think we are eternal, or we were created by something eternal, either directly or indirectly. I think those are the only two options.

I didn't try too hard to make sense of this, but it's worth mention metaphysical philosophy in the western tradition starting w/ Descartes (ie. Meditations on First Philosophy, a "proof" of God in that vein) dealt with this for a long time. So there's plenty of previous thinking on the topic available if you are so interested.

IMO metaphysics of god was killed by Nietzsche & co who explained why we seek such concepts, and Wittgenstein who killed meta in general by creating the ultimate metaphysics in Tractatus then explaining why it was for naught in Investigations. The gist of it is that words like "existence" are just abstract concepts fit as fluid tools for communication, and don't really correspond to real-world things.

 

[swamplizard]

I exist therefor you may be imaginary or may not be; I believe that you exist.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I exist therefor you may be imaginary or may not be; I believe that you exist.

Um, (A or ~A) is true whether or not you exist.


/I live to nitpick

 

[swamplizard]

Depends upon the relationship between X ~A.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Depends upon the relationship between X ~A.

No it doesn't. It's the Law of the Excluded Middle.

 

[swamplizard]

No it doesn't. It's the Law of the Excluded Middle.

Classical logic does not apply here thus, tertium non datur is void when consideration of such states an absolute, therefor one transfers the validity across the spectrum, thus acknowledging the possibility of one+ or X ad infinitum.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Classical logic does not apply here thus, tertium non datur is void when consideration of such states an absolute, therefor one transfers the validity across the spectrum, thus acknowledging the possibility of one+ or X ad infinitum.

Ok look, I was just nitpicking out of boredom, but now you've decided to push back to the point of embarrassing yourself.

What you've written above is simply gibberish trying to sound intellectual. This has nothing to do with "states" or "one+" or "X" (whatever the fuck you intended THOSE to mean). The law of the excluded middle is a tautology. It's true in all universes, and it falls out automatically of the semantics of the word "or" -- the word YOU used.

I just pointed out that when you said "I exist, therefore A or ~A" that the "I exist" part is irrelevant.

None of this incoherent blathering you've offered since then has accomplished anything else but betraying your utter misunderstanding and apparent penchant for making things up in attempt to sound smart.

If you were attempting to make a statement where the law if the excluded middle did not apply, then you should have said something else.

 

[swamplizard]

Ok look, I was just nitpicking out of boredom, but now you've decided to push back to the point of embarrassing yourself.

What you've written above is simply gibberish trying to sound intellectual. This has nothing to do with "states" or "one+" or "X" (whatever the fuck you intended THOSE to mean). The law of the excluded middle is a tautology. It's true in all universes, and it falls out automatically of the semantics of the word "or" -- the word YOU used.

I just pointed out that when you said "I exist, therefore A or ~A" that the "I exist" part is irrelevant.

None of this incoherent blathering you've offered since then has accomplished anything else but betraying your utter misunderstanding and apparent penchant for making things up in attempt to sound smart.

If you were attempting to make a statement where the law if the excluded middle did not apply, then you should have said something else.

My apologies for offending you. If you wish to prove something does not exist then the mere act of proving it, is acknowledging that it does exist because you cannot prove that a non-existent 1 is 0. If that is gibberish in your domain then I apologize once again.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

My apologies for offending you. If you wish to prove something does not exist then the mere act of proving it, is acknowledging that it does exist because you cannot prove that a non-existent 1 is 0. If that is gibberish in your domain then I apologize once again.

Yes, it is gibberish in the domain of coherent English. You should come visit us here sometime.

 

[swamplizard]

Yes, it is gibberish in the domain of coherent English. You should come visit us here sometime.

Please accept my sincerest apologies.