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

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.

cameron-WHY? YOUR ARTICULATION OF GOD IS THAT OF THE CREATOR ETC. THAT IS WHAT I AM ANSWERING. MY DEFINITION IS IRRELEVANT, IT IS YOUR'S THAT I AM ARGUING AGAINST.

--> How can u argue against the definition? what u can argue against is the existence of an entity so defined!


cameron-EXACTLY, YOU ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE REGRESS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. END THE REGRESS. MY POINT IS THAT MY WAY IS MORE EFFECTIVE. EXISTENCE EXISTS, NOTHING CREATED IT (THIS IS BECAUSE TO HAVE CREATED IS TO HAVE EXISTED AND TO CREATE EXISTENCE REQUIRES NON-EXISTENCE WHICH DOESN'T EXIST). IF YOU CAN ACCEPT EXISTENCE EXISTENCE THEN YOU HAVE CUT OUR THE EXTRA REGRESS, THAT BEING THAT A GOD CREATED IT.

-->From where did u get that non-existence doesn't exist? Have u seen flying tigers?

cameron-EXISTENCE EXISTS. TAKING GOD OUT OF THE QUESTION GETS RID OF AN ADDITIONAL "REGRESS" (I THINK STEP IS EASIER TO UNDERSTAND) IN THE CHAIN THAT IS EXISTENCE. HERE, YOU CLAIM MULTIPLE STEPS BUT YOUR SYSTEM REQUIRES AT LEAST THESE THREE GOD EXISTS --> GOD CREATES EXISTENCE --> EXISTENCE EXISTS, MY SYSTEM REQUIRES ONE EXISTENCE EXISTS. THERE ARE TWO STEPS TAKEN OUT WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER WAS WHY GOD MADE MORE SENSE AS A CREATOR THAT BEING THAT IT GETS RID OF THE INFINITE REGRESS.

--> It is not about "fewer steps," but "making sense".

But if it makes u happier, i can reduce it to a single step: God exists.

Whatever exists is, then, by the virtue of existence of god, the way u would state that whatever exists is by the virtue of existence of existence.

cameron-LET ME ALSO SAY THAT YOUR INFINITE REGRESS IS PROBABLY BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVOLUTION AND THE BIG BANG ETC FUNCTION AS STEPS. IF I AM CORRECT IN THAT ASSUMPTION THEN THAT MAKES NO SENSE. THAT IS NOT THE CREATION OF EXISTENCE BUT RATHER OCCURENCES THAT HAPPENED WHILE EXISTENCE EXISTS (WHICH IS ETERNAL BUT TIME ISN'T A NECESSARY POINT IN THIS PART OF THE DEBATE, IT IS ETERNAL AS YOU WOULD CLAIM GOD IS IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE THIS POINT). THESE ARE SIMPLY THINGS THAT WENT ON TO ALTER THE STATE OF EXISTENCE.

--> So allow us to know the state of "primordial" existence...what was the earliest occurrence?

Also, u have to explain the flow of time...and, ofcourse, the claim that it is eternal!

cameron-REALLY JUST LOOK ABOVE. THERE IS NO CAUSE TO EXISTENCE (NO CREATOR ETC.) EXISTENCE SIMPLY EXISTS, IT IS ESSENTIALLY UNCAUSED. THE UNCAUSED CAUSE PHRASE REFERS TO THE EARLY POST SAYING THAT GOD IS UNCAUSED AND IS THE CAUSE OF EXISTENCE, ESSENTIALLY GOD IS THE UNCAUSED CAUSE, MY CLAIM IS THAT EXISTENCE EXISTS AND THAT IT IS THE UNCAUSED CAUSED OF EXISTENCE, THAT IS IT EXISTS BECAUSE IT EXISTS AND NON-EXISTENCE CAN'T EXIST BECAUSE IT IS NON-EXISTENT. THIS IS PHILOSOPHY STEMMING FROM PARMENEDES (I MAY HAVE SPELLED THAT WRONG), WHO IS AN ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSOPHER, AND HAS GROWN INTO MANY PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS TODAY, MOST NOTABLY OBJECTIVISM. THE ESSENTIAL STATEMENT IS EXISTENCE EXISTS, NON-EXISTENCE DOES NOT EXISTS OR BEING BE'S NON-BEING BE'S NOT.

--> greek philosophy is in no way fool-proof...philosophy of parmenides and zeno included!

It has nothing to do with proving and disproving!

cameron-THAT WHICH IS. EXISTENCE IS EVERYTHING, IT DOESN'T WORK IT IS, IT EXISTS. EXISTENCE IS AN AXIOM (A SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH). IT IS ONE OF THREE AXIOMATIC PRINCIPLES ACCORDING TO OBJECTIVIST (WHICH IS SOMEWHAT THE BASE SYSTEM FOR THE ARGUMENT I AM PRESENTING SO I WILL CONTINUE USING ITS TERMINOLOGY). THE OTHER TWO PRINCIPLES ARE CONSCIOUSNESS AND IDENTITY. EXISTENCE HOWEVER HAS PRIMACY, THAT IS TO SAY, EXISTENCE IS THE CAUSE, THE BASIS, THE STEM FOR EVERYTHING. CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE PERCEPTION OF EXISTENCE AND IDENTITY IS HOW WE IDENTIFY IT. I.E. YOUR COMPUTER EXISTS, YOUR SENSES ALLOW YOU TO PERCEIVE IT, YOUR PAST INTERACTION ALLOWS YOU TO RECOGNIZE IT AND ITS CAPABILITIES, ESSENTIALLY THESE FUNCTION AS PERCEPTION AS WELL WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO PERCEIVE THE EXISTENCE OR TO CONSCIOUSLY REALIZE THIS EXISTENCE THEN WITH YOUR SENSES AND EXPERIENCE WITH YOUR COMPUTER YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT, AS YOUR COMPUTER. IT EXISTS, YOU PERCEIVE, YOU IDENTIFY.

--> Resorting to objectivism doesn't help ur cause...u first need to prove it, rather than accept it as an infallible philosophy!

So, what i await is some stuff on: the state of primordial existence; the first occurrence; timelessness of time (paradox?); flow of time; evolution of "consciousness" and "identity"; irrefutability of greek and objectivist philosophy!

--> How can u argue against the definition? what u can argue against is the existence of an entity so defined!

I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST A DEFINITION, I'M SAYING THAT THE ENTITY OF GOD AS YOU DEFINE IT IS FALSE.

-->From where did u get that non-existence doesn't exist? Have u seen flying tigers?

THAT ISN'T NON-EXISTENCE, THAT IS AN ENTITY THAT DOESN'T OCCUR. NON-EXISTENCE IS THE POINT WHERE THERE IS NO EXISTENCE. WHERE THIS IS NO THING AKA NOTHING. PICTURE AS A VOID OF EXISTENCE, THAT CAN'T BE POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST. MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IF THERE IS A GOD THAT CREATED EXISTENCE THEN THERE WAS A TIME BEFORE EXISTENCE THAT BEING NON-EXISTENCE AND THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. EXISTENCE ALWAYS EXISTED, IT WAS NOT CREATED BECAUSE TO CREATE REQUIRES NON-EXISTENCE. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

--> It is not about "fewer steps," but "making sense".

But if it makes u happier, i can reduce it to a single step: God exists.

Whatever exists is, then, by the virtue of existence of god, the way u would state that whatever exists is by the virtue of existence of existence.

YOU ARTICULATED IN YOUR FIRST POST THAT STEPS MATTER TO END THE REGRESS. NOW YOUR SINGLE STEP IS FLAWED BECAUSE IF IT IS ONLY GOD EXISTS THEN THERE IS NO CREATION. EXISTENCE EXISTS, AS IN WE DO THE WORLD DOES AS DOES THIS UNIVERSE, THEREFORE YOU REQUIRE THE THREE STEPS I DESCRIBED EARLIER. YOUR NEXT STEP PROVES THIS. MY CLAIMS IS THAT EXISTENCE EXISTS, IT ALWAYS HAS AND ALWAYS WILL. YOU SAY THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE MY QUESTION IS HOW DOES GOD MAKE SENSE. SOMETHING THAT WASN'T CREATED MAKING EVERYTHING (IF GOD DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CREATED WHY DOES EXISTENCE?).

--> So allow us to know the state of "primordial" existence...what was the earliest occurrence?

Also, u have to explain the flow of time...and, ofcourse, the claim that it is eternal!

THERE IS NO PREDECESSOR TO EXISTENCE, IT ALWAYS WAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE. TO ASSUME THAT THERE WAS A BEGINNING OF EXISTENCE (I.E. A CREATION) IMPLIES THAT THERE WAS A TIME BEFORE EXISTENCE THAT BEING A TIME OF NON-EXISTENCE WHICH CANNOT OCCUR BECAUSE NON-EXISTENCE CANNOT EXIST. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SAY THAT I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE FLOW OF TIME. EXISTENCE IS ETERNAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE THAT IS POSSIBLE, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE IS NON-EXISTENCE, WHICH I HAVE EXPLAINED IS IMPOSSIBLE.

--> greek philosophy is in no way fool-proof...philosophy of parmenides and zeno included!

It has nothing to do with proving and disproving!

I NEVER SAID THAT IT WAS FOOL-PROOF, I AM SIMPLY EXPLAINING WHERE MY ARGUMENT STEMS FROM. IT DOESN'T MEAN I AM RIGHT. I DON'T EVEN NECESSARILY BELIEVE IT, BUT IT IS THE ARGUMENT THAT I AM MAKING THAT YOU SEEM TO NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER. YOUR RIGHT PARMENIDES DOESN'T EQUAL TRUE BUT WHEN I APPLY IT AND YOU CAN'T RESPOND AGAINST THE REASONS BUT SIMPLY RESTATE WHAT YOU SAY YOU AREN'T WINNING IN YOUR ARGUMENTS.

--> Resorting to objectivism doesn't help ur cause...u first need to prove it, rather than accept it as an infallible philosophy!

ONCE AGAIN, I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS TRUE BECAUSE AYN RAND SAID IT. I AM SIMPLY EXPLAINING WHAT I AM REFERENCING AS THE BASIS OF MY ARGUMENT. I AM SORRY FOR TELLING YOU SOURCES FOR MY ARGUMENTS I WILL BE SURE TO NEVER AGAIN GIVE YOU A SEARCH TERM TO LOOK UP TO FIND PEOPLE WHO ARGUE AGAINST THE ARGUMENTS THAT I AM SAYING. SORRY FOR TRYING TO HELP PEOPLE FIND SOURCES TO UNDERSTAND THE POINT I AM TRYING TO GET ACROSS. I AM NOT SAYING THAT OBJECTIVISM MAKES ME WIN BUT SIMPLY EXPLAINING WHERE I AM GETTING MY LINE OF LOGIC FROM. ARGUE THAT POINT THEN I WILL RESPOND TO YOU.

So, what i await is some stuff on: the state of primordial existence; the first occurrence; timelessness of time (paradox?); flow of time; evolution of "consciousness" and "identity"; irrefutability of greek and objectivist philosophy!

THE ONLY THING HERE THAT MAKES ANY SENSE AS A QUESTION (OR IS AT LEAST NOT ANSWERED ABOVE) IS THE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND IDENTITY. THE THREE AXIOMATIC PRINCIPLES ARE EXISTENCE, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND IDENTITY. EXISTENCE IS THAT WHICH IS - BEING, EXISTNCE, ETC. CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE PERCEPTION OF EXISTENCE - THE UNDERSTANDING OF THAT WHICH IS. IDENTITY IS WHAT IS - THE WAY TO DISCERN THAT WHICH WE PERCEIVE (A TABLE IS A TABLE, NOT A CHAIR BECAUSE OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES IT HAS).

ONCE AGAIN WHAT IS PRIMORDIAL EXISTENCE, THE FIRST OCCURRENCE, AND WHEN DO I SAY THAT GREEK/OBJECTIVIST PHILOSOPHY ARE IRREFUTABLE, I AM SIMPLY STATING WHERE MY LOGIC IS BASED. FYI OBJECTIVISM IS AN EXTENSION OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY FROM PARMENIDES.

OH, ZENO ALSO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, HE IS SIMPLY A FOLLOWER OF PARMENIDES BUT IS NOT PART OF THE BEGINNING OF OBJECTIVISM, SOME OF HIS LOGIC MAY HAVE COME OVER BUT MOST DOESN'T AS HE IS SIMPLY TRYING TO EXTEND PARMENIDES TO AN ABSURD POINT WHICH HAS BEEN MOSTLY REFUTED.