From God's inexistence it follows God's existence

[irichc]

1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth’s limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God’s existence (vid. 2).

4) So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was “God doesn’t exist”, as far as it is asserted as a truth, it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.

5) However, if God exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if God doesn’t exist, it is false too, because in that case the Truth (i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn’t exist and, then, single truths wouldn’t exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God exists.

Greetings.

Daniel.

Theological Miscellany (in spanish):

gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm

 

[James_Kanatous]

1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth’s limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

Truth, in the abstract, is fundamentally unknown to us, since we are unable to conceive of the ultimate reality of and within itself. However, an arbitrary truth, such as, “I have five fingers on both of my hands,” does lead to other truths. As long as there is time, space, motion, and causality, one truth leads to another. This is true.

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

Untrue. Something must be infinite; this is true. “This infinity is God,” is a fallacy of affirming. Until you know what God is, you cannot even begin to make such assertions and expect them to be valid. You’re throwing a confusing term into an already confusing topic.

3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God’s existence (vid. 2).

There is no such thing as a proposition that is REALLY true. Again, our concepts of existence and non-existence cannot be applied to the ultimate reality, for we know not what it is, we know not, what Truth, in the abstract, really is.

Also, by stating a proposition you are CREATING the limit which denaturalizes the Truth. For instance, an aproximation of reality cannot be reality. The map cannot be the territory. Once you begin to speak of reality with your universal language, you falsify it.

Once again, you are throwing an entirely ambiguous term, such as GOD, into an already confusing topic.

 

[Mike_O]

James Kanatous:

Truth, in the abstract, is fundamentally unknown to us, since we are unable to conceive of the ultimate reality of and within itself. However, an arbitrary truth, such as, “I have five fingers on both of my hands,” does lead to other truths. As long as there is time, space, motion, and causality, one truth leads to another. This is true.

How is the statement, “I have five fingers” arbitrary? And the argument of causality is precisely the tool used to put a name to what we cannot conceive, yet have made an approximation to, which is God.
James Kanatous:

Untrue. Something must be infinite; this is true. “This infinity is God,” is a fallacy of affirming. Until you know what God is, you cannot even begin to make such assertions and expect them to be valid. You’re throwing a confusing term into an already confusing topic.

But there is no assertion. We are naming the infinity, nothing more. We are not presupposing to dientify God; we begin with the reality of infinity and name it God. No fallacious affirmation there.
James Kanatous:

There is no such thing as a proposition that is REALLY true. Again, our concepts of existence and non-existence cannot be applied to the ultimate reality, for we know not what it is, we know not, what Truth, in the abstract, really is.

But we are talking about REAL Truth. You yourself have violated your own assertion that we do not know what the ultimate reality is by asserting that it is an ulitmate reality! You have given what you have said is undiscernable a name and applied concepts of reality and unreality to it!
James Kanatous:

Once again, you are throwing an entirely ambiguous term, such as GOD, into an already confusing topic.

What is ambiguous about God?

 

[John_Mortell]

Untrue. Something must be infinite; this is true. “This infinity is God,” is a fallacy of affirming. Until you know what God is, you cannot even begin to make such assertions and expect them to be valid. You’re throwing a confusing term into an already confusing topic.

James, please address my posts on the Prime Mover in the ‘Cognitive Unintelligibility’ thread.

 

[James_Kanatous]

Mike O:

How is the statement, “I have five fingers” arbitrary? And the argument of causality is precisely the tool used to put a name to what we cannot conceive, yet have made an approximation to, which is God.

Causality is the tool which we use to verify that we are finite and that we therefore do not have the capacity to comprehend infinity. Secondly, if you ignorantly use this method in order to attempt to verify that there is a God, then you must first know what God is. The labeling of God is logically prior to the proof of the existence of God. However, I would not get too excited just yet. For, if you are able to label God in a positive manner, then it is not God, and calling it God creates unnecessary confusion which leads to an infinite chain of absurdities. This is my answer.
Mike O:

But there is no assertion. We are naming the infinity, nothing more. We are not presupposing to dientify God; we begin with the reality of infinity and name it God. No fallacious affirmation there.

Again, you present the same fallacy within your arguement. In order to identify something which is infinite, you would need to know what that something is; a knownable positive concept is a pre-requisite for identification. For instance, I know what the universe is, and I can therefore clarify the concept by asserting that the universe is infinite. What excatly is knowable about God?
Mike O:

But we are talking about REAL Truth. You yourself have violated your own assertion that we do not know what the ultimate reality is by asserting that it is an ulitmate reality! You have given what you have said is undiscernable a name and applied concepts of reality and unreality to it!

Another fallacious arguement. Truth cannot be talked about, for that which ‘is’, is that which contains infinite varieties and irregularities that cannot be adequately, nor completely, described with universal language. – You perceive part of what a chair is. If you then proceed to label the perceived chair a chair, then you abstract and approximate what is TRULY there, namely, the chair. Therefore, Truth cannot be talked about, and once you begin to approximate it with language, you falsify reality.

It’s called quantum theory.

 

[James_Kanatous]

John Mortell:

James, please address my posts on the Prime Mover in the ‘Cognitive Unintelligibility’ thread.

Sorry, I don’t cater.

 

[hawkeye]

1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth’s limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God’s existence (vid. 2).

4) So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was “God doesn’t exist”, as far as it is asserted as a truth, it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.

5) However, if God exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if God doesn’t exist, it is false too, because in that case the Truth (i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn’t exist and, then, single truths wouldn’t exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God exists.

Greetings.

Daniel.

Theological Miscellany (in spanish):

[gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm](http://www.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm)

This is worse than the Begats Abraham begot Isaac etc:

 

[James_Kanatous]

Here’s a good topic for discussion:

From what God is not to what God is. . . .

Really, what is God?

 

[Mike_O]

James Kanatous:

Causality is the tool which we use to verify that we are finite and that we therefore do not have the capacity to comprehend infinity. Secondly, if you ignorantly use this method in order to attempt to verify that there is a God, then you must first know what God is. The labeling of God is logically prior to the proof of the existence of God. However, I would not get too excited just yet. For, if you are able to label God in a positive manner, then it is not God, and calling it God creates unnecessary confusion which leads to an infinite chain of absurdities. This is my answer.

Your theory allows absolutely ZERO way for God to exist! It is not “what” God is but “Who” God is that matters. And we do not have the capacity to comprehend infinity in its permanence and fullness, but we CAN comprehend it in limited amounts, i.e. the concept of finiteness.

Any definition I could offer to answer your question, “What is God?” would be summarily rejected as “ignorant” and “fallacious.”
James Kanatous:

Again, you present the same fallacy within your arguement. In order to identify something which is infinite, you would need to know what that something is; a knownable positive concept is a pre-requisite for identification. For instance, I know what the universe is, and I can therefore clarify the concept by asserting that the universe is infinite. What excatly is knowable about God?

The only fallacy I ascertain in my argument is that it conflicts with your hardcore, uncompromising, Freud-worshipping atheism. And, out of curiosity, what is the universe? Just in the last paragraph you described causality as our incapacity to know the infinite. The universe is infinite. How then, could you know what it is, unless you are badly contradicting yourself?
James Kanatous:

Another fallacious arguement. Truth cannot be talked about, for that which ‘is’, is that which contains infinite varieties and irregularities that cannot be adequately, nor completely, described with universal language. – You perceive part of what a chair is. If you then proceed to label the perceived chair a chair, then you abstract and approximate what is TRULY there, namely, the chair. Therefore, Truth cannot be talked about, and once you begin to approximate it with language, you falsify reality.

It’s called quantum theory.

“Truth cannot be talked about” acorrding to your self-imposed rule, and then you go on to talk about truth. Anyone else who does, though, is dismissed as having “fallacious arguments.”

To conclude, I have no interest in furthering an argument in which one person has nothing intelligent to offer beyond “You are ignorant” and “your argument is fallacious.”

I think you have spent far too much time absorbing Freudian contradictions. Try and reverse it while you can.

 

[John_Mortell]

Sorry, I don’t cater.

Have it your way. I’ll repost them:

1)Since the temporal universe is composed of a series of causes and effects, there must be one original entity of cause- an Uncaused Cause (or what Aristotle called the ‘Prime Mover’)- to start the process in the first place.

2)This Prime Mover cannot have been created because nothing cannot bring about something.

3)Since the Prime Mover cannot be a result of anything, it is not acting in reaction to something else. Therefore its act of change is of its own merit and implies a will, instinct, or intellect of some sort. Whatever the case, the PM also has power capable enough to fulfill the first cause as well as knowing how to do what it did.

4)Time is essentially the measure of change; our universe is temporal because it is composed of a series of changes. For the Prime Mover to exist prior to the first instance of change, it must have existed in a state without change.

5)To be in this changeless state, the Prime Mover can never become susceptible to change. Any act of change has something building up to it, which is not possible for anything to be in a state of no-change in the first place. It is like trying to find the end on a circle.

6)Although it seems the Prime Mover should be susceptible to change because it is capable of initiating change, this is not necessarily true. If the PM decides to initiate more than one action, it need not be decided chronologically (Act A, then Act B, then Act C…). The PM would most likely decide every action altogether and without a beginning or end in the process of deciding:

http://members.aol.com/cmor923905/abc.gif
'Nother example, just to drive the point home. If the Prime Mover has a total of three actions to perform (for now let’s say Creation, Adam & Eve, and Apocalypse), the order of the PM’s decision-making would not go: first Creation, then Adam & Eve, then Apocalypse. A much more fitting portrayal would be written all together as:
http://members.aol.com/cmor923905/triple2.gif

 

[John_Mortell]

7)Although the Prime Mover’s actions are of time, the Prime Mover itself must still be incapable of change. Because of this, the Prime Mover cannot act out its choices in a sequential manner: it cannot ponder an option, then decide to enact it, then carry through with its intentions. The Prime Mover’s knowledge, will, and power must be inseparable.

8)The qualities of the Prime Mover must be perfect or it cannot exist in the state which it must. For example, an entity with any sort of imperfection (say, 2/3 the amount of knowledge as it is capable of having) cannot exist outside of time like the PM because its ability to improve or diminish in some characteristic causes it to be susceptible to time. The Prime Mover cannot be limited in any of its characteristics. Therefore, it has perfect knowledge, will, and power.

9)Physical entities take up space and therefore have boundaries and limits. The Prime Mover cannot have limits, so it does not take up space. Since the Prime Mover sustains itself without physical form but possesses knowledge, will, and power, its state of existence is “spirit”.

 

[John_Mortell]

10)The Prime Mover cannot be divided into parts because it is not limited by physical dimensions. Theologist Frank Sheed: “Nothing can be taken from it, because there is nothing in it but its whole self.” The knowledge, will, and power are distinctive in their manner, yet are of the same nature since the PM is indivisible. In a sense, the knowledge of the Prime Mover IS the Prime Mover, the will of the Prime Mover IS the Prime Mover, and the power of the Prime Mover IS the Prime Mover. I technically shouldn’t even be writing “The Prime Mover has ___” because the Prime Mover cannot truly have anything, it can only Be. It’s sorta like this:
members.aol.com/cmor923905/circle3.gif

(It’s supposed to say ‘Knowledge, Will, and Power’, but for whatever reason I put ‘Knowledge, Wisdom, and Power.’ Oh well.)

11)There cannot be multiple Prime Movers. There cannot be two perfect entities- for them to be separate there would have to be differences and thus imperfections, preventing them from existing outside of time because imperfections would make them susceptible to change.

12)No entity can surpass the Prime Mover in any quality or else the Prime Mover can never exist outside of time.

 

[John_Mortell]

13)We possess at least some of the characteristics of the Prime Mover: we exist, we can enact change, we can choose to do things, etc.

14)The human will, like that of the PM’s, is capable of choice. Any choice that one can make must range either ‘closer’ or ‘farther’ from the qualities of the PM’s will (a range of Value). There is no such thing as a neutral choice because beings created by the PM cannot possess any capability (in this instance, a choice or mindset of some kind) which the PM does not likewise have and define to the highest degree.

1. Hatred, greed, loneliness, etc., are not compatible with the Prime Mover. They are perverted or unfulfilled versions of the PM’s qualities. Emptiness arises out of a lack of satisfaction, greed out of a lack of contentment, hatred out of a lack of love. The qualities of the Prime Mover are entirely fulfilled and do not result from a lack of anything.

16)The will of the Prime Mover certainly bears love (care for others) since the PM gains absolutely nothing from the creation of the universe.
-Creation cannot be done out of curiosity since the PM has perfect knowledge.
-Creation cannot be done out of greed since the PM is incapable of gaining more of any quality.
-Creation cannot be done out of a desire to boost the PM’s own ego or self-esteem since the PM is entirely fulfilled and incapable of improving in any aspect, even of the ego.Etc.

The only possibility for creation is that it is done not solely for the Prime Mover’s own sake, but for the sake of the inhabitants of the temporal universe, such as humanity. The gifts of existence is an act of care for others- an act of love. Because the Prime Mover is capable of love, it possesses the highest degree of love possible: perfect love.

1. We are capable of growing in our love. Since the Prime Mover created humanity out of love and for love, chances are it desires humanity to know about and believe in it and its ways. This is where apologetics steps in and I call the Prime Mover God.

 

[John_Mortell]

“Religion is an illusion … it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our intellectual desires.”

I partially agree with the latter part of the sentence, though I disagree with Freud’s conclusion that religion is illusionary. People’s desire for ‘higher existence’ certainly fuels the religious viewpoint; however, this only works in our favor. Consider this: every urge man has is necessary for his benefit. When he is hungry, he eats; thirsty, drinks; sleepy, sleeps. Even the urge for sex is necessary for the survival of mankind. Why then, does the urge to connect with a higher existence exist in the first place? There is no reason for natural evolution to give man an empty urge with no goal.

 

[James_Kanatous]

John Mortell:

Why then, does the urge to connect with a higher existence exist in the first place? There is no reason for natural evolution to give man an empty urge with no goal.

This is an easy question, and here is my answer:

We are rational animals. Good, good.

We are able to objectify, abstract, approximate, divide, condemn, and justify our reality. Good, good.

We have intellectual desires. Good, good.

Therefore, we yearn for a philosophical purpose for our existence. Good, good.

–However, and here is the punch line, just because we have the capacity to desire understanding for the sake of understanding, does not directly infer that there is a significance to life. We create significance just the way we create a triangle. Religion is an illusion created by us in order to compensate for our intellectual desires; for our uncertainty so that we may feel certain.

Does a monkey care whether or not there is a significance to its existence? Does a turtle care? Does the universe care? Ha.

We care. . . .

And, since we care, we therefore create.

This is my answer, and this is true.

 

[James_Kanatous]

John Mortell:

Have it your way. I’ll repost them:

1)Since the temporal universe is composed of a series of causes and effects, there must be one original entity of cause- an Uncaused Cause (or what Aristotle called the ‘Prime Mover’)- to start the process in the first place.

This is really a different proposition; it is about time and creation. I have never thought that infinite time was illogical; I have thought for a very long time that it is more logical than *ex nihilo *creation. There has just always been stuff. It only becomes illogical when one uses a modal of causality within a time line of causality. Why is it so illogical to say: ‘there has always been stuff, and there will never not be stuff.’? One might ask what created the stuff. But I ask: ‘why must stuff be created?’. It must come from somewhere. ‘Why?’ Because everything I know of comes from somewhere and there is obviously a chain of events. This last answer is, I believe, imposing certain experiences on the universe, using a limited model, or way, of understanding to explain everything.

This is what I think. It is more intuitional to say that the universe and time is finite–this is because everything we know is finite. It is, however, more logical to say the universe and time are infinite because of two reasons: creation from nothing–really NOTHING, what is not–is illogical; and when we speak about nothings we commit liguistical fallacies which hamper our reasoning ability (because reasoning consists of using language in a certain way). This is my answer.

 

[Apolonio]

This is my answer, and this is true.

Response:
And how do you know that your cognitive faculties are reliable? How can you know something is true? Evolution, in the tradition of Darwin, means survival of the fittest. We “walk towards” survival according to Darwin. But where does walking toward truth come from? See Alvin Plantinga’s refutation of naturalism from evolution for more.

 

[Mike_O]

Mr. John Mortell–

Where did you find this series of proofs?

I ask because it is among the most well reasoned, most lucid series of proofs I have ever seen.

 

[John_Mortell]

However, and here is the punch line, just because we have the capacity to desire understanding for the sake of understanding, does not directly infer that there is a significance to life.

You see life as meaningless? Ouch. As for the rest of that post, Apolonio took the words out of my mouth.

Mr. John Mortell–

Where did you find this series of proofs? I ask because it is among the most well reasoned, most lucid series of proofs I have ever seen. Thanks; actually, I wrote it. It’s from a paper I wrote for a philosophy club expanding on Aquinas’s proofs of the Uncaused Cause. (Later on I even try to connect the PM’s knowledge, will, and power with the concepts of the Trinity ). I have a bunch of rough notes on my website (www.members.aol.com/cmor923905/ ), but they are not very organized; be warned that this is all a work in progress. The actual paper I wrote is structured better and makes more sense, but I haven’t put it up on the internet yet. Feel free to use anything I’ve used so far.

Because everything I know of comes from somewhere and there is obviously a chain of events. This last answer is, I believe, imposing certain experiences on the universe, using a limited model, or way, of understanding to explain everything.

Please inform me of a better possibility. Time is the measure of change, after all; a series of actions and reactions. Everything that occurs happens in reaction to something else. Ultimately there must be a beginning action to start off this chain of events.

It is more intuitional to say that the universe and time is finite–this is because everything we know is finite. It is, however, more logical to say the universe and time are infinite because of two reasons: creation from nothing–really NOTHING, what is not–is illogical; and when we speak about nothings we commit linguistical fallacies which hamper our reasoning ability (because reasoning consists of using language in a certain way).

Philo, I agree with you that creation cannot result from nothing. That is why an Uncaused Cause is so very necessary. And it is also necessary- as I pointed out in my following points- that this Uncaused Cause exist outside the limits of time and the physical universe to be the ‘Uncaused Cause’ in the first place. In what way do you disagree with this?

Btw, I apologize if I implied this in my posts, but there is no “before” instance of time prior to the creation of the temporal universe, since the Prime Mover is not of time and does not work chronologically. So you don’t have to worry about the illogic of nothingness.

:yawn: And now I need to go to bed.

 

[James_Kanatous]

Apolonio:

This is my answer, and this is true.

Response:
And how do you know that your cognitive faculties are reliable? How can you know something is true? Evolution, in the tradition of Darwin, means survival of the fittest. We “walk towards” survival according to Darwin. But where does walking toward truth come from? See Alvin Plantinga’s refutation of naturalism from evolution for more.

Experience makes our judgement reliable. Experience shapes our judgement into an art; into belief. Logic is a wonderful example, and so are the sciences. I know things. People know things. You know things, and this is because you, too, experience many things: here and there, at all times, everywhere.

‘Walking’ towards truth is a product of our cognition, most obviously. This is known through experience. Where does cognition come from? Hundreds of thousands of years of natural evolution, I believe. There’s nothing ‘spiritual’ about it.