Philosophy: Prove you exist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truthstalker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ani_Ibi said:
Mmmm. I don’t know. I propose that God/PBB is not necessarily passive. Because the conditions of the PBB inhere – or translate – into the present universe.

But Hawking’s flexiuniverse gives some insight into our role in how the observable universe unfolds.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Quantum subjects always confuse me - I read up on them constantly, but a prime past-time among quantum physicists seems to be explaining why all the other quantum physicists are wrong and they’re right. I do recall that Hawking recently said he believes the universe popped into existence out of nothing, and that we have an eternity to ponder what that means. He ruffled some feathers there.

I see what you mean, I think, and I’ve had the same problem whenever people go the deist route - ‘There’s a God, but not a personal God.’ Once you’ve talked about a force beyond mortal comprehension that has willed or otherwise engineered All That Is into existence, I think all talk of ‘Well, said Deity actually couldn’t care less about us’ is suspect. By that logic, all of Christianity could be true, and yet if it’s occurred in a deterministic way (End result ensured by first cause conditions) you could say the Christian God was not a personal one. Technically correct (The best kind of correct!)

So just on those lines, plus a few others (rejecting the idea of a static perfection) I’d argue that it’s likely God is active in a reasonable sense of the term, rather than passive. Deterministic v indeterministic, not sure. I’d lean towards the latter, but I have trouble stating things with certainty - makes me feel overly confident.
 
Ani_Ibi said:
I could be wrong about my understanding of ‘static’ universe.

However, I believe that the ‘staticness’ or ‘dynamicness’ of a universe is irrelevant to first cause.
Click to expand...
a static universe is simply one that is dynamically stable (neither expanding nor contracting); what could the stability of a universe possibly have to do with the law of cause and effect?
Ani Ibi:
Because of the no-boundary conditions at the start-point of all possible universes.
Click to expand...
that’s hawkings’ attempt to do away with the initial singularity, and it requires the reification of imaginary time. does that make sense to you? imaginary time? it certainly doesn’t to me. or stephen hawkings.

but that is as may be - initial singularity or no, there still needs to be a first cause.
Ani Ibi:
The existence of first cause needs to be proven. So far it has not been proven. I have questions as to whether it can be proven.
Click to expand...
sure. but that’s not the point of the thread…

and what are your misgivings with regard to the possibility of a proof for god?
Ani Ibi:
In any case, is proving the existence of first cause necessary to proving that you or God exists?
Click to expand...
no.
Ani Ibi:
However, there are other routes to the proof for the existence of you or God.
Click to expand...
like what?
 
Everstruggling said:
Here is where my knowledge of physics falls down. It might be that somehow, someone has proven that there are no static universes. (I really don’t know how you would prove this.) Perhaps they are using the term “universe” differently. It wouldn’t matter. It is like your universe where the potential for proof exists. It doesn’t need to exist for it to negate the impossibility of your existence.
Click to expand...
you’re using an esoteric definition of “static” - as i have said, a “static” universe (the universe everyone thought existed before hubble demonstrated universal expansion) is simply one that is stable. change has nothing to do with it.

that having been said, even if an eternal, changeless universe was possible, we do not, in fact, live in one. so whether or not that universe would require a first cause (it would), this universe certainly does.
40.png
Everstruggling:
God certainly doesn’t need to be the first cause. “First Cause” is hardly something that would inspire martyrdom. I don’t think many people become saints in order to become closer to “First Cause”.
Click to expand...
you’re right. but the first cause argument isn’t supposed to establish the existence of the christian god. that’s what christianity is for.
40.png
Everstruggling:
What is this “God” that can not only be proven to exist, but is worthy of worship?
Click to expand...
jesus christ. not to put too fine a point on it…

(EDIT: sorry, Ani - i just got to your post where you said the same thing…)
 
Everstruggling said:
John Doran suggested that God is necessary in all possible worlds. It is, goes his argument, that it is impossible to conceive of any world of any type in which God could not exist.
Click to expand...
whoa, there - i have never once identified “possibility” with “conceivability”. what’s more, i reject the identification, at least insofar as it means something like “imaginability” (i can conceive of a million-sided plane figure, but can’t [accurately] imagine one).
40.png
Everstruggling:
If I establish even one
Click to expand...
world in which it is* possible* that God could not exist then I have refuted the argument. I don’t have to show that God is impossible in every universe to refute the argument.
true. but you haven’t done so, and certainly not with your description of a “static” universe, which amounts to nothing more than you saying “i can describe a universe with no cause. watch: 'there is a universe with no cause”. see? therefore it must be possible".
40.png
Everstruggling:
I have never met anyone who believes that this is what God is. This seems like a very strange thing to worship.
Click to expand...
you’re a little off here. what you mean to say is that you have never met anyone who believes that this is all god is…
 
Here are some Chinese words of wisdom:

A dish of carrot hastily cooked may still has soil uncleaned off the vegetable.

Donkey’s lips do not fit onto a horse’s mouth.

Flies never visit an egg that has no crack.

Do I know what they mean? No! But since I’m terribly confused about the topic of this thread, I thought that adding confusing proverbs wouldn’t hurt.

God Bless,
Michael
 
Now I really am wondering about some of these posters…Doubting their existence was merely hypothetically before…😃
 
Truthstalker said:
Now I really am wondering about some of these posters…Doubting their existence was merely hypothetically before…😃
Click to expand...
Yes, there is life out there in the great beyond. We roam from thread to thread searching for intelligent life. Occasionally, we bump into those darn philosophers who ask weird questions. That’s when we realize how lunacy sadly ravages a person’s mind. 😦 May God help these poor souls. :crossrc:

God Bless,
Michael
 
Truthstalker said:
I’ve never had an atheist take me up on this challenge. They are to prove they exist, using the same standards they use to disprove the existence of God.

Since this is the internet, I cannot see or hear the atheist. I cannot be sure it really is an atheist. I have to believe the poster really is an atheist. Maybe it is someone’s sockpuppet.

Any takers?
Click to expand...
One cannot know empirically, just by looking at your words, that you are not just a computer pretending to be a person. It is mere common sense faith, that I know you are real and that you are a human being that has made a bloody good thread; just like its mere commonsense faith to believe that there is an intelligent creator behind reality even though we cannot be sure of it in the sense of touching the pierced hands of Jesus.

The difference between the two is that, I know enough through sense perception of the world around me, that it is more likely to be the case that you are real and you are a human like me; but you could quite easily be an alien since it is a rational possibility, however slim, of which, is open to interpretation. An iteligent creator, on the other hand, is the only “rational explanation” (that being an explanation that doesn’t contradict itself) for the ordered appearance of the world and its existing “fixed” (unchanging and precise) forces. Atheism cannot explain where reality came from, because that wasn’t its funtion in the first place. Its function always was a matter undermining faith and religious revelation from God; atheism is just an emotional response to negative religious regimes, and more so, restrictive religious morality; atheists deguise themselves as an intelectual position; in other words, the real war they fight, is with religion and morality; not the existence of God.

When you look at the world, one cannot honestly say, with conviction if they believe in rationality, that it came from an infinite amount of causes with no cause or reason. One can say they don’t know what happen and remain agnostic, if there not intrested in puting faith in any particulor God; but they cannot say that a “belief” in a creator God is irrational, since reality appears to be intelligible and created (though we know for sure that it is not through the classical creationist account that life has appeared; arriving by fiat) ; otherwise i dont see why people would have ever have thought of a “creator” God, let alone a God, if the world was not suggestive of that possiblity.

The funny thing is, atheists are asking us to believe in an irrational miracle, that has occurred by it self with out the help of an intelligent creator. (Creation out of nothing). At least when we speak of miracles, we have a rational cause behind them. (God).

Peace.
 
I think I don’t think; therefore I don’t think I exist.

Also, I don’t think I think; therefore I think I don’t exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top