1. 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.

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Pachomius, May 18, 2020.

  1. Pachomius

    Pachomius Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +19
    "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.

     
  2. Heyo

    Heyo Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    12,557
    Ratings:
    +11,964
    Religion:
    none
    <- 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?
     
  3. epronovost

    epronovost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2019
    Messages:
    4,016
    Ratings:
    +4,136
    Religion:
    Atheist/non-religious
    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?
     
  4. Pachomius

    Pachomius Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +19
    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.



     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Pachomius

    Pachomius Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +19
    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,


     
  6. Heyo

    Heyo Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    12,557
    Ratings:
    +11,964
    Religion:
    none
    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.
     
  7. epronovost

    epronovost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2019
    Messages:
    4,016
    Ratings:
    +4,136
    Religion:
    Atheist/non-religious
    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.
     
  8. Pachomius

    Pachomius Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +19
    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.


     
  9. Pachomius

    Pachomius Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +19
    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.

     
  10. epronovost

    epronovost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2019
    Messages:
    4,016
    Ratings:
    +4,136
    Religion:
    Atheist/non-religious
    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.
     
  11. Heyo

    Heyo Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    12,557
    Ratings:
    +11,964
    Religion:
    none
    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.
     
  12. Pachomius

    Pachomius Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +19
    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.



     
  13. Pachomius

    Pachomius Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +19
    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.




     
  14. epronovost

    epronovost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2019
    Messages:
    4,016
    Ratings:
    +4,136
    Religion:
    Atheist/non-religious
    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.
     
    #54 epronovost, May 21, 2020
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
  15. Pachomius

    Pachomius Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +19
    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.
     
  16. Deidre

    Deidre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2014
    Messages:
    7,101
    Ratings:
    +5,714
    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.
     
  17. Pachomius

    Pachomius Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +19
    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.


     
  18. Pachomius

    Pachomius Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +19
    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.



     
  19. epronovost

    epronovost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2019
    Messages:
    4,016
    Ratings:
    +4,136
    Religion:
    Atheist/non-religious
    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
     
    #59 epronovost, May 21, 2020
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
  20. Deidre

    Deidre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2014
    Messages:
    7,101
    Ratings:
    +5,714
    Oh, I know He exists. It will take more to ''prove'' it to others, than merely you saying you ''know'' He exists.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...