The myriad proofs for the exsitence of God

[Willamena]

Seems to me that you are now merely avoiding answering the question.

I mean, really, he flat out stated that you can define "God" however you want.

But that doesn't mean or imply that he has defined "God".

Yet you still prefer to argue over red herring semantics even after he flat out stated you can define "god" in any way you want.

Yes: I can define "God". The question I pose is, can he? And if he can't, on what basis does he judge my "proof" of "God"?
(Do you see?)

Now why would you argue semantics even after being told that you have free reign to specify the semantics that are going to be used?

Taking this question entirely out of context, the answer is: because I can. Because I have defined "God" and I figure he hasn't.

By the by, each of us "specifies the semantics" that are to be used. Semantics is a study.

One would think that a person with free reign to set the definitions as they like and THEN present their proof would have absolutely no problem in proving anything they want.

If (and that's a big IF) I take upon myself to "set the definition" that we both will use for a thing, I will have fallen entirely into madness and given over my existence to another. That's not about to happen in the near future (edit: I'm funny that way).

Especially not on my 49th birthday.

 

[cottage]

I am not in any way, shape or form asking for that. Where did you get that from?
(Nevermind: I don't really want to know.)


"Fear to tell you lest it enter your database"??

Okay, I give up.

By asking me to define God (your belief, and therefore your God) you are asking me to define what you believe, which is absurd. Every religion and every belief defines God differently and every believer has beliefs particular to them. As an unbeliever I have no prior view or insight to these beliefs, other than what the believers describe. 'God' is only defined by believers; no believers then no God, obviously!
Of course you know all this already, but you've dug yourself into a hole.

 

[cottage]

But that doesn't mean or imply that he has defined "God".


Yes: I can define "God". The question I pose is, can he? And if he can't, on what basis does he judge my "proof" of "God"?
(Do you see?)


Taking this question entirely out of context, the answer is: because I can. Because I have defined "God" and I figure he hasn't.

By the by, each of us "specifies the semantics" that are to be used. Semantics is a study.


If (and that's a big IF) I take upon myself to "set the definition" that we both will use for a thing, I will have fallen entirely into madness and given over my existence to another. That's not about to happen in the near future (edit: I'm funny that way).

Especially not on my 49th birthday.

You ask on what basis am I to judge your proof? The answer is on the basis of what you describe. On what other 'basis' might it be? (!) You say you can define your God (at last!) but bizarrely ask if I can. No, I can't define your God, since I don't know what it is.

To be fair to you I can accept an unwillingness to share all the intimate aspects of your personal beliefs. But I really don't see how you can expect to take part in debates on a religious forum from such a defensive, subject blocking position. Religious beliefs are propositional, things are stated as if they were true. And yet time and again we see that instead of the believers answering these 'truths' they want to make the sceptic the subject in question. And so it is in this instance. It's almost like making a closet case for atheism.

But enough, already! Many Happy Returns on your Birthday.
:hapbirth:

 

[McBell]

But that doesn't mean or imply that he has defined "God".


Yes: I can define "God". The question I pose is, can he? And if he can't, on what basis does he judge my "proof" of "God"?
(Do you see?)


Taking this question entirely out of context, the answer is: because I can. Because I have defined "God" and I figure he hasn't.

By the by, each of us "specifies the semantics" that are to be used. Semantics is a study.


If (and that's a big IF) I take upon myself to "set the definition" that we both will use for a thing, I will have fallen entirely into madness and given over my existence to another. That's not about to happen in the near future (edit: I'm funny that way).

Especially not on my 49th birthday.

Butter it up however you like, fact is, you are plain flat out avoiding answering the question.

Seems to me that you dislike not having your "get out of Jail free" card of "that is not how I define God".

 

[Willamena]

By asking me to define God (your belief, and therefore your God)

Let's imagine for a moment that I am an atheist. Now can you define "God"?

...you are asking me to define what you believe, which is absurd.

It would be, indeed, if I had asked for that. I am more interested in the subject than in you having to guess what it is I believe, the subject being that in defining "God" we have something with which to discuss.

Every religion and every belief defines God differently and every believer has beliefs particular to them. As an unbeliever I have no prior view or insight to these beliefs, other than what the believers describe. 'God' is only defined by believers; no believers then no God, obviously!
Of course you know all this already, but you've dug yourself into a hole.

As an "unbeliever" you are claiming that you are discussing a topic without form or definition. In other words, you're telling me you have no idea what it is we're talking about (i.e."God"). Is that the case?

 

[Willamena]

You ask on what basis am I to judge your proof? The answer is on the basis of what you describe. On what other 'basis' might it be? (!) You say you can define your God (at last!) but bizarrely ask if I can. No, I can't define your God, since I don't know what it is.

If I describe "God" as my left foot, would I be incorrect? Not having defined "God" yourself, on what basis would you declare it incorrect?

Do you see?

The alternative is, of course, that you actually have defined "God".

 

[Willamena]

Butter it up however you like, fact is, you are plain flat out avoiding answering the question.

Seems to me that you dislike not having your "get out of Jail free" card of "that is not how I define God".

Now you're on to something. Which "jail" Is that?

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
By asking me to define God (your belief, and therefore your God)

Willamena: Let's imagine for a moment that I am an atheist. Now can you define "God"?
Cottage: Look, I make the case that the object of religious belief is unintelligible, and yet you are expecting me to define the very thing that I’m arguing cannot be definitive. So it is for you to explain to me what is actually meant by the term ‘God’.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
...you are asking me to define what you believe, which is absurd.

Willamena: It would be, indeed, if I had asked for that. I am more interested in the subject than in you having to guess what it is I believe, the subject being that in defining "God" we have something with which to discuss.
Cottage: You have had every opportunity to discuss the subject. All I asked is ‘What is ‘God’? I certainly wasn’t probing for an intimate resume of your personal beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Every religion and every belief defines God differently and every believer has beliefs particular to them. As an unbeliever I have no prior view or insight to these beliefs, other than what the believers describe. 'God' is only defined by believers; no believers then no God, obviously!
Of course you know all this already, but you've dug yourself into a hole.

Willamena: As an "unbeliever" you are claiming that you are discussing a topic without form or definition. In other words, you're telling me you have no idea what it is we're talking about (i.e."God"). Is that the case?

Cottage: Oh what total nonsense! You know very well that I’m telling you no such thing. Just spend a few seconds appraising the daft logic that is your argument. There is an almost limitless variation of ideas and notions that believers ascribe to the term, none of which I find compelling. So it is utterly absurd to say that I, as an unbeliever, must arbitrarily identify and define a particular conception of a god, in which I have no belief, before you are prepared to identify your ideas of ‘God’.

 

[cottage]

If I describe "God" as my left foot, would I be incorrect? Not having defined "God" yourself, on what basis would you declare it incorrect?

Do you see?

The alternative is, of course, that you actually have defined "God".

No, you would not be incorrect to describe your left foot as God. Indeed you may be perfectly correct. But the question would remain: what do you mean by 'God'? To say God is your left foot isn't to define God, you are just saying the one thing is synonymous with the other. What does your left foot do that inspires a belief-in that you need to defend and discuss on a religious forum? And what are the religious aspects of your left foot, which distinguishes it from your right foot and all other feet? And why would you use such an example, rather than answer a simple question?

 

[Troublemane]

Ok then lets begin from a single premise: God, in order to be God (that is to say, GOD THE ALL-MIGHTY, maker of heaven and earth, etc. etc), we must put forth some defining characteristics.

i.-God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.
ii.-God is also transcendent, is not created by something else, and comes before all things.
iii.-God is the creator/origin of all beings and so is not created by anyone else, or is self-created.

Fair enough? Do we agree to these criteria? I think these concepts sum up pretty well what most theists think of regarding God, thats is without all the cultural appelations and such. Therefore, for the purposes of our argument i think they'll suffice.

 

[Willamena]

Look, I make the case that the object of religious belief is unintelligible, and yet you are expecting me to define the very thing that I’m arguing cannot be definitive. So it is for you to explain to me what is actually meant by the term ‘God’.

But what good would that do if you haven't defined "God"? As I said earlier, I suspect none at all.

Cottage: You have had every opportunity to discuss the subject. All I asked is ‘What is ‘God’? I certainly wasn’t probing for an intimate resume of your personal beliefs.

I am more interested, though, in discussing the subject that is the point I had brought up: that in defining "God" we each have something with which to discuss.

Oh what total nonsense! You know very well that I’m telling you no such thing. Just spend a few seconds appraising the daft logic that is your argument. There is an almost limitless variation of ideas and notions that believers ascribe to the term, none of which I find compelling. So it is utterly absurd to say that I, as an unbeliever, must arbitrarily identify and define a particular conception of a god, in which I have no belief, before you are prepared to identify your ideas of ‘God’.

Then I am back to asking, as I did in post #82, what is it that I am to "prove"?

 

[Troublemane]

Ok, if we agree to the definitions of my post #110, that God is Omnipotent, etc., then we may proceed to deduce what God is, logically, by simply asking what is there in existence which we know of that fits these criteria? Now, also, we make the simple requirement that God must be real. Since it does no good to say God exists, but its only in our minds, cuz thats a cop out.

POSTULATE#1---Anything which exists must be subject to the laws of nature, as it falls within the bounds of existence. Therefore anything which falls within the bounds of existence must be necessarily finite and therefore not God. (as it cannot be omnipotent, etc.)

POSTULATE#2---Anything that lies outside the bounds of existence, by definition, is nonexistent, therefore also not God. (as it does no good to have a nonexistent god...)

POSTULATE#3---therefore, if God cannot be outside of existence, nor inside of existence, it follows logically that God must be.....Existence Itself. :angel2:

 

[Troublemane]

PROOF:.....take the criteria one at a time, now:

I.--Question of Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence...If God is existence itself, it follows naturally that God is everywhere, knows everything and causes all things, as God is all things. And is coexistent with all time and space. There is not a thing which God is not, and there is not a thing not part of God.

II.--Question of Gods transcendence and self-createdness....If God is existence itself, it follows that God encompasses things beyond our comprehension, and in fact encompasses all things which exist but are beyond our ability to perceive, all things which have existed or will exist. And also is self-created because only an existing thing can create an existing thing, and as nothing came before existence, therefore existence is self-generating.

III.---Question of God's being the creator of all things...thats easy, if God is existence itself, then not only is God the proximal cause of all things (as the origin/source of matter in general), but God is also the direct cause of all things in the universe, at all levels (micro to macro).

QED....:angel2:

 

[dorsk188]

Ok then lets begin from a single premise: God, in order to be God (that is to say, GOD THE ALL-MIGHTY, maker of heaven and earth, etc. etc), we must put forth some defining characteristics.

i.-God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.
ii.-God is also transcendent, is not created by something else, and comes before all things.
iii.-God is the creator/origin of all beings and so is not created by anyone else, or is self-created.

Fair enough? Do we agree to these criteria? I think these concepts sum up pretty well what most theists think of regarding God, thats is without all the cultural appelations and such. Therefore, for the purposes of our argument i think they'll suffice.

To be clear, does this necessitate that God is conscious? Some people have a concept (or claim to) that "God is X". Where X is love, energy, probability, the Universe itself, or physical constants. The three criteria you've laid out (which I'd agree fits most versions of God) don't preclude what are basically redefinitions of God.

I would argue that for God to be God (rather than just a redefinition of an already accepted concept), he/she/it must be self-aware and have the capacity for agency.

 

[dorsk188]

QED....:angel2:

While I was writing my above post, you proved my point.

If God is existence itself, then why don't we just keep calling it existence and toss the "God" label aside? I think most people would agree that for God to be God, he/she/it must be capable of doing something and have self-awareness.

The reason for this distinction is not that your version of God is necessarily incorrect, but it A) doesn't fit the criteria that most theists would claim, and B) is fundementally unprovable/undisprovable and doesn't tell us anything about the Universe, God's attributes (desires/abilities/etc), or our interactions with them.

 

[cottage]

But what good would that do if you haven't defined "God"? As I said earlier, I suspect none at all.

If you believe in God then you believe that your beliefs are true. And if you believe they are true they must be intelligble. You don't need me to recount all the major beliefs before you can respond.


I am more interested, though, in discussing the subject that is the point I had brought up: that in defining "God" we each have something with which to discuss.

So start the discussion then! It's not a trick!


Then I am back to asking, as I did in post #82, what is it that I am to "prove"?

The subject of your belief! That the entity you believe in has real existence.

Basically there are many feeble proofs for God, but if you can demonstrate proof for a supposed one true God then clearly the correct definition follows from the proof.

 

[Willamena]

To be clear, does this necessitate that God is conscious?

Does consciousness exist? If "God" is existence, then. . .

I would argue that for God to be God (rather than just a redefinition of an already accepted concept), he/she/it must be self-aware and have the capacity for agency.

Does a capacity for agency exist? If "God" is existence, then. . .

 

[Willamena]

The subject of your belief! That the entity you believe in has real existence.

If that's what you wanted me to discuss, I'm sorry I misunderstood. I'm also sorry to disappoint--I have no such belief (and I still think it's the wrong question). I'd still like to discuss the subject I brought up, though.

Basically there are many feeble proofs for God, but if you can demonstrate proof for a supposed one true God then clearly the correct definition follows from the proof.

How would my proof be any less feeble? In other words, how would you know a "one true God" if it jumped up and bit you on the nose?

 

[Willamena]

If God is existence itself, then why don't we just keep calling it existence and toss the "God" label aside?

Unfortunately, some have. I don't agree with that, though, as it doesn't give any allowance to empower non-existence (which is also a thing).

 

[cottage]

If that's what you wanted me to discuss, I'm sorry I misunderstood. I'm also sorry to disappoint--I have no such belief (and I still think it's the wrong question). I'd still like to discuss the subject I brought up, though.

Brill! Please go ahead.


How would my proof be any less feeble? In other words, how would you know a "one true God" if it jumped up and bit you on the nose?

You are still doing it! Questioning my ability and perception. A classic theist evasion technique. Any ploy, bar answering the question it seems.