• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God defined by what He did than by His features.

Pachomius

Member
"PS: this still doesn't adress the question that your argument for the existence of God is fallacious since it commits a stolen concept fallacy." -epro

Please explain what is a stolen concept fallacy.

Your mind is in the real world dear Pachomius. It's not in an alternate dimension or anything like that. Conceptually, you can see it as two different worlds for practical reasons, but your mind is in the real world.

Dear Pachomius, while I'm indeed a teacher, I'm not Professor X. I do not read thoughts. You cannot transmit your thoughts straight into my head. No one can. You can try to transmit your ideas through various form of communication, but that's about it. Your level of success will be mitigated by a host of factors.

As for your last point, I would agree that before human developped the concept of God there is no evidence that such a concept existed elsewhere in the observable universe.

PS: this still doesn't adress the question that your argument for the existence of God is fallacious since it commits a stolen concept fallacy.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
It's My Birthday!
I am theist because I know that God exists, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

How do I prove that such a God exists?

Simple: Because man and the universe and everything with a beginning did not create themselves, it follows that God exists, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

That is the only ultimately valid explanation for the existence of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.
<- Here be gods. (beginning of reply)

You said: "God exists, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."

Question: If there is nothing that isn't caused by god (except god and maybe the natural numbers and basic shapes) as everything has a beginning, how do we distinguish god from not god?
It seems to me you have defined nothing by defining god as everything.
What have I misunderstood?
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
"PS: this still doesn't adress the question that your argument for the existence of God is fallacious since it commits a stolen concept fallacy." -epro

Please explain what is a stolen concept fallacy.

I thought I already did. Actually I explained it to you in my second post in this thread (post #5 on this thread). A fallacy of stolen concept is basically when someone makes a self refuting or self contradictory claims. It's also better known as "kettle logic" following a popular story of Sigmund Freud in which one of his neurotic patient who borrowed and then returned a damaged kettle defended himself with three arguments that contradicted each other (that he returned the kettle undamaged, that the kettle was already damaged when he borrowed it, that he never borrowed the kettle at all).

In your case, you are using a causal chain to explain the existence of causality. Of course, you cannot cause causality. That's a self refuting idea since to cause something, you need causality. It's a akin to say "before time". Without temporal linearity, there can be no such thing as before, after, now or anything like that; that's what temporal linearity does; it allows time to be ordered and progress. In the same way, causality allows us to establish the base of interraction between various subject: causes and consequences.

Is that a bit clearer?
 

Pachomius

Member
Thanks, Heyo, for your contribution to this thread.


<- Here be gods. (beginning of reply) - Heyo​


You get me correctly, I say that God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

I do not occupy myself with gods, in the plural number.

You use the word gods, in the plural number, suppose you just pick one of them, and present your concept of that one god you just pick from among gods?

Is that okay with you? because at this point in time, I want us two to get connected: with me saying that God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, and you telling me what is your concept of just one of the gods that you will bring up any, i.e. of the gods - gods in the plural number.



<- Here be gods. (beginning of reply)

You said: "God exists, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."


Question: If there is nothing that isn't caused by god (except god and maybe the natural numbers and basic shapes) as everything has a beginning, how do we distinguish god from not god?
It seems to me you have defined nothing by defining god as everything.
What have I misunderstood?
 

Pachomius

Member
Dear epro, it is all in your mind, your stolen concept fallacy.

See whether you can narrate four examples of the stolen concept fallacy, in the world of humans in their acts and words in the world outside of your mind.

A fallacy of stolen concept is basically when someone makes a self refuting or self contradictory claims. - epro​

In the world outside your mind, show what concept is stolen from what person, by what person, remember in real life of humans in the world that is outside your mind.

Please observe that you are into spinning words inside your mind, all your words about so-called stolen concept fallacy,


I thought I already did. Actually I explained it to you in my second post in this thread (post #5 on this thread). A fallacy of stolen concept is basically when someone makes a self refuting or self contradictory claims. It's also better known as "kettle logic" following a popular story of Sigmund Freud in which one of his neurotic patient who borrowed and then returned a damaged kettle defended himself with three arguments that contradicted each other (that he returned the kettle undamaged, that the kettle was already damaged when he borrowed it, that he never borrowed the kettle at all).

In your case, you are using a causal chain to explain the existence of causality. Of course, you cannot cause causality. That's a self refuting idea since to cause something, you need causality. It's a akin to say "before time". Without temporal linearity, there can be no such thing as before, after, now or anything like that; that's what temporal linearity does; it allows time to be ordered and progress. In the same way, causality allows us to establish the base of interraction between various subject: causes and consequences.

Is that a bit clearer?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
It's My Birthday!
You use the word gods, in the plural number, suppose you just pick one of them, and present your concept of that one god you just pick from among gods?
I don't have a concept of god (or gods). When I use the word, usually in the plural, I see it as the set of beliefs believers have.

I understand the concept of the deistic god which is defined by what it did, namely creating the universe. That concept is internally consistent and consistent with established physics. It is also utterly meaningless as nothing further can be derived.

I understand that your concept of god must be different as you postulate that your god is the cause of everything. That is in conflict with current science as we think we know the causes of a lot of things. (As in, the gravity of the moon causes the tides.) I guess you don't mean it that way but I don't understand exactly how you think your god caused everything.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
In the world outside your mind, show what concept is stolen from what person, by what person, remember in real life of humans in the world that is outside your mind.

Please observe that you are into spinning words inside your mind, all your words about so-called stolen concept fallacy,

How about we use your argument for the existence of God or better yet, the Freud story about the kettle or how about the following sentence "you are your mother's father". These are example of stolen concept fallacy. They are self contradictory statements about reality.

Causality is something in the real world, just like spacetime. You cannot cause causality just like you cannot be before time in the real world either.
 

Pachomius

Member
Dear Heyo, please read the word, ultimately, in my OP reproduced below, and tell me what is your understanding of the word.

You see, scientists have this self-censorship, which is fashionable today, that they don't think beyond their equipment, that makes them shallow thinkers.


Title of thread: God defined by what He did than by His features.


I am theist because I know that God exists, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

How do I prove that such a God exists?

Simple: Because man and the universe and everything with a beginning did not create themselves, it follows that God exists, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

That is the only ultimately valid explanation for the existence of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

I don't have a concept of god (or gods). When I use the word, usually in the plural, I see it as the set of beliefs believers have.

I understand the concept of the deistic god which is defined by what it did, namely creating the universe. That concept is internally consistent and consistent with established physics. It is also utterly meaningless as nothing further can be derived.

I understand that your concept of god must be different as you postulate that your god is the cause of everything. That is in conflict with current science as we think we know the causes of a lot of things. (As in, the gravity of the moon causes the tides.) I guess you don't mean it that way but I don't understand exactly how you think your god caused everything.
 

Pachomius

Member
I notice that you don't have any self personally thought up ideas, for example, you drop names and terms, but are bereft of your very own self personally thought up ideas.

Cease and desist from spinning words inside your brain/mind.

Bring forth from the world of humans, their acts and their words: four examples of stolen concept fallacy.

Afterwards we can go together into my argument for the existence of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

How about we use your argument for the existence of God or better yet, the Freud story about the kettle or how about the following sentence "you are your mother's father". These are example of stolen concept fallacy. They are self contradictory statements about reality.

Causality is something in the real world, just like spacetime. You cannot cause causality just like you cannot be before time in the real world either.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
I notice that you don't have any self personally thought up ideas, for example, you drop names and terms, but are bereft of your very own self personally thought up ideas.

I drop names and terms because they are references. They ease communication. If I told you your argument is falling prey to an outworld paradox you would have no idea of what I'm talking about because the outworld paradox is the name of a type of paradox of my own invention that you won't be able to find in any literature at the moment, because I haven't published my essay yet.

Cease and desist from spinning words inside your brain/mind.

Bring forth from the world of humans, their acts and their words: four examples of stolen concept fallacy.

I just did, I name your very own argument for the existence of God. This is an example of the stolen concept fallacy. My second one is the kettle argument I told you a few post earlier. My third one is the example of a person's who is the father of his mother. My forth one is being before time.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
It's My Birthday!
Dear Heyo, please read the word, ultimately, in my OP reproduced below, and tell me what is your understanding of the word.
I don't know what your understanding of the word is. I'm especially confused that you say that god is the cause "of man and the universe and everything with a beginning". I see a possible contradiction. Why did you specify "man and everything with a beginning" if you only mean the universe? (And with that, ultimately, everything.)
The other thing that doesn't fit is that you called yourself a theist, indicating that your god concept goes beyond the mere creator god of a deist.
So what it's gonna be
1. Your god is only ultimately the cause of everything - making you a deist or
2. Your god is more directly the cause of "man and everything"?
You see, scientists have this self-censorship, which is fashionable today, that they don't think beyond their equipment, that makes them shallow thinkers.
It makes them humble, sticking to their field. They simply lack the greed and hubris of the theists who want to have a say in everything.
 

Pachomius

Member
Your examples of stolen concept fallacy are not valid, period.

In each example, show (1) what human being stole (2) what concept from (3) what human being, (4) which all takes place outside your mind, and (5) why is it a fallacy at all.



I drop names and terms because they are references. They ease communication. If I told you your argument is falling prey to an outworld paradox you would have no idea of what I'm talking about because the outworld paradox is the name of a type of paradox of my own invention that you won't be able to find in any literature at the moment, because I haven't published my essay yet.



I just did, I name your very own argument for the existence of God. This is an example of the stolen concept fallacy. My second one is the kettle argument I told you a few post earlier. My third one is the example of a person's who is the father of his mother. My forth one is being before time.
 

Pachomius

Member
Dear Heyo, no need to display your habit with hair-splitting words like deist and theist.


Just keep in mind that my concept of God is that in concept He is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

Let you just present your concept of god, whatever god, and that should be adequate for us to resolve the issue God (or god) exists - or not.

Labels are for folks who can't or won't go to the heart of the issue.




I don't know what your understanding of the word is. I'm especially confused that you say that god is the cause "of man and the universe and everything with a beginning". I see a possible contradiction. Why did you specify "man and everything with a beginning" if you only mean the universe? (And with that, ultimately, everything.)
The other thing that doesn't fit is that you called yourself a theist, indicating that your god concept goes beyond the mere creator god of a deist.
So what it's gonna be
1. Your god is only ultimately the cause of everything - making you a deist or
2. Your god is more directly the cause of "man and everything"?

It makes them humble, sticking to their field. They simply lack the greed and hubris of the theists who want to have a say in everything.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Your examples of stolen concept fallacy are not valid, period.

In each example, show (1) what human being stole (2) what concept from (3) what human being, (4) which all takes place outside your mind, and (5) why is it a fallacy at all.

In your argument, you stole an effect of causality (causal chains) to explain the origin of causality. Causality is a characteristic of the universe just like time is. It's fallacious to claim an effect has produced its cause. Causes precede effects.

PS: stolen concept is the name for a fallacy, it doesn't involve an actual theft of intelectual property not more than the term "kettle logic" involves an actual kettle.
 
Last edited:

Pachomius

Member
About attacking people, it is not attacking, but addressing people.

Posters here are human beings, not robots.

So, it is required that we look into their psychology in thinking and in writing, the why and the how of their actuation in an exchange of thoughts.
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
I like your opening premise. As a theist, I don't know if proving God's existence really matters. It could be explained that He exists, regardless of if one chooses to believe in Him or not. So, proof becomes a moot point, in other words.
 

Pachomius

Member
PS: stolen concept is the name for a fallacy, it doesn't involve an actual theft of intelectual property not more than the term "kettle logic" involves an actual kettle. - epro

Please then talk about actualities, instead of using the word stolen when there is no stealing at all, and also no need to bring in the kettle.

That is all inside your brain/mind, get out of your brain/mind, into the world of actualities, realities, flesh and blood, okay?

So, do away with the word stolen and the word kettle, and don't bring in Freud, do your very own personal thinking, unless all your thinking comes from other minds.


In your argument, you stole an effect of causality to explain the origin of causality. Causality is a characteristic of the universe just like time is. It's fallacious to appeal to an effect to produce its cause. Causes precede effects.

PS: stolen concept is the name for a fallacy, it doesn't involve an actual theft of intelectual property not more than the term "kettle logic" involves an actual kettle.
 

Pachomius

Member
Dear Deidre, you believe in God exists, even though you can't prove God exists.

I do not just believe but I know God exists.

Our difference is you believing and I knowing.

So, I propose that you go to threads on God as object of belief, okay?

Still, you are welcome here, though I will excuse myself from interacting with you.



I like your opening premise. As a theist, I don't know if proving God's existence really matters. It could be explained that He exists, regardless of if one chooses to believe in Him or not. So, proof becomes a moot point, in other words.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
PS: stolen concept is the name for a fallacy, it doesn't involve an actual theft of intelectual property not more than the term "kettle logic" involves an actual kettle. - epro

Please then talk about actualities, instead of using the word stolen when there is no stealing at all, and also no need to bring in the kettle.

That is all inside your brain/mind, get out of your brain/mind, into the world of actualities, realities, flesh and blood, okay?

So, do away with the word stolen and the word kettle, and don't bring in Freud, do your very own personal thinking, unless all your thinking comes from other minds.

Okay let me translate the "stolen concept fallacy" in a congent way.


proposition 1) Causality is a characteristic of our universe.
proposition 2) You cannot cause causality.
conclusion: God cannot have created the entire universe since causality is part of it.

Asserting that God created the universe is thus impossible and makes no sense. it's a self-refuting paradox. There is a few hypothesis that we can then make after that. I can think of three.

Hypothesis 1) There is no God
Hypothesis 2) God = causality
Hypothesis 3) God created some part of the universe, but not all of it
 
Last edited:

Deidre

Well-Known Member
Dear Deidre, you believe in God exists, even though you can't prove God exists.

I do not just believe but I know God exists.

Our difference is you believing and I knowing.

So, I propose that you go to threads on God as object of belief, okay?

Still, you are welcome here, though I will excuse myself from interacting with you.
Oh, I know He exists. It will take more to ''prove'' it to others, than merely you saying you ''know'' He exists.
 
Top