The Logic Table - God Exist (any God) Yes Or No, Hoping to be its own thread! Options

cameron-YES I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT A PREMISE IS A FACTOR OF LOGICAL EQUATION? YES A PREMISE DOES SPAWN PHILOSOPHY, BUT YOU MISUNDERSTAND THAT IT IS THROUGH PREMISES THAT WE CAN DRAW CONCLUSIONS.

--> I said it is by laying the correct premises *and* applying logic that v draw conclusions...or did i say something else?

It's honestly getting boring, and i mean no offense! : thumbs up :

Talking about consciousness...u have provided no explanation of it's origin; all u have done is issued another blanket statement: "IT HAS EXISTED AS AN ABILITY IN EVERYTHING THAT CAN PERCEIVE ITS SURROUNDINGS:

why/how did certain things get the ability to perceive, and certain other (things) did not? And how do u *know* that mountains cannot perceive? Think...think...u don't know this...maybe they can perceive...maybe not...maybe v cannot perceive their perception!

In any case, u have not provided any explanation as to what changes occurred, and what triggered these changes so that "things" (with or without the ability to perceive) were created! These are the kind of holes that first need to be filled in before anybody can venture forth and embrace this kind of metaphysics!

I will say this: I can accept a state when there was no earth, no mountains, no rivers, no trees, no air...nothing! This i call a state of non-being, and only god existed! Thence god created things, and fashioned them, and gave them different abilities; and that, to me, makes more sense than only "existence" existing, where nobody knows what the state of existence was, nor what it means!

Is "existence" something like life force (vital energy)? if yes, then all things are living! if no, then how/why did life get injected into "existence"?

Any case, sincere apologies for sounding/being rude!

Wow, what a great discussion! Although this may be redundant, I'd like to ask Cameron a question as a fellow agnostic. Why does anything exist at all? If there at one time was nothing, shouldn't there be nothing still?

--> I said it is by laying the correct premises *and* applying logic that v draw conclusions...or did i say something else?

It's honestly getting boring, and i mean no offense! : thumbs up :

I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF LOGIC, THAT DEBATE IS GETTING NOWHERE.

Talking about consciousness...u have provided no explanation of it's origin; all u have done is issued another blanket statement: "IT HAS EXISTED AS AN ABILITY IN EVERYTHING THAT CAN PERCEIVE ITS SURROUNDINGS:

why/how did certain things get the ability to perceive, and certain other (things) did not? And how do u *know* that mountains cannot perceive? Think...think...u don't know this...maybe they can perceive...maybe not...maybe v cannot perceive their perception!

FINALLY A SOMEWHAT NEW QUESTION. PERCEPTION IS THE RESULT OF SENSORY PERCEPTION. YOU HAVE FIVE SENSES: SIGHT, TASTE, SMELL, TOUCH, AND HEARING. THESE 5 SENSES ALLOW A CONSCIOUS PERCEPTION OF EXISTENCE TO THEN BE IDENTIFIED AND CATEGORIZED. THIS IN COMBINATION WITH VOLITION (THE ABILITY TO REMEMBER AND APPLY CERTAIN PROPERTIES) CREATE THE CONSCIOUS PERCEPTION OF EXISTENCE. NOW, AS I HAVE NEVER BEEN A MOUNTAIN I GUESS THAT MY EXAMPLE MAY HAVE BEEN WEAK TO THOSE THAT BELIECE THAT INANIMATE THINGS HAVE THE ABILITY TO PERCEIVE BUT AS I DO NOT THE PRINCIPLE FOLLOWS. IT IS AN ILLUSTRATION NOT A POINT OF FACT. BUT I STILL BEG OF YOU TO TELL ME HOW A MOUNTAIN PERCEIVES AND STORES THE PERCEPTIONS IT MAKES. BASICALLY WHERE IS THE BRAIN OF A MOUNTAIN. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE MOUNTAIN EXAMPLE PICK SOMETHING ELSE, A TABLE, CHAIR WHATEVER, THAT ISN'T THE POINT OF THE ARGUMENT BEING MADE.

In any case, u have not provided any explanation as to what changes occurred, and what triggered these changes so that "things" (with or without the ability to perceive) were created! These are the kind of holes that first need to be filled in before anybody can venture forth and embrace this kind of metaphysics!

WHAT? WHAT CHANGES ARE YOU REFERRING TO? IF YOU MEAN LIKE HOW ANIMALS EVOLVE, WELL DARWIN EXPLAINS THAT. THE REASON THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN-EVOLUTION DEBATE MAKES NO SENSE IS THAT THOSE THEORIES CLASH ONLY IN A MINOR LEVEL. EVOLUTION VERY MUCH WORKS WITH A WORLD CREATED BY A GOD (THOUGH IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A GOD. THE POINT I AM MAKING HERE IS THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS A QUESTION OF CREATION/METAPHYSICS WHEREAS DARWINISM IS SIMPLY HOW WE EXIST POST-CREATION). MY ARGUMENT IS SIMPLY THAT THE ARGUMENT OF AN EXISTENCE CREATED BY GOD IS FALSE. EXISTENCE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED (AS EXPLAINED BEFORE) AND THINGS CAN CHANGE WITHIN IT BUT NOTHING CAN BE CREATED INDEPENDENT OF IT. ANIMALS CAN EVOLVE (MOST SCIENTISTS WOULD AGREE WITH MY CLAIMS HERE AS MANY ARE OBJECTIVISTS, THOUGH I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE STUPID QUABBLE OVER ZENO ETC. SO IF YOU CAN'T SIMPLY UNDERSTAND THIS AS A SOURCE REFERENCE THEN IGNORE THIS) BUT JUST BECAUSE ANIMALS CAN EVOLVE DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY ARE FORMED FROM NON-EXISTENCE.

I will say this: I can accept a state when there was no earth, no mountains, no rivers, no trees, no air...nothing! This i call a state of non-being, and only god existed! Thence god created things, and fashioned them, and gave them different abilities; and that, to me, makes more sense than only "existence" existing, where nobody knows what the state of existence was, nor what it means!

DO YOU CLAIM TO UNDERSTAND THEN THE STATE OF GOD AND UNDERSTAND ALL HIS MISTORIES? DO YOU KNOW EVERYTHING OF THE TIME OF THE DINOSAURS? DOES THAT MEAN THEY ARE WRONG. JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. MY ARGUMENTS ARE SHOWING THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A GOD. EXISTENCE MUST EXIST FOR IT TO NOT EXIST REQUIRES NON-EXISTENCE TO EXIST AND FOR EXISTENCE TO BE CREATED OUT OF IT, BASICALLY CREATING EXISTENCE OUT OF NOTHING. IMAGINE IT THIS WAY: YOU ARE MAKING A CAKE BUT YOU HAVE NO INGREDIENTS AND NO WHERE TO GET THEM. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO MAKE THIS CAKE. YOUR ARGUMENT IS ESSENTIALLY THAT ABOUT 2 HOURS LATER YOU PULLED A CAKE OUT OF YOUR OVEN AND SERVED IT TO THE PARTY. THAT MAKES NO SENSE. WHAT IS EVEN WORSE IS THAT YOU ALLOW THERE TO BE NO PLACE FOR EXISTENCE AS YOU ASSUME THAT THERE IS A NON-EXISTENCE. THIS PLACE YOU CLAIM TO ACCEPT IS ESSENTIALLY A LACK OF EXISTENCE (AM I CORRECT, BECAUSE IF I AM NOT THEN YOU AREN'T DISPROVING MY ARGUMENT) BUT THEN HOW DOES THAT LACK OF EXISTENCE TAKE UP SPACE WHEN THERE IS NOTHING TO TAKE UP THAT SPACE. IF IT DOESN'T TAKE UP SPACE, THEN HOW CAN EXISTENCE BE CREATED THERE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO THERE FOR IT TO HAVE BEEN CREATED?

Is "existence" something like life force (vital energy)? if yes, then all things are living! if no, then how/why did life get injected into "existence"?

NO, TABLES EXIST BUT (AT LEAST I BELIEVE BUT WE MAY HAVE THE STUPID MOUNTAIN DEBATE AGAIN) THEY DON'T HAVE LIFE FORCE. THERE ARE MULTIPLE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, I.E. PRIMORDIAL BUBBLES AND THROUGH EVOLUTION FROM THAT TO BACTERIA TO MODERN LIFE FORMS. BUT IF THIS IS SERIOUSLY YOUR QUESTION, FROM WHAT DID GOD COME FROM, HOW WAS HE CREATED/MADE/THOUGHT OF/WHATEVER, BECAUSE TO ASSUME THAT I HAVE TO KNOW THIS MEANS THAT THERE MUST BE THE SAME OBLIGATION TO YOU. AND MORE SIGNIFICANTLY (THOUGH I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS AN OBJECTIVIST ARGUMENT BUT SOMETHING THAT I HAVE THOUGHT OF A LOT) IF GOD DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CREATED THEN WHY DO WE ASSUME WE HAVE TO HAVE BEEN OR EXISTENCE TO HAVE BEEN? IF WE DON'T NEED AN EXPLANATION FOR GOD THEN WHY FOR EXISTENCE ALWAYS EXISTING?.

Any case, sincere apologies for sounding/being rude!

SAME HERE

Wow, what a great discussion! Although this may be redundant, I'd like to ask Cameron a question as a fellow agnostic. Why does anything exist at all? If there at one time was nothing, shouldn't there be nothing still?

UNDERSTAND THAT MY ARGUMENTS IN THIS FORUM AREN'T NECESSARILY MY BELIEFS IN EXISTENTIALISM. THOUGH THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT I HAVE ARTICULATED THAT I DO BELIEVE OR AT LEAST HAVE HAD SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT UPON MY BELIEFS, AND AS I KNOW THE ARGUMENT RELATIVELY WELL I AM WILLING TO ARGUE THE OBJECTIVIST POINT FOR METAPHYSICS.

NOW FROM THE OBJECTIVIST VIEWPOINT - THERE WAS NO TIME IN WHICH THERE WASN'T EXISTENCE. TO ASSUME THAT THIS IS TRUE ASSUMES THERE WAS A TIME IN WHICH THERE WAS NON-EXISTENCE. SAY THAT PHRASE A FEW TIMES...THERE WAS NON-EXISTENCE...THAT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE. NON-EXISTENCE IS THAT WHICH DOESN'T EXISTENCE SO HOW CAN THERE EXIST SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST TO PRECEDE THE TIME OF EXISTENCE?

NOW ALSO ASK, UNDER THE INTERPRETATION OF A DIVINE CREATOR, IF THERE WAS SOME GOD THAT CREATED US (BECAUSE IT IS NECESSARY FOR EXISTENCE AND HUMANITY TO HAVE BEEN CREATED AND NOT JUST HAVE ALWAYS BEEN) THEN WHY DOES THE NEED FOR EXPLANATION OF CREATION NOT ALSO APPLY TO GOD? IF GOD DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE BEEN CREATED OR COULD HAVE JUST EXISTED OR CAN'T BE UNDERSTOOD, THEN WHY CAN'T WE HAVE OCCURRED THE SAME WAY? WHY DO WE HAVE TO BE CREATED?

SIMPLY PUT - THERE WAS NO TIME OF NON-EXISTENCE AND TO ASSUME THAT WE WERE CREATED PUTS A DEMAND UPON US TO FIND A CREATOR THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CREATED, A FALSE REQUIREMENT TO BE PUT UPON EXISTENCE.

WE CAN ALSO ASK WHY IT IS WE HAVE QUESTIONED OUR CREATION. IS IT A SOCIAL NEED, A FEAR OF WHAT OCCURS AFTER OUR DEATH, ETC. BUT THAT IS A QUESTION FOR A LATER THREAD THAT I WILL MAKE AFTER I HAVE THE ABILITY TO STOP FOCUSING ON THE ONES I AM CONSTANTLY CHECKING NOW.

cameron-FINALLY A SOMEWHAT NEW QUESTION. PERCEPTION IS THE RESULT OF SENSORY PERCEPTION. YOU HAVE FIVE SENSES: SIGHT, TASTE, SMELL, TOUCH, AND HEARING. THESE 5 SENSES ALLOW A CONSCIOUS PERCEPTION OF EXISTENCE TO THEN BE IDENTIFIED AND CATEGORIZED. THIS IN COMBINATION WITH VOLITION (THE ABILITY TO REMEMBER AND APPLY CERTAIN PROPERTIES) CREATE THE CONSCIOUS PERCEPTION OF EXISTENCE. NOW, AS I HAVE NEVER BEEN A MOUNTAIN I GUESS THAT MY EXAMPLE MAY HAVE BEEN WEAK TO THOSE THAT BELIECE THAT INANIMATE THINGS HAVE THE ABILITY TO PERCEIVE BUT AS I DO NOT THE PRINCIPLE FOLLOWS. IT IS AN ILLUSTRATION NOT A POINT OF FACT. BUT I STILL BEG OF YOU TO TELL ME HOW A MOUNTAIN PERCEIVES AND STORES THE PERCEPTIONS IT MAKES. BASICALLY WHERE IS THE BRAIN OF A MOUNTAIN. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE MOUNTAIN EXAMPLE PICK SOMETHING ELSE, A TABLE, CHAIR WHATEVER, THAT ISN'T THE POINT OF THE ARGUMENT BEING MADE.

--> Do all life forms have a "brain"?

cameron-WHAT? WHAT CHANGES ARE YOU REFERRING TO? IF YOU MEAN LIKE HOW ANIMALS EVOLVE, WELL DARWIN EXPLAINS THAT. THE REASON THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN-EVOLUTION DEBATE MAKES NO SENSE IS THAT THOSE THEORIES CLASH ONLY IN A MINOR LEVEL. EVOLUTION VERY MUCH WORKS WITH A WORLD CREATED BY A GOD (THOUGH IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A GOD. THE POINT I AM MAKING HERE IS THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS A QUESTION OF CREATION/METAPHYSICS WHEREAS DARWINISM IS SIMPLY HOW WE EXIST POST-CREATION). MY ARGUMENT IS SIMPLY THAT THE ARGUMENT OF AN EXISTENCE CREATED BY GOD IS FALSE. EXISTENCE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED (AS EXPLAINED BEFORE) AND THINGS CAN CHANGE WITHIN IT BUT NOTHING CAN BE CREATED INDEPENDENT OF IT. ANIMALS CAN EVOLVE (MOST SCIENTISTS WOULD AGREE WITH MY CLAIMS HERE AS MANY ARE OBJECTIVISTS, THOUGH I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE STUPID QUABBLE OVER ZENO ETC. SO IF YOU CAN'T SIMPLY UNDERSTAND THIS AS A SOURCE REFERENCE THEN IGNORE THIS) BUT JUST BECAUSE ANIMALS CAN EVOLVE DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY ARE FORMED FROM NON-EXISTENCE.

--> I am not talking about animals...i am talking of cosmological evolution...what was the substratum?

cameron-DO YOU CLAIM TO UNDERSTAND THEN THE STATE OF GOD AND UNDERSTAND ALL HIS MISTORIES? DO YOU KNOW EVERYTHING OF THE TIME OF THE DINOSAURS? DOES THAT MEAN THEY ARE WRONG. JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. MY ARGUMENTS ARE SHOWING THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A GOD. EXISTENCE MUST EXIST FOR IT TO NOT EXIST REQUIRES NON-EXISTENCE TO EXIST AND FOR EXISTENCE TO BE CREATED OUT OF IT, BASICALLY CREATING EXISTENCE OUT OF NOTHING. IMAGINE IT THIS WAY: YOU ARE MAKING A CAKE BUT YOU HAVE NO INGREDIENTS AND NO WHERE TO GET THEM. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO MAKE THIS CAKE. YOUR ARGUMENT IS ESSENTIALLY THAT ABOUT 2 HOURS LATER YOU PULLED A CAKE OUT OF YOUR OVEN AND SERVED IT TO THE PARTY. THAT MAKES NO SENSE. WHAT IS EVEN WORSE IS THAT YOU ALLOW THERE TO BE NO PLACE FOR EXISTENCE AS YOU ASSUME THAT THERE IS A NON-EXISTENCE. THIS PLACE YOU CLAIM TO ACCEPT IS ESSENTIALLY A LACK OF EXISTENCE (AM I CORRECT, BECAUSE IF I AM NOT THEN YOU AREN'T DISPROVING MY ARGUMENT) BUT THEN HOW DOES THAT LACK OF EXISTENCE TAKE UP SPACE WHEN THERE IS NOTHING TO TAKE UP THAT SPACE. IF IT DOESN'T TAKE UP SPACE, THEN HOW CAN EXISTENCE BE CREATED THERE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO THERE FOR IT TO HAVE BEEN CREATED?

--> The way i look at it, god is beyond space and time, and god created space and time! So there is no need to wonder where and when!

Sounds like magic, and perhaps is! But animate and inanimate entities coming out of "existence" would be nothing other than magic, either!

cameron-NO, TABLES EXIST BUT (AT LEAST I BELIEVE BUT WE MAY HAVE THE STUPID MOUNTAIN DEBATE AGAIN) THEY DON'T HAVE LIFE FORCE. THERE ARE MULTIPLE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, I.E. PRIMORDIAL BUBBLES AND THROUGH EVOLUTION FROM THAT TO BACTERIA TO MODERN LIFE FORMS. BUT IF THIS IS SERIOUSLY YOUR QUESTION, FROM WHAT DID GOD COME FROM, HOW WAS HE CREATED/MADE/THOUGHT OF/WHATEVER, BECAUSE TO ASSUME THAT I HAVE TO KNOW THIS MEANS THAT THERE MUST BE THE SAME OBLIGATION TO YOU. AND MORE SIGNIFICANTLY (THOUGH I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS AN OBJECTIVIST ARGUMENT BUT SOMETHING THAT I HAVE THOUGHT OF A LOT) IF GOD DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CREATED THEN WHY DO WE ASSUME WE HAVE TO HAVE BEEN OR EXISTENCE TO HAVE BEEN? IF WE DON'T NEED AN EXPLANATION FOR GOD THEN WHY FOR EXISTENCE ALWAYS EXISTING?.

--> How did the primordial bubbles come about?

I understand ur concerns...however, i feel i am better justified because god, for me, is alive, able and intelligent, and can thus create animate and inanimate entities! "existence," on the other hand, is not so forunate!

****I personally feel a statement like "energy always existed" makes more sense than "existence aways existed"! After all, as v know it, all things are nothing but manifestation of energy!****

But v all have our own way of thinking...and that, for me, lends even more credibility to god!

NOW FROM THE OBJECTIVIST VIEWPOINT - THERE WAS NO TIME IN WHICH THERE WASN'T EXISTENCE. TO ASSUME THAT THIS IS TRUE ASSUMES THERE WAS A TIME IN WHICH THERE WAS NON-EXISTENCE. SAY THAT PHRASE A FEW TIMES...THERE WAS NON-EXISTENCE...THAT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE. NON-EXISTENCE IS THAT WHICH DOESN'T EXISTENCE SO HOW CAN THERE EXIST SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST TO PRECEDE THE TIME OF EXISTENCE?

Isn't the only other alternative infinite existence? If there is a boundary to existence, then there must have been non-existence, despite the logical problems describing it. Disregarding existence itself, the beginning of the universe would require a suspension of several well-established laws of physics. Perhaps this makes it impossible to formulate any kind of theory, but it would be a discredit to philosophers and scientists both not to try. After all, we've already breached the realm of practicality, what other goal is there but a complete understanding of everything?

--> Do all life forms have a "brain"?

AS FAR AS I KNOW THEY DO. EVEN IF THAT BRAIN IS ONLY IN THE FORM OF THE NUCLEAS OF SINGLE CELL LIFEFORMS IT DOES THE FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN FOR SENSORY PERCEPTION, THOUGH THEY HAVE LESS SENSES.

--> I am not talking about animals...i am talking of cosmological evolution...what was the substratum?

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS THE SUBSTRATUM, I NEVER MENTIONED IT. AS FOR COSMIC EVOLUTION. WE HAVE SEVERAL THEORIES, I.E. BIG-BANG ETC. THOSE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE WITH THE PRINCIPLES THAT YOU HAVE ESSENTIALLY CONCEDED.

--> The way i look at it, god is beyond space and time, and god created space and time! So there is no need to wonder where and when!

TWO ANSWERS:

1. IF I CONCEDE GOD IS BEYOND SPACE AND TIME AND EVERYTHING ELSE ISN'T: THEN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR CREATION. THIS IS BECAUSE EXISTENCE STILL REQUIRES SPACE AND TIME. IF THERE IS NO SPACE AN TIME THEN EXISTENCE CANNOT EXIST, IF THERE IS SPACE AND TIME THEN EXISTENCE ALREADY EXISTS AND WASN'T CREATED BY GOD.

2. IF GOD CAN BE BEYOND SPACE AND TIME THEN WHY AREN'T WE? YOUR ARGUMENT IS ESSENTIALLY THAT GOD DOESN'T NEED TO BE CREATED, THEN WHY DOES EXISTENCE? THERE IS A NEED TO QUESTION WHERE AND WHEN FOR GOD IF YOU ARE GOING TO HOLD EXISTENCE TO THE SAME CONSTRAINTS.

NOW, YOU ARE GETTING (AT LEAST I FEEL YOU ARE) CLOSE TO THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF FAITH BASED ARGUMENTS WHICH MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR LOGICAL ARGUMENTATION. I CANNOT DISPROVE YOUR BELIEFS IF ALL YOU NEED IS BELIEF (NO I DON'T INTEND TO CHANGE YOUR MIND) BUT I DO INTEND THIS THREAD TO ALLOW FOR DISCUSSION TO CONTINUE AND DEBATE TO BE ABLE TO OCCUR.

Sounds like magic, and perhaps is! But animate and inanimate entities coming out of "existence" would be nothing other than magic, either!

NO, IT WOULDN'T BE MAGIC BUT RATHER A CHANCE OCCURRENCE FROM THEORIES SUCH AS DEEP TIME. THERE WAS ALWAYS A CHANCE THAT CERTAIN ELEMENTS WOULD ARRANGE THEMSELVES INTO A BASIC SINGLE CELL ORGANISM. (A SINGLE CELL IS ALL I NEED AS EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE FROM THERE.) THERE WAS ALWAYS A CHANCE THAT ELEMENTS AND ATOMS AND WHATNOT WOULD COMBINE IN THE NECESSARY QUANTITIES TO FORM A BACTERIUM. NOW THAT CHANCE COULD BE ONE IN A BILLION (WHATEVER NUMBER YOU WANT). BUT IF YOU HAVE HAD BILLIONS OF BILLIONS OF YEARS (IN FACT THROUGH THE ARGUMENTS I HAVE SHOWN LITERALLY INFINITE TIME) THEN THAT CHANCE IS NOT ABSURD BUT NEARLY A CERTAINTY BECAUSE THE TIME IN WHICH YOU HAVE HAD FOR THE NECESSARY REACTIONS TO OCCUR. NOW WHAT SOUNDS LIKE MAGIC IS THEORIES THAT OCCUR DESPITE LOGICAL EVIDENCE TO THEIR CONTRARY AS I HAVE SHOWN WITH CREATION THEORY AND YOU HAVE ESSENTIALLY STOPPED ARGUING LIKE 3 POSTS AGO.

--> How did the primordial bubbles come about?

LOOK ABOVE - DEEP TIME ETC. I DON'T KNOW I WASN'T THERE BUT I CAN MAKE A LOGICAL STATEMENT IN THE DEFENSE OF THESE THEORIES AND LOGICAL ARGUMENTS REFUTING YOUR CREATION THEORY.

I understand ur concerns...however, i feel i am better justified because god, for me, is alive, able and intelligent, and can thus create animate and inanimate entities! "existence," on the other hand, is not so forunate!

AHH, AS I FEARED, WE GET INTO A FAITH DEBATE. UNDERSTAND THAT I DON'T BELIEVE I WILL CHANGE YOUR IDEOLOGY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DEBATE SO CAN WE KEEP IT IN THE REALM OF LOGIC WHERE A DEBATE CAN BE HAD BECAUSE I CAN JUST SAY THERE IS NO GOD I BELIEVE IT AND WE STILL WOULD GET NO WHERE.

****I personally feel a statement like "energy always existed" makes more sense than "existence aways existed"! After all, as v know it, all things are nothing but manifestation of energy!****

YES, BUT WHAT IS ENERGY BUT MATTER? E=MC^2 PROVES THAT THERE MUST BE EXISTENCE TO BE ENERGY, MATTER IS A REQUIRMENT. WHAT IS MATTER? MATTER IS EXISTENCE. SO BELIEVE THAT ENERGY HAS ALWAYS EXISTED, BUT IF YOU DO YOU ARE BELIEVING THAT EXISTENCE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED WHICH IS MY ARGUMENT.

But v all have our own way of thinking...and that, for me, lends even more credibility to god!

MULTIPLE THEORIES PROVES GOD??? HOW? ESPECIALLY WHEN MANY THEORIES DENY GOD. ACTUALLY IT SEEMS GOD WOULD MAKE A SINGLE THEORIED WORLD MORE LIKELY THAN THEORIES SPROUTING FROM EXISTENCE ALWAYS EXISTING LIKE DEEP TIME. CHANCE BEING THE CAUSE OF LIFE MAKES MORE SENSE FOR MULTIPLE WAYS OF THINKING BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DEMAND WORSHIP AND RECOGNITION FOR A SUPREME LEADER. ALSO, WHY ARE THERE SEVERAL THEORIES FOR GOD THEN? WHY SO MANY RELIGIONS IF ONE GOD MADE EVERYTHING?

WHERE ARE THESE ARGUMENTS GETTING YOU IN THE DEBATE OVER THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, EXCEPT OF COURSE YOUR FAITH BASED ONES?

This post has been edited by Cameron: Jun 6 2008, 11:51 AM

Isn't the only other alternative infinite existence? If there is a boundary to existence, then there must have been non-existence, despite the logical problems describing it. Disregarding existence itself, the beginning of the universe would require a suspension of several well-established laws of physics. Perhaps this makes it impossible to formulate any kind of theory, but it would be a discredit to philosophers and scientists both not to try. After all, we've already breached the realm of practicality, what other goal is there but a complete understanding of everything?

AHH, YOU HAVE SHOWN MY POINT. EXISTENCE IS INFINITE. READ LIKE TWO POSTS BACK OF MINE WHERE I ARGUE THIS OUT. EXISTENCE ALWAYS WAS, IS, AND WILL BE AND THERE IS NO LIMIT TO EXISTENCE.

NOW YOUR SECOND POINT BASIS ITSELF UPON A THEORY OF A BEGINNING OF EXISTENCE, I SAY THERE IS NO BEGINNING BUT EXISTENCE IS INFINITE. IT WASN'T CREATED, HENCE WHY THESE ARGUMENTS ARE A REFUTATION OF CREATION THEORY AND HENCE GOD. NOW LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE SIMPLY WAYS OF DESCRIBING EXISTENCE. IT IS CONSCIOUSNESS AND IDENTITY FUNCTIONING AS ONE TO DESCRIBE EXISTENCE. MORE SIGNIFICANTLY IS THAT THEY ARE ESTABLISHED TO ALLOW US TO COPE WITH EXISTENCE NOT MASTER IT AS WE CAN'T, EXISTENCE HAS PRIMACY OVER THE OTHER AXIOMS.

I don't necessarily disagree wih you, but I believe the other side has a point too.
If you believe that the universe and time did have a beginning, and only existence is infinite, then the original question arises again, only in different form. If there was a state in which the universe did not exist, then how did existence produce the universe? We are in a state of existence now, yet no new matter, energy, or physical laws are being produced. With an infinite existence, it seems that everything that would have happened, would have happened already. It also can be argued that the universe encompasses everything by definition, so there must have been a state of nothing.

I don't necessarily disagree wih you, but I believe the other side has a point too.
If you believe that the universe and time did have a beginning, and only existence is infinite, then the original question arises again, only in different form. If there was a state in which the universe did not exist, then how did existence produce the universe? We are in a state of existence now, yet no new matter, energy, or physical laws are being produced. With an infinite existence, it seems that everything that would have happened, would have happened already. It also can be argued that the universe encompasses everything by definition, so there must have been a state of nothing.

MY ARGUMENT IS THAT THERE IS NO "BEGINNING" BECAUSE TO ASSUME THAT ASSUMES THAT THERE IS A PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE EXISTENCE WHICH MEANS THAT THERE WAS AN ERA OF NON-EXISTENCE, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. NOW THE UNIVERSE AROSE BECAUSE OF THE INFINITE TIME THAT ENSURES CHANCE IS CERTAINTY, LOOK TO MY LAST POST REFUTING ONLINETOENJOY WHERE I SPEAK OF DEEP TIME. NOW THE DIFFERENCE WITH YOUR ARGUMENT AND THE ARGUMENTS POSED BY RELIGION IS THAT THEY CLAIM THE CREATION OF EXISTENCE, THE BEGINNING OF TIME. EVEN, HOWEVER, IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT, EXISTENCE EXISTED PRIOR TO THIS GOD, WHY 1. DO WE WORSHIP HIM, 2. WHAT CREATED THIS GOD IF WE MUST HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR OUR OCCURENCE, 3. GOD CANNOT BE WHAT IS DEFINED, THAT BEING A CREATOR AND ALL-POWERFUL AND ALL-KNOWING. EXISTENCE HAS PRIMACY AS IT IS REQUIRED FOR THE ABILITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND IDENTITY, WHICH MEANS THAT IT IS THE PREDECESSOR TO THING THAT RELY UPON THOSE THINGS AS WELL. THE IDEA THAT SOMETHING CAN BE CREATED BY WILL ASSUMES THAT YOU HAVE POWER OVER EXISTENCE. TO ASSUME GOD CAN CREATE A NEW OR MORE EXISTENCE IS IMPOSSIBLE. NOW FOR YOUR LAST CLAIM ABOUT DEFINITION. EXISTENCE IS DENFINITION EVERYTHING OR ENCOMPASSES IF YOU PREFER THAT TERM. NOW YOU CLAIM THAT THIS MEANS THERE IS A REALM OF NOTHINGNESS OR A STATE OF NOTHINGNESS. WHAT MAY I ASK YOU OCCUPIES THIS STATE? FOR A STATE OR REALM OF NOTHING TO BE (FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM) EXIST, IT MUST TAKE UP SOME SPACE BUT THERE IS NOTHING TO TAKE UP SPACE AS IT IS NOTHINGNESS. THERE IS NO NON-EXISTENCE BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THAT EXISTS WITHIN IT TO EXIST BECAUSE IF SOMETHING EXISTED WITHIN THIS STATE OF NON-EXISTENCE THEN IT WOULD BE EXISTENCE BECAUSE SOMETHING EXISTS THERE. GET WHAT I'M SAYING?

cameron-AS FAR AS I KNOW THEY DO. EVEN IF THAT BRAIN IS ONLY IN THE FORM OF THE
NUCLEAS OF SINGLE CELL LIFEFORMS IT DOES THE FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN FOR
SENSORY PERCEPTION, THOUGH THEY HAVE LESS SENSES.

--> Then far as ur knowledge goes u are wrong! A brain is a distinct organ and is definitely not present in all living organisms!

Before u advance more wrong information, i will want it to sink into u that bacteria don't even have a true nucleus!

cameron-I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS THE SUBSTRATUM, I NEVER MENTIONED IT.

--> Ahan! This isn't about who mentions what, this is about making sense...aka logic...or so have i assumed!

Saying "i don't know" doesn't get this dialogue anywhere! I could switch to ur mode and say "i don't know...it simply is" to every single thing...but wouldn't help!

Talking of big bang, when (not in time, but at what point) and how? Do talk on the substratum and the underlying substraum...let me see how u deal with regress!

cameron-1. IF I CONCEDE GOD IS BEYOND SPACE AND TIME AND EVERYTHING ELSE ISN'T:
THEN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR CREATION. THIS IS BECAUSE EXISTENCE STILL
REQUIRES SPACE AND TIME. IF THERE IS NO SPACE AN TIME THEN EXISTENCE
CANNOT EXIST, IF THERE IS SPACE AND TIME THEN EXISTENCE ALREADY EXISTS AND
WASN'T CREATED BY GOD.

--> Huh? I think i clearly stated god *created* space and time; so spacetime is available for further creation!

cameron-2. IF GOD CAN BE BEYOND SPACE AND TIME THEN WHY AREN'T WE? YOUR ARGUMENT
IS ESSENTIALLY THAT GOD DOESN'T NEED TO BE CREATED, THEN WHY DOES
EXISTENCE? THERE IS A NEED TO QUESTION WHERE AND WHEN FOR GOD IF YOU ARE
GOING TO HOLD EXISTENCE TO THE SAME CONSTRAINTS.

--> Asking if god is so and so then why aren't v so and so is a nonsense question! It is akin to asking, "why is giant robot a machine, and kingkong a giant ape?"...they are what they are!

God is immeasurable in space and time for the simple reason that god created space and time! If in the 40th year of my life i make an instrument to record my heart-beats, would it be able to record the heart-beats before i made it? Then, how can god be measurable in time when time is its own handiwork?

God is infnite and eternal! And the creation (ur primordial bubble and what-have-u) are temporal, i.e, confined in space and time! And i would like to see u resolve this infinite regress!

cameron-NOW, YOU ARE GETTING (AT LEAST I FEEL YOU ARE) CLOSE TO THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
OF FAITH BASED ARGUMENTS WHICH MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR LOGICAL
ARGUMENTATION. I CANNOT DISPROVE YOUR BELIEFS IF ALL YOU NEED IS BELIEF
(NO I DON'T INTEND TO CHANGE YOUR MIND) BUT I DO INTEND THIS THREAD TO
ALLOW FOR DISCUSSION TO CONTINUE AND DEBATE TO BE ABLE TO OCCUR.

--> I am basing my statements on less faith than u are! I have partly defined god, can u do the same for "existence"? All u resort to is "i don't know...but it must be this way or that"! If u can present ur convictions *and* also prove them, then well and good! Else, ur statements are but a product of ur faith!

cameron-NO, IT WOULDN'T BE MAGIC BUT RATHER A CHANCE OCCURRENCE FROM THEORIES SUCH
AS DEEP TIME. THERE WAS ALWAYS A CHANCE THAT CERTAIN ELEMENTS WOULD
ARRANGE THEMSELVES INTO A BASIC SINGLE CELL ORGANISM. (A SINGLE CELL IS
ALL I NEED AS EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE FROM THERE.) THERE WAS ALWAYS A CHANCE
THAT ELEMENTS AND ATOMS AND WHATNOT WOULD COMBINE IN THE NECESSARY
QUANTITIES TO FORM A BACTERIUM. NOW THAT CHANCE COULD BE ONE IN A BILLION
(WHATEVER NUMBER YOU WANT). BUT IF YOU HAVE HAD BILLIONS OF BILLIONS OF
YEARS (IN FACT THROUGH THE ARGUMENTS I HAVE SHOWN LITERALLY INFINITE TIME)
THEN THAT CHANCE IS NOT ABSURD BUT NEARLY A CERTAINTY BECAUSE THE TIME IN
WHICH YOU HAVE HAD FOR THE NECESSARY REACTIONS TO OCCUR. NOW WHAT SOUNDS
LIKE MAGIC IS THEORIES THAT OCCUR DESPITE LOGICAL EVIDENCE TO THEIR
CONTRARY AS I HAVE SHOWN WITH CREATION THEORY AND YOU HAVE ESSENTIALLY
STOPPED ARGUING LIKE 3 POSTS AGO.

--> See? Another blanket statement: THERE WAS ALWAYS A CHANCE THAT CERTAIN
ELEMENTS WOULD ARRANGE THEMSELVES INTO A BASIC SINGLE CELL ORGANISM. (A
SINGLE CELL IS ALL I NEED AS EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE FROM THERE.)

From where did these did re-arranging elements come about? Why do u always skip the substratum?

Either u are pretending u don't see ur fallacy, or else u really can't see it...either way not good news!

LOOK ABOVE - DEEP TIME ETC. I DON'T KNOW I WASN'T THERE BUT I CAN MAKE A
LOGICAL STATEMENT IN THE DEFENSE OF THESE THEORIES AND LOGICAL ARGUMENTS
REFUTING YOUR CREATION THEORY.

--> Ah!...the g' old " i wasn't there" apology!

Please understand that there is nothing logical about blanket statements! If u really want to issue a logical statement then prove the premise to be sound, rather than just assuming it!

In this case, explain *what* led to the big-bang! I know u can try only upto a certain extent...before being caught up in a regress!

cameron-AHH, AS I FEARED, WE GET INTO A FAITH DEBATE. UNDERSTAND THAT I DON'T
BELIEVE I WILL CHANGE YOUR IDEOLOGY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DEBATE SO
CAN WE KEEP IT IN THE REALM OF LOGIC WHERE A DEBATE CAN BE HAD BECAUSE I
CAN JUST SAY THERE IS NO GOD I BELIEVE IT AND WE STILL WOULD GET NO WHERE.

--> This has been a faith debate from ur end since the very start...which is why i said it was clever deception to throw in "logic" in the title!

The moment u explain how and when, v can try incorporating logic into this!

cameron-YES, BUT WHAT IS ENERGY BUT MATTER? E=MC^2 PROVES THAT THERE MUST BE
EXISTENCE TO BE ENERGY, MATTER IS A REQUIRMENT. WHAT IS MATTER? MATTER IS
EXISTENCE. SO BELIEVE THAT ENERGY HAS ALWAYS EXISTED, BUT IF YOU DO YOU
ARE BELIEVING THAT EXISTENCE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED WHICH IS MY ARGUMENT.

--> Nopes, u are putting the carriage before the horse! The axiom of perpertualness would be that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only converted from one form to another; in other words energy has always existed! I have heard of universe beginning as energy; that universe began as matter is something i haven't heard of as yet, that's other than from u!

cameron-MULTIPLE THEORIES PROVES GOD??? HOW? ESPECIALLY WHEN MANY THEORIES DENY GOD. ACTUALLY IT SEEMS GOD WOULD MAKE A SINGLE THEORIED WORLD MORE LIKELY THAN THEORIES SPROUTING FROM EXISTENCE ALWAYS EXISTING LIKE DEEP TIME. CHANCE BEING THE CAUSE OF LIFE MAKES MORE SENSE FOR MULTIPLE WAYS OF THINKING BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DEMAND WORSHIP AND RECOGNITION FOR A SUPREME LEADER. ALSO, WHY ARE THERE SEVERAL THEORIES FOR GOD THEN? WHY SO MANY RELIGIONS IF ONE GOD MADE EVERYTHING?

--> I am talking about ways of thinking...not just theories about god!

cameron-WHERE ARE THESE ARGUMENTS GETTING YOU IN THE DEBATE OVER THE EXISTENCE OF
GOD, EXCEPT OF COURSE YOUR FAITH BASED ONES?

--> A long way! For one, this is another confirmation that logic has almost nothing to do with the attempts of those who set out to disprove god via logic!

All that u have said so far is that human evolution followed the evolution of cosmos, and that the cosmos came ot of primordial bubbles! How the primordial bubbles came into being; how life got injected into the universe; how there came into being animate and inaminate entities are issues which are beyond u: all u do is say "i don't know".

I believe u said something like chemical reactions took place which led to the creation of life; whence these chemicals?

Perhaps language is confusing u, and u are losing urself in terms like "nothing" and "non-existence"...seeking to materialize these rather than treat them for what they are: concepts!

If i ask, "who said that?", and somebody answers "nobody," it doesn't mean there has to be a material "nobody" who said that! It simply means nothing was said...and again don't lose urself by imagining "nothing" being said!

Likewise, when i talk of nothing besides god, u don't have to imagine a state of a material nothing, it simply means only god was!

Having experienced people's inability to conceptualize nothingness, i know this is not an easy thing (if at all possible be it) to grasp! So, to help this discussion, please elaborate:

what triggered big bang? what before it?
whence life? whence primordial bubbles
what is time? how to measure it?
what is space? how to determine it?

I am creating this topic as a place for people to put arguments based on compounding premises. By that I mean this topic is for logical application to arguments, i.e. reasons for why a god may or may not exist. This is NOT a topic where faith is an axiomatic principle, axiomatic meaning self-evidently true. I'm not against faith but I want a thread area (which I hope this topic eventually evolves into) where I can argue with people who will not say I believe it and the discussion is over.

That being said, this topic/thread is supposed to be completely open-minded. It is a place for people to make arguments and debate them out. Please do not post once, assert something, and never come back. Debate it out, that is the point.

This topic is - God Exist (Any god) Yes or No...

I'll start:

No: the premise that it is necessary for a God to create existence is a false choice. If it is necessary for existence to be created, then it is also necessary for its creator to be created. This principle (when applied more universally than just in reference to religion) is usually called the Primacy of Existence. That is simply existence exists as an axiomatic principle (a self-evident truth). To argue against that (i.e. to say it was created) presupposes that it exists to establish that argument. I.e. God is the creator who created existence, however, if before God there was no existence then where did god exist, in fact how did god exist if there is nothing that existed and if god does not have to have an existence to exist than how is it possible for God to exist, for existence cannot exist in non-existence and it is impossible for non-existence to exist, because it doesn't exist.

Axioms are not self evident truths, that was the colloquial use back with Euclid as his axiom/postulate distinction and up untill about Frege's time; however, in modern logic and mathematics an axioma has absolutly no inherent self evidence, it is simply, in a deductive system of propositions, an unfounded assumption, and in a logistics system, a wff stated as an axiom.

Now, let's take a look at your argument

Now, in your argument, I beleive that you are a bit confused, the first two sentences I highlighted seem a bit logically confused and vague, and need expanding upon, and the third seems a bit overly complicated, are you saying if in a given domain there is an absence of existence then nothing exists?

Furthermore how do you define "existence", what do you mean by it?

Here is my argument.

There is no point to haveing this argument.

Modern physics dosen;t really even know why the laws of physics are asymetrical. Why can you break an egg, yet you can't unbreak it? There is nothing suggusting this asymmetry in the equations used to describe these physical laws, yet the relation clearly exists. What of causality? Quantum Mechanics shows us that many foundational assumptions of causality fall apart at the quantum level.

Much of this thread seem to consist of debateing the nature of causality without anyone haveing a clear idea what the physical causal laws are, or how they apply.

Untill all problems of modern Physical, Neuroscience, Philosophy of Mind, and Epistemology are solved, there really is no reasone to expect discussions such as these to yield any definitive results.

Cameron, doesn't your theory of infinite time assume that time has existence independent of the universe? Doesn't this ignore general relativity? Also, doesn't it follow that with infinite time, it would take an infinite amount of time to reach this point? Since we clearly have reached this point, then it follows that time cannot be infinite?

WHAT MAY I ASK YOU OCCUPIES THIS STATE? FOR A STATE OR REALM OF NOTHING TO BE (FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM) EXIST, IT MUST TAKE UP SOME SPACE BUT THERE IS NOTHING TO TAKE UP SPACE AS IT IS NOTHINGNESS. THERE IS NO NON-EXISTENCE BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THAT EXISTS WITHIN IT TO EXIST BECAUSE IF SOMETHING EXISTED WITHIN THIS STATE OF NON-EXISTENCE THEN IT WOULD BE EXISTENCE BECAUSE SOMETHING EXISTS THERE. GET WHAT I'M SAYING?

Since to say prior to the universe would assume that there was time prior to the universe, and to say outside the boundary of the universe's existence would assume that there was space outside the universe, and neither are true. Perhaps it can be described in a satisfactory manner by calling it the ~ universe, or a negative universe?

To those arguing for the existence of a creator, how do you expect to use logic to prove something that hypothetically does not require to be logical? If the universe requires a logical explanation, couldn't it be argued that since God is not necessarily logical, he is not necessarily the explanation? In fact, it could be argued that God is necessarily not logical, considering the attributes normally used to describe him seem to contradict reason. (cause-less cause, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc...)
On the flip side, it would seem equally impossible to disprove his existence.

Will, perhaps the point of this argument is that it is a pleasure to discuss. Although I agree that no one should create concrete beliefs based on the small amount of evidence we have. As to causality, do you have any evidence that causality can be reversed? Could you elaborate further on the incorrect assumptions used in this thread?

Will, perhaps the point of this argument is that it is a pleasure to discuss.

Yes, and while I stand by the substance of what I said, I regret the opening line, saying there was no point to the discussion, that is clearly wrong and superficial on my part, and should have stayed with the latter claim that this discussion will likely not yeild definitive results.

Although I agree that no one should create concrete beliefs based on the small amount of evidence we have. As to causality, do you have any evidence that causality can be reversed? Could you elaborate further on the incorrect assumptions used in this thread?

I never said that causality can be reversed, I simply pointed out that we don't even have sufficient knoeldge of causality and the universe to yet know WHY the laws of physics are asymmetrical.

I was just curious about reversed causation. Since you spoke of quantum symmetry, I thought you might know. You made a statement about fundamental assumptions of causation breaking down at the quantum level. Could you elaborate further?

will-Axioms are not self evident truths...

--> That "non-existence exists" becomes an impossility because of the way the words are arranged...in other words it is an impossibility because it seems to put two opposite ideas side by side! Therefore, a sophist will conclude that since "non-existence exists" is an impossibility, the only option left is that "existence exists"! This, however, is merely a play of words!

The fallacy lies in the attempt to materialize (rather than conceptualize) nothingness!

Which is why i gave the example of "nobody spoke" or "nothing was said"! If v try to imagine "nobody" and "nothing," v are led to an impossibility! How can "nothing" be said?