• 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 Proof - Take 1

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
God made World Wide Flood; God has burn the Sodom and Homorra. All is in Bible.
square.jpg

And?

Why do we all go to hell?
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
If you see points of error or need for clarification, please share.
I don’t recognise your definition of “God” as one anyone else has ever used. Even if you’re successfully proving something, I’d argue that wouldn’t be any kind of “God” as any of us generally understands the word.

You’ve used a whole range of words and phrases in ways that aren’t clear or with your own unique definitions (“general consistency”, “arbitrary”, “self-sufficient”), enough to come close to rendering the entire thing fairly meaningless.
Coldly asserting that “rational reason assumes” anything, especially when it’s effectively half of your hypothesis, doesn’t strike me as very rational.

Notwithstanding your own initial definition, why do you leap to the conclusion that the thing you (think you’ve) proven is “God” and not something else which fits the same characteristics.

Also, to be blunt, so what? Isn’t this concept of “God” you’re talking about so abstract as to be pretty much meaningless even if it does exist? What practical difference would it make if your “hypothesis” were proven or disproven?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Hey, I'm new to this forum and I'd like to kick around some ideas. Not looking for a fight and I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of dogmatism, but if you help me sharpen some of my ideas, I would greatly appreciate it. Here's a proof that I accept for the existence of God. It's basically based on rationalism, as I understand it. If you see points of error or need for clarification, please share. Thanks!

Definition - God is the self-sufficient existence of general consistency
  1. Rational reason assumes all reality is generally consistent (with self and other reality)
  2. This means all of reality exists in a manner that respects general consistency
  3. Things exist (eg your thinking about this God proof)
  4. Things that exist have a nature that is either arbitrary (bounded by something other than itself) or non-arbitrary (bounded only by itself)
  5. All arbitrary things are ultimately contingent upon some non-arbitrary thing. This is because either
    1. An arbitrary thing has a finite number of arbitrary things in a chain of causes
    2. An arbitrary thing has an infinite number of arbitrary things in its chain of causes. This means the thing is defined as the consequence of its infinite chain of causes, thus the thing is equivalent to the infinite chain of causes in a generally consistent reality. This chain is not bounded by anything outside the chain and therefore is non-arbitrary. Thus the thing, which is the chain, is non-arbitrary.
  6. Since (1) some thing(s) exist, (2) all things are either arbitrary or non-arbitrary, (3) all arbitrary things are contingent upon some non-arbitrary thing, then there must exist some thing that is non-arbitrary.
  7. God is the non-arbitrary thing that is self sufficient (being non-arbitrary) and generally consistent.
Perhaps some posters don't know of your fame.
s.JPG
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Definition - God is the self-sufficient existence of general consistency
I didn't get any further than your unusual definition for God because if you spot me my definition of the word 'fly,' I can give you a sound argument concluding that horses can fly.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Here are some of the issues I noticed with the argumentation:
  • In the context of the argument, how is reality being circumscribed? This is important, particularly once we get down to point number four.
  • I could use some elaboration on what consistent means especially because of the examples given. "Self" is routinely inconsistent (a la hypocrisy) and there is no reason to suppose other realities are bound by the same natural laws as ours is.
  • Some clarification on what exists means in the context of the argument would be helpful too.
  • Point four is where it really falls apart to me. Depending on how you are defining reality and existing, there is no such thing as a non-arbitrary. Nothing can be bounded only by itself if it has a relationship, interaction, or influence upon any other thing. Put another way, nothing exists in isolation, and in the absence of isolation, contact with other things creates limits or boundaries making non-arbitraryness impossible. The only aspects of reality I can think of which might be considered non-arbitrary are things most people don't consider real or existing. They're purely ideological, abstract principles that are very much not real to most people. Hence, asking for clarification on real and existing.
  • Unsurprisingly, this means I don't follow point five as I don't follow how non-arbitrary things can exist in the first place.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Definition - God is the self-sufficient existence of general consistency

Ummm.... I read this line several times. I understand the individual words just fine.

Alas, when placed in this marginally unique pattern? All meaning has mysteriously vanished... and I'm left puzzled what message you attempted to convey, here.

Are you trying to say 'pantheism', in the case that all of reality is 'god' and 'god' is all of reality?

Your definition is far from clear.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Well they do say follow the money trail to get to its source.

No personal offense, but it looks like you just walked off a cliff with that, right off the get-go, and are flapping your arms to get back on solid ground.

Right at number 1, Does rational reasoning involve assumption?

Didnt even get that far off the ground.

Makes me think of the old film of an
experimental flying machine.

The ides was to have an engine drive this thing
like an umbrella up and down. Goes up folded,
opens coming down.

It bounced a bit then tore itself to pieces.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Ummm.... I read this line several times. I understand the individual words just fine.

Alas, when placed in this marginally unique pattern? All meaning has mysteriously vanished... and I'm left puzzled what message you attempted to convey, here.

Are you trying to say 'pantheism', in the case that all of reality is 'god' and 'god' is all of reality?

Your definition is far from clear.
If one uses big enuf words, & complex enuf grammar, anything can be proven
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Hey, I'm new to this forum and I'd like to kick around some ideas. Not looking for a fight and I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of dogmatism, but if you help me sharpen some of my ideas, I would greatly appreciate it. Here's a proof that I accept for the existence of God. It's basically based on rationalism, as I understand it. If you see points of error or need for clarification, please share. Thanks!

Definition - God is the self-sufficient existence of general consistency
  1. Rational reason assumes all reality is generally consistent (with self and other reality)
  2. This means all of reality exists in a manner that respects general consistency
  3. Things exist (eg your thinking about this God proof)
  4. Things that exist have a nature that is either arbitrary (bounded by something other than itself) or non-arbitrary (bounded only by itself)
  5. All arbitrary things are ultimately contingent upon some non-arbitrary thing. This is because either
    1. An arbitrary thing has a finite number of arbitrary things in a chain of causes
    2. An arbitrary thing has an infinite number of arbitrary things in its chain of causes. This means the thing is defined as the consequence of its infinite chain of causes, thus the thing is equivalent to the infinite chain of causes in a generally consistent reality. This chain is not bounded by anything outside the chain and therefore is non-arbitrary. Thus the thing, which is the chain, is non-arbitrary.
  6. Since (1) some thing(s) exist, (2) all things are either arbitrary or non-arbitrary, (3) all arbitrary things are contingent upon some non-arbitrary thing, then there must exist some thing that is non-arbitrary.
  7. God is the non-arbitrary thing that is self sufficient (being non-arbitrary) and generally consistent.

You are begging the question that only God can be not arbitrary.
So, you are playing with definitions to reach the desired conclusion.

Not to speak of the huge question begging that things, including what we decide, can be different from what they are. It is entirely possible that everything is not arbitrary. Actually, modern physics, and the necessary absense of free will, assumes that.

Suppose I tell you that the whole Universe, seen as a natural thing is not arbitrary. You might think it is, but then I will challenge you to provide an example of another alternative Universe.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
The reading of the Bible (while reading the interpretation of the Church Fathers) makes good to people, it can heal their atheistic disorders. Why? Historians, Archeologians, Theologians, Physicists, and Philosophers, are all confirming the Bible authority.

I would say it is the exact contrary, reading the Bible should suffice to turn Christianity down. C’mon, how can you give authority to a book that is massively wrong already at page 1 and postulates big fish hosting prophets for three days in their belly, or messiahs that lend their lives, only a few days, for imaginary things like sins, or other ridicolous things?

And what do you mean with all physicists? Einstein said the Bible is a set of childish primitive legends. And he was a physicist.
There you go, he basically said it is not better than pinocchio and believers in it are childish.

And it was one. I would say 50% are atheists. If not more. And the rest is shared with Kali, Allah, the great Juju at the bottom of the sea, or Whomever.

May I suggest to replace “all” with “some”? Or is this fake news season?

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Didnt even get that far off the ground.

Makes me think of the old film of an
experimental flying machine.

The ides was to have an engine drive this thing
like an umbrella up and down. Goes up folded,
opens coming down.

It bounced a bit then tore itself to pieces.
It's like being on the road to becoming being a genius in aviation. You first discover what doesn't work in the best direct way possible. *Grin*

By the way, I just love those old film clips....

"The Wrong Brothers".

 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Hey, I'm new to this forum and I'd like to kick around some ideas. Not looking for a fight and I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of dogmatism, but if you help me sharpen some of my ideas, I would greatly appreciate it. Here's a proof that I accept for the existence of God. It's basically based on rationalism, as I understand it. If you see points of error or need for clarification, please share. Thanks!

Definition - God is the self-sufficient existence of general consistency
  1. Rational reason assumes all reality is generally consistent (with self and other reality)
  2. This means all of reality exists in a manner that respects general consistency
  3. Things exist (eg your thinking about this God proof)
  4. Things that exist have a nature that is either arbitrary (bounded by something other than itself) or non-arbitrary (bounded only by itself)
  5. All arbitrary things are ultimately contingent upon some non-arbitrary thing. This is because either
    1. An arbitrary thing has a finite number of arbitrary things in a chain of causes
    2. An arbitrary thing has an infinite number of arbitrary things in its chain of causes. This means the thing is defined as the consequence of its infinite chain of causes, thus the thing is equivalent to the infinite chain of causes in a generally consistent reality. This chain is not bounded by anything outside the chain and therefore is non-arbitrary. Thus the thing, which is the chain, is non-arbitrary.
  6. Since (1) some thing(s) exist, (2) all things are either arbitrary or non-arbitrary, (3) all arbitrary things are contingent upon some non-arbitrary thing, then there must exist some thing that is non-arbitrary.
  7. God is the non-arbitrary thing that is self sufficient (being non-arbitrary) and generally consistent.

Sure.

It is a bit tautological as it doesn't provide any practical value however.

I came up with the following understanding of God in a kind of concise trinitarian syllogism as follows:

God is the Nothing-Yet of Infinite Potential. God is the Nothing-Yet because He/She/It existed before anything was created and had the Potential to create what is. That Potential was Infinite because there was Nothing-Yet to limit it.

You have fleshed out an interesting concept of the arbitrary and non-arbitrary that adds meat to the bones, but it logically reduces to the same.

I would, in fact, consider God as ALSO a arbitrary thing that arises out of a less arbitrary psychological system which is generative of a more or less objective God experience.

Since God cannot be identified outside of the human psyche we must consider that God also has this arbitrary aspect.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Hey, I'm new to this forum and I'd like to kick around some ideas. Not looking for a fight and I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of dogmatism, but if you help me sharpen some of my ideas, I would greatly appreciate it. Here's a proof that I accept for the existence of God. It's basically based on rationalism, as I understand it. If you see points of error or need for clarification, please share. Thanks!

Definition - God is the self-sufficient existence of general consistency
  1. Rational reason assumes all reality is generally consistent (with self and other reality)
  2. This means all of reality exists in a manner that respects general consistency
  3. Things exist (eg your thinking about this God proof)
  4. Things that exist have a nature that is either arbitrary (bounded by something other than itself) or non-arbitrary (bounded only by itself)
  5. All arbitrary things are ultimately contingent upon some non-arbitrary thing. This is because either
    1. An arbitrary thing has a finite number of arbitrary things in a chain of causes
    2. An arbitrary thing has an infinite number of arbitrary things in its chain of causes. This means the thing is defined as the consequence of its infinite chain of causes, thus the thing is equivalent to the infinite chain of causes in a generally consistent reality. This chain is not bounded by anything outside the chain and therefore is non-arbitrary. Thus the thing, which is the chain, is non-arbitrary.
  6. Since (1) some thing(s) exist, (2) all things are either arbitrary or non-arbitrary, (3) all arbitrary things are contingent upon some non-arbitrary thing, then there must exist some thing that is non-arbitrary.
  7. God is the non-arbitrary thing that is self sufficient (being non-arbitrary) and generally consistent.
Well reasoned, and fitting the rules of logic, making your conclusion logical. Atheists will now respond to prove you wrong, actually they can but they will make every effort to convince you they have. Some will be civil which is good. Some will be snide and patronizing.

If you believe in God, and want to participate in this fine forum, enjoy your conversations with the civil atheists, be prepared for the uncivil ones, like flies, they are always with us.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Sure.

It is a bit tautological as it doesn't provide any practical value however.

I came up with the following understanding of God in a kind of concise trinitarian syllogism as follows:



You have fleshed out an interesting concept of the arbitrary and non-arbitrary that adds meat to the bones, but it logically reduces to the same.

I would, in fact, consider God as ALSO a arbitrary thing that arises out of a less arbitrary psychological system which is generative of a more or less objective God experience.

Since God cannot be identified outside of the human psyche we must consider that God also has this arbitrary aspect.
Can humans identify anything outside the human psyche ? If not, then logically, nothing exists but the human psyche, correct ? or not ?
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I didn't get any further than your unusual definition for God because if you spot me my definition of the word 'fly,' I can give you a sound argument concluding that horses can fly.

It's actually not that unusual. I'm by no means well-studied in the philosophy of classical monotheism, but I ran across things like this when I took a college course on the general topic. And this was an intro level course.
 
Top