A new proof for the existence of God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-02-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
(17-02-2014 01:47 PM)rmberwin Wrote:  1) We can accept with near certainty the idea that nothing comes from nothing. Therefore, either the universe or a Creator (which we will call God) is eternal. But, as Derek Parfit has remarked, this makes the null hypothesis (nothing exists) impossible, because either God or the universe is a kind of brute fact. Now let us hypothesize that if God exists, he exists necessarily. (And does that consideration imply that if God doesn't exist, then the whole notion of God is incoherent?) But why should we think that the universe had to be? Parsimony would seem to indicate the null hypothesis (that nothing exists). But if something had to be, we are therefore left with the only possible being that is necessarily self-existent, namely the Creator/God. This line of reasoning may sound like the ontological argument, but notice that the OA begins with a conscious observer, while this argument has more of a transcendental flavor. The crucial part is the notion that something had to exist. And as a kind of bonus, the fact that the multiverse is surprising is retained.
This paragraph would beneft from structure so that it's logical sequence can be followed and referenced when challenged. http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialC...Logic.html

I also thnk it is important for you to take the time to give a definition of the following terms used in your argument:
Nothing
Universe
God

I also think you need to explain the following:
Why do you capitalise the pronoun "creator"?
Why do you capitalise the pronoun "god"?
Why do you refer to god wth regards to a gender related pronoun "he"
Why even use the term "god" when such a thing hasn't been defined or established to exist, this term comes with much unestablished baggage. Why not simply state "energy/matter creative cause" and make a claim that this "energy/matter creative cause" cannot itself consist of energy/matter.
You need to show that "nothing" cannot be an energy/matter creative cause". You need to show that energy/matter cannot be the first energy/matter creative cause due to the infinite regress issue.
Since science shows that you cannot have time without energy/matter you need to show how the first energy/matter creative cause can create energy/matter without the requirement of time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 03:31 PM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
Oh man, I knew you were an ignoramus, but you don't even know the difference between a noun and a pronoun. Zeus help you.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 03:32 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2014 05:20 PM by meremortal.)
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
(17-02-2014 01:47 PM)rmberwin Wrote:  First of all, I'm a skeptic and so I'm not trying to create a meaningless controversy. But this argument is, I think, very interesting. It has a couple of novel features, including that the universe can be both self-existent and the creation of God.

Bullshit. You are not a skeptic. You are at a minimum a deist, and most likely a theist. But nice try.

Quote: 1) We can accept with near certainty the idea that nothing comes from nothing. Therefore, either the universe or a Creator (which we will call God) is eternal. But, as Derek Parfit has remarked, this makes the null hypothesis (nothing exists) impossible, because either God or the universe is a kind of brute fact. Now let us hypothesize that if God exists, he exists necessarily. (And does that consideration imply that if God doesn't exist, then the whole notion of God is incoherent?) But why should we think that the universe had to be? Parsimony would seem to indicate the null hypothesis (that nothing exists). But if something had to be, we are therefore left with the only possible being that is necessarily self-existent, namely the Creator/God. This line of reasoning may sound like the ontological argument, but notice that the OA begins with a conscious observer, while this argument has more of a transcendental flavor. The crucial part is the notion that something had to exist. And as a kind of bonus, the fact that the multiverse is surprising is retained.

2) God is by definition self-existent. And why? We might say that God is congruent with Cantor's Absolute Infinite, the set of all sets. According to Wikipedia: "The Absolute Infinite is mathematician Georg Cantor's concept of an 'infinity' that transcends the transfinite numbers. Cantor equated the Absolute Infinite with God. He held that the Absolute Infinite had various mathematical properties, including the reflection principle which says that every property of the Absolute Infinite is also held by some smaller object". There are therefore no possibilities outside of God, such as the possibility of non-existence. But can any such considerations be applied to the lone universe? However, the reflection principle says that every property of God is also held by a lesser being. So what about God's aseity? What lesser being would possess this property? Paradoxically it is the universe! This is because the universe is utterly dependent on God, i.e. a member of the set of all sets. We therefore satisfy both camps, as it were: the universe is both self-existent and the creation of God. And I would suggest that it is highly problematic that God could create anything that is outside of himself, that has a radically different ontological status. This view strongly suggests either 1) a kind of idealism, in which the universe is fundamentally God's thought or 2) pantheism/panentheism. But even given the traditional view that God created something outside of himself, again the universe's self-existence is maintained. Thus, we may say that God possesses self-existence in the strong sense, or aseity properly speaking; while the universe possesses self-existence in the weak sense.

and this is just a variation of old arguments that have already been presented and refuted many times (god necessarily exists and is self-existent). You say it is not the ontological argument, but it basically is, with a bit of argument from degree thrown in.


another shit and run. oh well - wasted my time...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
Just another drive by.... sigh ! Lecture_preist Laughat

If bullshit were music some people would be a brass band.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 03:47 PM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
It's called kalam cosmological argument which was debunked 10 million times. Even if it would be true it would lead to an uncaused cause and you have no idea what it is. NEXT.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes donotwant's post
17-02-2014, 04:29 PM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
(17-02-2014 03:31 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Oh man, I knew you were an ignoramus, but you don't even know the difference between a noun and a pronoun. Zeus help you.
Insults, really?
"he" is definately a pronoun
"god" is a common noun and thus should not be capitalised.
"creator" is a common noun and thus should not be capitalised.
So, I guess thanks for the correction, but not thanks for the unnecessary insult.

Anyway regardless of this sidetrack, the question still stands, why have these been capitalised?
I'm assuming there is more to it than a simple grammar mistake.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 05:14 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2014 05:21 PM by WillHopp.)
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
If you are referring to a specific individual, a definitive source, then Creator and God would be capitalized (regardless of one's beliefs). If you were using the terms in a general sense, as in "any god" or "multiple creators" then it would be lowercase.

Edit: Sorry, the insult was a mistake, as I thought it was the OP who said this. Accept my apologies. It appears I'm the dunce. Sad

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
17-02-2014, 05:23 PM
A new proof for the existence of God
(17-02-2014 03:47 PM)donotwant Wrote:  It's called kalam cosmological argument which was debunked 10 million times. Even if it would be true it would lead to an uncaused cause and you have no idea what it is. NEXT.

I wonder if any of the Christians tossing this "brand new theory" around realize the Kalam Cosmological Argument was created by Medieval Islamic theologians.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalām_cos...l_argument

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 05:30 PM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
(17-02-2014 05:23 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 03:47 PM)donotwant Wrote:  It's called kalam cosmological argument which was debunked 10 million times. Even if it would be true it would lead to an uncaused cause and you have no idea what it is. NEXT.

I wonder if any of the Christians tossing this "brand new theory" around realize the Kalam Cosmological Argument was created by Medieval Islamic theologians.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalām_cos...l_argument

Doesn't matter who come up with it it's either good argument or bad argument. It is a bad one case closed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 05:35 PM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
(17-02-2014 01:47 PM)rmberwin Wrote:  2) God is by definition self-existent.

So why not save a step and say the universe is by definition self-existent?



Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: