There is no God

[hurst]

AnAtheist:

The problem with God is, as a fact he escapes any attempt of detection, and as a theory the observed reality quite often does not logically follow from that theory, the theory is contradictory, or the theory makes no testable statements or predictions.

That is not a problem with God, but with your approach.

Why do you only allow for either the obvious or the theoretical?
Why is reasoning only allowed to work from the theoretical and not from the obvious?

AnAtheist:

And as long as a theory is not testable, one has to take it by faith. That includes the reasonable theories.

But according to Popper, even if it were testable, it is not considered certain. Did you mean “falsifiable”? But even that does not make it more certain; it only makes it possible to be certainly false.

Again, you contend that the existence of God is a proposition, a “reasonable theory”. But no, it is rather a testimonial. Someone has already discovered God, and is here to let you know you can too, by the use of your natural reason, though in a limited way. Faith only comes into play afterwards, for when you choose to obey and love God. That is what requires faith. But faith presupposes the existence of what one has faith in. (Hence atheists cannot have faith in God because they don’t recognize His existence). God proves Himself to us, but we can demonstrate His existence with certainty by the use of reason.

To use our reasoning in relation to existence is not a theory, and the conclusion is not obvious. But it is precisely in this manner that we can come to the knowledge of certain things regarding our existence.

hurst

 

[hurst]

AnAtheist:

I agree to most of what you’ve said except:

Originally Posted by hurst
Also, I would like to point out that concepts are more real than objects. An object is localized in time and space, a concept is universal to all times and in any location.

To be localisable in space and time is a strong indication for being real.

I mean they have a more permanent existence. What you are calling “real” is simply something manifested in the visible universe.

But something that is a concept, or “form”, really exists, just as in OO programming a Class generates objects of its form. That it is abstract only makes it indestructible and unreachable from the visible universe. It is thus a “higher” existence. And so I say it is “more real”.

AnAtheist:

Concepts are not real at all, they describe reality.

Concepts can either describe an already existing reality (think reverse-engineering) that we did not make (i.e. atoms), or they can be a blueprint for something we do make (i.e. house).

AnAtheist:

That concept does not need to be implemented. The concept was derived from observing atoms, and is now used to describe atoms.

We don’t need to implement it, but it had to be implemented in the physical universe somehow.

Btw, sometimes we do try to implement concepts on an atomic level (particle accelerators, fusion, short-lived elements, etc.).

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Not exactly. When applying a logical part of a set to something, you use the set itself. In the case of one apple, we use 1. You don’t take a part of the set, you use the set itself.

Perhaps you speak formally. I mean that we conceptually use a number that happens to be in the set that references them. The concept of 5 exists outside of ourselves, but we grasp the concept and name it. Nor do we have to be aware of the set of Integers to do so. A child counts apples before learning such things.

Alois:

Keep in mind that source it not analogous to creation.

I don’t quite understand you here. It may or may not. For example, an electron moving around a nucleus is the source of the shell, and creates it. But a volcano spewing out lava is not creating the lava, though it is the source. So it can be either way.

What I am implying is that creation is really just formed out of already existing existence (God). We are nothing. Gaps. We exist only in God. We are like a wrinkle, and if God straightened Himself out, we’d be gone. This is just a comparison. We are the atom and God is the proton, electron, and forces. In all the elements, you have protons, electron, and neutrons of varying counts and combinations, but as a composition each “element” has dramatically different properties.

So God is the source of our existence both in that He caused us to exist, and also that our existence is from and in Him. Though we are in ourselves nothingness.

Alois:

Numbers flow smoothly. The only distinguishment is that which humans have applied.

I have consistently refered to the set of Integers, not the Reals. If by INS you mean Reals, then I was mistaken by what you meant.
Please adjust your focus to Integers, and you will see what I meant.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

The same could be said for an infinite universe. You assume it needs a “start” point, but that the starter doesn’t? That’s illogical.

I meant that just as the set of Integers conceptually has no start or end -inf … -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, … +inf], and no one really uses that as a reason to say the set doesn’t exist, so to does infinite existence have no start or end, without there being a problem. And let me focus on the aspect of the set being a conceptual existence, and not a basket of eggs. I say that because a concept is more easily understood to exist outside of time or place.

Now, although there was no start point for Z, yet there are start points for equations referencing numbers from Z, that manifest instances of those numbers. But perhaps this comparison is becoming obscure now.

Let’s say we have the set of all conceivable faces. It is not manifested, but it exists. We can implement one in a block of stone, at which point it started to “exist” in the sense it was manifested. But we don’t think in terms that all faces exist in concept already. We think in terms that a new face was “created” by a sculptor in the stone. And if it breaks or is otherwise destroyed, then it stopped “existing”. My point is that is indeed more logical that all faces already exist as a concept, independently from a particular manifestation, and they cannot be destroyed by anything in the physical universe. And so when they started to “exist”, it was only because they were starting to be made manifest in the observable universe. Thus, the source did not start, but the manifestation did start. Now, I am not saying this source of concepts is God. I am only giving this as a generic example of how something “without a limit” can be the source of something that “has a limit”.

So it is very logical. Or do you think that a start point means there was nothingness before the start? That is illogical. If there was truly “nothing”, and I mean at any level, then how could anything have started? For then there would not even be any ideas or concepts, or logic itself. For logic is something.

Alois:

Originally Posted by Alois
However, existence is not the source of existence. It is existence.

Sometimes an existing object is the source of another existing object, perhaps by composition, perhaps by imitation, etc. An invisible design can be the source of a visible sculpture. A block of stone can be the source of the sculpted bust. Its existence subsists in the other.

The block, in this case, is the base not the source. The human carving that block is the source, the God. The sculpture would still be a part of that block after it is sculpted, and would still be a part of it. This is consistant with existence.

We are miscommunicating. The concept of a face is the source (form) for the construction of the sculpture, thus existence is the source of existence. That is one way. A second way is that the stone is the source (substance) for the construction of the house, thus existence is the source of existence. Neither of these really involves a doer yet.

When you refer to a human carving that block, that is the source (cause) of the manifestation, a third way.

Now, if eternal existence is the source, then since it is the only existence that ever was (and ever will be), it must be the source in all three senses: form, substance, and cause.

Alois:

This analogy is inaccurate however, because a block of stone in not an infinite set. …

Agreed. I was just making a case for how existence can come from existence.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

We apply the set though, we don’t take something from it. For instance, when we see discernable objects that we wish to count, we apply to set. After applying it we find that there are four discernable objects. We didn’t look at some infinite “thing” and pull four out of it, we looked at the infinite set of numbers and applied it to show four objects.

That may be for when we initially count things. But when you try to guess the number of beans in a jar, you will be pulling a number out of the set. Or if you pick a lottery number, same thing.

More specifically, when you think of something to invent or build, you will exercise the act of pulling from some conceptual store. We talk of inventors, but often they are just discoverers. Sometimes two different people in different countries will “invent” the same kind of thing.

The point is that concepts are really not created or invented. They are found or discovered. They always existed and will always exist, and exist in the eternal existence. But they do not apply themselves, as you said. Someone or something able to detect and select the concept is needed for it to be made manifest.

Alois:

This may be beside the point, but I view the INS as infinite basket full of an infinite amount of eggs. How is that inconsistant with the view of existance as infinity?

I was using the set of Integers as a reflection, not a composition. In other words, I don’t view the universe as the set. The universe is a manifested subset (basket of eggs), and the set is invisible actualities that could potentially be manifested.

Alois:

I hope it is clearer that if all existence in the visible universe subsists in the eternal existence, then it is simple logic to call that eternal (invisible) existence the “source” of such (manifested) existence.

It is not. Much as a single number is still a part of the INS, visible existence is still a part of the invisible existence. The “eternal existence” as you label it is the base in which everything exists, and therefore, everything that exists is the eternal universe. It is not the source, it is

Not quite, because the manifested universe changes. It is more like a piece of string represents the eternal existence, and the manifested universe is produced by tying knots in it. Those knots do not make up part of the string, but rather subsist in the string. And while the knots can change, the string remains a piece of string, not losing any substance.

Infinite existence creates out of nothing and loses nothing of itself, somewhat like an infinite blanket wrinkling itself in one place to form a “new” “existence”. The wrinkle consists of emptiness shrouded with existence. The blanket is still whole, always existed, and always will exist, though the wrinkle is “new”, and had a starting point, and may have an ending point. This is just a comparison to show we are nothing of ourselves and that creation is out of nothing by infinity, without infinity needing to have “started”, nor of it being diminished nor dependent upon what was created.

You might be able to say the wrinkle existed as an eternal concept inside the blanket, but its manifestation was not eternal, nor is the manifestation part of the eternal existence intrinsically, but only extrinsically, as a participation in the blanket. Thus, we are not God, we are separate from God, and yet we don’t exist except in God.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

The eternal qualities of God I am covering are certainly of the Christian God.

How so? Explain how the God you’ve created is a God under any sense.

First of all, I did not create this God. I am creating analogies to express what I have come to know, and I am trying to stick with what anyone can know solely through reason.

Secondly, the Christian God has at a minimum all the attributes of God as known through natural reason. For there is only one God, and the Christian God is the same God. But through faith, we come to know those aspects which you have heard about from those around you.

Many times, though, Christians have not reasoned their way to knowing the naturally knowable attributes of God. They have often taken even that part on faith. But it need not be so.

Thirdly, as I have stated a couple times somewhere, the Catholic Church lays out for us what is naturally knowable, and also what we define God specifically to be.

God reveals His power and divinity naturally (knowable naturally), but He reveals Himself and His decrees supernaturally (knowable by faith)

Romans 1:19 … that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity.

Aquinas helps us here:

Whether God can be known in this life by natural reason?

Our natural knowledge begins from sense. Hence our natural knowledge can go as far as it can be led by sensible things. But our mind cannot be led by sense so far as to see the essence of God; because the sensible effects of God do not equal the power of God as their cause. Hence from the knowledge of sensible things the whole power of God cannot be known; nor therefore can His essence be seen. But because they are His effects and depend on their cause, we can be led from them so far as to know of God “whether He exists,” and to know of Him what must necessarily belong to Him, as the first cause of all things, exceeding all things caused by Him.

Hence we know that His relationship with creatures so far as to be the cause of them all; also that creatures differ from Him, inasmuch as He is not in any way part of what is caused by Him; and that creatures are not removed from Him by reason of any defect on His part, but because He superexceeds them all.

Reason cannot reach up to simple form, so as to know “what it is”; but it can know "whether it is."

God is known by natural knowledge through the images of His effects.

… the knowledge of Him by natural reason can belong to both good and bad

Summa Theologica
catholicprimer.org/summa/FP/FP012.html#FPQ12A12THEP1

Alois:

Some of these traits are true, but you haven’t shown me how some others are.

It just so happens that we have been focusing on existence, eternity, and infinity in general. We have not yet gotten to other attributes, but that is because before we get there, we need to come to an understanding of eternal existence and manifested, or participated existence. And it needs to be clear and reasonable before we build on it further.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

We also make up that existence. Much like tiny colored dots make up a picture.

Not according to what I am trying to convey. The dots are analogous to the eternal existence, and the image formed is analogous to manifested creatures in the observable universe.

Alois:

It doesn’t make a difference if it is a composition of its parts. If there are an infinite amount of these parts, then your view of it and mine are the same. You make the mistake of claiming that by its own nature, the number system is distinguishable. It is not, it is an infinitly flowing body that only humans have distinguished for ease of use. You can take a decimal down to an infinitely small number.

As I pointed out earlier, the mistake was that I thought your definition of INS was what I was calling the set of Integers. But I now see that you think of INS as the Reals. There are no decimals in the set of Integers.

Alois:

I am not proposing a pantheistic model. It is as if we were nothingness surrounded by existence in such a manner that we exist in the eternal existence while not being it itself. We are like the “hole current” in a solid-state substrate, if you know what I mean.

I understand what you mean, but are you stating this as the position you’re arguing from?

What, the hole current? No, that is just an analogy. I am arguing from the position that our existence is different from the existence of our “source”, because logically, the source has to be eternal (uncreated), infinite(unlimited), immovable(since infinite), etc. Whereas we are created, limited, movable, etc. Like a mobile fish in an eternal, infinite, immovable ocean. The fish is not the ocean, nor part of it, yet participates in it.

Also:

… we know that His relationship with creatures so far as to be the cause of them all; also that creatures differ from Him, inasmuch as He is not in any way part of what is caused by Him; and that creatures are not removed from Him by reason of any defect on His part, but because He superexceeds them all.
(previously quoted)

And

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring.

But keep in mind that we cannot see or imagine God’s essence naturally. If I give numerous analogies it is because I am trying to lead you to grasp the concept of an eternal existence causing temporal existences within itself in such a way that they are still nothing, yet participating and inherently lower in order, like a 2-D photo is a lower existence than the live 3-D event with sound and aroma.

hurst

 

[Alois]

hurst:

Perhaps you speak formally. I mean that we conceptually use a number that happens to be in the set that references them. The concept of 5 exists outside of ourselves, but we grasp the concept and name it. Nor do we have to be aware of the set of Integers to do so. A child counts apples before learning such things.

What are you arguing here? I feel like you’re backtracking over yourself in some instances. It doesn’t make a difference in how we use it. 5 is still a number within the set, and we make use of this set to say “There are 5 objects on this table.” That is the position I’m arguing from.

Likewise, a child still uses the set when counting numbers. We do not know how to count from birth, we are either taught or we teach ourselves by understanding the set numbers exist in.

I don’t quite understand you here. It may or may not. For example, an electron moving around a nucleus is the source of the shell, and creates it. But a volcano spewing out lava is not creating the lava, though it is the source. So it can be either way.

Source is a noun, create is a verb. You point to something and say source. You point to something’s actions and say it created. In the example you provided, one would say the electron is the source of the shell, because it itself is causing it. The actions of the electron are creating the shell.

What I am implying is that creation is really just formed out of already existing existence (God). We are nothing. Gaps. We exist only in God. We are like a wrinkle, and if God straightened Himself out, we’d be gone. This is just a comparison. We are the atom and God is the proton, electron, and forces. In all the elements, you have protons, electron, and neutrons of varying counts and combinations, but as a composition each “element” has dramatically different properties.

This is far from reality, however. As I have shown, an object contained in a set (infinite or not in this case) is still a part of that set. A spring in the space shuttle is still its own thing, even if contained in such a massive object. If you continue to imply the God you have been over the last few rounds, then we are part of Him. We make up all of Him. If the parts in the space shuttle were nothing, the space shuttle would be nothing. Likewise, we are everything to Him, because if we are nothing, then He is nothing. This position is illogical, and self refuting.

So God is the source of our existence both in that He caused us to exist, and also that our existence is from and in Him. Though we are in ourselves nothingness.

Existence didn’t cause existence to exist, that’s redundant. Existence didn’t cause us to exist, that’s also redundant because we make up a part of existence. The objects contained in existence make up existence in the whole.

I have consistently refered to the set of Integers, not the Reals. If by INS you mean Reals, then I was mistaken by what you meant.
Please adjust your focus to Integers, and you will see what I meant.

If you’re refering to integers, then your position and analogy with the number system is moot. They are a concept of the mind with restrictions applied by the mind. We reduce numbers to integers for ease of use. Real numbers are, well, real. They are what we see, and then whittle down to integers for easier understanding.

 

[Alois]

hurst:

I meant that just as the set of Integers conceptually has no start or end -inf … -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, … +inf], and no one really uses that as a reason to say the set doesn’t exist, so to does infinite existence have no start or end, without there being a problem.

Now, although there was no start point for Z, yet there are start points for equations referencing numbers from Z, that manifest instances of those numbers. But perhaps this comparison is becoming obscure now

Yes, and this what I’ve been saying. This was my point. I don’t see why you’re arguing from it as I’ve already agreed to it multiple times. My disagreement comes later in your post.

[snip]

So it is very logical. Or do you think that a start point means there was nothingness before the start? That is illogical. If there was truly “nothing”, and I mean at any level, then how could anything have started? For then there would not even be any ideas or concepts, or logic itself. For logic is something.

I have contended that existence is infinite, and you’ve just further proven my contention. Using Occam’s Razor, your claim of a God to create anything is illogical, because existence is already asserted as infinite. It does not need a start or end, and contains all possibilities. This was my point from the start. You then tried to inject God into the position of existence through false dichotomies and unsound analogies that did nothing but show what we’ve already known about existence. Let’s get back on track with this debate: show me how existence could be considered a God. Most of your points about existence are sound, and I agree with them, but when you try to apply them to a God like figure they fall apart.

We are miscommunicating. The concept of a face is the source (form) for the construction of the sculpture, thus existence is the source of existence. That is one way. A second way is that the stone is the source (substance) for the construction of the house, thus existence is the source of existence. Neither of these really involves a doer yet.

This is redundant. If existence is the source of existence, then existence is. You don’t say light is the source of light if you can’t find a source of the light, you say that the light is.

 

[Alois]

hurst:

That may be for when we initially count things. But when you try to guess the number of beans in a jar, you will be pulling a number out of the set. Or if you pick a lottery number, same thing.

No, you look at the objects and guess the spot it has in the set. Or you pick a random spot in the set in the case of a lottery ticket.

More specifically, when you think of something to invent or build, you will exercise the act of pulling from some conceptual store. We talk of inventors, but often they are just discoverers. Sometimes two different people in different countries will “invent” the same kind of thing.

I agree with this. Our imaginations are just a melting pot of things we’ve already detected.

The point is that concepts are really not created or invented. They are found or discovered. They always existed and will always exist, and exist in the eternal existence. But they do not apply themselves, as you said. Someone or something able to detect and select the concept is needed for it to be made manifest.

This is untrue however. In the case of a snowflake, there is nothing detecting and selecting the concept of its form. It is simply a product of the elements in which it was subjected to. In such a way, logical rules of existence could cause manifested existence to form, such as string theory. Applying God in the position of the human carving is unreasonable, according to Occam’s Razor.

I was using the set of Integers as a reflection, not a composition. In other words, I don’t view the universe as the set. The universe is a manifested subset (basket of eggs), and the set is invisible actualities that could potentially be manifested.

I agree. The set is existence and the universe is a manifestation of that set. I apologize for when I’ve slipped universe in by accident. For so long the two have been seen as interchangable.

Not quite, because the manifested universe changes. It is more like a piece of string represents the eternal existence, and the manifested universe is produced by tying knots in it. Those knots do not make up part of the string, but rather subsist in the string. And while the knots can change, the string remains a piece of string, not losing any substance.

This is another similie, not an analogy. And the knots do make up part of the string, they’re still part of that string, and if you remove them, the infiniteness of the string is broken. Likewise, when you untie the knots the string changes as well.

Infinite existence creates out of nothing and loses nothing of itself, somewhat like an infinite blanket wrinkling itself in one place to form a “new” “existence”. The wrinkle consists of emptiness shrouded with existence. The blanket is still whole, always existed, and always will exist, though the wrinkle is “new”, and had a starting point, and may have an ending point. This is just a comparison to show we are nothing of ourselves and that creation is out of nothing by infinity, without infinity needing to have “started”, nor of it being diminished nor dependent upon what was created.

Refer to my statements about a logical universe awhile back. Logicality is something, and infinite existence has this logicality. The presumption that it is nothing is false.

You might be able to say the wrinkle existed as an eternal concept inside the blanket, but its manifestation was not eternal, nor is the manifestation part of the eternal existence intrinsically, but only extrinsically, as a participation in the blanket. Thus, we are not God, we are separate from God, and yet we don’t exist except in God.

It is an intrinsic part, however. For it changes the aspects of existence. And you’re making the assumption of a God again, please refrain from doing that.

 

[Achatius]

Wow this is a long argument.

 

[Alois]

hurst:

First of all, I did not create this God. I am creating analogies to express what I have come to know, and I am trying to stick with what anyone can know solely through reason.

So you admit the fallacy of your statements earlier about defining a God?

hurst:

Your logic does not follow. To define something that is observed (such as a monkey) is different from defining something that is not yet manifest (such as a new widget). The very nature of invention is to specify something new (e.g. patent). So in that sense, it does have something to do with inventing it. But we digress.

Secondly, the Christian God has at a minimum all the attributes of God as known through natural reason. For there is only one God, and the Christian God is the same God. But through faith, we come to know those aspects which you have heard about from those around you.

This seems like a copout to me. Later on in this post you go to say that we’ll discuss these traits after we’re done discussing whether existence is existence. Well, I’d say I’m done with this circular debate and that we’ve classified existence as itself well enough, so can you show me these other traits, or do I have to be a Christian to be a Christian?

Thirdly, as I have stated a couple times somewhere, the Catholic Church lays out for us what is naturally knowable, and also what we define God specifically to be.

I would say that both your second and third points in this post are moot. You have been saying that God has the triats of existence. That is, in essence, exactly what I predicted you would do. You reclassifed existence as God. It is, however, not the monotheistic God of any religon under any sense. You have not even shown me that existence (and I will call it as such until you show me a God seperate from it) is sentient yet, the core trait of a God.

God reveals His power and divinity naturally (knowable naturally), but He reveals Himself and His decrees supernaturally (knowable by faith)

What power? Give me some examples of it. And what do you mean by divinity?

It just so happens that we have been focusing on existence, eternity, and infinity in general. We have not yet gotten to other attributes, but that is because before we get there, we need to come to an understanding of eternal existence and manifested, or participated existence. And it needs to be clear and reasonable before we build on it further.

I have been understanding of those traits for multiple rounds now. I have agreed to them as traits that define existence naturally, and have asked you multiple times to show me a God that contains the traits you have been discussing earlier in this thread, and the traits that actually make up a monotheistic God. Will you do so, or will you continue to move the goalposts? You can not simply define God as existence, you must show that he is indeed a God under every sense of a God.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Alois

I* have been understanding of those traits for multiple rounds now. I have agreed to them as traits that define existence naturally, and have asked you multiple times to show me a God that contains the traits you have been discussing earlier in this thread, and the traits that actually make up a monotheistic God. Will you do so, or will you continue to move the goalposts? You can not simply define God as existence, you must show that he is indeed a God under every sense of a God.*

Your demands are typical of the atheist attitude toward the idea of God. “you must show” is the atheist’ favorite phrase. No, the theist needn’t show and can’t show that which the atheist demands. As long as that is the atheist’s goalpost, the game is over because the theist cannot reach it.

God’s essence is unknowable in the sense that the atheist demands it be known. This is because of a biased mindset against believing in anything that cannot be demonstrated in purely scientific terms, as if God could be found in a petri dish or through the end of a telescope. Obviously, if God does exist, the nature of God must be unfathomable to pure reason except by our faith that the best in us is a reflection of God’s benevolent Being. Add to that reassurance from the Creator through his prophets and the Gospels, then we have sufficient knowledge of God on a basis of faith.

But certainly the atheist is not reasonable when he demands that God be knowable in His pure essence without even the effort to know Him, which is certainly the atheist’s modus operandi at all times. The atheist does not want to know God, and so no amount of rational debate will cut through the rope he has tightly strung between himself God.

 

[hurst]

Alois:

God is manifest in a sense. He is defined in the Bible, …

Yes, by those who had faith and experienced the grace and revelation of God and wrote it down (Moses, et. al.), so in the case of the Bible, I believe you are correct. I can’t speak for the Koran, though.

But often people have their own ideas of what “God” is, and it is not according to what has been revealed in Scripture, and thus can count as an invention, or at least erroneous.

Also, many people have an idea of God that is not consistent with what is naturally knowable about God, so their definition can also be counted as an invention.

Alois:

Do you believe that these were created by the imagination of man?

I believe the Bible is truly from God. I don’t believe the Koran is from God, but rather from a fallen angel. Either way, neither of them would count as originating from man’s imagination.

Alois:

Are these definitions produced by the imagination of man, or are they defined by God himself? None of us can know for certain.

We cannot know for certain by our natural reason. But we can know for certain whether it is consistent with the naturally knowable aspects of God. That is, it is “falsifiable” by means of natural reason. So, if any text says something contrary to what we can naturally know about God, then we know that text is false (or else our understanding of the text is wrong). But if nothing in the text is contrary, then it may or may not be true.

Alois:

There are certain aspects of God that can be known by using the natural light of reason.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: ...

Colossians 1:16 For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. 17 And he is before all, and by him all things consist.

Other aspects require faith in divine revelation. But the naturally knowable aspects are in the same God, and I do expect you to be able to at least accept that much as being logical, if you will follow reason.

What is your purpose is posting these? What is the argument you’re positing?

What I have been saying all along:

1. that it is logical to believe a God exists, and we can base this on the use of our senses and human reasoning.
2. that our existence is “in Him”: we don’t really exist except insofar as we participate in His existence.

These two points should be the focus of our discussions.

But I have never said that it was “logical” to conclude all that has been revealed about God. In fact, it is not logical, but contradictory. For who would conclude that an all-powerful God would become a man and suffer at the hands of His creatures? I say it is not logical, but I mean it is not logical from the perspective of our natural existence. By faith I would say it is logical (and amazing) from the perspective of the supernatural.

Alois:

Other aspects require faith in divine revelation. But the naturally knowable aspects are in the same God, and I do expect you to be able to at least accept that much as being logical, if you will follow reason.

Yes I do accept that much.

However, this does nothing to show that the unknowable aspects exist, or even that the “knowable” ones do. Perhaps I am missing your point? Clarify please, if that needs to be done.

I actually meant that I expect you to accept the naturally knowable aspects as logical, and secondly that these same aspects must be common to any God properly so called. So for example if the God of the Christians is true, then you know He must at least have all the naturally knowable aspects. So if you can find one missing, then it can’t be a true God. (Alternatively, it should form one’s understanding of the Christian God, so that anyone who claims to believe in God, but does not hold to these knowable aspects, is following their imagination and needs to correct their false understanding of God).

Let me also say that I distinguish between “unknowable” and “naturally unknowable”. Same for “knowable”.

I cannot demonstrate to you with certainty what the naturally unknowable aspects are. It can only be done supernaturally, in faith. Neither can we even try to know them, for we don’t know what we are supposed to be looking for. But God can and does reveal these things to whomever He pleases.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Originally Posted by Alois
… Man has always defined God as being all powerful, all knowing, and supernatural.

This is simply not true, based on my understanding of history. For example, the pagans certainly did not always define God as such, nor even today do all men define God as such.

I am not here to debate polytheistic gods. I’m here to debate a God. Otherwise known as a monotheistic God. A monotheistic God contains these traits.

I see now. But then that means you are using a definition of God that you have come across. Did you not take any time to reason about it apart from these definitions? Words can often be a stumblingblock for us, but our own existence is quite obvious and clear. We can reason about what we can sense.

For example, have you ever tried to reason about existence and see if you could come to the realization that there must in fact be a God, and consequently that He must be one, eternal, all powerful, all knowing, etc.?

Alois:

Also, what is your definition of “supernatural”?

That which is beyond the natural world, or does not behave by natural laws.

Ok. That is pretty much the same as mine.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Your basis for the rationality of a God was that existence causes recognition of Him.

Not “causes”, but “is the basis of”. Here is what I said (#454, 468):

Thus, recognizing the existence of God does not require faith, since His existence can be demonstrated by the visible things of this world. But not everything about God can be known by natural reason, which is why revelation is required.

So you believe God exists because of existence itself?

More accurately, I recognize that God exists because of existence itself (since it is not a matter of faith, or of believing - though certainly, one can decide to “believe” in place of not recognizing).

Now, my recognition of God is based on existence itself, my own continued existence, and the existence of my ability to recognize existence. Any child may know what I am talking about. In fact, it was as a child that I first recognized it.

However, I can’t make someone else recognize this, anymore than I can make someone think a certain way who doesn’t want to reach the same conclusion.

So you see, I did not say “existence causes recognition of Him”. If anything, I would say existence itself is the basis for recognizing God. More specifically, my existence, my recognition of existence, and the recognition of my ability to recognize existence is the “basis” for recognizing God.

Alois:

You have known shown this to be the case, even hypothetically. If you have more arguments for this God, I would love to hear and continue to debate them.

Let’s first establish an understanding of the inherent nature of existence.

Alois:

We are now mixing two separate points: 1) existence considered in itself, and 2) differences in definition of “a God”

1.) Clarify please.

The point regarding existence is that initially it needs to be considered separately from the notion of God, for it is generally what we directly experience.

Alois:

But this existence is more than the recognizable universe.

You again make the claim that He is more than existence, when you have shown only that He has traits of existence. You have no basis to say anything else about Him, because (so far as you have shown) He is nothing more than hopeful speculation.

If we are to make progress, we will have to come to terms with the word “universe” and “existence”. By saying He is more than the recognizable universe, I am not claiming He is more than existence. I am saying existence is more than the recognizable universe, that is, the naturally recognizable universe. But even this statement is too vague. I will make a separate post that is more concise.

Alois:

It is reasonable and logical to conclude that we are made from the eternally existing existence, even though we are nothing of ourselves. Just as an atom is mostly empty space.

Eternally existing existence is what it is. There is no need for it to be a God, and indeed no logical, rational, or reasonable proof that it is a God. Much like how an infinite set is not thought to be God because it contains certain traits that could be considered Godly.

Here is where you are wrong. I will contend with these assertions.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Originally Posted by Alois
Do you believe the INS ‘thinks’? … has any power over the numbers within it?

No.

Then how can you use your analogy to claim that God exists when this version of Him would not contain the central trait: sentience?

That analogy does not demonstrate “sentience”. It mainly demonstrates that it is is logical to accept that infinity always existed rather than that “nothingness” always existed. (I see now that I confused things by adding the other aspects, and should have held off on them).

Often when we think of objects, we wonder where they came from, who made it. Eventually you get to the question of where the universe came from. When someone is told that God made it, they “naturally” wonder who made God? And they find it hard to wrap their mind around the fact that no one made God. The reason is because they are assuming that nothingness came first, and that God had to come from somewhere. But by the analogy, we see that even with something like the set of Integers, we have infinity with no beginning or end, and that these numbers perfectly encompass the set. My point then, is that instead of assuming there was nothingness from which someone had to make God, it is more logical to accept that there was infinite existence from which temporal existences are derived, and I used a common mathematical concept to show we already accept such logic. Do you follow that? In any case, I will post a more concise argument for this shortly.

Alois:

As has been explained before though, string theory proposes some interesting ideas on how something could come from nothing. It is just a mathmatical hypothesis with no empirical evidence, of course, but it is still a step ahead of the “God in the Gaps” game and worthy of looking in to.

I am surprised you find it “worthy of looking in to”. The raw meaning is simply not logical, and you seem to be one concerned about the logic of a thing before you give it deeper consideration; that is the whole point of this present debate, is it not?

If anything, I would look into what they mean by “something from nothing”, because it might be a misleading phrase.

Also, what precisely do you mean by “God in the Gaps game”, and why do you see it as being a step behind?

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

The similitude I made some posts back was focused mainly on the aspect of infinite existence. It fails in regards to some other aspects, even though I put some references to them. But I never intended to be limited to that analogy for the definition of God.

Then you will have to propose ideas that further define God, and show the rationality of his existence.

Ok, I’ll do that. But hopefully one step at a time. Before we consider “God” specifically, let us consider existence conceptually as the opposite of nothing.

Here is one point: It is not logical to accept that nothingness “came first”. (Hopefully obvious to you)
Second point: If somethingness “came first”, then it must have always existed, always been infinite, and always remained unchanged and entirely complete in itself. (Essentially the inverse of the assumption that nothingness “came first”)

In a word, these 2 points show that it is more logical to accept that everything exists within somethingness, rather than that everything exists within nothingness. Sort of like those paychecks that say “This is not printed on a white background”. So in that sense, I mean to say that it is more logical to accept that creation is white lettering on a colored background rather than solid lettering on a blank background. Do you understand this concept?

Here is a more concise layout of the reasoning process regarding existence (remember, we are not even considering the notion of “God” yet).

1. Logical basis: Nothing can come from total nothingness.
2. Sensible basis: There is not “total nothingness” now (I exist now)
3. Conclusion: There never was “total nothingness”
4. Corollary : There must always have been “perfect somethingness”

Why must the somethingness be perfect? Because nothing can come from it except what it already has to give, and nothing else exists except what is derived from it.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

The universe is a physical ream filled with all actual existence, but no potential existence. Existence is a logical realm filled with all possible existence.

I would not call it possible existence, but rather possible manifestation in the universe.

Alois:

Yes, but what isn’t in the physical universe is contained in a logical realm, not a physical one. It resides with things such a numbers. We do not need to store them, because they are simply a logical process.

It is more than just a logical realm. What realm is our intellect in?

Alois:

They are kept in existence, but in a logical form. They are not subject to space constraints.

Where is the intellect and free will of new babies kept before they are conceived? Or do you consider those as logical form?

Alois:

But the “existence” of the visible universe is only a composition.

Clarify please.

A combination of manifested concepts and forms, among other things. And even the manifestations are compositions: atoms only exist while the electrons orbit the nucleus, for example. We only physically exist as long as our bodies stay alive with breath, water, heat, etc.

hurst

 

[AnAtheist]

hurst:

It seems his philosophy does not match your earlier assertion, though. In fact, he rejects empiricism, if I understand correctly. If you follow Popper’s philosophy, then you would rather take the view that God exists until you find proof He doesn’t.

I never said I agree to everything, Popper has said. But what he said about falsifiable theories and certainty in knowledge has a lot of merit. Though I give empirical facts a lot more credit than Popper does.

Thus, I don’t think you can say only “empirical facts” are certain, based on Popper.

Depends on the kind of facts of course. Facts derived from a repeatable experiment are way more certain than any testimony.

You are essentially saying that if something is not obvious (“empirical fact”), then it is only a theory. That assertion is simply not true, in general. It may not be obvious to you how to build an air conditioner, but it is an observed fact that they exist and work. When something is not obvious to you, then for you it is both unknown theory and a matter of faith; for all you know, someone could be inside fanning a block of ice. But just because you personally don’t see something does not mean it is theoretical for everyone else also. It just means you don’t see it or understand it yet.

Yes, but I can see, touch, buy and use an air conditioner. I can grasp the theoretical model behind it, even though I do not know how to build one.