God Proof - Take 1

[shmogie]

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

No, but alas, it occurs.

 

[shmogie]

Uh, no.

OK. An example making a perfect metaphor for atheism. Better ?

 

[shmogie]

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

True. Inevitability isn´t magic either.

 

[Audie]

OK. An example making a perfect metaphor for atheism. Better ?

Maybe out there past the orbit of Pluto, somewhere,
sure, probably makes sense there.

Give my regards to PR245 when it swings by.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

True. Inevitability isn´t magic either.

It could be inevitable that we will all go to hell we just ignorant of it, dont accept it, or in denial. Who knows? There are so many variables, Id doubt if anyones belief can solve the concrete complication of life and death.

 

[Dell]

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've been reading books by William Lane Craig by any chance?

 

[Dell]

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 don't know what planet your from, but on Earth Historians and Physicists from most all creditable universities don't view the Bible as having any authority, authenticity, or accuracy at all.

 

[blü 2]

z

a proof that I accept for the existence of God. [...]

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

What does that mean?

That the elements of physics relate to each other in consistent ways?

If not, what?

If so, then indeed we observe consistency of that kind ─ except when we don't, and then we set out to improve our understanding eg dark matter implied by the observation that galaxies cohere in rotation in a manner inconsistent with their observed mass.

And of course we have the randomness that occurs in QM ─ the best you could say is, it's consistent in being random within parameters. But each such quantum event (eg the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay, or the spontaneous formation and instant mutual annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs as evidenced by the Casimir effect) is not the result of classical cause+effect, and there's a colossal number of instances of them in the universe every second.

Rational reason

The best kind, don't you find?

assumes all reality is generally consistent (with self and other reality)

Not quite. Reason notes that we observe this consistency empirically, and generalize it into an expectation by induction; and also that nothing protects that conclusion, however robust it may appear so far, from a counterexample we may find tomorrow ─ or never find.

Just like all the other conclusions of science from time to time. Nothing absolute can be claimed for any of it.

This means all of reality exists in a manner that respects general consistency

Well, (if we ignore random QM events) it means that as far as we can tell at this point of time, the universe very usually behaves consistently, but we'll know more about that when we work out eg what we mean when we say 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'.

Things exist (eg your thinking about this God proof)

That's one of my assumptions, and it works pretty well. However, again I can't demonstrate that this is the case in any absolute sense.

Things that exist have a nature that is either arbitrary (bounded by something other than itself) or non-arbitrary (bounded only by itself).

Again, what does that mean?

Here's a pebble. It has objective existence. Its 'boundaries' are the outer layer of its form. On earth that boundary may interface with gas, liquid, solid or all three, but so what? I've tried to get the hang of 'bounded only by itself' by considering the Möbius strip and the Klein bottle, and the pebble as a space rock, but space isn't empty, and either way I couldn't make sense of the idea.

Perhaps you could illustrate what you mean with a couple of examples of each kind?

All arbitrary things are ultimately contingent upon some non-arbitrary thing.

I'll have a better idea what that might mean after you clarify 'arbitrary'/'non-arbitrary' for me.

An arbitrary thing has a finite number of arbitrary things in a chain of causes

And I don't get that either. But meanwhile what definition of 'cause' are you using? Not Aristotle, I hope. The definition I use is that a 'cause' is a movement of energy (from a region of higher to a region of lower energy, of course) and 'effect' is the change that results.

An arbitrary thing has an infinite number of arbitrary things in its chain of causes.

Oh dear, 'infinity' again. Do you simply means 'any arbitrarily large number' or are you conjuring Cantor up?

This means the thing is defined as the consequence of its infinite chain of causes

That's not how I'd define anything. Please clarify.

This chain is not bounded by anything outside the chain and therefore is non-arbitrary.

If the chain involved QM phenomena then those can be arbitrary as mentioned, so your statement is wrong.

there must exist some thing that is non-arbitrary.

There does, as I've mentioned above.

God is the non-arbitrary thing that is self sufficient (being non-arbitrary) and generally consistent.

Since I don't know what that means yet, I'll wait till you clarify. But to be fair, I have a bad feeling about this.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

(sigh) I'm a theist.

On the other hand, I'll freely admit that chemotherapy has caused me to lose IQ points, though I can still feed myself, drive and type complete sentences.

I do not get the above rhetoric. I freely admit it.

 

[Dell]

(sigh) I'm a theist.

On the other hand, I'll freely admit that chemotherapy has caused me to lose IQ points, though I can still feed myself, drive and type complete sentences.

I do not get the above rhetoric. I freely admit it.

Wish you well, hope you beat your illness...

 

[Valjean]

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?

In serious apologetics, facts, logic and critical analysis are needed, just as they are in physics or mathematics. You need to start with precise, concise, unambiguous definitions. You need to make your argument crystal clear, logical, and as simple as possible.
Poetic, flowery or convoluted language may be inspiring, but it's unclear, imprecise and ambiguous.

 

[shmogie]

z
What does that mean?

That the elements of physics relate to each other in consistent ways?

If not, what?

If so, then indeed we observe consistency of that kind ─ except when we don't, and then we set out to improve our understanding eg dark matter implied by the observation that galaxies cohere in rotation in a manner inconsistent with their observed mass.

And of course we have the randomness that occurs in QM ─ the best you could say is, it's consistent in being random within parameters. But each such quantum event (eg the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay, or the spontaneous formation and instant mutual annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs as evidenced by the Casimir effect) is not the result of classical cause+effect, and there's a colossal number of instances of them in the universe every second.

The best kind, don't you find?
Not quite. Reason notes that we observe this consistency empirically, and generalize it into an expectation by induction; and also that nothing protects that conclusion, however robust it may appear so far, from a counterexample we may find tomorrow ─ or never find.

Just like all the other conclusions of science from time to time. Nothing absolute can be claimed for any of it.

Well, (if we ignore random QM events) it means that as far as we can tell at this point of time, the universe very usually behaves consistently, but we'll know more about that when we work out eg what we mean when we say 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'.
That's one of my assumptions, and it works pretty well. However, again I can't demonstrate that this is the case in any absolute sense.
Again, what does that mean?

Here's a pebble. It has objective existence. Its 'boundaries' are the outer layer of its form. On earth that boundary may interface with gas, liquid, solid or all three, but so what? I've tried to get the hang of 'bounded only by itself' by considering the Möbius strip and the Klein bottle, and the pebble as a space rock, but space isn't empty, and either way I couldn't make sense of the idea.

Perhaps you could illustrate what you mean with a couple of examples of each kind?
I'll have a better idea what that might mean after you clarify 'arbitrary'/'non-arbitrary' for me.
And I don't get that either. But meanwhile what definition of 'cause' are you using? Not Aristotle, I hope. The definition I use is that a 'cause' is a movement of energy (from a region of higher to a region of lower energy, of course) and 'effect' is the change that results.
Oh dear, 'infinity' again. Do you simply means 'any arbitrarily large number' or are you conjuring Cantor up?
That's not how I'd define anything. Please clarify.
If the chain involved QM phenomena then those can be arbitrary as mentioned, so your statement is wrong.
There does, as I've mentioned above.
Since I don't know what that means yet, I'll wait till you clarify. But to be fair, I have a bad feeling about this.

Hmmm, you are being obtuse in attempting to view a philosophical construct through the filter of physical science, wrong filter, wrong approach.

Infinity again ? Tell me, how many numbers are there ? Does that help with his point ?

 

[Windwalker]

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.

Isn't the goal of belief to believe with your heart, not with your head? Is the heart an affair of concrete matters such as facts and data, or the less concrete such as dreams and hopes, desires, longings, and other such abstractions?

Isn't poetry the best language to speak to the heart? Isn't this what art is supposed to be? Do you have to explain to the viewer the meaning of the work, and if you did, did they actually get it then?

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.

I actually see it as the other way around. Someone taking the mystical and making it concrete. In so doing that of course, it becomes just a flat facsimile. Easy for the mind to understand, but still a mystery the heart can't understanding because it was presented as a concrete fact, which the rational mind must now try to grapple with. The heart was not invited to think, because you presented the person "facts", to rationally consider, not a finger pointing to the moon and a simple sigh to express the meaning. This is the lethal flaw of any apologetics.

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.

While that may help to get a very crude glimpse of the meaning of something, the actual meaning is found in the depth of the mystery, which will of its ineffable nature be beyond words. Why should we take the unfathomable, the transcendent, the divine, and crunch it down into something that can be packaged and sold as a belief to adopt or not? Where does the ineffable still exist in that version of Reality?

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.

The use of "word salad" to describe the necessity of using metaphors to speak of the ineffable, sounds the like the rhetoric of a neo-atheist who cannot fathom the non-literal as having any meaning, such as art, poetry, dance, song, music, etc. Word salad is actually part of a brain dysfunction. To speak of "God beyond God" for instance makes a tremendous amount of sense to me, but to some they call that "word salad", which only betrays their own frustration of thinking beyond their own boxes. It's not incomprehensible. Others understand the meaning quite clearly.

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.

But "blurring" is what is needed for someone to unfocus their eyes a little and see the whole world, rather than staring at a rock for answers.

In serious apologetics, facts, logic and critical analysis are needed, just as they are in physics or mathematics. You need to start with precise, concise, unambiguous definitions. You need to make your argument crystal clear, logical, and as simple as possible.
Poetic, flowery or convoluted language may be inspiring, but it's unclear, imprecise and ambiguous.

If you were trying to prove how water freezes into ice, sure. But we are talking about God, or Brahman, or the Ineffable. Is God a Yeti, something that exists outside the subjective reality of ones own self? To make God an object of research and study of critical analysis is ridiculous. As I asked above, is the goal to teach a concept, or a lived reality? Is the point about belief, or faith in the Unknowable?

 

[blü 2]

Hmmm, you are being obtuse in attempting to view a philosophical construct through the filter of physical science, wrong filter, wrong approach.

Well, for some reason I thought he intended his conclusion to be an accurate statement about reality. You say not?

Infinity again ? Tell me, how many numbers are there ?

On the number line? As many as you want, and after that as many again with as many repeats as you want, all without a break. Arbitrarily large numbers, as I said.

Does that help with his point ?

It's not unknown in arguments of this kind for Cantorian infinities to be a back door to woo, so I though it best to get that, and the other matters I mentioned, clear from the start.

 

[Valjean]

If you were trying to prove how water freezes into ice, sure. But we are talking about God, or Brahman, or the Ineffable. Is God a Yeti, something that exists outside the subjective reality of ones own self? To make God an object of research and study of critical analysis is ridiculous. As I asked above, is the goal to teach a concept, or a lived reality? Is the point about belief, or faith in the Unknowable?

Understood, but the point; the OP, purports to be a logical proof.

 

[blü 2]

Why should we take the unfathomable, the transcendent, the divine, and crunch it down into something that can be packaged and sold as a belief to adopt or not? Where does the ineffable still exist in that version of Reality?

Yo, Windwalker! Trust all things are good at your place.

If it's clear that the 'unfathomable, the transcendent, the divine' exist only in the imagination of the individual, then they can indeed be enjoyed according to one's taste, and poetry may be useful, and the attitudes and aspirations that relate to them may be admirable.

But if the assertion is that they're aspects of reality, then of course we should seek out, describe and seek to explain them, just as with any other aspect of reality.

Is God [...] something that exists outside the subjective reality of ones own self?

To be clear, you're answering that, No, right?

 

[viole]

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:

That guy believes in the Spinoza God. An impersonal God. A God imersonated by the unconsious laws of Nature, The same “god” Einstein believed in. Not in the Bible. Not in a God that wipes out people, incarnates and stuff like that.

So, I am not sure what you are trying to prove by showing a guy that does not make your case.

Too much openness of mind leads to confusion?

Ciao

- viole

 

[questfortruth]

That guy believes in the Spinoza God. An impersonal God. A God imersonated by the unconsious laws of Nature, The same “god” Einstein believed in. Not in the Bible. Not in a God that wipes out people, incarnates and stuff like that.

So, I am not sure what you are trying to prove by showing a guy that does not make your case.

Too much openness of mind leads to confusion?

Ciao

- viole

Look the message, not messager.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I actually see it as the other way around. Someone taking the mystical and making it concrete. In so doing that of course, it becomes just a flat facsimile.

Easy for the mind to understand, but still a mystery the heart can't understanding because it was presented as a concrete fact, which the rational mind must now try to grapple with. The heart was not invited to think, because you presented the person "facts", to rationally consider, not a finger pointing to the moon and a simple sigh to express the meaning. This is the lethal flaw of any apologetics.

I agree with the (Buddha) Dharma that what we experience has its source from the mind. So, what we experience in our heart (emotions, awareness, and connection) comes from the mind and our mind, when trained well, influenced the body to action. I dont see it as flat. It just makes sense. Everything is controled by mind. We need our physical brains to understand this. Instead of seperating spirituality from physical, they bounce off each other. I do believe its benefitial to address the mind, which is very concrete in what we practice. The heart is very vague and can be definede in multipl ways.

The heart could be a mystery. Not all mysteries need to mystical though. What we dont know doesnt make it sacred or special.

If you were trying to prove how water freezes into ice, sure. But we are talking about God, or Brahman, or the Ineffable. Is God a Yeti, something that exists outside the subjective reality of ones own self? To make God an object of research and study of critical analysis is ridiculous. As I asked above, is the goal to teach a concept, or a lived reality? Is the point about belief, or faith in the Unknowable?

God can be explained by psychology, sociology, history, and culture. Its not about proof under a microscope. The criteria of concrete knowlege is not scientific. Material doesnt mean it needs to be under a microsope.

Im not familar with Brahma and the word and concept god( and Brahma) isnt universal. But I feel they both can be understod without the mystics. Just I find Hindus are more relaxed about it. Also, on another thread, I learned from a Hindu that not many Hindus worship Brahma directly. So...

Yes. Thats the goal. Its not separate from the mind. The heart is a product of the mind. We need our brains to do the physical work, though.

Isn't the goal of belief to believe with your heart, not with your head? Is the heart an affair of concrete matters such as facts and data, or the less concrete such as dreams and hopes, desires, longings, and other such abstractions?

Both. When I write poetry or sketch, its both. I have my pencils and pens and paper. I study sketches of other drawings and how to shade. When I see a picture in m head I attempt to draw it. Its both spiritual (it gives me an emotional high) and mental in regards to passioniate study. But I dont separate the two.

I find it useful to have sketchbooks from time to time. Just dont mistake them for tracing paper. People do, unfortunately.

Isn't poetry the best language to speak to the heart? Isn't this what art is supposed to be? Do you have to explain to the viewer the meaning of the work, and if you did, did they actually get it then?

Of course. That doesnt exclude the brain and mind. Art is a product of the mind which defines our spirit and heart.

While that may help to get a very crude glimpse of the meaning of something, the actual meaning is found in the depth of the mystery, which will of its ineffable nature be beyond words. Why should we take the unfathomable, the transcendent, the divine, and crunch it down into something that can be packaged and sold as a belief to adopt or not? Where does the ineffable still exist in that version of Reality?

Cause they work side by side. I dont agree it crunches down the spiritual and mystics. I just find it benefitial to understand the spiritual when there is a concrete knowlege of what one believes.

I mean, many people believe god without scripure etc. Yet, the physical part is meditation, visualization and idol worship. So, there are benefits in physical things to understand spiritual. Dont degrade it but understand it.

The use of "word salad" to describe the necessity of using metaphors to speak of the ineffable, sounds the like the rhetoric of a neo-atheist who cannot fathom the non-literal as having any meaning, such as art, poetry, dance, song, music, etc. Word salad is actually part of a brain dysfunction. To speak of "God beyond God" for instance makes a tremendous amount of sense to me, but to some they call that "word salad", which only betrays their own frustration of thinking beyond their own boxes. It's not incomprehensible. Others understand the meaning quite clearly.

Word salad confuses the mess out of me. But in general, I can see it confuse the mess out of seekers. Using fancy words to define mystics makes spirituality so broad you can define it just about any way.

Art is explained by action not merely spirituality heart things. The art is part of the artist.

But god can be explained without mystics. Why do you feel it degrades god to speak about it in a more concrete and well knowledgable way? Some people need blunt explanation to understand the spiritual part about it. Cant experience meditation if you dont meditate.

But "blurring" is what is needed for someone to unfocus their eyes a little and see the whole world, rather than staring at a rock for answers

No. Bluring makes things new age. If you dont know what you believe, how can you explain god?

 

[Eddi]

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.

This all seems very interesting but I'm having trouble getting my head around it all. I don't fully understand what you're saying, never mind what you're arguing. And I'm an educated and reasonably intelligent person.

I'd like to see this translated into plain everyday English please, with some of the terms you've used explained.

Also, I'd like to add that I believe "God" to be a fairly simple concept (even though we can never fully understand him!) and think that therefore any explanation of him should also be simple. But then I conceive God as being a personal being, rather than an abstraction.​