Why does God hide himself?

[interminable]

What's the point of prayer?

Not being arrogant is the good one

We are really nothing comparing to an unlimited existent Aren't we?

 

[Super Universe]

Huh???

Uhm... that's not a very smart answer. Sorry.

The amount of energy in this universe is enormous. The energy will last for yet another billions of years, we don't have to worry about running out of electricity. Besides, don't you know that we generate electricity? It's not a resource that we harvest, but a resource that we produce.

A thunderstorm produces electricity that could supply a small town for a year, but we can't harvest that. We don't have the capacitors to do that yet.

Elon Musk has a solar panel company producing electricity for the Tesla cars.

Here in California, 20% or more of households have solarpanels producing electricity.

Solar panels take heat and radiation from the sun. The sun is predicted to live for another couple of billions of years, if I remember right. It will eventually turn into a red gas giant, but it still radiates enormous amounts of heat and radiation for a long time.

So... I'm not sure what you mean that something being finite means that it happens tomorrow or soon.

Besides, the point with the syllogism is rather to show that infinite is necessary for God to exist. If infinite doesn't exist, the God doesn't exist.

I do believe the infinite exists. Just to be clear.

The scientific theory is that electricity comes from an infinite source. Not a large source, not even a very large source, an INFINITE source.

 

[RedDragon94]

Not being arrogant is the good one

We are really nothing comparing to an unlimited existent Aren't we?

So you just pray, just because your commanded to?

 

[interminable]

So you just pray, just because your commanded to?

Honestly

Me yes
Even I confess that I practice my religion's orders because of hell

But gnostics are free from hell and heaven they just found an unlimited existent that is the creator of hell and heaven. They don't fear hell or happy by heaven because when u joined an unlimited existent u joined eternal happiness and calmness

 

[RedDragon94]

Honestly

Me yes
Even I confess that I practice my religion's orders because of hell

But gnostics are free from hell and heaven they just found an unlimited existent that is the creator of hell and heaven. They don't fear hell or happy by heaven because when u joined an unlimited existent u joined eternal happiness and calmness

Illustration:

Let's say you're a young child and someone (an adult and a stranger) says that someone murdered your entire family and that they came to pick you up and take care of you from now on. Do you trust them?

 

[Ouroboros]

U made me laugh

can u find somewhere that is non-existent???
Can u show me non-existent ???

This is a very simple fact that the Existence itself is infinite because non-existent doesn't exist at all.

We can just talk about existents because non-existents are lack. They aren't something.


This proves that Existence is infinite that we call it God

Actually gnostics say the real existence belongs to God we are just shadows

When you say that infinite is impossible (infinite recursion or regression is impossible because of it's infinite nature), then God would be impossible as well. That's the problem with rejecting the infinite. The infinite and even infinite regressions/recursion is necessary for God's existence. So the argument is invalid to prove God's existence.

 

[interminable]

Illustration:

Let's say you're a young child and someone (an adult and a stranger) says that someone murdered your entire family and that they came to pick you up and take care of you from now on. Do you trust them?

As a young child I don't know what to say. Because I hadn't this experience. But generally my acceptance depends on how much I have knowledge about society or family and....

It's hard to answer

 

[Ouroboros]

The scientific theory is that electricity comes from an infinite source.

Uh. What? Give me a source that says that. That sounds really funky.

I've studied physics and several other science subjects, but no one ever said electricity came from an infinite source.

So I'd like to see some legit reference or quote that this is what physics says.

Not a large source, not even a very large source, an INFINITE source.

Are you talking about M-theory or multiverse or something?

Besides, you missed the point quite a bit. I'm not rejecting infinite. My syllogism had a different purpose. Go back and see to what I was responding to, and try to figure out what I was trying to tell.

 

[interminable]

When you say that infinite is impossible (infinite recursion or regression is impossible because of it's infinite nature), then God would be impossible as well. That's the problem with rejecting the infinite. The infinite and even infinite regressions/recursion is necessary for God's existence. So the argument is invalid to prove God's existence.

Existence which it is assumed intellectually can be either necessary or possible. intellectually, no existent lies outside these two assumptions and every existent can't be assumed to be a possible existent because a possible existent always needs a cause. If all causes were possible existents, each one of them in turn requiring a cause, no existent would ever come into being. In other words an infinite regress of causes is impossible. Therefore an infinite series of causes must be compelled to terminate in an existent that isn't an effect of any other existent for example necessary existent.

More explanation

Possibility and necessity

All propositions whether simple or complex have two fundamental concepts (subject and predicate) for example in the following axiom the sun shines which establishes signing for the sun the sun is the subject and shining is the predicate. The establishment of a predicate for a subject has no more than three states: it could be impossible such as the number three is greater than the number four or it could be necessary such as the number two is half of the number four or it could be neither impossible nor necessary for instance the sun is above our heads.
In the terminology of logic the first proposition has the state of impossibility , the second proposition is given the attribute of necessity and the third state is considered as possible.
However in philosophy only existence is discussed and those things that are incapable of being ,of occurring and are impossible will never exist in the external world. For this reason philosophy regards existence from an intellectual respective as being either necessary or possible existence.
Necessary existence is known as an existence which exists in itself and doesn't depend upon another existent. Naturally such an existent will have no beginning and no end, because the non existence of something in a particular time is an indication that it's existence isn't from itself. In order for it to come into existence it would need another existent which would be the cause or the condition for its realization. The absence of this condition or cause would be the reason for its annihilation.
Possible existence is known as an existent which doesn't exist in itself and depend on another existent in order for it to be realized.
These divisions which have been made through intellectual perception essentially disregard impossible existence , but they don't indicate whether a particular existent is a possible or necessary existent.
In other words the principles of this point of view can be conceptualized in three essential forms:
1 every existent is a necessary existent
2 every existent is a possible existent
3 some are necessary and some are possible existents.

On the basis of the first and third assumptions , the existence of a necessary existent is established
therefore the assumption that should be reviewed would be whether or not all existents are possible existents.
However by disproving this assumption (that all existents are possible existents) the existence of the necessary existent would be definitely and conclusively proven. The establishment of unity and other attributes must be proven with other arguments.
Therefore in order to disprove the second assumption we can say that

Every possible existent needs a cause and it's impossible to have an endless again of causes. Thus the endless chain of causes is compelled to terminate at an existent that isn't in need of a cause for example the necessary existent.
This argument introduces other philosophical concepts which need a brief description.

Cause and effect

If an existent requires another existent and depends upon that other existent for its existence, then in philosophical terminology the caused existent is known as the effect and the other causative existent is known as cause. However it's possible that a cause can also be an effect and be a dependent existent that isn't absolutely free from need. If a cause is absolutely free from need and doesn't depend upon any other existent then it will be the absolute cause.
Possible existent doesn't exist in itself and has no alternative other than to depend upon another existent. Thus every predicate recognized for the subject is either established by itself or by means of other than itself. For example everything either shines in and of itself or requires something else for its illumination or everybody is oily in itself or needs oil for becoming oily. It's impossible for something in itself to not be illuminating or oily and not receive light or oil from something else while at the same time being oily and illuminating!
Hence the establishment of existence for a subject is either through its essence or by means other than itself and when it's not through its essence then it has to be by means of other than itself. Therefore every possible existent that is not realized through its essence is bound to be realized by means of other than itself which implies that it is an effect. This provides us with the fundamental intellectual principle that every possible existent needs a cause.

Very important point

Some imagine that the principle of causation means that all existents need a cause and therefore God needs a primary cause. They have overlooked the fact that the subject of the principle of causation is the existent in the possible sense and its effect Not in the existent in the absolute sense. Not all existents need a cause , only those which are dependable and are in need.

 

[Ouroboros]

Existence which it is assumed intellectually can be either necessary or possible. intellectually, no existent lies outside these two assumptions and every existent can't be assumed to be a possible existent because a possible existent always needs a cause. If all causes were possible existents, each one of them in turn requiring a cause, no existent would ever come into being. In other words an infinite regress of causes is impossible. Therefore an infinite series of causes must be compelled to terminate in an existent that isn't an effect of any other existent for example necessary existent.

More explanation

Possibility and necessity

All propositions whether simple or complex have two fundamental concepts (subject and predicate) for example in the following axiom the sun shines which establishes signing for the sun the sun is the subject and shining is the predicate. The establishment of a predicate for a subject has no more than three states: it could be impossible such as the number three is greater than the number four or it could be necessary such as the number two is half of the number four or it could be neither impossible nor necessary for instance the sun is above our heads.
In the terminology of logic the first proposition has the state of impossibility , the second proposition is given the attribute of necessity and the third state is considered as possible.
However in philosophy only existence is discussed and those things that are incapable of being ,of occurring and are impossible will never exist in the external world. For this reason philosophy regards existence from an intellectual respective as being either necessary or possible existence.
Necessary existence is known as an existence which exists in itself and doesn't depend upon another existent. Naturally such an existent will have no beginning and no end, because the non existence of something in a particular time is an indication that it's existence isn't from itself. In order for it to come into existence it would need another existent which would be the cause or the condition for its realization. The absence of this condition or cause would be the reason for its annihilation.
Possible existence is known as an existent which doesn't exist in itself and depend on another existent in order for it to be realized.
These divisions which have been made through intellectual perception essentially disregard impossible existence , but they don't indicate whether a particular existent is a possible or necessary existent.
In other words the principles of this point of view can be conceptualized in three essential forms:
1 every existent is a necessary existent
2 every existent is a possible existent
3 some are necessary and some are possible existents.

On the basis of the first and third assumptions , the existence of a necessary existent is established
therefore the assumption that should be reviewed would be whether or not all existents are possible existents.
However by disproving this assumption (that all existents are possible existents) the existence of the necessary existent would be definitely and conclusively proven. The establishment of unity and other attributes must be proven with other arguments.
Therefore in order to disprove the second assumption we can say that

Every possible existent needs a cause and it's impossible to have an endless again of causes. Thus the endless chain of causes is compelled to terminate at an existent that isn't in need of a cause for example the necessary existent.
This argument introduces other philosophical concepts which need a brief description.

Cause and effect

If an existent requires another existent and depends upon that other existent for its existence, then in philosophical terminology the caused existent is known as the effect and the other causative existent is known as cause. However it's possible that a cause can also be an effect and be a dependent existent that isn't absolutely free from need. If a cause is absolutely free from need and doesn't depend upon any other existent then it will be the absolute cause.
Possible existent doesn't exist in itself and has no alternative other than to depend upon another existent. Thus every predicate recognized for the subject is either established by itself or by means of other than itself. For example everything either shines in and of itself or requires something else for its illumination or everybody is oily in itself or needs oil for becoming oily. It's impossible for something in itself to not be illuminating or oily and not receive light or oil from something else while at the same time being oily and illuminating!
Hence the establishment of existence for a subject is either through its essence or by means other than itself and when it's not through its essence then it has to be by means of other than itself. Therefore every possible existent that is not realized through its essence is bound to be realized by means of other than itself which implies that it is an effect. This provides us with the fundamental intellectual principle that every possible existent needs a cause.

Very important point

Some imagine that the principle of causation means that all existents need a cause and therefore God needs a primary cause. They have overlooked the fact that the subject of the principle of causation is the existent in the possible sense and its effect Not in the existent in the absolute sense. Not all existents need a cause , only those which are dependable and are in need.

You wrote all that in 4 minutes!? I'm impressed! But read the last point. Your own conclusion.

"Some imagine that the principle of causation means that all existents need a cause and therefore God needs a primary cause. They have overlooked the fact that the subject of the principle of causation is the existent in the possible sense and its effect Not in the existent in the absolute sense. Not all existents need a cause , only those which are dependable and are in need."

Basically, it says, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

An infinite/eternal existence does not require a causation, as argued for God. But yet, here we are arguing that infinite/eternal existence is impossible and must be caused. The whole argument is begging the question. Why can God exist without cause when everything else can only exist because of a cause? If it's not necessary for one, then why is it necessary for the other? And if the argument is that existence can't be infinite, then God can't exist or can't be infinite, it's very simple.

My conclusion is still, for God to exist, the infinite must as well. I can't see it any other way.

And one more thing, I believe the concept of cause-and-effect is somewhat flawed. We have some misconceptions about it based on Aristotle and other philosophers. There is evidence that some events in our universe are un-caused. If there are un-caused events, happening right now, then a causal regression argument is flawed at its premise.

 

[interminable]

You wrote all that in 4 minutes!? I'm impressed! But read the last point. Your own conclusion.

"Some imagine that the principle of causation means that all existents need a cause and therefore God needs a primary cause. They have overlooked the fact that the subject of the principle of causation is the existent in the possible sense and its effect Not in the existent in the absolute sense. Not all existents need a cause , only those which are dependable and are in need."

Basically, it says, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

An infinite/eternal existence does not require a causation, as argued for God. But yet, here we are arguing that infinite/eternal existence is impossible and must be caused. The whole argument is begging the question. Why can God exist without cause when everything else can only exist because of a cause? If it's not necessary for one, then why is it necessary for the other? And if the argument is that existence can't be infinite, then God can't exist or can't be infinite, it's very simple.

I didn't write it just now

Besides
U didn't answer my questions?

Non- existent does exist or not???

 

[Ouroboros]

I didn't write it just now

Besides
U didn't answer my questions?

Non- existent does exist or not???

LOL! It's like the riddle of "nothing is nothing, but it is something."

No. Non-existence is where there is no existence. And is there ever such a place where nothing exists? No, because then that would be something that existed. A believe non-existence is impossible by it's own contradiction.

Existence is necessary. It's a fundamental principle applying to everything, even God. Not even God can undo existence.

 

[interminable]

LOL! It's like the riddle of "nothing is nothing, but it is something."

No. Non-existence is where there is no existence. And is there ever such a place where nothing exists? No, because then that would be something that existed. A believe non-existence is impossible by it's own contradiction.

Existence is necessary. It's a fundamental principle applying to everything, even God. Not even God can undo existence.

Please answer yes or no

Do we have non-existent or can we find a non- existent or not???

 

[Ouroboros]

Please answer yes or no

Do we have non-existent or can we find a non- existent or not???

I said no.

 

[interminable]

I said no.

So u accepted already that Existence is infinite
Because everywhere u go u can't find non-existent


Actually the only thing that is unlimited is existence in real world

So
Do we have infinite existence or not????

 

[Ouroboros]

To explain myself, I believe the infinite exists. I believe reality as such is eternal and recursive, and there are non-causal events all the time. The paradox of infinite becoming finite is just that, a paradox that we have to accept, but can't explain. And to call all this God, is a choice, not a conclusion. That certain things exist, doesn't make them "God" by default. But we can choose, as individuals, to see the infinite, eternal reality as God, but that's personal, not evidence.

 

[Ouroboros]

So u accepted already that Existence is infinite

Yes. Which I did express.

Because everywhere u go u can't find non-existent

Correct.

Actually the only thing that is unlimited is existence in real world

So
Do we have infinite existence or not????

Absolutely.

My point to you was that the argument you made was "infinite is impossible, therefore God." You said that infinite regression or recursion is impossible, but that's not true since existence is infinite and is an infinite regression by it's pure existence and dependence of previous infinite existence.

To prove God by arguing that infinite can't be true only to conclude that God must be infinite, it's a contradiction, and it doesn't work as an argument for God's existence.

Let me put it simpler. I don't reject God's existence. I only reject arguments to prove God's existence based on contradictions from finite vs infinite. Contradictory arguments like that are just traps and only show confirmation bias to belief, and nothing else.

So again, I don't say God doesn't exist. That's not my point. I only say, the proof argument for God isn't a good proof.

 

[interminable]

Yes. Which I did express.


Correct.


Absolutely.

My point to you was that the argument you made was "infinite is impossible, therefore God." You said that infinite regression or recursion is impossible, but that's not true since existence is infinite and is an infinite regression by it's pure existence and dependence of previous infinite existence.

To prove God by arguing that infinite can't be true only to conclude that God must be infinite, it's a contradiction, and it doesn't work as an argument for God's existence.

Let me put it simpler. I don't reject God's existence. I only reject arguments to prove God's existence based on contradictions from finite vs infinite. Contradictory arguments like that are just traps and only show confirmation bias to belief, and nothing else.

So again, I don't say God doesn't exist. That's not my point. I only say, the proof argument for God isn't a good proof.

It's weird

Didn't u say before that infinites are impossible???

???
!?

 

[Ouroboros]

It's weird

Didn't u say before that infinites are impossible???

???
!?

LOL!

Sorry. I understand why some got a bit confused by that post.

Well, I should have started with:

If infinites are impossible, then we would have this syllogism:
p1) infinte impossible
p2) God is infinte
c) God is impossible.

Which would be a proof against God instead of a proof for God, and therefore to say that infinite is impossible to prove God is a bad argument. Basically, I shorthanded my response a bit too much.

So I'm not saying infinite doesn't exist. I'm saying that infinite must exist, but it doesn't prove God. It only proves infinites.

 

[Cephus]

We assume every existents and use infinite regress to prove the necessary existent.

Besides proving My god takes time and needs some arguments to be proven then we start talking about true god

R u ready to reject my logical arguments by logic or not?

You assume, you cannot prove. You cannot provide evidence. You cannot get from point A to point B without faith and baseless assumption. Stop assuming. Start proving.