God Proof - Take 1

[questfortruth]

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?

You are not open-minded? Atheists, just be a bit open-minded, when you would read the Bible: it is known, that in mental cases the mind-vision becomes very narrow, very tunnel-like. Physicists have found the irreplacable miracle of Creation, look, the methodological naturalism leads to Total Solipsism:

 

[joe1776]

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.

I never took a course on the philosophy of classical monotheism.

I've spent more time debating religion online than I can justify -- since 1998. I never heard that one before. Moreover, it's the kind of definition that seems deliberately created by someone beginning with a conclusion and working back to a definition.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Ahh !!! Found it, i was looking for the divide by zero. Its right there at the end in number 7

Welcome and have fun

 

[shmogie]

And?

Why do we all go to hell?

Nah, just some of you.

 

[shmogie]

I do not think God should be proven, because that is the same as God being visible. That is where I am coming from, but with respect to your proof I have come up with some objections which you may find useful for improving it. I hope you like them.



I think I agree its at mostly consistent, and if it weren't would probably be disconnected from our experience, unreachable and untouchable.


That sounds like an assumption, and we seem a lot more like ghosts than truly existing entities. Relativity shows that we are all already dead in a future that already exists. We appear empty, much like the atom is empty. We appear to be patterns rather than solid forms. You could go either way with whether that is existence or form.

Context is a problem for logic, because it is supposedly impossible for any logical system to prove itself to be consistent. An outer context can show the system to be inconsistent or consistent. Is this what you are talking about? A logical system bounded only by itself cannot be guaranteed consistent, and that would extend to a 'Reality' probably.

There could also be something in between arbitrary and non-arbitrary, as in the superposition of the two with the observable outcome determined by what is consistent yet with extra unobservable outcomes that are not. Then you have the appearance of consistency but not true consistency. In other words you have a consistent, observable reality and a fractured leftover reality of all of the outcomes which are not consistent. You could also have partially consistent universes.

This still does not prove God exists, because you cannot prove the consistency of the system in which you exist.

Hmmmmm, nothing cannot create something, something exists, therefore God created everything.,

 

[shmogie]

Interesting position which philosopher did you borrow this from?

Oh, and welcome btw

Gads

 

[shmogie]

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.

Sounds like atheism to me, but hey, it';s all about perspective, right ?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hmmmmm, nothing cannot create something, something exists, therefore God created everything.,

I don't view that as anything but idolatrous. Its an attempt to convince me to drop my faith, which is the guarantee of things to come and to have me instead follow people who give me assurances through arguments.

 

[Valjean]

Welcome to RF, JCB.

Definition - God is the self-sufficient existence of general consistency

God is existence? consistency? What does this mean? It sounds like you're defining an abstraction, rather than a concrete personage.

1. Rational reason assumes all reality is generally consistent (with self and other reality) I'm not following here. Reality is "consistent?" as in homogenous? Clarify, please.
   
2. This means all of reality exists in a manner that respects general consistency. What does this mean?
   
3. Things exist (eg your thinking about this God proof)Things appear to exist. (Is thinking actually a thing?)
   
4. Things that exist have a nature that is either arbitrary (bounded by something other than itself) or non-arbitrary (bounded only by itself)Now I'm even more confused. Arbitrary natures? Boundaries? What do boundaries have to do with arbitrariness? Boundaries? = manifolds? Manifold - Wikipedia
   
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 Still not clear on what an "arbitrary thing" is, and why must things have a chain of causes? Why must something have a cause at all?
      
   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. OK, I think I'm following: a thing is the 'consequence' (product?) of its causes... 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. Now you've lost me again. Boundaries? Arbitrariness? "Arbitrary"=bounded?
6. Since (1) some thing(s) exist, (2) all things are either arbitrary or non-arbitrary, How does this follow? Define "arbitrary."
   
7. (3) all arbitrary things are contingent upon some non-arbitrary thing, then there must exist some thing that is non-arbitrary. I'm thinking probablistic reality and wave function collapse -- but I don't think this is what you're referring to.
   
8. God is the non-arbitrary thing that is self sufficient (being non-arbitrary) and generally consistent.[/quote]Now God's a 'thing'? Your previous definition seemed to define it as abstract "existence." Now you seem to be characterizing God as a stuff or power or energy form.

This apology, as written is gobbledygook. I can't even figure out where you're coming from. Could you define your terms and clarify this, please?

 

[Valjean]

Hmmmmm, nothing cannot create something, something exists, therefore God created everything.,

Is this a serious syllogism?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Nah, just some of you.

Probably all, who knows. Belief isn't magic.

 

[Audie]

Sounds like atheism to me, but hey, it';s all about perspective, right ?

Uh, no.

 

[Windwalker]

Sometimes when we are puting together our spirituality or strengthening it we use vague discriptions (i.e. god is love) without being distinct in what love is and by what means does a god/deity mean love and not something else. The more concrete, the more personal.

What are you saying here? Are you saying that spirituality should be concrete and precise in its definitions, and that doing that opens you more to the personal somehow? That's sounds very strange to me. Can you explain, if that's what you mean?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Without arguing about your logic does this tell us anything about what God is?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

We wouldn't want anyone being uncivil now, would we?

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

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

Which translated version? Or is it better for me to learn Greek and Hebrew and read the ones that i can find in the Greek Church and Hebrew Synagogue?

 

[allfoak]

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.

God cannot be described.
As for proof...
movement and repose.
consciousness.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What are you saying here? Are you saying that spirituality should be concrete and precise in its definitions, and that doing that opens you more to the personal somehow? That's sounds very strange to me. Can you explain, if that's what you mean?

I feel understanding spirituality in a more concrete way instead of abstract helps to a seeker determine what he believes or don't without the flowery language.

If you told me that jesus is the eucharist and the eucharist is the summit of all christ love for believers, I'd look at you (and the priest, as I did) funny. It's taking a concrete teaching and making it mystical when it doesn't need to be.

People debate all day because of the "Eucharistic" mystery and don't look at it in a more concrete way. When you simplify it, it's easier to understand the spiritual significance of it, and for me personally, gave me a noun to the adjective describing it.

Translation of the above in basic terms is the Eucharist is the sacrificial meal that joins believers in Christ's death (sacrifice of sins), life (mass and Christian deeds), and resurrection (union with god). It just brings people together in worship and the center of that worship, the church, the eucharist this christ.

When it's more concrete it's easier (for me) to say, I believe this because I have understanding of it. When i leave it as a eucharist mystery, we can use word salad all we want but it just ends with being convinces of our own interpretation.

It is also too vague that you can't debate anything. Make it more concrete and simplify it. Draw your own conclusions and express your experiences. A seeker can better judge what he believes without depending on flowery language of the spirit to "blurify" his doubt.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Gads

Gads?

 

[shmogie]

Gads?

Gads, that you would imply a new guy/gal didn´t think originally, and didn´t credit a source. What difference does it make to you ?