There is no God

[hurst]

Alois:

I am referring again to invisible things that we nonetheless are able to recognize and realize had always existed before we recognized them.

…
Now, explain the things that we have “always” realized.

I said the things that we “realized always existed”, not “always realized”. There is a difference.

For example, the concept of a circle, its diameter, its circumference, and the ratio of its circumference to its diameter (pi). This was always there even before anyone knew what a circle was, much less what pi was. It is a sort of form of existence that we can grasp as having existed before we recognized them.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

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.

I see where you miss my point, though I have made it countless times. Instead of thinking of the spring in the shuttle, think of the cargo hold or some other space. It only exists insofar as there is a structure built around it to define it. It does not “make up” part of the shuttle as much as the shuttle formed it with itself. It is nothing by itself. And without the shuttle structure and materials, there would be no space called a cargo hold. If you took the shuttle apart piece by piece, there would be no cargo hold in the list of items.

Alois:

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 showed another perspective to this above.

hurst

 

[AnAtheist]

hurst:

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?

Because otherwise we cannot gain objective knowledge. Perhaps there are other ways, but so far none has been discovered. Revelations and testimonies about them are not a way to gain objective knowledge, just subjective.

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.

Take the transition form Newton to Einstein. Instead of having a dualistic approach (Einstein’s right, Newton’s wrong), it is more like Einstein’s more accurate.

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,

Exactly. And that is no basis for knowledge, see above. One may believe a testimony or not. And the testimonies I have seen about God are not trustworthy to me.

 

[hurst]

Alois:

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.

Correct! But even though it is infinite, it can create spaces that are both outside of itself and also made of it. Recall the space shuttle example where I pointed out that the compartments would not be a physical part on the list if you disassembled the shuttle.

This demonstrates that created existence is different from eternal existence. We participate in existence without having existence within ourselves. It validates those analogies you say are false.

Alois:

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.

Eternal existence is the source of temporal/manifested existence. This should prove to you that we are not an inherent component of God, since God cannot get any bigger.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

… 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.

Do you really believe that “nothing” doing the detecting and selecting? Yet you say it was the elements. But the elements do not control themselves. Sun heats the water and air, causing winds and etc. along with the motion of the earth/sun. But these did not put themselves in place, either. Ultimateley, a concept or combination thereof was implemented into the universe by someone or something by an act of intelect and will.

Alois:

Applying God in the position of the human carving is unreasonable, according to Occam’s Razor.

But we are not acting by human craving here. We are using reason and logic. Unless you consider it a craving to use reason and logic…

Alois:

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.

Ok.

Alois:

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.

It is an intrinsic part, however. For it changes the aspects of existence.

I disagree that the space wrapped by the wrinkles is an intrinsic part of the blanket, any more than oil is part of water or darkness part of light. The blanket by itself does not change its nature or lose any perfection, etc.

hurst

 

[AnAtheist]

hurst:

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”.

I know what you mean, but to me it is just abstract. Period.

Webster’s definition 1d for “abstract”: insufficiently factual, purely formal

(nitpicking computer nerd bad joke mode: An abstract class does not instantiate objects. )

 

[hurst]

AnAtheist:

I know what you mean, but to me it is just abstract. Period.

Webster’s definition 1d for “abstract”: insufficiently factual, purely formal

(nitpicking computer nerd bad joke mode: An abstract class does not instantiate objects. )

Precisely. And I would say that the abstract is more “real” (a higher, more pure form of existence) than the instances. It is more permanent, untouchable by the instance, and governs the form/existence of the instances.

hurst

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

One may believe a testimony or not. And the testimonies I have seen about God are not trustworthy to me.**__________________

This really is the bottom line. Why are the testimonies not trustworthy to you?

Because you do not want them to be?

 

[ThisOne]

AnAtheist:

We are here. That’s why we care, even without “meaning”.

But do you know where “here” really is?

 

[Ahimsa]

One may believe a testimony or not. And the testimonies I have seen about God are not trustworthy to me.**__________________

This really is the bottom line. Why are the testimonies not trustworthy to you?

Because you do not want them to be?

Well, if they all contradict each other, what to do?

 

[Adonia]

Ahimsa:

An essay by Penn Jillette (of “Penn and Teller” fame), for apologetics practice:

Morning Edition, November 21, 2005 · I believe that there is no God. I’m beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy – you can’t prove a negative, so there’s no work to do.

…
But, this “This I Believe” thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life’s big picture, some rules to live by. So, I’m saying, “This I believe: I believe there is no God.”

It’s very easy to understand. There is good and evil in this world, and there is God and the Devil. Ummmm. Could this be!!! You bet!! Oh, and one other point. When the tiny State of Israel was proclaimed in 1948, she was attacked by several Arab nations and Israel, protected by the God of Abraham won, and the last I heard Israel is still around. Coincidence?

 

[Alois]

Gilbert Keith:

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.

In order for something to be logical it needs to be shown. It is illogical to believe that when you open your closet, an invisible dinosaur will eat you when you have no evidence of it. If a theist can show no evidence of his God, then it is also illogical to believe that. If you wish to use illogical, be my guest, but don’t expect anything good to come out of 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.

Give me another form of evidence, or demonstration. A lot of theists here have claimed that atheists are biased, and only use empirical evidence to base their claims. Well, what other evidence is there than that which we can see? If you claim that something we feel is evidence, then you open the doors wide open for many people to claim many things that may or may not be true. Do you want to do that?

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.

Another case of “You must be a Christian to be a Christian”. Many cultists have said the same things you have just said. Many other valid religons have done the same. Using this logic, how can we choose one? Gut feeling? That would be unreasonable.

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.

How convienent. I could say the same about theists and no God. Does it prove anything? Nah, it’s a worthless argument. So I won’t use it.

 

[Alois]

hurst:

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.

The issue is, the scripture contains many things that you have not yet proven, or shown at all. If the scripture is 100% accurate and is indeed a definition, then you have to show those many other traits that are proposed in it.

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.

The God of the scriptures is such a God. The God in the Scriptures has sentience, has power over what composes it, and is said to be “all-loving”. That is not consitent with what is “naturally knowable”. I still contend that the “logically knowable” parts you’ve shown me are nothing more than traits of existence. It’s like pointing to a lump of coal, showing that it has some traits of a diamond, and trying to sell it as a diamond. That doesn’t work.

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.

And what do you base these beliefs off of?

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.

The same reasoning I applied above applies here. You can’t simply show some traits of a being that can be knowable and assert that it, therefore, is. Especially when the traits you’ve shown are consistant with something we already do know, (existence) and the other traits you have yet to show are some of the core traits of what you’re trying to prove.

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.

1.) This is not true. You have shown me existence, not God.
2.) This is not true of a number system, or any infinite existence as I have already shown.

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.

This is a false conclusion in of itself. You can not logically believe the existence of such a God, because you have not shown it to be a God. As I have said countless times over in this debate, you can not reclassify God as existence. If there are other traits that further seperate God from existence, you must show them.

Secondly, we can not argue from the perspective of the supernatural because we can not know the supernatural. We only know what is natural, and have no knowledge of something supernatural. Furthermore, there is no logic or reasoning in the supernatural, so to say it is logical from the perspective of it is an oxymoron of sorts.

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.

Is this an admission that you can’t logically show me God? Remember, you still have yet to classify Him as anything more that the definition of existence, you have not shown the traits of a God.

 

[Alois]

Going to lump your second post with your third.

hurst:

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.?

All the time, I used to be a Christian once. I looked at the evidence I saw, and concluded that existence is what it is, that there isn’t a need for a God above it, and that if existence were to be a God it does not have the traits of anything that could be considered a God. The definition of the God I’m debating is the same of all monotheistic Gods.

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.

Thanks for the correction, but I don’t see the difference. If you look at existence and conclude that there must be a God, then existence is still the cause. You may recognize God from existence too, but existence would still be the cause for this recognition. This is just a small semantic issue anyway…

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

Haven’t we done so already?

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.

Then you have to prove that the “logically knowable” aspects of God are seperate from those of existence. You have not yet done so.

 

[contemplative]

For thousands and thousands of years the earth has been ploughed and sown, human beings have trampled it and excavated it for minerals, the rain has beaten on it, the snow has covered it, the sun has scorched it. And yet the earth has remained such as it is, and its fruits have remained the same too.

Nor has the sea changed by growing either smaller or large, despite its water evaporating and them falling again as rain, despite the rivers opening into it from every direction.

It is the same with the air. It is not used up, although so many human beings and animals are continually breathing it, despite all the light and heat that are always permeating it.

The fact is that God is at work in the world, the same God who infuses into creation the energy needed for it to continue stable throughout all time.

To God then let us raise a hymn of praise with all our strength. Let us glorify God who made the world and governs it without ceasing.

And through the things that are seen let us be led towards the things that are not seen. To do this there is no need to travel. Only faith is needed, because only through faith can we see him.

Theodoret (394-460) From the cure of Pagan Diseases

 

[Alois]

hurst:

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.

Then it is a strawman? I have said that existence is infinite, and has always existed. I am not saying that the universe has come from nowhere.

Do you follow that? In any case, I will post a more concise argument for this shortly.

Yes, and I have said that this “something” is infinite existence. It contains all that it is possible, including the universe manifested. It contains logical mathmatical theories, such as string theory, that could explain our manifested universe.

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?

The raw meaning of what? String theory? If by not logical, you mean the idea that something can come from nothing, then no, it is logical. There was something, and always has been something. This is the basis I’m arguing from, that existence is infinite and that there isn’t a need for a God above it. I think you’re misunderstanding my position.

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

Filling in every gap in our understanding with God. It is a step behind string thoery because it is not based on mathmatics like string theory is. It is simply a claim with no support, while string theory is a claim with mathmatical support, but no empirical evidence yet.

–

As for your fourth post, I completely agree. I think we both have an understanding on that point, and that there is no reason to continue discussing it. The contention I have with you and it is that you continue to place a monotheistic God in the place of infinite existence. I have already shown why this isn’t logically valid with the arguments you have proposed. It is now up to you to seperate existence from a God.

 

[Alois]

hurst:

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

Or any universe.

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

Physical, it is the result of chemical reactions in our brain.

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

Those are possible existences, so they would be “kept” in the logical (possible) realm until manifested in the child through physical intellect. In reality, they aren’t kept anywhere, they are simply possibilities. There is no need to store possibilities, as I have discussed before. (a formula does not store the possibilities of its results within itself)

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.

And what is your point in stating this?

 

[Alois]

hurst:

I said the things that we “realized always existed”, not “always realized”. There is a difference.

For example, the concept of a circle, its diameter, its circumference, and the ratio of its circumference to its diameter (pi). This was always there even before anyone knew what a circle was, much less what pi was. It is a sort of form of existence that we can grasp as having existed before we recognized them.

I don’t see your point in this. There are certain things that will, logically, always be true. I accept this, but what does it prove?

I see where you miss my point, though I have made it countless times. Instead of thinking of the spring in the shuttle, think of the cargo hold or some other space. It only exists insofar as there is a structure built around it to define it. It does not “make up” part of the shuttle as much as the shuttle formed it with itself. It is nothing by itself. And without the shuttle structure and materials, there would be no space called a cargo hold. If you took the shuttle apart piece by piece, there would be no cargo hold in the list of items.

Then you have to show that we are nothingness using logic. I have shown that we are something, a possibility out of an infinite amount of possibilities. Why do you believe we are nothing? Is there more to your argument from this position than the simile you posted earlier?

I showed another perspective to this above.

You have not shown its logicality however.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Ahimsa

Well, if they all contradict each other, what to do?

If several scientific theories all contradicted each other, would you just dismiss them all, or would you seek the one theory that came closest to explaining certain phenomenon?

 

[Alois]

hurst:

Correct! But even though it is infinite, it can create spaces that are both outside of itself and also made of it. Recall the space shuttle example where I pointed out that the compartments would not be a physical part on the list if you disassembled the shuttle.

This demonstrates that created existence is different from eternal existence. We participate in existence without having existence within ourselves. It validates those analogies you say are false.

For one, existence doesn’t create anything. Everything is in it. Everything makes up parts of it. Everything has always existed, in essence. The space shuttle example isn’t valid because it assumes that something can exist and be nothing, you have not shown this to be logically true. You will have to do so before this becomes a valid argument.

Eternal existence is the source of temporal/manifested existence. This should prove to you that we are not an inherent component of God, since God cannot get any bigger.

It is not the source of manifested existence, manifested existence is a part of it. As I’ve said earlier, you used the number set example to prove a point, but then drop it entirely later when it doesn’t fit your needs. If existence is an infinite set and has always existed, then all possibilities contained within it have always existed and make up its entirety. You’re trying to look at something infinite from the outside in, and that’s impossible.