A new proof for the existence of God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2014, 12:52 AM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
(17-02-2014 11:50 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  If I said, "The Earth rests on the back of a turtle, which we will call Ralph," I wouldn't write it ralph, because I'm giving it a name for the purposes of communication.
OK, Yip, that makes sense. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 12:53 AM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
(18-02-2014 12:52 AM)Stevil Wrote:  [quote='WillHopp' pid='497570' dateline='1392702608']
If I said, "The Earth rests on the back of a turtle, which we will call Ralph," I wouldn't write it ralph, because I'm giving it a name for the purposes of communication.
OK, Yip, that makes sense. Thumbsup
He has given it the name God. It's was just a bit confusing to me because god is used in other contexts, this is the first time I have seen it used as an actual name.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 01:19 AM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
The answer the OP is looking for is a three letter word starting with G.

GAP

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
18-02-2014, 01:24 AM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
Meh...drive-by soooo

Shoo fly.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 01:42 AM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
[Image: funny-animated-gifs-better-driver-than-my-gramma.gif]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-02-2014, 05:20 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2014 07:09 AM by Bucky Ball.)
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.

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.

"Now let us hypothesize that if God exists, he exists necessarily"
Nope. Let us not "hypothesize" that bullshit. A deity which "exists necessarily" MUST participate in (only a certain) Reality, and cannot be the creator of the very reality in which it MUST (ie is REQUIRED to) participate. THAT is no "creator of all things" (Reality) . A "creator deity" (by definition) creates (all of) Reality.
A god which "exists" does not *not exist*. Therefore as long as that deity existed, BOTH existence and non-existence were part of Reality, (ie the deity is and always was a subset of Reality). Where then, did Reality come from ? Debunked in 2 seconds flat. "Creation" is an *act*. Creative actions NEED time, intentionality and Causality. The premises are unexamined. Same old bullshit. The universe (the reality we know about) has been shown to be non-intuitive, (Dirac, Heisenberg, Relativity). In light of that, what appears to be "logical" to human brains, in the absence of evidence, is "proof" of nothing. Define "existence".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 05:26 AM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
(17-02-2014 01:47 PM)rmberwin Wrote:  2) God is by definition self-existent.

No he/she/it isn't. This entire site is devoted to the thought that the idea of God is inherently flawed and therefore it's non-existence is more likely.

The secret to a happy life is lowering your expectations to the point where they are already met
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 05:57 AM
Re: A new proof for the existence of God
One can reference house of cantor all they want but not be accurate.

Both sections opening sentences are assertions that don't have any evidence. They are far from certain.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 06:10 AM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
(17-02-2014 03:26 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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

This.

Also, other terms such as self-existent and quick explanations for references such as Cantor's Absolute Infinite means I can examine every assumption made and don't have to wade through a philosophy course to understand the OP's argument.

I've never managed to have a decent conversation with Philosophers. They always seem to assume that people know what they are referring to. The very nature of science on the other hand is in finding out new things so it is a natural assumption to make that your audience needs to filled in on key details in order to evaluate an argument or evidence.

Also be aware that all philosophy and even computer modelling can do is show the logical consistency of a hypothesis. Philosophy is not Maths. You may come up with an excellent computer model emulating some natural phenomenon but until you go out there and test whether the data actually concurs then it is still just a hypothesis. An argument by itself is not proof.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 06:32 AM
RE: A new proof for the existence of God
(17-02-2014 03:32 PM)meremortal Wrote:  Bullshit. You are not a skeptic. You are at a minimum a deist, and most likely a theist. But nice try.

Why the false contrast between 'skeptic' and 'Theist'?
The two are not incompatible. I can be inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions, yet still believe it's plausible that god exists (not necessarily the Christian god, albeit).

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ideasonscribe's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: